Siglent They filed a "wrongful trademark claim"

[electrolust]

OMG stop with the DMCA.  It's not a DMCA case.  And please stop with the DMCA bashing.  Why does everyone always want to bring out the DMCA pitchfork?  DMCA is actually great for content producers (meaning, you and me) and content distributors (meaning, youtube etc) alike and places a high burden on the copyright owner (ok not great if you own the copyright!).

If a DMCA complaint is issued, the carrier has to remove the material within x hours (48?).  But, the producer has the chance to issue a counter-claim.  Then, the carrier can (must?) put the material back online.  Now the burden is on the copyright holder to go through a more expensive court process to get the material taken down.

Why this is great is because the carrier is absolved of liability, thus freeing them from having to actively look for copyrighted material and determine if it is being illegally distributed -- an insoluble problem.  And folks that have a fair use or other case have a well defined way to protect their own rights.

The whole DMCA takedown process is a good thing.

What sucks are the anti-copy-protection-circumvention parts.

The one you and a few others keep mentioning and talking about is completely different class and you can file a counter notice easy with that one. As very familiar with the one you think it is as a content producer myself. The one that Siglent sent eBay is way worst as it a actual legal notice and that DMCA was to assert a trademark claim

I think you're possibly a little confused, or just using acronyms a bit loosely.  "That DMCA"?  DMCA is not an action.  If you mean "that DMCA action", you are wrong.  DMCA actions like takedowns are used for copyright claims, there isn't a type of "DMCA" used for trademark claims.

You seem to just be using DMCA as some kind of generic acronym for sending a cease and desist letter.  Which is what seems to have happened here.  An "actual legal notice" comes from the courts and I am pretty sure that didn't happen here ...

[electrolust]

For the record, DCMA absolutely sucks. It does jack diddly squat for the people that really need protection (musicians, for example) because their stuff is played all over the place anyway but they never see a dime for any of it, and actually a large portion of what they SHOULD have gotten paid ends up going to big artists. Just read up on how organizations like RIAA work. I love my country, but we have the craziest patent and copyright laws that seem like they were written by some drunk used car salesman just to see what he could get away with.

You are missing the point of the DMCA.  Yes it doesn't do anything for creators such as singers, but it isn't intended to.  So that it sucks for them is completely orthogonal and you may as well say speed limit laws suck for musicians.

The point of the DMCA is 2 fold.

1, to create safe harbor for distributors (network operators, sites like youtube that just publish but don't create content, etc), so that the distributors aren't responsible for copyright violations.  If those distributors were even possibly liable, internet distribution of content would be zlich, nada today.  This part of the DMCA is great.

2, to squash copy protection defeating research and tools.  This part of the DMCA sucks.

No part of the DMCA is designed to do anything for artists.

[electrolust]

But the 'Brown Market' dealer is still allowed to sell on eBay if they raise their price...

In any event 30 day warranties mean nothing in Europe.

The 30 day thing Steve mentioned was about product returns, not a warranty.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I am no lawyer, but I don't think that is price fixing. As far as I know, a manufacturer can make 'no discount' rules for authorized dealer all day long. Price fixing is when competitors ban together to raise prices as a whole in a market segment.

You missed the point. The problem is not that Siglent dictates prices for its "authorzed" sellers, that's a contractual thing between them. The issue is that Siglent suppresses (or tries to suppress) "non-authorized" sellers who sell genuine Siglent kit. That is price fixing!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Price+Fixing

"Price Fixing

The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable.

All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se. Horizontal price-fixing agreements include agreements among sellers to establish maximum or minimum prices on certain goods or services. This can also include competitors' changing their prices simultaneously in some circumstances. Also significant is the fact that horizontal price-fixing agreements may be direct or indirect and still be illegal. Thus, a promotion or discount that is tied closely to price cannot be raised, depressed, fixed, or stabilized, without a Sherman Act violation. Vertical price-fixing agreements include situations where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price at which retailers may sell certain products."

The real problem with Siglents's behavior however is their attempt to suppress unwanted competition, again which is illegal.

That I am wondering to, as would have assume others that had the same happen would have been on this forum? They did mention Rigol on one scope model a few pages back.

Usually what happens is that companies buy people's silence, usually with some free goods if the victim is naive and can be made to believe that this is a simple mistake that never-ever will happen again, or in hard cash for those that see through the scam and need more convincing.

