this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
259 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

34438 readers
176 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
259
Dbrand is suing Casetify for ripping off its Teardown designs - The Verge (www.theverge.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 181 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Dbrand has a really strong case here IMO, since they pretty heavily edit the internals and add a few easter eggs, which are still visible in Casetify's final designs

Dbrand discovered Casetify allegedly copied 117 different designs, down to the many digital manipulations it made to the images. Dbrand says it holds registered copyrights for each of these products, all of which were registered before Casetify’s product launch.

Also, TIL:

Disclosure: The Verge recently collaborated with Dbrand on a series of skins and cases

[–] [email protected] 137 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Easter eggs showing up is pretty solid evidence

[–] [email protected] 85 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Map makers used to do this to catch people ripping off their work, looks like dbrand made a solid decision in doing the same (though probably not intentionally)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

I'm still bummed I can't take a vacation to Frisland :(

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

These are called fictitious entries. Dictionaries and encyclopedias do this too.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

This is definitely shitty.

Related: JerryRigEverything just came out with a video about this and titled "I got robbed" and called it theft a bunch of times. This is copyright infringement, maybe trademark infringement, but not "theft" or "robbery". No property or money was taken from any party such that they no longer have access to it. It's important to be accurate about this.

Edit:

Here is a list of all the media I've found surrounding this that falsely claims stealing, theft or robbery:

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I havent watched it yet but now I will not watch it for the blatant baiting.
Thought it was about the bunker he was building...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I didn't watch it so I had no idea it was about this but the thumbnail and the click bait title made me unsubscribe from him.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Copyright infringement is also known as intellectual property theft. I still disagree with his choice of video title.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Intellectual property" as a concept is designed to trick people into thinking copyright, trademark, and patent infringement are equivalent to theft. It's an incorrect and pernicious use of the word "theft".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I thought IP just referred to something you can't physically steal and instead copy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Intellectual property is an umbrella term for copyright, patents, and trademarks used to make it sound like "property" is "stolen" when licensing agreements are violated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I always considered it like thought property, not exactly tangible and the closest you could do is copy it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The idea that it shares the same features as anything else we consider "property" is the problem, so why call it property? The only thing that one can "own" in this regime is the license itself, and that doesn't go away just because someone violates its terms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I mean. Literally, literally means figuratively now. People look at DVDs and say they're not a digital copy when they are written digitally. Words are fluid and contextual so to throw out half a phrase is to throw out the ability to understand it.

Property is a system of rights that gives people legal control of valuable things,[1] and also refers to the valuable things themselves. -Property Wiki

An intellectual property would then logically follow it is a valuable thing or idea that is then legally controlled.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

You're getting downvoted because people don't like the way the real world works.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

For anyone struggling to follow this:

Dbrand makes stickers. These are edited scans of the inside of a laptop. Casetify has pretty brazenly copied that edited version. They swapped it around in a way that doesn't even make sense, as the fans vents would be... in the middle of the bottom?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

It's not a bug, it's a feature: fans are there to warm up the battery when you type outside in winter

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Dbrand, the device skin company known for trolling brands like Sony and Nintendo, is waging a legal battle of its own.

The company is suing rival Casetify over claims it blatantly copied Dbrand’s Teardown device skins and cases, which are made to look like the internals of whatever phone, tablet, or laptop you’ve purchased them for.

In March, one user on X (formerly Twitter) pointed out that Casetify appeared to be reusing the image of the same internals across different phone models, which means they didn’t accurately represent the insides of each device they were sold for.

“If CASETiFY had simply created their own Teardown-esque design from scratch, we wouldn’t have anything to take issue with,” Dbrand CEO Adam Ijaz tells The Verge.

That’s why, instead of issuing a cease-and-desist order, Dbrand is hitting Casetify with a federal lawsuit in Canadian courts, where the company is based, and seeking eight figures in damages.

Dbrand is also launching a brand-new set of X-ray skins across its entire portfolio today that are rather different from the Teardown ones — they’re black and white, captured at 50 micron resolution by a lab called Haven Metrology, and show details that wouldn’t be visible simply by removing the back cover of a phone, laptop, or gaming handheld.

The original article contains 830 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My favorite part of this was X “(formerly Twitter)” even when a bot is most efficiently paraphrasing it’s still necessary to waste two words to clarify that stupid apps name.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Casetify has always felt shitty to me.They sell 45$+ cases with ugly customization and shitty print quality. Now this plagiarism too. Lol