Teen Who Sold White iPhone Kits Reveals How Apple Hunted Him Down

**Chuckiechan** · February 19th, 2012, 02:32 PM

Teen Who Sold White iPhone Kits Reveals How Apple Hunted Him Down | Fox Business

**Chuckiechan** · February 19th, 2012, 05:07 PM

They won't do anything do him. They'll make him agree to a "cease and desist", and wish him well. They can't even make him sign one.

He's a juvenile cannot represent himself, and any agreement he makes is void anyway.

They just want to make a point. Probably get him to tell them how he did it so they can stop future issues like this.

This is a PR battle Apple cannot win and they know it.

**MTAtech** · February 20th, 2012, 09:34 PM

He agreed to it when he clicked "I agree" when he downloade the new iTunes.

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

Teen Who Sold White iPhone Kits Reveals How Apple Hunted Him Down | Fox Business

**SoloCamo** · February 20th, 2012, 11:40 PM

They will settle and nothing can really be done against the guy. Hopefully he doesn't get bullied out of all of the money he earned though by intimidation.

**RobRich** · February 21st, 2012, 10:36 AM

Thread cleaned up. Now back on topic....

**Epidemic** · February 21st, 2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

They will settle and nothing can really be done against the guy. Hopefully he doesn't get bullied out of all of the money he earned though by intimidation.

ummm does this kid even have a leg to stand on.

did these things infringe on copyright and or trademark? If I invent sell processors with intel written on them? can I sell motherboards with Asus written on them?

**Chuckiechan** · February 21st, 2012, 03:27 PM

It's a civil issue, not criminal. And he is a juvenile. You can't do much with civil against a juvenile, other than to go after the parents. And that would be a PR no-no for such a trivial case involving Apple's inability to secure their supply channels in China.

I'll bet a "cease and desist" will be agreed on, and it will go quietly into the sunset.

I suppose they could sue China for selling critical components to any Tom, Dick, and Harry with a credit card... One may even ask China where else they are shipping this stuff? That should keep the lawyers busy for awhile.

**MTAtech** · February 21st, 2012, 03:41 PM

Who says you can't do much with civil against a juvenile? If the kid has assets, he/she can be sued for monetary damages just like anyone else.

The components are likely manufactured in the same factory that Apple's are made. That often happens with brand names. Louis Vitton will contract to make 10,000 handbags. The company makes 20,000, with 10,000 sold on the streets in major cities.

**Chuckiechan** · February 21st, 2012, 09:30 PM

I don't think a juvenile has assets, unless they are held in trust.

We're not talking a bicycle here... or his laptop.

**MTAtech** · February 21st, 2012, 10:04 PM

The article said he was making $8,000 a day. Where did that go.

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

I don't think a juvenile has assets, unless they are held in trust.

We're not talking a bicycle here... or his laptop.

**Epidemic** · February 22nd, 2012, 08:53 AM

on the radio I heard something about 135,000 dollars sounds like an asset to me.

boy it would suck to gain 100 grand as a kid and have it taken away

But Apple does have trademarks they have rights to.

**MTAtech** · February 22nd, 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Epidemic

on the radio I heard something about 135,000 dollars sounds like an asset to me.

boy it would suck to gain 100 grand as a kid and have it taken away

But Apple does have trademarks they have rights to.

It doesn't suck if the $135,000 were from ill-gotten gains. It's the way it works. If you profit from patent infringement, you aren't entitled to the money when discovered.

**Epidemic** · February 22nd, 2012, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by MTAtech

It doesn't suck if the $135,000 were from ill-gotten gains. It's the way it works. If you profit from patent infringement, you aren't entitled to the money when discovered.

it sucks if the ill gotten gains were not intentionally ill gotten. Here you are a 17 year old kid who finds a niche that is not currently served and fills it it in good faith. poof he finds out that he has been infringing on apples turf. Now his 135,000 dollars that he was so proud of earning suddenly is stripped from him. Dude that would suck.

Now if he knew he was stealing and felt he was pullin one over on the man then you are somewhat prepared with an "oh well that how the cookie crumbles"

I don't know what this kid knew as he was doing this evil venture.

I am not suggesting apple is in the wrong, but I also can see where this would really suck for an honest kid trying to make a buck.

**MTAtech** · February 22nd, 2012, 11:05 AM

Ignorance of the law does not relieve one of liability. Moreover, how this 17 yr old could think he was doing something wrong is highly questionable.

**Epidemic** · February 22nd, 2012, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Ignorance of the law does not relieve one of liability. Moreover, how this 17 yr old could think he was doing something wrong is highly questionable.

ignorance to the law is no excuse. But I never suggested that the did was not liable for his actions. Apple has a legal royal flush. They have the absolute right to smack this kid down.

but that does not make the kid feel any better assuming he was just doing some internet sales of a cool niche market he found.'

Why you are arguing with me I don't know. We are essentially on the same page only I leave the door open for empathy.

**Taxmancometh** · February 22nd, 2012, 04:32 PM

What did this kid do wrong exactly? I don't see anything wrong with selling white iphone kits. So the kid is an entrepreneur.

**Epidemic** · February 22nd, 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Taxmancometh

What did this kid do wrong exactly? I don't see anything wrong with selling white iphone kits. So the kid is an entrepreneur.

I don't know but if they have the I-Phone trade mark then he is stealing the trademark. Probably the most guilty party is the chinese company that stuff to him. His recourse might be to sue them for damages (good luck suing in china though)

But I-phone was wronged and deserves the money he made using their fine name