DHS Seized Aftermarket Apple Laptop Batteries From Independent Repair Expert (vice.com)

Louis Rossmann says US Customs and Border Patrol seized $1,000 worth of laptop batteries, claiming they were counterfeit. From a report: Earlier this year, Louis Rossmann, the highest-profile iPhone and Mac repair professional in the United States, told Motherboard that determining "the difference between counterfeiting and refurbishing is going to be the next big battle" between the independent repair profession and Apple. At the time, his friend and fellow independent repair pro, Jessa Jones, had just had a shipment of iPhone screens seized by Customs and Border Patrol. Rossmann was right: His repair parts were also just seized by the US government.

Last month, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized a package containing 20 Apple laptop batteries en route to Rossman's store in New York City. The laptop batteries were en route from China to Rossmann Repair Group -- a NYC based repair store that specializes in Apple products. "Apple and customs seized batteries to a computer that, at [the Apple Store], they no longer service because they claim it's vintage," Rossmann, the owner and operator of Rossmann Repair Group, said in a YouTube video. "They will not allow me to replace batteries, because when I import batteries that are original they'll tell me the they're counterfeit and have them stolen from by [CBP]." CBP seized the batteries on September 6, then notified Rossmann via a letter dated October 5. Rossmann produced the letter in its entirety in his video.

Comments

Seems like easy rules could fix

[Actually, I do RTFA]

To prevent this, you could just have the protection lasted as long as the product was being sold/supported by the company.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier, don't buy Apple (or other manufacturers) that pull this kind of stuff with products they sell to consumers, by pushing mandatory obsolescence.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Actually, I do RTFA]

asier, don't buy Apple (or other manufacturers) that pull this kind of stuff

You're right. I'll avoid computer companies that do this.

Of course, that means I guess I'm sourcing the batteries, motherboard, screen, etc. all separately.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Sarten-X]

Or you could stop buying illegal products... but that doesn't fit the "Evil Big Corporation" narrative.

An important detail about Apple batteries is that they have the Apple logo on them, and that's precisely why they were seized, as explained in the letter in TFA. They may have come from the same manufacturer as actual Apple batteries, or even been part of a batch made under an Apple contract with Apple designs, but they still have the Apple logo on them. Since Rossmann isn't buying the batteries (even indirectly) from Apple, nor is he himself allowed to use the Apple logo, it's indeed illegal to use the Apple logo on them. That's precisely the purpose of a trademark: to identify that a product came from a particular vendor.

Now, the Chinese manufacturer could have relabeled the batteries with their own logo, and said they're "compatible with Apple" (or similar wording), and everything would have been legal, and Apple would still be equally unhappy. Since they didn't actually do that, it's an illegal use of the mark.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

considering Louis didn't show the batteries, since he doesn't have them, no photograph of the batteries was included, and no other image of a replacement battery, not an apple original battery, was shown.
It's only assuming that the batteries were seized because of this said logo/trademark infringment.

Though It is probably the most likely reason for the batteries being seized,

the timing is a bit awkward for the very fact that there was a recent CBC documentary shown on tv, which was made some time ago.

anyway, removing the logo would be an easy fix without any detriment to the functioning of the battery, but that would make apple again unhappy.

I doubt there is any win in this for Louis, but there's always hope.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You're assuming that the batteries are counterfits. If they were counterfeited in China, why bother adding the logo? Why doesn't the "used and recovered" battery story hold water? Or, given the e-Recyclling that used to take place, harvesting the cases from discarded laptops and replacing the cells.

Re: Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Buying second hand goods should be illegal. It is the same as stealing from the benevolent companies that make it possible to buy anything in the first place. You shouldn't be able to fix your own car, change your own oil, or pump your own gas from a third party vendor. You should do everything at the dealership, using the trained, honest and fairly priced personnel available there. Or go to jail.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove to me that the manufacturer you contracted with did not manufacture additional inventory for sale to the local and international market while under contract to manufacture product for Apple, and thus did not have the full authorization to mark said inventory with the trademark and resell it or export it to the US under both Chinese and US law.

"Those parts are not licensed for sale abroad.".

Your contracts do not work that way.

Your manager is a slave-driver deserving prison time for not just making the accusation. No, we involved the dept of homeland security through political connections to pull this off.

That DHS. Formed after 911. Who handles terrorism.

He and his product are innocent until proven guilty; Apple has a ridiculously high proof of burden to meet here that they did not file a false report. They have to prove international trade law doesn't apply and show their contracts in court.

What's the prison time for filing a false report? Its a Felony last time I heard. Not knowing the law is no excuse.

They need to push not just for civil charges, but also criminal. Punish them where it hurts.

BTW, I Fully get the danger of batteries, and fully appreciate why there's a public interest for repair parts. Fully get the Chinese interference here as well and their tenancy to sell whatever they want however they want marked. Lots of fake batteries for laptops on amazon with fake UL stickers and batteries with printed and copied labels all with the same serial#.

But you don't handle it THIS way.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[hairyfeet]

Do you have ANY idea how stupid you sound right now? Because your argument is about as fucking pants on head retarded as saying if I change tires on my Ford its now a fake as it still has the Ford logo on the grill!

News Flash Sparky...these are REFURBS, where they take the original batteries, remove the dead cells, and replace them with new cells. They are NOT being sold as new batteries, just as that used Dell you pick up on eBay isn't being sold as a new dell product despite having a Dell logo, its a used unit that has been refurbished.

What Apple is trying to do is simple...make $3k+ hardware that is completely disposable as you simply won't be able to get any parts to make it work! You can't even give the "just take it to Apple" horseshit excuse, because just try that with something like a first gen Macbook Air and see what they tell ya...hint they'll tell you to throw it away as they will no longer service them at ANY price!

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[humptheElephant]

They were not counterfit, they were probably from other Apple laptops. Evidently, Apple will not sell any third party repairmen the replacement parts. Perhaps they would rather sell you a new laptop and trash the old one adding to our e-waste. You can go to Lous youtube channel where he talks about it.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem Apple won't sell you, the owner of the old "vintage" laptop, the battery either. If Apple had their way, there'd be NO source for replacement batteries for "vintage" machines, leaving only choice to buy a new one.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[iive]

They may have come from the same manufacturer as actual Apple batteries, or even been part of a batch made under an Apple contract with Apple designs, but they still have the Apple logo on them. Since Rossmann isn't buying the batteries (even indirectly) from Apple, nor is he himself allowed to use the Apple logo, it's indeed illegal to use the Apple logo on them.

Your argument sums up to that only Apple could sell goods with Apple logo.

Do you understand how far this reasoning could be applied to? For example, you will not be allowed to sell your old iPhone, or iMac to somebody else, because it has Apple logo and you are not Apple and you are not allowed to use the Apple logo.

If these batteries has been sold as part of Apple product, then removed and then sold second hand, they are definitely not counterfeit. (To be honest, this doesn't seem to be the case here.)

If parts are bought from manufacturer who has contract with Apple, then their status would depends on that contract. It is very likely that Apple would explicitly forbid the manufacturer from selling these part to others. And that would make them counterfeit.
(Still, you never know with the Chinese.)

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Uberbah]

Do you understand how far this reasoning could be applied to? For example, you will not be allowed to sell your old iPhone, or iMac to somebody else, because it has Apple logo and you are not Apple and you are not allowed to use the Apple logo.

