End of Apple-1 Replicas?

If that's the case, does that also mean that (we) German hobbyists now have to relabel all of our clones so that we don't actually "commit a crime"??  Without wanting to start a political discussion, ... German authorities once again take the cake...

In post #1, 'retroplace-1' wrote:

" German customs confiscated an Apple-1 replica that was sent to me for repair. Major reason for them: The board features "Apple-1" wording thus being a copyright/trademark infringement. "

This is clearly retaliation against you, Armin, under "the color of law". Remember the customs trouble we had with the ICs I sent you despite a 100% conforming customs declaration made by UPS (line by line, every type of part, with prices ... it took UPS 3 hours to prepare the paperwork alone).

Then, you had to involve a lawyer and make a "Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde" against the customs officers not letting the ICs pass - despite you were willing to pay their extortionate customs fees and VAT. (For non German readers, a "Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde" is an official, written, filed complaint against a government official to their superiors to bring attention about wrongdoing / harassment of citizens / crimes and corruption of that official ... normally a very serious thing but nowadays you can be glad if the regime does not retaliate by claiming that you "insulted a German  government official" and put you on a arrest list. Same as it ever was ... Nazi / Gestapo methods, except this time, not under the swastika flag as back in 1933-1945 (more on this disgusting topic at the end of this post).

The usual course of action of course would be to lawyer up, and sue them for damages. If they destroy the Apple-1, then you may decide to find out who made the decision to do so, and destroy that person, totally.

Here is my take on the legal side of "copyright violation" and "trademark violation". Note that I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give you legal advice, I'm just telling you my opinion under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (oh, I also have the 2nd Amendment, just in case).

"Copyright violation:"

Woz has stated on several occasions that he regards his Apple-1 design as "public domain" and that he welcomes anyone to copy his Apple-1 design and to build one. Before I sold my famous kits, I did ask Woz for his permission to use his code in the PROMs for my kits. I got his permission with a long email basically stating that he always gave away the Apple-1 schematics and its firmware code for free, to anyone interested, and that I am welcome to use his firmware in my PROMs.

Copyright of anything first published in the 1970s required registration with the U.S. Library of Congress. For software, a human readable listing had to be provided. For a book, some of the books. Did Woz register the firmware in the Apple-1 as required to get full copyright protection according to U.S. law ? Can Apple (the corporation of today) show that they really, legally own the copyright of the Apple-1 firmware ? With a full, notarized, and not "made-up" / forged chain of custody of the relevant source code printouts ? Was there ever a contractual, provable, legal transfer of any "Apple-1" Intellectual Property, Copyrights (if any) and Trademarks (if any) from the long defunct "Apple Computer Company" owned by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak to the newly founded, "APPLE, INC." whose first product was the Apple II ? Without such a formalized transfer, the rights (Copyrights, Trademarks, ...) of the dissolved "Apple Computer Company" went under with it when it was dissolved, or, if the "Apple Computer Company" did not produce legal paperwork saying otherwise, the rights went back to the originator - in this case, Woz, who designed both the hardware and software of the Apple-1. This of course hinges on the assumption that the newly founded "APPLE, INC." did not buy the assets of the "Apple Computer Company", and if so, legal paperwork must exist for that purchase in the company archives. This we don't know. But what we know for sure is that "APPLE, INC." was not the product of a merger (like Boeing and McDonnelDouglas merged). Maybe Woz could comment what happend to their "Apple Computer Company". Was it just resolved ?

One copyright pitfall - no enforcable copyright !

Here is an anecdote about what happend with the "nonpareil" emulator of Eric Smith for the Hewlett-Packard calculators, which was based on microcode which was pulled out from real Hewlett Packard calculators. This is from my memory, so it may be inaccurate. But if I recall what came down is the following: it turned out that Hewlett Packard neglected to put a "Copyright" message on the ICs containing the microcode of the earlier models. This was required by U.S. Law, otherwise, copying the microcode was fair game as far as copyright on works first published in the 1970s was concerned. Patent protection of the calculator device as such, is a different story. So when HP  tried to stop the "nonpareil" emulator they only had traction on the microcode of the newer models, but not on the older models, whose ICs lacked the copyright message. A  "(c) 1973 HP" would have been enough ! For the Apple-1 case, was there ever a proper "Copyright" message on the PROMs themselves ? (I think there never was one, but I may be mistaken, as I do not have any Apple-1 original).

PCB artwork being different and independent work

Next thing: Copyright on the PCB artwork.  Not applicable because the layout / artwork of the PCBs you use was newly drawn from scratch by Misha Mdesk of Russia, who put these Gerbers into the Public Domain ! These Gerbers are not a verbatim copy, but a new work only 'inspired' by the original layout, and so there were very obvious differences. To fix that, these Gerbers were taken by the American Logan Greer and he made modifications to make them look closer to the original Apple-1 layout. But they still are NOT a verbatim copy of the original PCB layout, but an independent work. And hence, the copyright law does not apply to the (different, and recreated from scratch) layout of the Apple-1 motherboards you use.

Did you ever wonder about these cheaply made artist's renderings of persons and objects and historical scenes for which perfect photos exist ? Instead of using the copyrighted photos under license, which usually is expensive, the publishers pay an underpaid "artist", or rather, "draftsman" to quickly draw up a line rendering of said photo, and maybe add some colors. It typically can be done in less than half an hour, and costs only the exploitative minimum wage for that draftsman. Many of which are failed "artists" who could not make a living from their "art". The recent appearances of  A.I. generated "photos" in the web, often in independent news aggregations, are another way to dodge the copyright on original photos.

As another example, everybody knows Disney's copyrighted "Mickey Mouse". If you take such a comic to a photocopy machine, then you violate the copyright. But if you draw your own rendering, which looks quite similar, but has a few visible differences, it's your own artistic interpretation. Not a copyright violation. This is why for many famous comics, persiflage or mockery versions exist, made by independent publishers, and still are legal for sale. Apprentices of famous artists making copies of their master's works are the same as far as copyright is concerned. Copyright only protects a work from verbatim copying.

An Apple-1 clone or replica is not a verbatim copy.

"Trademark violation":

You have to check exactly how the registred trademark for Apple (the current corporation) looks like. The words "Apple" and "Computer" as such as seen on the Apple-1 motherboard replicas do not a Trademark violation make. Just need to use a different font, and no violation. I think that the font is different enough from the registred trademark. If you add a (R) symbol to the same text, despite it is different, you may enter legally treacherous waters. This is because Chinese counterfeiters of brand name luxury goods often intentionally misspell the brand name slightly. Or, for instance, they use a plump and comical looking crocodile with no likeness to the famous real brand name croc. These shenanigans are meant to dodge the issue of "Trademark violation". Which in the original intent and wording of the Trademark laws would have worked: any obvious difference, if the specimen are laid side by side, would invalidate claims of Trademark violation. But what happened is that western courts started to loosen up these criteria so the famous brands could continue prosecute the counterfeiters.

Another thought

Do you think that Apple (the current corporation) did ask German customs to crack down on your replicas / clones ? If so, you should have gotten a sternly worded letter from Apple's corporate lawyers first. If you didn't get such a letter (called "Cease and Desist" here in the USA) yet, then the whole thing stinks and it may indeed be a personal war waged against you by some psychopathic or mentally insane German customs goon.

