4 ms·

> "Recently however, we became aware of an Apple prohibition on re-using their products - even when their devices are not altered. Because of this, we decided

> "Recently however, we became aware of an Apple prohibition on re-using their products - even when their devices are not altered. Because of this, we decided it wouldn’t be appropriate to continue forward with our original plan." ...What? Can someone comment on the legality of such restrictions and the pros/cons of following/ignoring them? (To me it seems like first sale doctrine would be applicable, though that certainly wouldn't prohibit Apple from trying to constrain their ability to purchase...)

mmastrac 12y ago
I'd love to know this as well. That was one of my reasons for backing this project.
dangrossman 12y ago
Apple has in the past sued other accessory makers that reused recycled Apple parts for patent infringement. http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hypermac_accessory_maker_over_magsafe_ipod_cables.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hyperma...
- mmastrac 12y ago
  Didn't pg specifically call them lawsuit-proof? Edit: s/lawsuit/apple/: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460204 Also, I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors rather than they current business model that involves severing an existing charger.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    > I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors From his link: > Instead of mimicking Apple's patented MagSafe connectors, Sanho's products actually rely on recycled official MagSafe products made by Apple. "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility," the company's website reads The issue is that even if they're right, nobody can afford to defend themselves in the face of the financial might of Apple's lawyers. And Apple can just refuse to sell to them/their suppliers - that's fully in their right.
timsher 12y ago
Hey - I'm one of the founders, maybe I can comment on this. You're completely right, first sale doctrine is something that would be applicable in a case like this (at least to my knowledge), but a users rights can be restricted by the EULA (End-user license agreement) and Terms of Use and Conditions when purchasing from a store. The actual adaptor we planned to use didn't have any EULA restrictions that would have prevented us from going forward, however we at the last minute found out that the places we were purchasing these from did have Terms of Use restrictions that weren't favourable to us. Though our situation was more of a grey area than a black and white one, we decided that the cons outweighed the pros. After all, our legal budget is a little lower than that of Apple :)

mmastrac 12y ago

I'd love to know this as well. That was one of my reasons for backing this project.

dangrossman 12y ago

Apple has in the past sued other accessory makers that reused recycled Apple parts for patent infringement. http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hypermac_accessory_maker_over_magsafe_ipod_cables.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hyperma...

mmastrac 12y ago
Didn't pg specifically call them lawsuit-proof? Edit: s/lawsuit/apple/: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460204 Also, I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors rather than they current business model that involves severing an existing charger.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  > I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors From his link: > Instead of mimicking Apple's patented MagSafe connectors, Sanho's products actually rely on recycled official MagSafe products made by Apple. "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility," the company's website reads The issue is that even if they're right, nobody can afford to defend themselves in the face of the financial might of Apple's lawyers. And Apple can just refuse to sell to them/their suppliers - that's fully in their right.

timsher 12y ago

Hey - I'm one of the founders, maybe I can comment on this. You're completely right, first sale doctrine is something that would be applicable in a case like this (at least to my knowledge), but a users rights can be restricted by the EULA (End-user license agreement) and Terms of Use and Conditions when purchasing from a store. The actual adaptor we planned to use didn't have any EULA restrictions that would have prevented us from going forward, however we at the last minute found out that the places we were purchasing these from did have Terms of Use restrictions that weren't favourable to us. Though our situation was more of a grey area than a black and white one, we decided that the cons outweighed the pros. After all, our legal budget is a little lower than that of Apple :)