(Leaked) EU Considering Bringing Back Removable Batteries?

[ARikozuM]

40 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree that no one is forced. But that's not what @ARikozuM was claiming. He said that OEM's were effectively forced to license to third party parts manufacturers - this is not true as far as I can tell.

No one is forced to sell parts or licenses. Sorry if it came out that way. I do think it's something to consider before the trends become irreparable. 

[TechyBen]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Does this matter though? There's competition in the phone itself - you can decide to buy a different smartphone entirely, one that includes vast and cheap accessibility to spare parts.

 

Huh? You've made the "single data point is an average/range" error. I was applying it to *all* companies, not just Apple. Competition does not = safety/correctness. So, if it's more safe/correct/helpful etc to have a removable battery, that needs regulating if there is a monopoly (by that I mean IP/trademark/copyright, sorry if I was not clear) on production. Just because I can buy a "Splanhuwaikokia" phone, does not mean it's ok for Apple to do whatever it wishes... does it?

If there is no monopoly on production, then those "safe/correct" battery options can be constructed. But that' don't stop Apple from being anti consumer/environment/illegal or just plain old unfair in other ways.

 

Apple (as an example, but not alone in this) is both being a monopoly on production and replacement parts. Thus no one can provide an alternative, greener/safer/more correct battery (system or individual cell).

 

With cars, other companies can make tires/breaks/etc etc. So less a "monopoly" in all types of the word/action.

[TechyBen]

12 hours ago, Donut417 said:

No one is forced. Because I have had car issues before where the part from the manufacture was the only part available. As in no 3rd party parts existed. 

Yes, but also, less are forced to not produce replacement parts. However, see "John Deere" tractors as where this is becoming a problem.

 

Are we entering a time when just having a tool/product is "dangerous" and we cannot be allowed to do anything with it, buy are strangely expected to be allowed to purchase and use it? Or is the "it's dangerous to repair a tractor alone, take this!" mentality correct?

 

However, companies want both "We are the only ones allowed to touch this, regulate away others from touching it!!!" and "Don't regulate any responsibilities onto US!!!" at the same time. No matter what side of the fence you sit on, logic and reality trump you every time. You cannot have your cake and eat it!

[Engineer.AI]

This entire debate seems favoring one thing or the other without being objective of the underlying facts. The number one being that smartphones with non-detachable batteries just don't last as long as the ones with detachable batteries. OP has given a piece of info that could be easily overturned once the date rolls on. 

 

This slimy tactic is why Apple and other major tech companies had to face the fire during a court trial in France, not that long ago. Changing appliances yearly is just not a sustainable model of business, nature wise.

~Engineer.AI   

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

John Deere" tractors as where this is becoming a problem.

 Same could be said about Apple. But its their product, by buying it you know what your getting in to. If you didnt like those policies then you would go with a vendor that has a track record with right to repair. 

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

 Same could be said about Apple. But its their product, by buying it you know what your getting in to. If you didnt like those policies then you would go with a vendor that has a track record with right to repair. 

We are not in an isolated system. Else I'd sell "headphones, these may explode your head" to my neighbors to solve the noise problem because "you know what your getting into, and obvs I'm not being sarcastic".

 

Again, "I want my cake and to eat it". If Apple can do what they like, why can I not do what I like with an Apple phone, but instead risk them suing me? Or if they wish to regulate my actions, and sue me, why can I not ask for their actions to be regulated?

 

Choose any side of the fence. Choose none. But I'm walking away if your not consistent and logical, practical and firmly based in reality.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Again, "I want my cake and to eat it". If Apple can do what they like, why can I not do what I like with an Apple phone, but instead risk them suing me? Or if they wish to regulate my actions, and sue me, why can I not ask for their actions to be regulated?

Because Apple is an American company. They play by American rules. If you seen our business landscape you will notice a bit of regulation but not total. Not EU level. Plus you have a choice in phones. Buy Android. Personally I like the iPhone, it just works. I like the 5 years of support, I like the size and how slim it is. I know I can’t repair the phone myself. I’m OK with that. 
 

When you implement draconian regulations you end up having companies who stop innovating. Then your stuck with piss poor products. Considering the EU likes to regulate the fuck out of every thing. It won’t be long until the EU has their own product lines and they will end up being behind the rest of the world. 

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Huh? You've made the "single data point is an average/range" error. I was applying it to *all* companies, not just Apple. Competition does not = safety/correctness.

To be frank, I have no idea what this has to do with my point.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

So, if it's more safe/correct/helpful etc to have a removable battery,

It's not more safe to have a removable battery - at least, no one has proven that, or even provided evidence to suggest it.

 

"correct" and "helpful" are very subjective terms that have no place in this discussion. Sure, it might be helpful to some users to have a removable battery. It might be more helpful to the manufacturer to not have one.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

that needs regulating if there is a monopoly (by that I mean IP/trademark/copyright, sorry if I was not clear) on production.

I don't understand this argument.

 

Of course Apple has a monopoly on their own IP. As they should. As does literally every company with IP that chooses not to license it out (which is a lot).

 

Now, if you want to argue that smartphone batteries shouldn't be covered under IP, or that the IP should be restricted to, say, circuitry and/or chemical composition, or something, that's a discussion that can be had.

 

But the idea that Apple must share their IP is absurd. No company should be forced to share copyrighted and protected information. If the information should be shared - forcibly no less - then it shouldn't be protected in the first place.

 

And what information we decide to force, will dictate where and how companies invest in research.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Just because I can buy a "Splanhuwaikokia" phone, does not mean it's ok for Apple to do whatever it wishes... does it?

Yeah, it kind of does mean that. Apple has to abide by the law, but other then that, yes, they can do whatever they wish.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

If there is no monopoly on production, then those "safe/correct" battery options can be constructed. But that' don't stop Apple from being anti consumer/environment/illegal or just plain old unfair in other ways.

What does this even mean? What does "safe/correct" battery mean here?

 

You're claiming Apple is breaking the law? ("illegal") what law? Be specific, or don't make the claim.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Apple (as an example, but not alone in this) is both being a monopoly on production and replacement parts. Thus no one can provide an alternative, greener/safer/more correct battery (system or individual cell).

And? That's their right as a company. Lots of other companies also have a "monopoly" on production and replacement parts - in fact, I'd argue most companies.

 

Obviously Apple has a monopoly on production of parts. They can, of course, choose to license those parts out, or decide to release the IP on certain parts, if they so choose.

 

Let's take an example: AMD has a monopoly on producing parts for it's CPU's. And that's okay. Another company shouldn't just be able to copy AMD's individual components (including silicon) and slap together what is effectively an AMD CPU without AMD's permission.

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

With cars, other companies can make tires/breaks/etc etc. So less a "monopoly" in all types of the word/action.

Sure, because tires and brakes are standardized items. Just like with an iPhone, anyone can make a USB-A Charger that will work with the iPhone because that uses an industry standard.

 

Things like tires naturally evolved to have industry standards, because it made no sense to do otherwise.

 

But car companies still decide who gets to make - say, the fender (which is no doubt copyrighted IP due to the specific/unique design used). They can decide if others can make it. They can allow others, via a licensing deal, to make it. But they don't have to.

 

Same goes for the engine, etc.

 

Now, with Smartphones, as well as many other devices (cars included), some of the components are simply off-the-shelf. Example: Spark Plugs. Ford doesn't own the rights to the type of Spark Plug inside their Ford Escape. In fact, they probably just contract a company that sells Spark Plugs at Canadian Tire (or Walmart or whatever), and that Spark Plug will also work in Chevy's and Toyota's, etc.

 

Same with smartphones. Some components are off the shelf. Granted, that means someone else owns the IP to that component, or the IP has entered public domain already (or by default, if it's something "obvious" and non-copyrightable).

[Killing-time-itself]

On 2/28/2020 at 5:20 PM, Phill104 said:

What concerns me about this is the extra plastic that will probably be needed per device. It might not sound much but will add up quite quickly. An extra layer for the housing and also some around the battery to protect it from bending or puncture.

The plastic can't be nearly as bad as the 600 dollar back glass "replacement" on an iphone 10.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Killing-time-itself said:

The plastic can't be nearly as bad as the 600 dollar back glass "replacement" on an iphone 10.

Depends on your thoughts about ever increasing plastic waste and the way it is disposed of.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the idea. I just feel that this kind of legislation needs thought and input from many sides. Environmental concerns need to be addressed as well as concerns from the manufacturers.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Killing-time-itself said:

The plastic can't be nearly as bad as the 600 dollar back glass "replacement" on an iphone 10.

Cost wise? Maybe not. Plastic is very cheap and glass tends to be more expensive.

 

But, you have to consider other impacts, such as environmental.

 

The phone will still need a back on it - whether that's glass or plastic or metal or some kind of composite material. The EU forcing Apple to put a removable battery into an iPhone isn't going to make the iPhone suddenly have a plastic back on it (possible, but highly unlikely).

 

Now with that in mind, in equal amounts, plastic generally is better for the environment, if both are being disposed of or recycled after the product usage is done.

 

Glass comes in better off when looking at reusability - eg: glass bottles can be cleaned and reused without recycling. Plastic bottles can do this too, but it's harder to do and they tend to be less durable in the long run. For a phone? Apple isn't taking the glass off of an older iPhone and reusing it straight. It'll have to be recycled before re-use.

 

So it's a complicated subject.

 

Then there's the whole thing about plastic recycling often being a big giant scam. A lot of plastic recycling just ends up getting tossed into the ocean or into a landfill anyway, because a lot of plastics are hard to actually find a use for when recycling, or when you've got a mix of different types, etc. Also it's cheaper to just make new plastic, so economically it's harder to justify.

 

Whereas recycled glass can be used for a lot of applications - even if it's more resource intensive.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Because Apple is an American company. They play by American rules. If you seen our business landscape you will notice a bit of regulation but not total. Not EU level. Plus you have a choice in phones. Buy Android. Personally I like the iPhone, it just works. I like the 5 years of support, I like the size and how slim it is. I know I can’t repair the phone myself. I’m OK with that. 
 

When you implement draconian regulations you end up having companies who stop innovating. Then your stuck with piss poor products. Considering the EU likes to regulate the fuck out of every thing. It won’t be long until the EU has their own product lines and they will end up being behind the rest of the world. 

Does Apple use regulation to stop IP being taken in the US? If so, they want their cake and to eat it, if they don't expect consumers to also use regulations in their favour. Pick one, but you cannot have both. Call it "draconian" or whatever you like, but if there is not parity in rights between consumers and companies, there will be problems.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

Does Apple use regulation to stop IP being taken in the US? If so, they want their cake and to eat it, if they don't expect consumers to also use regulations in their favour. Pick one, but you cannot have both. Call it "draconian" or whatever you like, but if there is not parity in rights between consumers and companies, there will be problems.

Consumers have the right to have the company repair the product. Most companies offer 1 year warranty. On top of that most if not all wireless carriers offer insurance. Also as I said if you don’t like the companies policy don’t buy the product. No one is holding a gun to your head. 
 

Like I said, the EU will end up with its own SKU of products. Possibly a generation or two behind. And you know what? That’s there problem. 

[TechyBen]

45 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

"correct" and "helpful" are very subjective terms that have no place in this discussion. Sure, it might be helpful to some users to have a removable battery. It might be more helpful to the manufacturer to not have one.

Yes. All laws are to some extent subjective. To what extent Apple "created an ip" is subjective to what extent they "copied existing knowledge". I gave those as examples. Consumers purchase based on their subjective (correct/helpful) decisions and expectations, and the factual requirements (a battery that works). We could list any type of consumer based purchasing decision (free open market) or legal regulation (burd dur durr regulation bad!!!). etc.

Quote

Of course Apple has a monopoly on their own IP. As they should. As does literally every company with IP that chooses not to license it out (which is a lot).

 

Now, if you want to argue that smartphone batteries shouldn't be covered under IP, or that the IP should be restricted to, say, circuitry and/or chemical composition, or something, that's a discussion that can be had.

 

But the idea that Apple must share their IP is absurd. No company should be forced to share copyrighted and protected information. If the information should be shared - forcibly no less - then it shouldn't be protected in the first place.

IP? Two wires, one positive and one negative, and a voltage across it? That's their "IP" they are protecting. Are you sure you want to die arguing on that hill?

Quote

And what information we decide to force, will dictate where and how companies invest in research.

Yeah, it kind of does mean that. Apple has to abide by the law, but other then that, yes, they can do whatever they wish.

What does this even mean? What does "safe/correct" battery mean here?

 

Any metric which the law wishes to pass. It could be standardisation for whatever reason. It could be a safety system. How is allowing other companies to install a battery in an iPhone forcing Apple to invest else where? How is requiring replaceable batteries for recycling/reuse forcing where Apple invests else where? *If* it's deemed a product/tech is harmful to the environment (society etc), then should a company be left to continue harming society?

 

 

Quote

You're claiming Apple is breaking the law? ("illegal") what law? Be specific, or don't make the claim.

I was using it as a "what if". What if Apple decide not to follow through with a law on manufacturing or recycling. We are talking about retrospective/future laws such as "please put in a removable battery". As Apple (or Samsung etc) don't do it currently, it could be they break the law if they don't change. 

Quote

And? That's their right as a company. Lots of other companies also have a "monopoly" on production and replacement parts - in fact, I'd argue most companies.

Legal monopoly or economic one? Can you give an example? I used cars as one of the industries this generally does not apply. If I can bolt something to my car, Ferrari don't often knock at my door and sue me (though that varies: https://jalopnik.com/ferrari-sent-deadmau5-a-cease-and-desist-about-his-purr-1627640534 )

 

Quote

Obviously Apple has a monopoly on production of parts. They can, of course, choose to license those parts out, or decide to release the IP on certain parts, if they so choose.

How is me making a battery that fits in an iPhone breaking their IP or their rights?

Quote

Sure, because tires and brakes are standardized items. Just like with an iPhone, anyone can make a USB-A Charger that will work with the iPhone because that uses an industry standard.

 

Things like tires naturally evolved to have industry standards, because it made no sense to do otherwise.

 

But car companies still decide who gets to make - say, the fender (which is no doubt copyrighted IP due to the specific/unique design used). They can decide if others can make it. They can allow others, via a licensing deal, to make it. But they don't have to.

 

Same goes for the engine, etc.

You said I was being arbitrary on what is and is not a standard, and what should and should not be protected under IP (or regulated etc). Now cars are arbitrary but that's ok?

Again, I ask. If I bolt something to my car, do I end up in court because bolting it breaks IP and trademark law? If I replace a battery in my iPhone, what then happens? If people purchase welded in engines to cars, would it be wrong to regulate those cars to have serviceable parts?

 

Quote

Now, with Smartphones, as well as many other devices (cars included), some of the components are simply off-the-shelf. Example: Spark Plugs. Ford doesn't own the rights to the type of Spark Plug inside their Ford Escape. In fact, they probably just contract a company that sells Spark Plugs at Canadian Tire (or Walmart or whatever), and that Spark Plug will also work in Chevy's and Toyota's, etc.

 

Same with smartphones. Some components are off the shelf. Granted, that means someone else owns the IP to that component, or the IP has entered public domain already (or by default, if it's something "obvious" and non-copyrightable).

That's not quite how "patterned" parts work. I could fit any *fitting* sparkplug into my Ford car. Ford cannot sue me for "it fitting, it must break our patents". A lot of the tech in phones already exists. Batteries is one of them.

 

As said, I can understand Apple coming down on those being stupid enough to put Apple logos on stuff. But the innocents are getting taken out in the crossfire fare fare too much (basically, the general person on the street is ignorant and lumps everybody in the same camp, the criminals in with the legit businesses/consumers, and paints everyone with the same brush calling them thieves/IP stealers etc).

 

[TechyBen]

12 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Consumers have the right to have the company repair the product. Most companies offer 1 year warranty. On top of that most if not all wireless carriers offer insurance. Also as I said if you don’t like the companies policy don’t buy the product. No one is holding a gun to your head. 
 

Like I said, the EU will end up with its own SKU of products. Possibly a generation or two behind. And you know what? That’s there problem. 

No. It's America. Consumers have the right to do what they wish with their owned items. See John Deere, and this whole big mess.

You said "not in America, it's not like the EU", well, you still want your cake and to eat it. You want businesses to have laws protecting them, then miss that their are laws protecting consumers (ownership) too.

 

Which one are you choosing?

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Yes. All laws are to some extent subjective. To what extent Apple "created an ip" is subjective to what extent they "copied existing knowledge". I gave those as examples. Consumers purchase based on their subjective (correct/helpful) decisions and expectations, and the factual requirements (a battery that works). We could list any type of consumer based purchasing decision (free open market) or legal regulation (burd dur durr regulation bad!!!). etc.

 

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

IP? Two wires, one positive and one negative, and a voltage across it? That's their "IP" they are protecting. Are you sure you want to die arguing on that hill?

I'm not choosing to die on any hill - as I said previously, if you think batteries shouldn't be covered by IP, that's potentially fair.

 

But if you're saying a battery is just some wires, that's very ignorant.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Any metric which the law wishes to pass. It could be standardisation for whatever reason. It could be a safety system. How is allowing other companies to install a battery in an iPhone forcing Apple to invest else where? How is requiring replaceable batteries for recycling/reuse forcing where Apple invests else where? *If* it's deemed a product/tech is harmful to the environment (society etc), then should a company be left to continue harming society?

Are you claiming that Apple's products are harmful (or more harmful compared to say, a Samsung S series product) to society? Please back that up, if so.

 

Batteries require a lot of innovation to make good ones that are compact enough to work in a smartphone. Not all batteries are made equal. Chemistries are different. Charge controllers are different, etc.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I was using it as a "what if". What if Apple decide not to follow through with a law on manufacturing or recycling.

What...?

 

If they don't follow through on a law, they are punished, as per the law allows (whether that's a lawsuit, or a fine, a product injunction/embargo - whatever).

 

This "what if" point doesn't make any sense.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

We are talking about retrospective/future laws such as "please put in a removable battery". As Apple (or Samsung etc) don't do it currently, it could be they break the law if they don't change. 

And?

 

Of course if there is a new law, and they don't change, they'll be breaking the law. What are you even trying to argue here?

