[rpm91]

> Apple claimed that Huseby was allegedly importing “counterfeit” iPhone screens. Huseby denied this, saying that he simply used refurbished iPhone screens that he never advertised to the public as “genuine” parts from Apple.

I'm no fan of Apple's crackdown on repairers in general, but this sure sounds like he had third-party screens that he called "refurbished iPhone screens," which sounds pretty misleading to me. If someone told me something was a "refurbished iPhone screen," my assumption would be that it was originally a genuine Apple part, and it doesn't sound like that's what he was using.

Just leaving out the word "genuine" doesn't make it not-misleading.

[rlpb]

> ...this sure sounds like he had third-party screens that he called "refurbished iPhone screens,"

It doesn't sound like that to me at all. From the article I get the impression he was selling "refurbished iPhones" or offering to "repair your iPhone". In both of those cases I don't think using non-Apple parts is misleading - because as the article says "he simply used refurbished iPhone screens that he never advertised to the public as “genuine” parts from Apple".

[cat199]

> Just leaving out the word "genuine" doesn't make it not-misleading.

agree on this point - in english there would be some distinction between 'refurbished iPhone screens' vs 'refurbished screens for iPhones', where the former implies some kind of 'official screen' and the latter implies a 'compatible part'

but - and I don't know the labelling used or norwegian - what if there is no native language construct that captures this subtle distinction?