Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Over iPhone Smartphone Skins
ghostcorps writes "Australian Newspaper 'The Age' reports that developers of iPhone skins (skins for smartphones that resemble the iPhone) have been legally attacked by Apple. Beyond that, bloggers who have reported on the skins have been threatened with legal action as well. From the article: 'Ironically, Apple's attempts to have the files removed from the web have only given the skins greater publicity, and they have already begun spreading to other websites. The issue marks a distinct change in tone for many bloggers and journalists, who just last week praised Apple for its 'revolutionary' and 'game-changing' phone despite being unable to conduct a proper hands-on test of the product.'"
Bring back the ][. You used to be cool.
OF COURSE they are going to sue. A lot of Apple's selling power is how COOL it looks. If everybody has something that looks the same (even if it doesn't work the same) then it dilutes the cool factor.
If you read the article carefully it hardly implies that bloggers were threatened with legal action for simply reporting about the skins.
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
How many suits can one product give you before you say enough?
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
So they are going to be freely publiciced again. And they may even get some money from a trial.
Wow, this is **business** and no mistake.
Before everyone goes completely non-linear, it should be noted that if you have a trademark, you have to protect it if you want to keep it yours. Since one of the trademarks of Apple's latest batch of products is its unique interface style and artwork, they MUST take action when their artwork is being circulated and incorporated into other products. Even if there is a part of them that recognizes that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Less is more.
Apple's all about looks. They're all about the techno-liberal-geek that is somehow "cool" because he uses something that isn't a PC because there's this false perception that PC's are evil. He therefore gets his cool factor. Apple wants to keep it up. Good going, Apple!
...for nothing more than the cost of a Cease & Desist.
Nice. (For Apple, that is.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Uh NO. These are skins for smartphones that use Apple's icons, which is to say, copyrighted artwork.
If they created their own icons that looked SIMILAR then Apple would have to suck it up and deal with it. They are not. They are using Apple's copyrighted media.
Yet again, slashdot editors can't or won't edit. Remind me again why I should subscribe? So I can see this inaccurate tripe before it hits the front page?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A couple of days ago Apple said that Cisco suing them over the name iPhone was "silly"...
how do they qualify this?
During his keynote, Jobs mentioned that the iPhone is protected by over 200 patents (surely some of those cover the interface) - and that they intend to protect them.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
During the keynote, Steve was talking about how vigorously they were protecting the phone. Patents in particular numbered in the many dozens, but you know by extension that they're gonna be protective of everything related to the dang thing.
[
Why is Apple suing? Isn't the iPhone a Cisco product? Wierd, I'm confused.
... with Cisco. It is so repugnant how these companies try to stiffle creativity.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
By Apple's reasoning, if I published an article that mentioned that The Pirate Bay has copies of OSX you can dowload, they would sue me. Good thing that no pro-Apple people read Slashdot, otherwise I would have to post anonymously...
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
The article seems to suggest that the bloggers were posting the articles on where to download the skins as well. Even though this doesn't mean that the blogger was posting this stuff does it mean they should be liable? This sounds familiar to sites that have been shut down for posting links to copyright material like supernova and nzbzone and many others. Does a sign post on the Internet constitute liability for that content? Are these bloggers facilitation the download of copyrighted material in the same manner. I don't think so but I think that so far the proof is pointing in the direction of yes. This is because no one has the money/balls to fight these corporations, I can see why its freaking scary. I hope that it can go to court and be won by the bloggers so that in the future something like this doesn't happen again. In my opinion I think that blogging is as much a form of News as anything. Especially when it comes to technology.
I'm just getting overly tired of these lawsuits where someone says hey look what billies doing its pretty cool, and Tony the Tooth comes over and says shut it down or I'm going to break some legs.
The other point is, is if the Times had printed a screenshot of the images in questions would they be sued? I highly doubt it.
The ESRB made the same mistake when they went after bloggers who talked about a shirt from some online store that said "Your mom, rated E for Everyone", they eventually issued an appology to the bloggers they harassed. Somehow I doubt Apple would ever say they were sorry to bloggers.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
A company must protect its IP! Except for the name 'iPhone' in which case Apple has every right to it.
