3 ms·

> This is not Apple "exploiting" the legal framework but more optimizing how they use their capital to make the best of it. Using a legal framework designed to

> This is not Apple "exploiting" the legal framework but more optimizing how they use their capital to make the best of it. Using a legal framework designed to stop counterfeiting to stop shipments of things that aren't counterfeits (or even illegal at all) is absolutely exploiting it. > for which counterfeits and aftermarket replacements are very much desired. Only one of which CBP is tasked with stopping.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfeiting? Under the law, 100% indisputably; despite using a genuine logo from a genuine handbag. Despite me legally purchasing both items, the combination is, in a sense, illegal. I would risk up to a decade in prison if I sold that combination. Now replace handbag with iPhone screen. The distinctions become extremely difficult, and not the CBP’s job to figure out. Surgical legal changes are required. https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368
- CivBase 3y ago
  That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as OnePlus devices, which they were.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    In the first situation from the article, it explicitly states briefly that they are “hybrid” parts: > The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment. Which brings up my Chanel handbag analogy of an Apple-branded flex cable, “sewn” onto a part they did not make; to create what CBP may reasonably interpret as a counterfeit product consistent with how “hybrids” in other categories are treated. As for OnePlus; that one never made any sense and probably embarrassed Apple too because… it’s not like Walmart has had any problem selling AirPods knockoffs.
    - CivBase 3y ago
      I take "hybrid" to mean that the screens included a mix of Apple and third-party components. That seems to be consistent with the article's description. What's wrong with that? The cables are genuine Apple cables. They have the Apple brand on them (inside the product where they can't even be seen) because they were legitimately made by Apple. But the screen as a whole is not being passed off as an Apple product - unlike your Chanel bags.
    - sneakerblack 3y ago
      I think your accidentally misinterpreting the law As explaine by the article, counterfeiting involves pretending to be a product it's not. For example, if you sell your hypothetical channel bags as genuine channel bags instead of as generic, no-brand bags, then that would be counterfeiting because you're pretending they're something that it's not. Using genuine apple parts in third-party screens is more comparable to putting channel bag straps (which, yes, have the channel logo on them) into fake bags and selling them as generic, non-channel bags. Similarly, if you don't label the third party screen as "genuine apple", you're not infringing copyright.
    - Clamchop 3y ago
      The courts are our usual tool in sussing out this kind of nuance. It's kind of their raison d'être. We haven't gotten totally lost in the weeds yet with, say, automobiles. This "hybrid part" labeling because we don't understand a smartphone as intuitively as a car can make it seem like these are terribly novel concepts but they just aren't. If Chanel brought their case, they would win. If Apple brought theirs, they would lose. But it appears they don't have to bring a case at all. Your thought experiment won't be considered. Lucky them.
    - dwaite 3y ago
      > As for OnePlus; that one never made any sense and probably embarrassed Apple too because… it’s not like Walmart has had any problem selling AirPods knockoffs. As it was one shipment rather than the product line, and since CBP confirmed that they had not made a mistake, I suspect something was up with that shipment in particular.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    > In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. But they aren't "internal components", because they aren't inside anything. There were Apple logos on a display assembly which was not manufactured for Apple and which, I suspect, were not otherwise labelled as being a non-genuine part. Under that suspicion - at import, there would be no indication these parts weren't meant to be sold to other third party repair shops as genuine Apple display assemblies. Since Jessa Jones had two shipments seized back in 2018 there hasn't been any news that I know of updating on an appeal or lawsuit, or of any other seizures on her imports.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Here’s a thought experiment We don't need a thought experiment! We already have an expert legal opinion! > “Assuming that: (1) the cable bearing the Apple mark is a genuine Apple product, (2) the cable used on these screens is the same as the one Apple uses in the U.S., and (3) the importer/seller clearly communicates that the screens are a non-Apple aftermarket product, then Apple’s case for treating these as ‘counterfeit’ goods is very weak,” Perzanowski said in an email. “Refurbished or repaired products are generally permissible under trademark law’s first sale doctrine, so long as they are clearly labeled as such.”
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Venture to speculate why Apple’s lawyers thought it might work then? (Sorry, I’m just being cynical because every sane argument has a more insane counter argument that often ends up the more legal one.)
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      If they thought it would work they would pursue it in court. They have not. They are instead getting an unaccountable government agency to enforce their will extrajudicially i.e. the whole point of the article.
    - lozenge 3y ago
      The legal costs to recover a single shipment are not worth the value of the shipment, and they also don't prevent the border police from siezing the next shipment. Businesses want to make money, not tilt at windmills.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. > Have I committed counterfeiting? Not if this logo was hidden deep inside, and not advertised! But this is more like selling an unaltered Chanel bag in a bundle with something else.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfeiting? Under the law, 100% indisputably; despite using a genuine logo from a genuine handbag. Despite me legally purchasing both items, the combination is, in a sense, illegal. I would risk up to a decade in prison if I sold that combination. Now replace handbag with iPhone screen. The distinctions become extremely difficult, and not the CBP’s job to figure out. Surgical legal changes are required. https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368

