13 ms·

From what I hear, this isn't only about repairing iPhones. In a previous court proceedings the man was ordered to remove the logos from Apple because he importe

From what I hear, this isn't only about repairing iPhones. In a previous court proceedings the man was ordered to remove the logos from Apple because he imported the parts from China to refurbish iPhones. These were not genuine parts and they were being sold as refurbished iPhones. This court case bas brought on by Apple because he did not properly remove the Apple logos. He used a permanent marker to "remove" them from the parts. Apple did not agree that this was a proper way to do it. As much as I am for the rights to repair. I would say that Apple has some grounds here.

symkat 6y ago
> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright 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 copyright.
- paxys 6y ago
  Why does the grey market put Apple logos at all in the first place if not to deceive buyers?
  - jccooper 6y ago
    They don't. Apple puts logos on their parts and then someone uses them in a "refurbished" part and doesn't scrub the logos. It's not a problem in China, because they don't care, but in more legally-observant parts of the world it becomes a trademark issue, because you have a part that isn't entirely from Apple (and is thus not an official Apple product) but has their logos on it.
  - tssva 6y ago
    The grey market didn't put the logos on. The parts in question were screens where the glass had been broken but the display panels were still functional. The glass was replaced and the units are sold as refurbished. The Apple logos on them were on the display panels and placed there when originally manufactured for Apple.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      This. A lot of these "counterfeit" parts are just official parts that have been refurbished. Take a broken iPhone, part it, replace the glass, now you have a refurbished screen to go in someone's broken iPhone.
  - thoraway1010 6y ago
    It's to deceive buyers. I bought a new apple battery with the apple logo from online vendor - turned out to be total junk. Amazon used to be filled with these junk apple parts - I tried so hard to buy a real apple charger etc and you just get junk (with an apple logo). Despite the claims here that all this trash is "refurbished" real apple product it is not. Apple has some lawsuits going about this issue. 90% of the items they bought from amazon that were "genuine" turned out to be fakes. Apple has tried to crack down a bit. You used to be able to drop a crappy third party battery into a used iphone and the buyer would see that battery had no degradation (it often died months later). Now if a bogus battery is installed you get some kind of warning.
remexre 6y ago
article explains this later; sounds like the logos are from apple-mfred parts that end up in larger (overall refurb) parts. unless you were contradicting the article's saying so, in which case "yeah probably unideal, but the lower court said he wasn't advertising them as genuine apple anyway"
- nojito 6y ago
  You still have to shutdown bringing of parts with Apple's logo across countries for obvious reasons.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    You do not, for obvious reasons.
messe 6y ago
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable judgement. It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo), which would fall under (at least) trademark law (in my layman opinion), if not fraud. Disclaimer: I'm an Apple fan, and have previously interviewed there, but I am quite critical of many of their actions like the lockdown on iOS (although I am a huge fan of the mandatory sandboxing)
- rlpb 6y ago
  > It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo) From the article, it doesn't sound like that to me at all. It sounds like Apple deliberately put the logo on individual parts to try and make this claim later. But the logo on the part itself presumably isn't visible on the finished product. Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple!
  - nojito 6y ago
    >Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple! This isn't true.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
earth2mars 6y ago
you still didn't comment on right to repair. Seems like you work for Apple!
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Please don't do this here, especially in response to comments that provide meaningful context to the article.
- earth2mars 6y ago
  the downvote speaks for it :). I think I am also adding meaningful context to bring back the original issue on "right to repair". the commentor is masking the actual issue! its unfair to downvote without talking actual issue. look at other comments where it says the shop owner is not marketing them as apple products
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I just responded with the reason why your comments are not welcome here. If you keep this up, your comments are going to be flagged, not just downvoted. You don't comment much, so you're going to have to go beyond personal attacks if you want people to take you and your comments seriously. See the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    Wild accusations that someone works for a company are unwarranted.
    - earth2mars 6y ago
      sorry about it. but I am not wrong though. they do work for apple. Now I get banned for this. fine! I don't need a voice to read great intellectuals on HN. With that I stop here! Apple can do whatever they want. who am I! https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf
mywacaday 6y ago
The issue here is that you cannot buy spare parts from apple, imagine if it was the same for cars and you could only go to s main dealer to replace a windscreen and if you got a guy in a van to replace it with one from a car no longer in use that guy gets sued. Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory, especially for high value and high environmental impact items like the iphone.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Can't you get just your iPhone screen repaired?
  - procinct 6y ago
    I don't think so these days. I remember a little while ago, an update was pushed that bricked any phones with a third party screen (which I think included the finger print reader). The update was patched I believe but replacing the screen on a modern iPhone isn't as simple as replacing the glass anymore IIRC.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I think the Touch ID assembly is considered part of the screen.
    - jotm 6y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc back glass replacement... ridiculous. The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.
      - theshrike79 6y ago
        Glass backs are a requirement for wireless charging, it doesn't go so well with metal.
    - 6y ago
lostmsu 6y ago
After reading this, I believe using permanent marker is a reasonable workaround, as long as he did not also claim the parts were original. Especially if the whole thing is about internal parts.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  It at the very least shows "good faith" as in, no one can claim they were trying to misrepresent something as a new Apple part or product, when they not only didn't create an unauthorized logo themselves, but even took an active measure to obscure a logo that already existed that Apple put there THEMselves.
aeyes 6y ago
So where do I get genuine parts? Oh right, Apple doesn't sell them and even prevents OEMs from selling them. For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is. A 2000$ device that you just bought a couple of months ago. What right to repair do we have if Apple doesn't offer repair, even if you bought Apple Care.MacBooks are designed to fail, a drop of water kills the machine, the fuses never blow, if a sensor dies the whole machine stops working, they admitted a keyboard design flaw and if you get it replaced they replace it with the exact same one... If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.
- nojito 6y ago
  >If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. Given that this case is about importing counterfeit products from China...I disagree >If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. They do as long as your business is near an apple store. >If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case. Why should they be serviceable?
  - harrygeez 6y ago
    > Why should they be serviceable? wow really
  - thegreatpeter 6y ago
    This person is a troll, please ignore
  - aeyes 6y ago
    >>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. > They do as long as your business is near an apple store. No? Apple Care doesn't cover liquid damaged devices. And often they claim the device was liquid damaged even when it wasn't. And when Apple does fix your machine, how many times do you get your data back? ZERO times! >> If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case. > Why should they be serviceable? Because I paid thousands of dollars for a premium machine with the tag "Pro". It is unacceptable to turn it into a paper weight if it breaks, many times without user error.
jrochkind1 6y ago
if you repair an apple part, you should be required to, like, sand off the apple logos? this makes sense to you, really?
harwoodleon 6y ago
Whether they have grounds or not, this is a PR disaster for Apple. Lots of people who love technology will see this as a monopoly move against a little guy by a huge company with more cash reserves than a small country. Not surprised that the top comment on HN is a comment defending Apple either.

