I've seen a number of people make this particular leap though, that people will cite this as a precedent for either reversing or defending lawsuits against post sale use.
If the Rolex on my wrist stops working, I can take it apart, and clean/oil it, but couldn't buy a part from Rolex.
That is without going through a lot of expensive training, and certification.
Even then--their master plan is just restricting parts, so you need to send it back to them. "Here is you $900 bill from the Rolex factory".
Companies will just start ramping up the whole "Quality Assurance" BS. It's my expensive gadget. It's out of warranty. Allow me access to parts, and information--if you have them? I'm not being unreasonable?
Would I buy a new high end watch again--no, with the exception of a Seiko. They sell parts.
(I've been repairing watches for 15 years now.)
I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is.
There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced.
But there are other ways that a person's ability can be restricted, such as licensing and proprietary parts. This case says nothing about that.
So please, author, don't make like I was going to be sued if I tried to replace my iPhone's battery.