Judge Rules in Apple's Favor, Dismisses 'Error 53' Lawsuit

[EricTheHalfBee]

Heh. Other people are not so willing to give up their consumer rights.

In the US, at least, warranty law allows you to use third party parts and not be punished for it by the original manufacturer.

That's whey we can add memory to our laptop, or different wheels on our car, without voiding the warranty.

Obviously the manufacturer does not have to cover those third party parts, but neither can they disable them or tell you that you cannot use them.

That's not entirely true. Lots of companies have components in their products that can ONLY be replaced by an OEM component by the manufacturer (or their authorized agent). There are allowances within the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act that specifically allow for this.

Take automobiles as an example. Many computers can ONLY be purchased from the OEM, and require specific programming/activation before they will work. If you find a used one from Vehicle A and install it into Vehicle B, it will not work. Some examples of these include instrument clusters (so people can't tamper with mileage on vehicles) or engine control computers (to meet emissions requirements). Major manufactures (like BMW) often make it so primary computers can't be re-used. This prevents chop shops from taking multiple stolen vehicles and combining the parts from several to make one good vehicle. On a BMW, for example, the transmission computer is integrated into the transmission itself. So if someone tries to install a used (stolen) transmission into another car it won't work.

Edited: Forgot a couple more things. A manufacturer is allowed to supply a list of specifications that parts must meet (strength of a steel bolt, current carrying capacity of a connector, color accuracy of a display). They are also allowed to specify an exact procedure that must be followed when replacing a part (which might also involve specialized equipment). If a third party doesn't use a part that meets these requirements or if they don't follow the procedure, then your warranty is toast.

The idea that you can replace any part wherever you wish (and still retain warranty) is simply false.

 

[Zirel]

You can expect problems with those things due to the direct use of those components but at least the car should start with those wheels on.

You shouldn't be able to buy counterfeit wheels.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

Why does one of the bigger and obvious parts of all of this get ignored--the devices worked until an update that disabled them unintentionally (based on Apple's own words) which was then corrected in another update so that the devices would work once again. Cherry picking just some parts and completely ignoring other parts doesn't really make much sense as the discussion then doesn't actually discuss what happened and just talks about something else entirely which is essentially unrelated effectively imaginary.

The answer is simple. Apple DISABLED the Touch ID subsystem (software/code) on a newer version of iOS when it detects a tampered or modified Touch ID sensor in an iPhone. Previously they never did this, and the system bricked when it detected a hardware fault related to the security of the device.

Apple stated it was unintentional, but I don't buy that. They likely knew about the issue, but have to be careful about what they say in a press release. The fact that a bunch of retards tried to sue over this is a perfect example of why Apple would state it was "unintentional". If they said "Hell yeah, we wanted to make sure people who tampered with their iPhones ended up bricking them" then things could have gone very differently in court.

The Touch ID sensor is an integral component to the security of an iPhone and is connected directly to the secure enclave. Apple isn't "cherry picking" components as you imply. Repair shops that changed the screens, but TRANSFERRED over the Touch ID element to the new screen avoided this issue. It's only the crappy shops that cut corners that caused this issue.

 

[skinned66]

You shouldn't be able to buy counterfeit wheels.

Agreed, but they will never kill your engine or seize your gearbox.

For the prices Apple charges for their devices and parts, it's not going to stop.

 

[C DM]

The answer is simple. Apple DISABLED the Touch ID subsystem (software/code) on a newer version of iOS when it detects a tampered or modified Touch ID sensor in an iPhone. Previously they never did this, and the system bricked when it detected a hardware fault related to the security of the device.

Apple stated it was unintentional, but I don't buy that. They likely knew about the issue, but have to be careful about what they say in a press release. The fact that a bunch of retards tried to sue over this is a perfect example of why Apple would state it was "unintentional". If they said "Hell yeah, we wanted to make sure people who tampered with their iPhones ended up bricking them" then things could have gone very differently in court.

The Touch ID sensor is an integral component to the security of an iPhone and is connected directly to the secure enclave. Apple isn't "cherry picking" components as you imply. Repair shops that changed the screens, but TRANSFERRED over the Touch ID element to the new screen avoided this issue. It's only the crappy shops that cut corners that caused this issue.

