Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > If I Buy Something, Do I Own It?

Reply
Thread Tools

If I Buy Something, Do I Own It?

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
Company claims it’s reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldn’t be guilty
of patent infringement
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-tests-limits-of-first-sale-doctrine.ars>.

How far should “intellectual property” go?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:06:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Company claims it’s reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldn’t be
> guilty of patent infringement
> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...lawsuit-tests-

limits-of-first-sale-doctrine.ars>.
>
> How far should “intellectual property” go?


If it is a thing and you purchase it then yes you own that thing.

If you purchased a limited conditional license to use a copy of
something, then you own... a license - so long as you comply with the
terms of that license, or otherwise most likely you'll own a lawsuit if
you don't comply with the terms of that license.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On Sep 22, 8:06*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Company claims its reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldnt be guilty
> of patent infringement
> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-test...>.
>
> How far should intellectual property go?


There are similar issues with 'Big Pharma'. Occasionally, it is found
that a drug can be used for a different purpose than originally
intended. The company needs to go through all the FDA and other
regulatory hoops before publicising such use. The issue there is can
the company patent the existing drug with respect to its new purpose.

There are similar issue with 'big name' cosmetics and similar. Can The
Warehouse for example buy up distressed stock and sell it as the real
thing (they got their fingers burnt several years ago as some stock
was counterfeit). I suspect cosmetics makers would now retain
ownership or first refusal of their product in case of a ditributor or
retailer failing ('big name' cosmetic vending is very much a maker-
retailer partnership). A department store expressed concern at this
possibility but its fears did not seem to eventuate.

It seems that Apple's problem is that it 'licenced' plugs that ended
up as distressed stock or were on-sold to others. Apple could exercise
more control over its plugs such as retaining ownership until they are
actually fitted to a device.

An English electrical firm sold its own patented style of plugs and
sockets many years ago. It sold the sockets at cost or thereabouts so
they were snapped up by sparkies for council houses. It then sold
plugs for four times the usual price. Adoption of the British Standard
ring main plug put a stop to that racket.

 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On 22/09/2010 8:06 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Company claims it’s reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldn’t be guilty
> of patent infringement
> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-tests-limits-of-first-sale-doctrine.ars>.
>
> How far should “intellectual property” go?


Why can't they all just get along ? Apple are being dicks again.
Perhaps replace the DC connector on the power pack with an aircraft
"EmPower" or lighter socket connector to mate with the Apple MagSafe
Airline Adapter.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB441Z/A
Victor is a problem solver.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:06:16 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Company claims it’s reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldn’t be
>> guilty of patent infringement
>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...lawsuit-tests-

>limits-of-first-sale-doctrine.ars>.
>>
>> How far should “intellectual property” go?

>
>If it is a thing and you purchase it then yes you own that thing.
>
>If you purchased a limited conditional license to use a copy of
>something, then you own... a license - so long as you comply with the
>terms of that license, or otherwise most likely you'll own a lawsuit if
>you don't comply with the terms of that license.


... assuming the licence holder knows you aren't complying and cares
sufficiently to do something about it of course.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2010
On Sep 23, 11:06*am, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 22/09/2010 8:06 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> > Company claims its reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldnt be guilty
> > of patent infringement
> > <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-test....>.

>
> > How far should intellectual property go?

>
> Why can't they all just get along ? Apple are being dicks again.
> Perhaps replace the DC connector on the power pack with an aircraft
> "EmPower" or lighter socket connector to mate with the Apple MagSafe
> Airline Adapter.http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB441Z/A
> Victor is a problem solver.


Putting aside the ideological argument over patents for a second, it
should be pointed out that other manufactures of similar products are
paying Apple a licence fee for using their patented connected, so I
can understand why Apple are wanting to protect their patent revenue
stream.

