beowulfschmidt

I think it should be "attorneys general", not attorney generals.

AppleInsider said:

The increase in tensions between the United States and China in its ongoing trade war, as well as restrictions against Huawei,Chinese government sponsored propaganda is fueling anti-US sentiments in China, prompting more online calls from critics of the political maneuvers to boycott Apple products.

Fixed that for you.

FFabian said:

chasm said:

Reminder to commenters: under US law

Reminder: This isn't the US but Germany and US law doesn't apply worldwide.

But Apple is a U.S. company, and failing to defend one's trademark, even in other countries, can be seen as detrimental by U.S. courts.  In addition, other countries' trademark laws are ofttimes very similar to U.S. laws.  I don't know anything specific about German law in this respect, but I've seen other countries do something similar wrt defense.

designr said:

Truly a first world issue. The government stepping in over concern about an awards show for the entertainment industry. Wow.

It's yet another excuse to inject the government's influence where it doesn't belong.

I'm no lawyer by any means, but a lawyer acquaintance of mine who's represented quite a few companies in alleged Sherman violations, claims that the Sherman Anti-Trust act is worded such that the government can object to just about any business practice that it wants to.  And define as "business practice" many things that most people would scratch their heads at.

boltsfan17 said:

macxpress said:

hentaiboy said:

Not sure that NDAs wash when law enforcement is involved. 

At the same time, you're immediately put in a tough spot if you're unsure of what to do which is most likely why he wanted to speak with some at Apple and/or a lawyer. Do I give everything up and risk losing my job, or what? 

Also, just because its law enforcement, doesn't give them the right to just search someone's property for very little to no reason. They're not above the law...they're there to enforce the law using legal means (proper policies and procedures). 

CBP does have the right to search someone's property if they are entering the country. They don't need a reason. Fourth Amendment protections don't apply at ports of entry. It's like that with pretty much any border services agency in any country. They have the right to search someone's property when you enter a country. 

No, they do not have the right to search.  They have the authority to search.  I'm sure someone, believing themselves to be clever, will claim the difference is "just semantics", and while they are right, they aren't right in the way they think they are.  "Semantics" is the meaning of words and sentences, and the meanings of "rights" and "authority" are different.  In addition, there's a huge philosophical difference between those two concepts.  Rights belong to people, and people have those rights because they are human beings, not because they are granted by the government.  The government has authority because it was granted by the people with rights, and that authority is limited by the grant.  Authority can be taken away, and while our rights can be violated (and frequently are, by the very people who are supposed to be protected them), they cannot be taken away.

"It's just semantics" is a phrase often used by two groups of people, those who don't recognize the meanings of words and use it to cover their lack of knowledge, and those who know the meanings of the words they are using and don't want the rest of use to recognize it.