7 ms·

> 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 Chine

by rlpb 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. It seems to me that something like the exhaustion doctrine[1] should be made to apply here (but presumably doesn't in Norway). Once a part is legally sold, even if as part of a bigger product, IP law should not be able to be used to prevent the buyer from doing what they want with the part, including using it in a different product that is then sold as a refurbishment part. The only exception should be to prevent others from being misled about the origin of the product; that doesn't appear to have been happening here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_pro...

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Odd question. As I understand it, Apple flouts EU rules regarding standards ( Lightning charge cable comes to mind ). If a company does not play by the same rules as others, can't it simply be barred from the markets that offer them the legal protections ( just as it demands basic compliance ). Or is this a case of too big to regulate.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  As far as I understand, compliance is voluntary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply. Did the EU back down on trying to enforce this?
- Sharlin 6y ago
  iPhone AC adapters come with a bog-standard USB-A connector. That's what matters to EU; the connector at the phone end is immaterial.
mattlutze 6y ago
There are some legitimate and common-sense applications of "terms of service" in physical products. You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe. Inevitable problems could be both a safety issue and injure the reputation of the company. Whether a phone or watch generally is one of those sorts of products though is certainly something to debate.
- cco 6y ago
  > You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe. I feel like you've never had your car repaired before... This is exactly something we're fine with protecting and encouraging. The manufacturer of the defective part is at fault, and depending on circumstances the repair person, not the company who originally built the device. Go ahead and try to get Chevy to sell you a brake master cylinder for a 1970 C10, your only options are after market parts manufacturers and that's fine, we've dealt with this for literally as long as there has been n > 1 blacksmiths in a town.
  - mattlutze 6y ago
    Certainly, this is why I've not made a universal claim above. I have indeed partially rebuilt a couple cars. I generally support right to repair. I recognise that anything against that is anathema here but there's some cases where we need to be able to make exceptions. Someone buying a refurbished powerbank, for example, may end up lighting something on fire because it was repaired incorrectly. Yes it'd maybe be on the manufacturer of a replacement regulator if an insulin pump was 3rd-party repaired and failed, but would it maybe be safer to say that the device should be modified or repaired only within its certified supply chain? There's CE and UL listings for communications and electrical devices to in part protect consumers against poor manufacturing leading to irradiated or electrocuted people. Could we agree that there's a difference between a bushing and a microcontroller?
- effie 6y ago
  I would want exactly this. Lately I got an older model of a smartphone. It was used to present the product, so I'm the first owner. It's ok but the internal battery sucks. Original batteries aren't some magical spec devices that other batteries can't substitute. Most of them are made by the same few manufacturers and it is trivial to find a replacement with similar specs.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I think you as a user should be able to make this choice, but the parent comment is talking about another scenario, where the person you're buying a refurbished iPhone from has silently replaced parts. I think that at least warrants some sort of disclaimer.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
This is a trademark issue and not copyright. Replacement parts passing themselves off as genuine OEM shouldn't be tolerated. Markings aren't required for the electronics to work. They're just there to deceive the consumer.
- rlpb 6y ago
  This isn't passing off. The logo was placed on the part by Apple. The consumer isn't being deceived; the consumer never even sees the logo! This is discussed elsewhere here already.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nojito 6y ago
    How do you know that? The part was imported into the country. The customer is 100% being deceived.
    - rlpb 6y ago
      Because the article says "...the Oslo District Court ruled in 2018 that Huseby did not violate Apple’s trademark, because Huseby never claimed to be using unused original spare parts". A court found that the customer wasn't being deceived, and this specific finding has not been overturned on appeal. The issue is about IP rights unrelated to customer deception.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This is a complete bastardisation of the trademark law and it's original purpose - the consumer was not mislead as to the origin of good or their purpose, and has never seen the trademark.

by rlpb 6y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

Odd question. As I understand it, Apple flouts EU rules regarding standards ( Lightning charge cable comes to mind ). If a company does not play by the same rules as others, can't it simply be barred from the markets that offer them the legal protections ( just as it demands basic compliance ). Or is this a case of too big to regulate.

saagarjha 6y ago
As far as I understand, compliance is voluntary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply. Did the EU back down on trying to enforce this?
Sharlin 6y ago
iPhone AC adapters come with a bog-standard USB-A connector. That's what matters to EU; the connector at the phone end is immaterial.

mattlutze 6y ago

There are some legitimate and common-sense applications of "terms of service" in physical products. You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe. Inevitable problems could be both a safety issue and injure the reputation of the company. Whether a phone or watch generally is one of those sorts of products though is certainly something to debate.

cco 6y ago
> You wouldn't want someone removing a battery from one device to try and retrofit into another and then sell the refurbished device as safe. I feel like you've never had your car repaired before... This is exactly something we're fine with protecting and encouraging. The manufacturer of the defective part is at fault, and depending on circumstances the repair person, not the company who originally built the device. Go ahead and try to get Chevy to sell you a brake master cylinder for a 1970 C10, your only options are after market parts manufacturers and that's fine, we've dealt with this for literally as long as there has been n > 1 blacksmiths in a town.
- mattlutze 6y ago
  Certainly, this is why I've not made a universal claim above. I have indeed partially rebuilt a couple cars. I generally support right to repair. I recognise that anything against that is anathema here but there's some cases where we need to be able to make exceptions. Someone buying a refurbished powerbank, for example, may end up lighting something on fire because it was repaired incorrectly. Yes it'd maybe be on the manufacturer of a replacement regulator if an insulin pump was 3rd-party repaired and failed, but would it maybe be safer to say that the device should be modified or repaired only within its certified supply chain? There's CE and UL listings for communications and electrical devices to in part protect consumers against poor manufacturing leading to irradiated or electrocuted people. Could we agree that there's a difference between a bushing and a microcontroller?
effie 6y ago
I would want exactly this. Lately I got an older model of a smartphone. It was used to present the product, so I'm the first owner. It's ok but the internal battery sucks. Original batteries aren't some magical spec devices that other batteries can't substitute. Most of them are made by the same few manufacturers and it is trivial to find a replacement with similar specs.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I think you as a user should be able to make this choice, but the parent comment is talking about another scenario, where the person you're buying a refurbished iPhone from has silently replaced parts. I think that at least warrants some sort of disclaimer.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

This is a trademark issue and not copyright. Replacement parts passing themselves off as genuine OEM shouldn't be tolerated. Markings aren't required for the electronics to work. They're just there to deceive the consumer.

rlpb 6y ago
This isn't passing off. The logo was placed on the part by Apple. The consumer isn't being deceived; the consumer never even sees the logo! This is discussed elsewhere here already.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nojito 6y ago
  How do you know that? The part was imported into the country. The customer is 100% being deceived.
  - rlpb 6y ago
    Because the article says "...the Oslo District Court ruled in 2018 that Huseby did not violate Apple’s trademark, because Huseby never claimed to be using unused original spare parts". A court found that the customer wasn't being deceived, and this specific finding has not been overturned on appeal. The issue is about IP rights unrelated to customer deception.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This is a complete bastardisation of the trademark law and it's original purpose - the consumer was not mislead as to the origin of good or their purpose, and has never seen the trademark.