Apple Is Still Trying To Sue the Owner of an Independent iPhone Repair Shop (vice.com) 115
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Despite initially losing the case last year, Apple is continuing its legal pursuit against the owner of a small, independent iPhone repair shop in Norway. Apple is attempting to hold the repair shop owner liable for importing what it says are counterfeit iPhone screens into his home country of Norway. Last year, Apple sued Henrik Huseby, the owner of an independent smartphone repair shop called PCKompaniet in the town of Ski, Norway. Apple sent Huseby a letter notifying him that a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S screens had been seized by Norwegian customs, and said that he must pay the company $3,566 and admit wrongdoing to avoid being sued. Huseby refused, Apple sued him, and the case went to court.
At issue in the case is the definition of what makes an aftermarket part "counterfeit." The screens that Huseby purchased were refurbished, he said, and were never advertised as official Apple parts and were thus not counterfeit. Apple logos on the screen were painted over, and wouldn't be visible anyway to anyone who used a repaired iPhone (the logos would face the inside of the phone.) In April 2018, the court decided that because the logos were not visible, Apple's trademark hadn't been violated, and Huseby won the case. Apple appealed that decision, however, and the case was reheard by a higher Norwegian court on Monday and Tuesday, leading right to repair activists to wonder why the most valuable company in the world continues to go after a small business owner over a paltry sum of money. "If he loses, the court would be saying you cannot import refurbished screens, and also, Apple doesn't provide original screens," said Kaja Juul Skarbo, who works for Restarters Norway, a group that organizes repair parties in the country. "So then, how is that a resolution? Obviously, independent repairers would not have the spare parts they need in order to be able to do the repairs. The consequence could be that you can't do independent repair anymore."
Janet Gunter, co-founder of the UK's Restart Project, which advocates DIY repair in Europe, speculates that Apple could be testing the waters -- that if it is able to win against Huseby, other independent repair company owners who use aftermarket parts could be next.
At issue in the case is the definition of what makes an aftermarket part "counterfeit." The screens that Huseby purchased were refurbished, he said, and were never advertised as official Apple parts and were thus not counterfeit. Apple logos on the screen were painted over, and wouldn't be visible anyway to anyone who used a repaired iPhone (the logos would face the inside of the phone.) In April 2018, the court decided that because the logos were not visible, Apple's trademark hadn't been violated, and Huseby won the case. Apple appealed that decision, however, and the case was reheard by a higher Norwegian court on Monday and Tuesday, leading right to repair activists to wonder why the most valuable company in the world continues to go after a small business owner over a paltry sum of money. "If he loses, the court would be saying you cannot import refurbished screens, and also, Apple doesn't provide original screens," said Kaja Juul Skarbo, who works for Restarters Norway, a group that organizes repair parties in the country. "So then, how is that a resolution? Obviously, independent repairers would not have the spare parts they need in order to be able to do the repairs. The consequence could be that you can't do independent repair anymore."
Janet Gunter, co-founder of the UK's Restart Project, which advocates DIY repair in Europe, speculates that Apple could be testing the waters -- that if it is able to win against Huseby, other independent repair company owners who use aftermarket parts could be next.
Precedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they win in a small case in Norway, are they (realistic??) hoping to establish a precedent they can use in the US and other countries?
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they win in a small case in Norway, are they (realistic??) hoping to establish a precedent they can use in the US and other countries?
Foreign court rulings have no legal weight in America. A Norwegian ruling would likely have little effect on EU law either, since Norway is not a member.
The goal is intimidation rather than precedent. Apple wants it widely know that no one is "too small to sue".
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but much of Norwegian law is related to EU law, and is appealable to ECJ in same context EU cases are.
Fundamentally if people don't believe there is relevant symmetry in the law, they will ignore it as they do re: ISIS fatwa.
Anyways,
Apple's stance is attrocious merely on environmental grounds, since it means forcing production of more new toxic electronics
which is damaging on it's own merits, as well as that there is poor recycling and disposal of electronics waste to begin with.
I don't know legal det
Please proceed to nearest desk and bend over... (Score:1)
Thank you for your concern. With our market cap exceeding $1T in the near future, we are planning on simply buying the EU and dictating legislation that will be more favorable toward our corporate goals of world domination and making shiny things. With enough shiny e-Waste littering the planet, we can solve Global Warming by reflecting all of the sun's harmful rays back into outer-space.
You're welcome, BTW.