Yes, I suspect it's not illegal either.
And probably it's not illegal to ask a private company (ebay) to remove a listing for whatever reason. Ebay can chose to either comply or not.

Yes, it is illegal, and this is not how that works. Ebay doesn't take down listings for whatever reason. The only time they will take down a listing is when it violates ebay T&Cs (these are assessed internally, and often things go wrong with that, but that's a different story) or when it is illegal to sell the item (i.e. stolen or counterfeit), and for ebay to act on counterfeits you have to be the rights holder and have to sign an affidavit, which is a sworn stamenet of fact. Lying on an affidavit is perjury. That's a crime.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html

"If an item or listing infringes on your intellectual property rights, you can report the alleged infringement by submitting a Notice of Claimed Infringement (NOCI) to eBay's VeRO program...."

The NOCI looks like this, although ebay now uses an electronic version:
http://pics.ebay.com/aw/pics/pdf/us/help/community/NOCI1.pdf

It states:

"The information in this Notice of Claimed Infringement is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. "

This is pretty serious stuff.

DMCA is also a legal avenue to get stuff taken down from websites and places like ebay, but we are not sure if this is the case here?

No, it's got nothing to do with DCMA, or DCMA takedowns on websites like Youtube and such. This is a completely different matter. What Siglent did is an anti-trust violation, not a DCMA issue.

And again, is it actually illegal for Siglent to ask the seller to raise their price?

In the US, yes, it is, and it's not that they just asked to raise the prices, is it? They used a false counterfeit takedown to suppress a (what they saw as) competing offer from (again, what they saw as) "unauthorized" sellers. That is definitely illegal.

Siglent is free to put limitations on their own ("authorized") sellers who have a contractual relationship with Siglent. However, they are not free to meddle with the sales of anyone else, be it individuals selling their used gear or businesses selling new (genuine) Siglent kit, as this is illegal.

Of course it all looks really bad for Siglent, and that's a different argument, but people stating emphatically that it's all totally illegal etc might very well be off the mark.

Only if you close your eyes, ignore all the facts at hand, and tell yourself that Siglent just made a poor mistake. I mean, they essentially admitted making a false counterfeit claim (perjury) to take down an ebay offer they felt was too cheap.

Just playing devils's advocate here.

Well, to be honest it does come across as a bit apologethic, but I can see that as a benefactor of Siglent largesse this situation also puts you in a difficult spot.

[Fungus]

Of course it all looks really bad for Siglent, and that's a different argument, but people stating emphatically that it's all totally illegal etc might very well be off the mark.

Only if you close your eyes, ignore all the facts at hand, and tell yourself that Siglent just made a poor mistake. I mean, they essentially admitted making a false counterfeit claim (perjury) to take down an ebay offer they felt was too cheap.

I agree. The OP has no contract with Siglent. He should be able to sell at whatever price he wants to.

If Siglent want to refuse warranty/service for grey imports then that's their business but they have no say on eBay pricing. Caveat emptor.

This wasn't an "honest mistake". You can argue the "mistake" part but there's nothing honest about it and it wasn't accidental, they employ/pay people to do this.

[HighVoltage]

A few years ago, I tried to sell one of my many official Solidworks packages on ebay and it was taken down, because I allegedly violated their license agreement. I sold the package later outside of ebay and did not care anymore about the issue and the new owner was able to transfer the license to his name. So, software may be a different issue.

But in this case here with Siglent as a manufacturer, it is a used hardware item that can be sold without limitations by anyone for any price, since the seller has no agreement with the manufacturer.
As far as I understand the US law, this action of Siglent was highly illegal!

[Wuerstchenhund]

Now after talking to the GM and after comments in threads and PM's. I do believe it was their marketing department that screw up and yes a women did put the notice in, not going to reveal name, but was also in the PM's. Now the GM is relatively new to the company and do understand it can take a while to turn things around, so I do give the benefit of the doubt. It's more likely is the old way they did business and they figure it was ok as they done it so long and got away with it with no complaints and it's still wrong. So it a massive screw up on their part is what I chalk it up to.

That's what they want you to believe, and there's really nothing "old way of doing business" about this.

