6 ms·

This is an unfortunate win against the right to repair, which is a concerning issue everywhere around the world. Just recently, in Norway its last court instanc

This is an unfortunate win against the right to repair, which is a concerning issue everywhere around the world. Just recently, in Norway its last court instance found a repair shop in breach of Apple's trademark as they used imported third-party displays. This stifles competition as corporations are in control for how long hardware or software remain usable and who can provide alternative solutions. In the US this topic flared up again once the farmers felt the consequences of this. Now their modern vehicles and tools either have to be replaced a lot more often or they can't choose where to seek replacements.

jacquesm 6y ago
That Norwegian decision is a travesty as presented here, how can a repair infringe on a trademark and how on Earth did that not lead to an appeal. Using aftermarket parts is a well established practice in automotive, I see absolutely no reason why that would not extend to phones. Are they going to demand cars are only repaired with OEM parts as well?
- class4behavior 6y ago
  >The Norwegian judges made the final decision purely assessing trademark violations on these screens, based on obscure and technical details that are entirely invisible to consumers (...) while Huseby still maintains they were refurbished. (...) >As Huseby puts it, Apple uses intellectual property 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 intellectual property. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments. https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/ https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Disgusting.
    - krapht 6y ago
      You should read the actual court case. The online journalistic coverage is misleading and somewhat exaggerated. There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed. https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        I'm sure there are good reasons but there has to be a more concise way of making that point than linking to 41 minutes of rambling video. I watched the first 5 and I'm none the wise yet. Regardless of journalistic coverage it is still Apple suing for trademark infringement on parts that should not have been trademarked in the first place. So they are simply using trademark law as a weapon knowing full well that this was their intended use from day #1. Apple doesn't like 3rd party repairs of your devices, somehow they still feel that even if they sell you something they are owed a piece of the action for every bit of hardware that goes into it post sale. We've come a very long way since the Apple II with it's nice and hackable expansion ports. This disgusts me in a way that not much else does.
        rasz 6y ago
        The case was not about trademarked parts. It was about someone in China printing Apple trademarks on substitutes. At first everyone, including Louis, assumed original Apple logos printed by Apple on Apple LCD module. Turned out Chinese refurbished decided to counterfeit the refurb to make it look like original part, by printing Apple trademarks on substitute parts.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        So, the Chinese broke the law, not the refurbisher. And yet, it is the refurbisher that got sued here. I've seen similar things happen with Bosch vs Porsche, where Porsche parts retail for a fairly large multiple of the Bosch parts, the only difference being the Porsche logo. Functionally equivalent, made in the same factory, to all intents and purposes the same part. Manufacturers that want to distinguish themselves by labeling commodity parts with their trademarks are not doing this with the intention of protecting their customers, they are protecting their bottom line.
  - text70 6y ago
    They are treating this as if the phones are modern day tally sticks. What that amounts to is basically allowing private "taxation".
- izacus 6y ago
  The practice in automotive is there due to historical legacy - it would never be allowed in modern world. If anything, the carmakers have started to prevent you from doing your own repairs by demanding their own proprietary software to pair car controller modules. That software is licensed only to dealers and trying to use it outside those licensed conditions is a DMCA violation. With BMW pioneering car microtransactions (https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purchase-heated-seats-software-over-the-air-updates https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purcha...) you can be sure that the corporations will bear down the DMCA/copyright/trademark lawyer hammer on anyone that even thinks of trying to add features to such cars without their consent. The times where you could upgrade your car with aftermarket parts are coming to an end with the sound of cheers for Apple and other corporations adding DRM everywhere to prevent your own repairs and upgrades.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Well, fuck BMW then.