- T. Cock
Re: Precedent? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is part of a few different agreements with the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling will only impact this single company (Score:2)
IANAL but I think that in Norway Apple won't be able to set a precedent using a lawsuit like this. So any other shop in the world doing the same thing would have nothing to fear from this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Norway (and all of Europe and South-America) has a civil law legal system as opposed to common law (as seen in USA and other countries who trace their history to England)
Not all of Europe. Indeed, you just named a contrary example.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is in the EEA, so the case probably does have implications for other EEA member states including all EU members. At the very least, courts in those countries will be able to look at the arguments used in Norway as the laws there on this matter have to be compatible with the EEA rules, and there is the possibility of escalating to the EFTA court as well.
Being in the EEA means that Norway enjoys the Four Freedoms, so if this is allowed in Norway there is nothing to stop Norwegian companies offering the
iBully (Score:2)
I believe it's more fear tactics to send a message that if you open a store to fix iPhones, Apple will harass you via a storm of lawyers and paperwork.
You don't have to actually win a case in order to be annoying as hell to the target.
Re: (Score:2)
Catch is the 'Streisand Affect' (would if not be funny if that silly old bint is more well know for that affect than the singing everyone has forgotten, funny huh). Apple are actively marketing that repair company, people all over the world know about the Norwegian Apple Phone repair place, and of course everyone consider Apple to be greedy arseholes in this regard. They are spending money to look bad and advertise someone they don't like, like spending thousand of dollars to end up costing them millions of
Re: (Score:2)
What is done in Norway could stay in Norway.
What agreements exist with the EU could make it more interesting.
ie not a member state but EU agreements do exist.
Re: Precedent? (Score:1)
It sounds like they are learning how to get what they want in countries that have actual consumer protection. It almost seems like, after years of strapping on the barbwire condom and having their way with legions of Americans that lawma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong all around. Apparently Apple isn't getting anything easily here since the lower court found for the repair shop.
Meanwhile, a EULA would be between the phone's supposed owner and Apple, he wouldn't be a party to it.
Re: (Score:3)
EULA stands for End User License Agreement. "the guy" is not the End User. There is NO contract between Apple and the repair shop. And I very much doubt "you agree not to take this device to an independent repair shop" is in the EULA that the User implicitly agreed to either. No EULA has been violated.
Re: EULA violation, easy win for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Which law school?
I ask because a EULA is an adhesion contract, not a true contract (a âmeeting of the mindsâ(TM) obtained through negotiation by well-represented parties), and is thus much less likely to be upheld. In some jurisdictions, adhesion contracts are unenforceable on their face. Even in jurisdictions which uphold them, they are almost always interpreted contre proferentum, and thus even in the most generous of locales, fall well short of the legal predictably afforded by a true contract. Whereas a contract represents the mutual wishes of two parties, a EULA is a wish list drafted by one party which depends on a favorable ruling from a judge who is willing to either sever the always-numerous unconscionable terms, or is willing to look past them altogether. Certainly and predictably are the EULAs Achilles heel.
Iâ(TM)m pretty sure they teach that in the first year of law school, and not that a EULA is âthe same as a contract in the eyes of the lawâ(TM).
Unless you graduated from a law school in the Caribbean, in which case, you may be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could easily have gotten a court order to block him from using or touching any Apple device, and shut his business down for good.
I really don't think it works that way. What makes apple think that after they have sold a product they have any say its use or operation? But that's very much what they want to do and people keep letting them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm buying a $1000 monitor stand to support these guys attacking small businesses.
Oh, wait, no - fuck off Apple and take your SSO project with you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm buying a $1000 monitor stand to support these guys attacking small businesses.
Or, if you can wait until 2020, for only $300 more, you could get an MSI 34" 5k Monitor [9to5mac.com] with a stand for $1299.00
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And there's your answer. If you can sell a counterfeit screen with an Apple logo, what's to keep them from laser-cutting Apple logos on a less-expensive monitor stand and selling it as authentic? That would be just awful all around.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The vendor did not sell a counterfeit screen. The vendor sold a refurbished screen with the logo painted over, and did not present it as an authentic Apple screen.
'Refurbishment' meant replacing almost all of it. (Score:2)
While I agree with you - a company should not be able to claim trademark and copyright infringement for a logo that they put there - it is noteworthy that 'refurbishment' of these screens mean replacing the entire 'screen' part - the flex cable with it's attached chips is removed from a smashed screen and attached to a new one.
I agree, therefore, that is it reasonable for Apple to demand their logos to be covered before such a 'refurbished' screen is sold. It is reasonable for a court to hear such an argume
Re: (Score:2)
And there's your answer. If you can sell a counterfeit screen with an Apple logo, what's to keep them from laser-cutting Apple logos on a less-expensive monitor stand and selling it as authentic? That would be just awful all around.
Counterfeit apple screen built by apple?
