4 ms·
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 part
by 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 agoFor 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.
- skluck 7y agoWould this be any different from selling a car that used aftermarket repair parts such as a sensor, muffler, or electronic switch? This seems like the most equivalent situation to me. A Ford is still a Ford even if I went down to my local auto parts to purchase replacement parts for it.
- proto-n 7y agoprobably the glass was replaced but not the lcd, making the part "refurbished" and no longer "apple" (as part of it is now aftermarket)
- tinus_hn 7y ago> likely scavenged from broken phones Or stolen phones