That is such a stupid comment founded on misinterpretation of facts and I hope not to many try explaining the truth that you probably well know.
Do you view your senseless trolling as playful mischief? Is it entertaining to you?
Don't feed him. If you look at some of his past posts, he is apparently a disgruntled small-time developer that obviously made no money making (probably) crappy apps and has a grudge against anything related to Apple. And I only assume the apps were crappy since he spends all of his time trolling here instead of actually programming.
Suing little kids and their parents for doing the job you couldn't figure out how to do?
Perhaps Steve Jobs has been spending too much time hanging out with music execs?
Lam is alleged to have contacted Alan Yang of Shenzhen, who operates the business "Focusupply." Apple claims to have obtained an instant message conversation between Yang and Lam, in which Yang said his company had a "friend" at manufacturing company Foxconn.
Don't feed him. If you look at some of his past posts, he is apparently a disgruntled small-time developer that obviously made no money making (probably) crappy apps and has a grudge against anything related to Apple. And I only assume the apps were crappy since he spends all of his time trolling here instead of actually programming.
I do not nkow or care about the OP, but you should see a doctor. You reached so far up your ass for your post that there is a high probability that you damaged your lower intestine.
Sorry, this seems like an over-reaction to me, even with Apple asking for dismissal. What did the kid do wrong? And I don't see how what he did impacted Apple's trademarks. Is Apple telling me that if I want to modify my iPhone (let's say put a decal on it or spray paint it), I can't do it? It is MY phone, isn't it? And I can't take it one step further and sell those decals or sell instructions as to how to do it?
It would be one thing if the kid was buying stolen parts, but he apparently got the parts that were being sold on the street in China. If Apple wants to go after someone, they should go after the part manufacturer, not this kid. As long as the kid isn't using Apple's logo on this website or on any packaging of the parts and as long as there's no implication that this is official, it seems to me he should be in the clear.
If someone sells a kit to add neon lights to the bottom of a BMW mini, they don't need BMW's permission even if the marketing says, "made to custom fit a BMW". I don't see how this is any different. Is Apple next going to say that no one can make custom interface cards for the MacPro tower unless they're licensed by Apple?
... That said, I can?t help but give this kid some cheers for his entrepreneurship and do hope that he got to keep some of the money he made. ...
I don't understand this sentiment at all.
He isn't an "entrepreneur" he's a criminal. There is no reasonable argument he could make that he didn't know that the parts were not kosher in some way. Apple doesn't throw away or sell old parts and every statement he or his family has made since the practice came to light suggests he knew that the parts were stolen.
By this logic crack dealers should be able to keep some of their profits once they get caught too.
Sorry, this seems like an over-reaction to me, even with Apple asking for dismissal. What did the kid do wrong? And I don't see how what he did impacted Apple's trademarks. Is Apple telling me that if I want to modify my iPhone (let's say put a decal on it or spray paint it), I can't do it? It is MY phone, isn't it? And I can't take it one step further and sell those decals or sell instructions as to how to do it?
It would be one thing if the kid was buying stolen parts, but he apparently got the parts that were being sold on the street in China. If Apple wants to go after someone, they should go after the part manufacturer, not this kid. As long as the kid isn't using Apple's logo on this website or on any packaging of the parts and as long as there's no implication that this is official, it seems to me he should be in the clear.
If someone sells a kit to add neon lights to the bottom of a BMW mini, they don't need BMW's permission even if the marketing says, "made to custom fit a BMW". I don't see how this is any different. Is Apple next going to say that no one can make custom interface cards for the MacPro tower unless they're licensed by Apple?
Get off your high horse and read the post!
The kid was getting parts from Apple's manufacturing partners and selling them. They carried the Apple logo and branding.
He isn't an "entrepreneur" he's a criminal. There is no reasonable argument he could make that he didn't know that the parts were not kosher in some way. Apple doesn't throw away or sell old parts and every statement he or his family has made since the practice came to light suggests he knew that the parts were stolen.
By this logic crack dealers should be able to keep some of their profits once they get caught too.