There isn't a line that connects those dots. Used equipment from an OEM is not at all the same thing as new generic parts with a trademarked logo slapped on them.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Uberbah]

Do you have ANY idea how stupid you sound right now?

Do you?

Because your argument is about as fucking pants on head retarded as saying if I change tires on my Ford its now a fake as it still has the Ford logo on the grill!

Let's fix your analogy by making the Ford a Shelby GT-500 you bought used. It still looks like a Mustang, handles like a Mustang and may have a perfectly nice refurbished engine - but not the 500 hp cast iron block from Shelby, despite having all the Cobra decals. Which was one of the main reasons for making the purchase in the first place.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Sarten-X]

To be fair, there is a legal line connecting those dots, and there is a legal reason it doesn't matter.

The key is that the resale of like-new products is fine because it's not going to cause any brand confusion. The old iPhone you're selling is still an iPhone, and (assuming everyone plays by the rules) still has Apple's hardware inside the case. Legally, you're just selling an intact product (as you're entitled to under the first-sale doctrine), and you're not claiming to have changed its value in any way.

However, once you do something that changes the product's value, you have to be absolutely clear what that change was. If you replaced the battery or otherwise refurbished the product, you're supposed to declare that, so customers know exactly what they're buying. You could upgrade or overclock some components, and call it "modified", and even charge more for it. That's all fine, as long as you're making effort to say "this isn't exactly what that label might make you think".

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[mustafap]

>Eventually they'll probably create "smart batteries" with DRM chips to ensure both only authorized batteries are used and that a dead product stays dead.

    ink jet cartridges...

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Sarten-X]

To clarify, Apple won't sell anyone the replacement parts, and that's fine. That's their right (through a rather roundabout path leading back to free speech).

However, they can't stop other companies from making similar parts (even using materials salvaged from other Apple products) and selling those parts as "compatible"... unless the part manufacturer is stupid enough to leave the Apple logo front-and-center on the parts, so it looks like Apple made them. Then Apple can claim misuse of their trademark, which is exactly what's happening here.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better / easier: don't buy Apple products. Or products from companies that do not give people the choice to repair their products themselves or send them to the manufacturer.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Xenx]

No, their analogy is much closer to accurate than yours. Apple is a brand, Ford is the car brand. The Shelby would be a very particular car within the brand. Your analogy would only hold if they're trying to sell refurbished Apple batteries that don't actually meet the original specs.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Actually, I do RTFA]

GP said "avoid manufacturers that do things like that." My response was a "I guess I have to build my own laptop". Because, they all do.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Sarten-X]

Otherwise Ford could stop you from selling your Mustang if you replaced the engine with an aftermarket one, since it still looks like a Ford Mustang on the outside and has the same trademarked logos.

Technically... they could try. Then the question would be whether there's enough indication that the engine was replaced, so a consumer would know they aren't getting exactly what's obvious on the outside. For example, having a nice big logo when you open the hood is a good sign (pun only half-intended). Listing the car as having aftermarket upgrades would also help.

Trademark law is based around fraud protection. If it's obvious that you aren't trying to defraud anyone with your sale, you'll generally be fine.

...except if these are recycled shells and interface boards with new cells, how does Apple have any say?

The shells have an Apple logo on them, but Apple says they aren't Apple parts. If there was documentation along with the batteries (like the description field on the customs paperwork) that says they're modified, reclaimed, or otherwise non-Apple parts, that'd probably be fine. If it just says "Apple batteries" (or even just "batteries" with the Apple logo prominently on the front), though, that's illegal.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Sarten-X]

Because your argument is about as fucking pants on head retarded as saying if I change tires on my Ford its now a fake as it still has the Ford logo on the grill!

Oh, I do love a good car analogy. However, that's not a good car analogy. Let's improve it, and make it relevant to the case in point.

Let's say, hypothetically, you're selling tires to a used-car dealership. Naturally, they'll need to occasionally replace tires on a car before they can sell it. Now, you're trying to sell the dealership a set of Ford tires, to put on their Ford cars. You know they're Ford tires, because they say "Ford" right there in big letters on the sidewall, and you bought them from a vendor who said they took them off a car that rolled right out of the Ford factory.

The problem is that Ford doesn't make tires, and says they certainly didn't make those tires. Legally, you're out of luck. There's no proof that the tires are a genuine Ford product, even if you personally are absolutely certain they are. Even if you can prove that Ford has made similar tires in the past, you have to show that the ones you're selling were indeed taken off that factory-fresh Ford. If you can't prove that, you don't have any legal grounds to be (re)selling a product with a Ford trademark.

News Flash Sparky...these are REFURBS, where they take the original batteries, remove the dead cells, and replace them with new cells.

It's important to note that TFA does not say the batteries are refurbished.

If they are actually refurbished... So they completely replace the important part, leave the logo on the front, and try to sell it as being an Apple part, implying that it meets Apple's quality and design standards? That's pretty much a textbook case of counterfeiting.

They are NOT being sold as new batteries, just as that used Dell you pick up on eBay isn't being sold as a new dell product despite having a Dell logo, its a used unit that has been refurbished.

If only there was some evidence of this on the batteries, just like my refurbished laptop has a big sticker on the bottom that says "refurbished by X".

What Apple is trying to do is simple...make $3k+ hardware that is completely disposable as you simply won't be able to get any parts to make it work!

Apple can try all they want for that, but they absolutely cannot prevent anyone from making compatible replacement parts. All they can do is prevent others from using their logo.

You can't even give the "just take it to Apple" horseshit excuse, because just try that with something like a first gen Macbook Air and see what they tell ya...hint they'll tell you to throw it away as they will no longer service them at ANY price!

And that's fine. Apple has the right, like any American legal entity, to refuse service to customers for nearly any reason. Third-party shops are still able to operate, and they can use those compatible replacement parts mentioned above. Just don't stick an Apple logo on it, and it's all perfectly legal.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Anonymous Coward]

'...because just try that with something like a first gen Macbook Air and see what they tell ya...hint they'll tell you to throw it away as they will no longer service them at ANY price!"

Yet you can still get batteries and other parts for them used, refurbished, or OEM Stock from _legitimate_ sources like OWC. I just put an OWC battery in my old 1st Gen Air so, get this, I can _give_ it away as a slow, (2GB), but functioning machine to somebody who otherwise can't afford a new one. Many little Shops can do this for you if you can't do it yourself. But...
The Charger that I bought off of eBay for it was dangerous shit; luckily I found an original in a Thrift store a couple of weeks back for $7, still with the silly end caps on the connectors. (All Air Chargers come with outer cable insulation that degrades, but this is more cosmetic than anything else; the Shield "Floats".)
Counterfeit products, especially for high margin gear like Apple, are a major headache, and you can be pretty certain that if it is sold on eBay, it is crap by definition, and it is illegal, especially if it carries the Apple Logo. I don't have this problem with Craigslist... yet.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about counterfeit Waterford Crystal or Louis Vuitton bags. The originals are often rarely any better. But something that given to a kid that can catch fire, explode or electrocute them is another thing entirely.

Rossman blew his credibility with this:
  "Your logo is for brand recognition. Using it as a weapon is misuse of the law."
No. If one of Rossman's batteries blows up in a Kid's face, the first thing the Parents will do is get a Lawyer to sue Apple. It is Apple's Logo that was on the Battery, not Rossman's. Rossman has just admitted to knowingly contracting for and selling Counterfeit goods. OWC puts their own label and logos on the batteries that they sell for this very reason, and Rossman is slime to try to wiggle out of getting caught this way.
Screw him, ruin his "business", and smear him across the Internet. Or better yet, force Rossman to sit down with an expert on Trademark Law, and explain to him just why it is this way.

