IBM Sues Company Selling Fake, Flammable Batteries

Bergkamp10 writes "A Computerworld article is reporting that IBM is suing Shentech for selling laptop batteries that catch on fire and sport allegedly fake IBM logos. IBM apparently followed up on a claim by a customer that an 'IBM' laptop battery bought at Shentech caught on fire and damaged his laptop. The customer reported the problem to Lenovo (who license Big Blue's trademark) who subsequently ordered 12 batteries from Shentech and found them all to be fakes. IBM is asking for US$1 million in damages for each dodgy battery sold."

Shentech's only address is in Flushing, NY.

[mmell (832646)]

They're in the US - it should be possible to track their warehouses and resources via shipping records. Let loose the Nazgul!

Re:

[abigor (540274)]

Mailing address in NY, but I would bet anything they're based in China.

Yeah, but their product is shipped here . . .

[mmell (832646)]

therefore there has to be a record somewhere of where their inventory is being shipped from. Even if it's overseas, the importer still has to be on record, with resources ripe for the picking.

Re:Shentech's only address is in Flushing, NY.

[RobertM1968 (951074)]

Let loose the Nazgul!

Indeed... and not just should it be really simple... as do they have a PO Box in Flushing (as someone else mentioned), but they have a Queens Fax Number: 718-504-3790. Verizon says it's a land line. "[phone] is a land line based in New York City Zone 6, NY. The registered service provider is Global Naps**."

That means there has to be someone somewhere in NY... and in NY, as mentioned in the article, making money through criminal activities is treble damages... (3X)...

In addition to that, someone indicated it would be difficult to sue the company if it was based in China. There is (1) obviously someone in the US involved in this (Shentec), and (2) IBM does business in China... but first step would be US, and (3) Shentec is also using Lenovo's trademarks... and they definitely have a major China presence (to initiate suit there).

Im sure IBM's lawyers are smart enough to know what they are doing, and wouldnt be surprised that IBM lays the groundwork for them - or Lenovo - to continue in China.

As of now, Shentec is still selling "IBM" & "Lenovo" batteries...

I think IBM (and Lenovo) are gonna burn Shentec even faster than Shentec's batteries burned!!!

Dubious Scammers

[Bananatree3 (872975)]

Shentech.com are crooks beyond simply selling laptop batteries. Look no further than their resller rating, a nice 2.9/10 [resellerratings.com]. They "sell" not only laptop batteries, but almost everything else under the sun.

I absolutely love their ironic tagline... "Shentech - Get Your Money's worth!

Re:Dubious Scammers

[brusk (135896)]

Indeed. I bought something from Shentech about 5-6 years ago, and incurred a world of hurt. I bought a mouse--an Dell-branded Logitech USB mouse for about 6 bucks (great mouse, still going strong). Then over a year letter I discovered that someone had opened a commercial UPS account in my name and used it to ship wholesale quantities of goods from China to Shentech's address in Queens. I found this out when I received the bill. UPS was good about it and the bill went away...for a few months. Then another similar bill arrived at my new address (I'd moved from NYC to California). Again UPS's fraud squad dealt with it. I guess it was pretty obvious that someone who doesn't have a business wouldn't be shipping several thousand pounds of equipment across the Pacific. But they did something nasty with my contact info, and I've watched my credit reports carefully ever since.

So yeah, Shentech is evil.

Flammable Batteries

[ninjapiratemonkey (968710)]

Shentech's slogan: They're the hottest product on the market!

Re:

[adona1 (1078711)]

So I guess they'll be having a firesale pretty soon :)

Re:Flammable Batteries

[toomanyhandles (809578)]

Given that the coffee lawsuit was totally justified (McD's had been cited by inspectors many times) for setting their coffee machines too hot--- by law, there's a max temp. 3rd degree burns should not occur without 30 seconds of exposure to the liquid; they had theirs set so that 3rd degree burns would occur in 3 seconds. So- despite your reference to a supposed "frivolous lawsuit", your post is actually more accurate than you believed--- both would be suits brought for good cause.

