Slashdot Mirror
Apple Forces Aqua Themes Off themes.org
Teferi writes "I was browsing t.o and just noticed this - Apple has apparently sent a Cease and Desist letter to themes.org stating that several of the OSX-look themes up othere are copyright violations, because they use the Apple logo in one or two small places (like this theme). " I've actually exchanged mail with OctobrX on this one, and read the C&D letter. Apple's stating violation based on using of copyrighted materials - the Mac OS and Apple logos in this case. Hopefully, now that Apple is talking with the creator of the themes, things can be resolved amicably, and the themes restored - but for the meantime, the themes have been pulled.
If apple con stop and force themes off, then now what is stopping movie companies from stoping themes based on movies? Such as the common fav matrix theme (dont know why) things that Im sure the producers and the file company would love to see removed and then paid for.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
As someone on themes.org said, this is purely a trademark issue, since they left other themes that do not use the Apple symbol, but do use a MacOS look alone, e.g., Aqua.
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
remove the trademaked icon and post it again. no problem ...
A.) If you remember a few weeks ago, Linus Torvalds had to do a similiar thing with people that were using the Linux logo and violating the Linux copyright. Most people were able to understand how Linus could be so worried about the Linux name, but when Apple does the same thing, many people on Slashdot are getting upset. Apple has to defend their copyrights or they risk having a more major copyright infringement go unpunished because they wouldn't punish the smaller ones.
B.) Honestly, if you designed an operating system and someone else designed an OS (over even a theme) that LOOKED like yours, down to the logos - wouldn't you be a little upset too?
I hope that Apple will be understanding and allow Themes.org to repost the themes with the Apple logo's removed. But I have to agree with what they are doing.
kwsNI
IMO, Apple acted perfectly responsibly. The Apple logo is a trademark, and if a trademark is not protected, you lose it. That means that Apple has to look around on places like themes.org for violations. Obviously, they don't care if people emulate their UI, since other themes were left intact. I think Apple acted responsibly.
Or a bananna instead of the apple? There's enough fruit for everyone.
They missed quite a few themes that include the Macintosh logo. Well, at least one, this one. Not that I am asking for them to be removed, but is it really Macintosh logos they're after, or is it they don't want MacOSX look alikes? Cant' help but to wonder eventhough I am familiar with copyright laws and Mac's need to enforce it (or loose it). Could be they just didn't notice these other themes.
If it is simply a matter of trademark protection, when will /. get a C&D of it's own for using the Apple logo to indicate news relating to Apple (like the one used on this article)? ^_^ Or are there different legal issues for a news site to use trademarked images than other sites/themes/etc?
The idea is to prevent consumer confusion. A movie logo on a software product is not likely to cause the software to be mistaken for the movie. A computer manufacturer's logo on a software product is likely to cause at least some people to assume that the product was made by the company whose logo appears in the product.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Apple was sued by the Beatles record company. Apple settled out of court (I believe) and agreed to never enter the music industry. They were sued again when Apple began to support the MIDI standard which was interpreted as breaching their agreement with the record label. I think that also got settled out of court.
So you got your wish.
cr
I wasn't real sure on this one...so I called my uncle who is a copyright lawyer. He says that if a company begins letting people use their trademark without giving them credit, they may very well lose any trademark battle they have. So, although those themes may have been made out of respect...if Apple takes someone to court for using their trademark because it was done negatively, there is a good chance that by throwing the fact that others use their trademark without displaying that it is Apple's tm, that they will not win the court battle. Otherwise, once you let one person use it without them showing that it is trademarked...it would be difficult to stop another person from using it.
The original settlement was Apple Computer was NOT to enter the music business. (aka no computers that could 'do music')
Apple was then sued a second time, and lost 26 million.
A link with some other links about it.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Seems that a lot of people here do not realise what I think you meant to say, but didn't quite get out.
Since the Apple logo is a trademark...
Apple MUST agressively protect it, or they will LOSE the rights to said trademark. The same applies to ANY trademark.
Did't Linus have to shutdown an auction of *linux*.* domain names not too long ago? Well that's the same thing. The holder of a trademark, be it Apple or Linux or Sun or whoever, can NOT ignore ANY transgression. If they DO, they lose the rights to that mark.
Yeah, I know that's bass ackwards. Buy that's out wonderful intellectual property laws. Oppressively strict protection in some places, ridiculously loose in others. Seems that they are written only to provide income for lawyers, not protect the intrest of consumers OR producers.... (sigh).
john
Imagine all the people...
From the website:
"About 1 week ago, VA Linux Systems received a Cease and Desist letter from Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino asking us to remove this and one other theme from the themes.org website. After reviewing Apple's request, we decided to comply.
We have sent a copy of the Apple Cease and Desist letter on to the theme authors, and told Apple to resolve its allegations with those individuals directly. In the meantime, VA felt that the presence of Apple's logo in the theme justified pulling the themes, pending a resolution."
I'll admit I do not have all the facts here and I would like to know more. However it would seem that they're trying to pass responsibility for the whole thing on the little guy who authored the theme. That seems awfully curious, granted that could be is how business for VA. I'm sure plenty of companies would do the same, but I was sort of disappointed with VA when I read that. It would be interesting hear a few more details about this.
So what's the problem? If there were any evidence that Apple had been vicious or overbearing about (Remove these themes This Instant or we'll break you and your site) I would understand people being upset. But from what little evidence is available this sounds as if it was a polite reminder that Apple has to protect those trademarks or lose them, and those themes are in violation. If someone knows otherwise, say so.
Pug
Whether they're called Faith, Axioms, or Assumptions,
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Peoples,
If someone writes code and posts it somewhere they are usually going to give themselves credit and hopefully a GPL tag too. Code is kinda your product. Well Apple's sig. for its products is that Apple Logo. Apple is just making sure that when people see that Apple its a clear indication of who made it (like your sig is a clear indication that your code was written by you). You probably wouldn't want me to tag my code with your name (mainly because my code is awful and may diminish your name as an exellent programmer if you don't act quickly). Trademarks must be defended to be kept.
Actually the Apple Records did sue, although they settled out of court. Apple Computer agreed that they would not make machines that create music. (Third parties are free to do anything they like.) None of the sound effects included with a Mac system has ever been a musical note for this reason, they are always things like "quack", "purr", "beep." The only one that does sound like an instrument is called "sosumi". As for /. and the Apple logo, it is fair-use. /. is writing (or allowing) editorial comment and debate about Apple. It is the same as a newspaper using the logo in a story about Apple. If /. were to use the Apple logo in a marketing campaign, Apple would have a case.
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they make as they fly by
Make a computer behave and look like a competitor (with the logo) and you may take away their business.
Make a computer ispired by a movie or a book and you may create business...
Twice.
Once when they were first formed. McCartney and his merry little band of legal jackals attacked Apple when it was still Jobs and Woz working out of their garage, introducing Apple Computer to the wonderful world of litigation.
They tried to get Apple to change it's name to various other fruits, like Orange and Banana. Sonn enough tho, Jobs and co. hired competent legal council and found out that the beatles had no legal leg to stand on, so long as Apple was in the computer business, not the music business.
Not content with peaceful coexistence, misters "we're better than Jeasus" kept an eye on Apple from afar, waiting until they were a big company with lots of money they could extort, rather than two kids in a garage.
The beatles sued again when Apple released a Macintosh that had the POTENTIAL to used with MIDI. This was settled out of court for one of those infamous "undisclosed sums".
Incidently, that lawsuit was the origin of the "sosumi" beep in the Mac sound control panel. It was originally to be called "xylophone" (spelling?)... but Apple's legal dept thought that having a mucical insturment named in the OS woulod hurt Apple's case against mccartney and his minions. So the engineers renamed the beep "sosumi". They spelled it out over the phone to the approving lawyer, telling him it was a Jappanese word for "peace and harmony" or sone such. The legal dept agreed, and thus a beep was born.
Both cases (and the development of the "Sosumu" beep) can be read about in more detail in Owen Linzmeyers: "The Mac Bathroom Reader" or the sequel by the same author *title of the sequel escapes me tho).
john
Imagine all the people...
