Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sues Over iPhone Smartphone Skins

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-talk-about-that-thing-we-don't-like dept.

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.'"

7 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Cisco is silly by alewar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A couple of days ago Apple said that Cisco suing them over the name iPhone was "silly"...
    how do they qualify this?

  2. Re:Disingenuous summary by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apple is one of the most hypocritical tech companies when it comes to IP - they'll rip off features from freeware/shareware developers without any compensation

    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.

    and sue the pants off anybody whenever they have the slightest excuse.

    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.'"
  3. Re:why am I not surprised by wondercool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OTAH if you sue your fanboys, you screw your most fanatical supporters, making yourself uncool rapidly.

    It's much easier to fall from your pedestal than climbing it. (look at MS, Sony and IBM in the past and today).

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and in this case the flattery seems harmless and good for the brand?

  4. Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. How "cool" is suing? by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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").
    1. Re:How "cool" is suing? by catwh0re · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'd have to add that some of their actions have been apt, they haven't sued any regular blogger/reporter who reported on them.. they've actually just sent a rather gently worded legal notice to the ones who are showing an image of the skin AND providing a direct download link. The legal notice (available in many of the articles about this.) is probably the most casually written and easy to understand legal notice a person could receive.. It doesn't say "DIE! REMOVE SKIN AND LINK OR DMCA PATENTS COPYRIGHT!"

      Placing a lawsuit agains those people who made the skin is two pronged approach, it gets rid of the current skin and discourages further iPhone skin development.

      The skin authors are getting what is coming to them, and I have little sympathy for them because their condition was not only highly avoidable, but incredible stupid thing to do in the first place, they did it for cred with perfect knowledge they were breaking a usage agreement. Why do I say this? because to make the skin they needed to download the high res PR images from apple.com/pr/products. To download these images you have to agree to a very short usage agreement.. (the usage agreement is 3 paragraphs long and fits in your screen.. we're not talking about some hard to read microsoft windows/office eula that goes for 50 pages and excuses your right to live, breathe and reproduce.)

      The portion of the usage agreement which making a 'skin' breaks is in the first paragraph (in fact in one way or another making a skin breaks most of the agreement) "This right to use is personal to you and is not transferable by you to another party. The Image cannot be used to promote or sell any product or technology (such as on advertising, brochures, book-covers, stock photos, t-shirts, or other promotional merchandise). You may not alter, or modify the Image, in whole or in part, for any reason." Then a little further down "You, not Apple, are responsible for your use of the Image. Any misuse of the Image or breach of this Agreement will cause Apple irreparable harm. "

      So yeah from the get-get they're pretty serious about how people download and use the images. While I seriously doubt Apple will follow through with the lawsuits to their end, they'll definitely hold onto them long enough to give it adequet press as a warning to others that are looking to do a little self promotion via apple's artwork.

  6. Re:why am I not surprised by Roachgod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last I checked all 3 were doing quite well. Really, Apple doesn't have to worry about anything by doing this. They will piss off a couple 'fanboys' but most of them will keep buying Apple's stuff cause it is cool. And for every fanboy they lose, if they successfully keep their product the 'stylish fashionable gotta have it' product, they win a bunch of trendsetter types. Those people are actually much more valuable. You probably just don't notice cause basically none of them bother with sites like slashdot.