Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost (vice.com)
Jason Koebler, reporting for Motherboard: Last year, Apple's lawyers sent Henrik Huseby, the owner of a small electronics repair shop in Norway, a letter demanding that he immediately stop using aftermarket iPhone screens at his repair business and that he pay the company a settlement. Norway's customs officials had seized a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S replacement screens on their way to Henrik's shop from Asia and alerted Apple; the company said they were counterfeit. Apple threatened to take action, unless Huseby provided the companies with copies of invoices, product lists, and a plethora of other things. The letter, sent by Frank Jorgensen, an attorney at the Njord law firm on behalf of Apple, included a settlement agreement that also notified him the screens would be destroyed. [...] Huseby decided to fight the case. Apple sued him. Local news outlets reported that Apple had five lawyers in the courtroom working on the case, but Huseby won. Apple has appealed the decision to a higher court; the court has not yet decided whether to accept the appeal.
Norway. Not USA. Never in the country where its leader calls people "slime balls".
Apple, if you want the general public to care about "counterfeit" parts, make your production operations completely domestic.
Don't sue the little guy for your IP leakage problems in China. He's just trying to make a living, and there's no reason you should control the repair market.
Hopefully Apple has to pay a Billion or so in settlement costs as well.
Unless the shop is claiming to use brand new Apple parts exclusively. What is the issue with using broken / used for parts to repair electric item?
If the shop claiming to using authentic Apple parts do they knowing purchase counterfeit parts? If not then the beef should be with the supplier (which Apple probably has no ground to stand on in China).
The shop agreed to be licensed as an Apple Authorized repair center. That doesn't come for free -- they agree to use real Apple supplied parts, etc, etc. The guy was importing possibly mislabeled / counterfeit parts (in that they bear the Apple logo but are no longer valid Apple refurbed parts).
Regardless of what you believe is the right to repair, this is about the repair company representing itself as repairing your stuff with real OEM parts. They got identified as not doing so, probably defrauding consumers all the meanwhile. What's the problem? Why be happy that they won this case?
would do better on keeping rapists and Islamists out.
What is a counterfeit screen? Something that made look like a screen, but doesn't actually works? If not that, then it is third-party replacement screen, and Apple has no business telling anyone what parts to use.
He does not operate an authorized repair shop.
Those also the ones sending out copyright infringement notices for some unknown movie and offering to settle if for ~$100.
So I'm not surprised that things went sideways for Apple - they should be more selective in their choice of law firms.
Because otherwise, this is a criminal act *by Apple*.
Everybody should watch this:
Lessons from fashion's free culture - Johanna Blakley at TEDxUSC
It makes clear how pointless copyright is.
I am always happy to hear when a small businessman stands up to big corporate bullies and wins. Apple has gotten greedy and it's good to see them get kicked in the balls once in a while.
"Right to repair" addresses the counterfeit argument which this case is about by saying Apple should provide parts and tools to independents. So this situation is in part of Apple's own making with their hard-nose stance to an obvious demand of the market, which current approved shops aren't meeting.
To stop people from repairing their own devices....BRICK them with a software update. If you purchase a device with a warranty, then by all means, LEAVE it alone until the warranty period expires, but, after that, you should have the right to repair it as you see fit. Now, that being said, if the replacement part(s) through no fault of your own, are defective, (unless Apple bricks them) that is on your own to take up with the repair vendor.
Talking about Comey and Trump on an article about Apple?
Did he or did he not have secret, politically motivated meetings with Obama (be it alone or with others)?
It's hard to tell because the FBI won't let us know when they met.
lol fuck off, thanks
truly yours,
everyone else
So many comments that reveal that they didn't read it. This is a non-authorized repair shop. These were Apple screens that were repaired/refurbished and sold as such with the Apple logo obscured. The court held that the logo was not visible to the consumer and therefore were not misrepresented as new Apple parts. Doubtful a US court would rule the same way, but I hope we get a chance to find out.
It's one thing to repair with non-OEM parts. It's another to use COunterfeit screens that claim to be apple screens. Let's not make this about a something other than what it is. Headline seems to mislead
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
A quote from the Motherboard article, by the judge who ruled aainst Apple:
"It is not obvious to the court what trademark function justifies Apple’s choice of imprinting the Apple logo on so many internal components"
It is, although, obvious to Apple's marketing team: 90% of their revenue, including hardware sales and repair are due to branding appeal and not quality or technological appeal (despite it actually existing), and thus, Apple wants to protect that brand in every single way by printing it everywhere, and preventing repairs that might tarnish that brand (as they can be lower quality, but don't necessarily mean they are...).
The judge though, noted very well that this trademark/brand protectionism goes against basic rights of repair - Apple doens't own your phone after you buy it - and consequentially, it cannot apply their trademark rights OVER repair rights.
