"Apple does not ‘own’ the product after they have sold it"
I think this is the crux of the issue. The guy was importing refurbished parts with the logos covered even. They weren't counterfeits. How does a manufacturer have the right to sue for copyright infringement when it's just end users reselling authentic parts? The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts.
Frankly I think it's pretty obvious apple is just trying to squeeze every cent out of these phones and it's a really bad hat to wear.
I don't think they want to squeeze every cent. I think they just care about the brand. They want people who bought iphone to have the best experience they prepared for them. Even if you buy some used iphone. If somebody buys some used iphone and it acts weird or the build quality seems imperfect because some parts were replaced, then this person may spread opinion that iphones suck.
I'd guess that's their reasoning. But I'm not on their side here. I think they should be allowed to design products to make repairs as hard as possible if they want to, but once I buy it I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Plus there's not that much great experience to protect lately..
Because corporations are trying to erode the concept of ownership itself for the common human. Copyright and trademark are the vehicles they're use to attempt to deny you the fundamental notion of ownership. The corporations are getting quite close to it in the US.
>How does a manufacturer have the right to sue for copyright infringement when it's just end users reselling authentic parts?
I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of Apple's case. First, it seems like they are suing for trademark infringement, not for copyright infringement. Second, the repair shop owner is by no stretch of the imagination the end user of this product. Wikipedia gives this definition of end user:
"In product development, an end user (sometimes end-user)[a] is a person who ultimately uses or is intended to ultimately use a product.[1][2][3] The end user stands in contrast to users who support or maintain the product,[4] such as sysops, system administrators, database administrators,[5] information technology experts, software professionals and computer technicians."
As for "no way markets them as OEM parts," this is not a very consumer-focussed answer. I think a reasonable step that this guy should have to take is to explicitly state, "I am not an authorized Apple repair technician and these parts are not guaranteed to be genuine Apple parts. They do not bear an Apple warranty and are not eligible for support by Authorized Apple Technicians."
Otherwise, from Apple's perspective, this repair shop owner is just taking advantage of Apple's reputation for quality and using it to make cut-rate repairs.
>The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts.
Except that the archive.org page for his site clearly shows that his site was marketing the replacements as genuine Apple parts and that it was changed after the court case began.
I think they are just testing the waters in a small suit to see which strategy will work better for them to enforce rendering fixing their products illegal.
I worry they're going to come after us programmers next. Only "authorized" programmers will get the access code required to change anything. Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc will control the access codes. "Programming is hard, and these untrained self-taught programmers can mess up your machine, they might install malware, or they might be hackers, or they might overclock your CPU and damage it, or they might use the system for terrorism. Really, they should only be allowed to access the machine if they were appropriately trained by us."
Isn't this exactly how iOS works currently? You literally cannot develop for it without signing an Apple contract (even non-App store apps require a user account/agreement).
For the time being, at least in the US, reverse engineering is fully protected by well established precedent. Some nations have laws designed to stop "hackers" that outlaw some of the methodologies used in reverse engineering, which I heavily oppose for this reasoning.
What are you talking about Apple and Microsoft already control those gateways, and for good reason. It’s trivial to write a mail client thAt just so happens to steal you passwords if it’s running while you browse. The balance now is if they abuse their role you have a billion dollar lawsuit and can leverage that against them.
Every time someone purchases an Apple product, they are endorsing their practices, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
Time and time again, we have observed that patents are a tool of the haves to prevent competition from the have-nots.
While this case may have been about 'trademark' infringement, it's clear that if patents didn't exist one could procure genuine replacement parts that don't 'infringe' on Apple's trademarks (which in this case is obviously a dubious assertion).
Every time a 'tech person' buys and espouses Apple products (and other patent encumbered products), others less educated in technology suffer.
Reach for free and open source alternatives whenever viable, and try to educate others on the important compromises they have to make when it comes to freedom. We could lose free software and any resemblance to right to repair or open hardware in a generation if we're not careful.
I agree with you completely, but sadly I think time has proven that generally speaking (there's exceptions, you and I for example) people will choose the path of least resistance regardless of principles. This is true in other aspects of life, such as politics (who voted for, in their words "the lesser of two evils" instead of 3rd party last election?)
>Every time someone purchases an Apple product, they are endorsing their practices, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
Well, it's either that or Android... so yes I think I'll stick with Apple. I am also sad that there's no alternative, but what can I do? I already bought a WP when I had some hope they could succeed but they never did. :(
After watching things like this (Louis Rossmann), https://youtu.be/FeUBdMU2qA0 , if I ever buy an Apple product I'll basically treat it as unrepairable.
