Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tough-luck dept.

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.

22 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Good by bracktra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why don't you just read TFA?

      What part of "Independent iPhone Repair Shop" could suggest to anyone that he was/is a authorized Apple Repair Center?

      Also TFA states just in the subtitle that "Apple said an unauthorized repair shop owner in Norway violated its trademark by using aftermarket iPhone parts"

      So, an Independent iPhone Repair Shop which is not an authorized Apple Repair Center and obviously can't do WARRANTY Repairs and get paid for them fixing phones of people that don't want to pay hefty Apple aftermarket repair prices.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So he is using stuff that other people already paid Apple for, doing a fix that Apple didn't get paid to fix.

      Let us try a car analogy shall we? So lets say I go and get a used transmission for my car from a junk yard and have it installed in my Toyota. So I'm having parts replaced in my car using stuff that other people already paid Toyota for. I'm STILL paying for the used parts and I can put them in my Toyota if I want. Of course I don't expect Toyota to cover that under warranty, but if I'm getting that work done anyways, it was out of warranty to begin with!

      It's not like the guy STOLE the parts from the old phones to install into a new phone, he acquired them in a completely legal fashion. Apple has no right for a cut of anything from this. Same as Toyota not having a right to a dime for me getting a used transmission dropped in my car.

    3. Re:Good by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Depends.

      Was he an authorized Apple Repair Center, and using aftermarket parts to do WARRANTY Repairs?

      If so, then Apple has a point. If not, I would agree with the Court's decision.

      Another thing to consider is that not all spare parts are created equal. Neither neither Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC or any other device manufacturer is under any kind of obligation to test their software updates with every single kind of 3rd party spares on the market you might decide to use to repair your phone with. I generally prefer to get my gizmos repaired with OEM parts at a certified repair shop even if it cost more, simply because there is always the chance that some random 3rd party spare installed by some independent workshop may be the cause of the device being bricked by a software update because of some kind of hardware incompatibility, failure of the 3rd party parts manufacturer to correctly implement a standard or because the part was simply a piece of crap and broke. The last thing I need is to end up with with a bricked phone that costs in excess of 700 dollars to replace. If this guy is using 3rd party spares, and you run the risk of a software update bricking your device, he should also make his customers aware of that eventuality. If the customers are then willing to take the risk that's their decision, but then they should also not moan about it if the misfortune fairy turns their precious into a brick.

  2. Counterfeit screen? by sinij · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Counterfeit screen? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a google translate of a norwegian article:

      In the judgment, TÃnnesen writes that Huseby does not "use" Apple's trademark because he does not claim in his marketing or to customers that it is a matter of unused original parts. The logos that are applied to the parts can also not be removed without damaging the components, hence, sladding is the only way to hide the logo.

      Since internal components are concerned, the logos will never be displayed to the customers, and the court found no reason to believe that Huseby removed the bill and took out the logos after the goods were cleared.

      It is also a key point in the judgment that Huseby can not purchase original spare parts since Apple does not sell it to anyone other than itself and authorized workshops.

      "sladding" doesn't make sense, but further up the article it talks about "blotting out" the logo. Anyways, I think the judgement was correct.

    2. Re:Counterfeit screen? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do you know?

      Because it is literally my job to know these things.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    3. Re:Counterfeit screen? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article specifically answers your question:

      a part is “counterfeit” if it is masquerading as an original manufacturer part rather than an aftermarket one

      I.e. It's a counterfeit if it bears a company's logo but isn't from that company. It's fine to sell aftermarket screens, but it's not fine to sell aftermarket screens that falsely bear a company's trademark. If a product bears Apple's logo, Apple actually may have a say in who gets to sell them. Oh, but there's a wrinkle in this case, of course:

      This definition seems straightforward, but is further muddied because often broken parts—with original manufacturer logos—are sent back to China to be refurbished and sent back to independent repair companies. [...] [The defendant] imported 67 iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S screens that fell into this grey area. They were seized by Norwegian customs officials because Apple logos on the inside components of the screens “had been covered up by ink marker. The ink marker could be removed with rubbing alcohol,” [...]

