Slashdot Mirror
Apple Still Says No To Aqua-Like Themes
JoFo writes: "Eric Yang, creator of several Aqua-like themes and skins for GTK+, KDE, Mozilla, gkrellm, and others, was forced by Apple to take down all Aqua-related projects on his web site. It appears they went to his employer as a way to strong-arm him. He writes on his web site 'I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?'" Apple seems at least to be consistent in objecting to nearly any non-Apple project that reminds the company of Aqua, so maybe this was just a matter of time.
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act became effective in January of 1996. Apple lost it's "look and feel" case before that, I believe it was 1995.
Of course, had The Federal Trademark Dilution Act been in effect in 1984, Apple probably wouldn't be called Apple any more, since they would have lost the trademark dispute against Apple Records.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I just wish they would let a Mac port of Mozilla have a Mac look.
Oh give me a break. If there's that much demand for an Aqua look-and-feel "theme" for Mozilla then somebody will put in the time to add native Quartz calls to Mozilla. Adding a silly "theme" is not the way to do this when it's on the native platform of Aqua. Besides, how would you do transparencies with a theme? An Aqua "theme" would be a hack for these purposes.
If Mozilla were changed to use native aqua screen widgets, then the only thing needed to make it look like it "fits in" is a very simple theme for the menubar buttons -- a theme that Apple wouldn't complain about at all and it would be 100% original artwork.
- j
For starters, you can't copyright a color. Period. Thus your argument that my argument is invalid is invalid. All visible colors fall under the umbrella of prior art. You can copyright certain works using color. For instance you could paint a board red, hang it on the wall, call it a work of art, and own the copyright on it.
Good luck prosecuting people who "steal" your ip. Even if the red is the only board that previously existed with the "exact shade."
IP is only ip to the extent that it can be effectively protected. That is lesson number one in the ip "biz."
What you CAN do is define a logo that contains the words "Ferrari Red" and copyright, and trademark * THAT LOGO.* The copyright on the logo confers no protections whatsoever on the words contained within that logo, nor on the color they refer to. So, you can only buy "Ferrari Red" paint from Ferrari because Ferrari controls the name *Ferrari*, and thus the paint name and logo, not because they control the actual light wavelength reflected by the paint.
This is precisely the reason there are so many doofy names for colors. You *cannot protect the color.* So you make up a NAME for it you can protect.
And of course there is the fact that there is really no such thing as Ferrari Red in the first place. Ferrari has used literally dozens of different shades of red. There is also the fact that Ferrari didn't even invent the phrase, and it was in widespread public use before Ferrari ever used it. It was, in fact, forced on them through public use. Prior art.
You are also, of course, aware that virtually every Ferrari, even those painted the *same* color, are in fact different colors? What is the *exact* shade of "Ferrari Red"? How is it defined? How is its use defended when it isn't true that it can only be obtained from authorized Ferrari repairers because any dumb schlub at the paint store can simply mix up unlimited supplies of it for you? You can do it yourself on your desktop if you wish.
Are you even begining to get my point, which was *there are limits to trademarkability?*
What's more, a trademark or copyright *does not* confer title. This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of this branch of ip law. In truth *title* can only be granted by a JUDGE reviewing the facts of a particular challange.
Ferrari *owns* the shape of its cars because a JUDGE, reviewing an actual case has *said so.*
Oh, it was an American judge by the way, thus in truth Ferrari only owns the shape of its cars in America and those countries that will respect that American decision.
Trademark and copyright are not the same as registering your car. The fact of the matter is that you can have copyright and trademark certificates in hand and STILL not have the rights they seem to confer on you.
KFG
And this is why he was shutdown. Just read the FAQ on that page and you will see that he had a blue apple in his theme. I don't think this is look and feel at all. It's because he used the freakin LOGO is why he had his themes shutdown. In fact, I believe you can still get the Aqua like look in enlightenment and the like from Themes.org, just not the Apple logos.
Look and feel is ok, just don't use the TRADEMARKED logo.
Gorkman