4 ms·

>Apple isn’t claiming the shop doesn’t have the right to repair iPhones, it is claiming it sells counterfeit screens. Under that system, if you go outside the

>Apple isn’t claiming the shop doesn’t have the right to repair iPhones, it is claiming it sells counterfeit screens. 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.

Someone 7y ago
”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.” 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.
- la_barba 7y ago
  >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. 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).

Someone 7y ago

”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.” 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.

la_barba 7y ago
>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. 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).