Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Who Teaches People How To Repair Their MacBooks Alludes To Apple Lawsuit (gamerevolution.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the under-attack dept.

New submitter alzoron writes: After the failure of New York's Fair Repair Act, independent third-party unauthorized Apple repair shops seem to be under attack. Louis Rossmann, owner of Rossman Repair Group, INC has uploaded a somewhat vague video alluding to his Youtube site, where he posts videos about repairing out of warranty repairs, possibly being shut down. Several sources (Reddit, Mac Kung Fu, 9to5Mac) have been speculating about this and whether or not Apple is behind this. Game Revolution reported on the video (Link is to cache version of the site since the report has since been removed), breaking down each section of the video. 6:52: Louis informs viewers that they can download YouTube videos. 7:41: Louis mentions that YouTube channels have a "finite lifespan," often because a large corporation has the power and money to shut them down. 8:42: Louis shares that he's happy when he's lived a difficult life so that he can be strong for the immense challenge that is ahead. 10:06: Louis shares that he is going to have to fight from his point onward. 11:22: Louis states that all his videos may soon be gone. 11:32: Louis mentions that his business may disappear. Given what Louis has mentioned, it's apparent that Louis has been threatened by Apple likely for condemning its policies to a growing subscriber base, but also for showing users how to repair its hardware without going through Apple support.

UPDATE 7/1/16: The headline has been updated to clarify that the lawsuit is unconfirmed. We'll continue to update the story as it develops.

7 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. And that, my friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Is why I've never entertained an offer to work for Apple.

  2. Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, the "weld the hood shut" approach coupled with the snobbery dickishness of their design and marketing teams about their products puts me off even accepting a free idevice, let alone buying one. I would join this man in feeling joy in repairing them for other people, simply because it is disruptive to those pretentious fucks in cupertino.

    Joining those picks in denialism about the quality of the products does not earn any brownie points, ac.

  3. Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi by l.a.rossmann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would say if this is does not constitute educational fair use than I do not know what is. You can only see tiny snippets, you are missing all of the information required to actually design this product.

  4. Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Board schematics are a factual description of a physical object. Factual information cannot be copyrighted; 1st amendment issue. You can patent the board, but that doesn't allow you to prevent dissemination of facts..

    YANAL, and you have misinterpreted the distinction between facts that cannot be copyrighted, and a particular representation of facts that can be copyrighted.

    For instance, I can open the phonebook and copy the entries into a separate database and sell it, because the phone numbers themselves are facts that are not covered by copyright, see [1]. But I could not photocopy an entire page of the phonebook and sell it elsewhere without permission. Similarly, I can take the same ingredients/methods in a recipe book and republish those recipes, see [2]. But I cannot simply photocopy the recipe book and sell it as my own. To quote [2] at length (my emphasis):

    [PLAINTIFF's] compilation copyright in [ORIGINAL WORK] therefore may not extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the manner and order in which they are presented. Because the record demonstrates that the [DEFENDANT] offer these recipes in substantially altered form and in a manner and order different from that found in [ORIGINAL WORK] we hold that [PLAINTIFF] has not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits.

    So the question here is did the defendant copy the schematics verbatim or he did he read the schematics and produce a different form of the same factual information separately? Until you answer that question, you cannot reach the question of whether he violated Apple's copyright in the schematic.

    [ And, FWIW, I haven't seen the schematics he posted versus the originals, so I can't answer that question and take a side. ]

    Further Reading:

    [1] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991)
    [2] Publications International v Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir., 1996)

  5. Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Error 53 is because of crappy repair places that, when replacing a cracked screen, replace the entire front assembly (which the Home button with the TouchID sensor is attached to) because it's faster and easier, rather than moving the existing Home button to the new front assembly like they should.

    And then, because the original TouchID sensor inside the Home button is cryptographically paired to the CPU's secure enclave but the "new" one is not, the operating system gives Error 53 and refuses to boot to make it hard for people to break into your phone with a compromised TouchID sensor.

    The solution is not to go to shitty repair places that don't do the job right. And if you *did* go to a shitty repair shop, the Apple Store will pair your "new" TouchID sensor to the CPU's secure enclave for you so that it'll work again. Or, plug your iPhone into your computer, and iTunes can disable the check (though this obviously makes your device less secure).

  6. Re: it can't be for distributing copyrighted mater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Bendgate

  7. Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    -2007
    When the 15" MacBook Pro had a frame with hinges attached to it instead of them sensibly being attached to a backplate, so they constantly broke like paperclips.
    Apple experience and quality.

    -2008
    When the graphics chips were dying on all the Apple computers. Apple was forced to help by a class action lawsuit. How that worked? They put an Apple diagnostic disc into your computer to decide whether they may or may not help you, based on whether the test passes. Of course, it can't work if you don't have a functional graphics chip.
    Apple experience and quality.

    -2009
    "Unibody" 15" MacBook Pro. Except it was made out of 2 pieces stuck together with adhesive. Not only that, it was so well designed with such build quality, the fan exhausting the heat these MacTurd Pros built up, was positioned to exhaust into the adhesive directly. End result: Computers falling apart everywhere.
    Apple experience and quality.

    -2010
    A1286 model with the 2850 board, which was failing because the sensors would keep the fans at 1000 RPM when FinalCut Pro was rendering and running a video for 20 minutes straight.
    Apple experience and quality.

    -~2010
    iPhone 4 comes out. $600 phone that you could not hold in your hand without dropping a call. Apple is not at fault, it's your fault for not holding the phone correctly on your fucking face!!!

    -2011
    820-2915 board comes out. Throttling the CPU out of the box with no dust, at 70 fahrenheit room temp. A $2000 machine, throttling and functioning worse than a shitty $300 Acer at that time.
    Apple experience and quality.

    -2013-2015
    Apple TrashCan Pro gets released. 2015 models start having major graphical issues that may cause distorted video, no video, system instability, freezing, restarts, shut downs, or may prevent system start up. AMD's FirePro D500 (high-end model) and D700 (built-to-order) GPUs are affected. Apple launches repair program in Feb 2016...