Re:Flammable Batteries

[Tawnos (1030370)]

Mod parent up, he's correct, and therefore not trolling (similar to the fact you can't be libelous if you speak in fact), in that the McDonald's coffee case is often incorrectly dragged out as an example of the need for tort reform:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com]
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]

Wrong, misleading, and idiotic.

[Foerstner (931398)]

Your linked "facts" notwithstanding, coffee should be brewed at a temperature higher than McDonalds was accused of serving (180-190 F)

The general consensus among coffee aficionados is that the proper brewing temperature is about 200 F (Source [coffeereview.com], also Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). This was also the conclusion of another judgement [findlaw.com] in another lawsuit against Bunn-o-Matic on the same grounds (which was thrown out.)
Juicy tidbit from that link:

...a little digging on our own part turned up ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986, which the American National Standards Institute adopted for home coffee makers. Standard 5.2.1 provides:

On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170 degrees F and 205 degrees F (77 degrees C and 96 degrees C).

(Emphasis added)

Yes, coffee served that hot will do serious damage to human flesh in a short period of time. So will all sorts of properly prepared foods if consumed immediately after cooking.

  Yes, many establishments and home brewers deliver tepid coffee. This is sad, but it does not make McDonalds a villain for serving properly prepared coffee (or, at least, coffee that's closer to properly prepared than other places.)

  Yes, there are a lot of dipwads that complain to McDonalds after they've burned themselves by spilling coffee or drinking it too soon. McDonalds is not responsible for their idiocy.

In my opinion, the McDonalds case says very little about torts and tort reform, but quite a bit about our legal system in general.

Re:Flammable Batteries

[Chris Burke (6130)]

they had theirs set so that 3rd degree burns would occur in 3 seconds.

And as I like to point out whenever this topic comes up because a lot of people don't seem to realize, "3rd degree burns" means burns like these [google.com] which can only be treated with these [google.com].

Now imagine that was on your crotch.

There's always somebody who says something like "LOL what an idiot, everyone knows you have to be careful with coffee because it's HOT!" Well everyone I've ever met must be an idiot, because I've never seen anyone treat coffee like it could do that to you in seconds. It'd be like seeing someone casually set a lit acetylene torch in their cup holder as they drove around. There's oops-ouchie hot, and there's skin-grafts-on-the-crotch way too fucking hot.

Re:Knife is too sharp! Teflon is too slick!

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Sorry, the "coffee=hot" parable is still correct.

Not if the definition of "hot" that everyone assumes is nothing like how hot the liquid actually was. "Hot" is not binary.

You give hot liquids your full, undivided attention or you should NOT be handling them. If this means pulling the damn car over and walking in to get your caffiene fix DO IT!

I don't know anyone who actually treats coffee like that. Nobody treats coffee with their "full undivided attention", they walk around with un-covered cups all the time chatting with co-workers and what not and basically try not to run into anyone -- but even then they don't cautiously peer around every corner to make sure no one is coming. But based on what you are saying, the (pulling a number out of thin air) hundreds of thousands of people who drink coffee every day while commuting are knowingly putting themselves at risk of third degree burns and painful skin grafts.

Or, perhaps more plausibly, nobody actually considers a normal cup of coffee to be that serious of a threat, and everyone's "coffee==hot" equation does not apply for such high values of "hot".

Do you seriously walk around holding your coffee cup in two hands, blowing off anyone who attempts to engage you in conversation or otherwise distract your full attention from the danger in front of you? Or do you treat it like you would, say, a hammer, that would hurt like the dickens if you dropped it on your foot but you would hardly expect to hospitalize you? If the former, kudos to your caution, but you're completely abnormal.

There's also the "spilled it into clothing which holds it against your skin and continues to burn you" hot too. It's not like you get a peltier effect by dropping hot coffee on yourself.