Someone who repairs a single brand of products will have a skewed image of the big picture. He'll basically only receive items too damaged to be repairable by others, but he has no data on whether he receives 1/million or 1/2 whatever and makes the assumption every single one of them are like the ones he receive. I've watched Rossmann's every video for a couple of years on my youtube subscriptions until he started with his political opinion and investment recommendation talks. It's a guy who thinks his opinion is the infallible fact and that there are no other possible explanations, and it undermines his professional opinions as well.
I've done repairs on my own Apple products once they've been out of warranty and it's not as bad as he makes it sound. Parts are easily accessible either as China-clones or working spare parts from dismantled products, because almost every model of anything Apple makes are made for a very long time and in large volumes. You'll have a much harder time finding something like a spare motherboard for a 5 year old random Acer laptop and such. Apple does carry service parts for a long time for their products as well and they're accessible to the authorized service providers, but the pricing is very steep and not really worth it unless it's the only option you have, or if it's paid by insurance.
So, even a person holding 1 (2, 3!) genuine Apple keyboard(s) in their hands likely still couldn't do the repair -- they'd have to get a new top case. Out of warranty, I've heard it is a $500 repair. That seems to be a direct consequence of ignoring repairability (the maintainability ship sailed long ago).
I watch Louis Rossman too. There's something about his straightforward and self-made-man attitude that strongly resonates with me. Plus it's usually very informative.
in case you never saw them, Louis Rossman has many videos about apple products. I can accept a bit of excentric design when you're pushing the boundaries of style and thinness but some things are just mindblowingly flabbergasting (fragile keyboard and rivetted to chassis; as repairable as a renaissance painting)
This will get canned on the appeal, guaranteed. The article is a bit misleading because they're not going after him because he's doing aftermarket repairs. They're going after him because he's claiming that the repaired devices are using genuine parts from Apple, which even have the Apple logo on them, yet they weren't purchased from Apple.
This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement. They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that. They're fighting the fact that these bills, every single one of them, wants to force Apple to provide instructions and parts for repair shops that aren't Apple authorized for which they can't verify or guarantee the quality fo the repair. That's a completely understandable position and yet people keep falsely claiming that it's simply about Apple wanting to keep people from repairing their own stuff. That's not it at all and it's doing a disservice to the "Right to Repair" movement to continue to do so.
It's not that simple. Until literally 3 days ago I held exactly your same view "why don't they just become Apple authorized repair shops?"
Well, apparently Apple actually restricts the repairs you can do. For example, if you have water damage, you aren't allowed to just fix the actual components (capacitors, etc) that blew, you have to replace the whole board, resulting in much higher costs and eWaste for customers. (This is from Louis Rossmann, a well known YouTuber who fixes MacBooks). You are basically restricted to mostly replacing boards and things like that, not fixing individual chips.
For a company that toots their horn about being Green, their policies sure generate a ton more waste than necessary.
And I say this as someone who almost exclusively owns Apple stuff. I am holding out with my 2015 MBP dearly for the next iteration of their laptop keyboards that don't require a $500 repair because of a spec of dust.
All this has made me a STRONG proponent of the right-to-repair movement. If Apple actually cared more about less flashy and sexy parts about being green, they'd make these parts readily available.
Where do you see any indication that this man was claiming to use genuine Apple components? I see nothing of the sort on his website[1]. The article specifically says that he made no claims of being authorized by Apple or using genuine Apple components and the court agreed with him. There was an Apple logo, on an internal component, which was covered up, because (at least according to the seller) they actually are Apple parts that had been refurbished. Now maybe they actually are counterfeit parts and the seller was lying, but there is zero evidence of this and the repairman certainly wasn't intentionally selling counterfeits or lying about anything.
But the article states quite clearly that he is NOT claiming to use genuine parts.
“PCKompaniet has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”
Unless you have evidence of the contrary, your argument is not applicable to this case.
How can you or other 3rd parties repair devices if Apple won't sell parts or provide manuals and it sues people who claim to be able to do such things on your behalf? I think it is fair that apple withhold an "apple certified" designation but everything else beyond that is them trying to squash 3rd party repairs so that they can maintain a monopoly on that work, prevent you from upgrading memory, etc and ultimately keep you on the upgrade treadmill. You really don't think that is the case?