Conclusion

The whole thing looks like a mockery of law, and to me looks more like a personal revenge campaign of certain customs officers against a German citizen and businessman who once dared to put up resistance against their wrongdoing and chicanery. They never forget, and will continue their personal feuds until they are dead and buried. This is how narcisstic psychopaths tick. Once triggered, they never stop with their evil ways, and they illegally misuse their powers from being a cog in the government apparatus for their personal feuds, "under the color of law".

Seems you triggered the wrong psychopath(s). Be very careful, and do not interact with them personally. Use a lawyer (aka "mouthpiece"). Because if you would get agitated (and this is what these evil bastards usually want to provoke) and "insult" them, then they can come for you in a much more serious way, and to dodge that you may need to leave the country to avoid getting arrested and thrown in a dungeon.

 (As a sidenote, for German readers, and to show y'all the larger political picture,  I would recommend leaving Germany - leave Germany before it's too late. IMHO, post WW II Germany always was a fascistic mess with Nazi laws still on the books, was never properly de-nazified, and now they are back, get bolder and bolder, and turn up the heat. Except they don't call themselves "Nazis" anymore. Whatever they are, they are tyrants who run roughshod over the rights of their "subjects". The mythical construct called "German Citizen" does not exist in the real world, because "citizens" do have a "Bill of Rights" like we have here in the USA. Including freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms. "Subjects" of fascistical regimes have none of that. But wait, it gets worse - German kangaroo courts are currently politically persecuting an American citizen, C J Hopkins, for him satirically pointing out, in his book, the Nazi-like ways the German government used in their totalitarian COVID policies during the pandemic. Oh the irony ! And they for sure persecute wrongthink and any criticsm of their disgusting  regime. By doing so, they expose themselves as being what they pretend to fight: fascistical tyrants / Nazis. This can only end badly, maybe in the same way as it ended in 1945. If you don't believe me that this is even possible, here is the link:

https://www.thefire.org/news/germany-punishes-american-writer-over-satirical-swastika-image

... I still wonder why Mr. Hopkins did not flee into the U.S. embassy to avoid this ordeal and this vile kangaroo court. Even if the epigones of Roland Freisler would have taken his U.S. passport away, so he could not leave their territory, he has rights as an American citizen to seek protection in any U.S. embassy or consulate. Note to Tom Owad - these are facts which may help to understand this whole issue from a higher perspective. Germany is rapidly turning into a lawless dictatorship with mock elections. Anything goes (for the government thugs / goons). Including customs psychopaths running amok against owners of local small businesses.)

I wish you all the best, Armin, and success in dealing with these swine. It may be more efficient and energy saving to move this part of your business to another country in the EU which is more favorable to small businesses. And pay your taxes there instead to Germany. Germany gets nothing.

- Uncle Bernie

retroplace_1 wrote:

Hi everybody,

 

today, German customs confiscated an Apple-1 replica that was sent to me for repair. Major reason for them: The board features "Apple-1" wording thus being a copyright/trademark infringement. They claim they will go talk to Apple's legal team for them to decide whether the replcia will have to be destroyed and further selling of replicas has to stop.

...

There is a fine line between a replica and a counterfeit and to someone who might not know that building Apple 1 replicas is a thing, that line would be completely invisible. You need to look at it from that perspective.

Apple doesn't care about Apple 1 machines at this point, but a customs agent whose role is to spot counterfeit goods like iPhones, Rolexes and Louis Vuitton bags would simply google “Apple 1” and see that they go for half a million. If it doesn’t say replica anywhere and looks almost identical to the original, he will simply label it counterfeit and move on to the next item.

The Apple-1 is a bastard, abandoned by its parents. I think part of the reason is that Woz borrowed the terminal circuitry from Don Lancaster's project and somewhat feared the consequences. The fate of the Apple-1 didn't bother the guys in Cupertino for half a century, why should anything change now?

Misha Mdesk also thought about the legality of using the original name, that's why he wrote on his site "any problems with copyright holders you solve yourself". In the Apple II Rev. 0 project of respected Mike Willegal the Apple Computer logo is present in a separate file, and this is not accidental. 

If I had a problem with sales because of copyright holders I would start by simply taping these places with green insulating tape used by electricians. And make a new photo with the taped logo for all lots on eBay. 

Another option is a bit more complicated but more reliable. It is necessary in CAD program to remove the name Apple-1 or replace it with a similar in meaning word of 5 letters. As an option Lemon-1, but I'm afraid it may scare off potential buyers.

Well, to live with wolves is to be able to howl like a wolf.

In post #7, 'Macintosh_nik' wrote:

" I think part of the reason is that Woz borrowed the terminal circuitry from Don Lancaster's project and somewhat feared the consequences. "

Uncle Bernie comments:

Please do not regurgitate the myth that Woz used Don Lancaster's 'TV Typewriter' design as a basis of his 'terminal section' in the Apple-1.

This is simply not true. I have thoroughly researched this topic and also have compared both schematics side by side and analyzed how they work.

Woz' design is indeed unique and creative and has no common traits with Don Lancaster's work, except for these traits:

- both use a Signetics 2513 character generator (in 1973 there were no other choices, and in 1975 the 2513 already was obsolete, and hence, cheap)

- both use Signetics shift registers (of various types) and the basic architecture of the long shift registers feeding the line buffer shift register was shown by Signetics in their databooks for these parts. This is what these parts were designed for and so both Don Lancaster and Woz just started there.

But the rest of the TV Typewriter and the Apple-1 'terminal sections' are quite different. Don's design is very simple and easy to understand but needs more ICs. Woz' design uses tricks played with the 74161 programmable counters and has many functions not found in the TV Typewriter.

Woz himself has clarified this topic in an email to Mike Willegal which you can find on this link:

https://www.willegal.net/appleii/appleii-first_page.htm

Here is the relevant citation, Woz wrote:

" I was totally unaware of Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter when I designed my TV Terminal to access the Arpanet.  I only found out about Don's device in subsequent years. Our designs had to be very different. I'm sure that both schematics are online so anyone could see this. I added a microprocessor and RAM to this terminal to create what became the Apple I. "

I followed this advice he gave and have compared the schematics. They are quite different. Oh, and since I already was an electronics hobbyist back at the time, I saw lots and lots of homebrew video terminals, beginning with 1973. Almost every computer magazine had their own version sent in by some developer. This was driven by the high prices for 'professional' video terminals. I have one Lear Siegler ADM-3A in my basement which came out in 1976. Lots and Lots of TTLs inside. No CPU. Price $995. And that was believed to be "lowest cost" back then. Compare to the Apple-1 ($666) and understand what "genius" is.

A note on the "Replica" identification: a simple remedy other than changing the PCB would be to paint over the relevant area with some ink, and then stamp "Replica" over it so that the "Apple" is gone and the text reads "Replica Computer 1". (Make sure that Acetone can remove that paint ...)

I don't know who is the owner of that confiscated replica Apple-1, but if it's an American, I'd rcommend to gather names and addresses of the customs individuals involved, and then file a lawsuit in an U.S. small claims court against these individuals for inentional, melevolent and wrongful destruction of the private property of an American citizen. This is cheap (I sued several people there, no lawyer needed) and the defendants have to show up at the court date so they can defend themselves. Otherwise they lose. And then, the court order saying that they need to pay up for the damages can be turned againt them. With a few more legal steps, they will be arrested whenever they set their foot on U.S. soil and only released when they pay up. I don't think that these criminals need to visit the USA, but if they do, they are fair game.

