Apparently there’s a real market out there for Apple branded products that aren’t made by the Cupertino company. Yesterday we heard about a fancy little USB hub that came complete with a glowing Apple logo. Today, we’re hearing that Apple’s lawyers have stepped in and moved to block sales of the iHub USB device.
M.I.C has been a constant thorn in the side of Apple’s lawyers. They’ve had a number of products that Apple hasn’t been too pleased with in the past, the most notable being the Steve Jobs action figure.
M.I.C has notified customers of the product cancellation, but noted that any orders made prior to Apple’s take down request will be fulfilled. So, if you managed to get an order made in time, you will have a fancy new Apple branded USB hub heading your way in the near future.
We’re not lawyers, so we have to ask, can M.I.C actually get away with fulfilling these orders? If so, it seems like the gamble is worth making. Cashing in while you can get away with it, then get out when there are threats of legal action.
If you know anything about this from a legal standpoint, we’d love to hear from you.
Article Via 9to5Mac
It's basic contract law, without getting into the nitty gritty of contract law, (Jurisdictions precedents etc etc) say we are talking about one State of the USA. Both companies exist in and make certain products. Apple clearly has certain Intellectual Property rights, (stating the obvious but bare with me here). There is no law that states you can not produce a particular product or thing. Now Apple having I.P. rights does not automatically stop someone from reproducing a similar product. Apple needs to vigourously (and has done so in the past and present) pursue those rights and enforce them at law. Now having stated the obvious yet again, the company in question can use a defence similar to "we'll I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that until the letters from Apple's lawyers told me to stop and desist at which time I did from there on in" Now what we have is the fact the company made profits (assumption here and we all know what happens when you assume something you make an ass out of U and Me) up until they recieved that stop and desist letter. The question then for the Judge is quantum i.e. "What is the damage" ? What should the company pay Apple for damages.
Now that is an oversimplification of the concept and centuries of Contract Law into one paragraph but I hope that helps a little in any event. I hope you get my gist.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like