2 ms·
This is extra bizarre to me, because for most purposes German law doesnt operate on a system of "legal precedent" the way countries which adopted the UK model d
by eigenspace 4mo ago
This is extra bizarre to me, because for most purposes German law doesnt operate on a system of "legal precedent" the way countries which adopted the UK model do.
Am I missing something about Germany following a precedent system for patent/copyright or something, or is this even dumber than it sounds?
- dofm 4mo agoIt's that dumb. Sorry, I rushed through my comment and perhaps didn't make it clear. They have a default judgement only. But they used it to demand US-based manufacturers recall European-bound inventory, destroy it and certify it destroyed. Even though they know full well that inventory can legally be sold in the USA — which is part of the near-comical gaslighting walkback the FMIC CEO attempted the other day. They are already admitting it's not a USA thing.
- eigenspace 4mo agoYikes. I guess we'll find out in a couple months that Fender had replaced their legal department with ChatGPT 3 or something.
- 12_throw_away 4mo agoAs a legal theory, "this default judgement against an anonymous AliExpress seller is binding on literally everyone in the world" kinda reminds me of the Dune nft bros' "we bought a book about Dune and therefore now own the intellectual property rights to Dune." Except this one is apparently coming from actual accredited lawyers? (Who knows, I'm not a lawyer, maybe it really does work that way and Fender is the first company to figure out how to exploit this)
- dofm 4mo agoIf it does work that way then this is going to get very funny, isn't it? https://gettrumpguitars.com https://gettrumpguitars.com Because the only way Trump Guitars can sell an LP-type guitar to US customers is that Gibson also lost a body-shape case like this (to Washburn, if I remember right?)