Charlie does not let Lisa near those scary ultra loud crinkly biodegradeable Sun Chips bags.

https://m.slashdot.org/story/376572
 
100,000 Apple Devices Repaired, Resold: Apple Sues Canadian Recycling Firm
from the thinking-diferent dept.
Slashdot reader spth writes:
At a Canadian recycling firm hired by Apple to scrap about 600,000 Apple devices, 100,000 of them were actually resold to other companies that made working devices from the parts.

Apple now sues the recycling company for the money made from the sale plus 31 million Canadian dollars. The recycling company claims that the devices were resold by three rogue employees that pocketed the profits.

The re-sold devices included iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches, according to news reports, and though they were being re-sold in China, Apple still complains that at least 18% of the devices they'd shipped to the company they later found active on wireless carrier networks.

Apple also says the re-sales dampened demand for new Apple products, hurt their brand by keeping products intended for destruction out on the market — and created a safety issue for consumers.
Posted by EditorDavid 5 hours ago
apple iphone earth ipad
Close Ad

61 Comments
Help
All
Outstanding
Funny
At least now we know (+5, Insightful)
Chris Mattern 5 hours ago
How Apple really feels about recycling.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+2)
Aighearach 4 hours ago
Yeah, this seems exceptionally stupid to me.
It makes it really clear exactly which contract term we can make non-enforceable by law, to fix the problem.
The only problem here is Apple complaining. STFU on this you morons, you're stabbing your own faces.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1, Troll)
Spazmania 4 hours ago
Oh come on. Apple explicitly paid a company to destroy some hardware. This wasn't consumers violating a shrink-wrap, this was a company with a negotiated contract for the specific purpose of destroying a large quantity of equipment given to them.
They didn't do it. Their employees walked away with 1 in 6 of the devices intact and sold them. This is an open and shut case of contract violation.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+3, Insightful)
timeOday 4 hours ago
What you said doesn't contradict the post you replied to.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+5, Insightful)
Computershack 4 hours ago
Given the state of the planet and the fact we should be doing everything we can to re-use old tech then fuck contract violation. More good was done from these devices being refurbished and put back into use than being shredded. Clearly they weren't completely end of life by the fact so many were able to be repaired and put back into service.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
Spazmania 4 hours ago
If Apple wanted the devices ground into bits and buried they could have done it themselves. It's cheap and easy. They paid this company to separate and recover the base materials, the metals and plastics, and feed them back in to the supply chain.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1, Troll)
MrNaz 3 hours ago
Yea. Coz a desire to recover raw material is what was behind Apple wanting these devices destroyed.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
martynhare 2 hours ago
I agree. If Apple are going to penalise companies for extending the serviceable life of still-maintained products which shouldn't have been discarded in the first place, then I'm willing to penalise Apple by not purchasing from them in 3 years time when my iPad goes EOL and ceases to receive security updates and again in 2025 when my iPhone goes EOL. 

I'll just use Rainway, Moonlight or Steam to stream the same content from my desktop and hopefully by then I can obtain a USB/PCI-E device to plug into my PC for enabling SMS and traditional mobile telephony so that I can stop polluting this planet through unnecessary computing redundancy. I'm an introverted nerd, I don't need a pocket computer, wrist strap computer or a backpack computer if I already have a vastly superior desktop computer. 