Yes, that made the burns worse. What's your point, that she shouldn't have been wearing clothes? She still would have received third degree burns almost immediately. Maybe she would have only had to be in the hospital for four days instead of a week if she'd been wearing jeans instead of sweat pants. Maybe her genitals would have merely been badly scarred instead of requiring skin grafts.

Just about every coffee drinker has spilled coffee on themselves at some point. I don't know any who have been scarred as a result even if they spilled it on their pants, and I don't know anyone who was surprised that they were not seriously injured. A perhaps second degree burn requiring some aloe vera cream is about what any normal person expects.

Dunno... I am not sure at all

[xtracto (837672)]

look at what wikipedia has to say:

Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench division, rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving not-so-hot coffee:

If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C (149 F) will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55-60 C (131-140 F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85-95 C (185-203 F).[10]

Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[13]

And moreover, it seems to me that the coffee had the right temperature (more so, considering that it was served at a drive thru which means people will indeed drink the coffee while driving over long distances):

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[14] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." [15]

I have always thought that such a suit is only possible in the happy suing USA.

Now, returning to the IBM case (and this main story subject), I really hope they sue these bastards as they are counterfeiting merchandise. This is a company trying to profit from a regi

Re:Dunno... I am not sure at all

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55-60 C (131-140 F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85-95 C (185-203 F).[10]

Emphasis changed to point out why this is not a contradiction.

And moreover, it seems to me that the coffee had the right temperature (more so, considering that it was served at a drive thru which means people will indeed drink the coffee while driving over long distances):

Long distances is a reason to put the coffee in an insulated cup, not a reason to serve at a temperature so hot that it would physically damage you to actually put it to your lips.

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[14] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."

While I may be mistaken, I don't think "immediately" is meant to imply "straight from the brewer at 91-96 C" because that would cause 3rd degree burns to your esophagus. I would rather think it's meant to imply that if you aren't intending to drink any coffee at the time and are going to let it sit, that it should maintained at the high temperature to maintain the flavor, and still allowed to cool down before serving so it's possible to drink.

And I've seen people spill "hot" coffee on themselves before, and never have I seen them fall to the ground screaming where they had to be taken to the hospital to receive skin grafts, and I've never seen anyone treat their lidless cup of coffee as though that were a possibility.

I have always thought that such a suit is only possible in the happy suing USA.

Regardless of the merits of hot coffee, I just can't see this as an example of that, because "happy suing USA" to me has always meant "person sues for $CHA-CHING because of emotional distress or skinned knee", where this lady initially only tried to recover her medical expenses for an actual severe injury she received, and it was the jury who decided that McDonald's dismissive behavior warranted the large punitive damages.

There are many, many better examples as far as I'm concerned. Off the top of my head, a lady once sued her employer because she's racist and they made her work with black people and this caused her emotional distress.

Re:Flammable Batteries

[fredklein (532096)]

the coffee lawsuit was totally justified

No, no, no.

Stella Liebeck, a passenger in a car, took a cup of hot McDonalds coffe, placed it between her (pointy) knees, and proceeded to PULL the lid off, thereby dumping the coffee in her lap. Instead of pulling the hot-coffee-soaked cloth away from her skin (she was wearing sweatpants), she sat in the puddle of coffee for at least 7 seconds. This resulted in severe burns to her crotch and legs.

McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. And you know wht? THEY'RE RIGHT! The National Coffee Assosiation of USA, Inc. (and who would know more about making coffee??) Says you need "a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and that "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!", but if you don't serve it right away "the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."

And, just as a slam dunk, even HOME coffee makers use water that hot: check out This link [bunnomatic.com], which clearly states things like "The water is approximately 50F hotter than what's available from your hot water faucet" and keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200F

So, right there goes any claim that the coffee was "too hot".

