[krapht]

You should read the actual court case. The online journalistic coverage is misleading and somewhat exaggerated. There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed.

https://youtu.be/xKEdi6vXMrU

Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.

[jacquesm]

I'm sure there are good reasons but there has to be a more concise way of making that point than linking to 41 minutes of rambling video. I watched the first 5 and I'm none the wise yet.

Regardless of journalistic coverage it is still Apple suing for trademark infringement on parts that should not have been trademarked in the first place. So they are simply using trademark law as a weapon knowing full well that this was their intended use from day #1. Apple doesn't like 3rd party repairs of your devices, somehow they still feel that even if they sell you something they are owed a piece of the action for every bit of hardware that goes into it post sale.

We've come a very long way since the Apple II with it's nice and hackable expansion ports. This disgusts me in a way that not much else does.

[rasz]

The case was not about trademarked parts. It was about someone in China printing Apple trademarks on substitutes.

At first everyone, including Louis, assumed original Apple logos printed by Apple on Apple LCD module. Turned out Chinese refurbished decided to counterfeit the refurb to make it look like original part, by printing Apple trademarks on substitute parts.

[jacquesm]

So, the Chinese broke the law, not the refurbisher. And yet, it is the refurbisher that got sued here. I've seen similar things happen with Bosch vs Porsche, where Porsche parts retail for a fairly large multiple of the Bosch parts, the only difference being the Porsche logo. Functionally equivalent, made in the same factory, to all intents and purposes the same part.

Manufacturers that want to distinguish themselves by labeling commodity parts with their trademarks are not doing this with the intention of protecting their customers, they are protecting their bottom line.

[hanche]

> There are good reasons for why the case is not being appealed.

I would assume the fact that this was a decision by the supreme court might be one such reason.