Hacker News Reader

Comment by class4behavior | Hacker News Reader

This is an unfortunate win against the right to repair, which is a concerning issue everywhere around the world. Just recently, in Norway its last court instance found a repair shop in breach of Apple's trademark as they used imported third-party displays.

This stifles competition as corporations are in control for how long hardware or software remain usable and who can provide alternative solutions. In the US this topic flared up again once the farmers felt the consequences of this. Now their modern vehicles and tools either have to be replaced a lot more often or they can't choose where to seek replacements.

View on HN

That Norwegian decision is a travesty as presented here, how can a repair infringe on a trademark and how on Earth did that not lead to an appeal. Using aftermarket parts is a well established practice in automotive, I see absolutely no reason why that would not extend to phones. Are they going to demand cars are only repaired with OEM parts as well?

>The Norwegian judges made the final decision purely assessing trademark violations on these screens, based on obscure and technical details that are entirely invisible to consumers (...) while Huseby still maintains they were refurbished. (...)

>As Huseby puts it, Apple uses intellectual property law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce intellectual property. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments.

https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/

Disgusting.

You should read the actual court case. The online journalistic coverage is misleading and somewhat exaggerated. There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed.

https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU

Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.

I'm sure there are good reasons but there has to be a more concise way of making that point than linking to 41 minutes of rambling video. I watched the first 5 and I'm none the wise yet.

Regardless of journalistic coverage it is still Apple suing for trademark infringement on parts that should not have been trademarked in the first place. So they are simply using trademark law as a weapon knowing full well that this was their intended use from day #1. Apple doesn't like 3rd party repairs of your devices, somehow they still feel that even if they sell you something they are owed a piece of the action for every bit of hardware that goes into it post sale.

We've come a very long way since the Apple II with it's nice and hackable expansion ports. This disgusts me in a way that not much else does.

The case was not about trademarked parts. It was about someone in China printing Apple trademarks on substitutes.

At first everyone, including Louis, assumed original Apple logos printed by Apple on Apple LCD module. Turned out Chinese refurbished decided to counterfeit the refurb to make it look like original part, by printing Apple trademarks on substitute parts.

So, the Chinese broke the law, not the refurbisher. And yet, it is the refurbisher that got sued here. I've seen similar things happen with Bosch vs Porsche, where Porsche parts retail for a fairly large multiple of the Bosch parts, the only difference being the Porsche logo. Functionally equivalent, made in the same factory, to all intents and purposes the same part.

Manufacturers that want to distinguish themselves by labeling commodity parts with their trademarks are not doing this with the intention of protecting their customers, they are protecting their bottom line.

> There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed.

I would assume the fact that this was a decision by the supreme court might be one such reason.

They are treating this as if the phones are modern day tally sticks. What that amounts to is basically allowing private "taxation".

The practice in automotive is there due to historical legacy - it would never be allowed in modern world. If anything, the carmakers have started to prevent you from doing your own repairs by demanding their own proprietary software to pair car controller modules. That software is licensed only to dealers and trying to use it outside those licensed conditions is a DMCA violation.

With BMW pioneering car microtransactions (https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purcha...) you can be sure that the corporations will bear down the DMCA/copyright/trademark lawyer hammer on anyone that even thinks of trying to add features to such cars without their consent. The times where you could upgrade your car with aftermarket parts are coming to an end with the sound of cheers for Apple and other corporations adding DRM everywhere to prevent your own repairs and upgrades.

Well, fuck BMW then.

Indeed. The last good car they made was the E46 M3 anyway (2006!)

Have you driven any modern BMW's? If size is your issue the M2 Competition is far superior to the E46 M3, and the F80 M3 is far superior to the E39 M5 and E60 M5.

For the first two years of ownership. https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?7348-BMW-ignores-the...

If you want to cherry pick isolated issues in an attempt to downplay how much better performing modern BMW's are overall I can make a huge list of performance cars that have notable issues

* E36 M3 upper shock tower cracking

* E46 M3 subframe cracking

* C6 Z06 valve guides

* 996 and 997 Porsche IMS bearings

* GT-R transmission failures (had to have mine replaced)

* W204 C63 AMG head bolts

Happy to provide more examples.

Breaking aluminum bolts is another one that is surprisingly common in some brands. They also tend to live just long enough for the warranty to expire.

https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-macan/1085919-cautionary...

IMS bearings are an issue until 2009, engines produced after that point starting with the 9A1 no longer have an IMS.