The key point here is not to give up and not to swallow their crimes as a victim. There must be pushback / retaliation. These swine need to be held liable and they must feel that they are not safe from prosecution because "they just followed orders". The last criminals who tried that defense of "just following orders" were sentenced to death and hanged by piano wire.

With no pushback /retaliation these swine get bolder and bolder and nastier and nastier. In engineering, there is the method of 'negative feedback' to keep a system under control. Give them 'negative feedback'.

- Uncle Bernie

I think this thread is starting to go off the rails a bit.

Apple, Inc. is the sole owner of its trademark. What Woz (or any other former Apple employee) thinks is irrelevant as they don't speak for the company.

From a technical perspective there is no difference between a "replica" and a "counterfeit." Both bear the company's trademarked name and both are in violation of said trademark unless the company officially approves of its use. The fact that Apple has not (yet) taken action on members of the vintage computing community for such replicas signals tacit acceptance of them, but is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. At any time Apple could change its mind and go after the creators for overstepping their bounds. No, Apple doesn't stand to lose any money from the sale of Apple I replica kits, but it does have the legal responsibility to defend its trademark, otherwise it can lose it. Apple has, so far, simply deemed that the scope and volume of these replicas do not put their trademark at risk.

You are not going to like this answer, but customs is well within its rights to seize what it suspects to be a counterfeit product. They are not vintage computer experts, and they do find other legitimate counterfeit products every day (like fake AirPods), so it is not surprising that it caught their attention. This has always been a risk when it comes to "reproduction" products and the only surefire way to work around it is to not use the trademark (which is very likely why Vince Briel named his product the Replica I and doesn't use the name Apple on it anywhere, for example).

I'm certainly hoping for a good outcome with this situation, but some of the more ostentatious sentiments expressed here should be tempered.

Dr. Webster wrote:

I think this thread is starting to go off the rails...

I totally agree that this is simply the result of being caught in a dragnet for something else, namely counterfeits. I don't think customs agents spend more than 2 minutes per item, so this is bound to happen every now and again. However when it happens it's a problem, since it can not only result in the destruction of the replica, but also carry a large fine. In Germany this is governed by the "Act on the Protection of Trade Marks and other Signs". Here is a link: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_markeng/englisch_markeng.html#p0953

It's important to take steps to prevent it from happening in the future, like not using Apple's copyrighted name or putting "replica" beside it. Consulting with a lawyer might be very helpful prior to changing the label on the PCB.

No matter the legal reasons, it is sad and infuriating. It is an extraordinary waste of money and human resources to have customs officials involved in such trifle.

In post #11, "ebruchetz" wrote:

" No matter the legal reasons, it is sad and infuriating. It is an extraordinary waste of money and human resources to have customs officials involved in such trifle. "

Uncle Bernie chimes in:

Exactly. This is why I got so infuriated and compared these customs goons with Nazis "just following orders", despite I have no dog in that fight, as it's not my property.

If these customs goons would be able to think, and not just "follow orders" they would wave that parcel through and not waste their time with that, because regardless if there indeed was the alleged "trademark violation", it does not matter as that "trademark" in that form and rendering - if it ever existed as such - was not used since almost half a century. The "Apple Computer 1" was only produced by the predecessor company of what we know today as Apple (the corporation with the AAPL stock) in Y1976 and was out of production since then. That corporation purged the word "computer" from its corporate name / identity long ago as it expanded its product line into other fields like computers. (Just as a sidenote, I think that "computers" as such are doomed to go the way of the Dinosaur, they are obsolete, and their functionality gets absorbed by and integrated into other technical gadgets, such as the smartphones, tablets, etc. ). The new corporate identity and image of Apple (the corporation with the AAPL stock) which even purged the rainbow from the famous "bitten apple" symbol could care less about the handful of  "Apple Computer 1" replicas being made by a few enthusiasts. This replica activity has zero (in the exact mathematical sense, zero, not 1e-12 or 1e-99) impact on their financial bottom line, but transports a lot of goodwill and fandom towards the company, including the "Woz Worship" complex of these "feelings". If  Apple (the corporation) would be stupid enough to take any hostile action against these replica activities, they might piss of and agitate a lot of their fans and followers: people have very fine antennas for what is wrong and what is right, and any hostile action could trigger large enraged  crowds on social media who then would see Apple (the corporation) as being the big bad school bully. Videos exposing them as such and calling for boycott on social media could get viral and lead to the "Bud Light" treatment by triggered and disgusted ex-followers of the brand.  It's simply not worth the risk and costs, they could lose billions of revenue due to such a boycott, besides the fact there is no business case to take any action. The topic of counterfeits of current Apple products still for sale raised by 'Dr.Webster' in post #9 ("AirPods", whatever that is) is an entierly different topic and a diversion.

The general trend we currently all can see with governments worldwide is that they turn more and more fascistic and hostile against the populace. In the UK they started to treat journalists exposing the truth as "terrorists", see this case here:

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/08/20/the-western-world-has-succumbed-to-tyranny/

and UK police also has started to kidnap UK subjects from their homes to throw them into prison for years, just for posting some criticism on social media that goes against the UK government narration. Doesn't that look like what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in his book "The Gulag Archipelago" ?

Or like what happened to the figure of Archibald Buttle in the 1985 movie "Brazil", which, BTW, plays in a post nuclear war UK.

Really spooky. To me all this looks like the "inmates running the asylum" and it will not end well, neither for the governments nor for the people. John Lennon spoke out about the insanity of the world's "leaders". Whether he was murdered for that reason (exposing the wrong people as what they are) I can't say for sure, but there are clues it could have been an assassination plot.

Regardless what happens, we, as the Apple-1 community, should not tolerate any of these transgressions against one of our peers. Alas, we are too small in numbers (wordwide) to rise a sh*tstorm against the goons in the Munich customs office which did the wrong thing and want to destroy foreign private property for reasons that are null and void, at least they could conclude that, if they were allowed to think, and not just "follow orders".

If they really would go forward to destroy that Apple-1 replica, you have got the proof that they really are non-thinking, blunt instruments of a tyranny, who have no conscience and, if given the orders, would also walk you to a ditch and shoot you in the back of your head. And then, after "work", go home and pat the head of their own kids.

This is the type of monsters which get attracted by government positions of power. Same as it ever was. Trouble is, most people are oblivious to that threat, and can't see where the world is heading. This includes myself. I thought that this evil was over in 1945, and after the main perpetrators were hanged on piano wire, after the Nuremberg trials. ButI was mistaken. The monsters are back ! And not only in Germany.

- Uncle Bernie

retroplace_1 wrote:

...

The Apple-1 PCB does not include the name of the copyright holder, so its PCB design is in the public domain.

...

It doesn't? What is this a picture of then? If this is not the one in question, can you post a picture or link of the one that was ceased by customs?

"Apple Computer" is the old name of Apple, so they still own it. The words do not need to be in a particualr order. If this is the label on the PCB, it is enough for a proper copyright.

In post #14, 'CVT' wrote:

" If this is the label on the PCB, it is enough for a proper copyright. "

Uncle Bernie comments:

Copyright on what please ?

The PCB layout ?    ---- Sorry, "Copyright" does not apply here as the layout is a new, independent rendering done by third parties who put their work into the public domain. There are lots and lots of subtle differences visible even to the naked eye. Such as the traces on the replica PCB being CAD drawn and absolutely straight lines with exact spacing between traces. The original layout was made by hand glued self-adhesive traces and has small "wiggle room" und imperfections everywhere. This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the replica PCB is an independent work and as such CANNOT infringe on any copyright.

The contents of the PROMs which (AFAIK) never was registred with the Library of Congress and never (AFAIK) had a proper copyright notice on the PROMs of the original Apple-1 ?  --- this means, as seen in the various lawsuits on that topic, there is NO ENFORCEABLE COPYRIGHT on the PROMs contents.

I've explained that in numerous posts I made above.

The only real threat left is the issue of a "trademark" violation. This is something where I don't know the current laws well enough to draw a conclusion, but this topic is very complex. For instance, if a registred trademark has not been used in the registred form on a product offered for sale for a certain period of years, it gets weakened and anyone can go to the trademark office and file a form demading this trademark to be deleted from the register. The only way for the owner of such a trademark which fell into disuse to keep it is to quickly stamp it on some products of the class of product for which the trademark was registred, and offer them for sale to the public. This is German trademark law, circa 1980s, and I know it because I went through the process to capture one of these disused trademarks for my own product(s). The attempt failed because the owner of the trademark  quickly rubber stamped it onto a few (maybe 100) four-function calculators and placed them a basket with them at a kiosk in a subway station used by many employees of the German patent office. They sure snapped some photos and so had proof for recent commercial use of the trademark, so I could not capture it. But this is tempi passati - both that company and all (!) their trademarks are long gone. My products are still being made up to this day, although in small batches by enthusiasts --- and I made this possible by placing everything in the public domain. This is the only way how to make your products and designs immortal. (I think Apple (the corporation) should long have done the same, at least with their legacy products which were out of production since many decades and there is ZERO impact on their financial bottom line if somebody makes replicas).

It will be interesting to follow this case and see Apple (the corporation's) reactions, and if these reactions are hostile against the replica scene or neutral or friendly. If they chose to be hostile, this may lead to videos on social media, as I explained in my previous post above, which, if they go viral, might cost Apple (the corporation) billions in lost revenue, if they get exposed as "the big bad bully" and enough of their followers follow a call for boycott. The "Bud Light" treatment. It would be sad.

On the other hand, if Apple (the corporation) was smart, they would support the replica scene, as this scene produces a lot of good will towards Apple.

I have a related problem with my "Replica 2e" project, although there, I can avoid the trademark issue easily, and since all the PCB and hardware design is mine, and all the patents Apple (the corporation) ever had on the Apple II series have long expired. But there is still the copyright issue with the firmware-in-ROM and the character generator. All these ROMs in the originals had the proper copyright message (c)19XX Apple on them and hence the copyright is valid and enforcable. So unless I can get a license from Apple (the corporation) for use of their firmware, there will be no Replica 2e kits with any copies of copyrighted Apple ROMs. Builders of these kits will have to supply their own ROMs. But I would prefer to get a license from Apple ;-)   . . . did not try yet. Because my work is not yet complete.

As for the conduct of the German customs office:

Destruction of cultural icons (whether originals or replicas) is an act of vandalism, and disrespect of private property, and anyone who engages in such a vile act of destruction shows that he or her, being a vandal, is not fit to live in a civilized society. Think "Orcs". The excuse of "just following orders" does not right a wrong, and mixing in any amount of "color of law" does not make an act of vandalism and destruction of private property right. In a civilized society, they would have to fully reimburse the owner of the item they destroy for all costs and damages incurred to the owner, to make that owner whole. If they don't do that, they are just goons / "Orcs" with no conscience and have no place in a civilized society (note that I don't imply that they must be put to death, to remove them from society, but blaming, shaming and shunning them whereever they go would be an appropriate response. If the full name and portrait photo of the customs goons involved in the act of destruction could be obtained, then they could be put on a website exposing them as the vandals they are, to live in shame and infamy forever, for the questionable laurels to have been the first customs goons / "Orcs" in the history of mankind who dared to destroy an Apple-1 replica. And of course, look at the country who engages in such disgusting anti-civilisation acts: Germany. Again. Every. Single. Time. Being mean or outright evil seems to be a national trait of their "government officers".

Note that the above criticism shall not be construed that I endorse counterfeiting of copyrighted or trademarked or patented products which are still in production by the rightful manufacturer. This is a completely different topic than replicas of products which were out of production since 40-50 years.

On the righteousness of making and owning replicas

Making replicas of desirable items is a honest trade which countless artisans and small scale manufacturers have plied over countless millennia of human civilization. The legitimate reason is that there always are connaisseurs or collectors who came too late to get an original. For instance, most "Greek" statues seen in museums are replicas. Many paintings on display are replicas (even if the museum owns the original --- it's a matter of insurace and protection against light and vandalism). Or, just look at the famous "Deutsche Museum" in Munich - and watch out how many of their displays are replicas. Even their Z3 computer is a replica. This should be proof enough that making replicas of computers is "normal" nowadays.

Maybe we should crowd-fund to sponsor a bag of hammers for the goons in the Munich customs office, so they could go out and smash every replica of any type seen in any museum in Munich. They would be immensly satisfied, and probably jerk off in the process of destruction.

- Uncle Bernie

Copyright and trademark are completely unrelated issues.

A copyright claim might be arguable in this case. With the trademark, I see zero hope.

Apple has registered the word "Apple" as a trademark in the fields of "computers, computer software, computer peripherals". They registered the _word_.They also registered various logos, of course, but that is yet another matter. Again, they registered the word "Apple" as such.

They also registered hundreds of other, more specific word combinations involving "Apple" in other fields. For example "Apple News" or "Apple TV" for the field of media and video services. But in the field of computers, they own "Apple <anything>". Clearly includes "Apple Computer".

Doesn't matter which font you use. Doesn't matter if it's your or their design. Or if the design is covered by a copyright or not. As soon as you provide "goods or services to a third party" in the field of computers, you cannot label it involving the word "Apple" (unless the trademark owner gave you a license).

What you can do is to include it as a necessary description of a product only: the usual example is selling peripherals, where offering something as a "Mouse compatible with Apple computers", or  "Interface Card for Apple computers" is allowed. But labelling your own product as "Apple Computer Mouse" or "Apple Interface Card" is not. Labelling your own product as "Apple Computer" and selling/sending it to a third party? Good luck! ;-)

UncleBernie wrote:

In post #14, 'CVT' wrote:

" If this is the label on the PCB, it is enough for a proper copyright. "

 

Uncle Bernie comments:

Copyright on what please ?

...

On the original Apple I PCB design – the thing Apple was trying to protect when they put the copyright label.

Now if at some point Apple willingly put it into the public domain in its original form along with the label as we see it in the picture above, that would be a great argument to make to customs and to Apple why the motherboard should be released immediately. But no one in this thread has presented evidence that Apple has done that.

However saying that Apple’s copyright is invalid because it’s not in the form “© 1976 by Apple Computer” is ridiculous. If we follow this logic, we would incorrectly deduce that the copyright of the Apple IIe is invalid too, since it also doesn’t follow this wording pattern:

IMG_7911.JPG

Even saying something like “this has been out of production since the 70s and there is a retro community that replicates them as a hobby” would have been better than challenging Apple’s copyright on a technicality.  Keep in mind that if they contacted Apple, it will go to one of their on-campus lawyers and no lawyer in their right mind will agree that Apple’s copyright is invalid.

