[ljm]

They're not exactly fake if they come from the same manufacturer. Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute and the flow of electricity gives no shit about that.

I mean, even the use of the word 'fake' here is questionable. A replacement considered fake is not expected to work the same way the legit version does. It stubs that functionality out or makes it worse. If the chip does the same work and performs the same way it's not a fake, it's an alternative or a competitor. And if Apple are short-changing their Chinese sweatshops to produce these chips (and they absolutely are), then it's no surprise they try to seek a profit in the grey market.

[jbay808]

I think "unlicensed" or "unofficial" might be better terms. I agree that the term "fake" seems inappropriate for surplus parts coming from the same production line, or even if they're factory rejects. (Those might be defective or flawed, but not fake).

[saagarjha]

> Silicon doesn't change state from fake to legit depending on who sells it... it's an IP dispute

This is why I'm somewhat annoyed that this case is being paraded as something to support right-to-repair…

[theshrike79]

The "fakes" are usually off pieces that didn't go through the official quality control.

The easiest way for you to demonstrate this is to get some official Legos. Then go on Aliexpress and order some no-brand knockoffs (Lepin or whatever they're called now). Both work as building blocks, both connect to themselves and each other.

But you can just feel that the knockoffs haven't been produced to the same exact standard as the officials, they're just a little bit off and squeaky and wonky.

Now if someone sold you the knockoffs as officials, it would affect the Lego brand. And this is why companies go to court for.