Ferrari Sued a Used Car Dealer for $2.2M over a Replica. It Didn't Go Well
carscoops.com
carscoops.com
Seems like the Ferrari merch is actually flying off the shelves.
Their finanacials are easily accessible for everyone to see.
If you had looked them up before commenting. You wouldn't have been wrong on every single thing you sayed.
https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/corporate/articles/ferrari-upg...
And these sentences are why we aren't pedantic in public.
> “It is a rather unusual fact that an intellectual property case ends up in criminal proceedings ,” the businessman’s lawyer, María Muiño González, told El Pais. The defense has spent three years “analyzing the ins and outs of the brand” and maintains that the accused “never wanted to appear to have a real Ferrari.” “The emblems were crude and you could see that they were simple stickers,” she explains, “and I wasn’t going to sell it either; “He had it in his possession for only 12 days until it was seized.”
> “It’s quite unusual for an intellectual property case to escalate into criminal proceedings,” noted the businessman’s lawyer, María Muiño González, told El Pais. The defense team invested three years in closely examining the brand and firmly asserted that the accused never had any intention of making the vehicle resemble a genuine Ferrari. “The emblems were crude, and you could clearly see that they were basic stickers,” she said. “Furthermore, there were no plans to sell it; he had it in his possession for only 12 days before it was seized.”
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/02/rapid-growth-of-new...
Many articles repeat the main premise for effect. It's a common journalism technique to highlight the main point of the article. Often the rest of the article is simply fluff around to increase the content length with the main premise being repeated for emphasis.
Try importing a fake Gucci bag that you bought cheaply at Patbong Road in Bangkok to Italy. It won't only be impounded you'll also be hit with a fine in the 1000s of Euro. Same in France.
Other countries may not be that excessive but you can be sure that your fake Rolex is toast when they catch it at customs.
Sure, it's not the companies impounding the fakes but customs on their behalf.
Burned two cars down by driving hard to the point of exhausts going red hot and then stopping in a field filled with easily flammable straw. All for clicks.
You can purchase software, it's just not the common case. Companies but other companies and parchase the software that they developed along with that, and scammers purchase the software of popular browser extensions so they can use them against the existing user base (which are licensed, even if implicitly).
Evem with open source you're almost always using software under a license. For the vast majority of people, the only software they'll ever actually own is something they wrote themselves.
Why are we allowed to look under the hood of a car we buy and even install our own modifications, but when we purchase software? Why can we alter and replace metal frames, but not alter the storage cells on our phones and computers?
Isnt that what this was about? The very bad Ferrari stickers instead of emblems worked in favor of the person sued, but if there was something indicating it absolutely wasn't a Ferrari there wouldn't have been any question at all.
Making and selling “Fake” handbags which you make really clear are fakes can result in prison. The concern are twofold, someone buying it may try and resell the items as “real” or someone seeing a poor copy with another brands trademark on it can dilute the brand.
This is less of a concern if the item looks nothing like any of the actual products and isn’t being sold. Tie-dying a 5$ tote bag and stenciling Chloé, Burberry, Gucci, and a few other brand names at the same time is clearly not trying to be a fake.
I'm pretty sure the issue there is whether the item itself advertises that it is something it's not, even if you're clear it's not a legitimate copy, and also whether you are doing it in furtherance of a crime.
Making knock off Gucci bags and selling them as fakes when you're sure they're being bought by middlemen to sell as authentic (at least when your main purpose is to sell to this market and they can "prove" it), could possibly make you complicit (depending on what they can show in court). In that specific case, even leaving off any branding (to make it easier for someone to add fake branding later) could possibly be found complicit, if they could prove that it was for the purpose of furthering the crime (as I understand it).
I'm not going to act like companies and prosecute rs don't overstep their bounds/rights/authority, but I think it's pretty clear why some of these cases and laws exist (even if we might think they aren't quite the right response to the problem in some cases).
When you start a new job, do you look at the codebase and immediately think "Ok, I get this, all I need to do is..."?
It's fantasy and wishful thinking to believe that it's even possible for someone to build Windows, MacOS, Photoshop, an AAA game, Chrome(ium), or even a commercial mobile app without a huge learning curve and likely quite a bit of commercially sensitive support infrastructure - never mind make useful changes to them.
Adding some custom features to a car is trivial in comparison.
In my experience many tech people are quite opposed to DRM, and of those who do have the skills to develop tools for circumventing DRM mechanisms (which is of course only a small fraction of the tech people), there exist quite a few people who actually do invest a good deal of their free time to secretly develop such semi-legal tools.
It's weird, imagine if the actions of McDonalds was supposed to reflect "the fast food people", or the action of Disney was supposed to reflect "animators", etc.
John Carmack @ID_AA_Carmack I was not welcome at the Ferrari dealership because of all the crazy turbo modifications on my cars · Jan 27, 2018 · 9:18 AM
And judge decided, it is bad joke on intellectual property, and forbid its sells in country and pay moral penalty.
What I learn from that case, it is sure important for me, which side I support, but it is extremely bad idea, to try impose my point of view to judge.