symkat 6y ago

> As Huseby puts it, Apple uses copyright 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 copyright.

paxys 6y ago
Why does the grey market put Apple logos at all in the first place if not to deceive buyers?
- jccooper 6y ago
  They don't. Apple puts logos on their parts and then someone uses them in a "refurbished" part and doesn't scrub the logos. It's not a problem in China, because they don't care, but in more legally-observant parts of the world it becomes a trademark issue, because you have a part that isn't entirely from Apple (and is thus not an official Apple product) but has their logos on it.
- tssva 6y ago
  The grey market didn't put the logos on. The parts in question were screens where the glass had been broken but the display panels were still functional. The glass was replaced and the units are sold as refurbished. The Apple logos on them were on the display panels and placed there when originally manufactured for Apple.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    This. A lot of these "counterfeit" parts are just official parts that have been refurbished. Take a broken iPhone, part it, replace the glass, now you have a refurbished screen to go in someone's broken iPhone.
- thoraway1010 6y ago
  It's to deceive buyers. I bought a new apple battery with the apple logo from online vendor - turned out to be total junk. Amazon used to be filled with these junk apple parts - I tried so hard to buy a real apple charger etc and you just get junk (with an apple logo). Despite the claims here that all this trash is "refurbished" real apple product it is not. Apple has some lawsuits going about this issue. 90% of the items they bought from amazon that were "genuine" turned out to be fakes. Apple has tried to crack down a bit. You used to be able to drop a crappy third party battery into a used iphone and the buyer would see that battery had no degradation (it often died months later). Now if a bogus battery is installed you get some kind of warning.

remexre 6y ago

article explains this later; sounds like the logos are from apple-mfred parts that end up in larger (overall refurb) parts. unless you were contradicting the article's saying so, in which case "yeah probably unideal, but the lower court said he wasn't advertising them as genuine apple anyway"

nojito 6y ago
You still have to shutdown bringing of parts with Apple's logo across countries for obvious reasons.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  You do not, for obvious reasons.