1) Considering it’s Apple going after Lam isn’t a civil case, not criminal. There might be criminal aspects to how Lam obtained the items but I don’t know of any federal task force assigned to bring charges to Lam. I assume that dealing of the Schedule II substance, like crack cocaine, is a felony offense.
2) A crack dealer likely keeps all the profits he’s made, save for the profits he has on his person. There is no going back and retrieving all the previous sales. It’s simply not possible.
3) Since when is the defendant in a civil case synonymous with criminal.
4) We break laws and do things others would fine unethical all the time. I don’t care about this kid or this fictional drug dealer getting what some else thinks they deserve. You want to take the risk then go for it but be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught, just like driving over the speed limit.
I am actually wondering how many of those cases are acually the real McCoy. Did they all pass the water bead test, provided the owners of the purchased conversion kits knew about this test?
His biggest mistake was putting the Apple logo on them. I guess if they were discarded, legitimate versions though there was nothing he could do about it.
1) Considering it?s Apple going after Lam isn?t a civil case, not criminal. There might be criminal aspects to how Lam obtained the items but I don?t know of any federal task force assigned to bring charges to Lam. I assume that dealing of the Schedule II substance, like crack cocaine, is a felony offense.
2) A crack dealer likely keeps all the profits he?s made, save for the profits he has on his person. There is no going back and retrieving all the previous sales. It?s simply not possible.
3) Since when is the defendant in a civil case synonymous with criminal.
4) We break laws and do things others would fine unethical all the time. I don?t care about this kid or this fictional drug dealer getting what some else thinks they deserve. You want to take the risk then go for it but be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught, just like driving over the speed limit.
1) Your nitpicking here on my terms. I meant "criminal" only as in "law-breaker" which he clearly is. He intentionally bought stolen parts and re-sold them for profit. Apparently with the full knowledge and approval of his parents as well.
2) Crack dealers *don't* get to keep their profits, nor does anyone involved in a criminal enterprise. Not sure where you got the idea they get to keep the money.
3) see point 1
4) Your morals sound really questionable to me. What's the point off having rules/laws at all if things were as you say?
For what it's worth, I'm really personally disappointed in your responses here. You always struck me as not only a very intelligent person but very fair and reasonable as well. I'm quite shocked that you think the law shouldn't apply, or that people should profit from crime or that the kid should be rewarded in some way for what he did. Any reasonable person should realise that the law exists for a reason. It's what holds society together.
In my view, this result is a good one for this case. The kid did break the law, but he gets a slap on the wrist instead of anything worse. Probably Apple got them to give the $130,000 back, and he doesn't go to jail. Given that he was a kid and probably acting on the (bad) advice of his parents and relatives, that seems good to me.
IMO he's lucky that's all the blow back he got, and hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.
His biggest mistake was putting the Apple logo on them. I guess if they were discarded, legitimate versions though there was nothing he could do about it.
He didn't put the logo on. They are/were stolen Apple parts.
2) Crack dealers *don't* get to keep their profits, nor does anyone involved in a criminal enterprise. Not sure where you got the idea they get to keep the money.
How does a crack dealer have his profits from say, 3 years of dealing get accounted for? Unless there is a physical record of his dealings in that time I can’t imagine they could. All they can do is prosecute his as the law sees fit, which I’d think would be the same regardless if it’s his first or 1000th day dealing. They’d go by the number of times he was caught, how much he had to sell, etc. That’s all they can really know.
What about Bernie Madoff? How to get all those people’s money back if he spent so much of it?
Quote:
I'm quite shocked that you think the law shouldn't apply, or that people should profit from crime or that the kid should be rewarded in some way for what he did. Any reasonable person should realise that the law exists for a reason. It's what holds society together.
I did not say the law shouldn’t apply. I said that people should have a right to not abide by the law, but should be willing to suffer the consequences if they are caught breaking it.
Like driving over the speed limit, jaywalking, ignoring the War Powers Clause or the opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765, I don’t think anyone should blindly follow any laws simply because they are made by a powerful body, but I do caution everyone to be ready to deal with the consequences if they do choose not to follow the rules set by those above them.