For all the extra kilowatt hours my full-sized desktop machine consumes, it makes up for with far less e-waste, lower engineering overheads and far less human slavery, which is more than what can be said for the Apple products I use.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+2)
ewibble 4 hours ago
While true, and apple may have a case against them, the government should immediately sue apple for intentionally damaging the environment. Not only is apple not trying to recycle the devices properly it is actively trying to stop other people from doing so in order to make more profit.
In my option it should be illegal to create unnecessary waste, and my understanding of the law any contract that tries to enforce an illegal activity is unenforceable.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
snemiro 2 hours ago
Agree...the problem is the legal definition of 'unnecessary waste'. As you say, there should be a clause about environmental impact which should superseed the profit gial. To pay somebody to dissasemble a working product or a product with working parts, just for market control should be severely punished, and long term products and re utilization processes should receive tax incentives. But it's up to the Govt to regulate it.. the problem here is basically the Govt has become part of the legal dept of the big corporations...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
e3m4n 2 hours ago
Reuse, technically they were paying to recycle. Reuse has a lower environment impact than recycle. Reclaiming gold from contacts, lithium from batteries, sapphire from camera lenses, and storage drives, is still wasteful compared to creating an aftermarket for 3rd world countries. There is no reason these devices could not be turned into medical scanners for clinics in poor countries around the world. We put people on the moon with a 286 equivalent computer. An iphone 8, with a OS specific to a given task could image filmless Xray, image portable CT and MRI devices, Ultrasound, EKG, etc. sure, you need the gear that created the magnetic flux, or xray pulse, but the iphone is more than capable of controlling and coordinating the data. A bunch of leads connected to a hub with a lightening connector could monitor HR, pulse Ox, etc for bedside telemetry.
Hell I bet these things could easily do blood trests in the field too. Its selfish to destroy them and require a separate purchase to do these things for medical applications. If we are going to be serious about healthcare for everyone we need to be serious about equipment costs just as much as anything else.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+4, Insightful)
raymorris 4 hours ago
>> At least now we know how Apple really feels about recycling.
> Apple explicitly paid a company to destroy some hardware. [That was still perfectly usable]
> This is an open and shut case of contract violation.
Yep, the company (or their employees) sold the perfectly good phones rather than destroying working hardware as Apple had asked them to.
Judicial judgement: For Apple
Court of public opinion: Apple's green talk is apparently hypocritical virtue signaling, they do not in fact care about the environment.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
bhcompy 4 hours ago
Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order. What this company did is better for the planet
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
HappySeafood 3 hours ago
Totally agree with Apple on this one. Fines AND jail time for everyone. No slaps on the wrist.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
r1348 2 hours ago
Yes please, let's jail these clearly socially dangerous peddlers of used iPhones!
Reply  Share
 Flag
It's how all the silicon valley sociopaths think (+1)
Viol8 4 hours ago
They pay cynical lip service greenwash to the enviroment until it hits their bottom line then the health of the planet be damned, money matters far more even if as in this case it's a fraction of a percent of their annual turnover. The hypocrisy utterly stinks.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: It's how all the silicon valley sociopaths thin (+1)
PPH 4 hours ago
Not just Silicon valley. Surplus industrial equipment resale used to be a big thing. In the past few decades, it has all but disappeared. There are professional buyers that will walk in to a 'junk store' and offer to write the owner a check to buy up the entire inventory. Just to keep it off the second-hand market.
Boeing surplus used to have a nice store in Kent , Washington. Now their "investment recovery" web site (all that's left of the operation) says
Surplused assets up for auction are not redeployable
Thanks, guys. I know quite a few small manufacturing businesses that did pretty decent work with their used equipment. No more. Also, the University of Washington surplus store holds back increasing amounts of equipment from public sale/auction. Preferring to send it to scrappers instead.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know 
JocilenePanda 4 hours ago
Hey.. It's not so convenient to communicate here ... Write me here and better call ==>> https://is.gd/profile6251
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
Registered Coward v2 4 hours ago
How Apple really feels about recycling.
Not really. Apple is pushing to get a 100% closed loop supply chain. Proper design allows for better recyclability; the problem here is someone decided that since the parts were worth more than the scrap to make a few bucks. As for the consumer, if they ever need to go in for repair the device is likely to show up as destroyed; ans Apple could refuse to service it.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
r1348 2 hours ago
I highly doubt these devices were re-sold with expectations of warranty.
Also, it's not closed loop if you're clearly scrapping what is still functioning and clearly still has market value. Even if you recycle 100% of the raw materials, the energy used to do so is still a waste.
Let's not try to justify corporate greed here, Apple wanted those devices and parts off the market to steer consumers towards new devices.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
St.Creed 2 hours ago
Yes, I'm sure the fact they're hellbent on preventing the "right to repair" is purely because they want to close the loop. Also, the immense trouble they go to preventing parts from being available to repairshops is purely aimed at saving the environment because it would use up materials or something?
I'm assuming you're completely unaware of the trouble Linus (from Linus Tech Tips) had to go through in order to get a mac pro repaired. In the end it was literally "a deal in an alley" to get parts. Louis Rossman has been campaigning against Apple for quite some time now. I think he gave up after Apple bought up the politicians involved.
The Right to Repair includes a lot of other rights. This stuff right here what Apple was doing, was aimed purely at removing repairable or just older items from the market in order to sell more. If you think the new stuff actually uses the recycled materials you're not thinking too clear: the only reason Apple discovered this wasn't through a lack of materials to build more phones (which it should have been) but because the devices showed up on the networks.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: At least now we know (+1)
gnasher719 40 minutes ago
How would you feel if you found out that your âoenewâ or âoerefurbishedâ iPhone that you paid good money for is one that Apple thinks should have been recycled? That Apple paid for to be recycled? About the same as a written off car restored to a state where it drives again? Would you feel safe? How long do you think that phone is going to last? Do they mention the condition of the phone to the buyer?

