Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Iphone Apple Technology

Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost (vice.com) 139

Jason Koebler, reporting for Motherboard: Last year, Apple's lawyers sent Henrik Huseby, the owner of a small electronics repair shop in Norway, a letter demanding that he immediately stop using aftermarket iPhone screens at his repair business and that he pay the company a settlement. Norway's customs officials had seized a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S replacement screens on their way to Henrik's shop from Asia and alerted Apple; the company said they were counterfeit. Apple threatened to take action, unless Huseby provided the companies with copies of invoices, product lists, and a plethora of other things. The letter, sent by Frank Jorgensen, an attorney at the Njord law firm on behalf of Apple, included a settlement agreement that also notified him the screens would be destroyed. [...] Huseby decided to fight the case. Apple sued him. Local news outlets reported that Apple had five lawyers in the courtroom working on the case, but Huseby won. Apple has appealed the decision to a higher court; the court has not yet decided whether to accept the appeal.

Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bracktra ( 712808 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:40PM (#56431967)

    Apple, if you want the general public to care about "counterfeit" parts, make your production operations completely domestic.

    Don't sue the little guy for your IP leakage problems in China. He's just trying to make a living, and there's no reason you should control the repair market.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Apple, if you want the general public to care about "counterfeit" parts, make your production operations completely domestic.

      Don't sue the little guy for your IP leakage problems in China. He's just trying to make a living, and there's no reason you should control the repair market.

      Depends.

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

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

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:21PM (#56432299)

        Why don't you just read TFA?

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

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

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

        • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

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

          What makes you think being authorized would change his ownership of his shop? Independent == independently owned. Ford, Toyota etc dealerships are independently owned yet partner with the manufacturers to provide warranty repairs.

        • The issue is he was using "Experienced" (AKA Used) parts. So he is using stuff that other people already paid Apple for, doing a fix that Apple didn't get paid to fix. To make it worse, if there was an issue and it went back to Apple they can't even point to the fact they used some 3rd party product.

          Now I am on the independent repair guys side here. But using "Experienced" parts their life span may be already diminished so if he fixed a phone with a cracked screen and replaced it with a screen that had th

          • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:44PM (#56432501)

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

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

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

        • by Anonymous Coward

          He doesn't read the article; no time for that. Must jump in and defend apple at all costs.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          ... obviously can't do WARRANTY Repairs ...

          Why is it obvious? Most countries have laws against such no-compete exclusions. Most times this is beneficial all-around since the manufacturer (eg. Samsung, Nokia) can license a third-party to do it. (Licensing in this case provides quality-control, not actual permission to repair.) It seems more like Apple thought the abusive power they held in the USA could be transferred to other countries.

        • so in short it's illegal to fix your own phone ? drm v4.0 lol ... i recently heard about a new 'thing' here too where you have to have two wheels changed on a car if only one is flawed or busted, for safety reasons, is it weird i see the same thing in both there ?
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @03:26PM (#56433243)

        Apple, if you want the general public to care about "counterfeit" parts, make your production operations completely domestic.

        Don't sue the little guy for your IP leakage problems in China. He's just trying to make a living, and there's no reason you should control the repair market.

        Depends.

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

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

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

        • if your iphone got a little bend on it apple denies to repair it

          • if your iphone got a little bend on it apple denies to repair it

            Well at least it doesn't blow up and burn your butt cheek off.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Neither neither Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC or any other device manufacturer is under any kind of obligation to test their software updates with every single kind of 3rd party spares on the market you might decide to use to repair your phone with.

          No, but if they intentionally are making incompatible software updates with 3rd party spare parts, they should be explicit about it and give you the option to not install the update.

          I generally prefer to get my gizmos repaired with OEM parts at a certified repai

        • by Kjella ( 173770 )

          Another thing to consider is that not all spare parts are created equal. Neither neither Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC or any other device manufacturer is under any kind of obligation to test their software updates with every single kind of 3rd party spares on the market you might decide to use to repair your phone with.

