EBay beats Tiffany's in court...

[CoopJr]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...l/15/ebay.ebay

In 4 years ebay made over 4 million on goods purported to be Tiffany fakes.

They most likely dont give a crap about fake Rolexes either.

[marie]

Originally Posted by CoopJr

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...l/15/ebay.ebay

In 4 years ebay made over 4 million on goods purported to be Tiffany fakes.

They most likely dont give a crap about fake Rolexes either.

:c rying:

[bayerische]

Tiffany's should have taken eBay to court in Europe...

[TheBluePrince]

Old news, that was nearly 3 years ago now.

[Earl Camembert]

Old and established practice; one can not hold the phone company liable for what one says on the telephone.

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by TheBluePrince

Old news, that was nearly 3 years ago now.

Damn youre right!

Here's a link that says that there was a ruling this morning upholding the last finding:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/01...rfeit-jewelry/

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by Earl Camembert

Old and established practice; one can not hold the phone company liable for what one says on the telephone.

That seems to be not the same thing. A more fitting comparison would be a flea market allowing one of their booths to be used to hawk counterfeits. I'm pretty sure that they would be held accountable.

[Numismatist]

Originally Posted by Earl Camembert

Old and established practice; one can not hold the phone company liable for what one says on the telephone.

That does not make it right...just legal.

Moral; legal - two different things.

Also, nobody else can 'hear' the phone, everyone can 'see' the listings...

[Earl Camembert]

Originally Posted by CoopJr

That seems to be not the same thing. A more fitting comparison would be a flea market allowing one of their booths to be used to hawk counterfeits. I'm pretty sure that they would be held accountable.

Not really as the flea market managers would have to be informed and then knowingly permit the sales to be held to be liable. If I rent a house and it is used for illegal activity I am not responsible unless I KNOWINGLY permit the activity. As a landlord I do not have the right to conduct random unannounced searches of the premises.

Rhode Island just closed a loop hole in their law that permitted indoor prostitution. The biggest hurdle to closing the loop hole was what penalties the building owner would be subject to if he were not aware of what was going on. Think of massage parlor busts in shopping centers or office parks the property owner is never mentioned or charged.

Originally Posted by Numismatist

That does not make it right...just legal.

Moral; legal - two different things.

Also, nobody else can 'hear' the phone, everyone can 'see' the listings...

When big money is involved legal is what counts as morals go out the window.

No one can hear the phone?

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls