Customs stopped checking out counterfit ICs?

One possibility is that the manufacturers overreached, calling "counterfeit" on genuine parts being traded through non-approved channels or even just competing work-alike parts.

I have no idea whether that's at work here, but there are plenty of cases of law enforcement getting involved in "IP infringement" cases where the infringement was dubious if not entirely absent.

Sounds interesting. Do you have some cases in mind you can reference?

No, unless the parts have the manufacturer's markings on them they wouldn't be considered counterfeit, by anyone. If they do (and have not been sold into the channels by the manufacturer), they are, no matter how well they might work. Simple.

So, even you admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.

I don't have citations for specific cases.

One area where dubious claims of trademark infringement are particularly common is fashion (clothing, accessories, cosmetics, perfume), where the brand owners seem to habitually claim that any unauthorised resale is trademark infringement.

They may not be "counterfeit" by any reasonable definition of the term, but "IP holders" don't seem to be constrained by such definitions.

The term "counterfeit" is regularly used to describe products which are obviously not legitimate copies, e.g. CDs and DVDs made on recordable media. This usage even extends to the proposed "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA), which has little do with counterfeiting, and is primarily related to copyright.

I very much doubt that anyone in this thread actually *knows* the reasons behind customs' decision.

Any "engineer" who wears anything more exotic than a Timex is certainly suspect ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Customs is, or is supposed to be.

Read what I said above.

Yet you're pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it anyway.

Duracell batteries- gray market imports of genuine Duracell batteries from their Belgian plant were undercutting batteries sold through the US distribution chain, so they tried to stop them by claiming some kind of IP infringement IIRC.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

That doesn't make sense. Customs can't be sued for holding you or your goods up at the border. Or consulting with domestic experts for evaluation of foreign technology (even if those domestic experts are direct competitors of the foreign vendor).

You don't like the terms, you just turn around at the border and go home. Legal and Constitutional rights apply only once people or goods have cleared customs.

Has he ever posted 'anything' other than his pathetic ankle biter comments?

I'm the proud recipient of a DMCA takedown order from Apple, claiming that a used cell phone I was selling on eBay was "counterfeit." The auction's title didn't contain anything suggesting "Apple," "iPhone," or similar, and the actually talked about how, while the styling was similar to that of a mini-iPhone, the performance was nowhere near as good, with the touch screen being awful and the software being clunky.

In other words, it made it very, very clear that it was anything BUT an iPhone. (It's a CECT KA08 phone, for the curious.) It's absurd to suggest that anyone would think this was somehow an actual Apple product.

I'm mulling over whether or not I want to up the ante and send Apple a counter notice -- at that point they're required to either rescind their orignial notice, or else sue me.

(I'm giving them a week to respond in the interim...)

Should be fun... :-)

---Joel

dn't

d into

ght

t a

title

een

uggest

unter

I got a notice a few years back from my ISP accusing me of distributing illegal copies of a movie I had never heard of. My denials were met with threats of confiscation of my computer and network equipment. I told them when I would be home, but never heard from them again.

The newsgroup expert doesn't know how to find out?

=3D1

too.

You do realize there is a difference between temporary most favored nation and permanent most favored nation.

dn't

d into

ght

t a

title

een

uggest

unter

Gee, hard to imagine a phone that works worse than the iphone, well at least as a phone. Apple needs more engineers and less lawyers.

I think if Apple had a case, they would ask ebay to take the ad down.

Almost every nation is "most favored" which is why they've stopped useing that term. It's now "Normal trade relations". The exceptions can be counted on a few fingers.

Nope. He's been in my killfile for years. We'd never see his insanities except that certain clowns keep feeding the troll :-) ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

Democrats are best served up prepared as a hash Otherwise the dogs will refuse to eat them :)

I don't know about EU->US, but unauthorised US->EU imports are considered trademark infringement. Essentially, the trademark owner licenses the mark for use on specific products in specific territories; use of the mark on other products (even if made by the trademark holder and licensed in other territories) is considered an infringement of the mark.

But the manufacturers often don't stop there, arguing that they sold products with non-transferable trademark licences, so any unauthorised resale (even within the EU or within the same country) infringes the mark. This argument won't succeed in court, but it doesn't stop them using it to frustrate unauthorised sales.

In which case, if they're going to involve manufacturers in decisions as to whether or not products are "counterfeit" (which is what the article was about), they shouldn't automatically treat such claims as gospel.

Otherwise, the manufacturer gets to make overreaching claims of infringement while the public picks up the tab for any liability arising from improper seizures.

While customs may be entitled to a fair amount of discretion, basing decisions on information from an interested party is likely to be problematic.