          The flip side of this is a device manufacturer trying to arbitrarily break some functionality simply because it's not an original part. Sure, repair shops using sub-standard parts is a problem. But in the digital world it's often not that it couldn't work, it's that it refuses to work.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Another thing to consider is that not all spare parts are created equal. Neither neither Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, HTC or any other device manufacturer is under any kind of obligation to test their software updates with every single kind of 3rd party spares on the market you might decide to use to repair your phone with.

            The flip side of this is a device manufacturer trying to arbitrarily break some functionality simply because it's not an original part. Sure, repair shops using sub-standard parts is a problem. But in the digital world it's often not that it couldn't work, it's that it refuses to work.

            Quite frankly I rather doubt anybody would intentionally break devices with 3rd party parts, the negative PR would not be worth it. Apple has been burned by this several times in the past even if they only detected and disabled 3rd party components that related to security, such as fingerprint scanners. But in the case of iOS 11.3 what broke were 3rd party displays. People keep authoritatively stating that Apple broke these 3rd party displays on purpose so, ... let's have some proof.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Right to repair" addresses the counterfeit argument which this case is about by saying Apple should provide parts and tools to independents. So this situation is in part of Apple's own making with their hard-nose stance to an obvious demand of the market, which current approved shops aren't meeting.

    • Nah, labour is way too expensive in Norway to make production domestic.
  • Counterfeit screen? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:44PM (#56431991)
    What is a counterfeit screen? Something that made look like a screen, but doesn't actually works? If not that, then it is third-party replacement screen, and Apple has no business telling anyone what parts to use.
    • Counterfeit in these instances is trying to pass off third party parts as first party. Like buying a "rolex" from a street vendor.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well, if you go to Wal-mart, in their furniture section, they have these cardboard televisions and lamps they use in lieu of the real stuff.

      Now just imagine if somebody sold you one of those.

      That's the problem here. Those screens were made of cardboard. CARDBOARD! And Norway let it happen.

      • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @02:14PM (#56432767) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

    • A third party replacement screen could still be counterfeit if it tries to pass itself off as an officially branded product. I don't believe that to be the case here, but it's certainly possible.
      • I own an iPhone 8 and I haven't noticed any apple branding on the screen. It's transparent.

        • No, and you won't, because Apple doesn't sell screens to end users (well, maybe there's an Apple logo on the connector for the screen, I have no idea, but probably not). If they did sell the screen to you directly, Apple screens would come in nice little boxes with the Apple logo on them, and 3rd party screens would come in boxes without an Apple logo. In fact, anyone who repairs iPhones does in fact buy iPhone screens, and screens made by Apple will be shipped in boxes with the Apple name on them (maybe th

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            Even in that scenario, he's not violating trademark, the person putting the Apple trademarks on the box is.

      • by sinij ( 911942 )

        A third party replacement screen could still be counterfeit if it tries to pass itself off as an officially branded product. I don't believe that to be the case here, but it's certainly possible.

        Yes, a third-party part cannot contain Apple logos, but seeing this a screen, how do you think is that relevant? To best of my knowledge, Iphone screens do not contain any bezels or logos.

        • Yes, a third-party part cannot contain Apple logos, but seeing this a screen, how do you think is that relevant?

          Because that screen has chips with microcode owned/copyrighted/patented by Apple installed on it.

          • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 )

            Because that screen has chips with microcode owned/copyrighted/patented by Apple installed on it.

            How do you know?

          • by sinij ( 911942 )

            Yes, a third-party part cannot contain Apple logos, but seeing this a screen, how do you think is that relevant?

            Because that screen has chips with microcode owned/copyrighted/patented by Apple installed on it.

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

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

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

              • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @03:26PM (#56433247)

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

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

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

        • Yes, a third-party part cannot contain Apple logos, but seeing this a screen, how do you think is that relevant?

          I am all for the small store owner in this instance, as long as he was noting these are third party screens used for repair.