CivBase 3y ago
That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as OnePlus devices, which they were.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  In the first situation from the article, it explicitly states briefly that they are “hybrid” parts: > The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment. Which brings up my Chanel handbag analogy of an Apple-branded flex cable, “sewn” onto a part they did not make; to create what CBP may reasonably interpret as a counterfeit product consistent with how “hybrids” in other categories are treated. As for OnePlus; that one never made any sense and probably embarrassed Apple too because… it’s not like Walmart has had any problem selling AirPods knockoffs.
  - CivBase 3y ago
    I take "hybrid" to mean that the screens included a mix of Apple and third-party components. That seems to be consistent with the article's description. What's wrong with that? The cables are genuine Apple cables. They have the Apple brand on them (inside the product where they can't even be seen) because they were legitimately made by Apple. But the screen as a whole is not being passed off as an Apple product - unlike your Chanel bags.
  - sneakerblack 3y ago
    I think your accidentally misinterpreting the law As explaine by the article, counterfeiting involves pretending to be a product it's not. For example, if you sell your hypothetical channel bags as genuine channel bags instead of as generic, no-brand bags, then that would be counterfeiting because you're pretending they're something that it's not. Using genuine apple parts in third-party screens is more comparable to putting channel bag straps (which, yes, have the channel logo on them) into fake bags and selling them as generic, non-channel bags. Similarly, if you don't label the third party screen as "genuine apple", you're not infringing copyright.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    The courts are our usual tool in sussing out this kind of nuance. It's kind of their raison d'être. We haven't gotten totally lost in the weeds yet with, say, automobiles. This "hybrid part" labeling because we don't understand a smartphone as intuitively as a car can make it seem like these are terribly novel concepts but they just aren't. If Chanel brought their case, they would win. If Apple brought theirs, they would lose. But it appears they don't have to bring a case at all. Your thought experiment won't be considered. Lucky them.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    > As for OnePlus; that one never made any sense and probably embarrassed Apple too because… it’s not like Walmart has had any problem selling AirPods knockoffs. As it was one shipment rather than the product line, and since CBP confirmed that they had not made a mistake, I suspect something was up with that shipment in particular.
- dwaite 3y ago
  > In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. But they aren't "internal components", because they aren't inside anything. There were Apple logos on a display assembly which was not manufactured for Apple and which, I suspect, were not otherwise labelled as being a non-genuine part. Under that suspicion - at import, there would be no indication these parts weren't meant to be sold to other third party repair shops as genuine Apple display assemblies. Since Jessa Jones had two shipments seized back in 2018 there hasn't been any news that I know of updating on an appeal or lawsuit, or of any other seizures on her imports.
enragedcacti 3y ago
> Here’s a thought experiment We don't need a thought experiment! We already have an expert legal opinion! > “Assuming that: (1) the cable bearing the Apple mark is a genuine Apple product, (2) the cable used on these screens is the same as the one Apple uses in the U.S., and (3) the importer/seller clearly communicates that the screens are a non-Apple aftermarket product, then Apple’s case for treating these as ‘counterfeit’ goods is very weak,” Perzanowski said in an email. “Refurbished or repaired products are generally permissible under trademark law’s first sale doctrine, so long as they are clearly labeled as such.”
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Venture to speculate why Apple’s lawyers thought it might work then? (Sorry, I’m just being cynical because every sane argument has a more insane counter argument that often ends up the more legal one.)
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    If they thought it would work they would pursue it in court. They have not. They are instead getting an unaccountable government agency to enforce their will extrajudicially i.e. the whole point of the article.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    The legal costs to recover a single shipment are not worth the value of the shipment, and they also don't prevent the border police from siezing the next shipment. Businesses want to make money, not tilt at windmills.
Dylan16807 3y ago
> I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. > Have I committed counterfeiting? Not if this logo was hidden deep inside, and not advertised! But this is more like selling an unaltered Chanel bag in a bundle with something else.