The interface skin is not a trademark. Apple's just behaving like an ass, that is all.
Boy, if Apple and Disney ever teamed up...I'm not sure how to finish that thought.
Sounds pretty threatening to me. The article didn't post the complete text of the letter, but these types of letters are typically worded to scare bloggers (or more likely their ISPs) in to removing the content in question. And we all know simply linking to something can get you in to legal troubles these days.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Apple has fallen from their pedastal in recent years. They were the "cool but geeky and not very market savvy company" that I always looked up to. In the past couple of years, they have sued john does' of the world just to keep out information and they have forgotten that they are upsetting the fan club that blindly praises anything the company puts out.
What trademark? Cisco owns the iPhone trademark.
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
Now that they are suing people for posting leaked Windows source code^H^H^H DeCSS^H^H^H The Grey Album^H^H^H Paris Hilton pr0n^H^H^H Metallica MP3s^H^H^H iPhone skins for Smartphones, they will surely vanish from the Internet forever.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I am not a lawyer: the following is just my reading of the readily available material on design property protection, mostly from a US perspective (mine). YMMV.
Since one of the trademarks of Apple's latest batch of products is its unique interface style and artwork
Regarding "trademark": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Do you mean trademark literally? And legally? Industrial design intellectual property protection is kinda weird in the US. You can take out a design patent convering the non-functional "aesthetic" or ornamental aspects of a design. I've done some quick searches at the USPTO, and it doesn't appear that Apple has one of those yet.
The only thing approaching "trademark" is "trade dress", but that appears to be apply only very broadly to an entire company's look and feel, not of a particular product.
Or did you mean "trademark" as in "distinctive product look and feel", which is not implicitly protected by US IP law. (Canada, sure. If the design is registered. Or the EU. Or Japan.)
Sorry, I hate to say it, but knockoffs that don't incorporate or hint at actual registered trademarks or infringe on functional or design patents are almost certainly legal.
And at least in the U.S., discussion of knockoff-like entities (like software skins for your non-Apple smartphone) should always be permissible, according to that darn ol' Constitution. Any attempt to squelch such discussion feels like improper prior restraint and an unacceptable infringment of personal liberties in order to protect the marketing prerogatives of a corporate.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Actually, icons are part of the applications branding and that part could be trademarked. Parent might have meant copyright anyway.
Apple are just sending a very public, early message that it's going to protect the iPhone image and is warning other people about it.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
Wow, looks like an iPhone, and wow Apple suing?
/. has bent over for Apple left and right, and Apple is far more closed and arrogant than MS ever could have been. Apple is becoming the new Sun/Oracle, instead of actually innovating good products, they use PR spin and attack anyone that sheds light on their lies.
#1. Myself and many others already stated that Windows Pocket PC Phones were just as capable as anything advertised by the iPhone, and have been around for YEARS now. In addition, have full developer support and tools for writing applications for them.
#2. Apple suing? How novel... Oh wait, that is their motto now, right? Mess with our reality distortion and we will sue you...
I don't care WHAT *nix runs under OSX, it is still shocking that
So go buy your iPhone, and Windows Pocket PC phone users will be saying, welcome to the 21st century, we have been here for a while.
Also keep supporting OSX and Apple like they are an OSS *nix company, when they have dismantled, stolen, and CLOSED more *nix code than any other company in history. Just look at the closing of Darwin for Intel, even though closing it is on shaky ground regarding the BSD interface to the kernel that they have also closed.
So, wow, iPhone so revolutionary, it can be mimicked on old Pocket PC Phones...
LOL
(BTW you can get more than 8gb on a Pocket PC Phone and better Media support as you are not even locked into Windows Media on the device - you know, third party development helps keeping users from being locked in to the vendor's software...)
If I wanted a closed OS Phone, I would buy a Razor, they do as much as the iPhone as well, have 3G, can watch TV on them, browse the net or access the office at DSL speeds, all things far beyond the iPhone...