There are legitimate grudges against Apple that I won't contest, _especially_ when it comes to degrading Macbook Charger outer insulation. I got a replacement for another more recent Charger for a more recent Air by holding it up at the Genius Bar, with insulating shredding and dust bunnies caught in the shielding, and mentioned something about would they allow their kids near this in a loud and obnoxious voice. Immediate replacement. I could easily re-sleeve the old one and keep it as a spare, but they insisted on keeping it for some reason.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[EETech1]

So if my blue oval was sun faded, I can only get a new one from Ford?

There seems to be an awful lot of them on eBay and Amazon.

Re: Seems like easy rules could fix

[irving47]

It's a fair bet Apple is behind the seizure at least semi-directly. There is a form to complain about a particular individual/company doing the importing on the CBP website. I think it's linked via the video Rossman made about this issue.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[irving47]

If you read the comments and information on his video the batteries actually had the apple logo on them because they were refurb'd or recovered from otherwise dead macbooks. The sellers USUALLY BLACK OUT the Apple logo so they won't be flagged as counterfeited logos/products. This shipment, they forgot.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Antique Geekmeister]

> If they were counterfeited in China, why bother adding the logo

To sell them to home repair laptop owners, to third-party repair vendors, or even on Ebay to uncautious people who believe the vendor and the trademark.It can even be common to replace legitimate orders with illegitimate, counterfeit components and charge full price. I've never encountered this with laptops, but I've encountered it with video cards and RAID controllers. An intern who worked with me sought to keep a purchase order under the price where he and i would have to submit extra paperwork, and made just such a mistake on several orders. I understood the intern's desire to fulfill corporate economy to always the lowest bidder: we had to have a long talk about how to manipulate the bids to ensure that only _reliable_ vendor's bids were seen by the penny pinching accountant who was always insisting on the lowest possible bids.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[cb88]

Strange that you seem to think that isn't already a thing... Dell's for sure do this for quite some years.

I don't know if I would call it a DRM chip.... but the batteries do communicate thier state to the PC and it can decide if they fast charge or not, etc... I have a reburb in my Dell and it's a bit wonky doesn't always charge quite right but it does work for the most part...

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Xenx]

Aside from referencing Ford, I don't see how that relates to my comment. However, in answer... Any company that licensed the Ford logo for that purpose would be able to legally sell a replacement. If they recovered it from a wrecked car or other licensed source, I assume it could be sold. Aside from that, it would depend on exactly how Ford handles their trademark.

Re: Seems like easy rules could fix

[J. T. MacLeod]

Everything you say is ONLY true if--IF--the batteries are actually counterfeit.

On what basis are you determining that they are counterfeit and not second-hand originals? That a counterfeit market exists? So does a legitimate second-hand market. That CBP made the determination? They hardly have a perfect track record here.

I don't see where you have any special insight, yet you seem really confident that Rossman is a conman.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[iive]

To be fair, there is a legal line connecting those dots, and there is a legal reason it doesn't matter.

The key is that the resale of like-new products is fine because it's not going to cause any brand confusion. The old iPhone you're selling is still an iPhone, and (assuming everyone plays by the rules) still has Apple's hardware inside the case. Legally, you're just selling an intact product (as you're entitled to under the first-sale doctrine), and you're not claiming to have changed its value in any way.

However, once you do something that changes the product's value, you have to be absolutely clear what that change was. If you replaced the battery or otherwise refurbished the product, you're supposed to declare that, so customers know exactly what they're buying. You could upgrade or overclock some components, and call it "modified", and even charge more for it. That's all fine, as long as you're making effort to say "this isn't exactly what that label might make you think".

You see, you are claiming first sale doctrine, but then you are completely undermining it. Once I buy something it is completely mine. Every part of it is mine. I can do whatever I want with it. Including reselling it.
You are talking about changing value and declaring it. What is the legal authority I should declare these things to? What is the law that mandates I do that? What even "value" means in this context!!

If you as consumer accept such erosion of the first sale doctrine, soon there will be no first sale doctrine.
The moment you remove the product from its wrapping, its "value" is diminished.
Apple may not allow you to resale product with diminished "value" that bears the Apple logo.

If you don't fight such interpretation, soon they will become the norm.

I can buy iMac, take its battery out and sell it.
All I have to do is say that it is a second hand.
Been second hand means I have bought it legally, I own it, and its "value" is diminished.

There is something more. The batteries are not visible part of the product. You cannot find out what is the logo on the battery of a working MacBookPro. You have to use special screws to open it and look inside.
The brand recognition is completely useless if it cannot be seen.

The only reason these parts have Apple trademark logo on them, is to claim counterfeit if they are been resold.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[thegarbz]

If they were counterfeited in China, why bother adding the logo?

You do understand the point of "counterfeiting" right?

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[AmiMoJo]

Counterfeit implies that it is supposed to pass as the original, which would mean it would need the logo on it... But as you say, it's not clear if that is what these are.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[mysidia]

Since Rossmann isn't buying the batteries (even indirectly) from Apple, nor is he himself allowed to use the Apple logo, it's indeed illegal to use the Apple logo on them.

This isn't true.... If the batteries were made by Apple and being re-sold, then Apple REQUIRED their logo be on it when Apple had it manufactured, and the markings
remain when other people are re-selling Apple's product with or without Apple's blessing -
If Apple originally sold the unit, then it's Trademark Fair Use for people recovering and reselling the old Apple parts to continue using the logo --- even if the batteries had been reconditioned by a 3rd party in China.
 
It would be illegal for Rossman to use Apple's Logo in trade -- marketing his services, but he doesn't do that; in fact, when a reconditioned (or new) replacement battery pack with the Apple outer shell gets installed in a laptop ---- all the markings are concealed inside the machine, so the consumer never even gets a chance to see markings on the battery - they are not being used in trade: only because Apple made sure they were put there originally.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[mysidia]

that says they're modified, reclaimed, or otherwise non-Apple parts, that'd probably be fine.

Who says they've been "modified" or "reclaimed" ?

The parts very well could have been never-used OEM parts that come off an Apple manufacturing line and/or waiting unused in storage to be ordered. These might have been stolen parts that were supposed to have been delivered for distribution to Apple service centers or stock or left-over units that were supposed to have been installed in new laptops, But that wouldn't make the units counterfeit.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[TRRosen]

They were physically tested and found to be counterfeit. End of story they are illegal and very likely dangerous. Given the price paid I doubt they used Apple's formulation.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[TRRosen]

If the parts had Ford OEM markings you could not legally sell the car as you would be committing fraud.

Re: Seems like easy rules could fix

[spongman]

Rossi am repeatedly states that there are original apple batteries, that he has purchased from this supplier before and given it a high rating - which presumably means they ship what they sell.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[TRRosen]

Problem is they were marked as OEM Apple batteries. if there not that illegal. If you bought a new ford alternator and later found out it was a refurbished used unit you would be pissed because you would have been defrauded.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[TRRosen]

note there is no actionable claim here the buyer has not been damaged. His only claim would against the seller.

