If I Buy Something, Do I Own It?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2010.

  1. 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 22, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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/2010/09/apples-magsafe-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"
    Sweetpea, Sep 22, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Sep 22, 8:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> 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-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.
    peterwn, Sep 22, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    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.
    victor, Sep 23, 2010
    #4
  5. In article <>, Sweetpea <> 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/2010/09/apples-magsafe-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. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Sep 23, 2010
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor <> 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-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.
    Simon, Sep 23, 2010
    #6
  7. In message
    <>, 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 23, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 23/09/2010 3:07 p.m., Simon wrote:
    > On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor<> 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-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 piss 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.
    victor, Sep 23, 2010
    #8
  9. On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:46:43 +1200, Allistar <>
    wrote:

    >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message
    >> <>, 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?

    >
    >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..
    William Brown, Sep 23, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    On 23/09/2010 3:07 p.m., Simon wrote:
    > On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor<> 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-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.
    Richard, Sep 23, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 23, 4:15 pm, victor <> wrote:
    > On 23/09/2010 3:07 p.m., Simon wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor<>  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-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 piss 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.


    The article states "Apple offers licenses for its 30-pin connector so
    that accessory makers can sell products to go with Apple's iDevices,"
    which Sanho does not have license to sell", so they *might* have a
    case there, although I suspect it will be tenuous given the doctrine
    of first sale. This presumably would apply equally to the Magsafe
    connector.

    Either way, this is just typical of the behavior of Apple.
    Simon, Sep 23, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 24/09/2010 8:10 a.m., Simon wrote:
    > On Sep 23, 4:15 pm, victor<> wrote:
    >> On 23/09/2010 3:07 p.m., Simon wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Sep 23, 11:06 am, victor<> 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-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 piss 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.

    >
    > The article states "Apple offers licenses for its 30-pin connector so
    > that accessory makers can sell products to go with Apple's iDevices,"
    > which Sanho does not have license to sell", so they *might* have a
    > case there, although I suspect it will be tenuous given the doctrine
    > of first sale. This presumably would apply equally to the Magsafe
    > connector.
    >
    > Either way, this is just typical of the behavior of Apple.


    Bollocks, no one needs a license to simply sell an ipod lead.
    The license is for manufacturing.

    --
    "I'm completely operational, and all my circuits are functioning perfectly."
    victor, Sep 24, 2010
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 24, 5:13 pm, victor <> wrote:

    > Bollocks, no one needs a license to simply sell an ipod lead.
    > The license is for manufacturing.


    Really? Perhaps you should have a talk to companies selling Apple
    products in NZ.
    Simon, Sep 25, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 25/09/2010 12:43 p.m., Simon wrote:
    > On Sep 24, 5:13 pm, victor<> wrote:
    >
    >> Bollocks, no one needs a license to simply sell an ipod lead.
    >> The license is for manufacturing.

    >
    > Really? Perhaps you should have a talk to companies selling Apple
    > products in NZ.


    Pseudo legal bollocks
    A USB to ipod dock cable doesn't have to be an Apple product.
    Many retailers sell ipod accessories, they do not need a license to sell
    them.
    victor, Sep 25, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    On 25/09/2010 12:43 p.m., Simon wrote:
    > On Sep 24, 5:13 pm, victor<> wrote:
    >
    >> Bollocks, no one needs a license to simply sell an ipod lead.
    >> The license is for manufacturing.

    >
    > Really? Perhaps you should have a talk to companies selling Apple
    > products in NZ.


    License is needed to use the apple name and made for ipod trademarks.

    There is nothing legally protected in the cable itself.

    That is why they put the chips in the TV out cables to give them some
    legal way to make manufactiurers pay to be able to sell them.
    Richard, Sep 25, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 25, 5:06 pm, Richard <> wrote:

    > There is nothing legally protected in the cable itself.


    According to Apple, apparently the connector is.
    Simon, Sep 25, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 25, 3:02 pm, victor <> wrote:

    > Pseudo legal bollocks
    > A USB to ipod dock cable doesn't have to be an Apple product.
    > Many retailers sell ipod accessories, they do not need a license to sell
    > them.


    As per bellow, according to Apple it does.
    Simon, Sep 25, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    When you buy something, do you own it?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 24, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    350
    Bruce Sinclair
    Sep 26, 2007
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If I Buy Something, Do I Own It?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 23, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    538
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Apr 30, 2008
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If I Buy Something, Do I Own It?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 17, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    320
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If You Buy Something, Do You Own It?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 18, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    451
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 19, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If I Buy Something, Do I Own It?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 17, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    336
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Mar 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page