Presumably this company knew what was required of them, yet ignored it
anyway? Perhaps they're taking a stance on patents and hoping that the
publicity might advance their cause? Who knows.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Simon wrote:

> On 22/09/2010 8:06 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Company claims it’s reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldn’t be
>> guilty of patent infringement
>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-tests-limits-of-first-sale-doctrine.ars>.
>>

> Putting aside the ideological argument over patents for a second, it
> should be pointed out that other manufactures of similar products are
> paying Apple a licence fee for using their patented connected, so I
> can understand why Apple are wanting to protect their patent revenue
> stream.


So they should be allowed to control what use is made of their products
AFTER they’ve been sold?
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2010
On 23/09/2010 3:07 p.m., Simon wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 22/09/2010 8:06 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Company claims its reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldnt be guilty
>>> of patent infringement
>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-test...>.

>>
>>> How far should intellectual property go?

>>
>> Why can't they all just get along ? Apple are being dicks again.
>> Perhaps replace the DC connector on the power pack with an aircraft
>> "EmPower" or lighter socket connector to mate with the Apple MagSafe
>> Airline Adapter.http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB441Z/A
>> Victor is a problem solver.

>
> Putting aside the ideological argument over patents for a second, it
> should be pointed out that other manufactures of similar products are
> paying Apple a licence fee for using their patented connected, so I
> can understand why Apple are wanting to protect their patent revenue
> stream.
>
> Presumably this company knew what was required of them, yet ignored it
> anyway? Perhaps they're taking a stance on patents and hoping that the
> publicity might advance their cause? Who knows.


The ipod dock connector to USB cables can be purchased separately by
anyone, so they aren't an issue
They aren't licensing any products with the Magsafe connector, so
presumably the powerpack company are buying the airline adapter kit and
re-terminating them.
I hope the court tells Apple to **** off, its clearly anti-competitive.
Apple laptop power supplies are no different to any others apart from
the fly-lead and connector.
Apart from the inevitable Jonathan Ives soap bar makeover.
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2010
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:46:43 +1200, Allistar <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Simon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/09/2010 8:06 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Company claims its reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldnt be
>>>> guilty of patent infringement
>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...lawsuit-tests-

>limits-of-first-sale-doctrine.ars>.
>>>>
>>> Putting aside the ideological argument over patents for a second, it
>>> should be pointed out that other manufactures of similar products are
>>> paying Apple a licence fee for using their patented connected, so I
>>> can understand why Apple are wanting to protect their patent revenue
>>> stream.

>>
>> So they should be allowed to control what use is made of their products
>> AFTER theyve been sold?

>
>If the original sale has conditions that say that they can do that, yes.




No No there are Laws here that state they can not, I think we live in
New Zealand not the Corrupt US..

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2010
On 23/09/2010 3:07 p.m., Simon wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 22/09/2010 8:06 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Company claims its reselling Apple-made products, so it shouldnt be guilty
>>> of patent infringement
>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/apples-magsafe-lawsuit-test...>.

>>
>>> How far should intellectual property go?

>>
>> Why can't they all just get along ? Apple are being dicks again.
>> Perhaps replace the DC connector on the power pack with an aircraft
>> "EmPower" or lighter socket connector to mate with the Apple MagSafe
>> Airline Adapter.http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB441Z/A
>> Victor is a problem solver.

>
> Putting aside the ideological argument over patents for a second, it
> should be pointed out that other manufactures of similar products are
> paying Apple a licence fee for using their patented connected, so I
> can understand why Apple are wanting to protect their patent revenue
> stream.
>
> Presumably this company knew what was required of them, yet ignored it
> anyway? Perhaps they're taking a stance on patents and hoping that the
> publicity might advance their cause? Who knows.


Apple will not license the magsafe connector.

Didnt stop the crapload of counterfeit adapters that are being peddled
online very well.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using own classloader inside J2EE to load and unload own classes. Stefan Siegl Java 1 07-02-2013 05:05 AM
Allowing access to my own computers within my own network =?Utf-8?B?VHJldm9y?= Wireless Networking 2 07-20-2006 09:05 PM
I have built my own (simple) thread manager [TM], but just found java 5 has its own. Saverio M. Java 0 07-03-2006 08:52 AM
Your own photos in your own book Frank ess Digital Photography 1 12-09-2004 05:54 PM



Advertisments