Re: Worse than expected, but that's just a detail @AC
I'm not sure you fully understand the case.
The issue is that Apple are using trademark legislation to prevent what could well be genuine parts removed from broken or failed devices to be used for repair.
Their assertion is that the parts are actually counterfeit, and seem to have persuaded the Norwegian legal system this is the case.
They do have a case. There are counterfeit parts manufactured and sold as genuine. But there are also genuine parts available. It is difficult to tell on cursory examination.
As I understand it, there is also a grey area where damaged genuine parts have the damaged elements replaced, for example, a functional genuine screen with damaged glass has the glass replaced, probably with the same spec. glass that Apple use, so is an amalgam of a genuine and after-market part. Does that make it counterfeit or genuine? I'm not sure, but Apple assert that it is counterfeit.
Apple says that anything they didn't supply that contains any Apple identifying symbols must be counterfeit, something that is almost certainly not true. As a result, they stifle the supply of parts to just that of what they deign to supply at whatever price they want to sell at, and the real counterfeit parts (which they also want to ban but have difficulty at the current time).
Once they get this, they can control parts supply to make it uneconomical to repair their products. In a normal supply-demand economy, this should damage their brand, but it seems that the buying public are just so enamored by that logo that they continue to pay large sums for devices that may well break and become un-repairable long before the customer expects.