Second- yes, McDonalds has a record of coffee causing burns. The defense was able to find 700 cases (of all severities, from first degree (red skin) to third degree(blisters). In the last 10 years. Nationwide. That's like, 0.003 burns per day per state. Actually, when you factor in how many cups of coffee were sold, you find that only 1 in every 24 million caused a burn. That means, for each person who burned thenselves, 23,999,999 were able to buy coffee without injury.

How does this make McDonalds coffee 'unreasonably dangerous'? A: it doesn't.

Look, getting burned is horribly painful. And skin grafts are not pleasant, either. But don't let your feelings of pity toward Stella cloud your Reason. She suffered. Horribly. But it was her own fault, not McDonalds.

Re:Flammable Batteries

[merreborn (853723)]

Given that the coffee lawsuit was totally justified (McD's had been cited by inspectors many times) for setting their coffee machines too hot...

Starbucks, and many other coffee shops sell their coffee at the same temperatures to this day. My wife, who worked for 3 different coffee shops in college verified this personally.

--- by law, there's a max temp

Really? The only applicable law I've heard of sets a minimum brew temperature. If there's a law setting maximum serving temperature of coffee at the time the coffee is served, I'd love a reference.

Coffee has been served at these temperatures, industry wide, for decades, and continues to be served this hot to this day. At starbucks, customers actually request temperatures of up to 160 degrees F for their steamed milk drinks (lates, etc.) (that upper bound is based *solely* on the fact that the milk will burn and taste terrible if it gets any hotter), and drip coffee is brewed at 200+ degrees F (which is the ISO standard for brewing machines).

Yes, the woman required reconstructive surgery. She was also an idiot who wasn't appropriate careful with her coffee, and then preceded to sit in the scalding liquid for over a minute and a a half . Anyone with two braincells to rub together should have jumped out of their seat instantly.

If the McDonald's coffee case had any real merit, it would have had coffee-service-industry-wide effects. Short of a "Caution: hot liquid" disclaimer on hot beverage cups, it simply hasn't. While there have been similar suits brought against every major coffee retailer, they've largely failed.

See for yourself -- tell your Starbucks Barista you want your late at 160 Fahrenheit. They'll scribble a note on your cup without hesitation. Order a cup of their drip coffee and stick a thermometer in it. You'll find it's no cooler than the coffee in the McDonald's case.

Unhelpful summary

[plover (150551)]

All lithium-ion batteries are highly flammable, not just these. It's just that Shentech batteries are apparently more prone to spontaneous ignition than others.

Re:Unhelpful summary

[caspper69 (548511)]

All lithium-ion batteries are highly flammable, not just these. It's just that Shentech batteries are apparently more prone to spontaneous ignition than others.

Yeah, that and they're stamping IBM's name on them and selling them to customers who think they're getting genuine IBM replacement batteries.

Re:

[smilindog2000 (907665)]

Er... no. Not anymore, though you would have been right a couple years ago. For example, these guys make a next-generation battery that basically doesn't explode or burn, even in a car crash. They aren't the only ones... a an awesome generation of new batteries is right on the horizon. I expect these batteries to usher in the age of plug-in hybrids, if not actual electric cars.

Re:Unhelpful summary

[gbobeck (926553)]

Li-Ion technology is horrible in terms of performance, reliability, safety, and environmental impact.

I call bullshit. Please cite where you got your information as well as back up all of your claims.

Here are lists of advantages and disadvantages of current Li-ion batteries. I have included citations.