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Legal monopoly or economic one? Can you give an example? I used cars as one of the industries this generally does not apply. If I can bolt something to my car, Ferrari don't often knock at my door and sue me (though that varies: https://jalopnik.com/ferrari-sent-deadmau5-a-cease-and-desist-about-his-purr-1627640534 )

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

 

You can bolt something onto the back of your iPhone too, so long as you're not claiming that what you made was an original unaltered iPhone.

 

What you can't do, is make a counterfeit product that violates the IP of Apple.

 

Again, if you don't think Apple should hold that IP to begin with, that's a different discussion.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

How is me making a battery that fits in an iPhone breaking their IP or their rights?

Isn't that obvious? Apple owns the IP for their batteries. That may well include the specific interface and/or formfactor of the batteries as well.

 

When you make a battery that fits inside an iPhone, you're necessarily copying their formfactor, which may well violate their copyright.

 

Again, if you don't think Apple should be able to copyright the formfactor, that's a different discussion.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You said I was being arbitrary on what is and is not a standard, and what should and should not be protected under IP (or regulated etc). Now cars are arbitrary but that's ok?

No - I said you were being arbitrary on what should be a law, and how that law might be applied.

 

Cars can be "arbitrary" (whatever that means in your context) because all of the stakeholders (various manufacturers and their relevant regulators) all agreed on a standard.

 

If Apple agrees to whatever standards the EU sets, there's no argument (or problem).

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Again, I ask. If I bolt something to my car, do I end up in court because bolting it breaks IP and trademark law? If I replace a battery in my iPhone, what then happens?

Bolting something to your car isn't the same as replacing a battery.

 

Your argument would be more apt if it were that you copied a copyrighted engine design, and put that into your car. That would indeed be a violation of copyright law.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

If people purchase welded in engines to cars, would it be wrong to regulate those cars to have serviceable parts?

In terms of this - you could make the argument that it's okay to regulate cars to have serviceable parts - but that's not the case. As far as I'm aware, there's no law that says a car must be serviceable (especially by the user).

 

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

That's not quite how "patterned" parts work. I could fit any *fitting* sparkplug into my Ford car. Ford cannot sue me for "it fitting, it must break our patents". A lot of the tech in phones already exists. Batteries is one of them.

You're not understanding my point.

 

Ford cannot sue you for putting in a compatible spark plug, because they don't own the copyright on any spark plug that fits. And the auto industry decided on a framework that allows such things.

 

Now, if I decided to make a complete rip-off of an AC/Delco spark plug, that would be grounds for being sued. Of course, it would have to violate AC/Delco's copyright in order for them to sue me. For a spark plug, that would be very difficult, because there's very few details of a modern spark plug that are even copyrightable anymore.

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

As said, I can understand Apple coming down on those being stupid enough to put Apple logos on stuff. But the innocents are getting taken out in the crossfire fare fare too much (basically, the general person on the street is ignorant and lumps everybody in the same camp, the criminals in with the legit businesses/consumers, and paints everyone with the same brush calling them thieves/IP stealers etc).

You're talking about issues where either the fact that the logo is missing is irrelevant (example: If I make a complete 1:1 copy of a Ferrari F40, but remove all the Ferrari logos, that's still copyright theft), or where the IP laws themselves are flawed.

 

Look, I'm not saying that Apple should never make a removable battery. I'm also not saying that the EU shouldn't sometimes force companies to do things.

 

But a lot of things you're currently talking about are clear violations of current IP law, such as taking a copyrighted product and copying it (even if you remove the logo).

 

There's also a point where you need to let corporations have some degree of freedom in how they operate, so that they can continue to innovate, and that their rights aren't unduly infringed.

 

Sometimes a company needs to be regulated though. If it's well thought out, and a net positive, then that can be okay. But these decisions aren't so black and white - we need careful consideration of all aspects.

[TechyBen]

Quote

I'm not choosing to die on any hill - as I said previously, if you think batteries shouldn't be covered by IP, that's potentially fair.

No I never said that. What I don't understand is how this conversation is a problem. By all means, say it's wrong, or right. But I am amazed at how people revolt at the idea that something might be regulated, while else where chant that they are protected by law (which is also a regulation).

Quote

But if you're saying a battery is just some wires, that's very ignorant.

No. Where did I claim that? I claimed the interface is. That the "block" is on the two wires connecting. *That is not stealing IP* and the rest of the battery could be made out of lemons for all you, me and Apple know, so how is it, as you keep insisting "stealing Apples IP"? It might use a chip on the battery. Previously it did not. Apple then added some checksum chips for... checksumming. I only single out Apple as a known example. Other companies do this. I'm commenting on them *blocking* third party use of any interface. That perks up consumers and law makers ears to step in and defend their own actions!

Quote

Are you claiming that Apple's products are harmful (or more harmful compared to say, a Samsung S series product) to society? Please back that up, if so.