In post #17, 'CVT' wrote:

" On the original Apple I PCB design – the thing Apple was trying to protect when they put the copyright label. "

Uncle Bernie clarifies:

Agree with CVT's opinion that it's the PCB layout which the two Steves sought to protect with that copyright message.

But as I've pointed out in my post #15, the layout of all the replica PCBs is an independent work and as such CANNOT infringe on any copyright. Copyright only protects the exact form from verbatim copying, and this is not the case here. Alone the "technique" used is different, the hand glued tapes used to make the original layout vs. the CAD tools used to make the replica layout prove that it's an independent work.

The fact that the 1976 copyright message was copied verbatim to have a faithful replication of the original may be an issue, but I can't comment on that, as I don't know any rulings of the courts in similar cases. All I know  I did write in my above posts, and I gave enough examples that everybody should be able to understand.

Also, I never claimed that the copyright message as such is somehow wrong and hence invalid. This nonsense was claimed by others. But it is true that under U.S. copyright law of the 1970s, ICs containing software or microcode or whatever for which a copyright protection has sought, must have at least the (c) and the year printed on that IC or on a label that is glued to it. No such marking, and the software in that IC is fair game. I have followed numerous lawsuits from the time being and the U.S. courts always decided, no (c) marking on the ICs, no copyright protection. Those involved of course learned all this only after the fact, and some companies were badly surprised. After that, everybody rushed to put those messages on their ICs containing software. One particularly interesting case for me was about a chess computer from an American company whose ROM did not carry a copyright message, and a Hong Kong based company produced cheaper knockoffs in much larger numbers, although in a different enclosure and different keyswitches, and sold them all over the world. The software was a 1:1 copy. The American company sued and lost the case for lack of the copyright message on the ROM. They went out of business. The copycat company went on and became a major chess computer manufacturer (now also defunct). The original chess computer was named "Compuchess" and the copycat product was named "Chess Champion Mk 1".  You can look it up, it's on the internet.

The issue with the "Apple" trademark is the real problem. But I'm not knowing enough about trademark law to dare a guess about possible outcomes. Ideally, Apple (the corporation) might give Armin a license to produce a certain number of these replicas, and leave the "Apple Computer 1" text there, so it would become an "official" replica, trademark "Apple" used under license. At least this is how rational actors would resolve the issue peacefully without stirring up hatred and possible overreaction from agitated masses on social media. In the end, for the financial bottom line of Apple (the corporation) these replicas have zero impact, as I mentioned before. But once the customs goons in Munich "just follow orders" and set something in motion, Apple (the corporation) must react, to protect their interests. All we can hope that the two parties work out a constructive solution, and avoid a destructive one. Destruction is just stupid, and an act of vandalism and hostility. Only Orcs like to destroy.

If they don't find an amicable solution, Armin must mark his replicas differently. The "LEMON COMPUTER 1" he suggested in a post above would fit into the same space on the PCB and would also mock Apple (the corporation) and expose them to ridicule (in social media). But I think such a mockery would be unfair to Woz. Because  the Apple-1 is not a bad design (a "lemon"). For a  first product design in a new technology and a new field of commerce (microcomputers were a novelty back then) the Apple-1 design was surprisingly bug free. As you all know, I fixed all the bugs of the motherboard and of the ACI, the fixes were very small and simple to do, and now every Apple-1 replica using these fixes works perfectly robust. Apple (the corporation) could have done the same fixes, as they are easy to conceive and easy to implement, instead of "buying them back", but they probably were too focused on the ongoing development of the Apple II, to get it on the market as soon as possible. For those who are too young to have witnessed that time, there really was a race to market, and the Apple II, the Commodore PET 2001, and the Tandy / Radio Shack TRS-80 appeared at about the same time. So there was no time to waste in the rush to market.

I'm very curious how this affair works out and what face Apple (the corporation) will show behing the mask. The goons of the Munich customs office already have shown their true face and exposed themselves as what they are, a shame for all of mankind. If they had had brains and proper judgement, they would have let that replica pass. But now, there is an affair of international dimensions which could snowball into an avalanche and cause more damages to everybody involved than what the whole issue is worth. And all because of one replica which got into their dragnet. One !

- Uncle Bernie

I'm not sure I buy that a replica of the PCB layout is an "independent work". The replicas are intended to look as much as possible like the original (despite their visible differences), so they are more like "slavish copies" (another term of art).

The physical means of realization don't matter, as the operative question is the creator's state of mind. At each step or problem, his choice to do what closest resembles the original is what defines a "slavish copy". It was possible, of course, to connect the IC sockets in a different manner, with traces following different paths, which would have been an "independent work". The replica creators chose not to.

UncleBernie wrote:

In post #17, 'CVT' wrote:

" On the original Apple I PCB design – the thing Apple was trying to protect when they put the copyright label. "

 

Uncle Bernie clarifies:

Agree with CVT's opinion that it's the PCB layout which the two Steves sought to protect with that copyright message.

But as I've pointed out in my post #15, the layout of all the replica PCBs is an independent work...

If it's independent work, then I have three Ys:

1. Why is Apple's copyright label on the "independent work"?

2. Why does the "independent work" have every single element in the exact same location as the original?

3. Why do all the traces of the "independent work" have the same shape and position as the original?

No, this is not independent work. This is a 1:1 copy. Just look at the original (#6 from the Apple-1 registry) vs the first one I found on eBay:

A1-6.png

eBay.png

We're fortunate, in the vintage computer hobby, that few companies have persued copyright and trademark claims, when they easily could.

My breadboard design in 2003 was the first modern Apple-1 compatible processor section, followed soon after by Vince's complete design, which is the one I used in my Apple-1 book. At the time, we were concerned about getting sued by Apple. Fortunately, the Apple-1 Owners Club (which is functionally this forum) has permission from Apple to distribute the ROMs, which is the only potentially copyrighted material we were using. You could also make the argument that the Owners Club has permission to distribue PCBs, or that the design is in the public domain, because of how it was originally distributed.

Trademark, though, is an entirely different matter. The hobby is fortunate that Apple's turned a blind eye, but explicitly asked, I don't think there's any question what an Apple lawyer is going to say about anybody else selling an "Apple Computer".

"Independent work" is ridiculous, inserting an image of the original board into a CAD program and laying tracks on top of the image is called copying and nothing else. Any creativity is possible only in places closed on the photo ic sockets, no more... 

Nobody but Apple or their official distributors have the right to sell Apple-branded electronics. So in my opinion German customs is doing the right thing, it is their responsibility to identify and seize counterfeit products.

Is this computer made by Apple? 

No. It was assembled by Armin at home or something. 

Does Armin have anything to do with Apple? 

No, he doesn't work for Apple and he's not an official Apple distributor. 

And yet the board says Apple on it... 

That's like buying a dozen t-shirts, putting Nike or Adidas logo on them and trying to sell them on eBay. If you name the board Lemon-1 and remove any mention of Apple from the lot description, how many of them do you think you'll sell?

This kind of activity was possible for a while in the hope that the legal copyright holder would turn a blind eye because of the low volumes. Morally, Armin is selling something he doesn't own, something he has nothing to do with. In a society where intellectual property and copyrights are respected, such a business model is unacceptable even in small quantities. It's a matter of principle. In the U.S., as I understand it, there is case law? This is a very dangerous challenger.