Products don't have rights. They can be assumed counterfeit until proven genuine. That's actually how international shipping works. The paperwork is required.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[belmolis]

Where does the article say that they were "physically tested"? I see nothing in the article that indicates that these batteries are any different from the batteries originally supplied by apple.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[TRRosen]

A CBP spokesperson told Motherboard in an email: “CBP officers and trade specialists detained the shipment and submitted samples to CBP’s Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising Centers for Excellence and Expertise (CEE), the agency’s trade experts, who determined the batteries to be counterfeit."

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[TRRosen]

OWC has no issues importing batteries for 10 year old mac's. because the don't buy knockoffs.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[Lord_Jeremy]

Batteries like this are removed from recycled machines. The cells inside are replaced with new cells and the power management chip is zeroed so they start counting cycles again. In my experience, the aftermarket manufacturers don't intentionally put Apple logos on parts precisely because of the trademark infringement causing goods to be seized. On the other hand, they haven't really had to remove existing logos until now. It's only recently that CBP has started aggressively confiscating shipments of refurbed parts like this.

I know of another anecdote of an American based in China who operates an aftermarket parts business. He buys recycled phones and laptops in bulk from the US and has them shipped to China. There, his company strips the components and refurbs consumable parts. Then they ship the components back to his business the US. He's had multiple shipments seized, despite the fact that he's quite literally shipping parts that he owns to himself.

One thing that Rossmann's colleague Jess talks about is how when a shipment is seized, CBP keeps everything in it. Not just the items they claim to be contraband but everything in the shipment.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[mysidia]

Not end of story. They were physically looked at and found to contain Apple logos, therefore CBP assumed them to be counterfeit.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fix

[DerekLyons]

Do you understand how far this reasoning could be applied to? For example, you will not be allowed to sell your old iPhone, or iMac to somebody else, because it has Apple logo and you are not Apple and you are not allowed to use the Apple logo.

Nope, the courts have ruled many times that you have the ability to resell anything you own. (It's called the Doctrine of 1st Sale. Look it up.)

Abuse of the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies like Apple use "intellectual property" laws to circumvent prohibitions on tying.
It's illegal to require me to buy my battery from Apple just because I bought my computer from them.
And what's happening here is even worse: trying to make it illegal for anyone to sell batteries for computers Apple wants their customers to replace.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Anonymous Coward]

And Customs overreaching their authority.
These are legitimate replacement batteries. Not knockoffs. Taxes paid. Not Customs job. Not DHS job.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Aighearach]

It all depends on if they were new or used. If they were used, they're probably legit. If they were actually new, then it explains why Mr Rossman uses sarcastic language instead of direct language. He complains that DHS doesn't consider that maybe the batteries were removed from used devices, but that's not the same as saying "the batteries were in fact removed from used devices."

I can't say I'm liking or trusting either side on this one. Two assholes having a fart competition.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Aighearach]

If apple no longer makes those replacement batteries, then how can they be legitimate apple branded batteries? Presumably these were just manufactured and not 'new old stock'.

If they were used, or new old stock.

Re: Abuse of the law

[dnaumov]

Sorry, but you donâ(TM)t get to use the Apple logo when you donâ(TM)t actually own the trademark

Re: Abuse of the law

[Calydor]

At the point where he is repairing computers that Apple WILL NOT repair themselves I don't care if the batteries are legit or counterfeit. He is not costing Apple anything.

Re: Abuse of the law

[sjames]

Why is that presumable?

Re: Abuse of the law

[iive]

At the point where he is repairing computers that Apple WILL NOT repair themselves I don't care if the batteries are legit or counterfeit. He is not costing Apple anything.

Every repair of old Apple product is a missed sale of new Apple product.

It's the Broken Window fallacy.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Aighearach]

Who cares if you care, though? How does that impact the situation, or the analysis?

If the story was, "DHS encourages people to avoid local swap meet" then it would matter. But the story is about something else.

Re: Abuse of the law

[jedidiah]

> If apple no longer makes those replacement batteries, then how can they be legitimate apple branded batteries? Presumably these were just manufactured and not 'new old stock'.

They don't have to be "branded". They only have to meet very basic physical characteristics.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Lord_Jeremy]

Rossmann is an extremely sarcastic person. These batteries were certainly refurbished using components that were at one point removed from recycled laptops. The best type of aftermarket parts you can get are actually the refurb components assembled in this fashion. The battery shell and power management circuitry were built by Apple. When the parts are recycled, the battery cells are replaced and the cycle count is reset to zero. This is ideal because the electronics and the casing dimensions are still Apple spec and you don't have to worry about incompatibility or a poor mechanical fit.

This is also true for phone displays. When a display breaks, generally the LCD is perfectly fine even when the glass is shattered. With the proper tools and techniques, it's not difficult to remove shattered glass and adhere on a new pane of glass. Then the display can be sold as refurbished and you know that the software and electronics in the part will work exactly as intended. This is as opposed to displays that are built from completely new parts. In my experience, it is these displays which have issues with color accuracy and touch detection because they really are cheap knockoffs. Interestingly, in some countries there's a high demand for cheaper replacement parts than there is for the more expensive refurb parts, even if the cheaper parts don't work as well.

Louis calls his batteries new because they were as close to new as you can get while still getting a part that matches Apple's specs. The only Apple-original, un-remanufactured parts that you could buy from anywhere would have to be stolen. I know for a fact (I've been a customer of Rossmann Group) that if a customer asks what kind of parts are going into their device, Louis is honest that they are either refurbished (batteries, screens) or taken from recycled machines of the same type (microprocessors, cables, etc). There's a big push in the US culturally and legally to ensure that our electronics are properly recycled, both because disposing of them completely is an environmental nightmare and also because of the intense resource consumption that goes into making them. The best way to "recycle" a battery is to replace the consumed electrolytic material and use it again. It's disgusting that companies would selfishly cause more waste like this by trying to ban refurbishment and repair.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Aighearach]

The thing is, when you're introducing a word like "assembled" then it is no longer clear that it is a used device, or a new device made from recycled parts.

Rossmann's position is very hair-splitting, and when there are always these words that reduce clarity, instead of presenting the actual facts, then it makes me suspicious.

You've got lots of apples and oranges there; when I buy a new-old-stock phone display to use with my microcontroller projects, it is literally as good as new; an old battery is not as good as new. It might even explode when you try to charge it. So getting hand-wavy about parts in general doesn't even fit the circumstances, and it doesn't even purport to be actual facts about the situation.

You use the words "were certainly" where the truth seems to be, "I'm guessing". Those are not at all equivalent.

Re: Abuse of the law

[Lord_Jeremy]

I use the words "were certainly" because I'm familiar with Rossmann Group's work, having been a customer in the past. If you're taking the pack casings and gas gauge from an old battery to assemble a new battery with brand new cells, then that's at minimum a refurbished battery. I'd personally still treat it like a new part as you've replaced all the consumable cells and the gas gauge circuitry doesn't wear down or suffer from use. That's certainly not an old battery anymore. It's equivalent to the result you'd get if you were a battery factory making brand new batteries out of charging circuitry and the exact same brand new cells.

In Apple repair world, there's absolutely no such thing as legitimate new-old-stock replacement parts. Any parts manufactured by Apple that anyone is trying to sell you are either used, refurbished, or outright stolen.

Re:Free Market

[Revek]

It will also trickle down.

Louis is great guy, but...