Again. You fail to notice, I am asking "what ifs", to try and understand where you think the line is drawn, and you respond "back it up"? Huh? I ask, if Apple

 (Again, I am not singling out Apple as the only company in existence, just as an easy relatable example) broke the law, and if they were dangerous. Then is that ok to regulate? Or is any regulation automatically bad?

Quote

Batteries require a lot of innovation to make good ones that are compact enough to work in a smartphone. Not all batteries are made equal. Chemistries are different. Charge controllers are different, etc.

Yes. And then why should I not be allowed to replace a battery? Or why should a contry not put in reccomendations or regulations on replacing said batteries?

Quote

 What...?

What are you even trying to argue here?

I'll skip, we both seem to have talked passed each other, and I was trying to defend against the rebuff made, that had nothing to do with my original point anyhow. As said, you seem to keep taking my comments out of scope (example, when I suggest any patterned battery could be used to replace an Apple or Samsung battery, you assumed I'm asking for people to steal their battery IP and tech... where did I say such things?).

 

Quote

You can bolt something onto the back of your iPhone too, so long as you're not claiming that what you made was an original unaltered iPhone.

I kinda agree. In the case of Apple, they get hit from a lot of "passing off". However, their retaliation hits a lot of legit consumers/repairers. Hence the regulators stepping in, both to regulate import/copyright *and* consumer protection with replacements/repairs.

 

Quote

What you can't do, is make a counterfeit product that violates the IP of Apple.

 

Again, if you don't think Apple should hold that IP to begin with, that's a different discussion.

Isn't that obvious? Apple owns the IP for their batteries. That may well include the specific interface and/or formfactor of the batteries as well.

What IP? Where are people stealing Apples IP when they put a replacement battery in the phone? 

The companies making replacement batteries, do you know how and what tech they use? If that tech is patented (Strange Parts on Youtube has a nice video of such a factory, from start to finish, raw materials to packaged delivery). How is asking Apple to not block third parties from repairing a phone stealing Apples IP?

 

Quote

When you make a battery that fits inside an iPhone, you're necessarily copying their formfactor, which may well violate their copyright.

What? Huh? Wait... Huh? Take this back a second. Go back to the cars example. If I get a bolt, and it's the same size as the one in the car, I'm breaking IP??? Please answer me this!

Quote

 

Again, if you don't think Apple should be able to copyright the formfactor, that's a different discussion.

Oh, ok, you just did.  But, I'm still confused on your comment. They are breaking IP, but should not be allowed to patent it, but this requirement by law to "open up" repairs/replacements/standards is wrong? At least 2 of those things match, but at least 1 will have to go. You have to choose, cake or eat it.  You can't have it all!

 

Quote

No - I said you were being arbitrary on what should be a law, and how that law might be applied.

 

Cars can be "arbitrary" (whatever that means in your context) because all of the stakeholders (various manufacturers and their relevant regulators) all agreed on a standard.

 

If Apple agrees to whatever standards the EU sets, there's no argument (or problem).

Bolting something to your car isn't the same as replacing a battery.

No. Those providing replacement parts to my car have no connection to the original manufactures, no matter how many companies or standards there are or are not. My car still does not get impounded for "copyright infringement", if I find/make a bolt that fits it. Can you show me or find a legal example?

Quote

 

Your argument would be more apt if it were that you copied a copyrighted engine design, and put that into your car. That would indeed be a violation of copyright law.

In terms of this - you could make the argument that it's okay to regulate cars to have serviceable parts - but that's not the case. As far as I'm aware, there's no law that says a car must be serviceable (especially by the user).

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=da0075df-68a8-48df-8982-c243f0e752dd

That was protected due to the parts having artistic copyrightable merits. Not the function of said parts. You cannot (AFAIK) patent said function of an individual part. Say a metal plates with screw holes. Or a bolt. Or a wire. You can only patent/copyright/trademark the whole and the artistic/merit/brand/badge of it.

 

Quote

You're not understanding my point.

 

Ford cannot sue you for putting in a compatible spark plug, because they don't own the copyright on any spark plug that fits. And the auto industry decided on a framework that allows such things.

And by same logic, Apple don't own copyright on delivering power to a device, via a battery. As said, where are people asking for permission to copy Apples tech or batteries in right to repair/laws like the above? The auto industry never decided on a spark plug framework. For example, Tesla's don't have spark plugs (as there is no regulation for cars to have spark plugs, some have heating coils ). Sorry, I'm the most analytical person I know... you really need to put things in precise perspective if you want to make a match.

 

A regulation on battery requirements (safety/recycling/replacement/lifespan/consumer protection) is not the same as making a standard spanner size for cars, to avoid repeat spanner purchases.