The reality is that the notion that a single new untrained employee in the marketing(!) department acts alone when taking legal action that could end up herself and others in prison and could have severe implications for her employer is ridiculous. This is simply a feel-good story (and a pretty standard one as that). You can be sure that any legal action a company of the size of Siglent takes will be vetted by a senior manager and a legal professional. Whoever signed the takedown notice knew exactly what he was doing.

Trying to rig the market is standard practice for most Chinese companies, Rigol did it, and someone stated that Siglent was caught doing that before (so much to them learning from their mistakes). It works because it's done from China where these practices are common, and the perpetrator feel save from the arm of the law. If they get caught they buy off silence, and if it becomes public then it's that poor naive new employee's mistake, they apologize. Rinse and repeat.

Go and talk to a corporate lawyer and ask him how likely it is that a new employee in a marketing(!) department signs of counterfeit takedown notices. He'll very likely tell you that this is pure phantasy.

Siglent tries to take you for a ride here.

[nctnico]

A few years ago, I tried to sell one of my many official Solidworks packages on ebay and it was taken down, because I allegedly violated their license agreement. I sold the package later outside of ebay and did not care anymore about the issue and the new owner was able to transfer the license to his name. So, software may be a different issue.

There have been many court battles over selling second hand software and the software companies lost big time. It is perfectly legal to sell used software (transferring the physical medium to the new owner is enough) but the software companies don't like it. Again very shortsighted because it increases TCO and decreases the installed base 

[ulix]

Short Summary: I won't buy Siglent stuff! Why, the rust and this thing is the top icing!

- They sent an Ebay Message/ Claim with the wrong email address, knowingly that that person is no longer there!
- The employees of Siglent don't know their own stuff?  How can the identify them with their work? Think about selling potatoes...

Well I think only apologies won't work!

[SLJ]

Wow, finally a EE based soap opera worth following. Wonder how long the series will run?   

I hope the intermission is soon.  I'm almost out of popcorn... 

[EEVblog]

Yes, it is illegal, and this is not how that works. Ebay doesn't take down listings for whatever reason. The only time they will take down a listing is when it violates ebay T&Cs (these are assessed internally, and often things go wrong with that, but that's a different story) or when it is illegal to sell the item (i.e. stolen or counterfeit), and for ebay to act on counterfeits you have to be the rights holder and have to sign an affidavit, which is a sworn stamenet of fact. Lying on an affidavit is perjury. That's a crime.

They are the rights holder.
How can you say it's a crime when you don't know exactly what Siglent send to ebay?
Are you a lawyer?

In the US, yes, it is, and it's not that they just asked to raise the prices, is it? They used a false counterfeit takedown to suppress a (what they saw as) competing offer from (again, what they saw as) "unauthorized" sellers. That is definitely illegal.

Again, are you a lawyer?

Only if you close your eyes, ignore all the facts at hand, and tell yourself that Siglent just made a poor mistake. I mean, they essentially admitted making a false counterfeit claim (perjury) to take down an ebay offer they felt was too cheap.

From what I saw they said no such thing. They admitted making a mistake thinking it was a counterfeit product.
Yes I think it all stinks, but hey, if that's what they claim, that's what they claim.

Well, to be honest it does come across as a bit apologethic

Nope, I just don't like the way people like yourself are going around saying with 100% confidence that what they have done is illegal. You are not a lawyer, you are not a judge, you are just an angry punter who is guessing right out his backside.

but I can see that as a benefactor of Siglent largesse this situation also puts you in a difficult spot.

Nope. I can cancel Siglent's advertising without blinking. And I might very well do that if they do not respond to my questions.
If it put me in a "difficult spot" I wouldn't have said a word in this thread, let alone ask them tough and direct questions in public.
They are the ones in a difficult spot, not me.
I have no allegiance to Siglent. Quite frankly, Siglent have pissed me off before by creating sockpuppet accounts on this forum. And I am not impressed this time around either.

[John Coloccia]

The first step in rehab is admitting you have a problem. The simple way forward is admit you were up to no good, and then stop the practice cold. Dancing around, pretending this was some consumer protection action, etc etc just makes everything look even worse. You may be able to get away with that if you're selling garden gnomes or brooms to the general public, but it's just not going to work here. As a parent, I will tell you that I won't get upset finding my kid's hand in the cookie jar because it's normal to push limits and see what you can get away with, but when I catch you don't you dare look me in the eye and say you were getting it for me.