    - switch007 6y ago
      Indeed. The last good car they made was the E46 M3 anyway (2006!)
      - tmh88j 6y ago
        Have you driven any modern BMW's? If size is your issue the M2 Competition is far superior to the E46 M3, and the F80 M3 is far superior to the E39 M5 and E60 M5.
        rasz 6y ago
        For the first two years of ownership. https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?7348-BMW-ignores-the-F80-M3-F84-S55-engine-crank-hub-issue-and-is-it-the-worst-BMW-M3-production-engine-defect-of-all-time https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?7348-BMW-ignores-the...
- jjcon 6y ago
  > how can a repair infringe on a trademark I generally agree but I can also see apples pov. I’ve purchased quite a few used iPhones online (amazon, eBay stores etc) that are advertised as new or open box. So so frequently they come with terrible third party screens or super cheap replacement parts. If I didn’t have a point of reference I would think iPhones just have terrible screens/crappy switches/speakers etc. Apple is right to want to protect their brand from these hooligans but I think there are far better ways. I personally think they should let the repair market be but throw an alert in settings and setup that let you know there are fake parts in a device. I’m not sure how feasible that would be butI think it would be more useful and effective than going at it from a legislative angle.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    You buy used phones, you can more or less expect them to be repaired. If you want the guarantee of a 'fresh' phone then you should pay the mark-up. Even the seller might not be aware that the phone has been repaired.
    - closeparen 6y ago
      You should expect them to be repaired with genuine parts, though.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Why? If a repair costs $x with genuine parts and 1/3 of $x with aftermarket parts and the phone works then I really don't see any good reason. Cars have aftermarket pars fit to them all the time, brakes, tires, shocks, filters, engine components (turbos!) and so on. They're arguably a lot more critical than the screen of a phone which is just another wear part.
- jccooper 6y ago
  That case was not quite that simple. It involved import of third-party refurbished/remanufactured parts still bearing the Apple logo (because they contained some original Apple parts). This is clearly problematic, and something auto parts manufacturers are well aware of. I buy many auto parts clearly made on the same mold as factory parts, but with the logo always removed--sometimes even just ground off. The defendant in this case was aware of the problem and tried to solve it via blacking out the logo with a marker and describing the provenance of the part during the sales process. One can differ on whether these were sufficient measures, and perhaps note that Apple is making it extra hard to remove their logos, but restricting third parties from selling products I didn't make with my logo on it is fairly fundamental to trademark law.
  - theturtletalks 6y ago
    I read it was not the Apple logo, rather the QR looking code that’s on the parts. Not sure why Chinese suppliers are putting those codes on third party items, but the Norwegian company wasn’t trying to mislead customers.
- rasz 6y ago
  In the Norwegian case it turned out refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display. Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.
  - class4behavior 6y ago
    >refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display. Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.
    - rasz 6y ago
      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6936580/Norway.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6936580/Norway.pd... The screens were real Apple hardware, with newly reprinted Apple logos by someone in China. point 20 "Høgsterett legg difor til grunn lagmannsrettens vurdering av at dei innførte skjermane ikkje er originale, at dei påførte varemerka er identiske med Apples registrerte figurmerke, at varemerka ikkje er påførte av Apple, og at dei er dekt over med tusj som let seg fjerne. " + the fact he was billed for "Original OEM screens"

