Update (5 June): We updated the text to clarify that the ruling is about trademark law, and not copyright law
Today marks a set back for the right to repair movement. Henrik Huseby, a Norwegian small business owner and repairer lost his legal battle against $1 trillion company Apple in Norway’s Supreme Court. With this decision, Apple continues to effectively shut off access to refurbished or after market spare parts for independent repairers.
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.
While the Oslo District Court ruled in 2018 that Huseby did not violate Apple’s trademark, because Huseby never claimed to be using unused original spare parts, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2019 that the imported screens are illegal copies. The case was then brought to the Supreme Court.
“This is a big victory for companies like Apple who want to shut down small businesses like mine and control the prices of repair. They can claim that the cost of changing a screen will be the same as buying a new one, so there is no value in repairing. They are blocking their competition and creating a monopoly” says Huseby.
Huseby took a considerable risk taking this case all the way to his Supreme Court, when other businesses in the same situation have given in to Apple in order to avoid trial and considerable legal expenses.
He was supported by €10,000 in donations to his crowdfunders that arrived from hundreds of donors from Norway, Europe and the rest of the world. After having paid fees for his appeals, he now faces severe financial consequences, which include paying his own legal team and €23,000 to Apple.
Intellectual property as a weapon, by Apple’s design
The Norwegian judges made the final decision purely assessing trademark violations on these screens, based on obscure and technical details that are entirely invisible to consumers. They didn’t revisit the ruling of the Court of Appeal, while Huseby still maintains they were refurbished.
Refurbished screens made in China come from companies that remove smashed glass from the high-quality original Apple LCD and apply a new glass on it. Usually the rest of the assembly is an original, reused part, and the glass is made by a third party.
As Huseby puts it, Apple uses intellectual property law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce intellectual property. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments.
Meanwhile, Apple refuses to sell genuine spare parts to independent repairers in Europe. So they have a choice: buy either inferior generic parts or refurbished or after-market parts, like the kind Huseby bought.
Apple’s aggressive use of intellectual property in order to shut down independent repairs will ultimately raise prices for consumers, if they are forced to choose Apple’s far more expensive authorised repairers who have access to new, genuine parts. For example, while Apple in Norway charges 1 959.75 NOK (185 EU) for mail-in service to replace the screen in an iPhone 6s, Apple’s authorised repair services in Norway charge 2699 NOK (255 EU), more than three times as much as Huseby charges, 800 NOK (75 EU).
A recent Eurobarometer survey by the European Commission shows that almost 8 in 10 Europeans think manufacturers should be required to make it easier to repair electronic devices or replace parts.
This costs the planet too, as high prices for repair push consumers to cycle through products faster and faster. A report by the EEB showed that extending the life of European smartphones by just one year would save the CO2 equivalent of taking one million cars off the road.
“Clearly the law is failing people and the planet. It’s time the law catches up”
Chloe Mikolajczak, Campaigner with the European Right to Repair campaign.
“This case was both about Apple using its power to pressure Norwegian authorities and control the process, and about the letter of the law being inappropriate to the moment we are living. Extending mobile lifecycles via repair is the best way to reduce their environmental impact, and refurbished parts are the greenest and cost-effective option.”
What comes next
The Right to Repair European campaign has helped with his fundraising efforts and is now calling for measures to prevent other repairers like Huseby having to go through this again.
We are now holding the European Commission to its commitment to “a Right to Repair” in the Circular Economy Action Plan, to ensure universal access to affordable genuine spare parts for all electronics for both repair professionals and consumers.
SIGN OUR PETITION for universal access to spare parts
To inform them of Apple’s environmentally damaging, anti-competitive win in Norway, we are sending a letter to EU Competition Commissioner Vestager and European MEPs from different political groups.
This very articulately and eloquently written article reports very bad news on all counts and a depressing legal and environmental precedent. The Norwegian Supreme Court needs its backside kicked hard for this disgracefully inequitable, illogical and perverse decision that is not remotely in the wider consumer, public or environmental interest. The Norwegian authorities have clearly been politically pressurised by Apple using its ill-gotten commercial power. Time for a serious boycott of capitalist Apple and its over-rated restricted products by all technology consumers – there are plenty of perfectly adequate and cheaper open-source alternatives on the market.
