Apple's Trademark Exploit
blog.giovanh.com
blog.giovanh.com
Did the company just write off that shipment and keep selling them?
If Facebook didn't immediately block sales of items self-described as knockoff <whatever brand>, they'd be (rightly) criticised for allowing the sale of counterfeit goods
Is there some special protection (in the USA) given to describing something as a "knockoff" versus "similar to"?
I ask myself daily “What is law enforcement if not a simple weapon to be used to enforce my personal preferences?”
They may be right in some cases, i.e. genuine fraud, but not when abusing law to help maintain a near monopoly.
Microsoft got done for maintaining a monopoly and browser walled garden at a time when it was the biggest company in the world.
What has changed with Apple?
If we have laws protecting IP, why is it wrong to enforce them? Why is it wrong to train LE to recognize counterfeits?
Granted the article did discuss some shady stuff like CBP seizing stuff and auctioning it off; I think that civil forfeiture and other such seizures are unconstitutional takings but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree.
Also Apple has done shady stuff like sending their security people to private homes to track down leaked prototypes [1].
But my bottom line is let’s get rid of bad IP law, not complain about the side effects of enforcement.
[1] https://www.cultofmac.com/112054/san-francisco-police-admits...
We should definitely get rid of bad enforcement immediately, enforcement is like 90% of a laws effect.
Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
> When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges:
> “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.”
> That is, in a world of uncertainty, where other people’s unpredictability can erode your profits, mire you in scandal, or even tank your business, “IP” is a means of forcing other people to arrange their affairs to suit your needs, even if that undermines their own needs.
If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers.
Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them.
If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part that “fell off a truck” or didn’t pass QA and should have been recycled or something…
If I legitimately paid a manufacturer for a compatible part to be made, I’d expect no logo on it
No. The products in question were assembled using a combination of standard hardware components and genuine OEM parts salvaged from broken Apple devices.
Since Apple goes to great lengths to prevent third parties from accessing components used in Apple devices, salvaging OEM parts from busted machines is often the only legitimate way to produce replacement parts that are compatible with Apple products.
> If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part
None of the products in the examples from this article were branded with Apple logos or advertised as being genuine Apple products. Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices.
The Apple brand was never used to identify anything that wasn't a genuine, OEM component - ergo not counterfeit.
Source?
It seems far more likely those parts came from the original factory selling original parts under the table for whatever reasons, or are actually counterfeited with just the logo stamped on them afterwards. Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would require a pretty extensive operation.
This is exactly why the title calls Apple's practice an "exploit". Apple recognizes that CBP does not follow due process and they take advantage of that by slapping their label on every last little, insignificant component - including stuff the customer will never even see. It probably helps catch counterfeits, but it has the added benefit of significantly disrupting legitimate competition.
> Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would require a pretty extensive operation.
It'd be a lot easier than reverse-engineering every Apple component and manufacturing it yourself. What else is a legitimate replacement part producer supposed to do?
You are the one who wrote the, not trivially obvious, claim.
In reality, nobody knows why Apple is doing it except the people who made the decisions nor would it really be possible to trace the parts, but it’s far more likely that it comes from the many devices that can be salvaged for parts than it coming from some black market operation coming from the factory.
If you meant my previous comment, I clearly phrased it as my own person opinion?
Considering you were so adamant on asking a source for the other person’s theory, and were so sure of your own, that you must have proof of it, right?
If it was indeed as you say, and that the large majority of passing readers indeed perceived it as such, then the previous comment would have been downvoted into 'dead' status a while ago.
Since it hasn't, then that's proof enough.
Linking the lack of downvotes to people's opinions of said comment is a reach at best. Downvoting here doesn’t happen nearly as often or for the reasons you think they do. This isn’t Reddit. Things don’t just get downvoted because people disagree with your opinion.
Then there's nothing in dispute?
You still haven’t provided a source for that claim of yours. If you consider the other comment as fact to the point where you corrected it, then yours is just as much.
Also, next time, maybe keep track of the people you are replying to.
Here's what the article says:
> The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold:
> “The parts I buy have an original flex on it because that’s what’s best for my consumers,” [repair shop owner Jessa Jones] said. “It’s difficult and pointless to erase the existing Apple logo that’s printed on a tiny piece of flex. There’s no customer-facing Apple logo, no logo anywhere on the glass. It’s smaller than a grain of rice. We have never said online, in person, or anywhere else that these are Apple-certified screens.”
That aligns with claims I've heard from Louis Rossmann about the parts he uses.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/clgnmh/comment/evx65...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47-LNbb2vR8
I can't prove that any of these claims are true by Jessa, Louis, or the author of this article. But it shouldn't matter. People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Beyond that, there cannot be such a presumption, enforcement action in many scenarios need to be taken well before the timeframe necessary for a formal court judgement to be delivered.
e.g. Airport baggage screening, where even if you mistakenly pick up someone else’s lookalike bag full of prohibited substances, you could still suffer quite severe consequences
Because I don’t see it.
CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfeiting. From these examples and others, they are trained to recognize “hybrids” as fake in multiple industries.
Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?
Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it.
> How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?
That isn't CBPs problem, its Apple's problem to identify and enforce their trademark if someone actually does attempt to sell them as genuine parts.
Not necessarily. The law cares about the brand, not the function. Morally, there’s a distinction; legally, I don’t see why the functionality has any relevance.
> Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen
CBP seized hybrid products, as mentioned above, all the time; even when no logo is present (honey with adulterations is a big problem). The claim it’s completely legal isn’t necessarily true. Individually selling a screen, or a ribbon cable, would probably have much better luck than the combination of the two.
Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it. What if I get some shoe laces with a pattern of the Louis Vuitton logo and put them in generic shoes?
You are right, its definitely not sufficient and from what I can tell legally, the main test in the cases we have been talking about is whether or not its likely to confuse consumers.
So in the case of the screens, the fact that it is a tiny logo on a functional internal component that the consumer won't see strongly indicates there is little intent or risk of consumer confusion.
In the case of the shoes, there is risk of confusion. Its possible that it could be made legal if sold as "Sketcher's Shoe with Custom Louis Vuitton laces" as that would mitigate the risk of confusion.
Since the specific example was explicitly marked third party screens that shipped with a official Apple cable included that happens to have Apple logos on it in an invisible way, your analogy is not great.
If I sold a pair of generic shoes labeled as just generic shoes, but lace them with a set of laces from Louis Vuitton shoes that have a small logo hidden on the tip, never advertising this fact in any way, that would be the comparison.
No one is claiming that the whole assembly is an official Apple product, they're not even marketing the official cable, so why should the fact that they did actually use an official cable suddenly make the whole product "counterfeit"?
The courts disagree that this is always true.
For example:
https://casetext.com/case/martins-herend-imports-v-diamond-g...
https://casetext.com/case/mary-kay
https://casetext.com/case/warner-lambert-co-v-northside-deve...
Even Wikipedia:
> A trademark owner can overcome the first sale doctrine defense if it can show that the unauthorized reseller is using the trademark on goods that lack its quality control standards.
Is there a difference between a factory that overproduces some fancy sneakers and resells them through unauthorized channels (which is a generally accepted example of counterfeiting) and this case? I'm sure there is, but it's a difference of degree rather than a bright-line issue.
Is there evidence other than what intuition says Apple would allow/disallow over the entire market? Keep in mind, this very article is about one method they would use to prevent people importing original parts stripped from broken units.
(To find the 38 number, the article links to https://www.vice.com/en/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-scr... -- see the 4th paragraph.)
It’s impossible for the CBP to know if illegal activity will occur, but you are advocating seizure without due process based on the possibility of a crime.
> How does CBP know you aren't going to sell them as genuine parts?
You can come up with a venal explanation for any item sold in commerce or any human behavior. If we enforced import and intellectual property law based on what people might do, nobody could do anything.
If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)
Now I'm putting those parts in vehicles that I'm repairing.
What happens when one of the parts that I put in goes to a dealership repair for a warranty repair?
It may be as good as the Ford part (it's the same part), but Ford has no record of the serial number on it.
Is Ford obligated to fix what appears to be a Ford part (what the customer thought was a Ford part) but isn't something that Ford ever sold, tested, or warrantied?
From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border.
Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.
TFA: The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold
Because other companies are incapable of putting an Apple logo on their products ?
It's literally what counterfeiters do.
TFA: [due process good]
Besides, I'm not American so maybe my view is different, but if a company can pay money to a government agency for increased policing for their benefit, and that government agency raids businesses under the direction of that companies representatives, that is a private force. E: And the fact that it's open for any company to use does not make it better in any way whatsoever.
Back to the car example, imagine if Ford went after ebay and FB marketplace with some regulatory body, citing the huge industry of totaled -vehicle-part-out sales as being an "exploit".
For this ford example, or the exact equivlent example that is occuring with phones, can you possibly make it make sense to me for a regulatory body to waste it's time with such a simple, obvious non-issue? Bonus points if you can do it without referencing Apple's major influence/market share (this would be illegal.)
A pirate doesn't need to copy the Nintendo logo to make the disc functional, they just need to make 2 rectangular slots on each side of the disc.
Nintendo just arranged it so it fits nicely within their logo.
While I support Apple's right to do this, and can even accept/agree with the consumer protection rationale, the truth is Apple is attempting to fight a massive uphill battle hill with counterfeits. They're obviously losing. It's easy to find knock-off Apple products.
