Apple turning the thumbscrews on Louis Rossman?

[zapta]

My speculation is that some of those videos showing what appear to be leaked Apple schematics and board layouts have something to do with this turn of events.

Apple are are also an opponent of the Right to Repair bill in NY which Louis supports. Politics, corporate lobbyists and lawyers. Sleaze...

This makes sense. Apple doesn't release repair technical information so if you are successful in fixing Apple products you are probably doing something they don't like, e.g. downloading schematics from third parties.  Promoting the right to repair bill doesn't help him either.

In a sense, Louis's educational video channel is risking of his core business, that NYC repair shop.

Anyway, as long as Clinton watches him, he will be fine.

[Richard Crowley]

Apple could probably BUY YouTube if they wanted. They have more cash in the bank than Google.
It is not at all surprising that Apple could simply file a DMCA take-down claim against Rossman's whole channel and Google/YouTube would jump up and say "Yes Sir!"
Are we forgetting the DMCA debacle with Ebay and the "counterfeit" oscilloscope claim?
Are we forgetting the completely absurd arguments Apple lobbyists used (SUCCESSFULLY) to get the right-to-repair bill defeated?

Are we forgetting Apple's cavalier, contemptuous, imperious indifferent and distainful attitude toward customers with broken iGadgets?
Telling a customer that they can't recover data from a broken gadget for ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY?  Why do we put up with that kind of behavior?

[NivagSwerdna]

Seems like you can't do anything nowadays without some lawyer threatening something or other.

I was asked to sign an NDA recently, I declined as I wanted to ensure my existing open source contributions would not violate it...
... I expect the lawyers are already sharpening their pencils for a reverse engineering suit.

Sigh.

Louis will just have to move on to something more interesting and from experience it normally ends in looking back and thinking... hey why was I wasting my time on that crap anyway!   

[hans]

https://www.rossmanngroup.com/lets-talk-something-serious-here-do-not-pass-go-read-this-shit/

Seems like an old article, but sounds like Apple is breathing down his neck really bad this time.

[Marco]

Apple could probably BUY YouTube if they wanted. They have more cash in the bank than Google.

They'd have to pay taxes over it first, so that's not going to happen until they can bribe enough politicians into some kind of "one time" amnesty.

[Herr R aus B]

self censored due to too much misled speculation 

[Fraser]

Here is a question that occurred to me.

Is it illegal to make profit by using stolen schematics ? In the UK, we are not allowed to profit from crime so it is not inconceivable that Apple have decided to go after anyone using such stolen schematic for profit.

I repair computers without access to schematics and it is a real PITA. Without such Apple Schematics, it would be hard to run a motherboard repair business.

Fraser

[Macbeth]

I'm not so sure they are "stolen". It appears the app Louis used is a legit (in China & Russia, maybe the EU until they sign up to TTIP) 3rd party product, with schematics and board diagrams in their own format and includes other manufacturers like Samsung too. Ostensibly this information is reverse engineered. If that is the case then I can't see any problem with NDAs and copyrights. Of course USA law has moved on in recent history and greatly favours content producers with large pockets and teams of lawyers and even makes what used to be a civil matter to an imprisonable crime carrying a tougher sentence than a crime of violence. This is gradually becoming our new world order. 

[edy]

This is another factor to consider when buying Apple products. Let's face it, Apple is a control freak. It mirrors Job's personality. When you buy into their ecosystem, you buy into this attitude. If you don't like it, don't buy Apple products. Period.

Sucks for the repair guys, but I'm sure they can run a successful repair shop for other electronics and non-Apple devices. Sure... Consumers lose when there is lack of competition, but Apple has a right to control everything they do, end to end. Consumers also have the choice to refuse to buy Apple products when they know they will not have as much choice in repair.

Instead, consumers flock to Apple suff even though there is a premium cost in all aspects of ownership, from initial purchase, to repair costs, to costs of accessories and cables, and everything else involved. Obviously, what Apple offers is still worth it to them, and they are willing to pay more for everything. But this is no secret... You know this going in. I'm sure repair shops know they walk a fine line as well especially if they are not "official" with Apple. Especially those that publicize to the public how to repair everything themselves.

If anything, hopefully the publicity from this will make more people aware of the way Apple works. It seems that nobody cares, alas, none of any of Apple's past behavior seems to make any difference. If anything, it has only served to embolden them.

[helius]

No, they do not have the right to control you "end to end" simply because you purchased their product. That would be unconscionable and contracts of that nature have never been valid.

[Fraser]

@Macbeth,

Louis does use Apple schematics that even he describes as "stolen" as many are the official Apple copies provided via a Laptop Schematics site that has no Apple authority to sell or supply them. Working with schematics belonging to Apple IP is always going to carry some risk, much like buying Pirate software or music for the purpose of profit. It is likely a legal nightmare.

