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.'"
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.
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.
...for nothing more than the cost of a Cease & Desist.
Nice. (For Apple, that is.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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!
Dude, that page you linked to even has a comment invalidating the point about sherlock. I'm sure if I wandered around I could find more examples.
I agree that Apple is overly litigious and that they are no angels. However, in terms of the people who actually made the skins, this is a clear-cut case of copyright infringement, and not the "good kind".
I am not defending Apple, I am defending proper use of copyright law, of which this is an example.
You either apply your principles the same to every situation regardless of the principals, or you have none.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
Those icons were the only "innovative" thing about the iPhone (if they actually manage to call it that.)
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.
So, wow, Pocket PC Phones are so revolutionary, they can display bitmaps stolen from the iPhone?
LOL
Actually, they can DO EVERY feature an iPhone advertises as revolutionary with the exception of the multi-touch display that Apple patented.
They can also run third party applications, run real applets like MS Word, and even run remote tools where you can open your desktop PC. Oh they also have 3G capabilities, can watch TV, Download Videos, have a full Media experience and MP3 capabitlites, display photos and even watch movies.
They also can be SMALLER and have a LONGER battery life than the iPhone.
Apple has NO NEW FEATURES in this device, they just are brainwashing people like you to believe it does something that hasn't already been done for YEARS...
Good luck and stop drinking the Apple kool-aid before they give you a free trip to Jonestown.
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").
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.
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 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.
Secondly, I feel I should be able to discuss illegal actions without fear of reprisal.
So if, for example, the police had a court ordered wire tap on your house and you told your cousin Vinnie "the knife" Viviano to go stab that cop right in the face so he stops sticking his nose in the family business, you think the police should not be able to take any action until Vinnie actually did stab someone?
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.
Ahh, but what if you provide them with specific instruction as to how they can go about committing that crime. "That cop always goes to the store at 8pm on thursdays and he has a key under the fake rock to the right of his house. If you go over there at 8:15, use the key, and wait in the closet next to the door, you an easily stab him to death without any risk." Now assuming someone goes and commits this crime, should you not be held guilty of aiding an abetting that crime?
Thirdly, How am I overreacting? Posting pictures of someone else's product for the purposes of discussing said product should be fair use.
But it wasn't for the purpose of discussing said product, or it might be fair use. It was for the purpose of informing others about how to break the law easily. As for how you're overreacting you're proposing a situation where Apple would not have any grounds to sue you and making comments about how you suppose they would. If you post an article discussing pirate bay and the availability of infringing os x copies, Apple would do nothing. Apple hasn't sued anyone. Say someone gets arrested for possession of marijuana. Then their knee-jerk friend goes out and says that they'd probably shoot him right in the face if he even smelled like marijuana. It is exaggerating the situation in both scope and severity and does nothing to make credible people address the actual issue. If you think sending a takedown notice for contributory copyright infringement or marijuana possession should laws should be changed, say that. Don't go postulating about hypothetical situations where a lesser action would "probably" result in you being punished even more severely.
Next you'll be telling me that the logo they have on Apple Stories is a copyright violation.
Copying Apple's logo from their stores is not copyright violation, it is trademark violation. That is to say, copying it without permission and putting it elsewhere can lead people to be confused as to whether or not some product was made by Apple or someone else, so doing that is restricted by law.