Apple is still trying to sue the owner of an independent iPhone repair shop
vice.com
vice.com
Am I to understand that if a company plasters its logo in enough places so that hiding it is impractical, they can make an end-run around resale and user rights, and just call anything you do with their parts 'counterfeiting'?
They are trying to prevent repair and maintenance of their products, so you will go buy a new one, which they receive a larger margin on, as well as they can deprecate old products and no longer support them.
Check this one out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale....
Corporations abuse these laws to restrict trade in goods already manufactured.
What you can see here is Apple's legal declaration: You do not own the device. Apple does. Apple has the right to refuse sale of the device and you have no recourse.
What you see is a fundamental attack on the notion of ownership. Do you own an Apple device? Apple decides what you may do with it. Apple even apparently decides who you may sell or give it to. Do you really own the device?
Even "buying" something doesn't really give you ownership of it, the corporation still controls it. You are a serf. This is the how of the danger of these intellectual "property" laws being misused against the public.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-...
As a physical DRM for the floppy disk with Nintendo logo shaped relief on it. The floppy disk reader recognize the relief and validate the disks.
Soon, third-party started selling compatible floppy disks, Nintendo sued them for trademark violation.
They lost. The court concluded that mere protocol can't be trademarked even if it use trademarked logo.
Reading the text in that light, I have some questions:
”The screens are also not sold as an original but used as a refurbished, compatible screen”
For me, “refurbished” implies “original, but not new”, and “compatible” implies “new, but not original”. What is it?
If the first, the shop should be able to show how it obtained refurbished screens or old screens that it refurbished itself.
If the second, why do these screens have Apple logos on them?
(my _guess_ would be that they have Apple logos because they ‘fell of a truck’ near the factory that makes them for Apple, making them either “100% original counterfeit” or “didn’t _quite_ pass quality checks counterfeit”)
”and were never advertised as official Apple parts and were thus not counterfeit.”
I don’t think that ‘thus’ holds. “Official Apple part” can also be (somewhat) implied, for example if the seller calls himself an iPhone repair shop, and never explicitly states the replacement screens are third party, or if the shop
While we are making shit up, I think they probably came from space.
His lawyer, Per Harald Gjerstad, said that the screens Huseby imported were made of both original Apple parts and refurbished, non-Apple parts. The glass, for example, is aftermarket.
So largely Apple parts, likely scavenged from broken phones, remanufactured into working spares but using non-Apple parts. Doesn't sound like counterfeit to me.
I repeat: I’m all in favor of the right to repair, but this case is about whether these parts are counterfeit, and, possibly on whether parts like these can be counterfeit at all.
”largely Apple parts, likely scavenged from broken phones”
That, IMHO, would change things, but I cannot find any statement that the screens were largely Apple parts, or that they were scavenged from broken phones.
If either were true, I would expect the lawyer for the defense to explicitly state that.
Disclaimer: It is hard for outsiders to make a good judgment on such cases, as the devil is in the details, so you would have to read all the evidence, and jurisprudence of similar cases. I didn’t even watch the entire video in this article.
Or stolen phones
Under that system, if you go outside the US, disassemble your own phone and mail it to yourself, you would be charged with "counterfeit" because the parts have Apple logos.
>For me, “refurbished” implies “original, but not new”, and “compatible” implies “new, but not original”. What is it?
I always take refurbished to mean the 'essential' parts are original, but the ancillary parts (screws, gaskets, frames etc) might or might not be depending on who refurbished it (seller/supplier/third party vs OEM)
>If the first, the shop should be able to show how it obtained refurbished screens or old screens that it refurbished itself.
I think many parts are taken out of old broken phones and then repaired.
>I don’t think that ‘thus’ holds. “Official Apple part” can also be (somewhat) implied, for example if the seller calls himself an iPhone repair shop, and never explicitly states the replacement screens are third party, or if the shop
That is a judgement call. In certain industries where repair is common, for e.g. Automobiles or Computers, there is no assumption that a repair shop advertising itself as a Toyota repair shop is going to put in OEM parts.
Anybody can go to court with about every claim, so, yes, you can be accused of that, but If you can argue those parts were ‘made’ by taking apart an original iPhone, there’s no way a judge will rule them to be counterfeit.
Also, I write ‘argue’ and not ‘show’ because, in such a case, the burden of proof would soon fall on the party claiming the parts to be counterfeit.
And yes, there likely is a judgment call to make for the judge in this case on whether buyers could reasonably expect to receive original Apple repair parts.
Not exactly. US Customs will seize any such items before they even get to you, do an internal investigation, and inform you that you are trying to import counterfeit items. Yes, you can then go to court, but the cost will be enormous (compared to the cost of the parts).
what is perhaps more important: those Apple logos were printed by _Apple itself_, because those are original refurbished screens. Apple accuses you of importing counterfeits when you import ANY original Apple part.
Apple? Or the customer for buying a product they can't use without braking apples rules?
Who is committing the evil?
Whoever enforces such stupid laws. How many tailors have been sued so far for repairing a top brand suit using normal cotton spools?