The point is that they fixed the part about disabling the whole device (whether or not one believes them or not about the reasons or details). The whole device isn't supposed to be disabled because of something like that, and Apple ultimately made sure that that wasn't the case.

The cherry-picking wasn't in relation to what Apple is doing, it's in relation to various people posting and talking about only some parts of what this was all about and ignoring other parts.

 

[CarlJ]

This isn't the case of something just randomly not working because of some incompatibility; this was a deliberate piece of code that bricked the device. Apple did issue an update that fixed it, though, so after that the lawsuit was moot and it was right to dismiss it.

You make it sound like Apple did this to punish someone. Not the case. Apple had the OS, at update time, run a lengthy series of sanity checks to ensure all the hardware involved in protecting the security of the system was functioning properly. The hardware, in the case of these Error 53 folks, failed a check that the developers didn't expect was likely to happen. So they didn't write an elaborate handler that explained the problem, it just locked up. It did so because, from the OS's viewpoint, the hardware was missing important security features that had been in place when it left the factory. It's easy to interpret this (especially in light of the extensive media coverage lately of government attempts to break in to phones) as a possible attack on the phone. So, again, it responded by locking up. When this code got written, the idea of some third party replacing the home button likely never even crossed the developer's minds. Just keeping the phone secure.

 

[ZipZap]

Oh no. What will all the people who said Apple should pay up for this huge issue they created do now?

[doublepost=1466538920][/doublepost]

This was all explained in detail last time around. When iOS installs it checks the hardware to make sure everything is OK and secure. The screens were replaced with a Touch ID sensor that wasn't properly paired to the iPhone which caused the bricking.

All Apple is guilty of is being extra careful when installing iOS software updates.

You and others are spinning the truth. Apple has said error 53 was a check that should not have occurred in the field. There was nothing wrong with the screen or the sensor so this has nothing to do with a third parts not working.

Customers should be able to get repairs where they want and expect that place to cover their repair (at least for a period of time).

The issue here was the bricking of the phone when no parts were bad by code that should not have existed in the OS.

 

[2457248]

Why should that stop the phone from working at all, in particular when it was working fine prior to an iOS update?

isn't the point of the story that with a counterfeit touchID home button you could technically unlock every phone you install it on?
i may be wrong, i don't know where the fingerprint 'key' is stored on the phone and how the verification procedure works.

 

[C DM]

isn't the point of the story that with a counterfeit touchID home button you could technically unlock every phone you install it on?
i may be wrong, i don't know where the fingerprint 'key' is stored on the phone and how the verification procedure works.

It can't. And still has no relation to disabling the whole device, again, as even Apple themselves admitted and corrected.

 

[Terrinb]

Heh. Other people are not so willing to give up their consumer rights.

In the US, at least, warranty law allows you to use third party parts and not be punished for it by the original manufacturer.

That's whey we can add memory to our laptop, or different wheels on our car, without voiding the warranty.

Obviously the manufacturer does not have to cover those third party parts, but neither can they disable them or tell you that you cannot use them.

That is not entirely true. Manufacturers can use software locks to prevent unauthorized repairs under the digital millennium copyright act. Companies like John Deere for its tractors and Lexmark for printers have used the provisions to try and lock out third parties parts.

It is routine that manufacturers do not warranty third party repairs.

 

[skinned66]

That is not entirely true. Manufacturers can use software locks to prevent unauthorized repairs under the digital millennium copyright act. Companies like John Deere for its tractors and Lexmark for printers have used the provisions to try and lock out third parties parts.

It is routine that manufacturers do not warranty third party repairs.

It's a prime example of one of DMCA's many flaws. But hey, that's lobbying for you.

 

[gnasher729]

That is not entirely true. Manufacturers can use software locks to prevent unauthorized repairs under the digital millennium copyright act. Companies like John Deere for its tractors and Lexmark for printers have used the provisions to try and lock out third parties parts.