I do not understand how copyright laws can apply to physical objects. A copyright is used to protect visual and auditory information. I can see it may be a violation of trademark if someone advertises or claims to be using official manufacturer parts when it is not official parts. But if the claim is not official parts, then there should be no reason for a manufacturer to hinder a party from using them to refurbish or repair a product.
Once Apple has sold a phone, it should have no control of what the owner does to that phone, and no say if another company repairs that phone with whatever parts to bring it to functional condition. This is an abuse of copyright laws. The EU should pass right to repair laws that allows anyone to do as they please to products that they own, since the original manufacturer has already profited from the sale of the product.
We can see that original manufacturers want to block owners from being able to repair their products with parts not sanctioned by the original manufacturer to increase sales. This is bad for everyone, leads to greater waste, and hinders a thriving economy in repairs and manufacturing of parts.
Another way that Apple blocks the ability to repair of their products is by putting software locks (cryptographic keys) in their parts. This is supposedly for security purposes, but it’s clearly to make sure people can’t repair their products, so consumers have no option but to trash their old phones and computers and buy new ones. This is so completely hypocritical coming from Apple, a supposedly environmentally conscientious company.
I’ve been an apple user all my adult life, loved the quality of product. I’m now going to switch to other brands. This ‘beating the little guy’ will cost apple far more in the long run, it costs their integrity. Makes the 1984 advert seem like a big con.
Win the battle, lose the war as I’m sure I’m not alone.
Is there no appeal? Why would the Supreme Court come to this decision, was a different outcome expected?
Terrible news.
I don’t think this is fair article. In Norwegian media this case is presented differently. It wasn’t “allegedly counterfeit”, it was entirely counterfeit. All the products had the same identical serial number and was made in a Chinese factory that had nothing to do with Apple.
The only reason Huseby won the case is because he never claimed that they were genuine parts, however the parts still had illegal Apple logos and the judge in the supreme court decided that logos on counterfeit parts are a breach of trademarks. Which they are. Apple has every right to fight people who try to sell counterfeit products that has a counterfeit Apple logo.
I’m not saying that Huseby imported counterfeit parts on purpose, but he did and that’s between him and the Chinese company. However he is, on purpose, not giving a fair representation of this case by pretending that he imported genuine parts while clearly they were not (experts confirmed this). A witness in this case, Louis Rossmann (“god” of right to repair), changed his opinion on this case because of the new information that Huseby hid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKEdi6vXMrU
The right to repair is not “lets slap any logo on counterfeit parts cause it’ll be cheaper.” I’m sorry that Huseby got scammed, but it’s not about deceit and scamming customers with fake parts. I wish an organisation that fights for something so close to my heart would have given a fair representation instead of trashing Apple at any cost, even the truth.
Or you know… You just don’t buy from this scummy company (bad quality anyway) and find one with better reparation policy.
This is nothing new as Apple is a symbol of typical American hedgemony. They will use their power to monopoly the market and suppress competition. The existing law has to change and reflect the growing technology landscape. Failing that, the consumer should stop buying and using Apple products… That I am sure will send a message to Apple and get them to change the business practice very quickly.
The fact that you actually believe that silliness is the crime. This is an example of greedy douche bags Being greedy douche bags. That would be Apple and the Chinese factory. Huseby was just trying to provide a service. All countries need to pass the same laws That Car Companies were subjected to back in the 60s. They need to supply parts at a reasonable price for a specific period of time.
If your marriage has a few damages, you get a divorce and remarry. If your phone’s screen is broken, you get a new phone.
My mom had been using the same pan for 29 years, it is uneven, drooping and lost its handle. But she says that is the first thing she brought after she got married. She repairs her shoes at local repair shops and has made her marriage work for 29 years.
This consumerism is killing this ideology. Its not good for the future of the Earth.
Simple solution: Don’t buy Apple.
Is there no appeal? Why would the Supreme Court come to this decision, was a different outcome expected? Terrible news.
good post
Strange news. Supreme Court was unexpected.