4 ms·
Would you accept weaponized trademark infringement as a sibling to patent law? The behavior described here seems odd -- I wouldn't call it "good" or "bad" in a
by mherdeg 3y ago
Would you accept weaponized trademark infringement as a sibling to patent law? The behavior described here seems odd -- I wouldn't call it "good" or "bad" in a moral sense just technically impressive: https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2023/10/26/apples-trademark-exploit/ https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2023/10/26/apples-trademark-ex... and https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-statement-oneplus-buds-seized-apple-airpod-trademarks https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-state....
- jmyeet 3y agoSince the article is about patents I, too, limited the scope of my comments--quite deliberately--to patents so these are really out-of-scope. I mentioned Apple v. Samsung because of the confusing language ie "design patent". The first case you mention is against third-party repair and parts. This isn't a simple issue. At one end of spectrum people have died from fake accessories (eg [1]). So while I trust (and use) Anker devices that are sold in the US, would I buy and use a charger in Cambodia? Probably not. So I support the idea of third-party repair but you have to deal with the question of quality and the parts being suitable. The second relates to, again, design (and trademark). This is less defensible. I mean they do look like Airpods but really how many ways can you make an earpod? [1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/apple-replacing-fake-iphone-chargers-after-electric-shock-death-1.1313112 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/apple-replacing-fake-iphone-...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]