Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Teenager Targeted by Apple in White iPhone 4 Lawsuit Interviewed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its just like how some people laugh when they're in deep ****. Some people just roll like that.
---
I bet you somebody could make pretty legitimate cases from high quality perspex. Polish it enough and give it the right coating and BAM, glass looking and feeling plastic.
Last edited:
Have you seen ebay lately. how many cases, back panels etc have the Apple logo and/or name on it. If that was really thier motive they would be blocking all of that stuff and be on ebays case
Better still, have the secretary in the deposition provide you with a copy.
"LOL"? Interview?
That was an e-mail exchange, nothing more.
The kid should stick to getting an education so he won't come off as uneducated and ignorant of the facts of life in the real world.
His parent(s) should have hired a lawyer already.
RIGHT! "Phil"?
His age is not the question here. He broke the law and should be punished the same as any other criminal. If his parent(s) is(are) complicit, he(they), too, should be punished. How does a kid receive and sell that much merchandise without the knowledge and approval of his parental unit?
WHY would any legitimate individual be looking on those sites? That's just another reason the bootleggers and criminals continue their business in the world.
You agree, at least, that the kid should be punished ... with more than a slap on the back of the head.
English isn't your first / native language, is it?
A chance the truth comes out?
You sound like all the drivers on the roads who will obey laws only if they think someone in law enforcement might stop them.
The question is, At the end of the day, can I look myself in the eye?
So, all expenses paid trip to NY? Nice.
They are going to make him rat out his sources. That's what they are more interested in here I think.
They are going to make him rat out his sources. That's what they are more interested in here I think.
As you and everyone else have been told, don't put anything in an e-mail that you don't want everyone else reading.
Those of you trying to defend his actions are absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't matter if Apple was able to release a white iPhone. That's completely, 100% irrelevant.
What matters is the trademark infringement and the sale of stolen parts. The kid didn't find "a way around it," rather, he trafficked in stolen goods.
The way some people bend backwards to justify things is absolutely incredible at times.
First of all, how do you know they are stolen goods? Parts like that could easily be made. Read my last post, post #95.
Parts like that often are manufactured in China and sold under the name of the original company. They often break or do not perform as the parts made by the original company. The AC-to-USB plug with the little green dot comes to mind.
How many posters have READ the entire published conversation between the entrepreneur Lam and the Fast Company person, Austin Carr? It was a chat, not an e-mail as it first was reported.
Obviously, at least one has not read the Mac Rumors story since Lam is a 17-year-old student in Queens. He already is in New York, and he is not a teen who could be 19.
Now Lam has another endeavor, "a new social discovery site." The only way to learn more is to provide an e-mail address. Smacks of a SPAM provider.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I believe Apple is going to demand a shrubbery... Well it's a likely as all the other ignorant conjecture posted in the comments....The level of cynicism aimed at Apple, Lam and the legal system is actually rather disturbing.
Apple filed and immediately withdrew their suit. Apple does this ALL the time with various knock off manufaturers. Apple has probably already spent more in legal fees on this than Lam made in profits. There is little if any point in pursuing damages or legal fees in scenarios like this its about shutting down the operation. Apple isn't RIAA out to make a point they just need to shut down and document for posterity what allowed Lam to get ahold of and sell these parts so it's less likely to happen again.
As for Lam going to the meeting without representation, it's unclear to me what type of meeting it is, but while yes he probably should take council it's unlikely he's going to slip up and say "actually I'm still selling conversion kits and have $30m in a Swiss account". He's already chosen to fully cooperate and provide all relevant info to Apple.
I believe Apple is going to demand a shrubbery... Well it's a likely as all the other ignorant conjecture posted in the comments....The level of cynicism aimed at Apple, Lam and the legal system is actually rather disturbing.
Apple filed and immediately withdrew their suit. Apple does this ALL the time with various knock off manufaturers. Apple has probably already spent more in legal fees on this than Lam made in profits. There is little if any point in pursuing damages or legal fees in scenarios like this its about shutting down the operation. Apple isn't RIAA out to make a point they just need to shut down and document for posterity what allowed Lam to get ahold of and sell these parts so it's less likely to happen again.
As for Lam going to the meeting without representation, it's unclear to me what type of meeting it is, but while yes he probably should take council it's unlikely he's going to slip up and say "actually I'm still selling conversion kits and have $30m in a Swiss account". He's already chosen to fully cooperate and provide all relevant info to Apple.
Pay attention before you make yourself look even more silly. The parts BELONGED to Apple. He wasn't selling legitimately manufactured parts; he was selling parts that Apple junked and that were then resold by a source at the manufacturer.