I don't know about John Deere. Lexmark fell flat on their face when they tried this. There is no provision in the DMCA for "software locks to prevent unauthorised repairs" or "unauthorised ink cartridges". The DMCA is about unauthorised access to copyrighted software, and a judge told Lexmark in no uncertain terms that putting software into a toner cartridge which is then read by a Lexmark printer, authorised by the legitimate owner of both the printer and the cartridge, doesn't fall under the DMCA act.
[doublepost=1466605756][/doublepost]

isn't the point of the story that with a counterfeit touchID home button you could technically unlock every phone you install it on?
i may be wrong, i don't know where the fingerprint 'key' is stored on the phone and how the verification procedure works.

Imagine that say the NSA, or some Chinese counterpart, built a touchID hardware replacement. With a stupid design, they could take your phone, swap the touchID, and unlock your phone. As I said, with a stupid design. With a slightly more clever design, they could take your phone, swap the touchID, return the phone back to you, you use touchID happily, but it will unlock the phone if it sees _your_ fingerprint _or_ the fingerprint of the NSA agent who swapped it. So half a year later they steal your phone and unlock it and access everything on it. No matter how complex your passcode is.

Originally, Apple didn't check whether the touchID chip was genuine, which is a severe security risk. Then they started checking whether this is a touchID that can be trusted because it is made by Apple. If done properly, it would be close to impossible to forge. And you can't trust any touchID made by someone else. Now Apple apparently didn't expect "fake" touchIDs to turn up. So when they detected one, they locked down the phone. They got complaints, rightfully, and changed it so if they see a "fake" touchID, the phone now behaves exactly as if it didn't have touchID, just like an iPhone 4s, for example. Perfect compromise between security and convenience.

[doublepost=1466605867][/doublepost]

You can expect problems with those things due to the direct use of those components but at least the car should start with those wheels on.

If you have wheels that are know to fall off after a short time, your car shouldn't start.

 

[kdarling]

Another hate rant on Apple using a ridiculously flawed arguement, again.

On the contrary, my response was directed at the poster's incorrect facts (and corporate brown nosing), not at Apple. Likewise, this response is targeted at your own strawman arguments:

So if I get a fuel pump for my brand new Toyota from a third party, installed by a third party, and the car doesn't start, its Toyotas fault?

Nobody has said anything of the sort. You, and anyone who up-voted your post, clearly do not understand the issues.

By US law, it is totally permissible for you to put a third party fuel pump in your Toyota, and Toyota cannot void your warranty for other parts... or disable your car... simply because of it (*).

Likewise, it is permissible to put in a third party fingerprint sensor, and Apple cannot void the warranty or disable the rest of the product simply because you did.

(*) The exception is if Toyota can prove no other pump will work AND gets an FTC waiver to certify that it is in the public interest. But Toyota has no such waiver listed in their warranty, and neither does Apple for their sensor. Which is why Apple immediately did the right thing, by paying for people affected, and by fixing their code mistake in an update.

That is not entirely true. Manufacturers can use software locks to prevent unauthorized repairs under the digital millennium copyright act. Companies like John Deere for its tractors and Lexmark for printers have used the provisions to try and lock out third parties parts.

Yes, they tried.

The Library of Congress overruled Deere by giving an exception to the DMCA for engine computers.

The courts also smacked down Lexmark for trying to use copyright law to protect its lucrative monopoly on chipped ink cartridges:

"If we were to adopt Lexmark's reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures "for the purpose" of pirating works protected by the copyright statute."

--

TL;DR - Reading comprehension is key to this thread. Nobody says that Apple has to warrant a third party part. However, neither can they automatically disable an entire device or its warranty because of it. Especially in this case, as the device itself can still work perfectly and securely with a passcode even if Touch Id fails.

As I've commented multiple times in past posts on this topic (e.g. here), that's partly why I do not believe that Apple did the disabling on purpose. I think it was a simple coder mistake, which Apple corrected as soon as possible. Therefore I agree that there's no grounds for a class action suit.

 

[gnasher729]

And as Apple also then explained and subsequently fixed was that the check wasn't supposed to just disable the whole device.

