[oez]

That's not at all what is happening though. It's more like if I was to buy crashed Fords at salvage auctions to take the genuine parts from them, and Ford's private stasi force shows up at my house to take everything and then sell them for their own profit.

[threeseed]

Not sure what you are talking about.

From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border.

Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.

[enragedcacti]

> Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway.

TFA: The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold

[oez]

Why are you conflating third party parts with counterfeits? If you actually read the article the reason the shipment was seized had nothing to do with the screens, it was the logo on the reused original parts that Apple believed were counterfeit.

Besides, I'm not American so maybe my view is different, but if a company can pay money to a government agency for increased policing for their benefit, and that government agency raids businesses under the direction of that companies representatives, that is a private force. E: And the fact that it's open for any company to use does not make it better in any way whatsoever.

[Reubachi]

The parts are not counterfeit or fell of a truck. THey are OEM parts from previously disassembled phones, which has been proven with small sample testing.

Back to the car example, imagine if Ford went after ebay and FB marketplace with some regulatory body, citing the huge industry of totaled -vehicle-part-out sales as being an "exploit".

For this ford example, or the exact equivlent example that is occuring with phones, can you possibly make it make sense to me for a regulatory body to waste it's time with such a simple, obvious non-issue? Bonus points if you can do it without referencing Apple's major influence/market share (this would be illegal.)