> the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that.
Hmm, what? Apple is actively fighting that by making devices incredibly difficult to tear appart, not selling replacement parts, and, yes, suing every mom-and-pop repair shop.
>This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement. They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices
Your complaint seems rather imagined to me. Where are they "constantly conflating"? I don't see that here.
> They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that.
Apple is setting up an environment where counterfeiting is practically necessary by hindering legitimate repairs using non counterfeit non genuine parts.
Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals. I'm not aware of another OEM that does this. I can go to HP, Dell, Samsung, MSI, Acer, or LG and purchase genuine parts or download service manuals. Apple posts service manuals online but they go out of their way to lock them behind a login so that only Authorized users can see them.
Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays.
Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not.
The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication.
Apple disabled the ability to adjust the brightness of your Macbook's display if it wasn't genuine. Hey maybe it doesn't want to damage non genuine displays... so what's the difference between a genuine and non genuine part? The EEID that Apple programs into them. A counterfeit display in this case is simply one that was purchase from Apple's supplier, LG, and programmed with Apple's EEID not by Apple.
> the court decision states. “PCKompaniet has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”
You are incorrect. The Apple logos were covered up and the court findings state that they were never uncovered. I didn't see anywhere in this article where they say the owner was making claims about using genuine Apple parts.
But I do agree, it seems the right to repair stuff is not great. Repair whatever you want but don't force Apple to help you.
Where do you get the idea that Apple or anyone else for that matter can dictate the after market service level?
The appropriate move is that everybody on the market to deliver the schematics of the device to the purchaser, not to the service shops. And while we're at it (since as you said, Apple is not fighting the right to repair) provide also the complete source code with all the private keys they use to brick repaired devices into oblivion.
You might want to reconsider your position on defending idiotic corporate behavior against individuals.
From the article (which I wrote, happy to answer questions) ... this is quoted in the court decision i.e., was written by a judge not by the defendant:
"PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”"
"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."
Wow, talk about snitches! Has anyone notified Apple about amazon.com? Pretty sure they're selling 'counterfeit' iPhone screens too.
I doubt Amazon would be allowed to do their pro-counterfeit practices for very long in Norway. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they don't have a presence here yet.
The Norwegian custom officials are evil heinous people anyway though, they've recently begun confiscating test kits (even though they're legal) and reporting it to the police. Thank god Norway is decriminalizing soon.
I agree with Apple going after someone for the counterfeits, I don't agree that it makes sense that they go after the retailer. Unless he is knowingly making fraudulent claims that he is using authentic Apple hardware, in which case it seems entirely appropriate to send him a cease-and-desist demanding that he disclose he is using knock-offs.
If the parts are branded fraudulently with apple logos and such, they should go after the supplier for that.
Yeah though the the parts in this article were "refurbished screens" rather than counterfeits.
Talking of counterfeits, I wish the replacement part manufacturers would put their own brand on like the Floureon battery I've got in this macbook rather than saying genuine Apple when they are not like all the iphone battery replacements I've come across.
By becoming “authorized,” repair companies have to pay Apple a fee (and buy parts from the company at a fixed rate.) They are also restricted from performing certain types of repairs
There are two different futures: one in which manufacturers gives this up. Another in which every part is cryptographically signed to not be possible to counterfeit.
You might think people would stop buying products from those who do the latter. But no.
[+] [-] mattsfrey|8 years ago|reply
I think this is the crux of the issue. The guy was importing refurbished parts with the logos covered even. They weren't counterfeits. How does a manufacturer have the right to sue for copyright infringement when it's just end users reselling authentic parts? The owner even states he in no way markets them as OEM parts.
Frankly I think it's pretty obvious apple is just trying to squeeze every cent out of these phones and it's a really bad hat to wear.
[+] [-] comboy|8 years ago|reply
I'd guess that's their reasoning. But I'm not on their side here. I think they should be allowed to design products to make repairs as hard as possible if they want to, but once I buy it I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Plus there's not that much great experience to protect lately..
[+] [-] kevin_b_er|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intopieces|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of Apple's case. First, it seems like they are suing for trademark infringement, not for copyright infringement. Second, the repair shop owner is by no stretch of the imagination the end user of this product. Wikipedia gives this definition of end user:
"In product development, an end user (sometimes end-user)[a] is a person who ultimately uses or is intended to ultimately use a product.[1][2][3] The end user stands in contrast to users who support or maintain the product,[4] such as sysops, system administrators, database administrators,[5] information technology experts, software professionals and computer technicians."