I was actually surprised to see Apple schematics 'in the wild' as most repairs are board level only and schematics are needed by very few persons. Schematics are usually heavily protected to prevent them leaking into competitors and the public's hands. As Louis has stated though, this is a bit daft as the physical architecture is nothing special. The 'secret sauce' is in the firmware used in the chipset, and any custom chips used in the design.

Well it is all conjecture for the moment, but I wish Louis well and hope he comes through whatever challenge he has at the moment in good shape.

Fraser

[Richard Crowley]

What do you think would happen with exactly that same policy for automobiles?

Sorry, the oil pan plug came loose and your engine seized up from lack of lubrication.
We don't believe in component-level repair because we can't hire minimum-wage drones at the "Genius Repair Bay" who can do that.
You will have to leave your car with us and you can't retrieve your luggage out of the trunk.
But we will be happy to sell a new model to replace it.

Or even: "any repairman who uses anything besides a Mopar brand repair part is trying to sell you a counterfeit Chrysler product."

We don't tolerate that kind of stupidity in vehicles. Why do we tolerate it for Apple products?
We HAVE "right to repair" for vehicles.
But the Apple lobbyists were slicker than whatever modicum of common sense still exists in the legislators.
This is why people trust used-car salesmen more than government bureaucrats or elected representatives.

[edy]

No, they do not have the right to control you "end to end" simply because you purchased their product. That would be unconscionable and contracts of that nature have never been valid.

I agree, they shouldn't have a right to control you from "end to end". Yet companies with deep pockets and lots of lawyers seem to be able to do what they want. Look at this example of Ferrari versus electronic musician Deadmau5:

http://mashable.com/2014/08/30/ferrari-deadmau5-cease-and-desist/#gIHeAv3Z2kq3

http://jalopnik.com/ferrari-sent-deadmau5-a-cease-and-desist-about-his-purr-1627640534



So if a car company can dictate to an owner that he or she cannot give it a certain paint job, I can certainly see how Apple could write in the fine details of their EULA enough lawyer-speak to be able to effectively shut down any normal person or small-time business from doing anything. It would take some major legal offensive, and cost more than it's worth, to get them to back down.

Reminds me of how patent troll companies can shut down smaller companies that likely have a defensible case but not enough time and money to fight. Sucks, but we need major reform and way more public outcry to stop these legal bullies from pushing around their muscle in these cases.

[Richard Crowley]

Anyone with the financial resources to actually produce commercially-viable quantities of competing products can easily afford a complete component-level reverse-engineering of any competing product, including Apple.  You can be sure that Samsung and likely others already know every significant "secret" inside the iGadgets. "Trade Secrets" can only be protected by keeping them "secret". Once you start selling product containing the "secret-sauce", it is open-season for anyone to reverse-engineer whatever it is. A can opener, an overcoat, a cuilnary recipe, or a high-tech gadget. Only Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights can be legally defended against copying.

There are companies whose entire business is doing reverse-engineering.  You can buy their detailed report of everything that went into the latest gadget. Many are even available online.  For example:  http://www.techinsights.com/teardown.aspx  It appears unlikely that the paid lobbyists were briefed on that part of the industry.

[rfeecs]

What do you think would happen with exactly that same policy for automobiles?

Sorry, the oil pan plug came loose and your engine seized up from lack of lubrication.
We don't believe in component-level repair because we can't hire minimum-wage drones at the "Genius Repair Bay" who can do that.
You will have to leave your car with us and you can't retrieve your luggage out of the trunk.
But we will be happy to sell a new model to replace it.

Or even: "any repairman who uses anything besides a Mopar brand repair part is trying to sell you a counterfeit Chrysler product."

We don't tolerate that kind of stupidity in vehicles. Why do we tolerate it for Apple products?
We HAVE "right to repair" for vehicles.
But the Apple lobbyists were slicker than whatever modicum of common sense still exists in the legislators.
This is why people trust used-car salesmen more than government bureaucrats or elected representatives.

According to John Deere and GM you just have a license to use the vehicle because they own the firmware:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-says-that-while-you-may-own-your-car-it-owns-software-it-thanks-to-copyright.shtml

From John Deere:

In the absence of an express written license in conjunction with the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle, subject to any warranty limitations, disclaimers or other contractual limitation in the sales contract or documentation.

From GM:

Proponents incorrectly conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in a vehicle.... Although we currently consider ownership of vehicle software instead of wireless handset software, the law’s ambiguity similarly renders it impossible for Proponents to establish that vehicle owners own the software in their vehicles (or even own a copy of the software rather than have a license), particularly where the law has not changed.

[Richard Crowley]

Right. But we are talking about HARDWARE here, not FIRMWARE or SOFTWARE.