Those icons were the only "innovative" thing about the iPhone (if they actually manage to call it that.)
150 years plus the life of the author (who is? Jobs?) ahead on skins.
Man, no other companies are ever going to be able to catch up after Apple's done owning the market for over a century with this skin-based monopoly. Boy do I wish I had some of their stock.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
By Apple's reasoning, if I published an article that mentioned that The Pirate Bay has copies of OSX you can dowload, they would sue me. Good thing that no pro-Apple people read Slashdot, otherwise I would have to post anonymously...
From the article, it seems Apple did not sue any bloggers. They sent takedown notices to bloggers who were directly violating their copyrights and who were contributing to copyright infringement by linking directly to information on how to break Apple's copyrights. Both of these actions are illegal in certain jurisdictions and circumstances. Your comment is not illegal in any way I know. If, however, you linked to such a download, Apple would probably send you a takedown notice (or actually send it to Slashdot). If Slashdot failed to comply with the takedown, then Apple would have grounds to sue and might do so.
You weaken your argument and credibility by so drastically overstating the case. Contributory copyright infringement laws are very questionable, ethically speaking. Argue against them if you think they should be changed. But posting a comment like yours is sort of like when a complete pothead tries to argue that marijuana should be legalized because smoking it cures cancer according to some zine they read. It just makes reasonable people try to avoid the issue altogether so they are not associated with such irrational weirdoes.
I thought I was going to corner the market by creating all the possible screen combinations for a 320x240 matrix, and then claiming them as copyrighted by me. Then ol' Jobs trumps me by using a different resolution.
You haven't won yet, Jobs!
Bear in mind that Jobs is a computer and O/S dictator. DRM nightmares are on the horizon for Apple end-users.
Yeah, exactly. One of the ways Apple may be trying to get it from cisco is because cisco sat on it for 5 years and never used it. Additionally, they failed to file the proper paperwork showing they were using it in some meaningful way.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Apple,
Japan thinks your phone is cute, or rather, was cute. They can't seem to figure out why you think you've reinvented the wheel though, you know, since they can already buy phones like this for much less that are much better.
Sorry, but only a true trendwhore would ever carry that overpriced, technologically stunted, not-a-smartphone "smart"phone.
My experience with most organizations is that bad attitude tend to trickle down from the top. Apple's land shark behavior does not reflect positively on Jobs or most Apple officers.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I was thinking trademark infringement because I assumed that Apple would have trademarked certain aspects of the interface design. To the extent that the iPhone fits into the family of iXxx devices marketed by Apple, it might be more appropriate to class it as "trade dress" as opposed to trademark... IANAL. Apparently (according to another poster) they haven't yet filed trademark or design patent applications for the user interface of the iPhone.
Less is more.
Apple's in very real danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg over its stance on intellectual property. Suing enthusiasts who want nothing more than to have an early little taste of their software is a good way to hurt a brand that depends almost entirely emotion and public perception of "coolness."
Now, I can understand Apple's worries about dilution of trademark, but attempting to sue blogs is directly attacking the buzz machine. Apple needs to pay a little more attention to what's happened between Sony & Nintendo as a result of poor vs. excellent management of fanboy buzz.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
From what I'm reading, it seems more like if you provided a link to the Pirate Bay page for OSX or to the tracker itself, you would get a letter from an Apple lawyer asking you to stop.
... and that would be just about what I would expect to happen.
By that reasoning since Cisco has the name iPhone trademarked http://gigaom.com/2007/01/10/battle-for-iphone-bra nd-cisco-sues-apple/ they should rip the name out from under Apple right?
"Never limit what you know to what you do", Me
Funny that Apple raises hell about someone creating a skin that resembles their own interface yet they blatenly use the name iphone that they have no legal right to use.
Fine, it is not trademark infringement. It is copyright infringement. They are taking the icons and graphics and creating a derived work without permission of the original copyright owner.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
... for the makers of Arkanoid to sue Apple for ripping off their icon theme and calling it "Aqua."
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
You've already lost a major lawsuit over a competing product imitating "look and feel". Simply because you've decided to go after those with more shallow pockets this time doesn't mean you're any less wrong this time.
Politely fuck the hell off.
- Sleazy P. Martini
- GWAR and Assc.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I believe that Cisco owns the trademark for "iPhone". I find it hypocritical that Apple appropriated this trademark for their own product without compensation and then turns around and sues their own fanbois for copying their cute icons.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Lets see: http://isohunt.com/download/13297706/osx
Too much iphone news latelly but none seem to say WHAT TEH FECK is an iphone and why should I give a shit?GIVE A SHIT?
http://www.divshare.com/download/51299-848
Fuck Apple. Suing iPhone skin makers is simply stupid, because Apple is popupar enough so that any teenage kid with too much money to spend on nonsense will want to buy the real thing, the original, and will know the difference from a skin.
But suing bloggers for reporting, now that's just wrong, and way above my corporate tolerance limit. Fuck you, Apple, once again!
If Apple were to have a case (albeit a vague one, but I might be wrong) against Cisco/Linksys, they'd owe it to Apple fans like these bloggers. It is these people who have been using the term "iPhone" with regard to a (hypothetical) Apple product for months, over and over, all around the world, not Apple itself... ;-)
This may be a not-too-serious assessment of the legal situation between Cisco/Linksys and Apple, though.
And for that reason, they should go after the people selling & manufacturing items that illegally use their trademark. However, when they go after people talking about their trademark, even in a context they don't like, they have crossed the line. There is a reason that freedom of the press is in the constitution. Some people want to argue semantics about the press, but people reporting other people doing something wrong is what it is about. Most of those blogs, probably helped Apple find the exact source of the infringing products. Even if the people were for the products, it did not render the truth in what they told unusefull.
That, sir, depends directly on what they are smoking.
Is it just me or is the Legal Dept. the biggest branch of apple? I'm a Mac user, i own an iPod too, but this is getting ridiculous... i say let the skin be used on a shitty phone: when people get to use the real thing, they will see that UI isnt only pretty Aqua buttons...
Jobs changed the name to Apple Inc. but i'm starting to think it should be Apple Legal inc.
ant
Comment removed based on user account deletion
good grief, mods, show some respect for a difference of opinion.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
someone ripped Apple's interface for their iPhone and has now published the interface for other, non-iPhone Smartphones. my questions is this:
what would Apple do if someone ripped off their MacOSX interface and ported it to Microsoft Windows, or Linux. or, what would Microsoft do if Joe Shmoe ripped off Windows XP's Luna interface and ported it to MacOSX, or Linux? (I don't know if MaxOSX is capable of being `skinned' or not.) would they do the same thing? or would they just ignore it, or encourage it?
there are 10 types of people in this world; those who get this joke, and those who don't
Karamba/Superkaramba has been around for years, with widely distributed widgets that transform a Linux desktop into something that very closely resembles OSX. Did I miss something? Apple doesn't want to anger the Linux community?
So what? Apple's device, whatever they're calling it this week, is a multi-touch surface. You can copy the image, but it can't be manipulated like Apple's interface on single-touch devices.
Multi-touch is going to be a big deal. Being able to grab two things and manipulate them at the same time is a huge win. It's the next step beyond the object-verb and verb-object GUI approaches.
Wow, modded troll simply for daring to think that not everybody reads slashdot and that perhaps, though vilified, Microsoft and others are still successful companies?
I remember those kits that made Fieros look like Ferraris back in the 80s. I do not think that Ferrari's reputation suffered a bit; though, I do not think much of the schmucks that bought the kits. As long as no one is selling the "skinned" phones as if they were legit iPhones, I'm not sure where the harm to Apple exists.
WARNING: Smoking this sig may cause lowered IQ, insanity or short term memory loss. It is also really bad for your monit
Patent applications are not made public immediately. Apple could have made patent applications some time ago. Patents would be irrelevant in any case for this complaint.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
Isn't this what we used to call free advertising? If person #1 has the fake and person #2 has the iPhone, doesn't that make person #1 want The Real Thing?
That's kind of ironic, considering Apple brazenly stole the trademarked name of their product from Linksys/Cisco...
mSheep.
Take a look at the following:
2 FIC326x550.jpgc kscreen20070109.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/111
http://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/iphonelo
Did Apple really create something that has such a unique look??
Apple is evil. No doubt about it. They can't compete with what is still vaporware, so they sue. Frigtards!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Actually, it'd probably be classified as a design patent. Even computer icons can be protected by design patents.
I don't think that anyone knows who owns the trademark and legal rights to the name iPhone until a judge decides, the matter is before the courts. There is certainly a case to be made that Cisco dropped the ball and lost their usage rights. Apple has a cracck legal and marketing team, don't everyone be too eager for them to fall flat on their face, I fully expect Apple to win the rights to the iPhone name, they've already created the brand.
You have to defend a trademark to keep it, if you don't defend a trademark then you loose it. Apple is defending it's property, the stuff that it generates it's income from. Sueing bloggers for linking to the sites? is taking action against people who are helping to promote the material, so as bad as the situation may seem, Apple is within their rights to do what they did.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Apple (and all of the fanbois) hope that they can invalidate Cisco's trademark or pay them or bully them into relinquishing it. This could be a long SCO type litigation.
I won't speculate on the outcome of this battle but I do find it very ironic that Apple on the one hand is trespassing on someone else's trademark and at the same time getting their shorts all in a knot about people "stealing" their icons. To me, it's just mud wrestling... fun to watch.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
contributing to copyright infringement by linking directly to information on how to break Apple's copyrights
This is Kings Cross, Sydney, Australia. It is possible to buy drugs down just about any side street on just about any night of the week.
There -- I've linked directly to information on how to buy drugs. When do I go to jail?
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
First, I'm obviously going for funny.
Secondly, I feel I should be able to discuss illegal actions without fear of reprisal. If someone is doing something illegal, I would like to be able to point out what they are doing (and where and how they do it) without being an accessory to the crime.
Thirdly, How am I overreacting? Posting pictures of someone else's product for the purposes of discussing said product should be fair use. Next you'll be telling me that the logo they have on Apple Stories is a copyright violation.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
There -- I've linked directly to information on how to buy drugs. When do I go to jail?
Well, since the location of the drug purchase is not in the US and since you did not provide specific instructions, just general ones, you don't. If, however, you are in the US and tell someone on the phone that if they go talk to Jimmy on the corner of 4th and Wilson, and he's holding crack, you can be arrested for it. That is about the same level of contribution to the crime as linking to a download.
Please note, I'm not saying these laws are ethical or reasonable. Contributing to copyright infringement is a lot like aiding and abetting spitting on the sidewalk. It simply is not serious enough of a crime, in my opinion, to warrant being illegal or any effort on the part of police. It is, however, a crime and if you don't like that you need to get the law overturned, not complain when it is enforced against specific people.
I'm going short on Apple's stock right now. It is hugely overbought. They have a lot of hype and no product. Cisco will win the Trademark suit against Apple and the iPhone will be a Cisco product name. Steve Jobs will be either in Jail or kicked out of the company within a year over his stock option fiasco. Things are looking grim for Apple's future and I could not be happier. Stupid ass pompous Apple.
I wonder how legitimate it would be to say, change the skin color and call it a parody.
That stuff is out there: http://btjunkie.org/torrent?do=stat&id=37844420367 eed57ec7300ee938ded2e9e9c599910a7
Bringing in the lawyers will only push the skin's popularity up for a few days/weeks and will cost apple a chunk of good will.
Note: linking is not a crime. Neither is fair use (exercised by bloggers/journalists posting about the iphone and using a screenshot).
-- No Sig is a Good Sig
... with this very neat torrent
:)
Enjoy
do you know what this is?
It's abuse of moderation, bitches
(With apologies to Kanye West)
I hope the iFanboy who moderated me down realizes that the reason we call pretty much all Apple fans fanboys is that there are so many highly visible members of the community who act like 'em.
When Apple zealots stop moderating people down for things with which they disagree because they drank the Apple Kool-Aid, people will stop calling them iFanboys.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You say ``Regarding "trademark": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."''
a de_defin.htm
According to the USPTO: "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others."
See also http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/tr
So there are many aspects of the iPhone that could be Trademarked, as well as the artwork itself being Copyright, vs. Design Patent, and you could make a case for Process Patent on menu/item navigation, if you wanted to get sticky about it.
-- Terry
lawsuit vs cease and desist letter. there is a big difference.
This statement would only make sense if "ironically" actually meant "predictably," which it doesn't.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Trademarks aren't as easy as having your name ona piece of paper somewhere. A) They only apply to a specific area of products. The iPhone that Apple is marketting is significantly different than the iPhone Cisco owns the trademark to. B) They also expire rather easily. It could be argued that Cisco's lack of current products under that mark makes it invalid. This is what I expect Apple will try to argue.
Personally, I wish they had handled it amicably before Macworld. This does not make them hypocritical for protecting their investments, however. Two very very different cases.
Blog Microsoft, get a free Ferrari ahref=http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/27/ 1423234rel=url2html-19021http://slashdot.org/artic le.pl?sid=06/12/27/1423234>
Blog Apple, get a free lawsuit.
Couldn't apple just charge everybody $4.99 and blame Sarbannes-Oxley...
Oh...damn.... wrong story... never mind
"Apple are just sending a very public, early message that it's going to protect the iPhone image and is warning other people about it."
That's why Cisco is suing apple over the word iPhone (since they own it). The people at Cisco know how much Apple values trademarks so they want to see just how much Apple values a trademark.
Plus, they're probably suing Apple first knowing that Apple will shortly sue them anyway. Maybe they'll lay claim to the whole iProductName thing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Yeah, someone copied the icons from iPhone^WiWhatever (tm), didn't apple copy the clownfish theme from Pocket PC? http://www.pocketpcthemes.com/preview.asp?ID=56642 (this theme was submitted sometime in early 2006).
-iSuck (sm)
There is a lot of wishful thinking among Apple and its fanbois that nobody could possibly have invented this phone before Apple and God gave it to us.
It's hypocritical to ignore legal niceties when they offer an inconvenient truth and then come down hard (some would argue excessively hard) when it suits your market control purposes.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"Or did you mean "trademark" as in "distinctive product look and feel", which is not implicitly protected by US IP law. (Canada, sure. If the design is registered. Or the EU. Or Japan.)" This Just In: Apple, Inc. moves to Canada. More at 11 (if we don't get sued).
They couldn't sue Microsoft for copying the Macintosh's look and feel in Windows so I doubt this will go very far.
Ever since I saw how badly Apple screwed us Mac owners over back in '94-'96 regarding Rhapsody, I've been trying to explain to folks how Apple's corporate culture was far FAR MORE EVIL than Microsoft Corporation could ever hope to me. I tend to use Linux (OpenSUSE these days for compability reasons) as much as I can, and then XP on my Desktop and Laptop to get work done. I just will not touch an Apple product again ever, and not because I think the hardware and software is better or worse, but because I just don't feel like putting any more money into the hand that bit me.
Apple is all sheik and sexy to the Hollywood types because
1. "Artists" use macs.
2. Apple is an openly gay-friendly company. (I don't think this is a bad thing, it is merely another reason Hollywood/Mass media folks love them)
3. The great unwashed masses, that Hollywood types secretly loathe, use Windows.
4. They are located in N. Cali and N.Cali is Mecca to hollywood.
Don't underestimate the subtle but powerful influence the love of Apple by the mass media has over us all. It's a great part of the reason that people think Microsoft==Bad and Apple==good.
Microsoft just wants to make money. As much money as they can. They don't care how they do it, or who they screw over, as long as it makes them richer. I don't worry about a philosophy like that, because I can see it coming and I know where it is going. Apple has many other deep and twisted agendas, and we don't know what they all are. I'm glad as hell that Microsoft has the monopoly rather than Apple. I hail from *before* the AppleII days, and remember when Apple more or less had that monopoly in certain markets, especially schools. They were completely evil then too, although I didn't realize it at the time.
The article claims that it's ironic for Apple to sue an obscure vendor for distributing a skin that violates their copyright, as it's only going to make the offending product more well known and ultimately more popular. But I submit that this is entirely their intention. Nothing grabs peoples' attention like a lawsuit, and Apple must realize that this skin isn't actually going to detract from the potential sales of their upcoming iPhone. Instead, I think Apple are trying to make the skin more popular by getting it in the news. Having people put the skin on their Pocket PC and Palm devices is only going to make them want to buy an iPhone more than they originally may have, since they'll be used to the layout and design.
Good move.
Oh fuck off ! Until about a week ago that particular look and feel didn't exist anywhere on any smart from in the entire history of smart phones!
Apple come up with something new, of which the look and feel is an essential part, and someone takes less than a week to rip it off and transplant it onto a PocketPC. Apple have every right to be pissed off about this. Hell if you were in their shoes YOU would be pissed off about this.
The only person who's being an ass right now is you
Rename the theme! Make it look themed from a slot machine instead (which Apple kindly makes us forget to remind it looks like when the iPhone launched)
Something with that "Reality Distortion Field", methinks.
Exactly, I'm really excited about multi-touch interfaces. The interface of the iPhone isn't even that great looking. It's simple and gets the job done, but it's how you work with the interface that sets the iPhone apart.
Because you knwo that sheet of paper (Customer Satisfaction Letter) That gets shipped to you when you get your laptop repaired, that states "All work is done by apple-Certified Technicians?"
Guess what? They're lying to you. As of right now, several employees leaving Flextronics and acquiring a job where I currently work say that there's maybe four actual certified techs, out of 200+ techs. That situation was about the same when I worked for Flextronics.
Can there be a way to sue Apple for misrepresenting the quality of it's service? Any lawyers here know?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why are the Beatles defending SYSCO products?
Oh, and I need 12 cases of sliced pears to go with that iPhone...
every day apple is in the news. fsck apple. im going to play oblivion
Yes it is, Apple took Microsoft to court over copying its "look and feel". They lost, but not becuae their grounds for had no merit, but because an idiot CEO (Scully) had signed an agreement with Microsoft saying MS could copy it.
Also, have you looked at the iPhone skin on TFA?
The "internet" icon is a cropped version of the Safari icon (trademarked art). And there is an icon labeled "iPod" (major Apple trademark). They have no choice but to sue to protect their trademarks.
Some one from Singapore got an Eye-Fhone look alike.. or is it the same mobile for around 200 dollars... whats the matter???
Okay, pardon me if I get details wrong..
A company that started out with a computer based on a hack of a calculator chip,
using a name that the Beatles used for their music company, Apple Records,
got sued over that, settled with one of the terms that they'd never make musical instruments..
(the sosume beep sound is allegedly named in reference to this)
Fast forward..
A phone out with a name used for a phone by a company that was bought by Cisco, who ignored it up until oh, December 2006,
being sued over that, (results not yet determined), and now they're suing folks for a utility and a cluster of 32x32 icons?
Irony Mobius:
And at the same time, they drop 'Computer' from their name, leaving themselves open for The Beatles reps to sue again.
Oh! The Fees I Sees!
Infinity is overrated, Infinity+1, now that's cool!
Not just Cisco according to an article on either foxnew.com or NPR there are 12 products currently around with the name iPhone, including apples.
Under US law you can have multiple product with the same trademark just not in the same field ie Apple Records and apple computers. The big question is how similar are cell phones and VoIP phones.
So they aren't affected. The trademark iPhone belongs to Cisco, though that may have lapsed due to unuse, but that isn't a skin.
Apple tried to protect "look and feel" before. looks like they're still trying.
Instead of just trying to "make it look neat". iPhone is utterly pointless if you can't run any 3rd party apps on it, IMO.