[ulix]

Well,
Dave thank you for the comment above! You are a great person representing the community!
 

[nctnico]

Only if you close your eyes, ignore all the facts at hand, and tell yourself that Siglent just made a poor mistake. I mean, they essentially admitted making a false counterfeit claim (perjury) to take down an ebay offer they felt was too cheap.

From what I saw they said no such thing. They admitted making a mistake thinking it was a counterfeit product.

Then explain why there is absolutely no used Siglent gear on Ebay at the beginning of this thread and why listings for used Siglent gear have dissapeared? If it was a mistake you'd expect there would be at least some other used Siglent gear on Ebay. All the evidence points towards Siglent getting rid of all listings whether used or through unauthorised channels. Add to that that Siglent also admitted they actively work on fixing the prices and the resulting picture isn't pretty.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Yes, it is illegal, and this is not how that works. Ebay doesn't take down listings for whatever reason. The only time they will take down a listing is when it violates ebay T&Cs (these are assessed internally, and often things go wrong with that, but that's a different story) or when it is illegal to sell the item (i.e. stolen or counterfeit), and for ebay to act on counterfeits you have to be the rights holder and have to sign an affidavit, which is a sworn stamenet of fact. Lying on an affidavit is perjury. That's a crime.

They are the rights holder.
How can you say it's a crime when you don't know exactly what Siglent send to ebay?

Wasn't it in the details presented by the OP? Siglent filed a claim that the item was counterfeit, a claim that requires more than a "hunch", it requires the claimant to have solid evidence.

They also offered the OP to remove the claim if he raised his price.

In the US, yes, it is, and it's not that they just asked to raise the prices, is it? They used a false counterfeit takedown to suppress a (what they saw as) competing offer from (again, what they saw as) "unauthorized" sellers. That is definitely illegal.

Again, are you a lawyer?

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand, but no, I'm not a barred lawyer in the US.

Only if you close your eyes, ignore all the facts at hand, and tell yourself that Siglent just made a poor mistake. I mean, they essentially admitted making a false counterfeit claim (perjury) to take down an ebay offer they felt was too cheap.

From what I saw they said no such thing. They admitted making a mistake thinking it was a counterfeit product.

Ok, so if you are the manufacturer, and you think you see a counterfeit of your product on ebay, you take it down and then offer the seller to remove the take-down if he raises his price? You really believe this is legit?

And then we get statements from Siglent saying that they have only ever seen a single incident of a fake, so this wasn't about fake but about "unauthorized sellers" (which Siglent has no right to interfere in).

No matter from what angle you look at it, it stinks. You really have to close your eyes and try hard to ignore all the facts to believe this was just a mistake.

Well, to be honest it does come across as a bit apologethic

Nope, I just don't like the way people like yourself are going around saying with 100% confidence that what they have done is illegal. You are not a lawyer, you are not a judge, you are just an angry punter who is guessing right out his backside.

With respect, you know nothing about me, so I suggest you stop speculating.

Second, it might be a stretch but maybe you should consider that some people have a bit more insight into corporate law and may know a bit more about the legal situation at hand than you (and frankly, it doesn't appear to me that this is an area you seem to have much knowledge about, so I'd be a bit more careful before slagging other of as "angry punters"). Not everyone who disagrees with you is talking out of his ass.

Just sayin'...

[Wuerstchenhund]

on the particular point of rights holder, i feel that this is a loop hole in the ebay system acting on rights holder and not considering rights of the item owner.

They have to, as otherwise ebay would potentially become liable. This is why the advantage of the right holder to be able to quickly issue take-downs is counter-balanced with the requirement to provide a "sworn statement of fact" (affidavit).

[EEVblog]

Wasn't it in the details presented by the OP? Siglent filed a claim that the item was counterfeit, a claim that requires more than a "hunch", it requires the claimant to have solid evidence.

Does it? I don't know.
Again, you aren't a lawyer.

They also offered the OP to remove the claim if he raised his price.

Yep, that is the biggest stink in this whole thing.

Not sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand, but no, I'm not a barred lawyer in the US.

That was obvious.

Ok, so if you are the manufacturer, and you think you see a counterfeit of your product on ebay, you take it down and then offer the seller to remove the takedown if he raises his price?