Well, it _was_ supposed to disable the whole device. But I think Apple assumed that fake touchIDs would come from evil hackers who want to access your device, not from people replacing a broken home button. So it turned out that disabling the whole device was a bad idea, and fixed it.
[doublepost=1466606388][/doublepost]

I'm still wondering whether bricking the phone because of 'unpaired' parts isn't the most asinine thing under the sun

Is it asinine to brick your phone because an important security component has been replaced by the NSA?

 

[Gasu E.]

Heh. Other people are not so willing to give up their consumer rights.

In the US, at least, warranty law allows you to use third party parts and not be punished for it by the original manufacturer.

That's whey we can add memory to our laptop, or different wheels on our car, without voiding the warranty.

Obviously the manufacturer does not have to cover those third party parts, but neither can they disable them or tell you that you cannot use them.

That's neither true, nor a comparable argument. If you swap engines in your car, you void the warranty. If you replace soldered-in memory, you void the warranty. If Apple had "sealed" the case on their computers, even swapping out plugged-in memory would void the warranty. In this case, the issue was not voiding the warranty, but disabling the product.

 

[kdarling]

That's neither true, nor a comparable argument. If you swap engines in your car, you void the warranty.

You can swap engines without voiding the warranty on unrelated parts.

If you replace soldered-in memory, you void the warranty. If Apple had "sealed" the case on their computers, even swapping out plugged-in memory would void the warranty.

Partly debatable, but in either case, not the situation here or in my example.

In this case, the issue was not voiding the warranty, but disabling the product.

Exactly. Which is why, in the very post you replied to, I said:

"Obviously the manufacturer does not have to cover those third party parts, but neither can they disable them or tell you that you cannot use them."

I think we're actually saying the same basic thing.

 

[skinned66]

If you have wheels that are know to fall off after a short time, your car shouldn't start.

On this matter I humbly disagree. Caveat emptor on the wheels is all that should apply. The manufacturer is not responsible for warranty, fitness or result of misuse of aftermarket parts they didn't manufacture so they have no dog in the fight.

Such a "safety" feature would just cost extra for something useless to most people anyway.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Another hate rant on Apple using a ridiculously flawed arguement, again.

So if I get a fuel pump for my brand new Toyota from a third party, installed by a third party, and the car doesn't start, its Toyotas fault? Yeah, not one of your best attempts at having a veiled swipe at Apple, again. What is your beef with them anyway? Hating on Apple won't help you have a happier life you know.

In this case I'd think an example involving the ignition system and a smart key would be a better fit

You can swap engines without voiding the warranty on unrelated parts.

At the same time, especially with all the computer parts involved in the modern car engine, that's less and less of the car that isn't "related".

 

[jlo1158]

Another hate rant on Apple using a ridiculously flawed arguement, again.

So if I get a fuel pump for my brand new Toyota from a third party, installed by a third party, and the car doesn't start, its Toyotas fault? Yeah, not one of your best attempts at having a veiled swipe at Apple, again. What is your beef with them anyway? Hating on Apple won't help you have a happier life you know.

I'm didn't see hate. I just saw your flawed analog. It's more like the car ran just fine. Then Toyota discovered the fuel pump during an update. They then disabled your electronics.

 

[I7guy]

You can swap engines without voiding the warranty on unrelated parts.



Partly debatable, but in either case, not the situation here or in my example.



Exactly. Which is why, in the very post you replied to, I said:

"Obviously the manufacturer does not have to cover those third party parts, but neither can they disable them or tell you that you cannot use them."

I think we're actually saying the same basic thing.

Correct, but if in the process the third party shop damages the brake line and you bring the car in for a warranty repair claiming the brakes don't work....well you know the rest.

 

[C DM]

Correct, but if in the process the third party shop damages the brake line and you bring the car in for a warranty repair claiming the brakes don't work....well you know the rest.

That could certainly be, but that wouldn't be analogous to the situation here.

 

[littyboy]

Agreed, usually I am quick to be disappointed by Apple, but in this case Apple handled it well. Released an iOS update to fix "bricked" devices and also reimbursed customers. That seems more than reasonable to me.

Imagine if they didn't reimburse customers? The lawyer would win the suit, get paid millions, while the customers get a few dollars. Clearly a greedy lawyer.