jacquesm 6y ago

That Norwegian decision is a travesty as presented here, how can a repair infringe on a trademark and how on Earth did that not lead to an appeal. Using aftermarket parts is a well established practice in automotive, I see absolutely no reason why that would not extend to phones. Are they going to demand cars are only repaired with OEM parts as well?

class4behavior 6y ago
>The Norwegian judges made the final decision purely assessing trademark violations on these screens, based on obscure and technical details that are entirely invisible to consumers (...) while Huseby still maintains they were refurbished. (...) >As Huseby puts it, Apple uses intellectual property 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 intellectual property. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments. https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/ https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Disgusting.
  - krapht 6y ago
    You should read the actual court case. The online journalistic coverage is misleading and somewhat exaggerated. There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed. https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      I'm sure there are good reasons but there has to be a more concise way of making that point than linking to 41 minutes of rambling video. I watched the first 5 and I'm none the wise yet. Regardless of journalistic coverage it is still Apple suing for trademark infringement on parts that should not have been trademarked in the first place. So they are simply using trademark law as a weapon knowing full well that this was their intended use from day #1. Apple doesn't like 3rd party repairs of your devices, somehow they still feel that even if they sell you something they are owed a piece of the action for every bit of hardware that goes into it post sale. We've come a very long way since the Apple II with it's nice and hackable expansion ports. This disgusts me in a way that not much else does.
      - rasz 6y ago
        The case was not about trademarked parts. It was about someone in China printing Apple trademarks on substitutes. At first everyone, including Louis, assumed original Apple logos printed by Apple on Apple LCD module. Turned out Chinese refurbished decided to counterfeit the refurb to make it look like original part, by printing Apple trademarks on substitute parts.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        So, the Chinese broke the law, not the refurbisher. And yet, it is the refurbisher that got sued here. I've seen similar things happen with Bosch vs Porsche, where Porsche parts retail for a fairly large multiple of the Bosch parts, the only difference being the Porsche logo. Functionally equivalent, made in the same factory, to all intents and purposes the same part. Manufacturers that want to distinguish themselves by labeling commodity parts with their trademarks are not doing this with the intention of protecting their customers, they are protecting their bottom line.
- text70 6y ago
  They are treating this as if the phones are modern day tally sticks. What that amounts to is basically allowing private "taxation".
izacus 6y ago
The practice in automotive is there due to historical legacy - it would never be allowed in modern world. If anything, the carmakers have started to prevent you from doing your own repairs by demanding their own proprietary software to pair car controller modules. That software is licensed only to dealers and trying to use it outside those licensed conditions is a DMCA violation. With BMW pioneering car microtransactions (https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purchase-heated-seats-software-over-the-air-updates https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purcha...) you can be sure that the corporations will bear down the DMCA/copyright/trademark lawyer hammer on anyone that even thinks of trying to add features to such cars without their consent. The times where you could upgrade your car with aftermarket parts are coming to an end with the sound of cheers for Apple and other corporations adding DRM everywhere to prevent your own repairs and upgrades.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Well, fuck BMW then.
  - switch007 6y ago
    Indeed. The last good car they made was the E46 M3 anyway (2006!)
    - tmh88j 6y ago
      Have you driven any modern BMW's? If size is your issue the M2 Competition is far superior to the E46 M3, and the F80 M3 is far superior to the E39 M5 and E60 M5.
      - rasz 6y ago
        For the first two years of ownership. https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?7348-BMW-ignores-the-F80-M3-F84-S55-engine-crank-hub-issue-and-is-it-the-worst-BMW-M3-production-engine-defect-of-all-time https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?7348-BMW-ignores-the...
jjcon 6y ago
> how can a repair infringe on a trademark I generally agree but I can also see apples pov. I’ve purchased quite a few used iPhones online (amazon, eBay stores etc) that are advertised as new or open box. So so frequently they come with terrible third party screens or super cheap replacement parts. If I didn’t have a point of reference I would think iPhones just have terrible screens/crappy switches/speakers etc. Apple is right to want to protect their brand from these hooligans but I think there are far better ways. I personally think they should let the repair market be but throw an alert in settings and setup that let you know there are fake parts in a device. I’m not sure how feasible that would be butI think it would be more useful and effective than going at it from a legislative angle.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  You buy used phones, you can more or less expect them to be repaired. If you want the guarantee of a 'fresh' phone then you should pay the mark-up. Even the seller might not be aware that the phone has been repaired.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    You should expect them to be repaired with genuine parts, though.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Why? If a repair costs $x with genuine parts and 1/3 of $x with aftermarket parts and the phone works then I really don't see any good reason. Cars have aftermarket pars fit to them all the time, brakes, tires, shocks, filters, engine components (turbos!) and so on. They're arguably a lot more critical than the screen of a phone which is just another wear part.
jccooper 6y ago
That case was not quite that simple. It involved import of third-party refurbished/remanufactured parts still bearing the Apple logo (because they contained some original Apple parts). This is clearly problematic, and something auto parts manufacturers are well aware of. I buy many auto parts clearly made on the same mold as factory parts, but with the logo always removed--sometimes even just ground off. The defendant in this case was aware of the problem and tried to solve it via blacking out the logo with a marker and describing the provenance of the part during the sales process. One can differ on whether these were sufficient measures, and perhaps note that Apple is making it extra hard to remove their logos, but restricting third parties from selling products I didn't make with my logo on it is fairly fundamental to trademark law.
- theturtletalks 6y ago
  I read it was not the Apple logo, rather the QR looking code that’s on the parts. Not sure why Chinese suppliers are putting those codes on third party items, but the Norwegian company wasn’t trying to mislead customers.
rasz 6y ago
In the Norwegian case it turned out refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display. Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.
- class4behavior 6y ago
  >refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display. Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.
  - rasz 6y ago
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6936580/Norway.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6936580/Norway.pd... The screens were real Apple hardware, with newly reprinted Apple logos by someone in China. point 20 "Høgsterett legg difor til grunn lagmannsrettens vurdering av at dei innførte skjermane ikkje er originale, at dei påførte varemerka er identiske med Apples registrerte figurmerke, at varemerka ikkje er påførte av Apple, og at dei er dekt over med tusj som let seg fjerne. " + the fact he was billed for "Original OEM screens"