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.
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.
...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!
Why is Apple suing? Isn't the iPhone a Cisco product? Wierd, I'm confused.
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.
I totally agree with you; Apple should be stopped from killing babies and using their blood as ink to write letters threatening to frame people for murder and put them in the chair if they don't stop even mouthing the word "iphone"... bastards.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
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.
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
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
How exactly is copying Apple's trademarked graphics to make an interface that looks almost identical to Apple's in any way creative.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
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."
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").
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 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?
That, sir, depends directly on what they are smoking.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!