As for "no way markets them as OEM parts," this is not a very consumer-focussed answer. I think a reasonable step that this guy should have to take is to explicitly state, "I am not an authorized Apple repair technician and these parts are not guaranteed to be genuine Apple parts. They do not bear an Apple warranty and are not eligible for support by Authorized Apple Technicians."
Otherwise, from Apple's perspective, this repair shop owner is just taking advantage of Apple's reputation for quality and using it to make cut-rate repairs.
[+] [-] dpkonofa|8 years ago|reply
Except that the archive.org page for his site clearly shows that his site was marketing the replacements as genuine Apple parts and that it was changed after the court case began.
[+] [-] Clubber|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zouhair|8 years ago|reply
Apple now is a full on evil corporation.
[+] [-] joqje09309|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ksk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|8 years ago|reply
That ship sailed decades ago.
> Only "authorized" programmers will get the access code required to change anything.
Stallman. Laser printer firmware. `nuff said.
Speaking of Stallman and Apple: have you heard of this? It was formed in reaction to Apple's actions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_Programming_Freedom
[+] [-] mattsfrey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talltimtom|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxftw|8 years ago|reply
Time and time again, we have observed that patents are a tool of the haves to prevent competition from the have-nots.
While this case may have been about 'trademark' infringement, it's clear that if patents didn't exist one could procure genuine replacement parts that don't 'infringe' on Apple's trademarks (which in this case is obviously a dubious assertion).
Every time a 'tech person' buys and espouses Apple products (and other patent encumbered products), others less educated in technology suffer.
Reach for free and open source alternatives whenever viable, and try to educate others on the important compromises they have to make when it comes to freedom. We could lose free software and any resemblance to right to repair or open hardware in a generation if we're not careful.
[+] [-] freedomben|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beenBoutIT|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nexz|8 years ago|reply
Well, it's either that or Android... so yes I think I'll stick with Apple. I am also sad that there's no alternative, but what can I do? I already bought a WP when I had some hope they could succeed but they never did. :(
[+] [-] ivoras|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jammi|8 years ago|reply
Someone who repairs a single brand of products will have a skewed image of the big picture. He'll basically only receive items too damaged to be repairable by others, but he has no data on whether he receives 1/million or 1/2 whatever and makes the assumption every single one of them are like the ones he receive. I've watched Rossmann's every video for a couple of years on my youtube subscriptions until he started with his political opinion and investment recommendation talks. It's a guy who thinks his opinion is the infallible fact and that there are no other possible explanations, and it undermines his professional opinions as well.
I've done repairs on my own Apple products once they've been out of warranty and it's not as bad as he makes it sound. Parts are easily accessible either as China-clones or working spare parts from dismantled products, because almost every model of anything Apple makes are made for a very long time and in large volumes. You'll have a much harder time finding something like a spare motherboard for a 5 year old random Acer laptop and such. Apple does carry service parts for a long time for their products as well and they're accessible to the authorized service providers, but the pricing is very steep and not really worth it unless it's the only option you have, or if it's paid by insurance.
[+] [-] verisimilitude|8 years ago|reply
So, even a person holding 1 (2, 3!) genuine Apple keyboard(s) in their hands likely still couldn't do the repair -- they'd have to get a new top case. Out of warranty, I've heard it is a $500 repair. That seems to be a direct consequence of ignoring repairability (the maintainability ship sailed long ago).
[+] [-] etatoby|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mehrdadn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpkonofa|8 years ago|reply
This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement. They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices. Apple has never been against that and isn't fighting that. They're fighting the fact that these bills, every single one of them, wants to force Apple to provide instructions and parts for repair shops that aren't Apple authorized for which they can't verify or guarantee the quality fo the repair. That's a completely understandable position and yet people keep falsely claiming that it's simply about Apple wanting to keep people from repairing their own stuff. That's not it at all and it's doing a disservice to the "Right to Repair" movement to continue to do so.
[+] [-] atonse|8 years ago|reply
Well, apparently Apple actually restricts the repairs you can do. For example, if you have water damage, you aren't allowed to just fix the actual components (capacitors, etc) that blew, you have to replace the whole board, resulting in much higher costs and eWaste for customers. (This is from Louis Rossmann, a well known YouTuber who fixes MacBooks). You are basically restricted to mostly replacing boards and things like that, not fixing individual chips.