I don't disagree that that shit stinks.

And then we get statements from Siglent saying that they have only ever seen a single incident of a fake, so this wasn't about fake but about "unauthorized sellers" (which Siglent has no right to interfere in).

Yep, it stinks.

No matter from what angle you look at it, it stinks. You really have to close your eyes and try hard to ignore all the facts to believe this was just a mistake.

I don't, that's why I asked the very specific question they have yet to respond to.
I think I was the only one to actually do so, many others seem to be flapping their arms around in a fit of rage.

With respect, you know nothing about me, so I suggest you stop speculating.

I know you aren't a lawyer.

Second, it might be a stretch but maybe you should consider that some people have a bit more insight into corporate law and may know a bit more about the legal situation at hand than you.

Of course, but you still aren't a lawyer, you are (sorry to be blunt, nothing personal, it's just a fact) just another anonymous person on the forum. We know little about you apart form your posts on a technical forum. Where have you established your legal credentials/knowledge on here? Why should I take your word for it that something is illegal? If you have evidence to back up your claim then please present it, otherwise don't be surprised that some people aren't willing to take your legals claims as gospel.
And yes, I'd expect the same sort of incredulity about my own posts. I might be an expert on X, but I don't expect people to take my word as gospel something is absolutely a fact if I haven't a) built a solid case for my knowledge/experience/reputation in the field, or b) I provide sufficient evidence and references that others can check.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is talking out of his ass.

And not everyone who plays devils advocate is being apologetic.

[AF6LJ]

Nope. I can cancel Siglent's advertising without blinking. And I might very well do that if they do not respond to my questions.
If it put me in a "difficult spot" I wouldn't have said a word in this thread, let alone ask them tough and direct questions in public.
They are the ones in a difficult spot, not me.
I have no allegiance to Siglent. Quite frankly, Siglent have pissed me off before by creating sockpuppet accounts on this forum. And I am not impressed this time around either.

Well this changes my perception of any possiable existing relationships, and changes my view of Siglent....

This suggests their social media relations department is run by some of the people I threw out of an online gaming forum years back.
Sock puppetry is looked down upon.
 

[EEVblog]

Then explain why there is absolutely no used Siglent gear on Ebay at the beginning of this thread and why listings for used Siglent gear have dissapeared?

I don't know. Have listings for used Siglent gear disappeared? I must have missed that post.

If it was a mistake you'd expect there would be at least some other used Siglent gear on Ebay. All the evidence points towards Siglent getting rid of all listings whether used or through unauthorised channels. Add to that that Siglent also admitted they actively work on fixing the prices and the resulting picture isn't pretty.

Yep, it stinks.
But, again, IIRC Siglent didn't admit to "fixing prices", they in fact said:

Our actions were not to "fix prices" (even if we could)

also:

We can not - and we do not - tell our distributors what price they can or cannot charge. We do, however, have the common practice of not allowing them to advertise at a price different from list price. Again, this is a very common industry practice. But I will repeat, our distributors can sell at whatever price they wish.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Wasn't it in the details presented by the OP? Siglent filed a claim that the item was counterfeit, a claim that requires more than a "hunch", it requires the claimant to have solid evidence.

Does it? I don't know.

I know. I had to go through the NOCI process a few times.

No matter from what angle you look at it, it stinks. You really have to close your eyes and try hard to ignore all the facts to believe this was just a mistake.

I don't, that's why I asked the very specific question they have yet to respond to.
I think I was the only one to actually do so, many others seem to be flapping their arms around in a fit of rage.

Not really. Many people (including myself) asked Steve specific questions which (obviously) weren't answered.

With respect, you know nothing about me, so I suggest you stop speculating.

I know you aren't a lawyer.

You know that I'm not a lawyer barred in the United States. Of course no-one can ever know anything about the law unless he's a barred lawyer in the US. Same as say someone cannot possibly learn Electronics without having a Masters Degree from MIT.

Of course, but you still aren't a lawyer, you are (sorry to be blunt, nothing personal, it's just a fact) just an anonymous person on a forum. Why should I take your word for it that something is illegal? If you have evidence to back up your claim then please present it, otherwise don't be surprised that some people aren't willing to take your claim as gospel.