B.) Honestly, if you designed an operating system and someone else designed an OS (over even a theme) that LOOKED like yours, down to the logos - wouldn't you be a little upset too?
Absolutely not! I would do exactly what Apple did, but I'd never be upset about it.
US trademark law requires that Apple do this in order to defend their trademark and copyright interests. If they don't Microsoft could then use the Apple logo and successfully argue that Apple is being selective about who it goes after, and Apple might lose the trademark.
On the other hand, if I had designed the Mac look and feel, I would be thrilled that it was so instantly adopted by so much of my competition! The rapid adoption of the Aqua look and feel means that Apple did good user-interface wise. I use Aqua under Sawmill and Gtk+ (actually AquaX under Sawmill) and I think it's one of the best innovations in desktop look-and-feel so far. First off, why did it take this long for people to think of color-coding window baubles? It certainly improves the ease-of-use for me. Also, horizontal pin-striping struck me as a bad idea at first, but somehow it adds something to my desktop. It almost seems as if the applications are more "crafted".
Apple did a great job here, and they know that every innovation will be coppied by the rest of the market. In a way, I'm sure this is why they went for such a radical look. They want everyone to say "oh yeah, that's the new Mac look". Microsoft would call this "mindshare".
Wasn't there a big deal going on with IBM...oh...12-18 monthes ago?
/. could use just the "official" IBM logo?
/. had a nice 3D looking IBM logo...and then the IBM lawyers came down on Rob...and after a week or so it was decided that
I'm showing my age here right?
If I remeber right...didn't the Stereo Component maker Mackintosh sue Apple too? Trademark violation because of the Macintosh computer...
Apple has that look and two others patented. Here are a few (there's many more, look them up yourself). Check the images at IBM's patent server http://www.patents.ibm.com.
Hi-Tech D392,963 Ornamental design of scrollbars
Hi-Tech D393,635 Modal window for a computer display screen
Hi-Tech D402,284 Ornamental design of a set of windows
Gizmo D391,559 Modal window for a computer display screen
Gizmo D391,947 Utility window for a computer display screen
Hi-Tech D392,265 Utility window for a computer display screen
UNIDENTIFIED D404,385 Ornamental design for a composite desktop
UNIDENTIFIED D406,122 Ornamental design of a set of windows
UNIDENTIFIED D406,123 Ornamental design of scrollbars
UNIDENTIFIED D413,588 Menu design for a computer display screen
1. A rotten looking apple, with a worm sticking out ot it.
2. An upward extended middle finger in rainbow colors.
3. The now defunct (maybe) SGI cube.
4. A window of many colors, flapping in the wind - from right to left so we don't offend MS-Anyone(TM).
5. Tux, eating an apple.
6. A nicely rendered drop of water that just screams "Aqua!".
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
stating violation based on using of copyrighted materials - the Mac OS and Apple logos in this case.
This is one of my pet peeves, right up there with misspelling "lose" as "loose". Copyrights are, as the name implies, the right to copy something. Trademarks are logos and words which are used by companies to identify and distinguish themselves.
Trademark law has one important difference from copyright law, and that's the "enforce it or lose it" clause. If Apple didn't go after these and other unauthorized uses of its trademarks, it could end up losing the rights to them. It's much worse with words, and Xerox has a never-ending battle to avoid having their company name become a generic word.
If copyright law was like this, it would either be complete anarchy (it's too easy to copy something in private) or a complete police state (to hunt down every instance of illegally copied material).
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Plus, Apple (especially under the leadership of Steve Jobs) has always been 1/2 tech, 1/2 marketing. Apple probably sells as many computers on "image" as they do on tech. Jobs and crew have done a great job of promoting Apple as the alternative computer (i.e. 'Big Brother', 'Think Different', etc. ,etc.) Losing firm control of that image (allowing the Logo to be spread without company control, the Mac 'clones') just seems to downgrade the counterculture image that Apple has worked to build. (That's why they seem to enjoy suing *everybody* over look/feel issues.)