Advantages:
* Lithium ion batteries, like all rechargeable batteries, are recyclable. (Greenbatteries.com)
* Li-ion has the highest power density compared to NiCd and Ni-MH batteries (QSL.net)
* Do not suffer from the "memory effect", unlike NiCd and Ni-MH (Wikipedia)
* Low self discharge rate of 5% per month (NiCd is 10%, Ni-MH is 30+ per month) (Wikipedia)

Disadvantages:
* Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated (Wikipedia)
* Usually more expensive (Wikipedia
* Lithium-ion batteries also require sophisticated chargers that can carefully monitor the charge process. (Greenbatteries.com)
* Has more mandatory safety features than other battery types (Wikipedia)
* Reduced capacity at High discharge rates. (QSL.net)
* Li-ion batteries can be smaller or lighter than Ni-MH and NiCd (Greenbatteries.com)
* Are not available in AA, AAA, C or D sizes. (QSL.net)
* Approximately 1% of Li-ion batteries are the subject of recalls. (Wikipedia)

Citations:
(Greenbatteries.com) http://www.greenbatteries.com/libafa.html [greenbatteries.com]
(QSL.net) http://www.qsl.net/ac4fd/battery/Battery.html [qsl.net]
(Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery [wikipedia.org]

A rather shady looking parts dealer

[zykhou (1045884)]

The store mentioned in TFA looks pretty shady to begin with, with products like "iPod Nano Alike" and such [Quote from site; "Why pay more for iPod Nano where you can get this better funtioned MP3 player for just 1/5 of the price?"].

Usually it's a question whether the consumers should wise up, or whether cheap knockoffs should be removed due to copyright infringement. But in this case where one company is blatantly putting another company's label on their inferior product, that's undoubtedly when the law needs to fix things.

It's good that Big blue is doing something to stop this, but part of me doesn't have much sympathy for someone who would order parts from a site like that.

Re:

[c0nst (655115)]

And if the price is not good enough, the product picture [yimg.com] will do the job :)

Fake Flammable Batteries?!

[Karganeth (1017580)]

Damnit, I want the genuine sony flammable batteries!

Re:Fake Flammable Batteries?!

[Korveck (1145695)]

Why would you buy the genuine sony flammable batteries, when you can buy one alike, at 1/5 of the price?

They sell fake Apple laptop gear too

[rekoil (168689)]

I ordered two Apple Powerbook AC adapters from them, which they were selling about $30 less than Apple list, a year or so ago; both died within a week. Shentech exchanged them - they refused to refund at first, depite my concerns that they had a bad lot - and the replacements died also. I asked for a refund this time, being pretty confident that any replacements they sent would be from the same production run, but they refused until I threatened to dispute the credit card charge with my bank. In retrospect I'm 99.9% confident that they were bogus, and this story seems to confirm my suspicions.

The punchline? I ordered the adapters from a different company and had the same problem. Getting a refund was easier this time, and I gave up and went to the Apple store. So much for trying to save a buck.

This is different though

[commodoresloat (172735)]

If fake Apple products catch fire, it is the just wrath of the almighty Jobs sending a message to the nonbelievers. If your knockoff power adapters simply died without incident, I'd say you got off easy.

Whislt perusing the site...

[Khyber (864651)]

I notice a very poor and typically Eastern usage of our language. Even though the only supposed locale for this place is in NY, I wouldn't put it past the place to be a Chinese-run hackshop, given the company name and the grammar on the website. Shentech? C'mon now, the name alone raised red flags.

Re:Whislt perusing the site...

[Sanat (702)]

"the name alone raised red flags"

Was this an intentional pun or one that just happened?

Bad summary (of course)

[hacksoncode (239847)]

Did the submitter actually read the article? Did anyone? It says "IBM wants treble damages or US$1 million per counterfeit mark per type of item sold.". Not $1 million per battery. Explicitly not. Painfully clearly not.

Geez.

Shentech = Scam Artists

[oneiron (716313)]

They also sell used and refurbished items as new. I ordered an ipod USB cable from them because the price was much cheaper than the competition. It worked, but it had grime and hair all over it. I emailed them to complain, and they sent me a replacement without hesitation. Practically an admission of guilt...it seemed.