Quote:
In my view, this result is a good one for this case.
Comments
That is such a stupid comment founded on misinterpretation of facts and I hope not to many try explaining the truth that you probably well know.
Do you view your senseless trolling as playful mischief? Is it entertaining to you?
Don't feed him. If you look at some of his past posts, he is apparently a disgruntled small-time developer that obviously made no money making (probably) crappy apps and has a grudge against anything related to Apple. And I only assume the apps were crappy since he spends all of his time trolling here instead of actually programming.
Suing little kids and their parents for doing the job you couldn't figure out how to do?
Perhaps Steve Jobs has been spending too much time hanging out with music execs?
Lam is alleged to have contacted Alan Yang of Shenzhen, who operates the business "Focusupply." Apple claims to have obtained an instant message conversation between Yang and Lam, in which Yang said his company had a "friend" at manufacturing company Foxconn.
'Think Different' to 'Think Obediance'
You've misinterpreted that ad campaign if you ever thought it meant, "Break the law and steal".
First off, that post is funny as hell.
Thanks
Unfortunately, several folks have gotten their panties in a bunch over it.
And yeah, I know Apple needs to defend their IP. I'm happy to see they immediately dropped the case.
Don't feed him. If you look at some of his past posts, he is apparently a disgruntled small-time developer that obviously made no money making (probably) crappy apps and has a grudge against anything related to Apple. And I only assume the apps were crappy since he spends all of his time trolling here instead of actually programming.
I do not nkow or care about the OP, but you should see a doctor. You reached so far up your ass for your post that there is a high probability that you damaged your lower intestine.
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality
Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little
low,
Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to
me
And yeah, I know Apple needs to defend their IP. I'm happy to see they immediately dropped the case.
I'll bet money this was orchestrated in advance with this kid's parents' lawyer.
It would be one thing if the kid was buying stolen parts, but he apparently got the parts that were being sold on the street in China. If Apple wants to go after someone, they should go after the part manufacturer, not this kid. As long as the kid isn't using Apple's logo on this website or on any packaging of the parts and as long as there's no implication that this is official, it seems to me he should be in the clear.
If someone sells a kit to add neon lights to the bottom of a BMW mini, they don't need BMW's permission even if the marketing says, "made to custom fit a BMW". I don't see how this is any different. Is Apple next going to say that no one can make custom interface cards for the MacPro tower unless they're licensed by Apple?
... That said, I can?t help but give this kid some cheers for his entrepreneurship and do hope that he got to keep some of the money he made. ...
I don't understand this sentiment at all.
He isn't an "entrepreneur" he's a criminal. There is no reasonable argument he could make that he didn't know that the parts were not kosher in some way. Apple doesn't throw away or sell old parts and every statement he or his family has made since the practice came to light suggests he knew that the parts were stolen.
By this logic crack dealers should be able to keep some of their profits once they get caught too.
Sorry, this seems like an over-reaction to me, even with Apple asking for dismissal. What did the kid do wrong? And I don't see how what he did impacted Apple's trademarks. Is Apple telling me that if I want to modify my iPhone (let's say put a decal on it or spray paint it), I can't do it? It is MY phone, isn't it? And I can't take it one step further and sell those decals or sell instructions as to how to do it?
It would be one thing if the kid was buying stolen parts, but he apparently got the parts that were being sold on the street in China. If Apple wants to go after someone, they should go after the part manufacturer, not this kid. As long as the kid isn't using Apple's logo on this website or on any packaging of the parts and as long as there's no implication that this is official, it seems to me he should be in the clear.
If someone sells a kit to add neon lights to the bottom of a BMW mini, they don't need BMW's permission even if the marketing says, "made to custom fit a BMW". I don't see how this is any different. Is Apple next going to say that no one can make custom interface cards for the MacPro tower unless they're licensed by Apple?
Get off your high horse and read the post!
The kid was getting parts from Apple's manufacturing partners and selling them. They carried the Apple logo and branding.
I don't understand this sentiment at all.
He isn't an "entrepreneur" he's a criminal. There is no reasonable argument he could make that he didn't know that the parts were not kosher in some way. Apple doesn't throw away or sell old parts and every statement he or his family has made since the practice came to light suggests he knew that the parts were stolen.