This is a trademark issue. That's a very different beast. Why? Consider: all the theme makers have to do is replace the Apple logo with something else and then they can repost the themes. They don't have to change anything else. I'd say that the Apple logo in the corner isn't a critical part of the theme's "look and feel."
Personally, I do find it to be in extremely poor taste that these theme makers are ripping off a GUI that hasn't even been released yet. Sure, it's not illegal, but it's only fair to let the company that came up with that GUI be the first to release it to the world. If you still want it on your machine, then release the theme after that. But Apple did the work on the GUI; I don't see what's so unfair about them wanting to release it first. They can't do anything about it now, I know, but I don't see why the themers couldn't have just left well enough alone and waited till after OSX's release (or at least until after OSX DP3's release) to turn their themes loose.
Wouldn't Apple really be more interested in getting rid of "Aqua-like" themes that don't portray their logo than getting at the ones that do? After all it is free advertising for their "look and feel" that they pride themselves so much on.
I understand that the case for trademarks as stated in similar cases is that each company must police the use of it's own trademark(s). By allowing exceptions adds strength to a case involving a more dis-honourable use of the trademark by way of "You never said anything about themes.org using your trademark, so why can't I?".
I'm sure Apple want this cut-and-dry, so please don't start moaning to Apple about how great Linux/themes.org is? And how naughty Apple are for smacking them on their themes.
Just my pennies worth... I don't often voice my opinions these days, but I felt I should make my point on this case.
There was a big stink at skinz.org over the WinAqua skin for WindowBlinds; Apple seemed to drop their objections to that skin as soon as the author removed the logo.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
IANALBIAALS ("I am not a lawyer but I am a law student")
First - without having read the C+D letter, this is not about 'look and feel', it is about their logo. Yes, they have a solid complaint, which you can most likely remedy by simply removing their logo.
They -without question- have a legitimate complaint in the use of their trademark. They also have (probably) a legit complaint re: copyright in their logo. (*note - this is not the same as a look and feel copyright complaint: there is no functional purpose to the logo, so copyright can still attach.)
Trademarks is the important one here: trademarks doesn't really fit well in intellectual property law. It's really a subset of consumer protection law. The apple logo is the only means the company has of communicating to the customer that they can count on whatever bears that logo being from, or approved by, Apple. Now we all know that you are not trying to pretend that your theme is an Apple product, but what about the next dolt who installs Linux, sees your theme, and assumes that Apple contributed it or approved it. It's potentially misleading.
Just replace the logo with something interesting and creative, and you're probably off the hook.
IANAL, but what about this: if we assume that Apple is made up of fairly decent people, and I don't see why we shouldn't at this point, then could this possibly work out for them without being a case of TM dillution ? They could grant a very limited license to use the logo to individuals who create Aqua-alike themes. That way they could still be maintaining legal control of their trademark, sorta, without stepping on the toes of developers. They could either make a webpage to sign up for the limited-use license, or they could just grant it on a case-by-case basis as it came to their attention, retroactively.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Lackluster iMac DV sales? WTF?!?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
They revamped the logo because, quite frankly, it was ugly and anachronistic. They wanted to get away from the individual colors and emphasize the outline, the way Nike has done with its swoosh -- in fact, Steve Jobs has claimed that the apple logo's shapes is one of the most recognized logos around (and that it is apple's "swoosh").
Frankly, I don't blame them. I have an old Powermac 8500 sitting in the corner, and the colored logo against the platinum case is really silly. It made sense back in the Apple II* days when you could only have 16 colors, and so your logo had to use just those colors if you ever wanted to display it on the screen. What was once a technological advance (ooooh, color!) is now just an anachronism (eeew, color!).
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Ok, maybe that's too harsh.
Still, I think Apple would have done better contacting the authors of the themes directly, and asking politely instead of ordering. If done properly, it might have actually built them good will ("hey, Apple was really cool about it"), instead of reminding everyone of their propensity to sue.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
You know, this is one thing I'd really like to see addressed, whther it be with a new law, or a constitutional amendment, whichever it would take. I mean, name me one other right that you can legally lose by failing to sue someone? It would be like if you let someone stand in your hotel lobby during a rain shower, and then couldn't evict squatters afterwards.