For a company that toots their horn about being Green, their policies sure generate a ton more waste than necessary.
And I say this as someone who almost exclusively owns Apple stuff. I am holding out with my 2015 MBP dearly for the next iteration of their laptop keyboards that don't require a $500 repair because of a spec of dust.
All this has made me a STRONG proponent of the right-to-repair movement. If Apple actually cared more about less flashy and sexy parts about being green, they'd make these parts readily available.
[+] [-] opencl|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.pckompaniet.no/reparasjon-iphone/
[+] [-] hhw|8 years ago|reply
“PCKompaniet has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”
Unless you have evidence of the contrary, your argument is not applicable to this case.
[+] [-] eagsalazar2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|8 years ago|reply
Hmm, what? Apple is actively fighting that by making devices incredibly difficult to tear appart, not selling replacement parts, and, yes, suing every mom-and-pop repair shop.
[+] [-] ksk|8 years ago|reply
>This is my biggest complaint with the "Right to Repair" movement. They're constantly conflating what Apple is fighting against (counterfeit parts and being compelled to provide documentation and manuals without oversight) with the valid complaint of users not being legally allowed to repair their own devices
Your complaint seems rather imagined to me. Where are they "constantly conflating"? I don't see that here.
https://repair.org/
[+] [-] cptskippy|8 years ago|reply
Apple is setting up an environment where counterfeiting is practically necessary by hindering legitimate repairs using non counterfeit non genuine parts.
Apple doesn't allow those who aren't Authorized Repair Centers to purchase genuine replacement parts or to have access to service manuals. I'm not aware of another OEM that does this. I can go to HP, Dell, Samsung, MSI, Acer, or LG and purchase genuine parts or download service manuals. Apple posts service manuals online but they go out of their way to lock them behind a login so that only Authorized users can see them.
Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if those devices weren't using genuine Apple displays.
Apple has bricked iPhones during iOS upgrades if you replaced the touch ID, regardless of whether it was a genuine part or not.
The iPhone X camera module is a separate part form the display yet if you replace the display genuine or not while keeping the original camera module, it stops working for facial authentication.
Apple disabled the ability to adjust the brightness of your Macbook's display if it wasn't genuine. Hey maybe it doesn't want to damage non genuine displays... so what's the difference between a genuine and non genuine part? The EEID that Apple programs into them. A counterfeit display in this case is simply one that was purchase from Apple's supplier, LG, and programmed with Apple's EEID not by Apple.
[+] [-] wuliwong|8 years ago|reply
You are incorrect. The Apple logos were covered up and the court findings state that they were never uncovered. I didn't see anywhere in this article where they say the owner was making claims about using genuine Apple parts.
But I do agree, it seems the right to repair stuff is not great. Repair whatever you want but don't force Apple to help you.
[+] [-] crististm|8 years ago|reply
The appropriate move is that everybody on the market to deliver the schematics of the device to the purchaser, not to the service shops. And while we're at it (since as you said, Apple is not fighting the right to repair) provide also the complete source code with all the private keys they use to brick repaired devices into oblivion.
You might want to reconsider your position on defending idiotic corporate behavior against individuals.
[+] [-] barrkel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jkoebler|8 years ago|reply
"PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”"
[+] [-] Reason077|8 years ago|reply
Wow, talk about snitches! Has anyone notified Apple about amazon.com? Pretty sure they're selling 'counterfeit' iPhone screens too.
[+] [-] kristofferR|8 years ago|reply
The Norwegian custom officials are evil heinous people anyway though, they've recently begun confiscating test kits (even though they're legal) and reporting it to the police. Thank god Norway is decriminalizing soon.
[+] [-] beenBoutIT|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootusrootus|8 years ago|reply
If the parts are branded fraudulently with apple logos and such, they should go after the supplier for that.
[+] [-] tim333|8 years ago|reply
Talking of counterfeits, I wish the replacement part manufacturers would put their own brand on like the Floureon battery I've got in this macbook rather than saying genuine Apple when they are not like all the iphone battery replacements I've come across.
[+] [-] userbinator|8 years ago|reply
...and likely upgrades too:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16780181
[+] [-] alkonaut|8 years ago|reply
You might think people would stop buying products from those who do the latter. But no.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thefurman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootusrootus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricksnyke|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildchild|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NullPrefix|8 years ago|reply
I assume Kompaniet is Company in Norwegian.
>Apple sues PC Company