4 ms·

Apple is still trying to sue the owner of an independent iPhone repair shop

57 points by danShumway 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago
> At issue in the case is the definition of what makes an aftermarket part “counterfeit.” [..] the court decided that because the logos were not visible, Apple's trademark hadn't been violated, 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'?
- Topgamer7 7y ago
  The argument apple is making is a third party cannot manufacture for example a car door, because the door shape is a company trademark. 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.
- kevin_b_er 7y ago
  Correct. This is a common abuse of intellectual "property" law. Check this one out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp 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.
  - teh_klev 7y ago
    See also Tesco vs Levi's: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-to-sell-cheap-Levis-jeans.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-...
- ezoe 7y ago
  It was tried by Nintendo in Japan for Disk System which use floppy disks as a medium for Nintendo's Family Computer(NES in outside of Japan) 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.
Someone 7y ago
I think smaller entities should have the capability to repair smartphones, but that (technically) is not the legal question here. Apple isn’t claiming the shop doesn’t have the right to repair iPhones, it is claiming it sells counterfeit screens. 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
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >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”) While we are making shit up, I think they probably came from space.
- teh_klev 7y ago
  From the article: 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.
  - Someone 7y ago
    For me, that doesn’t make things clearer. “refurbished, non-Apple parts”? Why wouldn’t the non-Apple parts be new? 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.
throwayEngineer 7y ago
Shame on who? Apple? Or the customer for buying a product they can't use without braking apples rules? Who is committing the evil?
- squarefoot 7y ago
  "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?
KangLi 7y ago
Fuck Apple
rasz 7y ago
" Apple logos on the screen were painted over, and wouldn’t be visible anyway to anyone who used a repaired iPhone " 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.

57 points by danShumway 7y ago

> At issue in the case is the definition of what makes an aftermarket part “counterfeit.” [..] the court decided that because the logos were not visible, Apple's trademark hadn't been violated, 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'?

Topgamer7 7y ago
The argument apple is making is a third party cannot manufacture for example a car door, because the door shape is a company trademark. 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.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
Correct. This is a common abuse of intellectual "property" law. Check this one out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp 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.
- teh_klev 7y ago
  See also Tesco vs Levi's: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-to-sell-cheap-Levis-jeans.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-...
ezoe 7y ago
It was tried by Nintendo in Japan for Disk System which use floppy disks as a medium for Nintendo's Family Computer(NES in outside of Japan) 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.

Someone 7y ago

I think smaller entities should have the capability to repair smartphones, but that (technically) is not the legal question here. Apple isn’t claiming the shop doesn’t have the right to repair iPhones, it is claiming it sells counterfeit screens. 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

inflatableDodo 7y ago
>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”) While we are making shit up, I think they probably came from space.
teh_klev 7y ago
From the article: 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.
- Someone 7y ago
  For me, that doesn’t make things clearer. “refurbished, non-Apple parts”? Why wouldn’t the non-Apple parts be new? 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.

throwayEngineer 7y ago

Shame on who? Apple? Or the customer for buying a product they can't use without braking apples rules? Who is committing the evil?

squarefoot 7y ago
"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?

KangLi 7y ago

Fuck Apple

rasz 7y ago

" Apple logos on the screen were painted over, and wouldn’t be visible anyway to anyone who used a repaired iPhone " 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.