Ask a broken iPhone owner if he would rather have the screen repaired with the logo: he would obviously say he prefers to fake it, but that's his choice and his wrongdoing. Ask the same person he has to pay 300 to have the logo, or 30 bucks to get a no logo, fully-functioning screen, and the branding thing will go down the drain pretty fast. But obviously, since Apple does not produce nondescript versions of their spare parts, you will never have sub-300 bucks, official iPhone X screens and that's just the life for an iPhone buyer that doesn't want to break the law. I feel for you
they became that which they hard fought against.
Yes, a third-party part cannot contain Apple logos, but seeing this a screen, how do you think is that relevant?
I am all for the small store owner in this instance, as long as he was noting these are third party screens used for repair.
The reason it matters vs. Apple screens is because third party screens are not going to have the same level of QA or possibly materials as real Apple screens. They may have dead pixels. They may be dimmer. They have have much worse off-axis color shift. They may not last as long because of various component failures; screens are not just screens but also quite a lot of electronics that go along with an LCD.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple has no grounds to stand on if he doesn't use their trademark. He should repair "Fruit" phones. After all, the CEO of Apple is a fruit, so it should be obvious to customers.
Thanks, Fake Tim Cook for your definitive analysis. I'm sure we're all smarter for having read your non-misleading analysis.
As detailed by the article, this shop was non-authorized. In other aftermarket situations, like many other manufacturers, Apple does nearly everything in their power to make it hard for consumers to repair equipment on their own terms -- everything from using stupid special screws to refusing to publish board schematics (even to authorized shops) so customers are forced to make full board replacements. I wouldn't be surprised if they routinely pull this shakedown practice on other non-authorized shops.
If Apple wins they win. If Apple loses they've beat down the winner so much that the next repair show may think twice.
Criminal prosecutors do the same thing since the consequences of losing are trivial.
I found this little bit of logic to be the most interesting.
The judge took that into account and noted that since the logo was not visible it was not considered to be counterfeit. The users did not know the logo was on the parts.
He neatly closed off that line of argument from Apple since he's saying the printing on the internal parts is irrelevant to whether or not they infringe. That's a lot of leg to cut out from under them in their case.
don't believe anything else. They didn't get one trillion dollars by playing fair and nice.
So, if Apple believes they still own the hardware you paid for and you have no right to repair it without going through Apple, perhaps the solution is to stop buying Apple products altogether? Apple buys most of their parts from Samsung to begin with, and Samsung is already well ahead of Apple in technology, although both companies appear to think they can maximize profits by making their products as easy to break as possible. Essentially, Apple is pissed because 3rd party replacement screens cut into their most lucrative profit center.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Imagine buying a Ford and being sued for using after market products on your car. That is exactly what Apple seeks on its products. The idea that a company can control a product after they sell it is absurd. You buy it. You own it. You do what you please with it! Maybe it is time for end users to sue when a product is made difficult or expensive to repair. A class action suit might be a real eye opener.
THe home court advantage is probably larger in court cases than in basketball.
Fender bender replacement wasn't from Honda, but it was 70% cheaper so I went with the non-Honda parts. That was my choice as the customer from the repair shop. The shop was clear that I could use either OEM or non-OEM parts in the repair.
Assuming the iPhone repair shop let his customers have the same knowledge, screw apple.
OTOH, I'm inclined to want apple screwed regardless. Call it a personality flaw, if you like.
Huseby does not claim to be an authorized repair shop, nor has he misrepresented his service, nor does he submit invoices to Apple.
The original Motherboard article is quite clear on this point. Huseby bought OEM refurbished parts. They had an Apple logo on them because they were, in fact, Apple parts originally. Since the refurbishment was done outside of the Apple monolith those parts had the logos inked out. Fact is, Huseby and his parts suppliers all seem to be operating responsibly and 100% within the law.
Also, there's this tiny little matter that Huseby won the court case and Apple lost. Yes, Apple is appealing, but in the meantime Huseby is the winner.
Also, as a fundamental and practical matter, does the owner of a phone actually control the phone? You know, as the owner, of property, that they purchased? Apple does not lease or license these phones. They sell them.
Given the power imbalance here, and that Apple was clearly (and knowingly - they have good lawyers) in the wrong, there need to be consequences.
Legal fees, time, expenses, etc., are simply not enough.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Tim Cook talks about how he supports his users by not selling their information, by supporting strong encryption, and by standing up to the government. Whenever I hear him talk about this, I pause and almost consider buying an Apple product. But then things like this happen, and I am reminded that Apple provides a walled-garden store, fights interoperability, and uses the intellectual-property stick to harm their own customers. Tim Cook can claim a clean conscience on some fronts, but is downright evil on others. There is hope for Apple, but there is much that needs to change.
If I chose to not pay apple for a repair my warranty is void when using 3rd party. That's my choice. None of apples business really how I spend my cash on my stuff.
This shit needs to be stopped at