> If you don't have a problem with the likes of Apple litigating counterfeit products using their trademarked brand, why would you have a problem with this?
Put simply, because I care about who manufactured electronics, but I don't care where cheese was made. I do care who made it, but not which village it comes from.
Specifically the idea that one region is so special as to deserve legal protection offends me.
>> My rights should not be curtailed because the market needs of a single company
> That’s at the root of the problem. Many customers want to have access to spare parts, but is it their right?
That's not what I was saying. If counterfeit items are blocked, I don't care. The law specifically makes an allowance for organizations to block copies of products at the border. But legitimate Apple products that are used (i.e. have been sold and refurbished by Apple) are blocked, as was clearly noted in the original comment, preventing those at the border if they are being sold by (and maybe bought by?) a U.S. citizen, that seems to clearly infringe on their rights.
> I think car manufacturers are required to provide spare parts for a reasonable time, but I’m not aware of laws or regulations requiring that for other products.
It's not about the right to get or buy something, it's about people's rights to resell things.
> Even if they exist, I don’t know enough about the examples involving Apple to know whether they are in breach of any regulations.
I don't know a huge amount either, but they are noted in the news as "refurbished".
That said, the agreement Apple has, if it functions as described in this thread, clearly seems to infringe on people's right to resell Apple products if they happen to pass through customs.
> The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it?
I think what's being said (well, implied) is that the first-sale doctrine states that those trademark rights are limited, and that by blocking imports, those right may be being violated (specifically, the right to resell).
If that's the case, that would mean that we are incorrectly enforcing trademark law.
Edit: To make it absolutely clear what I'm talking about, if I as a U.S. citizen go to China, and I have some used iphones, and I try to ship them to the U.S. after people buy them from me, does Apple's special handling prevent me from reselling Apple products? If so, that may be violating my rights.
> This is no different than if Apple workers from China start selling iPhones in the US that is actually branded Apple iPhone, completely different from a "real" iPhone or exact copy, same thing.
I think it's more like them selling fake Apple iphones in some third country. Prior to the trade agreement fight, presumably each country could already enforce its own preferred approach domestically.
And in the US, trademarks can't be protected once they become common use for a certain type of product. Most Americans probably don't even know Champagne is a place name and not a type of bubbly wine. Many common words like "escalator" were once a company brand (some American elevator company). They lost control of the name and now it is used worldwide.
Personally I don't have a problem with protecting the locality names, though, even if it means renaming some products. I think it is worthwhile.
>intellectual property is an invalid form of ownership and shouldn't exist at all....If I hold an apple, you cannot hold the same apple, but we can both hold a digital copy with the same information.
What if you manufacture a computer under a company you name Apple, and manufacture/sell computers under the mark "Apple" and even have a "Apple logo."
Do you believe other companies should be able to infringe on your name, mark and logo?
What if other manufacturers are attempting to decieve the public by trading off the good will and value you built in the name? What if other manufacturers are purposefully flooding the market with cheap knock offs of your machines and the public can't tell the difference, so they stop buying your machines and the value of your company/brand goes down to zero?
Sure, but by that definition every commercial product constructed from multiple parts has a monopoly over all their components. Starbucks has a “monopoly” over what coffee is sold within Starbucks cups. Sorry, but I just can’t take that kind of argument seriously.
> current anti trust rules probably don't consider the monopoly Apple has from copyright and patents on hardware to be of the right category (to cover an entire market)... but that could easily change.
Copyright and patents are the very definition of a legal monopoly. I don't think you're being serious.
> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that."
The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark.
Remember, the issue was NOT that they "looked like" Apple parts, the issue was that the parts had an actual Apple logo printed on them when they were not parts sourced through Apple.
This is just the stupidest issue. All Louis Rossmann had to do is purchase his non-genuine third party laptop batteries without an Apple logo printed on them, and he would have been legally entitled to them. He could have his batteries, he could perform the repairs, everyone would be happy.