This situation just creates stupid lawsuits and forces companies to do things which don't really help them and only create bad will. For example, a few years back, Disney had to tell a daycare (maybe it was a preschool) to get rid of the paintings of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse they had up on their walls. Disney didn't have a choice, because of the way the trademark law is set up. But if they had had the choice, I really doubt that they would have sent the daycare a cease & desist letter. After all, it's really free advertising for them.
I know that in Japan, companies have a lot more flexibility to ignore some uses of trademarked characters (fanzines, for instance) and prosecute others (out and out piracy). I would love to see that made possible here.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Linus and Apple are both defending trademarks not copyrights.
Copyrights don't become generic if you let other people use it.. in many cases you have no choice (see fair use) but with Trademarks you have to defend your trademark like a zelot...
Basicly a copyright says "I own this text/work/design" patent "I own this machine" Trademark "This refers to me" not "I own it" but in a way "it owns me"....
The idea is that it refers only to you... and not to someone or something else... An easy way for a costummer to identify you...
"Apple Linux" better refer to the Linux operating system on an Apple computer or someone is going to be screwed... (Especally if it's the name of Microsofts latest operating system)
Apple is basicly worryed about the delusion of the Apple logo by allowing it to be used on theams used by non-Macs.....
I would also like to add that such trademarks should NOT be applicable to themes.. that they should be (by nature of a user adding them and not bundled with an os) not reduce the meaning of the trademark... The apple logo is there becouse it's Apples logo... It belongs there...
However that is not how the legal experts will see it...
(insert very bad language here)
I don't actually exist.
who is the humorless borg who marked this as "over rated" with an original score of 2-funny. The moderators are turning into karma nazis around here. "Zees ees foony. Zees est bad." People need to look at PROMOTING things not looking for the bad here on slashdot. If you don't like the trollers, then set your thresh higher. Work on spreading good karma, not promoting bad karma.
- ----
I really wish I had some mod points to give this guy. I liked his post, and I think that the other moderators think they are the fscking gestapo.
---------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
I usually don't take the time to reply to posts on /., however yours is so blatantly inaccurect that I can't stop myself from replying:
MacOS's interface largely uses that ugly 'Chicago' font (an insult to Chicago). I presume (or hope) that you can change this, but how many of MacOS's tech-savvy users (if there are any? ::grin::) are going to do this?
- It's been changed to charcoal since MacOS 8.5 which came out more then a year ago...
- As to whether or not it's a good thing that you be limited in your choice of font for the U.I., well isn't that a question of standardization? I mean, I know people that use large fonts of unknown origin on windows (fonts which I personnaly find very ugly). Sure, Windows will let them make that choice; however it won't properly resize the dialog boxes afterwards... Doesn't it make more sense to limit the user's choice to fonts for which you can guarantee uniformity of the U.I.?
When a message box comes with up with Yes and No buttons, you can't just press Y or N. You have to click.
-Nope, you can most usually click Command-y and Command-n or Esc for cancel. It's been there for a while. Of course if the program makes its own dialog box, the OS can't really do much.
You can't just enter to select a button on a message box which has the focus. Again, you have to click.
-With almost no exception, all dialog boxes always have one button in evidence (represented by a different larger button contour). Pressing the Enter key is the equivalent of activating that button. This has been in the system at least since the Mac Plus era...
You can't move between the buttons a message box with the arrow keys. How un-intuitive.
-I suppose that's more a design decision then anything else. Why would you want to move from button to button if you can activate then using the command-keys ? Redundancy, in my opinion, is mostly a very good way of losing beginner users...
The menus don't have access keys. This is a really annoying feature. Again, you have to click. Admittedly some menu items do have shortcut keys, but you can't access all the items this way, as you can with access keys.
-I'm not sure I see why this would be annoying. If the user is supposed to have and use a mouse, why would he need to be able to do everything by keyboard? Moreover, to do so you'd have to show which key activates which menu, isn't that more information to overload your user with? Finally, to assign a command to all menus and sub-menus always brings up problems; do you really feel that the keys associated with the menu activation or the sub-menu activation on windows are intuitive. In my opinion, the letters often (but not always) have no intuitive relation with the option I'm trying to activate.