messe 6y ago

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable judgement. It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo), which would fall under (at least) trademark law (in my layman opinion), if not fraud. Disclaimer: I'm an Apple fan, and have previously interviewed there, but I am quite critical of many of their actions like the lockdown on iOS (although I am a huge fan of the mandatory sandboxing)

rlpb 6y ago
> It sounds like he was passing off non-apple parts as actual apple parts (by not properly removing the logo) From the article, it doesn't sound like that to me at all. It sounds like Apple deliberately put the logo on individual parts to try and make this claim later. But the logo on the part itself presumably isn't visible on the finished product. Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple!
- nojito 6y ago
  >Even if it were, it would still not be passing off because the part did originally come from Apple! This isn't true.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

earth2mars 6y ago

you still didn't comment on right to repair. Seems like you work for Apple!

saagarjha 6y ago
Please don't do this here, especially in response to comments that provide meaningful context to the article.
earth2mars 6y ago
the downvote speaks for it :). I think I am also adding meaningful context to bring back the original issue on "right to repair". the commentor is masking the actual issue! its unfair to downvote without talking actual issue. look at other comments where it says the shop owner is not marketing them as apple products
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I just responded with the reason why your comments are not welcome here. If you keep this up, your comments are going to be flagged, not just downvoted. You don't comment much, so you're going to have to go beyond personal attacks if you want people to take you and your comments seriously. See the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  Wild accusations that someone works for a company are unwarranted.
  - earth2mars 6y ago
    sorry about it. but I am not wrong though. they do work for apple. Now I get banned for this. fine! I don't need a voice to read great intellectuals on HN. With that I stop here! Apple can do whatever they want. who am I! https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf

mywacaday 6y ago

The issue here is that you cannot buy spare parts from apple, imagine if it was the same for cars and you could only go to s main dealer to replace a windscreen and if you got a guy in a van to replace it with one from a car no longer in use that guy gets sued. Ludicrous situation, the availability of spare parts should be mandatory, especially for high value and high environmental impact items like the iphone.

saagarjha 6y ago
Can't you get just your iPhone screen repaired?
- procinct 6y ago
  I don't think so these days. I remember a little while ago, an update was pushed that bricked any phones with a third party screen (which I think included the finger print reader). The update was patched I believe but replacing the screen on a modern iPhone isn't as simple as replacing the glass anymore IIRC.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I think the Touch ID assembly is considered part of the screen.
  - jotm 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4Od9D4puc back glass replacement... ridiculous. The aluminum iPhones (and other phones) were so beautiful. I have an old HTC M8 and it just looks and feels so nice compared to all glass Samsungs. Plus the front facing stereo speakers - truly practical.
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      Glass backs are a requirement for wireless charging, it doesn't go so well with metal.
  - 6y ago

lostmsu 6y ago

After reading this, I believe using permanent marker is a reasonable workaround, as long as he did not also claim the parts were original. Especially if the whole thing is about internal parts.

Brian_K_White 6y ago
It at the very least shows "good faith" as in, no one can claim they were trying to misrepresent something as a new Apple part or product, when they not only didn't create an unauthorized logo themselves, but even took an active measure to obscure a logo that already existed that Apple put there THEMselves.

aeyes 6y ago

So where do I get genuine parts? Oh right, Apple doesn't sell them and even prevents OEMs from selling them. For many, many repairs the Genius bar just tells you that it is not repairable even though it is. A 2000$ device that you just bought a couple of months ago. What right to repair do we have if Apple doesn't offer repair, even if you bought Apple Care.MacBooks are designed to fail, a drop of water kills the machine, the fuses never blow, if a sensor dies the whole machine stops working, they admitted a keyboard design flaw and if you get it replaced they replace it with the exact same one... If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case.

nojito 6y ago
>If Apple made parts available there wouldn't be a case. Given that this case is about importing counterfeit products from China...I disagree >If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. They do as long as your business is near an apple store. >If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case. Why should they be serviceable?
- harrygeez 6y ago
  > Why should they be serviceable? wow really
- thegreatpeter 6y ago
  This person is a troll, please ignore
- aeyes 6y ago
  >>If Apple offered repair services like Lenovo there wouldn't be a case. > They do as long as your business is near an apple store. No? Apple Care doesn't cover liquid damaged devices. And often they claim the device was liquid damaged even when it wasn't. And when Apple does fix your machine, how many times do you get your data back? ZERO times! >> If Apple designed their machines to be serviceable there wouldn't be a case. > Why should they be serviceable? Because I paid thousands of dollars for a premium machine with the tag "Pro". It is unacceptable to turn it into a paper weight if it breaks, many times without user error.

jrochkind1 6y ago

if you repair an apple part, you should be required to, like, sand off the apple logos? this makes sense to you, really?

harwoodleon 6y ago

Whether they have grounds or not, this is a PR disaster for Apple. Lots of people who love technology will see this as a monopoly move against a little guy by a huge company with more cash reserves than a small country. Not surprised that the top comment on HN is a comment defending Apple either.