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.'"
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.
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.'"
The interface skin is not a trademark. Apple's just behaving like an ass, that is all.
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
What trademark? Cisco owns the iPhone trademark.
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
If you read the article carefully it hardly implies that bloggers were threatened with legal action for simply reporting about the skins.
....
Can you NOT read, or did Apple pay you to post this clueless response?
FTA:
Apple's lawyers also sent letters to journalists who simply reported on the fact that the skins were available.
"If Apple wants to go after the guy that made the Windows Mobile skin that looks like the iPhone, fine. But to bully bloggers who are simply reporting on this is another matter."
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?
A couple of days ago Apple said that Cisco suing them over the name iPhone was "silly"... how do they qualify this?
I think you're trying to equate two very different actions based upon different types of IP. Trademarks are designed to keep one vendor from tricking customers into thinking the product they are considering buying is from someone else. Copyrights are about ensuring a creator profits from their creation. Both have problems with the way the laws are designed, but look at the two cases. With iPhone, Cisco arguable no longer has the copyright and did not have any product by that name for years until they faked the existence of one just after Apple contacted them and they figured they could make money off of it. Cisco is basically trying to trick consumers into thinking their product is from Apple as most people assume anything called an iPhone is made by Apple. Without Apple, the trademark on the name "iPhone" is worthless.
In the second instance Apple is sending takedown notices to people who have copied their copyrighted creations. The creations themselves are valuable whether or not Apple exists.
Imagine your name is John Smyth and you're an artist. You become very popular for your macaroni and razor blade sculptures which you sell under a trademarked brand "SmythArt." Some other guy who inherited an old and unused trademark on the term "Smithart" from his uncle's metalworking business decides you might pay him for that trademark, so he makes a lasagna and razor blade sculpture, buts it on ebay and calls you to try to get you to pay him to not trick consumers. That's silly and abuse of trademarks. You go to court with him over the issue. Now imagine another person takes one of your sculptures and recreates it as exactly as possible and starts selling that while telling everyone it is "just like SmythArt sculpture number 7." That is copyright infringement.
On the assumption that you were using sarcasm and trying to say that these features 'really' are innovative, I'd like to say no, the parent is correct, except I'd go a little further and say there is nothing innovative about it at all.
None of the things you list are new. The target audience for this phone is mostly limited to the US, a place where cutting edge cell phones are usually a year or two behind, and then crippled by service providers.