This is damaging to honest iPhone owners who sell their iPhones as used when they buy a new one, destroys confidence in that market, and as a consequence damages Apple.
Reply  Share
 Flag
recycling doesn't have to mean destroy. (+4, Insightful)
Fly Swatter 5 hours ago
A second life is better than death. Especially when it comes to 'recycling'. 

But Apple might have lost an overpriced sale. Oops. Can't have that.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: recycling doesn't have to mean destroy. (+1)
dbialac 5 hours ago
Well put.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: recycling doesn't have to mean destroy. (+1)
ZiggyZiggyZig 2 hours ago
Remember the 3 "R"s, in order of increasing ecological footprint :
- Reduce (= do not buy new Apple shit)
- Reuse (= if it is still working or can be made to work again, do this instead of buying new Apple shit)
- Recycle (= destroy the original thing, scrap raw materials out of it, and make something totally different with them, possibly new Apple shit)
IMHO refurbishing falls into the "reuse" category much more than the "recycle" category.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: recycling doesn't have to mean destroy. (+1)
Falos an hour ago
They (and every other corp) became pleased and comfortable with how thoroughly they can decide to be the exclusive source of something, in the digital era.
The obligatory car analogy is their eager dream to somehow eliminate all car resale, the only source is their factory. New car, every time. They've made progress seizing the aftermarket as it is, with the occasional regulation pushback allowing you access to some diagnostics.
I haven't used the M-word yet, but one interpretation of "dampened sales" might be "caused competition".
I'm not looking down on Apple for breaking the law. People here would be having a much louder conversation, in that situation. You'll need more than "it was legal" to excuse Apple.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: "recycling" could mean "destroy utterly". (+1)
davecb 6 minutes ago
Thomas J. Watson and his then employer, NCR, were famous for violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Mr Watson earned his one-year sentence by starting a "used cash-register" business that bought up used competing-brand cash registers but never actually resold them. It junked them instead. NCR threfor avoided having used equipment cut into their sales.