Noone is saying you shouldn't have a white iphone, or blue, or red, or green. Apple isn't suing colorware. They're making an example of a kid who was fencing stolen goods that they had paid for and chosen not to put on the market.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
... You're kidding right... You can't be that dense. You can do whatever you want to your MacBook. What you can't do is purchase is purchase a pallet of samsung SSHD's that were stolen from their storage facility and sell them to all of your friends so they can change their MacBooks. You should probably speak your posts in to a mirror a few times before you type them to make sure they make sense. I think it's funny that all of these people are crying saying "why won't apple let me change my phone. Waaa waaa" Change your phone! Take the panels off of it and sand down the black on the glass and silk screen white on it. Oh wait... It's not that easy. Well I'll just steal someone else hard work and use/sell that since I don't want to wait. The fact of the matter is that apple makes the best / highest quality products Which is why you didn't run down to your local mall kiosk and get the crappy white iPhone conversion kit. You can't force someone to make you something just because you want it.
shootingrubber said:
... You're kidding right... You can't be that dense. You can do whatever you want to your MacBook. What you can't do is purchase is purchase a pallet of samsung SSHD's that were stolen from their storage facility and sell them to all of your friends so they can change their MacBooks. You should probably speak your posts in to a mirror a few times before you type them to make sure they make sense. I think it's funny that all of these people are crying saying "why won't apple let me change my phone. Waaa waaa" Change your phone! Take the panels off of it and sand down the black on the glass and silk screen white on it. Oh wait... It's not that easy. Well I'll just steal someone else hard work and use/sell that since I don't want to wait. The fact of the matter is that apple makes the best / highest quality products Which is why you didn't run down to your local mall kiosk and get the crappy white iPhone conversion kit. You can't force someone to make you something just because you want it.
So every time Apple infringes upon a patent it's like they've robbed the bank where you keep your life savings, right?
What exactly is this analogy supposed to convey; beyond your complete lack of measure?
How is the case with the kid remotely similar to home invasion?
If you were a bit brighter you may have noticed that you're trying to align a white collar crime (patent violations) with a typically blue collar example (armed robbery) because the masses generally hold one in disdain and tolerate the other. You've made a poor go at it, however. It has been fairly broadly reported that he acquired the parts from a "businessman" and there is not yet any evidence that he stole anything.
FWIW, I'd take a handful of petty shoplifters over one Joe Nacchio. Get your head out of your ass.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
In my attempt to make a quick analogy relating to the absurdity of overlooking anycrime because the perpetrator is merely a "teenager" I have offended some people who believe that white collar crime is ok so let's go more real world. I am a graphic designer (real life) and I have a hard drive connected to my iMac with all of my work on it. Most of it impeccable, if I do say so myself, but some I shelved in it's own folder labeled "not for current use" because I didnt feel the the designs were up to my standards. Now my partner finds this folder and decides they are good enough so he sells them to someone else to use. Now there is someone out there selling a product that says "designed by Myname Here" that is not up to the standard that I have for my brand. Now I'm gettin calls from people asking why there are spelling errors in my files, and why isn't there a PDF version of the logo included with the logo package they bought with my name on it. And so I tell them that those designs were not intended to be sold and I'm sorry that this has happened. In the meantime they have already blogged about my lack of quality and my brand takes a hit. My profits and new clients drop by 60% over the next 18 months. Now what are my options? I can continue without doing anything and hope I bounce back or I can bring criminal charges against my partner and file a lawsuit against the teenager who purchased and resold my designs knowing that they had not purchased licensing right to do so. In doing this I can publicly assure people that the quality of my workmanship has not diminished and the substandard designs sold were not meant for sale.
What? That analogy was long and boring? I should have just cut to the chase with a succinct criminal analogy and gotten on with it? Sorry about that, I didn't want some jagoff lecturing me about the differences between white & blue collar crime
DeanSolecki said:
In my attempt to make a quick analogy relating to the absurdity of overlooking anycrime because the perpetrator is merely a "teenager" I have offended some people who believe that white collar crime is ok so let's go more real world. I am a graphic designer (real life) and I have a hard drive connected to my iMac with all of my work on it. Most of it impeccable, if I do say so myself, but some I shelved in it's own folder labeled "not for current use" because I didnt feel the the designs were up to my standards. Now my partner finds this folder and decides they are good enough so he sells them to someone else to use. Now there is someone out there selling a product that says "designed by Myname Here" that is not up to the standard that I have for my brand. Now I'm gettin calls from people asking why there are spelling errors in my files, and why isn't there a PDF version of the logo included with the logo package they bought with my name on it. And so I tell them that those designs were not intended to be sold and I'm sorry that this has happened. In the meantime they have already blogged about my lack of quality and my brand takes a hit. My profits and new clients drop by 60% over the next 18 months. Now what are my options? I can continue without doing anything and hope I bounce back or I can bring criminal charges against my partner and file a lawsuit against the teenager who purchased and resold my designs knowing that they had not purchased licensing right to do so. In doing this I can publicly assure people that the quality of my workmanship has not diminished and the substandard designs sold were not meant for sale.
What? That analogy was long and boring? I should have just cut to the chase with a succinct criminal analogy and gotten on with it? Sorry about that, I didn't want some jagoff lecturing me about the differences between white & blue collar crime
Perfectly stated. But is this not obvious to everyone?
A "businessman" . . . ok. Sounds perfectly legit. LOL
You have a pretty cavalier attitude when it comes to the law.
If the kid did re-sell stolen property, (knowingly or not) he has just as much of a problem.
He'll need to prove these goods were acquired legitimately and that they weren't stolen.
