Border Enforcement [LWN.net]

Border Enforcement

Posted Aug 27, 2026 18:00 UTC (Thu) by josh (subscriber, #17465)
In reply to: Border Enforcement by bkuhn
Parent article: An ongoing 3D-printer AGPL violation

Presumably injunction would be a tool for enforcement: with the injunction in place, a company would be more inclined to fix the problem because otherwise they lose access to an entire lucrative market.

to post comments

Border Enforcement

Posted Aug 27, 2026 20:16 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (2 responses)

This sounds exactly right to me. The point is that the injunction hits them in the wallet, which is what gets the most attention. Being unable to import their device until they cure their license violation gives them a very strong incentive to comply.

The worry to me is that the way things are done in the 3D printing world might make this legally questionable. The key is that the slicer is usually run on the same PC that does the 3D modeling, not on the wimpy little processor that controls the printer. Bambu Labs could plausibly claim that any violations are in their separate software package, not in the 3D printer itself, and thus importation of the printer shouldn't be enjoined. I guess it's not the end of the world- the most you could lose would be the time and effort of filing for the injunction- but it is a potential snag in this specific case.

Border Enforcement

Posted Aug 27, 2026 23:21 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] (1 responses)

Re: injuctions as a financial lever.

If you're ever bored, read through the filings of SFC's successful permanent injunction against Westinghouse in the so-called “BusyBox case” regarding Westinghouse's copyleft violations on televisions. The individual who ran the company was successful in using a California-based alternative to full-on bankruptcy that allowed the following:

Copyleft-violating Company A (using Westinghouse trademark via licensing agreement and Defendant vs. SFC and Erik Anderson) dissolves on a Friday afternoon in California.
Company A' incorporates that same Friday. CEO is the brother of the CEO of Company A.
Company A' on the following Monday files as a trusted receivership of all liabilities and assets of Company A. It is rubber-stamped.
Company A' CEO in short order (IIRC, same week) hires Company A CEO as a mundane employee.
Company A files with the SDNY Federal district court that it is insolvent, will not ship new product, and therefore complies with the injunction.
Company A law firm (L) files a motion in SDNY that Company A cannot pay their bills and asks the SDNY judge to relieve them as counsel. Motion is granted.
Company A' begins within weeks to:
- receive a trademark license from Westinghouse for TVs.
- produce a new model of TV.
Law Firm L emails SFC to tell us they “are representing a new company and would love to work with us on compliance”. Discussions go nowhere.
SFC files a motion with the SDNY to demand that the Court consider Company A' a successor in interest and bound by the injunction.
The 🤬'ing MPEG-LA joins SFC in its motion to the SDNY asking that Company A' be liable for patent licensing fees owed to MPEG-LA by Company A.
SDNY rules that they aren't going to intervene with and/or interpret California state corporate law, and dismisses the motions.

If you didn't know why I don't focus my work on injunction-based enforcement mechanisms anymore, now you know.

Border Enforcement

Posted Sep 1, 2026 17:22 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

> SDNY rules that they aren't going to intervene with and/or interpret California state corporate law, and dismisses the motions.

Ouch. That sounds like "Go refile the case in some CA district court and start all over."

I would've thought there would be more serious consequences for this kind of chicanery. It reminds me of what Prenda Law was doing, and those guys all went to prison (eventually).