[rfeecs]

Yes, but the claim is that John Deere is using this to prevent people from diagnosing and repairing their own tractors:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/nothing-drms-like-deere-farmers-cant-fix-tractors/

[XOIIO]

Got to the 6 minute mark and them skipped ahead only to find out there wasn't really any relevant information.

[TheAmmoniacal]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/01/2056205/apple-is-suing-a-man-that-teaches-people-to-repair-their-macbooks

[boffin]

What do you think would happen with exactly that same policy for automobiles?

Sorry, the oil pan plug came loose and your engine seized up from lack of lubrication.
We don't believe in component-level repair because we can't hire minimum-wage drones at the "Genius Repair Bay" who can do that.
You will have to leave your car with us and you can't retrieve your luggage out of the trunk.
But we will be happy to sell a new model to replace it.

Sadly, auto-part level DRM already exists (matching Apples ridiculous serial numbers in cables).  On my MB, you're forced to buy a lot of parts from the dealer, as parts are coded to the VIN of your car.  In my case I managed to track someone down that rebuilds transmission sensors, but it involved DHL'ing the part to eastern Europe to have it done (and took 10 days there/back), still half the price all-in of getting the new part, and my mechanic has now done about a dozen, which she proudly proclaims is the 'boffin' job.

Screw Apple, Screw MB and this sort of DRM. 

[janoc]

And Slashdot has jumped to conclusions that actually will get someone in hot water. What a bunch of sensation-crazy idiots! 

If Louis is getting sued, it could well be even by that repair shop/store that he eviscerated in one of his videos for trying to rip him off by selling him fake parts. Or an unhappy customer. Or a myriad of other possibilities.

There are plenty of 3rd-party shops repairing Apple products, some even producing videos with some colorful language and the same schematics and I haven't heard about Apple suing these.  Why would they pick exactly on him?

I think the best thing to do would be to not jump to conclusions and speculate without any facts. If he really is getting sued, it will be a public information soon enough. If he has got some legal nastygram from someone, then he will probably say more sooner or later once he got his lawyer involved and the affair sorted out.

I will keep my fingers crossed for him in the meantime.

[Richard Crowley]

I recently had to replace the ECU in my Ford min-van. The grille below the windshield accumulated debris that blocked the internal drain pipe and the built-up water leaked into the connector and corroded half a dozen pins.

My (independent) shop found a used ECU from a wrecking yard across the country. And then they had a guy come in from another state to re-flash the ECU for my engine, my accessories, and even my ignition keys (which have transponders).  My mechanic said the re-flash guy had the license for the software and the accessories (cable harness adapters, etc.). But I don't know if it was from Ford, or a 3rd party company?

[mikeselectricstuff]

The vagueness may actually have been a deliberate ploy to get others to speculate, to create bad publicity, and effectively communicate what;s going on by Apple's lack of a denial.

I don't understand why people still buy from a company that treats its customers so badly - it's not like the iphone doesn't have competition.

[vze1lryy]

And Slashdot has jumped to conclusions that actually will get someone in hot water. What a bunch of sensation-crazy idiots! 

Slashdot used to be an awesome news site. God how much I learned reading that in 2002. Not the news, but the comments. Man, the community there was amazing. So much of that is gone, they left when that beta new interface shit started a few years ago. That thing reads like a blog, and the fact that they stated with certainty that I am being sued when I do not have that certainty speaks volumes for the "news" ness of that site anymore.

I have had friends had their stores raided by ICE agents with guns in full uniform without notice for things as silly as iphone screens. I don't know what to be prepared for, but when you get a not so nice sounding call from kilpatrick and townsend, who knows? I don't feel like telling everything or jumping to conclusions until I myself know what is going on, and until I myself have retained counsel to guide me through the process. We'll see what's in store. It seems to be what I was expecting it to be about, but still waiting to hear back from the attorney with details. When I have them and have gone over the potential consequences of sharing everything with the audience, I will.

Either way,

Not fun

The interesting part on jumping to conclusions was the idea of playing the victim card for crowdfunding...  I have historically been against crowdfunding and turned down lots of donation offers. I turned down over a dozen attorneys that called who were going to be paid for by people I do not know... I'm paying for my own attorney, and I intend to fund my own defense if need be into the future. At least while I still have money Yeah it is a bit of a downer to get kicked in the balls 10000x times, get out of one legal snafu with a bully on Tuesday, to wind up in a legal snafu with another on Thursday. I remember Michael Carvin's words: I don't get up to lose man, I get up to win! and this is something I have every intention of winning!

I believe in fair use, I believe in education, and I believe in what I am doing.

[EEVblog]

He might have its channel shut down and videos removed because he is violating a trademark. has happened before. here in italy a couple of years ago, mediaset (major station) forced youtube to remove EVERY video that had references to its name and its logo. people knew about it only the morning after it happened

He could re-edit every video and remove every reference to any infringing language or logos etc
He would still have a ton of content.