      So, these were screens manufactured for Apple that Apple had rejected for whatever reason. At that point, despite bearing Apple's logo they were no longer "official" Apple screens and could not be marketed or sold as such. As such, should an unscrupulous repair shop try to pass them off as official Apple screens, they could find themselves in hot water. Thankfully, this guy wasn't doing that:

      [The defendant] told me [...] that they were “refurbished screens assembled by a third party.” [The defendant] told the court that ‘the logo is covered up because it has never been relevant to market the products as Apple products,” the court decision states. “[The repair shop] has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. [The repair shop] does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”

      Had he been making repairs while claiming he was using official Apple parts, he'd have been defrauding customers and rightly would have been in trouble, but that's not what he was doing. Had those parts not had their logos covered up, he'd have run afoul of EU laws governing the use of trademarks, but that's not what happened here. The fact is, he's using parts sourced from a third-party supplier who is clearly making an effort to ensure that the parts are not mistaken for official ones. He never claimed they were official parts, never claimed he was authorized by Apple, and went to every reasonable effort to ensure that there would be no confusion.

      Apple is well within its rights to prevent counterfeit parts from being used by unscrupulous repair shops, but the defendant here was doing no such thing, so the decision makes perfect sense while also not having any wide-reaching impact on Apple's ability to prevent unlawful use of its trademark.

    4. Re:Counterfeit screen? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In reality, fake parts are often run off on the exact same assembly lines, usually in 3rd world countries, but using inferior metal and material.

      These can fail, which have in the case of jet engine parts.

      Big companies include in their contracts that this shall not be done with their assembly lines, and often track fakes by real part number for sale on the Internet.

      Is a cheaper screen not UL? Or is the issue him pretending it is an Apple one? What about the claim, "It is just as good!"

      Most will side with him, though ironically will change position with something like Uber driving. Huh.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Counterfeit screen? by sinij · · Score: 3, Funny

      This absolutely should not be a consideration, almost everything these days has microcode and there is no way for a repair shop to determine what it is. Apple also can't be trusted on this, as they will obviously claim that anything they didn't make is in violation. This is clearly an issue with Apple, that manufactures in China, and Chinese knock-offs or unauthorized production runs. With Apple unwilling/unable to resolve this problem in China, it shouldn't be possible for them to attempt to resolve it by going after repair shops.

      I didn't say I agree with it. I am just the messenger. Don't shoot me.

      Please, we live in the age of unrestrained and unchecked outrage, the entire thing is your fault, you monster!

  3. Nope by bracktra · · Score: 5, Informative

    He does not operate an authorized repair shop.

  4. Re:what's the problem? by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why be happy that they won this case?

    Because Apple outsources manufacturing to China. They deserve all the consequences and cheap knock-offs.

  5. Re:what's the problem? by klingens · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this is /. but you should read the article before you comment.
    From the teaser of the article:
    "Apple said an unauthorized repair shop owner in Norway violated its trademark by using aftermarket iPhone parts"

    unauthorized repair shop, not apple licensed and blessed center.
    Considering how wrong you are in your first assertion, what makes you think that you are right in your 2nd one that they defrauded their own customers?

  6. Re:what's the problem? by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The shop agreed to be licensed as an Apple Authorized repair center."

    Authoritative source needed, because that's not at all what the article says. The article says it was an "independent" and "unauthorized" repair shop. It also says "PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.â

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  7. Excellent by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:what's the problem? by edtice1559 · · Score: 5, Informative

    How did this get modded up. It's like the first paragraph of the article that the is not an authorized repair shop, never claimed to be an authorized repair shop, and doens't want to be one. More importantly he imported refurbished Apple parts but never tried to sell them as OEM parts but a generic after-market parts.

  9. Re:what's the problem? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there a single statement there that you didn't just make up?

  10. This judge just won the internet today by cloud.pt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:This judge just won the internet today by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >> As someone who has broken their Apple screen...more than once...I'll take the Apple repair.

      As someone who has replaced a spouse's iPhone 6 screen twice* with sub-$30 eBay parts, I won't take the Apple repair. I'm not being a cheap; I'm being practical. The cost savings to do the repair myself exceed my hourly billing rate by a healthy margin.

      The quality of the parts has been acceptable so far.

      * Twice: Once when a waterproof case wasn't, and the second time when the phone went off a countertop onto a concrete floor.

  11. Apple Should Lose by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. Apple's demons by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.