This case was covered on HN recently, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261

I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is.

There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced.

But there are other ways that a person's ability can be restricted, such as licensing and proprietary parts. This case says nothing about that.

So please, author, don't make like I was going to be sued if I tried to replace my iPhone's battery.