By this logic crack dealers should be able to keep some of their profits once they get caught too.
1) Considering it’s Apple going after Lam isn’t a civil case, not criminal. There might be criminal aspects to how Lam obtained the items but I don’t know of any federal task force assigned to bring charges to Lam. I assume that dealing of the Schedule II substance, like crack cocaine, is a felony offense.
2) A crack dealer likely keeps all the profits he’s made, save for the profits he has on his person. There is no going back and retrieving all the previous sales. It’s simply not possible.
3) Since when is the defendant in a civil case synonymous with criminal.
4) We break laws and do things others would fine unethical all the time. I don’t care about this kid or this fictional drug dealer getting what some else thinks they deserve. You want to take the risk then go for it but be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught, just like driving over the speed limit.
1) Considering it?s Apple going after Lam isn?t a civil case, not criminal. There might be criminal aspects to how Lam obtained the items but I don?t know of any federal task force assigned to bring charges to Lam. I assume that dealing of the Schedule II substance, like crack cocaine, is a felony offense.
2) A crack dealer likely keeps all the profits he?s made, save for the profits he has on his person. There is no going back and retrieving all the previous sales. It?s simply not possible.
3) Since when is the defendant in a civil case synonymous with criminal.
4) We break laws and do things others would fine unethical all the time. I don?t care about this kid or this fictional drug dealer getting what some else thinks they deserve. You want to take the risk then go for it but be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught, just like driving over the speed limit.
1) Your nitpicking here on my terms. I meant "criminal" only as in "law-breaker" which he clearly is. He intentionally bought stolen parts and re-sold them for profit. Apparently with the full knowledge and approval of his parents as well.
2) Crack dealers *don't* get to keep their profits, nor does anyone involved in a criminal enterprise. Not sure where you got the idea they get to keep the money.
3) see point 1
4) Your morals sound really questionable to me. What's the point off having rules/laws at all if things were as you say?
For what it's worth, I'm really personally disappointed in your responses here. You always struck me as not only a very intelligent person but very fair and reasonable as well. I'm quite shocked that you think the law shouldn't apply, or that people should profit from crime or that the kid should be rewarded in some way for what he did. Any reasonable person should realise that the law exists for a reason. It's what holds society together.
In my view, this result is a good one for this case. The kid did break the law, but he gets a slap on the wrist instead of anything worse. Probably Apple got them to give the $130,000 back, and he doesn't go to jail. Given that he was a kid and probably acting on the (bad) advice of his parents and relatives, that seems good to me.
IMO he's lucky that's all the blow back he got, and hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.
His biggest mistake was putting the Apple logo on them. I guess if they were discarded, legitimate versions though there was nothing he could do about it.
He didn't put the logo on. They are/were stolen Apple parts.
2) Crack dealers *don't* get to keep their profits, nor does anyone involved in a criminal enterprise. Not sure where you got the idea they get to keep the money.
How does a crack dealer have his profits from say, 3 years of dealing get accounted for? Unless there is a physical record of his dealings in that time I can’t imagine they could. All they can do is prosecute his as the law sees fit, which I’d think would be the same regardless if it’s his first or 1000th day dealing. They’d go by the number of times he was caught, how much he had to sell, etc. That’s all they can really know.
What about Bernie Madoff? How to get all those people’s money back if he spent so much of it?
I'm quite shocked that you think the law shouldn't apply, or that people should profit from crime or that the kid should be rewarded in some way for what he did. Any reasonable person should realise that the law exists for a reason. It's what holds society together.
I did not say the law shouldn’t apply. I said that people should have a right to not abide by the law, but should be willing to suffer the consequences if they are caught breaking it.
Like driving over the speed limit, jaywalking, ignoring the War Powers Clause or the opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765, I don’t think anyone should blindly follow any laws simply because they are made by a powerful body, but I do caution everyone to be ready to deal with the consequences if they do choose not to follow the rules set by those above them.
In my view, this result is a good one for this case.
At least we can agree here.