E46 subframe issue affected more than just the M3... ;(

I work in automotive repairs and i can assure you that all makes are in a fast race to the bottom. Is the conditions they created by brainwashing the consumers over a long time now they have to figure out what is the next “bankruptcy-saving” innovation all while keeping the price point, they choose to go the consumer electronics way but with >$30K “gadgets” so no wonder why you can call yourself lucky if your shiny machine lasts more than 5 years.

Superior is an opinion just like mine.

I’ve not driven a modern M but I’ve driven the 330d and 420i loads and they’re incredibly dull. I’m sure the Ms are more fun and advanced and the fake engine noise pumped in to the cabin is exciting and all .. ;-)

>Superior is an opinion just like mine.

The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.

You're really over interpreting my initial comment and not wanting to believe people have preferences.

People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster.

Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines.

And who said we're only talking M?

Chill...

Why else would you buy an E46 M3 over another E46 3 series if you didn't care about performance? According to you it's the last good car BMW made. The M2 Comp is an objectively better car than the E46 M3 if you care about performance, which you certainly do. Stop playing the victim because you suddenly don't want to have a discussion about a comment you made on a public forum.

I laughed when I read “victim” but I guess yes you are being an aggressive jerk.

I'll never buy another one again after this.

For many reasons. Anecdotally every BMW owner I know is constantly taking their car in for repairs.

They were also the only ones charging yearly fee to add CarPlay client to their infotainment.

They are also in favor of cleaning up the net in favor of advertisers.

I wonder if there's something that I, as a automotive embedded SW eng. can do to prevent this. There must be some kind of market that can be tapped or some kind of movement I can support regarding this.

I make my money out of this and I'm torn between quitting this field I spent quite a bit of time in or just sticking in for the money, but what is currently happening in automotive... it's insanity to me. I just get mad thinking about it.

The thing with BMW is that their DRM is usually cracked in about 5 years. Just about every BMW up to 2017 can have all of its electronic features enabled for free if you just buy a $20 cable and hook it to a laptop. Sometimes this is viewed as a positive thing it's something that has tons of features that can be enabled free by hacks then hackers like me will buy it at a discount. I bought a base model 3 was able to turn on all of the extra options for free including an additional amount of horsepower from modding wastegate actuation

> how can a repair infringe on a trademark

I generally agree but I can also see apples pov. I’ve purchased quite a few used iPhones online (amazon, eBay stores etc) that are advertised as new or open box. So so frequently they come with terrible third party screens or super cheap replacement parts. If I didn’t have a point of reference I would think iPhones just have terrible screens/crappy switches/speakers etc. Apple is right to want to protect their brand from these hooligans but I think there are far better ways.

I personally think they should let the repair market be but throw an alert in settings and setup that let you know there are fake parts in a device. I’m not sure how feasible that would be butI think it would be more useful and effective than going at it from a legislative angle.

You buy used phones, you can more or less expect them to be repaired. If you want the guarantee of a 'fresh' phone then you should pay the mark-up. Even the seller might not be aware that the phone has been repaired.

You should expect them to be repaired with genuine parts, though.

Why? If a repair costs $x with genuine parts and 1/3 of $x with aftermarket parts and the phone works then I really don't see any good reason. Cars have aftermarket pars fit to them all the time, brakes, tires, shocks, filters, engine components (turbos!) and so on. They're arguably a lot more critical than the screen of a phone which is just another wear part.

That case was not quite that simple. It involved import of third-party refurbished/remanufactured parts still bearing the Apple logo (because they contained some original Apple parts). This is clearly problematic, and something auto parts manufacturers are well aware of. I buy many auto parts clearly made on the same mold as factory parts, but with the logo always removed--sometimes even just ground off.

The defendant in this case was aware of the problem and tried to solve it via blacking out the logo with a marker and describing the provenance of the part during the sales process. One can differ on whether these were sufficient measures, and perhaps note that Apple is making it extra hard to remove their logos, but restricting third parties from selling products I didn't make with my logo on it is fairly fundamental to trademark law.

I read it was not the Apple logo, rather the QR looking code that’s on the parts. Not sure why Chinese suppliers are putting those codes on third party items, but the Norwegian company wasn’t trying to mislead customers.

In the Norwegian case it turned out refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display.

Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.

>refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display.

Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6936580/Norway.pd...

The screens were real Apple hardware, with newly reprinted Apple logos by someone in China.

point 20 "Høgsterett legg difor til grunn lagmannsrettens vurdering av at dei innførte skjermane ikkje er originale, at dei påførte varemerka er identiske med Apples registrerte figurmerke, at varemerka ikkje er påførte av Apple, og at dei er dekt over med tusj som let seg fjerne. "

+ the fact he was billed for "Original OEM screens"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com