ObSimpsons

[istartedi (132515)]

Homer: [gasps] Look at these low, low prices on famous brand-name
electronics!
Bart: Don't be a sap, Dad. These are just crappy knock-offs.
Homer: Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it. And look,
there's Magnetbox and Sorny.

Re:$1,000,000

[insertwackynamehere (891357)]

Yeah I wonder why they would want to ruin a company who produces counterfeit products with the potential to kill someone by abusing a brand name they have no right to?

Re:$1,000,000

[voss (52565)]

IBM will spend more money on this lawsuit than they get...

This is not about generic batteries, if Shentech sold "Ibm compatible" batteries
that melted and burned then Ibm would say "not our battery...not our problem". Plenty
of companies legitimately sell 3rd party ibm compatible batteries of reasonable quality.

  Shentech was supposedly selling counterfeit batteries with ibm logos.

Its about
1) Protecting their public image
2) Protecting their trademark
3) Protecting customers who are trying to buy legitimate ibm sold/authorized products

Anyone comparing this to RIAA is a clueless moron.

IBM has spent 70 years developing a sqeaky clean reputation. Heck they even spent money
developing linux products. When ibm products malfunction because of ibms mistake they just
replace things free of charge.

They have enough problems with legitmate batteries made by sony

  They deserve to put counterfeiters heads on pikes...these counterfeiters are potentially
injuring ibms customers.

Re:$1,000,000

[Loki_1929 (550940)]

Are you insane? $1Million is cheap, frankly, considering how incredibly damaging this could have been for IBM. With enough of these out there, IBM might have been facing a hundred different suits, half of them class-action, from all over the world. That says nothing for the positively massive loss of business they could potentially suffer as a result of a turn in public perception of their products. If just one of those batteries hit the laptop of, say, the CEO of a fortune 500, IBM could see millions in business go *poof* as fast at the battery burns.

Re:$1,000,000

[Loki_1929 (550940)]

Yes, very good, the article does indeed indicate that IBM is seeking $1 Million in damages per battery. Something you need to understand about damages is that they do not necessarily mean that 'X' number of dollars were removed from your hands.

The overall potential damage to IBM of this infringement would be in the hundreds of millions, if not the billions both directly and indirectly for years to come. Asking for massive damages is not unreasonable under those circumstances.

Re:$1,000,000

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm particularly amused that they purchased 12... and THEN sued for $1m per sold battery.

Re:

[MrAndrews (456547)]

I would think the reason they're suing for $1M is so that it makes headlines, so that anyone who might otherwise be keen on suing IBM over their exploding batteries would then know who the real culprits are. They might get some settlement money, but it puts a big red "X" somewhere other than them (and rightly so), which will likely reduce the number of "mistaken" lawsuits they'll have to cope with. I heard once that the amount you seek in a lawsuit has less to do with actual damages, and more to do with h

Fire

[neapolitan (1100101)]

Dear Sir / Madam:

I'm writing to inform you of a fire which has broken out on the premises of ...^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

FIRE! FIRE! HELP ME! 123 Callington Road. Looking forward to hearing from you. All the best, Maurice Moss

Re:$1,000,000

[Ecuador (740021)]

RTFA It says $1m per counterfeit mark per type of item sold.
So, if they counterfeited 2 logos on each of 3 types of batteris, IBM is asking for $6M.

Re:$1,000,000

[jesdynf (42915)]

It's not greed. IBM doesn't want the money. They don't care who gets the money. You could burn it like leaves, right in front of them, and you couldn't get IBM legal to give less of a damn. Given their billing rates, you wouldn't WANT their legal team to put out a money fire. Cheaper to let it burn.

They don't want money. They want *blood*. This is "holy thunder of God Himself"-level wrath, possibly because this is the first *American* seller of counterfeits they've been able to get their yellowed claws on. That I've heard about, anyways. They're going to make an example out of him worst case, and best case they're going to make an example out of him and learn more about any US assets that can be linked to overseas counterfeiters.