[NuclearCat]

Main concern that this batteries should not have apple trademarked logos and names. Louis suppliers should take care about scrapping off or covering that marks and names.
Because if batteries will start exploding, it will have impact on Apple reputation, and they will have to spend lot of PR money fixing that.
And the refurbished batteries from China are most likely to fail with the fireworks, as grey market manufacturers squeeze the last drops from the lithium elements, setting crazy values in the controller. Also, this elements might be "rejects"(didn't passed Q&C) from various manufacturers, including those who make batteries for Apple.

Re:Louis is great guy, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Main concern that this batteries should not have apple trademarked logos and names.

The claim is that the ARE Apple batteries. Apple claims they "can't be" because they no longer support these products. Supplier and Louise claim they're original apple equipment, just taken from store models, unsold merchandise, overstock, etc.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

How can they be official Apple batteries if Apple isn't selling them?

Do they morph into a different unit once it's certain for the universe that Apple won't sell them? Or do they keep the same design, dimensions, parameters, manufacturing line, hands of workers assembling them...?

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[vux984]

"How can they be official Apple batteries if Apple isn't selling them?"

Trivial: They could have been acquired while apple was selling them. Then they sat somewhere.

For example, there's fairly brisk trade in laptop parts for certain popular discontinued laptops (including Apple) where the replacement parts are being recycled from units. e.g. the screen from a unit with a dead mainboard, or the mainboard from a unit with a dead screen... i repaired my old clamshell macbook for years with genuine apple parts you could no longer purchase from Apple.

Counterfeit product is a real issue as well, to be sure. But it's overreaching pretty far to assume that just because apple won't sell you X that X is counterfeit.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[whoever57]

The term commonly used for vintage car parts is "new old stock" (NOS).

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[vux984]

Thanks for that. I was trying to think of the term; lots of vintage / collector stuff is available like this... toys especially.

You can easily buy lego sets new in the box that lego hasn't sold for 20+ years; and they aren't "counterfeit". :)

Re:Louis is great guy, but...

[Aighearach]

If they're "refurbished" then they are "used" and were merely repaired, and they're allowed to have their original labels. I don't know what country the things you said are true in, but it isn't the USA. Here, once somebody buys it, they own it and can resell it without restriction.

If you don't like it, don't put your trademark on the item, just sell it is a white-box generic.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[Aighearach]

The principle is "first sale." Once Apple has sold it, then the buyer owns it and can resell it.

If they're being produced on contract, and the contract ended and they have surplus units that have never been sold, those are "counterfeits" if they make their way to the market "somehow." What matters is when the rights holder sells the item.

The trademark doesn't tell you what factory it came from, it tells you which company placed it on the market.

Worrying about if it is functionally the same, that is a concern for fungible goods, not branded goods that trade on their mark.

The real problem with the story is the lack of clear facts about what the items really were; new or used.

Even "new old stock" is only legit if it was sold to a distributor who then warehoused it. It has to have been sold legitimately at some point to still be legit now. But once it was sold, they can warehouse it as long as they want.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's a good thing that the universe doesn't care about legalese and only about laws of physics. Imagine then how the history of technology over centuries would have looked like if it did.

Re:Louis is great guy, but...

[Misagon]

Louis Rossmann's supplier usually covers the Apple logos with a sharpie, but for some reason they did not do that in this case.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[guruevi]

So they're not "new" batteries like the guy's repair website is claiming then. Batteries degrade if they sit in a warehouse, depending on the type, the chemistry actually destroys unused or empty batteries.

He is either selling old batteries as new and ripping off his customers or selling knock off batteries as branded batteries and ripping off his customers.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[guruevi]

The problem with batteries is that you can't "keep" batteries warehoused and then claim they're "new". They discharge themselves and once empty, they could even short themselves out.

The other problem is that if they were manufactured but never sold, they likely never went through QC. There is a lot that goes into producing quality products, if my manufacturer started selling my stuff, not only would that be trademark infringement, the customers would get a much inferior product.

Re: Louis is great guy, but...

[Lord_Jeremy]

When it comes to batteries, the most likely case is that these were refurbished units. The consumed cells were replaced with new cells and the power management circuitry was reset so the cycle count reads zero. Many repair shops will use the term "new" to describe these refurb batteries because it's as close to new as you can get while still matching Apple's specs and not having been stolen from Apple.

Believe it or not, a refurb part like this is actually always much higher quality than a true newly manufactured aftermarket part. That's because anyone trying to build new parts is always cutting corners and they won't match the original specs exactly. There was a notable incident earlier this year where people who had their iPhone displays replaced by cheaper parts lost the ability to use their phone after a software update. The microprocessor firmware in the screen wasn't fully compatible with the updated iOS version.

Lawyer up.

[TechyImmigrant]

The CBP and Apple are wrong.

They are not counterfeit. They are what they say they are.

LR needs to lawyer up and sue.

Wasn't there a recent case in Europe with exactly the same situation?

Re:Lawyer up.

[_bug_]

They are not counterfeit. There is a growing market in China of refurbishing old hardware. Essentially taking old and broken Macbooks and either repairing them or parting them out and reselling the components. This includes batteries.

The batteries he had purchased were refurbs taken from old Macbooks.

Not counterfeit.

Re:Lawyer up.

[nightfire-unique]

you can't buy vintage Apple hardware anywhere.

Can you explain what you mean by that statement? Vintage Apple hardware is available all over eBay, and plenty of other stores. You can find used and new-old-stock Apple hardware on Kijiji, Craigslist, etc.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Dorianny]

A 10+ year old li-ion battery would hold less the These were most certainly aftermarket parts. Apple probably requested enforcement because they were marketing their battery repairs as "original equipment" and marked as such, which would leave Apple open to liabilities if they caught fire.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Anonymous Coward]

The lack of details looks suspicious. No supplier is shared, and neither is the description of what was supposedly shipped. The guy is talking around the source of the batteries in the video like CBP shouldn't assume where the batteries came from... period. I'm willing to listen to a good story, but he's not providing any significant details. He's just trying to stir up outrage and rake in sympathy donations. A shipment of "new" Apple laptop batteries for old laptops coming from China is very suspicious.

Why would someone order a bunch of used batteries from China, sourced from what would likely be old recycled or used laptops? More likely is that those 20 laptop batteries for $53 each including shipping are "new" higher quality counterfeits.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Aighearach]

That there is a growing market in China of refurbished old hardware does not actually tell us if in this case the batteries confiscated were used batteries, making them real and legal, new counterfeit batteries, or legal new old stock. However, Apple's supply contracts probably regulate any unsold items, and when it comes to this stuff a foreign contract is basically law from the perspective of the US courts; so new old stock would probably have never had a legit "sale" that would let it onto the US market now.

Do we know if the batteries he had purchased were refurbs taken from old Macbooks, or do we only know that somebody wrote that on the product listing or import paperwork?

Re:Lawyer up.

[Aighearach]

For items manufactured in the US, the manufacturer is open to liability if they hurt somebody.

For imported items, the importer is the one who is open to liability if they hurt somebody. That's Mr Rossmann in this case, not Apple.

Thanks for throwing shit at the wall declaratively, though.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Aighearach]

It does if it made it out of the factory overseas and was never sold by the company whose trademark is on it!

For example, if the factory accidentally made an extra one, and accidentally sold it to you, and then you imported it, it went from "unsold trademarked goods" to "counterfeit" as soon as you crossed the border.