In post #22, "Macintosh_nik" wrote:

" Independent work" is ridiculous, inserting an image of the original board into a CAD program and laying tracks on top of the image is called copying and nothing else. Any creativity is possible only in places closed on the photo ic sockets, no more... "

Uncle Bernie comments:

the same argument was also brought up by 'robespierre' in his post #19, the topic of "slavish copy". Now, to understand what that means for U.S. courts of  law, you need to look into the various cases dealing with 'slavish copies' of copyrighted works. There have been many cases trying to define what a "slavish copy" is. This is a very complex topic but in the end the question is: was some independent thinking, some creative process, involved in the making of the copy ? If no, then it's a slavish copy. If yes, it's not.

The process of the recreation of the original Apple-1 PCB layout has been very well documented (see Mike Willegal's webpage) and so we know exactly how it was done. And we know where "independent thinking" and a "creative process" came in: by routing the traces which are hidden below the IC sockets. This is new, independent work. Looks ridicolous, I know, but courts also argue about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill Clinton).

In one case, the court decided that reproduction of a photo with exactly the same items and scenery, but different lighting (!) would already comprise an independent work that can be copyrighted, and not a "slavish copy".

"Macintosh_nik" brought up the invisible traces before I could comment on 'robespierre's post #19, but his argument that this is irrelevant as they can't be seen in the populated motherboard is null and void . . . a copyright on a PCB layout involves the naked PCB, and then the differences who turn it into an "independent work" can be seen for anyone with eyes and a brain.

So I still stand to my comment that any reproduction of the Apple-1 motherboard layout must inevitably be an "independent work". As a researcher of the Apple-1 and its history (I write a book about it) I knew about the process which was used to make these new CAD layouts, and I knew about the hidden traces having not been copied from an original - because nobody would destroy one of the priceless originals just to see the hidden traces.

So please, don't waste our time with arguments about the PCB layout. This case is settled from an objective point of view. Of course, any fascistic court of law with bought and paid for judges and juries may decide differently. But at least here in the USA, you still may be lucky and get an independent judge who has not been captured by the fascists. No hope for the EU, it's already a fascistic dictatorship (see the book "The Trap" from Sir James Goldsmith for the exact machinations how that came down, and if you live in the EU and don't believe this, just look at the recent crackdowns on "free speech" in the EU and the UK).

Tom Owad's post #21 brings up this point of view:

" We're fortunate, in the vintage computer hobby, that few companies have persued copyright and trademark claims, when they easily could. "

I have made the same observation, and I know the reasons why. I held several high ranked positions in the semiconductor industry and part of that was advising CTOs and CEOs about patent issues (the technical side). I was quite stunned to learn how they think. The point is, they see everything from a "financial bottom line impact" point of view. If some competitor infringes a patent of the company, but there is no impact on the company's product line, for instance, the products covered by the patent are already obsolete or in decline, or if there is newer, better technology, they won't sue. Because regardless if they would win or lose the lawsuit, there will be no financial gain worth the effort and spent energy / manpower.  And then there is always the risk of countersuits. So what they do is, they assess the situation and then put the case onto a pile of "munition", just in case that competitor sues them for infrigement of one of the competitor's patents. But other than "earmarking" the case as potential munition, nothing else is done. Exept in those cases where huge money is at stake. Then they will sue (if they dare ... don't try to sue IBM, for instance, because IBM has so many patents that some of them will be infringed by your company, regardless what due diligence you do).

This is also why no independent inventor should ever file a patent. It's a total waste of money, and you tell the competition how your invention works. They will just steal it and willingly infringe on your patent (if they see an advantage doing so) and if you threaten to sue, they just shrug and say: "Well, if you have the millions of US$ for your lawyers, go ahead and sue"). This is how the world works, folks.

For the replica scene, there is yet another aspect other than the "financial bottom line impact" one. And this is a psychological one I have pointed out in my posts above. Making replicas of long obsolete products which have been out of production from the original manufacturer is the most sincere form of flattery and causes no harm. Instead, it generates a lot of fandom and good will towards a brand. In the end, these replicas are ambassadors for the legacy of the brand. It's a form of cult, a form of worship of technical idols. Disciples of the Apple cult are particularly fanatic. And nobody can predict how these disciples and followers would react  if the company takes hostile action against any form of worship of their ex-products - the "icons".

So, now you have two good reasons why Tom wrote: " ... few companies have persued copyright and trademark claims ... "  against the replica scene. After all, the product has long been out of production, there is zero financial impact, and instead, replicas are ambassadors of the brand and generate a lot of curiosity and good will. And any hostile action could piss off a lot of followers and fans of the brand. Look up what happened to "Bud Light" - a bit different, no "replica" involved, but they made a stupid mistake which pissed off their customers, and now the brand is damaged beyond repair.

The sad part of our case is that the goons of the  Munich customs office - "just following orders" - outed themselves as vandals and iconoclasts by threatening to  destroy  a replica, which is totally inacceptable for any civilized society, considering that there are  irreplaceable  ICs in it. The actual piece of possible offense is just  the  trademark  issue. Which is up to Apple (the corporation) to decide what to do. Their best move would be to do nothing, or maybe grant Armin a limited license to use the words "Apple Computer" on his replicas. So he does not need to rename then into "Lemon" or something else.

I don't think that this is the "End of Apple-1 replicas" as we know them. The Apple-1 replica scene has been active for 20 years now, and over these 20 years no hostile actions I know of have occured.

The real problem, which will indeed bring the inevitable "End of Apple-1 replicas" is the worldwide stock of critical ICs drying up. These ICs (Signetics 1404/2504, 2513, 2519, National Semiconductors DS0025 and LM323K) and their drop-in equivalents are gone at all stocking IC brokers worldwide. None left. Except for one source of 2519 in Israel, and they want moon prices. (Beware of non-stocking IC brokers, they don't have what they offer, but just copy the listings of Chinese IC counterfeiters, and then you get re-labeled counterfeits which don't work in the Apple-1).

This is why I can't make any more IC kits, and why the building of new Apple-1 replicas has slowed down to a trickle, as far as I can tell. There are still a few hobbyists who occasionally find some of these rare ICs (just recently, I got a photo with a tray of maybe two dozen Signetics 2519 somebody found), but these random finds won't perpetuate the building process for long, if they ever get offered for sale.

So it's the lack of critical ICs which will be the "End of Apple-1 replicas", or, to be more precise, the "End of Apple-1 replica building".

And this end is nigh.

Those replicas which already have been built (and thanks to my published reliability mods and improvements actually do work robustly) will "live" on and be handed down as family heirlooms, or, if the heirs are unworthy, be thrown in the trash. But beware the German customs goons - never try to bring an Apple-1 replica into Germany. This is the lesson we all can learn from this sad episode.

Other than that, we will continue to enjoy our Apple-1 replicas / clones. I'll soon release part #1 of my toolchain so people can write assembly language programs for the Apple-1 with ease, as everything is automated, all you need to know is how to write 6502 assembly code.

- Uncle Bernie

UncleBernie wrote:

...

And we know where "independent thinking" and a "creative process" came in: by routing the traces which are hidden below the IC sockets. This is new, independent work.

...

A 100% accurate copy is not a requirement to trigger a copyright violation. If it was, every single knock-off out there would be home free. You will also be able to take any piece of music (or software), change a couple of notes (or instructions) and call it your own.

