I'm not getting this: If they were "refurbished" Apple screens (although I'm not sure how one refurbishes a screen), how are they "Counterfeit"?
Counterfeit: "a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery."
And, why would they obscure or remove the Apple branding -- which would, if anything, add value.
If I’m reading this correctly, the repair shop bought genuine Apple parts but not from a licensed seller—at least not licensed to sell to them. To hide that they were not bought legally (and with Apple backing) they had to remove marks identifying the parts as genuine Apple parts.
It doesn’t seem to say, but Here is a theory: perhaps the Chinese factory had some screens that didn’t meet Apple’s quality control standards. Instead of destroying them, they sold them on a sort of black market for spare Apple parts.
Yeh, that makes sense.
it's not that they were in any way counterfeit (at least not in the normal use of the term) but were sold outside of regular, authorized channels -- which then made selling them as legitimate Apple products legally shaky or downright illegal.
But, there's no reason to think they were inferior rejects -- although that is certainly possible. The factory where they were made could have been selling off "excess stock" or they could have been salvaged from phones that either didn't pass inspection or were stolen. There are multiple possibilities.
Perhaps an analogy is myself: I bought a used Apple SSD and installed it in a 2017 MacBook Air. If Apple knew, they would not approve. But otherwise, it is totally, completely legitimate and up to both specs and standards.
"it's not that they were in any way counterfeit (at least not in the normal use of the term) but were sold outside of regular, authorized channels -- which then made selling them as legitimate Apple products legally shaky or downright illegal."
It's more than that. One can not re-brand another product, as their own or someone else's. In other words, this repair shop can not re-brand Apple products as some other off brand or their own. This falls under "reverse passing off". Where "passing off" is slapping someone else trademark on another, usually inferior, product, "reversing passing off" is the removal of someone else trademark on a product and passing it off as your own or a no name brand (white label).
Right now, an iPhone 6 LCD assembly cost less than $20 on eBay, but they are not sold as an Apple branded LCD. Even if the company that makes them might be the same company that makes the LCD's for Apple, they are sold as Apple compatible parts. The buyers knows that chances are, these LCD's are not as good as the LCD's made for Apple, with the Apple trademark, but will buy them because they are 1/5 the price of an Apple branded LCD and 1/2 the price of a used Apple branded LCD.
Now suppose this repair shop was able to purchase real Apple branded iPhone 6 LCD's at a great discount, from a grey market source that obscures the Apple trademark to make the transaction less illegal. Even if the repair shop did not advertise that the LCD's they used to repair iPhones were made by Apple, they can not sell them as not being made by Apple, that would be "reverse passing off".
This shop might have been able to charge more for repair work using these screens, than using the non Apple branded eBay LCD's because they are a much higher quality screen and people that knows the difference would be wiling to pay more for their repair work. Even if they were never told that the LCD's are real Apple LCD's. The shop ends up making more profits than if they were to buy and use the eBay LCD's for their repairs. Word of mouth would be that this shop was using Apple quality LCD's for their repair work, at half the price of an Apple branded LCD. Even if the shop were not to mark up the price of the Apple branded LCD's they purchased, (with the Apple trademarked removed), they still benefit from being able to charge more for the repair work with these LCD's, because people are willing to pay more because of what they think are high quality non Apple branded LCD's being used. The shop was taking advantage of Apple quality product, without giving credit to or paying, Apple.
I'm not getting your logic. How does the repair shop benefit if they are not claiming in anyway that these are Apple products rather than 3rd party stuff?
If my bike is broken I can have a repair shop fix it with what ever part I want. When my clothes are torn I can get any tailor to fix them. When furniture is damaged I can fix it myself or have a someone else to fix it for me. If a body shop customizes a car its is ok and makes good entertainment on tv. This is done with existing car models and they are changed and sold.
You are not accused of tampering with their brands.
But if I try to get my mobile repaired so help me god!
It is corporate greed and what these giants do to squeeze the little man. Think about all the hazard waste the mobile industry produces by forcing the cost of repair to a level that makes it is cheaper to buy a new. They keep the repair cost artificially high to squeeze the customers. If you can get a display for 20% of the original price. Their price is artificially high. Natural competition should apply on all level of the market. Not only between the giants but also between the people that repair them. To deny someone to repair a product with whatever spare part is available is nothing else than forcing people pollute more.
My main question is: What gives these companies the right to financially force people to buy new phones?
BS ruling. Any non-authorized repair voids warranty anyway, but last I checked, we own the devices and don’t rent them from Apple. Also, there is Apple pretending to be a “green” company, and then takes action against refurbished repair parts, while squashing a small shop with an onslaught of lawyers. Given that the guy won in the first go around, it’s likely fair to say, that Apple’s high-priced lawyers out argued whatever small lawyer the guy could afford; had he had the funds to use some legal top guns, chances are, he would have prevailed.
"but last I checked, we own the devices"
Correct, and you can repair your own device no problem. The problem is offering it as a commercial service to others.
Let me put it this way - you can perform a surgery on yourself and no one will stop you or sue you or whatever. Try offering to perform such surgery on other people for a fee without having a medical license, see what happens.
Comments
When my clothes are torn I can get any tailor to fix them.
When furniture is damaged I can fix it myself or have a someone else to fix it for me.
If a body shop customizes a car its is ok and makes good entertainment on tv. This is done with existing car models and they are changed and sold.
You are not accused of tampering with their brands.
But if I try to get my mobile repaired so help me god!
It is corporate greed and what these giants do to squeeze the little man. Think about all the hazard waste the mobile industry produces by forcing the cost of repair to a level that makes it is cheaper to buy a new. They keep the repair cost artificially high to squeeze the customers. If you can get a display for 20% of the original price. Their price is artificially high. Natural competition should apply on all level of the market. Not only between the giants but also between the people that repair them. To deny someone to repair a product with whatever spare part is available is nothing else than forcing people pollute more.
My main question is: What gives these companies the right to financially force people to buy new phones?