Quote

 

Now, if I decided to make a complete rip-off of an AC/Delco spark plug, that would be grounds for being sued. Of course, it would have to violate AC/Delco's copyright in order for them to sue me. For a spark plug, that would be very difficult, because there's very few details of a modern spark plug that are even copyrightable anymore.

Yes. So what have Apple (or Samsung) patented that prevents a user from making/purchasing/requesting a replacement battery?

Quote

You're talking about issues where either the fact that the logo is missing is irrelevant (example: If I make a complete 1:1 copy of a Ferrari F40, but remove all the Ferrari logos, that's still copyright theft), or where the IP laws themselves are flawed.

No, I never said anyone was copying a Ferrari, it was a factor build, Ferrari Ferrari in the linked article. It had after market modifications. The article has no stolen Ferraris, but *does* have Ferrari taking someone (threatening anyhow) to court over the use of the car and after market fittings. "Furrari" might have been the argumentative case, and would be laughable when tested in court. But they did so, similar to Apple, IMO.

 

Again, you seem to have assumed I said something and argued something I did not. Where did I say someone should copy a Ferrari entirely? Or suggest someone is? Or that installing an aftermarket battery to an iPhone requires to copy Apples IP?

Quote

 

Look, I'm not saying that Apple should never make a removable battery. I'm also not saying that the EU shouldn't sometimes force companies to do things.

 

But a lot of things you're currently talking about are clear violations of current IP law, such as taking a copyrighted product and copying it (even if you remove the logo).

See above, they are not. They might be when taken to court. Other times they rule they are not (patterned parts are not violation, complete molds are for example). So both sides have equal validity providing both sides don't break the law. You assumed I said Apple is breaking the law, but then assume I am suggesting everyone else break the law by stealing Apples IP? I never suggested either!

Quote

 

There's also a point where you need to let corporations have some degree of freedom in how they operate, so that they can continue to innovate, and that their rights aren't unduly infringed.

As said. I Apple want absolute freedom on how to glue, checksum and wire in their batteries, I would likewise like absolute freedom in putting any battery I like in the phone, without them *calling in the IRS*. Like, this is not equal footing in the slightest here.

 

If they wish to regulate what types of battery I can put in my phone, and wish for protection against people using their logo/formfactor/etc, I'd pretty much be happy if they also protect my consumer needs in the process. You know, like most equal relationships work.

 

Quote

Sometimes a company needs to be regulated though. If it's well thought out, and a net positive, then that can be okay. But these decisions aren't so black and white - we need careful consideration of all aspects.

 

I agree!!!

 

[TechyBen]

PS, for the more in depth example of car parts (EU anyhow) : https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2015/global/designwrites-mar/focus-on-the-automotive-industry-the-protection-of-spare-parts-using-community-designs

 

The law (countries/society) seems to understand that, it's an **** move to stop people repairing their stuff, with similar/patterned parts. It's a really [insert whatever you wish to call them] move to stop people keeping their products functioning. So laws / courts / society allows people to keep the cars and products functioning. This is now being challenged with the remote and digital options to prevent this, or manage it in other ways. So I do expect consumers to either drop the products and not purchase them, or ask for legal help, when "bait and switch" or hidden terms and conditions are applied!

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Which one are you choosing?

The right to repair has not been upheld in court from what I have seen. Several states are looking in to the issue, Louis Rossmann has been called to speak at those hearings. Also just because you have the right to repair, doesn’t mean the company has to help you. You repair at your own risk. It’s like owning a cable modem. Legally your allowed to but the law does not state they have to provide technical assistance. 
 

Also the rules are what ever Apple and the rest of the corporation’s say it is. They own the government. 

[TechyBen]

17 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The right to repair has not been upheld in court from what I have seen. Several states are looking in to the issue, Louis Rossmann has been called to speak at those hearings. Also just because you have the right to repair, doesn’t mean the company has to help you. You repair at your own risk. It’s like owning a cable modem. Legally your allowed to but the law does not state they have to provide technical assistance. 
 

Also the rules are what ever Apple and the rest of the corporation’s say it is. They own the government. 

Does the company have the right to send in the IRS on those doing the repairs? You ever seen "Brazil" the movie? XD

[Guest]

On 3/1/2020 at 7:35 AM, kirashi said:

Erm, I mean, sure, it would increase the plastic used for the back of the phone, which would also increase the phones' durability, too, but there's no extra layer around the battery simply because we go back to removable batteries... Whether a battery is removable or not, it's still physically made the same, including having an outer protective layer. I'd recommend watching Scotty's video on battery production to see exactly how they're made.