OTOH, if the mark holder sold it to a distributor, and then they sold it to you, then it is all legit and importing it can't make it counterfeit.

Re:Lawyer up.

[jythie]

Refurbished batteries are counterfeit. They keep the 'Apple' case but replace the cells.

Re:Lawyer up.

[jonwil]

If I take a gearbox out of a Ford (one that's got a Ford logo stamped into the case) and replace a bunch of warn or broken gears inside with new gears made by a third party before selling that gearbox as refurbished (and being totally open about the fact that its a refurbished job and what was done to it) should Ford have the right to stop you just because its got a Ford logo on the case?

Re:Lawyer up.

[guruevi]

The customer would still walk into the Apple store demanding repair and the media would likewise have their heads.

It's not just about legal liability, a lot goes into manufacturing a quality product. The worst thing is that this low-life didn't even NEED to manufacture Apple parts. You can buy battery cells and solder them into place OR you can buy a third party battery that's not labeled as being Apple products.

Re:Lawyer up.

[guruevi]

No but you can't go claiming you're a Ford dealership selling factory parts.

Re:Lawyer up.

[guruevi]

That is second hand and it's clear that it is second hand. You're buying from the first owner. In this case, this guy is selling "Brand New" batteries and claiming they are Apple manufactured and he somehow has a connection to the Apple factory and they make custom runs of vintage hardware for him.

Re:Lawyer up.

[jonwil]

Are the people using these "refurbished" batteries in any way claiming they are genuine unmodified Apple parts or lying about what has been done to them? Or are these people claiming they are somehow authorized Apple service providers?

Re:Lawyer up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius Bar caught ripping customer off ON CAMERA by CBC News

Shows what a disgrace apple is.

Re:Lawyer up.

[guruevi]

Pretty much. That's what this guy was claiming at least - to have access to brand new Apple parts, he's selling these batteries for $150-300 claiming to be genuine Apple replacement parts.

Re:Lawyer up.

[guruevi]

Look up the guys business. He has a website with pricing.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Lord_Jeremy]

1. Apple requested enforcement because they want 100% control over the repair market. Apple is a control freak. I own a software company that makes software to configure iPhones for business use. Apple does not make software that offers even 15% of the features that ours does, yet they are constantly threatening legal action against us and our customers because of the "not invented here" mentality that their leadership takes.
2. I guarantee you that the seller of the batteries in China did not market or claim that these batteries were original equipment. The only way to get original equipment from Apple as a third party seller is to have stolen them. These aftermarket parts companies also have tons of experience with customs giving them shit. They didn't used to have an issue selling refurbished parts, the enforcement has clearly become more aggressive. I don't think it's a coincidence that our crappy government in service of it's crappy trade war has been making noise about how China is violating our intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, this is an instance of legitimate business being crimped by bad actors
3. Reputable repair shops will be upfront about what kind of parts are going into a repair. I've personally been a customer of Rossmann Group and they were honest that replacement batteries are going to be refurbished and many components like ICs and cables will come from recycled machines. The phone kiosk in the mall, however, may be inappropriately claiming that the refurb screen going into your phone is "new." Or worse, they may be actually using a completely new screen. These are actual knockoff parts and they are much much lower quality than an original display that simply had its cracked glass replaced.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Lord_Jeremy]

I've personally been a customer of Rossmann Group and that's not what they claim at all. If you ask, they're honest that consumable items like batteries are going to be refurbished and other components like ICs and cables come from recycled boards.

Re:Lawyer up.

[guruevi]

But they're neither refurbished or recycled Apple pieces. I've looked at him in the past too for repairs and using weasel words like refurbished/recycled when you're just selling third party Chinese parts is lying.

You CAN buy refurbished Apple parts, you CAN buy refurbished Apple batteries and all the Apple parts he says he has on his website, Apple has a webstore with those parts. You can go to an Apple Store and get a price list. This guy ISN'T doing that, he's selling third party, Apple-branded parts which is what got him in trouble.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Lord_Jeremy]

What the heck are you talking about? You can buy a refurbished Mac from Apple, that's about it. You cannot buy parts for any product from Apple. This is Apple's refurbished page. Note that they only sell refurbished computers, not refurbished parts. On a completely different tack, a product does not need to be refurbished by the OEM to be justifiably considered refurbished. As someone actually familiar with his work, I'm going to assert that Rossmann is absolutely NOT selling "third party, Apple-branded" parts. There are some sellers who do sell these parts and serious repair shops know to avoid these channels like the plague, as you'll be getting the absolute lowest quality parts which probably means your repair won't hold. Considering Rossmann and other reputable shops have to offer warranties, they definitely don't want to do be doing work that doesn't hold.

Re:Lawyer up.

[Lord_Jeremy]

Apple's refurbished Mac website

Second reason not to buy Apple

[DarkRookie2]

You can't repair them
Same with Microsoft.
Same with Amazon
Same with all phone manufactures
Same with consumer laptops. (You can generally repair desktops and business laptops.)

Re:Rossman can suck it

[Kaenneth]

I don't buy Apple products myself; but when I took my neice's puppy-destroyed laptop charger to an Apple store to find out the price of a replacement, they just gave me one for free.

Base unit still overpriced, but excellent service in my experience.

Apple Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple should design cars, think of it.

-after a set number of fuel-ups, the performance decreases to save fuel economy
-after a set number of fuel-ups, the car can no longer function, because the gas tank is non-replaceable
-if the tires wear down, you must purchase a new car
-if the windshield wipers need replacement, just replace the whole windshield assembly
-refilling the wiper fluid will cost $250
-the floor mats are non replaceable
-if you blow a headlamp, purchase a new car
-if the remote keyfob battery dies, purchase a new car

Re:Rossman can suck it

[rworne]

And here we find the Apple lover.

Your mouse is broken, that will be $500 please.

Your Mouse pad needs replacement, that will be $125

Your charger is broken, that will be $250

Your screen is dirty, that will be $50

Your "Apple" key is sticky, that will be $125

Your drive is full, that will be $1200

heck, might as well chuck it into the trash and buy a shiny new one, you like shiny new stuff.

That's like the tires on my car being worn, and the manufacturer saying, well, just buy a new car! duh!

Apple Mouse: $79.00 or $99 for Space Gray
Apple Mousepad: They don't sell them, and generally you don't need them
Apple Charger: $19 5W iPhone, to $79 87W USB-C
Screen Cleaner: Not sold. Genius bar will do it for free if you ask nicely.
Stuck keys: Warranty makes repair free for next 4 years. Otherwise it is a hell of a lot more than $125
Full drive: Delete porn stash - Free

Re:Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the free market. It will correct.

What color is the sky on your fucking planet? Because it sure as shit isn't blue.

This is overweening government using rules created by regulatory capture to protect powerful entrenched interests.

It's most assuredly not anything close to being free market.

Seems incredulous

[DaphneDiane]

There are aftermarket batteries for vintage models that do not copy apples logo, such as the Rayovac ones for the original MacBook. The statement about batteries from demo machines running in stories is incredulous. Seriously suggesting that customers want repairs with batteries that have been trickle charged while continuously running, as would be the case for batteries from demo units, just fails Occam's razor. Story sounds like someone that is complaining after they got caught or at least should have done more research into their supplier.

