Repairing your smartphone or installing a ROM will now be a crime in Mexico
xataka.com.mx
xataka.com.mx
This stifles competition as corporations are in control for how long hardware or software remain usable and who can provide alternative solutions. In the US this topic flared up again once the farmers felt the consequences of this. Now their modern vehicles and tools either have to be replaced a lot more often or they can't choose where to seek replacements.
>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.
Here is one of the expert witnesses in the trial recanting his outage and explaining why Henrik was actually committing trademark infringement.
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.
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.
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.
I would assume the fact that this was a decision by the supreme court might be one such reason.
With BMW pioneering car microtransactions (https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/2/21311332/bmw-in-car-purcha...) you can be sure that the corporations will bear down the DMCA/copyright/trademark lawyer hammer on anyone that even thinks of trying to add features to such cars without their consent. The times where you could upgrade your car with aftermarket parts are coming to an end with the sound of cheers for Apple and other corporations adding DRM everywhere to prevent your own repairs and upgrades.
* E36 M3 upper shock tower cracking
* E46 M3 subframe cracking
* C6 Z06 valve guides
* 996 and 997 Porsche IMS bearings
* GT-R transmission failures (had to have mine replaced)
* W204 C63 AMG head bolts
Happy to provide more examples.
https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-macan/1085919-cautionary...
IMS bearings are an issue until 2009, engines produced after that point starting with the 9A1 no longer have an IMS.
I’ve not driven a modern M but I’ve driven the 330d and 420i loads and they’re incredibly dull. I’m sure the Ms are more fun and advanced and the fake engine noise pumped in to the cabin is exciting and all .. ;-)
The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.
People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster.
Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines.
And who said we're only talking M?
Chill...
I make my money out of this and I'm torn between quitting this field I spent quite a bit of time in or just sticking in for the money, but what is currently happening in automotive... it's insanity to me. I just get mad thinking about it.
I generally agree but I can also see apples pov. I’ve purchased quite a few used iPhones online (amazon, eBay stores etc) that are advertised as new or open box. So so frequently they come with terrible third party screens or super cheap replacement parts. If I didn’t have a point of reference I would think iPhones just have terrible screens/crappy switches/speakers etc. Apple is right to want to protect their brand from these hooligans but I think there are far better ways.
I personally think they should let the repair market be but throw an alert in settings and setup that let you know there are fake parts in a device. I’m not sure how feasible that would be butI think it would be more useful and effective than going at it from a legislative angle.
The defendant in this case was aware of the problem and tried to solve it via blacking out the logo with a marker and describing the provenance of the part during the sales process. One can differ on whether these were sufficient measures, and perhaps note that Apple is making it extra hard to remove their logos, but restricting third parties from selling products I didn't make with my logo on it is fairly fundamental to trademark law.
Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.
Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.
The screens were real Apple hardware, with newly reprinted Apple logos by someone in China.
point 20 "Høgsterett legg difor til grunn lagmannsrettens vurdering av at dei innførte skjermane ikkje er originale, at dei påførte varemerka er identiske med Apples registrerte figurmerke, at varemerka ikkje er påførte av Apple, og at dei er dekt over med tusj som let seg fjerne. "
+ the fact he was billed for "Original OEM screens"
> When the purpose is to test, investigate, or correct the security of a computer, system, or computer network.
> When a person wants their device to stop collecting personal information.
Aren't those the reasons most people install custom ROMs? For getting security updates past the life of the smartphone, and to stop Google tracking you.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/anti-terror_l...
The OnePlus 8 Pro is the first phone I feel doesn't need a custom ROM. It has some annoiying things such as Facebook or Chrome preinstalled, but those were either uninstalled or hidden quite fast.
Let's see how long this will get updates though...
GNU/Linux and the BSDs have never before looked so essential to the survival of computing as we know it.
In the future, all computers could very well be just like video game consoles: devices which refuse to run software not cryptographically signed by their true owners. Software development kits are restricted to corporations and likely provised under strict licenses and NDAs. Users are supposed to just consume content within the narrow context defined by corporations. We're not supposed to create or change anything. They don't want us to be able to run software they don't approve of.
Ironically nobody cares about these SBCs because of their poor software support for new versions of the linux kernel.
However, the Copyright office get to make official exceptions to the law and they made an exception for jailbreaking a phone. I'm not sure about repairing or installing custom ROMs. Those might fall into different categories.
Do they really not understand the long-term consequences of preventing the kind of tinkering, exploration, repurposing, interconnecting, i.e., hacking, that leads to innovation?
Do they really not understand the long-term consequences of preventing new kinds of competition from "garage upstarts" that find new, better, cheaper ways of doing thins?
Do they really think this is beneficial for everyone in the long run?
Also, even if it isn't a big success, the devs of those OS projects will have experience building a Linux environment for a smartphone. There'll be more documented knowledge of how to implement SMS, calling, powersaving, telephoning and the rest. So even if it sinks, we still stand to gain.
Do you really think that politicians are concerned about "everyone's benefits"? I think they do not give a flying f..k about it. They're being lobbied by big corps and then after their terms they get cushy jobs in the same corps. Joe/Jane Does are only remembered at the time of the vote.
It could be argued that Apple were already doing this. Remember their updates that knowingly slowed down older phones? They claimed it was for performance reasons, but nowhere informed the user of this practice... Src: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171222/15380038868/apple...
This is an example of "tivoization" and should be prevented by GPLv3
I can't find anything documenting the etymology, but I assume it's derived from rips of games used in emulation, which are in fact downloaded from "read-only memory".
Edit: Access to mobile networks is a deep rabbit hole and you might immeditately run into issues regarding patented algorithms. But you can integrate an off-the-shelf module and keep it at arms length to your system. If you're fine being stuck on 3G. The bigger issues are you will have similar issues with the hardware. Unless RISC-V takes off and yields some affordable, auditable hardware, the ROM concerns still apply.