Fair enough, but I believe I provided enough details in my posts as I usually do, but of course I can only lead a horse to water, it must drink on its own. For example, I linked to the NACI form which shows that to make a take-down claim on ebay you have to sign an affidavit, and provide factual details for the take-down request.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is talking out of his ass.

And not everyone who plays devils advocate is being apologetic.

But it comes across as being willfully blind. The facts are open to see, all you need to do is look at them.

[Seekonk]

Once, one customer didn't matter.  Social media now amplifies every misstep. Sniglet isn't the greatest
evil since elevator music, but it needs to learn how to operate in a world market. From text their attitude so far is if you do this and you do that, we might consider.....  Putting the blame on the customer and no fault to them.  I don't think for a second corporate is listening.  But, there are reps that have put great effort into building this product line. This thread has attracted every disgruntled customer of this and every similar company.  The reps have to be screaming, What are you doing to us.  Why haven't you resolved this?

It may be a little voice, but an important message that customers do matter.  I'm willing to keep this social experiment alive as long as I can.  Least we all be bricked some day.

[EEVblog]

Of course, but you still aren't a lawyer, you are (sorry to be blunt, nothing personal, it's just a fact) just an anonymous person on a forum. Why should I take your word for it that something is illegal? If you have evidence to back up your claim then please present it, otherwise don't be surprised that some people aren't willing to take your claim as gospel.

Fair enough, but I believe I provided enough details in my posts as I usually do, but of course I can only lead a horse to water, it must drink on its own. For example, I linked to the NACI form which shows that to make a take-down claim on ebay you have to sign an affidavit, and provide factual details for the take-down request.

Sure, but you made the certain claim that what they did was totally illegal, without question, cut and dry.
I'm betting there are countless nuances in how you word things on such a form and your intent etc as to whether or not it's "illegal", not to mention messy cross border legalities etc.

Just to be clear, I think what Siglent did was wrong, very wrong, and very stupid.

And not everyone who plays devils advocate is being apologetic.

But it comes across as being willfully blind. The facts are open to see, all you need to do is look at them.

No, it's simply asking questions.

Now many times do I have to say it stinks?

I think I'm done on this whole legal thing.

[madires]

The reality is that the notion that a single new untrained employee in the marketing(!) department acts alone when taking legal action that could end up herself and others in prison and could have severe implications for her employer is ridiculous. This is simply a feel-good story (and a pretty standard one as that). You can be sure that any legal action a company of the size of Siglent takes will be vetted by a senior manager and a legal professional. Whoever signed the takedown notice knew exactly what he was doing.

Exactly! Anything else would be corporate suicide. That's the standard process for any kind of contracts and legal papers. You need  to get the papers checked by the legal department and signed by your manager (and maybe he has to get them signed by his superior).

Go and talk to a corporate lawyer and ask him how likely it is that a new employee in a marketing(!) department signs of counterfeit takedown notices. He'll very likely tell you that this is pure phantasy.

Siglent tries to take you for a ride here.

Yes, Steve's responses make the situation worse and worse for Siglent. Some EE here in the forum work (or have worked) for larger corporations and deal with contracts, customers and what have you. They know exactly how things work in business.

[OldSchoolTechCorner]

Now after talking to the GM and after comments in threads and PM's. I do believe it was their marketing department that screw up and yes a women did put the notice in, not going to reveal name, but was also in the PM's. Now the GM is relatively new to the company and do understand it can take a while to turn things around, so I do give the benefit of the doubt. It's more likely is the old way they did business and they figure it was ok as they done it so long and got away with it with no complaints and it's still wrong. So it a massive screw up on their part is what I chalk it up to.

That's what they want you to believe, and there's really nothing "old way of doing business" about this.

The reality is that the notion that a single new untrained employee in the marketing(!) department acts alone when taking legal action that could end up herself and others in prison and could have severe implications for her employer is ridiculous. This is simply a feel-good story (and a pretty standard one as that). You can be sure that any legal action a company of the size of Siglent takes will be vetted by a senior manager and a legal professional. Whoever signed the takedown notice knew exactly what he was doing.

Trying to rig the market is standard practice for most Chinese companies, Rigol did it, and someone stated that Siglent was caught doing that before (so much to them learning from their mistakes). It works because it's done from China where these practices are common, and the perpetrator feel save from the arm of the law. If they get caught they buy off silence, and if it becomes public then it's that poor naive new employee's mistake, they apologize. Rinse and repeat.