          The reason it matters vs. Apple screens is because third party screens are not going to have the same level of QA or possibly materials as real Apple screens. They may have dead pixels. They may be dimmer. They have have much worse off-axis color shift. They may not last

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Since it was probably made by the same company that made the screens for Apple, what does "counterfeit" mean here? If it just means it was never the property of Apple, then "ok, and so what?".

        Of course, it's possible that some other company set up a production line for Apple compatible screens...but I find that quite dubious.

    • What is a counterfeit screen? Something that made look like a screen, but doesn't actually works? If not that, then it is third-party replacement screen, and Apple has no business telling anyone what parts to use.

      And they DON'T, unless the Repair shop holds itself out as an Apple Authorized Service Center.

      Thousands upon thousands of aftermarket repair shops make repairs to Apple equipment every single day without getting sued. There is something not being explained here.

      • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalmNO@SPAMicebalm.com> on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:26PM (#56432367)

        Here's a google translate of a norwegian article:

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

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

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

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

        • Here's a google translate of a norwegian article:

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

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

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

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

          It's kind of a grey area; sort of the reverse of selling counterfeit Calvin Klein jeans WITH the Logo. Here, the parts probably WERE counterfeit, probably DID have an Apple Logo; but then the shop owner supposedly "de-counterfeited" them by OBSCURING said Logo, (or by installing where the customer would not normally see the Logo, a "workaround" which I don't personally agree with), and then simply making no claims as to their authenticity.

          But in the end, it does not seem like the shop owner was attempting t

    • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @02:10PM (#56432735)

      The article specifically answers your question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      It's a screen with an Apple logo on it that's not an Apple screen. In this case it had the Apple logo on it and they covered it up with a marker which would be supposedly wiped off by the installer or user of the product.

    • Counterfied in this case probably means: Apple uses screen model X from company Y.
      But the screen model was from company Z, but had a label with "X" printed on it.

      I had such a case. I bought for my ex GF an "refurbished iPhone 4" from a vendor at eBay. I assumed "refurbished" meant that Apple had refurbished it (you can buy refurbished Mac Books and iPhones etc. from Apple). However, when we were on a rave in a club, it was so smoky and humid that vapour or smoke came into the phone and obscured the camera l

  • by isj ( 453011 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:48PM (#56432013) Homepage

    Those also the ones sending out copyright infringement notices for some unknown movie and offering to settle if for ~$100.

    So I'm not surprised that things went sideways for Apple - they should be more selective in their choice of law firms.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Because otherwise, this is a criminal act *by Apple*.

    Everybody should watch this:
    Lessons from fashion's free culture - Johanna Blakley at TEDxUSC [ted.com]
    It makes clear how pointless copyright is.

    • No, they were sold as 3rd-party screens. There was an Apple-logo on them, but it had been covered up with ink, ie. they were probably originally refurb-screens, and due to the logos being covered up they weren't considered as counterfeit items or infringing Apple's trademarks.

  • Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:56PM (#56432075)
    I am always happy to hear when a small businessman stands up to big corporate bullies and wins. Apple has gotten greedy and it's good to see them get kicked in the balls once in a while.
  • To stop people from repairing their own devices....BRICK them with a software update. If you purchase a device with a warranty, then by all means, LEAVE it alone until the warranty period expires, but, after that, you should have the right to repair it as you see fit. Now, that being said, if the replacement part(s) through no fault of your own, are defective, (unless Apple bricks them) that is on your own to take up with the repair vendor.
  • by cloud.pt ( 3412475 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:21PM (#56432305)

    A quote from the Motherboard article, by the judge who ruled aainst Apple:

    "It is not obvious to the court what trademark function justifies Apple’s choice of imprinting the Apple logo on so many internal components"

    It is, although, obvious to Apple's marketing team: 90% of their revenue, including hardware sales and repair are due to branding appeal and not quality or technological appeal (despite it actually existing), and thus, Apple wants to protect that brand in every single way by printing it everywhere, and preventing repairs that might tarnish that brand (as they can be lower quality, but don't necessarily mean they are...).