If the Sherman act still exists, Apple could be charged, and their Canadian helpers could be considered an accessory. I'm sure Geep Canada would be happy to testify, in exchange for a lesser punishment (;-))
Reply  Share
 Flag
Does not get more clear what is wrong with them (+1)
gweihir 5 hours ago
Apple, that is. And any large corporation, really. These are not good citizens of this planet.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Guilty of canceling planned obsolescence (+3, Interesting)
FaithfulNihilist 5 hours ago
My company-issued MBP cost $3800. Just about 3 years into owning it, the battery is on its last legs. No technician in our IT dept can replace it.
For all of the blather about global warming, sustainability, etc. Apple and some of the others are guilty as heck of adding to the problem.
What are these guys guilty of doing in the eyes of Apple?
Apple also says the re-sales dampened demand for new Apple products,
And how did they do that? They found some Chinese guys with the resources to cancel Apple's planned obsolescence for those products and breath new life into them.
That's all. Demand was dampened because someone figured out how to make the device live past its self-destruct date that Apple set.
Reply  Share
 Flag
It should be illegal 
Ecuador 4 hours ago
It should simply be illegal to destroy devices that can be recycled, with "repaired" obviously being the optimal form of recycling.
If Apple will not repair them, others should be allowed to. I mean Apple already has planned obsolescence (devices stop getting updates, throttling, non removable batteries etc), destroying potentially good devices is a bit too much...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: It should be illegal (+1)
ChrisMaple 4 hours ago
So it should be illegal to destroy a tube radio or television? An open-reel tape recorder? A VCR? A 1958 Buick? A hand operated butter churn?
Are you going to provide storage for all the obsolete junk people no longer want?
Before you post, ask yourself "What might the bad effects of my suggestion be?"
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: It should be illegal (+1)
Ecuador 3 hours ago
I said: "It should be illegal to destroy things that can be recycled". Did you read past the word "that" ? In any case, as I was not proposing the exact wording of such a law, it would require some more precise wording, but it should definitely cover cases where someone volunteers to repair a device to be used again, or reuse parts instead of destroying them.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: It should be illegal (+1)
retiredJan 2 hours ago
Exacty. I agree 100% but.. they (apple) want just more money that's where the real problem starts followed by de courts (also payed by these people via a thing what is called "lobbying") to look for some juridical sidelines (by lawers) to argue that Apple has the "right" to get the maximal money what's possible to get (out of their customers).
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: It should be illegal (+1)
r1348 2 hours ago
The issue in your statement lies here: "the obsolete junk people no longer want".
People clearly still wanted those devices, and in fact someone was willing to pay for them.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: It should be illegal (+1)
St.Creed an hour ago
I will rephrase that: it should be *legal* to *repair* items, and manufacturers like Apple or John Deere should not openly sabotage all attempts at this by keeping manuals secret and removing parts from the market just to prevent repairs.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Not news... (+3, Insightful)
orlanz 4 hours ago
Basically one company had a specific contract for another company. Second company broke contract. First is suing.
Destruction of product is a standard contract. Think hard drives, defects, produce, international contraband, and over production. I such cases, you don't want the product to be resold into the market unless you are licensed to do so.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
sgtron 4 hours ago
Good point. This is why it's important to look past the headline and actually read the article.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+2)
Computershack 4 hours ago
I read the article from top to bottom. These people are being sued for doing what should be the default option for any used electronics, a second lease of life. Clearly many of them weren't beyond repair by the fact 100,000 of them ended up back in service.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
Ronin Developer 3 hours ago
Thing is, Apple didnâ(TM)t receive the money from the resale of these devices. It was, technically, stolen and a breach of contract.
The paid a company to destroy and recycle the devices. The components (metals, rare earths, etc) may (article doesnâ(TM)t say) be recycled. That material belongs to Apple.
Apple makes their money selling new devices to people willing to pay for them. Their stock holders expect that of them. They make those devices from materials in limited supply and so they recycle. They had a contract and they have a business model that reuses those materials.
The fact that you donâ(TM)t think that is a good policy or are pissed Apple destroyed older but still serviceable devices really doesnâ(TM)t matter.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
whoever57 3 hours ago
Thing is, Apple didnÃ(TM)t receive the money from the resale of these devices. It was, technically, stolen and a breach of contract.
You have seen the contract between Apple and GEEP?
I am with you on the contract violation, but theft? That depends on the exact nature of the contract. I think it more likely that the contract transferred ownership to GEEP so that GEEP could resell the recycled materials.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
St.Creed an hour ago
The fact that you donâ(TM)t think that is a good policy or are pissed Apple destroyed older but still serviceable devices really doesnâ(TM)t matter
Nor does what you think matter. But I think Apple just showed that all of its greenwashing is just that: greenwashing.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
Frank Burly 2 hours ago
I think the term "beyond repair" reflects an economic judgement. An old iPhone with a cracked screen and a bad board would ordinarily be beyond repair, but this company was getting paid by Apple for the disassembly and parts--that really changes the economics.
I'm sure that Apple's manufacturing does a lot of environmental damage, but this particular program (as contractor for) still provides an environmental benefit. I am not aware of any recycling program from any of the manufacturers of my computers, phones, or cameras (none are Apple). But if any of these companies have a recycling program, I doubt that they are making Frankenlaptops out of them. So complaints against Apple for doing second-best are fine, but you may be holding them to a higher standard because the company that allegedly ripped them off has a PR department that works on Sunday.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
93 Escort Wagon an hour ago
These people are being sued for doing what should be the default option for any used electronics, a second lease of life.
While I agree with your general sentiment, the company did take payment for a service it did not provide. And it's telling that the company's response to Apple isn't "well, shame on you - these were still useable devices" - they're saying "these were rogue employees who have hurt our business reputation, and we want them to pay the damages if Apple wins".
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
gnasher719 37 minutes ago
âoeRogue employeesâ can save you from criminal consequences, but wonâ(TM)t save them from financial consequences.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not news... (+1)
Malays2 bowman 2 minutes ago
And the ironic thing is that iPhones (well the newer models) are still favored amongst hispsters who claim to care about the enviroment and eat kale*. What Apple wants is to add a significant chunk to the huge amount of E-waste which gets sent over to 3rd world countries, to be picked apart by kids without proper protective equipment, any valuable bits removed, and the leftovers burned or buried in landfills.
*I suspect most hipsters are just putting on an act to "fit in", and will run to the nearest burger joint and chomp down on an all beef burger the moment they feel they can drop their charade.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Straightforward Contract violation.. (+1)
tflf 4 hours ago
There is certainly a strong argument to be made that Apple does far too little when it comes to recycling,. That's probably a discussion worth having again on /. and elsewhere.
But...
How Apple recycles, or fails to recycle, is not the issue. This case appears to be a straightforward contract violation. Apple is claiming GEEP was to only scrap (disassemble) the devices. If the contract supports that position, Apple wins a judgement.