Go and talk to a corporate lawyer and ask him how likely it is that a new employee in a marketing(!) department signs of counterfeit takedown notices. He'll very likely tell you that this is pure phantasy.

Siglent tries to take you for a ride here.

I look a little deeper and do believe it was screw up. Was it done intentionally? Of course it was. Did they know it wasn't counterfeit? YES. They admitted to it already, before the GM knew about it and clearly admitted they use it as a means to protect local distributors to keep others from selling at below set price. Really in reality what they did was shoot themselves in the foot, as some will look at resale value when making judgement on buying equipment. Siglent used items cheap is also a good thing in some ways and free advertising and they are killing that market for themselves. It not Price Fixing on a market scale to commit racketeering, like you are assuming it is. So where they right? NO. At the same time, I don't think they sure be hung for it. Even though they did wrong, I don't think they deserve the very harsh punishment that more likely would follow, as they actually did more damage to themselves, buy trying to enforce prices on the used market trying to protect their distributors, as they more likely complain to them.   

Do I think they are a bad horrible company that don't care and is sleazy? Honestly NO. For more then one reason and not just because they talk to me and try to force me into to believing otherwise, as not no fool ether and dealt with my fair share of those that actually where bad. I see them as the GM see them and this was before this dispute happen. I see them working hard to improve on quality, it show from one year to the next on their test equipment and actually used the SDG2122X with new firmware update and I am impressive with it, when compare to the older model and over the years seen improvements. Plus they made several changes within the company recently, so show they are trying to improve and most changes within the last few months, so it take time and is a learning curve. Will do no good shooting them first.   

So rather wait and see that they correct the mistake with me of course and try to resolve the issue as a whole and take steps to improve, then to hang them off the bat. If they don't fix it, then will change my opinion of them and I fully aware of what I can go after them for and do to them. I don't accept, gagging order, or suppression order deals. I just am fair and don't let see them being that bad horrible company that don't care and is sleazy, I just think they made a huge mistake, as they got away with it for so long and though it OK, so they abuse it. But for other reason I see hope for them if they can get passed the bullshit and focus in the right areas. 

 

[Wuerstchenhund]

Then explain why there is absolutely no used Siglent gear on Ebay at the beginning of this thread and why listings for used Siglent gear have dissapeared?

I don't know. Have listings for used Siglent gear disappeared? I must have missed that post.

I guess it's not the only thing you missed. Try this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-%27wrongful-trademark-claim%27/msg783291/#msg783291

At the moment ebay.com shows me exactly two used Siglent items worldwide, one from South Korea and one from what seems to be a LeCroy outlet. Two. If you look at completed items then you'll find that until recently there were numerous used Siglent items for sale (some sold, dome didn't), but that changed around the same time when the OP had his auction taken down (and taken down auctions are removed, i.e. they don't show up in the ebay search for past auctions). Co-incidence? Maybe.

If it was a mistake you'd expect there would be at least some other used Siglent gear on Ebay. All the evidence points towards Siglent getting rid of all listings whether used or through unauthorised channels. Add to that that Siglent also admitted they actively work on fixing the prices and the resulting picture isn't pretty.

Yep, it stinks.
But, again, IIRC Siglent didn't admit to "fixing prices", they in fact said:

Our actions were not to "fix prices" (even if we could)

also:

We can not - and we do not - tell our distributors what price they can or cannot charge. We do, however, have the common practice of not allowing them to advertise at a price different from list price. Again, this is a very common industry practice. But I will repeat, our distributors can sell at whatever price they wish.

Of course they don't say directly that they intended to fix prices, as such a statement could be self-incriminating.

But they actually did admit it:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-%27wrongful-trademark-claim%27/msg783568/#msg783568



"First, we claim it [the counterfeit claim, WH] because that you are not our registered reseller." That in itself is an admission of perjury, simple as that.

But it goes on:

"Second, your market price $700 is lower than our end-user price $935. Actually, we have a lot of local distributors in the local area, in order to protect their rights and interests, we have to control the price. And I didn't see you marked your item as a used one, so we affirmed that your item is a fake."

But as I said, you can lead a horse to water...