Apple should take after Google of old (Score:2)
Apple should embrace the motto, "Don't be evil." -- or, in this case, "Don't be a dick." /sorry-apple-fanbois-apple's-being-a-dick
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should embrace the motto, "Don't be evil." -- or, in this case, "Don't be a dick." /sorry-apple-fanbois-apple's-being-a-dick
They could but they've already embraced "for the money".
Paltry sum of money (Score:2)
...over a paltry sum of money
I'll say - $3,566 only gets you 3 1/2 monitor stands (no monitor)!
Re: (Score:2)
...over a paltry sum of money
I'll say - $3,566 only gets you 3 1/2 monitor stands (no monitor)!
Or you could buy eight and a half kilos of silver
Apple needs to be hit hard (Score:3)
If Apple's arguments for making unrepairable, glued-together devices is higher reliability, then they should include 3-year AppleCare instead of the standard 1-year they've always had since back in 90's and earlier (so why aren't warranties longer if it's more reliable?)
Governments need to start making un-repairability more expensive for companies that do this and fight independent repair - like having an extra fee applied to devices deemed "too difficult to repair" being paid directly by the manufacturer (not the consumer) for every such device sold, in a way where they can't pass the cost along to the consumer.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments need to start making un-repairability ILLEGAL.
Landfill (Score:5, Insightful)
Just throw it in a landfill and buy another one, right Apple?
It's a legal pickle for both parties (Score:2)
On one hand if the EU (where it eventually will end up) rules that counterfeit products from China are okay, it will be bad news for Apple; on the other hand it chills the repair industry that is being overwhelmed by counterfeit products nearly indistinguishable from the original except for quality.
Re: It's a legal pickle for both parties (Score:5, Informative)
No.
Apple is claiming that apple manufactured screens that have been harvested from dead iPhones, and that have had the digitizer replaced in china by the very same people that make the screens for them in the first place are "counterfeit."
Compare:
My fancy car has a damaged ECU, so I send another ECU from a scrapyard to china, and they refurbish it for me. The refurb has identical parts.
The fancy car company doesn't want to sell new ECUs, because they have a service and repair operation baked into their dealerships as an exclusive vertical.
They sue me for daring to get the ECU fixed outside of their dealerships.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's probably why they're going after this Norwegian guy, to get something in the news to scare the little guys.
Not quite. (Score:3)
Telsa simply ban cars it doesn't want to held accountable for from their own super charger network (they probably don't want the bad publicity that a badly refurbished tesla seen burning on a supercharging parklot would bring), and that's about it. They don't sue. They don't actively prevent people from repairing. They just don't want to touch some car with a pole.
I'm not saying wether what they do is good or bad (in my opinion, it's still a little bit bad-ish. They should have more open way to collaborate
Whose screen is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
So this is what happened:
If Apple doesn't like this they have several ways to solve this "problem":
... but they chose to do none of these, instead they decided to try to use the courts to bully people into not selling that which they legally own.
What is Apple going to do next - are they going to sue places that resell entire used iPhones using the same logic?
I bought it. It's mine. That includes every part of it. If I, or someone down the chain of people I sell it to, decides to sell it piecemeal it's mine/theirs to do with as I/they wish.
Attitudes like this on Apple's part is one of the reasons I don't buy their products for my personal use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Why was the argument about hiding logos even relevant. This was an Apple screen that someone bought from Apple, and then sold to someone else, possibly after cleaning it up or repairing it. How is this different than selling your used phone after taking an alcohol wipe to it (very basic reconditioning)? Does the law say you have to paint over or somehow remove the Apple logo if you want to sell your own used iPhone???
Re: (Score:3)
perhaps after "reconditioning" - whatever that means for a screen, perhaps just testing?)
They usually replace the glass, just keeping the LCD and electronics. The glass is new and scratch free, although you could argue it may not be as high quality as the original (i.e. not Gorilla Glass, some other type). Practically though you are unlikely to notice, especially with a screen protector on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Basically, Apple is claiming that refurbishing is counterfeiting, because the display still has the original Apple logo, but doesn't have the original glass anymore. This is kinda like bringing your car to a repair shop, because your windshield is cracked and they replaced it (with your consent) with a cheaper aftermarket part instead of the more expensive original OEM part, so that you get your car repaired for less money. According to Apple, your car is counterfeit now, because it still has the origi
Done this before (Score:2)
They could make it impossible to disassemble an iPhone (perhaps pot the insides and the back of the screen into one epoxy blob).
Let-me guess you haven't been trying to fix your SO's iGizmos recently? They are almost doing that.
They could prevent an iPhone from working unless every component had a serial number and was digitally signed and the phone's processor could check that all the components "match" the pieces that Apple put together to form that particular iPhone and power off if not.