Re:$1,000,000

[TooMuchToDo (882796)]

Even if I was a friend of the IBM legal team, the "holy thunder of God Himself" line (along with the fact that it's *IBMs* legal team) would scare the shit out of me.

To counterfeiters: Prepare to be penny/asset-less.

Re:$1,000,000

[fireman sam (662213)]

Didn't Sony already do this?

Re:$1,000,000

[beav007 (746004)]

Think about it. They have a demonstration that the fake batteries can cause harm to hardware, and most likely to wetware as well.

I bought a battery with a genuine IBM logo on it and it exploded in my face, destroying my left eye. It then emailed my porn collection to my mother, turned my freezer down and defrosted it, and parked my car in a towaway zone. I'm suing.

These batteries could open IBM up to litigation, or could have, had they not been discovered. IBM are protecting their name, reputation, and business.

After all, a lawsuit from a single exploding battery could easily cost IBM more than a million dollars...

Re:mis-represented?

[absoluteflatness (913952)]

Why should anyone be allowed to sell a product that is known to have a higher chance of malfunctioning?

Capitalism at work. There's clearly at least some market for cheaper, lower-quality components, and many companies (who don't outright lie like Shentech is accused of doing) occupy that space.

Hey, if people want to buy third-party components like batteries, more power to 'em. Manufacturers will usually fleece you for things like replacement batteries, but you're reasonably assured that they'll work correctly. You can often find reasonably-priced third-party batteries that have higher capacity or other advantages, but you give up the peace of mind you get with the "official" replacement. Still, as long as the chance of failure isn't negligently high (which in this specific case might be true), I don't really see a problem with it.

Now, printing IBM on the products is a different story, and takes the batteries from "third-party" to counterfeit. It's also possible that Shentech bought from a shoddy supplier that gave them counterfeits, but the end result is the same.

Re:

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

What possible international law enforcement agency would enforce a ban on work-alike/look-alike products?

WIPO.

Who would you have enforce the copyrights and trademarks of IBM?

The Department of Justice.

do you think that US Customs should be the filter and prevent such purchases from entering the US?

Check this [cybercrime.gov] out.

And if you bought something like this on the Internet and it was confiscated, should the customer just lose their money?

Pretty much.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Out of interest, how do you know that the one you bought off eBay wasn't a Shentech knock-off that someone was selling as a genuine IBM product?

Re:Never going to see court, much less a dime

[whitehatlurker (867714)]

Shentech is doing business in a location called "Flushing, NY". I'm not sure where that is in China, but I'm sure that Lenovo [wikipedia.org], headquartered in Beijing, might be able to find them.

Re:Never going to see court, much less a dime

[DragonWriter (970822)]

IBM can sue, sure. Who's going to show up in court? The lawyers from a Chinese company? Why would they? There is no jurisdiction.

The US Federal Courts will, I'm sure, be immensely sympathetic to the argument that they have no jurisdiction over Shentech, Inc. of 1513 132nd St., Flushing, NY 11356.

Re:Never going to see court, much less a dime

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

First off the company is based in New York, USA not China. Sure they may have suppliers in China, but most major companies do. Next, the company was selling defective batteries and as previous posters have noted, they sold defective AC adapters too. For trademark and copyright infringement, think of it this way, theres nothing wrong with me making a website, theres nothing wrong with me putting ads on website nor is there anything wrong with making a search engine. However, if I get say gooogle.com, make it look like Google and put spyware and adware all over it and record people's searches, that is bad. As for quality people thought they were getting an true IBM battery they didn't think they were getting a battery that would explode, there are places all over the web that buy things in bulk or have deals with OEMs and can sell technology and computers for cheap, I am sure that 99% of the people thought this company was doing the same, when they got it, it had the IBM logo on it so they thought like most of us do IBM logo == IBM. That is what IBM is suing for, the fact that they mislead customers that they were getting an IBM battery, not some Explode-O brand battery.