So it’s still an unauthorized copy, even if some hidden traces on the PCB could not be copied perfectly.

The sad part of our case is that the goons of the  Munich customs office - "just following orders" - outed themselves as vandals and iconoclasts by threatening to  destroy  a replica, which is totally inacceptable for any civilized society, considering that there are  irreplaceable  ICs in it. The actual piece of possible offense is just  the  trademark  issue. Which is up to Apple (the corporation) to decide what to do. Their best move would be to do nothing, or maybe grant Armin a limited license to use the words "Apple Computer" on his replicas. So he does not need to rename then into "Lemon" or something else.

I fail to understand how said "goons" would be experienced enough to discern what is a "reproduction" board and what is a counterfeit, especially when they've likely never even heard of the Apple I and process thousands of packages of different kinds every day. Should customs officials become experts in all of the possible goods that could be inspected and have intimate knowledge of all their minutiae so that they can know which ICs, for example, are irreplaceable? If so, that's madness.

In post #25, "Dr.Webster" wrote:

" Should customs officials become experts in all of the possible goods that could be inspected and have intimate knowledge of all their minutiae so that they can know which ICs, for example, are irreplaceable? If so, that's madness. "

Uncle Bernie comments:

No, it's not "madness". As I explained in the above thread again and again, it's "just following orders". I also explained that this is the type of people would, if given orders, would walk you to a ditch and shoot you in the back of your head. Sure, a different sort of evil (worse) then the evil of destroying private property of foreigners, but still evil. The point here is that a "goon", once acting under the color of law, for a government, stops thinking and turns off his/her conscience. And then, anything goes.

A civilized society would not tolerate any of that.

Unless customs has given specific instructions from Apple (the corporation) to confiscate and destroy these replicas, they should not even  dare to threaten "destruction" of anything. This is callousness, uncivilized behaviour, just not tolerable for any civilized person.

What would they say if somebody stabs all four tires of their (private) car with a knife ?

Sure they would get upset. And clamor about "vandalism". And "uncivilized behaviour".

Anyways, what peculiar way to make a living is that, being a customs goon ? Kidnapping parcels belonging to other people and holding them to extort ransom from the rightful owners. I wonder how these people can even look in a mirror !

There are only three ways to make a living, both in the plant and the animal kingdom:

- being a predator

- being a producer

- being a parasite

I frankly don't know where to put these people."Producers" they are not.

You might guess at this point that I'm a Randian. Her fictional "John Galt" would say:

"I don't take this job".

And when asked why, he would say:

"Because this job should not even exist".

I take it for granted that people who did not free their minds from the government brainwash in school will find my points of view hard to follow, but I don't care. If something is written into "law" it does not automatically imply that that law is fair and just. Most "laws" are badly written and ambiguous, and should not exist. Like that job which should not exist. I do not want to give you a lecture about what is wrong with "The System", especially not here on a vintage computer site. I'm just saying what happened is wrong, damn wrong, and all this only because these customs officers are no Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz from the TV show "Hogan's Heroes". It's a comedy, sure. But he would have "known nothing", "seen nothing" and all would be fine, and everybody would be happy. The problem with German government officials is that they are inhuman and don't think / reflect about their actions and "just follow orders".

Otherwise they would have let this replica pass and this thread would not exist.

What a waste of time and effort for everyone who contributed opinions.

- Uncle Bernie

Dr. Webster wrote:

I fail to understand how said "goons" would be experienced enough to discern what is a "reproduction" board and what is a counterfeit, especially when they've likely never even heard of the Apple I and process thousands of packages of different kinds every day. Should customs officials become experts in all of the possible goods that could be inspected and have intimate knowledge of all their minutiae so that they can know which ICs, for example, are irreplaceable? If so, that's madness.

Precisely, the customs agents are just doing their job. Now if Apple comes back with “this is not an issue”, or “it is an issue, but we no longer care”, you can’t really blame customs for causing the delay. They are not supposed to be counterfeit experts in every single product that has existed in the last 50 years. Instead, in this case it would be a good idea to contact them and obtain Apple’s response in writing, so it can possibly be used in future precedents.

If however Apple comes back with “yes, this is a copyright or trademark violation”, then the customs agents not only did their job, but they were also right in their initial assumption. Then the issue is entirely with Apple and asking for an official permission from them would be the correct approach to take.

I think the author of this thread has a very solid grasp on reality, unlike some other forum members who seem to be struggling. I hope for a positive outcome and wish him luck!

In post #27, CVT wrote:

" Precisely, the customs agents are just doing their job. "

Uncle Bernie comments:

 Correct. They are just doing their "job": kidnapping parcels and holding them for ransom. Occasionally, "just following orders", they choose to threaten to destroy private property of foreign, souvereign persons. They make threats to intimidate everybody involved, even before they know all the facts about what they have caught in their dragnet. Again, this is not civilized behaviour. It is the behavior of Orcs / goons. They could do their "job" in a much more polite and reasonable way. Without making threats. Without destroying, or threatening to destroy private property of foreigners.

Any act of destruction is evil, period. Whether an act of destruction is done by a government, a government goon, or a street thug, does not matter. Wrong is wrong. And might does not make right.

As for your take on "reality", dear "CVT", this mind construct does not exist as an Absolute. Every individual on the planet lives in their own reality. Which is largely shaped by past experiences, good or bad. These experiences come from stimuli received by factulties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Stimuli are processed by the brain.  The brain classifies and draws conclusions. These conclusions may deviate from what the governments have implanted by brainwash and propaganda, which to some extent is necessary to shape the masses into obedient sheep - think taxpayer - which can be led to the slaughter without putting up any resistance - think the draft for a war to the benefit of banksters. Lining up to get an injection of a slow acting, lethal, mRNA based bioweapon is just another form of slaugther. Once you took the proverbial "red pill" and start independent thinking, you can see all this. Take the "blue pill", stay asleep as a sheep.

I am well aware that I can't right all the wrongs in the world, but I can expose these wrongs, and blame and shame the perpetrator(s). This is what everybody perceiving a wrong can do. Blind obedience and acceptance gets us nowhere other than into a  "prison for your mind" (Morpheus).

Resistance is not futile, it is necessary.

Just as a final nudge for your thinking (I'm fed up with this topic of the confiscated Apple-1 replica), this is not about counterfeit merchandise flooding a marketplace in large numbers and hitting the bottom lines of the rightful manufacturer. It is a about a single specimen of a hand-crafted replica of a computer which has been out of production for almost half a century. This replica is not "merchandize", instead, it is "private property" of the rightful owner which has been sent to the recipient for repairs. This should be obvious even for the dumbest customs goon, if they can read names and addresses of sender and recipient.

Sure, "the almighty government" has written themselves "laws" that they can confiscate and seize even private property and destroy it without fair and just compensation paid to the owner, but many "laws" are faulty and lead to overreach. One principle I use to determine if some action may be classified as a crime is to ask if there is a victim, and if that victim has sustained objective damages from the alleged crime. In this case, I can't see any objective damages, Apple's financial bottom line has not been hit in any way, no current product in their product lineup is affected in any way, and we could also argue that making replicas or their long abandoned products generates benefits and goodwill for the corporation, even if it is just arising curiosity. The alleged trademark violation is alone Apple's (the corporation) to handle, and we all can only hope they handle it tactfully and reasonable, after the Munich customs goons have forced their hands. Which is the bad part in the whole affair.