If they were, it will be up to the kid to demonstrate that he didn't know he was receiving stolen goods. He would be expected to cooperate with the police to catch the real thieves (should be really interesting), but as long as he doesn't have a past history of theft he should only get probation.
However, we're talking about a minor here. Which excuses nothing, but is a mitigating circumstance. To let the kid get away with it, however, demonstrates that it's alright to do this, profit from it, and get your 15 minutes of fame. Which also means it's alright for minors to act as intermediaries for adult criminals.
It would be extremely irresponsible both legally and in terms of Apple's business to do nothing. So they've done the right thing by going after the kid. Hopefully the investigation will be extended.
By the way, a crime is a crime. Even if it's only one Joe Nacchio. The law doesn't discriminate between the quantity of criminals. LOL
Your example again doesn't contribute anything. At least this time it's less hyperbolic; although just as irrelevant.
If you had a business partner that was authorized to sell your work then there wouldn't be a crime. If your business partner stole your work and sold it to someone why would you hold the person that purchased it responsible? Because they may have known that it was acquired illegally, although may not have known? Do you really think that's how you'd approach it? I feel like if anything you're making the argument that Apple should be suing foxconn.
Should apple sue every person that bought a samsung smartphone/tablet? You're a silly person.
In regard to damages, or hypothetical damages, it is extremely unlikely that people buying third party parts for an iphone that they are going to disassemble and reassemble will believe Apple is responsible for the quality of said parts. If you bought a third party case that was poorly made you wouldn't blame apple. This argument is asinine.
And I was making the point that the difference between white collar and blue collar crime is a cultural one. If we quantify the effects white collar crime is always more harmful, but the blindingly naive tend to think blue collar theft is more offensive nonetheless. Example: You.
Perfectly stated. But is this not obvious to everyone?
A "businessman" . . . ok. Sounds perfectly legit. LOL
You have a pretty cavalier attitude when it comes to the law.
If the kid did re-sell stolen property, (knowingly or not) he has just as much of a problem.
He'll need to prove these goods were acquired legitimately and that they weren't stolen.
If they were, it will be up to the kid to demonstrate that he didn't know he was receiving stolen goods. He would be expected to cooperate with the police to catch the real thieves (should be really interesting), but as long as he doesn't have a past history of theft he should only get probation.
However, we're talking about a minor here. Which excuses nothing, but is a mitigating circumstance. To let the kid get away with it, however, demonstrates that it's alright to do this, profit from it, and get your 15 minutes of fame. Which also means it's alright for minors to act as intermediaries for adult criminals.
It would be extremely irresponsible both legally and in terms of Apple's business to do nothing. So they've done the right thing by going after the kid. Hopefully the investigation will be extended.
By the way, a crime is a crime. Even if it's only one Joe Nacchio. The law doesn't discriminate between the quantity of criminals. LOL
I'm not discussing the legality of his actions. "Law" has a pretty horrific history, my friend, and believing that it stands for "righteousness" is a silly proposition. At best we might say that law is a set of rules that attempt to prevent or encourage certain behaviors amongst a populace, but even that is a bit naive. When corporations don't like laws they lobby to have them changed. What might individuals do? Congregate around a given cause to broadly articulate a concern? Perhaps. That's a different discussion.
Also, do I really need to dig up the ridiculous laws that still exist to this day for you to retract your thoughtless statement, "a crime is a crime?" That is most certainly not the case by any qualification that stands fast for me, or I'd argue, the vast majority of individuals.
There was a point when it was illegal for a black man to own property in this country. If he attempted to do so it would be a crime. Rape would also be a crime. You contend that some sort of equality exists between these two behaviors?
Now a black man can buy property, so the illustration no longer serves. Would you contend, then, that we've perfected law? A crime is a crime? What could you possibly be trying to convey with this expression?
Again you have missed the point of the discussion. My first post was meant to illustrate the fact that even if a perpetrator of a crime is a teenager he is still to be held accountable for his actions.
Then you decide to make my post about white collar and blue collar crime in a vain attempt to cover for the teenager. So I then create a hypothetical to explain the damage done to apple when this type of thing occurs and you some how bastardize that to the point that no one even remembers that this is someone who purchased apple property (or at least presented as apple property) and then sold it, therefore profiting off of someone else's licensed property. Anyone who owns a business or has intellectual property understands that your arguments are ignorant and detracting. Good day sir
I SAY GOOD DAY!
In that case your concerns would be best addressed by your congressperson or your member of parliament, not this forum.
If your point was that a 17 year old misinterpreting patent law is a similar situation to a 17 year old murdering someone then I suppose the argument is fairly pointless. In one case it seems fairly reasonable that he might not understand the potential risks of his actions and if there was an ethical concern it was blurry. "Is it wrong to sell foxconn's products through an employee who recovered them from disposal without Apple's consent?"
In the other case it would have to be shown somehow that he didn't understand murder. Similar? Doesn't seem so.
If he were 19 the majority of these arguments would be unaltered.
Cheers.
How do you figure that? What part of my statements would be addressed to/by a congressperson?
Odd statement.