>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.
Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.
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.
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.
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.
I would assume the fact that this was a decision by the supreme court might be one such reason.
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.
* 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.
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.
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 .. ;-)
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.
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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"
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.