 

Last night I raided the battery test box for some phone batteries. Most of the older removable phone batteries had plastic casings but as time moved on to the windows phones this changed. Along the edges of some there is a metal strip, some plastic, to protect the sides. The front and back have a thin plastic strip under the last layer of wrap. The top is protected by the little charge/protection PCB and connector while the opposite end is a plastic strip.

 

Compare this to the internal batteries like the ones in the video and it is obviously built to be removable by means of extra protection. 

 

Holding an iPhone battery in my hand it is immediately obvious the same level of external protection is not present. The battery is easy to flex, easy to pierce and obviously has a flimsy flex coming out rather than an interference connector.

 

The design ethos is inherently different when building a battery to be removable. You have to build in anti-muppet protection so leaving it in your pocket with your keys does not risk your love spuds being incinerated. It is not that people are stupid, just that either lack of understanding or simple not thinking comes into play. It would also be bad press for the manufacturers to cause a huge drop in births of Audi driving salesmen who need at least 6 batteries on them at all times so they can talk bollox endlessly.  

[Killing-time-itself]

23 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Cost wise? Maybe not. Plastic is very cheap and glass tends to be more expensive.

 

But, you have to consider other impacts, such as environmental.

 

The phone will still need a back on it - whether that's glass or plastic or metal or some kind of composite material. The EU forcing Apple to put a removable battery into an iPhone isn't going to make the iPhone suddenly have a plastic back on it (possible, but highly unlikely).

 

Now with that in mind, in equal amounts, plastic generally is better for the environment, if both are being disposed of or recycled after the product usage is done.

 

Glass comes in better off when looking at reusability - eg: glass bottles can be cleaned and reused without recycling. Plastic bottles can do this too, but it's harder to do and they tend to be less durable in the long run. For a phone? Apple isn't taking the glass off of an older iPhone and reusing it straight. It'll have to be recycled before re-use.

 

So it's a complicated subject.

 

Then there's the whole thing about plastic recycling often being a big giant scam. A lot of plastic recycling just ends up getting tossed into the ocean or into a landfill anyway, because a lot of plastics are hard to actually find a use for when recycling, or when you've got a mix of different types, etc. Also it's cheaper to just make new plastic, so economically it's harder to justify.

 

Whereas recycled glass can be used for a lot of applications - even if it's more resource intensive.

 

23 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Depends on your thoughts about ever increasing plastic waste and the way it is disposed of.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the idea. I just feel that this kind of legislation needs thought and input from many sides. Environmental concerns need to be addressed as well as concerns from the manufacturers.

You also have to consider the production of both materials as well. You also have to consider e-waste which is rarely ever recycled for some reason. Anyway for the process of making glass (which I know little about correct me If I'm wrong) you need a specific type of sand which comes from riverbeds. Its needed due to it's very round nature which happens from water erosion. Obviously making either glass or plastic is not good for the environment. but we also have to consider how apple fixes the back glass. There are lots of variables I hadn't thought much about until now. 

 

This is a nightmare in every sense of the word.

[kirashi]

14 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Last night I raided the battery test box for some phone batteries. Most of the older removable phone batteries had plastic casings but as time moved on to the windows phones this changed. Along the edges of some there is a metal strip, some plastic, to protect the sides. The front and back have a thin plastic strip under the last layer of wrap. The top is protected by the little charge/protection PCB and connector while the opposite end is a plastic strip.

 

Compare this to the internal batteries like the ones in the video and it is obviously built to be removable by means of extra protection. 

 

Holding an iPhone battery in my hand it is immediately obvious the same level of external protection is not present. The battery is easy to flex, easy to pierce and obviously has a flimsy flex coming out rather than an interference connector.

 

The design ethos is inherently different when building a battery to be removable. You have to build in anti-muppet protection so leaving it in your pocket with your keys does not risk your love spuds being incinerated. It is not that people are stupid, just that either lack of understanding or simple not thinking comes into play. It would also be bad press for the manufacturers to cause a huge drop in births of Audi driving salesmen who need at least 6 batteries on them at all times so they can talk bollox endlessly.  

Huh, weird, cause my experience wasn't like this at all with the OEM Samsung battery in my Note 3 - it had casing, but said casing was also fairly easy to bend, poke, and puncture. (Don't ask; I wanted to "test" things when I eventually replaced the battery.) That being said, there's really no way to tell how a battery would have been made had the phone had a sealed back since the Note 3 was from a time when phones were made to be more repairable.

 

Regardless of which uses more plastic, I think the main takeaway here is the concerns over recycling & repairability, otherwise the EU wouldn't be considering bringing back removable batteries in mobile phones. I'm on board with being able to more easily upgrade, repair, and replace components in devices I own, but still have concerns over the manufacturing and recycling processes for these devices that I think manufacturers need to do a better job of addressing.