Hacker News Reader

Comment by efitz | Hacker News Reader

I hate IP in its current forms yet I have trouble getting particularly outraged by this article.

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...

View on HN

I think it’s massively problematic that a few select mega corporations with deep pockets get to enforce what products are allowed to be brought into the US with no due process. CBP should train to learn what products to seize, but that training shouldn’t be taught by a self-interested corporation. It increases the barrier to entry of new competitors as you must bribe the CBP to have your trademarks enforced, and the CBP ends up with an unfair focus on one company’s products.

I agree; let’s change the laws!

This is not a case of IP law being enforced. This is a case of the CBP using their power to punish Apple's competitors, despite no actual violations having occurred.

I have seen arguments that even word ip is bad as it conditions you to believe ideas are property, I think i may agree.

We should definitely get rid of bad enforcement immediately, enforcement is like 90% of a laws effect.

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.

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.

— <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html>

I think Cory Doctorow has an interesting counterpoint which is worth considering:

> 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.

-- https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

The problem is that CBP is enforcing Apple’s desire to prevent people from importing used Apple products (or new items that compete with what Apple sells). Neither activity is actually illegal, but CBP has vast powers that are not constrained by the normal domestic legal process and Apple had found a way to maximally abuse CBP’s powers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com