We have some experience as a country allowing over-powered government agencies to seize property based on suspicion and without proof. It accomplishes very little overall, wastes an enormous amount of resources, and harms innocent people as readily as it harms the guilty.
The "risk" of getting your property seized is obviously low enough that counterfeiters can just factor that in as a cost, just as cartels do. You know you're going to lose X number of shipments.
So we're not accomplishing enough to make a real dent in the problem, and in trying to do anything at all, you're harming innocent people.
Not a great look.
Most other manufacturers produce electronics with components from a wide variety of sources, bearing many brand names. What makes Apple components special?
So if a product contains something with Apple logo, and it's not an actual Apple product, the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher, though obviously not absolute in the rare case of component re-use - which is 100% legal.
It would be impossible to tell if a computer was counterfeit just because it included something with a Samsung logo.
But it would be fairly easy, for instance, to tell a counterfeit Samsung phone if it featured a MediaTek processor. Is it possible someone legally bought 1000 legitimate Samsung phones and swapped out the processor? Sure. And it would be legal.
But is it the most likely case? No.
"Horses not zebras".
So, "guilty until proven innocent" is the way they look at anything made by Apple and "innocent until proven guilty" otherwise? Seems… fishy at a minimum. Corrupt more likely.
Both organisations have a well-deserved reputation. Both are behaving completely in character.
That the biggest company can pay to enlist the support of the most-insulated police force surprises no-one.
Perhaps more depressing is that there's no expectation of improvement. Juicy press expose leading to reform? Not likely.
Specifically, they have the right to search and seize "with no suspicion of unlawful activity" within 100 miles of any border - including sea borders, so that's about 70% of the US by population. Also anywhere around international airports and inland waters "with ready access to the open sea", but the 100-mile zone doesn't appear to apply there.
Certain other powers are limited to 10 or 25 miles from the border.
[0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559
I'm also probably mixing it up with the older, proper-coloured (black) MacBooks. Someone will be able to give a better answer soon!
I’ve dug out an old black MacBook I have, and even though it has a light-up logo, it doesn’t look like it has the same 3D look as the Aluminium MacBook Pro.
> especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately
> The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold:
If Apple doesn’t sell these, then how is this unauthorized repair shop getting parts with original logos? That implies that maybe these parts were not obtained legitimately right? Not necessarily counterfeit but maybe stolen.
That being said, Apple doesn’t do a great job here considering SF streets are flooded with actual counterfeit AirPods and AirPods MAX (like in fully sealed boxes that look exactly like original).
Furthermore, the parts were seized on trademark grounds; the program in question only deals with trademark. There are different processes for dealing with stolen goods (as opposed to counterfeit ones) but those would require Apple to provide proof. CBP's trademark program lets you just say "we own this mark, here's a lot of money, we'll tell you what to seize".
[0] Apple is a religion. Tim Cook is the iPhone pope. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
It's $190 to register a copyright and is open to any copyright holder.
And it makes sense to enforce this at the border rather than allowing counterfeit products into the market.
> Apple participates in CBP’s e-Recordation Program, a “service for trademark owners” where American rightsholders proactively re-register their US registered trademarks with CBP and pay regular fees to ensure special, stricter enforcement on the particular trademarks they request.
The fee for e-Recordation is $190 per International Class of Goods (IC) i.e. trademarks and copyright.
Keep in mind here: the products in question are not counterfeit. If Apple had to sue to get the parts taken out of the market, they would lose, because of very obvious exceptions to trademark law - e.g. official Apple flex cables don't stop being official Apple flex cables when you plug a third-party iPhone screen into them. That would be like, if I sold you a Samsung TV, but I had an Apple HDMI cable hanging off the back of it, and then Apple sued me saying that I was selling a counterfeit Apple TV because the HDMI cable had an Apple logo on it.
Do you have a source for this.
Because in the article it does not mention Apple paying any extra money to CBP and there is no information on the CBP website about it.
> Apple participates in CBP’s e-Recordation Program, a “service for trademark owners” where American rightsholders proactively re-register their US registered trademarks with CBP and pay regular fees to ensure special, stricter enforcement on the particular trademarks they request.
You're perfectly within your rights to strip your iPhone for parts and resell each piece individually with original logos intact.
$190 per copyright: https://iprr.cbp.gov/s
The article clearly identifies seizure-and-resale as the dubious profit motive, where CBP is permitted to erase trademarks and make money selling the seized equipment at auction.
Of course in the case of Apple's customs bullying, hardware is being stolen because it's composed of a mixture of Apple parts and non-Apple parts. Like seizing an aftermarket car door because you put a Honda window control assembly into it.
There you have it. They had the logo on it. They were original.