Yeah. So it's the customer that has the problem and is the one that should have restitution.
I fully support the notion that is somebody was fooled into buying a Galaxy S3 because they thought it was a Apple iPhone they should be refunded, for example, if they can get a judge to agree that Samsung tried to fool them on purpose.
> If someone thinks they're buying the an iPad2 and they actually bought shiity iPad2 knockoff as made by some company you've never heard of in China,
Or, going back to what actually happens in reality: when they call Apple customer support to complain and Apple informs them they were ripped off they would be pissed off at the people that ripped them off.
> This hurts Apple even though they did nothing wrong.
No it doesn't. Or it is extremely unlikely that it did and is even harder to prove. This is why the law is ass-backwards. The consumer is the only one that has any obvious damage from fraudulent sellers.
What if the consumer actually WANTED to buy a Apple knock-off? What if they wanted to look as if they paid 500 dollars on a phone, but in fact paid about 150? Why is that illegal? How is that 'protecting' the consumer?
The answer is, of course, it doesn't help the consumer at all.
The logic needed to defend the current IP regime is very wormy indeed.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds