News: 1591257193

The simple way round this is not to buy Apple.

As far as I am concerned, when I buy something it is mine, to do with as I wish.

A sold ithing is no longer Apple's, rulings like this are counter productive for consumers and prevents them from using their own paid for property in any way they see fit merely to perpetuate a corporation's image, that is just wrong.

Correct.

And you are free to replace broken parts with whatever you can obtain, just no guarantee you have access to original or genuine parts.

Ultimately it is Apples choice about how they handle spare parts, so far, it doesnt seem to be all that detrimental to their profits.

Norway...

We sometimes joke about Norwegians, and this doesn't help them.

If the parts were indeed manufactured by/for Apple and removed from failed/scrapped devices, then no reasonable person will see that as trademark infringement (or understand how it is), as they're "used genuine parts". Obviously, if they were not made by Apple originally (i.e. knock-offs), then that's another thing ...

Read the court document and the problem seems to be that the screens are 'refurbished' by a third party but they still have the Apple logo.

Apple are arguing that a customer seeing an Apple logo on a screen has the right to expect an Apple approved screen.

This is my "argument" with counterfeit goods.

If its fake and says "Apple" or "Rolex", thats one thing, generally because people are stupid and don't question why they're paying so little for something, "its a bargain!!"

If its fake and says "Bpple" or "Bolex", then, as long as someone isnt trying to claim its a 'mistake at the factory', you know its a fake and the price reflects that.

I'm confused - Apple's claim seems to be that the screens were counterfeit and thus violated their trademark, but they only violated the trademark because they had an Apple logo on them. So PCKompaniet are guilty of being sold counterfeit goods - so why are they being taken to court rather than the company that sold them the dodgy goods?

Would the screens have been OK if they did not have an apple logo on them?

I think the devil here will be in the detail - which is probably only readable by legal Norwegen speakers reading the actual court documents.

Case 1 - Aftermarket screens without Apple logos. The should be fine as no logo=no copyright and "must fit/must match" rules would apply to the design.

Case 2 - Second hand Apple screens with Apple logos. These should also be fine as they are orignal Apple parts.

Case 3 - Aftermarket screens with Apple logos. These are correctly a trade mark infringement.

Case 4 - Refurbished second hand Apple screens. A lot depends what 'refurbished' means. At the one end "cleaned" should be OK but at the other you have "Triggers broom", where the only thing that's retained IS the logo...not so much.

Case 2 - probably would fall foul of grey import restrictions.

Explained on a serendipitously named website

https://www.appleyardlees.com/parallel-imports-navigating-the-grey-market/

Did they have round corners?

Seriously though, this does have the smell of Apple shutting down legitimate competition for repairs in any way possible. Did the contested parts get confirmed by an independant examiner in Norway to be IP infringing copys with a logo or just on Apples sworn statement?

Most likely they're 'grey' and came out of the same subcontractors factory as original parts therefore identical in every way. This is a completely different liability angle and has been an issue for decades across the outsourced electronics industry.

"Most likely they're 'grey' and came out of the same subcontractors factory as original parts therefore identical in every way. This is a completely different liability angle and has been an issue for decades across the outsourced electronics industry."

This is less likely than it may seem. Large companies generally have very good control over this and a company like Apple is likely to have such strict regulations that it just isn't worth the risk for a contractor to scam them for a few bucks on the side.

In another industry for example, there was always an expectation that Gore-Tex jackets being sold in some Asian stores (and Australasian) were 'excess production' from a factory making the genuine ones and selling them off cheap. However I investigated this briefly and all the ones I saw were completely fake and counterfeit. I spoke to a HK factory owner about this and whether genuine ones were escaping onto the black market. He said it was almost impossible, as well as the checks by the brand owner there were supplemental checks by Gore-Tex themselves with material going into the factory having to account for goods going out of the factory and excess material being weighed before being disposed of. There is really strict security on site that checks every employee and it would need a major conspiracy to pull it off. Also if any goods did find their way into the black market the origins could easily be traced. 'Western' goods are very often delivered from Asian countries directly to the distribution in 'the West' before being re-imported back into the Asian country for resale, despite the extra costs involved.

Therefore most big contractors for parts for big companies don't take any risks with goods leaving their site for resale, the minimal amount that would bring in is way too much of a risk to lose their contract and also jeopardize any future contracts. Sure it is *a possibility* for smaller companies who have gone for the cheapest bidder but even then it is unlikely.

For lack of anything else to watch I watched the biopic of Steve Jobs recently, great (no idea if fact based) an exchange between Jobs and Woz regarding launch of Macintosh "I don't want open systems"

*Chucks it into an industrial metal shredder & turns it into so much chaffe*

Ok, now let's see it come back from the dead...

Waiting... Waiting... Still waiting...

Hmmm, I'll go make some popcorn.

*Cough*

Dear Apple. You kill our right to repair, we'll stop buying your over priced tat. Ta'!

A few might stop buying. Many millions more won't.

Net impact to Apple tends to zero. Consumer activism can't fix this. Only right-to-repair legislation can.

Does anyone remember the old "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials? If I had enough money, I would run an ad like that, except it would go "I'm a Mac user --- And I am 'genius' bar employee'.

Mac user -- "My Mac is broken"

'Genius' bar employee -- [1]Proceeds to start kicking the Mac user hard in the groin until he falls down, then when he is down spits on him and then loudly taunts him ... "SHUT UP AND BUY A NEW ONE!"

Mac user -- "Thank you sir. Sorry sir. Here is my wallet."

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XneTBhRPYk

If Apple has lost money on repairs since 2009 then why does it have problem with others doing those repairs? Unless of course they were lying.

"If Apple has lost money on repairs since 2009 then why does it have problem with others doing those repairs?"

They don't want to do repairs either. With no competition, they could raise repair prices, and stop losing money on it. But mainly they want repair to be generally too expensive, so people buy new phones from them.

Given the cost of the iPhone they could easily show a "loss" on the repair yet they have already made huge profit from the sale so keeping the customer "an apple customer" means they will keep making money when the battery dies and they buy a new phone.

Of course they're making a loss, ask the accountants.

A small part of Apple can easily show a profit or a loss depending on what they are trying to portray. Look at repairs - if you load the costs of training, staff time, spare parts at full retail price, R&D on spare parts, specific factory processes to create parts that aren't put into final products, transportation, excess corporation charges for the repairs etc etc You can easily show a loss if you wish.

However if you determine that the staff costs are fixed anyway, the parts are pulled form the line for another reason (QC etc), the parts are cost price, staff training is parts of induction to help them understand issues with the device etc then you can show a nice profit on it.

How do you think these multi-billion dollar companies can be super rich but show losses or tiny profits almost everywhere they operate (other than those areas with low to zero tax rates).

Much like Return of the Jedi has never made a profit

"Apple insisted some of these screens were counterfeit and did not originate from the company's supply chain."

I assume it's still disputed that these are counterfeit? The article implied it but didn't explicitly state.

The only way that Apple can say that it loses money on its repair business is by saying that a repair stops the owner from needing to buy a new iDevice. If Apple had their way then any scratch would require the owner to buy a new unit.

As would pretty much any other manufacturer. For all their other questionable attitudes, this particular attitude isn't unique to Apple.

Around the world, refurbished automotive components are bought and sold every day - and they will typically have markings and labels from the OEM and the motor manufacturer concerned. The motor manufacturer's labelling is typically used to determine if a part is genuine and no motor manufacturers have been suing about the use of their trademarks in respective of refurbished original components - that would be plain silly.

You're not exactly right apart car manufacturers. They fought for years and lost, over replacement parts. Then they went after garages, and lost, over honouring warranties serviced by 3rd parties.

I use my Macbook 27/4. It was bought as a "business" product. Yet not one Apple store is capable of repairing the device same day. Moreover many stores want to post the device away for repair! Minimum turnaround is 2 weeks! Imagine being without a car for 2 days - let alone two weeks.

Not one Apple store is capable of booking an appointment 6 months in the future to ensure the items are all in stock instead of accusing me of queue jumping. iFix it videos show the tools and parts required. Looks easy once you've done it a few times. There is nowhere to fix an Apple Product urgently. I build PCs but Apple's do not tamper policy means the risk outweighs the benefits.

Giving a member of staff £30.00 for same day service did the trick though!

If the repairer is telling his customers he is repairing it with genuine Apple parts, then he should be using those. It is his responsibility to make sure that the parts he uses are genuine Apple parts.

However, the parts he was sent may well have been reconditioned/repaired with non-Apple parts so he may have been claiming to use Apple parts when they were not Apple parts, which is breach of copyright. It the same as selling fake Apple phones. His only recourse then would be to sue his suppliers if he was unaware that they were not genuine.

If he didn't advertise that he repaired using genuine Apple parts, then he can repair them with parts from any source and Apple shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

The goods were intercepted at import and the *importer* was charged with trademark infringement. Why was it not the *exporter* that was charged? It doesn't sound as though they got a phone repaired by this shop and then prosecuted them for using dodgy components.

If I buy a screen from HK or CN, and the seller advertises it as genuine, but when the goods arrive they are fake, why would I be the one to get prosecuted?

Louis Rossmann gave evidence in one of these cases and posted a follow up video where he clarified the problem as not being refurbished screens but 3rd party replacements where the manufacturer had helpfully added an apple logo "for their domestic market".

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w

and think again about the case.

Counterfeit aircraft parts is a huge problem. They look just like the real ones but the plane could fall out of the sky because said part failed in operation.

I agree that Apple are wankers when it somes to repairs but they like all businesses have trademarks to defend. They also face many, many law suits for phones blowing up when being charged with what looks like a real Apple charger but isn't. There really is no middle ground here.