28 ms·
> 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 m
by 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 agoVenture 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 agoIf 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 agoThe 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.