-As I look at my netscape, on Linux, I realize that these menus also don't offer keyboard activation (at least if it's feasible, it's not written on the screen). But I know that Alt-F will activate the Find option and Alt-N will bring up a new window. I'm not sure if I need much more from the keyboard but what I am sure about is that I can live with an OS that feels I'll know how to use a mouse to reach the other options/commands.
-For what it's worth, Connectix has been offering what your looking for (all menus, all sub-menus by keyboard) as an option since Speed Doubler 2. Used to work pretty well on my PB190 for those rare times when I didn't want to use the trackpad (which I just didn't like).
Give me a Windows 95/98/2000/NT theme any day. I admit that macs are generally more user friendly (albeit at the expensive of processing power) but some of the points of the interface are just so terrible!
-Although I'm probably just being really picky, I don't believe that you can just make the claim that macs offer a more user friendly U.I at the expense of processing power; remember that Win98 is the OS that allows to have a web page as a background...
As for whether or not the interface is so terrible; I hope, given all the unfounded statements you made and which I tried by the preceding to correct, that you'll change your mind or at least take the time to go back and try a mac before restating anything on an open forum...
You're right. My link to the old WinAqua page is defunct, and a search can't find it. Wish Skinz had a news archive; I'd like to know what happened. I was fairly sure that Apple had laid off once the designer removed the logo.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
I'm not sure why people have to STOP using the trademarked symbol/logo? Isn't it okay if they just document the fact that the symbol/logo is trademarked by so-and-so corporation/individual?
Is it /really/ just the trademark they don't want used? It seems Apple is very aggressive in routing out anything that seems vaguely Apple-like. It seems they don't even want Aqua themes /without/ their logo, getting out. That is going too far. Sure, take the logo out, but don't attempt to say that people can't make replicas and themes mimicing your OS. That's just plain tyrannical.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Now if Apple was making some kind of "trade dress" argument about the color scheme, or a "look and feel" copyright argument, there'd be a real issue here. But that's not the case.
As long as it is up to the END USER to pick the logo he wants. If it came preconfigured to fetch apples logo, you would still be violating their trademark.
See.. it doesn't matter where the image comes from, and the technical mechanism of display doesn't matter either; what matters is that the final work is a) not apples and b) uses apple's trademark.
Does anyone else find it funny how the slashdot story has a big apple logo right next to it.
-no broken link
But themes aren't pretending be an operating system. Themes aren't programs or software, they are just graphics and sound and color and font schemes.
Remember that parody is allowable in fair use. These themes are essentially parodies of the MacOS. Whether the logo could be allowed is questionable. My guess is that if the apple logo is changed signifcantly enough so that it could not be confused with Apple's actual corporate logo, then this would be allowable, but IANAL.
My journal has hot
Please! I'm *BEGGING* YOU! Quit doing thises sleazoid headlines! Rob! Hemos! STOP IT!!
DON'T BE IDIOTS!
Your headline makes one belive that Apple has forced all themes that LOOK like it's own theme to be removed from themes.org.
In reality, apple lawyers wrote a letter to themes.org, pointing out that a couple of the 'aqua' themes they were hosting happened to be using apple's trademarked logo without permission, and that this was a violation of trademark law. *IT IS A VIOLATION OF TRADEMARK LAW*. No biggie. no lawsuits, no threat of fines, no nothing.. just a polite note pointing out a trademark violation.
What if I designed a car that looked just like the new Volkswagen Beetle, except that it didn't have a VW emblem on the body. I think Volkswagen would have a legitimate case that I had ripped off their design and was confusing potential Volkswagen customers.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Yes, except your _car_ is in direct competition with their car. A _theme_ or skin is not in direct competition with the Mac OS. In your example, what if you took some other car, and painted it up and made additions to it so it /looked/ like a VW, effectively "skinning" the car? Could VW sue you? I sure hope not. If you have model airplanes should airplane companies sue you?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?