Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I looked that case up...

Doesn't it show the opposite of what you claim?

Hard2find's suit against Apple and Amazon was dismissed with prejudice and that decision was confirmed on appeal.

They ruled that Apple had immunity, which is not the same as finding that Apple didn't lie.

Well, they ruled Apple had immunity because their petition could not be construed as a sham. Also, they ruled there were no facts to support the Apple/Amazon conspiracies the plaintiff suggested AND ruled there wasn't even any hope that such facts could be supplied where the suit to be amended.

Whatever lie you think Apple is guilty of, there doesn't appear to be any sign of it amongst the material of the suit. Going to court is expensive and time-consuming, so I presume that if such facts were available, the plaintiff would have used them.

You can believe whatever you want, but it seems like you'll have to do it despite the absence of supporting facts, at least in this case.

I didn't say anything about the anti-trust claims, it's typical for plaintiffs to pile on as many claims as they think are remotely plausible to stick.

The lie is the claim that Apple made that plaintiffs were selling fake goods, which you'll note Apple retracted later. Whether they have liability for their lie or have immunity under free speech doctrines doesn't change the fact that they abused IP claims.

This is not an isolated instance with Apple, I have seen many others. But, as this case demonstrates, it's very tough to hold large companies accountable without a very large legal budget.

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

Wait a sec... you cited this case. If it doesn't actually address your main point then why reference it?

You're making pretty strong claims but are providing links to back it up that don't actually back it up. I don't see why anyone would take what you're saying seriously.

It shows Apple making an IP claim containing false allegations.

Like I said, the fact that they weren’t found to be legally liable for that is not relevant to the point I’m making, which is that they lied in an IP claim. Apple retracted the claim, as mentioned in the original complaint. They may have immunity under free speech doctrines for lying, but that doesn’t change the fact that they lied.

To be clear, the court didn’t make a decision either way on whether Apple lied. I am saying that they lied, based on the fact that they filed a complaint without basis or with flimsy basis (reviews that were not tied to a seller), and that I know of several other instances of Apple doing the exact same thing, I know some people were considering a class action against Apple for this last year. It’s just really hard and expensive to go up against Apple or any large company in court, so they are getting away with it.

Given that immunity doctrine, there’s a really high bar to proving liability. There’s enough facts there to determine that Apple had no reasonable basis for the claim.

No evidence?

H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.

See paragraph 37 and the other ones around it in https://www.scribd.com/document/232206495/Hard-2-Find-compla...

The court appeared to ignore the point there.

Note that "customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products" do not appear in the complaint.

I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from

Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be what they did. Was this overzealous or a dumb mistake? Maybe, maybe not - it's not clear that H2F wasn't selling counterfeit cases (""H2F also cannot support its conclusory assertion that the iPad cases it sold were genuine because it cannot say how or from whom it acquired them"). But it certainly wasn't a sham and that's the only bar Apple needs to clear for immunity under Noer-Pennington.

>Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit.

That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F.

Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.

I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune.

>one seller massively undercutting the rest

As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact