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.
Trolltech had to recreate the Aqua look for Qt (the GUI toolkit, not QuickTime), since Qt emulates the look of the native system rather than wrapping. Like all other QStyles, there is probably close to no platform specific code in the engine. Unfortunately, only the Qt/Mac release will feature this style, as it apparently would go against "Apple rules" to distribute this into other Qt releases, like X11. So I guess it is ok to emulate the Aqua look as long as you are going to run on the Apple platform. That or Apple specifically granted Trolltech this permission, as Trolltech has mentioned they "coordinated with Apple" to make Qt/Mac.
While I have suspected Qt/Mac will not be GPL for other reasons, I believe this is a really strong reason as to why it won't be. If it were GPL, then any coder could just snag the style and compile with X11. Why mess with pixmap styles when you have close to the real-deal as a rendering engine?
that can use the Ferrari prancing horse logo without express permission. Ferrari is even the only company, by actual court order, that can make cars that are SHAPED like Ferraris.
Ferrari is NOT the only company that can paint its cars red.
There are limits to claiming 'themes' as a trademark.
KFG
How do you reckon all those other OS X apps got to LOOK like OS X apps? They used OS X calls in the code.
Mozilla CAN look like an OS X app, they just have to do it the right way, instead of some kludged theme that probably won't even be able to use transparency and other features of the OS.
No they wouldn't have. Companies in different industries may use the same name.
Very different. Apple lost because they signed a bad license with MS and it was ruled that Apple had licensed their look and feel to MS. Not many people know, as part of the IE budle/investment agreement, MS had to pay Billions (it's unknown, but that is what Apple claimed MS owed them) in back payments to Apple for licenses and as far as I know is still paying Apple to this day.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Nothing. Microsoft has already done this, in a way. The user interface for windows XP (called Luna) seems to take a lot of inspiration from Mac OS X without directly copying it.
And look at this shot. of Mac OS X:
Now look at these shots of the next version of windows CE (Pocket PC 2002).
Notice any similarities in the upper right of the screen?
As to whether this is legal (or would be if MS didn't happen to have billions of dollars), IANAL.
On the other hand, if Apple were smart, they'd parly the desire for Aqua themes into Mac sales. A simple and direct ad campaign, "why settle for a cheap immitation when you can have the real thing..."
Funny, I seem to remember a bunch of "Not just IBM Compatible, it IS IBM" campaigns from the 80's. If the effectiveness of this simple and direct ad can be guessed by their PC sales, it won't work.
The question that needs asked is: "Do the current Aqua-like themes use graphics taken from the real thing?" Apple can own the right the those images, the cool colored dots, window shade, check-boxes, et al. However they have no say if someone whips out GIMP or Photoshop and makes their own theme "inspired by" Aqua. If anything, this would be better for the end user; I like the colored dots, but the check boxes, dialog buttons, and radio buttons are annoying as all get out. In the mean time, I'll stick to the stock ShinyMetal theme for Enlightenment, one of the few true innovators in "look and feel". Who else has things like a slide out bar on the upper right of each window to hold the infrequently used options such as minimize-maximize?
Toodles
Toodles D. Clown
Umm... are we talking about all translucent, shiny themes here? Or only about the exact look of MacOS (as in, somebody took a screenshot of MacOS's toolbars and GIMP'ed that into a theme)...
:)
If it's an exact copy, then that's Apple's copyrighted property.
However, I do not think that they should ever be able to copyright things that are similar to what they do... that's way too general.
There is no prior art for an exact look, but only for the general look... and I'm only arguing about the exact one.
Is this theme an exact copy of the MacOS GUI (like I thought)... or just a general translucent-shiny (like the Liquid KDE theme)?
The issue is deeper than something in Bugzilla -- it's the fact that Mozilla was maldesigned in such as way that it's non-native on all platforms, because they assumed that platform differences could be papered over with different GIFs.
This has led to wonders such as OpenVMS and OS/2 ports, but at the cost of it being slow and ugly everywhere else.
Ok, let's see how fast I can get rid of all my karma....
I don't mean to start a holy war or anything, but after reading the majority of the posts thus far I'm confused. While I agree with most people on here, that Apple has a right to defend its design from being copied, is there a double standard here between Apple and Microsoft? I just can't understand why when Microsoft does something like this it's the "Evil Empire" but when Apple does the same it's defended by the community. Then again, I guess I shouldn't try to understand the mindset of a group of people that post goat sex links and racist jokes more than anything else.
Keep Austin Weird!
I find it really interesting that a guy who just got in trouble for copying a company's graphics (whatever you believe the merits of that are) is using the sky background image STAIGHT OFF OF TRANSMETA'S OLD WEB SITE.
Is this a quiet way to rebel or is he just stoopid?
http://kered.org
Bullshit.
Microsoft bought $120 Million in non-voting shares, promised to port Office and IE for awhile, and Apple said they'd make IE Mac OS's default browser.
Apple didn't need the money (they have a few billion in the bank themselves), they just needed to show investors that Microsoft wasn't going to kill them. Microsoft got to keep some competition around, which was helpful during their little stay in court.
Since then, IE has won the browser war, Apple is in a great (for them) position in the market, Mac OS X is out and growing strong, and Microsoft has not split and has quietly sold that $120mil of non-voting shares.
Billions in secret back payments? It's a nice story, but no.
In any case, it's not worth worrying about. Aqua looks slick, but there are lots of nice looking themes, many of them more usable than Aqua. Rather than trying to clone Aqua, perhaps it would be better to port more free themes to MacOS X and give it a fresh, non-Apple look.
This attack on creativity and free speech should be defeated for the priciple alone.
Please explain how Apple protesting plagiarism of Aqua is an attack on creativity.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
That's the same lame excuse that comes up again and again, and it's false. If Apple claims protection under trademark law, yes, they need to enforce their trademark, but they can still license it to whoever they want to. If Apple claims protection under copyright law, they can enforce as selectively as they like without losing their copyright.
Whether Apple actually has rights under either trademark or copyright law to gumdrop-based, colorful interfaces really has never been tested. So far, it's all just hot air and lots of expensive lawyers.
This is yet another case of giving trademark protection to a distinctive interface. Trademark protection should be limited to the words and symbols used to identify a product. Things which are part of the product itself, like an interface, ought not to be covered by trademark.
I'll go even further and say that the color brown should not be an UPS trademark, and that the curvy bottle should not be a Coca-Cola trademark. Only names and logos (markings, you see) should be covered by trademark.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
But with all due respect, you're completely wrong. Apple does has a great deal of say as to who gets to "abuse" their copyright. If a few kids want to play around with it, Apple can allow it by simply not pressing a lawsuit. If Microsoft tries it Apple can then choose to sue. The choice is completely up to Apple. What's more, there is literaly no one who has any legal authority to question Apple's decisions as to who to sue and for how much. Now, what they win is subject to the Courts, but if they decide to let one slide, that does not set a precident.
I can't stress that enough. Deciding not to prosecute a copy right cast does not in any way constitute a forgoance of that copyright. Example, if I rip the Terminator 2 DVD and distribute it to my five best buds in the world and MGM decides that it's really not worth sueing me over five copies of a DVD, that does not mean that MGM no longer has a leg to stand on in suits against online distributors of pirated video.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
> BTW, what godaweful plugin do I need to look
... don't disrespect it. 99.9% of the video you have ever watched on a computer was QuickTime, even the stuff that was turned into RealPlayer or Windows Media Player streams or DVD video discs.)
... couldn't they do better than to also copy the user icons when they copied the feature? Sad. Now the duck has been replaced by big cats in Mac OS X.
> at the Mac OS screenshot? All I see is a blank
> square.
It's an interactive QuickTime movie, not a still image. You need QuickTime Player for Mac OS or Windows. There are still shots of Aqua on Apple's site as well.
(QuickTime is the Unix of multimedia, man
The top-right of Pocket Windows is just a re-implementation of the Windows taskbar and its System Tray, but put up on the top of the screen, where it reminds one of the Mac's Menubar and System Menus. The menubar in Mac OS X just looks like a prettier, more colorful menubar from previous Mac OS versions (same clock, same system menus).
I agree that Windows XP looks a little too much like Mac OS X, though. I don't mind that, but I thought that naming the Windows XP interface "Luna" was about the weakest and most lame thing I had ever heard. Aqua, introduced in January 2000, and it's ugly step-sister Luna, barfed up in mid-2001. Sad. They are named like they are two products from the same company, which I guess is Microsoft's idea of innovation and competition. I think they should at least pretend to be original. The number of eye-rolls I saw when "Microsoft Luna" was announced!
Microsoft also copied the multiple Login panel from Mac OS 9 for Windows XP, and that would have been fine, too, except that they used the exact same rubber ducky picture as one of the user icons. I mean, there are only a handful of default user icons (the user is meant to drag in their own pictures, at least in the Mac version)
Actually, as fare as I know, Apple Corp (that was founded by the Beatles in 1968) sued Apple Computer. The case ended in a settlement where Apple Computer payed something between $25 million - $30 million and had to agree to stay out of the music business. So it basically means that Apple can not become an owner in a record company and that they had to pay a one time fee for keeping their Apple name. >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.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
I'm working on a cool multimedia tool. Apple
is lame attempting to lock people out of assimulating a decent theme. Well too bad Xerox
can sue thier ass for copying a window environment similar to thier own. This is why once my Multifli code gets out, I'll have a GPL, but I will lock it out of any use on OS/X.
Also Why don't we design a theme that rivals Aqua,
copyleft it, and make it illieagal for them to
assimulate it.
Apples days are numbered anyway. I have a multiplatform environment at home. I've got
a Apple 9600 running LinuxPPC (Firewall/Webserver/
Cable Modem/ NAT/IMAP email server), Apple G3 (Linux SMB server for house, icecast server), Dec Alpha (still trying to port more linux apps to this box), 486DX2 50 (My Linux based Mpeg
gateway for my Auto MPEG Player NE35, this allows me to have ethernet access to my MPEG player), MZ104 embedded controller based root w/wireless ethernet (My own design) And.. my Compaq 7100US
w 1.3GHZ Athlon and 256MB DDR RAM Linux box, everything is supported by the 2.4x kernel, including the DVD ROM and 1394 firewire. This box
is much faster then the Apple G4 that I had on lone. My kernel compile times are less than half the time taken with the G4. Yes the CPU speed is faster on the AMD, And the 7200RPM hard drives
aren't bad either. And.. the GFORCE Nvidia card.
So, go ahead apple. be a scrooge and put all your
eforts into preventing others from using a simular
desktop. What goes around comes around. You take
from the Open Source movement and you don't reciprocate. This is only going to have a negative
effect on you in the future.
copyright the themes as GPL too...and when Apple finally gets their own theming engine, sue them with anything that looks familiar.
Actually, as fare as I know, Apple Corp (that was founded by the Beatles in 1968) sued Apple Computer.
I'm almost positive that Apple Records was fully owned by Apple Corps, Ltd. See here for more information. But yeah, it would be the Corp which did the actual suing.
The case ended in a settlement where Apple Computer payed something between $25 million - $30 million and had to agree to stay out of the music business.
According to a number of sites I've read, including this one, the original settlement, for "an undisclosed amount" (probably very small), had the stipulation that Apple Computer could not be used for music purposes. In 1989 Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for breaching that contract. That was settled for somewhere in the $30 million range. If the Federal Trademark Dilution Act had been in effect in 1981 (sorry, not 1984), Apple Computer would have been in a much more precarious legal situation, and would likely not have been able to reach a settlement (I doubt they had $30 million at that time).
AFAIK, Apple Computer is no longer barred from going into the music industry. They certainly breached their original settlement by this point, it's quite easy to use the Macintosh as a low budget recording studio, probably with about as much quality as the Beatles had back in 1981.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
That is precisely why I finally took interest in Apple this year (for the first time ever) and purchased my first Mac. After all these years, Apple is finally delivering software that lives up to the high standards set by the company's hardware offerings over the years.