3 ms·

> In fairness to Apple, that’s not fair at all. Does Apple hold patents that those factories are infringing by making those parts? Companies are not in genera

> In fairness to Apple, that’s not fair at all. Does Apple hold patents that those factories are infringing by making those parts? Companies are not in general entitled to forbid manufacture of compatible (or identical!) parts. And when it comes to fairness, profiting off of repairing your own broken products is dubious to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, removing that source of revenue is perfectly fair, and reduces the perverse incentives companies have to make their products prone to break (isn't it strange how manufacturers choose to make phones 0.5mm thinner instead of more impact resistant?).

Someone 5y ago
_If_ Apple sends a design they made to a factory to have it mass-produced, and that factory makes more of the exact same parts and then sells them at lower price, that isn’t fair to Apple, just as it wouldn’t be fair if that manufacturer did the same for some Kickstarter campaign. Similarly, _if_ third parties make lower quality products that intentionally look so much like Apple’s ones that it deceives customers, I think Apple has a point that that dilutes the value of their brand.
- chuckee 5y ago
  Suppose Audi has a cog wheel mass produced in some factory in China. The cog wheel has to be made with very specific dimensions, or it won't fit into the Audi. Now that cog wheel in my Audi breaks, and I need a new one. What makes Audi the only one with the right to make a cog wheel that will fit my car? What you're trying to do is expand the patent system even further, without calling it a patent system. If on the other hand those factories are infringing patents, then Apple may have a legitimate case ("may" because the quality of many patents is questionable at best, even if they're legally valid). > that intentionally look so much like Apple’s ones that it deceives customers But this is literally the opposite of what the training videos are about. They're about persuading customers that knowingly want to buy non-Apple parts, to buy Apple instead.

Someone 5y ago

_If_ Apple sends a design they made to a factory to have it mass-produced, and that factory makes more of the exact same parts and then sells them at lower price, that isn’t fair to Apple, just as it wouldn’t be fair if that manufacturer did the same for some Kickstarter campaign. Similarly, _if_ third parties make lower quality products that intentionally look so much like Apple’s ones that it deceives customers, I think Apple has a point that that dilutes the value of their brand.

chuckee 5y ago
Suppose Audi has a cog wheel mass produced in some factory in China. The cog wheel has to be made with very specific dimensions, or it won't fit into the Audi. Now that cog wheel in my Audi breaks, and I need a new one. What makes Audi the only one with the right to make a cog wheel that will fit my car? What you're trying to do is expand the patent system even further, without calling it a patent system. If on the other hand those factories are infringing patents, then Apple may have a legitimate case ("may" because the quality of many patents is questionable at best, even if they're legally valid). > that intentionally look so much like Apple’s ones that it deceives customers But this is literally the opposite of what the training videos are about. They're about persuading customers that knowingly want to buy non-Apple parts, to buy Apple instead.