The argument that ignorance and incompetence of customs officers not knowing anything about the stuff they process each day makes their wrongs - including making threats of destruction - not any lesser. Of course, they "just follow orders". But they could have looked the other way, and let that one  replica pass, without taking any hostile action. Or at least contact the recipient and being polite and civilized, asking about the facts, and not making threats of confiscation and destruction. But being rude and threatening to "subjects" on the receiving end of their aggression is a national trait of German government officers in general - only very few exceptions - and this is exactly the reason why the rest of the world sees them as what they are said to be in Hollywood movies. Germans are the best villains, and for a reason.

- Uncle Bernie

UncleBernie wrote:

...

One principle I use to determine if some action may be classified as a crime is to ask if there is a victim, and if that victim has sustained objective damages from the alleged crime.

...

That sounds exactly like SovCit nonsense. Watching these idiots on YouTube getting arrested over invalid license plates, arguing "no victim" and always losing in court is hilarious though!

Unless there are updates from retroplace_1 on the status of the board in Customs, I think this thread has run its course.

My latest thoughts about Woz copying the TVTypewriter design for the video system is captured in this essay.

https://www.willegal.net/feature_stories/Woz%20and%20the%20Apple%201.pdf

The bottom line is that I think that he took the base design from somewhere.  This should not reflect badly upon Woz's design skills as the best engineers leverage technology  from useful existing designs whenever they can.

Regardless of the legal details, it should be obvious that Apple will do whatever it can to protect the use of its name.  Knowing how employees at big companies usually work, I fully expect that once the corporate lawyers are confronted with having to make a decision, they will likely say stop.  It's possible that they could ask for a license fee instead.  Think in terms of what model railroad manufacturers deal with.

https://railroad.net/using-rr-logos-on-toys-copyright-violations-t36941.html

regards,

Mike Willegal

Great stuff, revealing some dark spots in the early history of the company. I honestly didn't know what SCC meant until now... If you don't mind, I'll translate it into Russian for my friends? And thanks for your many years of unselfish labor.

I have found this discussion interesting to say the least. Without Armin's PCB and Uncle Bernie's kit, I wouldn't have a working apple-1 replica by any means. 

Apple's lawyers almost certainly have a book of all their trademarks and logos, ready to throw at any maker of bootleg items or merchandise. I used to work in web hosting abuse departments, and when people sold counterfeit items, let's just say the legal orders we received were extensive and interesting. Sometimes preliminary injunctions would completely freeze the makers bank accounts and all titled assets. A certain purse company puts up very large amounts of money to do this preemptively at the risk of losing that all in court if they're wrong. I surely hope that NOTHING of the sort happens to any of us here, because the intent here is not to profit off the logos or pass items as original Apple products. However please tread carefully and choose your arguments carefully, I hate it when people end up with customs hassles or tax hassles over forum/community service type sales. Best wishes to all involved with the hobby. 

retroplace_1 wrote:

You could argue that the design of the PCB is a published work. Those works are in the public domain if they have been published before 1978 AND fail to feature a legally correct copyright notice. The copyright notice "© 1976" does not fulfill that criteria. Therefor the work belongs to the public domain. Therefor a replica of a work in the public domain can not be a trademark infringement in the first place. (And, yes, the pcb of the Apple-2 would therefor be in the public domain, too. At least in the versions produced prior to 1978).

 

But I do know that this is a rather weak argument.

...

Yes, I agree that it's very weak argument, but out of curiosity which law/article/sub-article did you cite to them in your argument that the copyright on the Apple-1 PCB is not legally correct?

If Apple looks at it and realizes that it's about an Apple-1, I believe the most likely outcome is that they will simply not respond and let the deadline expire.

The notices

"© 1976 Apple Computer"

and

"Apple Computer 1

© 1976"

are equally valid as far as the Copyright Office is concerned. It just requires the three elements to be in close proximity, permanently fixed to the work in a way that they will be clearly seen. No particular order among the elements is prescribed.

1. The © symbol or the words "copyright" or "copr."
2. The year of first publication
3. The proprietor

The only ways it could be challenged would be if the work was first published prior to 1976, or if the two words "Apple Computer" were inadequate to identify the proprietor as the Apple Computer Company of Palo Alto, CA.

Good for you and your buyer that it ended well this time. However, I wouldn't rule out similar situations happening again in the future.

retroplace_1 wrote:

...

 but I would then do everything I can to help him fix it

...

If he is not in a hurry, you can ask him to send it to you through Polonez: https://polonezamerica.com/en/index

Not only is it a lot cheaper because it travels by sea, but it also enters the EU through Poland and thus avoiding German customs. I recently imported an Apple IIgs from the States to Bulgaria. The shipping cost was $65 + $22 customs fee I had to play once it arrived in Poland, due to the declared value of $200. It took a total of 7 weeks to arrive to my door in Sofia, but I didn't have to present any documents.

Excellent news, thanks for sharing!

In post #42, 'retroplace_1' wrote:

" After one month of fighting, the Apple-1 replica is finally back in my possession and can now be repaired and sent back to its owner. As a special "bonus", I have also filed a supervisory complaint ..."

Uncle Bernie comments:

This is good news as far as this single case is concerned. But the fact is, that these customs goons have stolen a lot of time from the parties involved, including the commenters on this thread, and should be forced to pay us all damages out of their pension fund. But like with all fascistic states, there is no legal instrument to make them pay. "Street Justice" would be the only way for victims to at least get satisfaction - but no money can be had.

I doubt that your "supervisory complaint" = "Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde" will change anything to the better: they will do the same harassment scheme again with the next one you need to repair, essentially sabotaging your business, wrecking your nerves, and stealing your time.

It's always the same pattern: they say that they just follow their prescribed procedures aka "orders". So we have the "I was just following orders" excuse again, which however did not fly in the Nuremberg trials against the Nazi war criminals. But now, in Germany, this evil is back, and the excuse of "just following orders" is en vogue again.

On a larger scale, the same pattern can be seen with tyrannical EU diktats which come from unelected, anonymous bureaucrats infesting EU headquarters in Brussels, and the sheepish (or compromized) "traitors of the people" in the member states governments wave these diktats through and make them law of the land. If you complain to your elected representative about this, s/he just shrugs and says something along the line "the EU made us do it, we have to follow orders".

This is how freedom dies.

- Uncle Bernie

UncleBernie wrote:

...

On a larger scale, the same pattern can be seen with tyrannical EU diktats which come from unelected, anonymous bureaucrats infesting EU headquarters in Brussels...

...

Nonsense! This has nothing to do with the EU. The issue is with German customs, who are being overly strict. The EU is actually pretty awesome when it comes to this, as it allows another member country’s customs to import into Germany.

Also I really love the fact that I can simply ship my product to my customers in Germany without it going through any customs.

retroplace_1 wrote:

...

I have reason to believe that one customs officer deliberately tried to make me give up the case by lying to me about Apple's initial response regarding the trademark violation. I think I can prove she lied to me, and therefore, I have also requested access to all files involved (which they can't weasel out of). Once I have proven she lied, this will go to court in any case because I will sue her for damages.

...

Germany is one of the most transparent countries in the world, so if indeed one of their customs agents decided to act with malice, I think you have a very good chance of exposing them in court.

Please keep us posted and good luck!