With his complaint he is effectively saying is that trademarks mean shit and anyone can use anyone else's brand whenever they want. It's absurd. And it's a loser case. If he tries to fight Apple, he won't win.
> Trying to bully the competition with purchased patents and lawyers will only turn people off their products,
I don't really care about lawsuits, I care about the product.
I will buy Apple if they offer the best product on the market. Lawsuits won't change that.
> He quotes Apple's legal papers in which they clearly state...
You mean he quotes Apple's attorney's quotation of a New York Times reporter? It's not quite so clear that this is Apple's statement, and reading the quote in context doesn't give the impression that Apple is claiming to have invented the concept.
> Saying that he fails to distinguish trademarks from patents is flat out wrong...
He seems to understand the difference but ignore it. He mostly argues that the concept of an app store pre-dated Apple's trademark filing. This is a patent-type argument in a trademark discussion, hence the confusion.
The only trademark law based argument he makes is that the term "app store" was generic. But without any evidence this conclusion is worthless.
> Just remember Apple is being sued as much as it's suing.
That doesn't make it acceptable. I'm tired of making excuses for Apple, personally. I like their products, but they've worn my goodwill towards their brand down to a nub by being one of the most ruthless and (in my opinion) unethical brandishers of patents worldwide.
> Why should my right of ownership be violated to help apple deal with 'stolen' parts?
It isn’t.
Apple’s products are designed to help consumers avoid the problems associated with stolen parts, including the very real threat of supply chain attacks.
You always have the right not to choose that design.
You seem to want to prevent other people from choosing it, which seems odd to me.
> I'm all for calling out big companies when they do crappy things, but you have to be seen to defend your trademarks & the system to allow businesses to contest trademark applications is there for a reason.
I always see this "defense" when big corporations abuse small companies by frivolous lawsuits... but with this you're actually saying that there's a chance someone will mix up a fruit logo of that small company with Apple's which is ridiculous. Especially since they don't share the market.
Please don't defend abusive corporations with this :/
> I still don't understand how you can't manifest that choice by simply purchasing a device from a different manufacturer.
I absolutely can manifest that choice - but it doesn't matter, because I have the right to be able to make that choice for any particular manufacturer.
> To quote your linked comment, I wouldn't expect you nor any other sane consumer to purchase goods that are "made with toxic substances, not honor their warranties, lie on their marketing, and steal and sell your personal medical information".
It doesn't matter that you wouldn't expect one to - it's wrong for a seller to sell one of those things at all, and that's why we've enshrined into our legal system that "some bad things are illegal to sell, regardless of whether the consumer has the ability to avoid them or not".
> Apple does not do any of that
It's pretty blindingly obvious that I'm not claiming that Apple is doing any of those things, and just using that as an example of the point that "some things are illegal to sell".
> and I think that you're intentionally derailing the discussion by comparing their guidelines + practices to any of the above.
The one who is doing that is you, by intentionally misinterpreting my words and reading things that I didn't write. The comparison is entirely apt - "we have laws against selling/doing some bad things x, Apple is selling/doing bad things y, even though x != y it's reasonable to have laws against also selling/doing bad things y".
> Is your premise that Apple should only sell its products in about four dozen countries?
I think that public disagreement consistent with their principles regardless of region would be appropriate. I don't think many are asking them to not sell or not abide by the law, just that their pinciples ring hollow if they only voice them against certain governments.
> Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.
Well, yes. Go look at China[0] and see just how far apple is willing to bend over backwards to stay in a market (although for China they pretty much had to unless they wanted to lose access to their entire existing supply chain). My point is that I should be able to purchase a device completely locked down and Apple should be allowed to make that device. People who don't like that can purchase something else.
Put simply, because I care about who manufactured electronics, but I don't care where cheese was made. I do care who made it, but not which village it comes from.
Specifically the idea that one region is so special as to deserve legal protection offends me.
reply