7 ms·

Is it even possible to sue a China-based company from the US? Would you even be able to seek any remedy other than banning import/sale of its product?

nekusar 2mo ago
Sure block them. Or they can pay statutory maximum copyright violations of $120000 per copy violated. Per copy.
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  This sounds more like a wish?
polski-g 2mo ago
They could sue amazon to get a list of Bambu buyers, then go after them.
- ChickeNES 2mo ago
  You want them to go after the buyers??
  - polski-g 2mo ago
    Yes. It's the only way to cause material harm to the company.
    - ChickeNES 2mo ago
      Not at all, do you not understand how customs works? What cause of action do you propose against the buyers? Do you not care about the law, you just want maximum retribution?
    - icehawk 2mo ago
      How does that work when the buyers have already paid?
tylergetsay 2mo ago
Presumably they have _some_ assets in the USA
spott 2mo ago
Banning import/sale of the product into the US is worth a hell of a lot.
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  I wouldn't call that a win, though. I have a Bambu printer and it's very difficult to reproduce their tuning on open-source hardware or software. I think Klipper has vibration compensation now, but pressure advance and some other things require some tinkering and waste in order to set correctly, and you have to re-do them on any new nozzle/filament/temperature. Deciding nobody can have the software at all is completely opposite to the spirit of the license. "Yay, thanks to our challenge about this AGPL-licensed code, now even the binary is no longer available!" Sure, you can say it's harmful to the community to have features available without source code, but I wouldn't want the only alternative to be simply not having those features. (Anti-features are an exception)
  - dspillett 2mo ago
    > Deciding nobody can have the software at all is completely opposite to the spirit of the license. Any import block would be on the hardware, not the software. And the software would need to be released for other territories anyway.
    - LoganDark 2mo ago
      As a buyer I'd be just as unhappy to be unable to get the hardware. I already have some, but if I wanted some new feature it doesn't have and that open-source definitely doesn't have, I'd be miffed to say the least if I couldn't get it just because Bambu didn't release the source code.
      - dspillett 2mo ago
        I see how it could be inconvenient for you, but should it being inconvenient for people be a valid reason for letting them continue to break licensing terms when they could end the whole situation immediately by stopping breaking the licensing terms?

nekusar 2mo ago

Sure block them. Or they can pay statutory maximum copyright violations of $120000 per copy violated. Per copy.

LoganDark 2mo ago
This sounds more like a wish?

polski-g 2mo ago

They could sue amazon to get a list of Bambu buyers, then go after them.

ChickeNES 2mo ago
You want them to go after the buyers??
- polski-g 2mo ago
  Yes. It's the only way to cause material harm to the company.
  - ChickeNES 2mo ago
    Not at all, do you not understand how customs works? What cause of action do you propose against the buyers? Do you not care about the law, you just want maximum retribution?
  - icehawk 2mo ago
    How does that work when the buyers have already paid?

tylergetsay 2mo ago

Presumably they have _some_ assets in the USA

spott 2mo ago

Banning import/sale of the product into the US is worth a hell of a lot.

LoganDark 2mo ago
I wouldn't call that a win, though. I have a Bambu printer and it's very difficult to reproduce their tuning on open-source hardware or software. I think Klipper has vibration compensation now, but pressure advance and some other things require some tinkering and waste in order to set correctly, and you have to re-do them on any new nozzle/filament/temperature. Deciding nobody can have the software at all is completely opposite to the spirit of the license. "Yay, thanks to our challenge about this AGPL-licensed code, now even the binary is no longer available!" Sure, you can say it's harmful to the community to have features available without source code, but I wouldn't want the only alternative to be simply not having those features. (Anti-features are an exception)
- dspillett 2mo ago
  > Deciding nobody can have the software at all is completely opposite to the spirit of the license. Any import block would be on the hardware, not the software. And the software would need to be released for other territories anyway.
  - LoganDark 2mo ago
    As a buyer I'd be just as unhappy to be unable to get the hardware. I already have some, but if I wanted some new feature it doesn't have and that open-source definitely doesn't have, I'd be miffed to say the least if I couldn't get it just because Bambu didn't release the source code.
    - dspillett 2mo ago
      I see how it could be inconvenient for you, but should it being inconvenient for people be a valid reason for letting them continue to break licensing terms when they could end the whole situation immediately by stopping breaking the licensing terms?