Re:Seems incredulous

[Lord_Jeremy]

These batteries were most likely recycled and had the cells replaced. There aren't any good quality "factory new" replacement parts for some of the more recent Apple laptops, as everything since the ancient 13" Unibody MacBook Pro design all has exotic battery designs that get glued in. It's been my experience in hobby repair (I used to be an AASP technician but that was a long time ago) that refurb components are always better than new components. A refurb screen is simply a cracked screen that had the glass replaced. A totally new screen is always made to be cheaper than the refurb, and there are often problems with color accuracy or touch sensitivity because they're never made completely up to spec.

CBP can claim whatever they want on imports

[BLToday]

The rule for importing “branded” items is pretty clear.
If you bring something that you claim is by a brand you better have a license with that brand. Else CBP will just assume it’s counterfeit. You could claim it as a replacement part for a device but the moment you say that part is original, you’re in trouble. You could go into a Gucci store in Italy, buy 10 bags and ship it to yourself, CBP will stop that shipment and claim it’s counterfeit even if you show the original receipt.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cf...

Re:CBP can claim whatever they want on imports

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, bullshit.

Everything is branded. If I pack too much on vacation and ship some stuff home to avoid too overstuffed luggage, my Hanes(tm) branded underwear and Nike (or whatever) socks are going to be intercepted and confiscated because I don't have a license with every company who's clothes I own? Oh CRAP! My luggage has some kind of brand name, I better hide! LOL

Re:CBP can claim whatever they want on imports

[TheGratefulNet]

You could go into a Gucci store in Italy, buy 10 bags and ship it to yourself, CBP will stop that shipment and claim itâ(TM)s counterfeit even if you show the original receipt.

I call BS on this one.

it would seem that it MATTERS if you mail to yourself for personal use or to yourself as a business, with intent for resale.

personal use is what seems to be the thing that breaks your assertion. can you cite that even personal use would mean the good you mailed to yourself are considered counterfeit?

similarly, your link talked about greymarket and many of us regularly buy (or bought) cameras that were greymarket and they most certainly did make it to BH, adorama, etc - and are not stopped at the border.

so, I call BS on this. personal use is OK and greymarket is NOT automatically illegal. Nikon would like to think so (and that's why I stopped supporting nikon) but its not ILLEGAL to import or sell greymarket goods, as long as its marked as such (ie, no US warranty or local post-sales support from the US support org)

Re:CBP can claim whatever they want on imports

[BLToday]

You could go into a Gucci store in Italy, buy 10 bags and ship it to yourself, CBP will stop that shipment and claim itâ(TM)s counterfeit even if you show the original receipt.

I call BS on this one.

it would seem that it MATTERS if you mail to yourself for personal use or to yourself as a business, with intent for resale.

personal use is what seems to be the thing that breaks your assertion. can you cite that even personal use would mean the good you mailed to yourself are considered counterfeit?

similarly, your link talked about greymarket and many of us regularly buy (or bought) cameras that were greymarket and they most certainly did make it to BH, adorama, etc - and are not stopped at the border.

so, I call BS on this. personal use is OK and greymarket is NOT automatically illegal. Nikon would like to think so (and that's why I stopped supporting nikon) but its not ILLEGAL to import or sell greymarket goods, as long as its marked as such (ie, no US warranty or local post-sales support from the US support org)

You're welcome to try mailing 10 Gucci bags to yourself for personal use if you don't believe me. Hell, you don't even have to mail it to yourself. Just try to land in LAX with more than 5 new Italian bags. Even if you declared it and paid the duty on it, they're going to give you a hard time. I've had a friend had a box of returned merchandise get seized at LAX. His friend had a thrift store in some Asian country, bought items from here, but couldn't sell it and had him bring it back to be returned to the manufacturers here. Fully documentation on the shipment, CBP claimed that he intended to sell counterfeit merchandise and confiscated the items.

One of my ex-gf does graymarket import/export for a living. Generally depending on the port of entry and port of departure, you have 1% to 10% chance of inspection. If you're unlucky and your shipment gets inspected, you better have a license from the trademark holder for that shipment. What probably happened is Apple complained to CBP and Rossman's shipment was flagged for inspection. If it has an Apple trademarking on it and he didn't have a license from Apple to import, then his shipment is going to get seized.

Apple sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Rossmann group recovered data from an iPhone my wife dropped in the water. Of course Apple was unwilling to help me, but Louis was! It's insanity to think that a product you purchase can be held hostage by a company for the entire time you "own" it. I'm done with Apple. They suck, a cancer in the tech arena. Tech is beginning to suck everywhere because of this type of bull$h1t. It's time for me to purchase a new car and I am actually considering purchasing a 1960's to 70's vintage restored vehicle to avoid all the nasty tech involved .. and I'm a IT professional!

Re:Apple sucks

[antdude]

Why no back ups?

Re:Rossman can suck it

[Anonymous Coward]

A few replacements are build in to the original cost of apple products.

Re:Free Market

[Tokolosh]

Please mod up.

don't tell the printer companies

[renegade600]

could we soon see all third party ink cartridges be declared counterfeit if apple is able to get away with this.

right to repair laws need to fix this!

[Joe_Dragon]

right to repair laws need to fix this!

Re:Free Market

[jedidiah]

> What color is the sky on your fucking planet? Because it sure as shit isn't blue.

As long as there isn't some blatant cronyism involved, someone will step up. It's against human nature to leave money on the table.

Actually, the original article is a pretty good example. The only reason there is even a problem now is because of blatant cronyism.

The market is being interfered with by government. Shameless corporate boot lickers are cheering on the nonsense.

Re:Free Market

[mustafap]

>The market is being interfered with by THE USA government

there, corrected that for you.

They are not "illegal products". Apple is bad.

[gavron]

You're not a lawyer, and your glib description of "illegal products" is nonsense. Even the legal expert cited in the original article wrote:
> “This strikes me as an abuse of trademark law by Apple,” he added, “one clearly designed to maintain its stranglehold over the repair market and, ultimately, to force customers to buy new hardware.”

So now we have a real legal expert who says that Apple marked products sold by Apple manufacturers to a third party are not an abuse of trademark law. Secondly laws don't cover products, so there's no such thing as an "illegal product", "illegal battery", "illegal gun", etc. There are violations of the law that people can do... such as violate trademark law, import laws, customs laws, which our heror here did not do.

Hero: The guy trying to service "vintage" laptops by replacing batteries in devices Apple and their "genius" people won't touch. NB: Apple has nobody on their staff with the IQ to be a genius.
BadGuy: Apple for using a US Government agency to help them promulgate their exclusionary practice of stopping 3rd party repair, even if it's for products they themselves refuse to repair.

Winner: Apple. It cost them nothing to do this.
Loser: Everyone using an Apple device that is either now or one day will be unilaterally declared by Apple to be "vintage" and non-repairable.

Please don't play lawyer on slashdot. Or anywhere. UPL is a violation of the law.

Ehud

Re:Free Market

[Xenx]

In this particular cases, it would be the US government. However, the problems jedidiah mentions are not unique to the US government.

Re:They are not "illegal products". Apple is bad.

[Sarten-X]

You're not a lawyer, and your glib description of "illegal products" is nonsense. Even the legal expert cited in the original article wrote:

That's cute, but you don't actually know anything about my credentials, and "legal experts" are not necessarily lawyers, either. The one quoted is a professor, who doesn't seem to have been a practicing lawyer for 10 years.