...they are literary doing that with the home button. The finger print sensors hold the security data, needs to be matched to the main board and every now and then there's a scandal about an update brinking phones with replaced home button due to mismatch in the fingerprint security.
They could refuse to sell phones and only lease them
I'm sure eventually they'll arrive to that point in a not so distant future.
"Pay a yearly 2000 USD fee and always have whatever t
trademark issues (Score:2)
Apple may arguably have (legally) "needed" to try to take some legal action against this shop, not to win, but to "front a defense of their mark". Trademark rules imply that if you don't defend your trademark, you LOSE the right to defend it. So you have to defend every example of infringement. This is why we from time to time see phinlanthropic uses of a mark "licensed" for a dollar. It's a token amount that prevents the designer from losing legal protection of their mark due to not defending it. (they
Re: (Score:2)
Apple may arguably have (legally) "needed" to try to take some legal action against this shop, not to win, but to "front a defense of their mark". Trademark rules imply that if you don't defend your trademark, you LOSE the right to defend it. So you have to defend every example of infringement.
That is untrue. Please go and re-read your sources and make sure you're getting quality information and not the "for dummies" version.
You only have to defend against it becoming generic. That doesn't mean you have to sue people over logos inside a product that can't be seen by anyone. That would never cause the word apple to become more-generic in the context of computers, so there is no dilution risk.
Louis Rossmann Testified at the Trial (Score:4, Informative)
For those of you who don't know, Louis Rossmann runs an independent, unauthorized Apple repair shop, and has a YouTube channel documenting his extensive repairs, as well as his extensive loathing of Apple's business practices. Today, he released a video of testimony he gave at this 2018 trial [youtube.com].
What I hadn't known was how Apple uses not patents, but trademarks, to limit parts distribution in countries. Every product brought into the United States with an Apple logo printed on it must be Apple-authorized. If it's not, they will seize it at customs as counterfeit. So Rossmann and every other unauthorized repair company orders parts with painted-out or Sharpied-out logos so that it cannot be seized as counterfeit. The Norwegian courts were particularly interested in understanding this detail at the trial.
Re: Louis Rossmann Testified at the Trial (Score:1)
What I don't understand is why you are not allowed to resell a part that Apple branded *itself*.
It seems very similar to selling a second hand car, has an auto maker ever claimed an individual can't do this because it still has their badge on it?
Re: What would you do? (Score:2)
I already know the answer to these questions, since these things happen every day. I would get up, go to work, come home, go to bed, then do it all over again the next day.
The problem with living on a plane
They could have properly trained repair shops (Score:4, Insightful)
All these things happen most often when you take it to authorized or apple branded repairers. They are the worst at actually repairing the phones properly.
Make sure that your 'authorization' is easy for a competent repair person to get. A highly informative, practical course, heavily subsidized, with a stiff test that they have to pass.
Make sure that third-party repairers have access to high-quality parts, full product documentation and full repair instructions and tools. 'Boardviews' should be on your website. Design the devices to be disassembled quickly and safely.
This is the best way to ensure that your customers have a good experience with your products.
Re: (Score:1)
You would do like computer makers do sometimes. You install a type of tamper resistant seal that if broken would VOID the warranty.
At that point, the customer can do whatever they want with the device, fix it themselves, have the manufacturer repair the device and be charged for the repair or take it to a third party and be charged for the repair.
If the warranty is void or expired, the end user should be able to do what the hell he/she wants, screw Apple.
What can anyone say to this except (Score:2)
Fuck Apple
Refurbished? (Score:2)
Like with Louis Rossmannâs batteries, these were likely straight from a Chinese knock-off factory and thus essentially counterfeit products.
Apple will win this battle... (Score:1)
The sad thing is, Apple has money to carry on and on and on with this case. Even if they know they are going to lose it anyway,
it's an infinite source of cash vs John Doe, whose ability to obviously fund his defence is much more limited.
I guess that's why Apple tries to set precedent with this stuff, by suffocating independent shop repairs that obviously can't compete with legal costs (unless the state says enough is enough, I presume... but does that ever happen?).
Re: (Score:2)
privacy (Score:2)
Apple cares about your privacy! (or so they say)
but not about anything else.
Ya, still FUCK APPLE (Score:2)
It isn't a small amount of money for Apple. (Score:3)
same old (Score:2)
It is how Apple have always operated, spares only available through 'authorised resellers' at extraordinary prices or not available. Many components had modified firmware so you couldn't use original manufacturer parts. I just left Apple fanboys deal with it themselves, which usually meant buy a new one. I don't like Apple's 'closed shop' mentality, fuck em.