3 ms·

I don't think this is correct. They weren't re-using official apple parts, they were ordering fake parts directly from the manufactures. We know they are fake,

• jethro_tell 6y ago
  That's the point, if you won't produce parts to the public, you shouldn't have ground to sue people for using after market parts.
  • t-writescode 6y ago
    Then you need to go after Apple in that way. That's a more powerful case than what happened here.
• amscanne 6y ago
  Same difference. Apple won't sell the parts, and won't allow manufacturers to make & sell the parts either. So manufacturers do it anyways, and sell them in the grey market. I wound up with these parts myself after trying to buy a high-quality replacement display for an old phone (complete with blacked-out Apple logo). There is no legal alternative. They're not "fake" parts, but the parts aren't supposed to exist. (Seems like that issue would be between Apple and the manufacturer, but I digress.) What good is a right to repair if the major companies can just make it illegal in practice?
• ljm 6y ago
  They're not exactly fake if they come from the same manufacturer. Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute and the flow of electricity gives no shit about that. I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.
  • saagarjha 6y ago
    > Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute This is why I'm somewhat annoyed that this case is being paraded as something to support right-to-repair…
  • jbay808 6y ago
    I think "unlicensed" or "unofficial" might be better terms. I agree that the term "fake" seems inappropriate for surplus parts coming from the same production line, or even if they're factory rejects. (Those might be defective or flawed, but not fake).
  • theshrike79 6y ago
    The "fakes" are usually off pieces that didn't go through the official quality control. The easiest way for you to demonstrate this is to get some official Legos. Then go on Aliexpress and order some no-brand knockoffs (Lepin or whatever they're called now). Both work as building blocks, both connect to themselves and each other. But you can just feel that the knockoffs haven't been produced to the same exact standard as the officials, they're just a little bit off and squeaky and wonky. Now if someone sold you the knockoffs as officials, it would affect the Lego brand. And this is why companies go to court for.
• simion314 6y ago
  >they are fake Refurbished parts are not fake. You can have an original screen that only the top layer is cracked, that top layer can be replaced or fixed, the people that fixed the screen did not erased the existing Apple logo. Anyway this would not happen if Apple would allow selling of parts to third party.
• dwild 6y ago
  They were using refurbished part, which contained original partx, which contained the Apple logo. It's like changing a windshield for a third party one and then getting sued once you try to sell your car because there still the logo on the car.