Still, let's actually read the rest of his quote, written about a different (but similar) case:

“Assuming that: (1) the cable bearing the Apple mark is a genuine Apple product, (2) the cable used on these screens is the same as the one Apple uses in the U.S., and (3) the importer/seller clearly communicates that the screens are a non-Apple aftermarket product, then Apple’s case for treating these as ‘counterfeit’ goods is very weak,” Perzanowski said in an email. “Refurbished or repaired products are generally permissible under trademark law’s first sale doctrine, so long as they are clearly labeled as such.”

(emphasis mine)

The key detail is that the parts have to be labeled accurately. In the case of batteries, if the cells are replaced or anything is done that makes them not the original Apple part, they can't carry the Apple logo, making these an illegally-marked part.

You might like to cast Apple as the Big Bad Corporation, but they're the ones following the law here. The Chinese company who didn't follow American product-marking laws when exporting a product to America are the ones actually at fault for this.

As for your "hero", he's a very noisy importer who gets a lot of attention for playing the victim, when he could try just a bit harder to ensure compliance and have no problem (and no fame, either). My company imports materials (whole and parts) from other countries on a daily basis, and we rarely have any customs issues. We do have to contractually force certain suppliers to put their own logo on their parts, rather than the well-known American brand, though.

Re:Seems like easy rules could fixThe shells have

[Actually, I do RTFA]

But it does seem like they are Apple parts. They're third-party refurbed (which was known when they were purchased). But they were original Apple shells with different chemical cells.

Re:Stop Lying

[guruevi]

As long as you don't sell me your 8y iPod as "new" simply because you put different cells in it. That's the difference, you can't buy "new" vintage Apple hardware which is what this guy is claiming he's doing.

to fix this don't buy apple products!

[jerryjnormandin]

The market can alter dumb decisions like Apple's fight to prevent you from fixing your own hardware. Simply only buy hardware that you can service or other companies service. You should be able to use third party components to fix your own device if the component has similar or better specs. This is the reason why I dumped Apple. I have a MacPro late 2013 black can desktop with the Dual D700 GPU failure problem. There are no third party replacement boards. I fixed it alright. I built up an Intel Hades Canyon NUC, used 32GB Dual Ranked memory, 500GB internal NVME SDD. It works fine with my external thunderbolt JBOD (home directory, /opt ). I installed Ubuntu Bionic Beaver 18.04. Steam works great. It's faster than my 6Core MacPro. Cheaper. I've got an NVIDIA GTX970 connected via thunderbolt 3 to use for video rendering and my experimentation with OpenCV and Tensorflow. It's better. Also when Apple dropped OpenGL for their own Metal API, it was a no brainer to dump apple. A lot of the code I write is based on OpenGL and OpenCL.

Re:They are not "illegal products". Apple is bad.

[Enigma2175]

The key detail is that the parts have to be labeled accurately. In the case of batteries, if the cells are replaced or anything is done that makes them not the original Apple part, they can't carry the Apple logo, making these an illegally-marked part.

This is wrong. The simple presence of an Apple logo doesn't make them "illegally marked". If I put a new aftermarket engine in my Ford, I can still sell it without removing the "Ford" badges on the car. If I put new laces in my shoes, I can still sell them without removing the Nike swoosh from the side. As long as it's made clear to the purchaser that the battery is refurbished then it doesn't matter if the Apple logo is on it as the seller isn't representing it as an Apple product. In fact, it sounds like from the article that these aren't even refurbished batteries, they are unmodified second-hand batteries (or at least the subject implies that they are):

"It couldn't be that someone who has these batteries sold them to me. It couldn’t be that someone took these batteries out of machines that were on demo in stores.machines that they owned, packaged them up and sent them to me,” Rossmann said. “No, they must be counterfeit. There’s no other explanation for it.”

In the US it's long been the law that you are free to sell any property you own. If I own it, I can sell it to another person if I wish. The First Sale Doctrine has been the law for a long time. Here, let me quote a little of the Wikipedia article for you:

In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

Please do some further research on the above terms before spouting off with your "illegally marked" rhetoric. If what Rossman alleges is true (these are demo pulls or other legitimate Apple batteries) then he is perfectly within his rights to buy and sell them. Even if they are refurbished it's perfectly legal as long as that's made clear to the buyer.

Quit making up stuff

[TRRosen]

Apple did not file a complaint. That would be public record and impossible to cover up. And if you think the largest publicly traded company in the world is worried about 20 batteries they don't even sell your an idiot.
And yes contracts do work that way. A manufacturer only has licence to use Apple's logo on the products it sells to Apple. Manufacturing overruns happen all the time. And guess what. They remove the logos and sell them to the gray market.

Re: They are not "illegal products". Apple is bad.

[spongman]

Apple doesnâ(TM)t make the original cells. Replacing them doesnâ(TM)t make an original product any less original.

Re:so selling second hand hardware is counterfeiti

[TRRosen]

because they weren't. they were physically tested and found not to be Apple batteries.

just stop

[TRRosen]

Stop blaming Apple. Third party replacement batteries are readily available from reputable sellers. This guy decided to save a few bucks and screw his customers by buying iffy products from China. They were fakes. Apple doesn't give a damn about $1000 worth of old batteries it doesn't sell anyways.

Re:just stop

[Lord_Jeremy]

Do some research. Refurbished products are more expensive than newly manufactured products and they are of substantially higher quality. The factory new components are rarely if ever up to original spec. There's been numerous documented cases of new aftermarket iPhone screens no longer working after the phone software was updated because the circuitry or firmware wasn't properly implemented.

Re: just stop

[TRRosen]

Probably why they falsely marked them as refurbished. By the way there is no such thing as a refurbished Apple laptop battery. There are no replaceable parts in them. They arenâ(TM)t some cheap dell made from generic cells.

Re: just stop

[Lord_Jeremy]

There's absolutely a mechanically simple way to refurbish a laptop battery. The technique is not unlike the procedure documented in this how-to. Battery cells are fairly generic electro-chemical parts that are standardized widely across many industries. There's anecdotes about early Tesla cars being built with battery packs made out of many laptop cells wired in series. Apple absolutely refurbishes their own batteries for use in authorized repair shop and depots. The charging and monitoring circuitry (known as a "gas gauge") is a valuable component that can be repurposed in a replacement battery.

As an aside, there's no law that says only OEMs are authorized to produce "refurbished" components. Aftermarket part vendors also will never claim that their parts, refurbished or otherwise, are OEM. Anyone who's come within 10 miles of the Apple supply chain is fully aware that there's no such thing as 3rd-party available OEM parts, and claiming such is a great way to get your shipments confiscated. In my experience ordering components like this (admittedly not in bulk), the customs declarations almost always specify something like "replacement battery for laptop" or "smartphone spare parts."

Re: just stop

[TRRosen]

Apple does not use generic cells. They are built in one piece.

Re: just stop

[Lord_Jeremy]

Where are you getting this mistaken information? Do you have any experience with MacBook parts? Check out this video of an Apple battery teardown and note the packs of generic cells inside. You can even compare it to an aftermarket, non-recycled battery and see the exact same internal configuration.

Years ago I was a certified technician at an AASP (Apple Authorized Service Provider). I don't work as a tech anymore, but I still do everything from battery replacements to logic board repairs for friends and family. Since just about every one of my friends has had a unibody MacBook Pro that needed a battery at some point, I did a fair amount of research on ideal replacement parts. Everything I've commented in this thread has come from my personal experience.