    The judge though, noted very well that this trademark/brand protectionism goes against basic rights of repair - Apple doens't own your phone after you buy it - and consequentially, it cannot apply their trademark rights OVER repair rights.

    Ask a broken iPhone owner if he would rather have the screen repaired with the logo: he would obviously say he prefers to fake it, but that's his choice and his wrongdoing. Ask the same person he has to pay 300 to have the logo, or 30 bucks to get a no logo, fully-functioning screen, and the branding thing will go down the drain pretty fast. But obviously, since Apple does not produce nondescript versions of their spare parts, you will never have sub-300 bucks, official iPhone X screens and that's just the life for an iPhone buyer that doesn't want to break the law. I feel for you

    • by Anonymous Coward

      As someone who has broken their Apple screen...more than once...I'll take the Apple repair. It's usually closer to $80 for a shop to do the repair. Apple charged $120-$150 for the same repair. The quality is vastly different. The screens have crap glass, discolorations over time, bonding glue in the screen that delaminates, stickers on the back that cause issues with the display (for warranty reasons said by the repair shop), and they break WAY easier. To me, people need to stop being cheapasses, and goto A

      • by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @03:05PM (#56433107)

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

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

        The quality of the parts has been acceptable so far.

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

      • You're right, you can rarely find an actual glass, let alone the same type of glass and touchscreen than an OEM would supply. Most replacement LCD/OLED so-called "screen assembly" replacements on the web are basically pulled parts of the essentials, usually white-listed components (such as the panel itself and touchscreen controller chips), bundled with low-quality touchscreens and badly cured LOCA glue, leading to a 50-50 chance of getting warping from the most basic finger press. And they are rarely, if e

  • If Apple wins they win. If Apple loses they've beat down the winner so much that the next repair show may think twice.

    Criminal prosecutors do the same thing since the consequences of losing are trivial.

  • I found this little bit of logic to be the most interesting.

    • * The parts had an Apple logo on them, which made them counterfeit per the definition;
    • * The logo was covered with marker that could easily be removed by the recipient if they so chose;
    • * The defendant never removed the ink from the logo;
    • * The parts with the logo were never visible to the end users.

    The judge took that into account and noted that since the logo was not visible it was not considered to be counterfeit. The users did not know the logo w

  • So, if Apple believes they still own the hardware you paid for and you have no right to repair it without going through Apple, perhaps the solution is to stop buying Apple products altogether? Apple buys most of their parts from Samsung to begin with, and Samsung is already well ahead of Apple in technology, although both companies appear to think they can maximize profits by making their products as easy to break as possible. Essentially, Apple is pissed because 3rd party replacement screens cut into their
  • Apple Should Lose (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @02:33PM (#56432887)
    Imagine buying a Ford and being sued for using after market products on your car. That is exactly what Apple seeks on its products. The idea that a company can control a product after they sell it is absurd. You buy it. You own it. You do what you please with it! Maybe it is time for end users to sue when a product is made difficult or expensive to repair. A class action suit might be a real eye opener.
  • Given the power imbalance here, and that Apple was clearly (and knowingly - they have good lawyers) in the wrong, there need to be consequences.

    Legal fees, time, expenses, etc., are simply not enough.

  • Apple's demons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday April 13, 2018 @07:09PM (#56434349) Homepage

    Tim Cook talks about how he supports his users by not selling their information, by supporting strong encryption, and by standing up to the government. Whenever I hear him talk about this, I pause and almost consider buying an Apple product. But then things like this happen, and I am reminded that Apple provides a walled-garden store, fights interoperability, and uses the intellectual-property stick to harm their own customers. Tim Cook can claim a clean conscience on some fronts, but is downright evil on others. There is hope for Apple, but there is much that needs to change.

I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs. -- H.L. Mencken

Working...