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.'"

Comments

why am I not surprised

[Roachgod]

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.

Re:why am I not surprised

[wondercool]

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?

Re:why am I not surprised

[x2A]

If they really want to keep the "cool" look, they should make the iPhone smoke cigarettes... everyone knows smoking makes you cool.

Re:why am I not surprised

[Nuskrad]

Totally, teenagers all smoke and they seem pretty on the ball

Re:why am I not surprised

[Roachgod]

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.

It's just a necessary evil in trademark protection

[TigerNut]

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.

Sounds like cheap publicity...

[AKAImBatman]

...for nothing more than the cost of a Cease & Desist.

Nice. (For Apple, that is.)

Disingenuous summary

[drinkypoo]

skins for smartphones that resemble the iPhone

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?

Re:Disingenuous summary

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Disingenuous summary

[blugu64]

Probably from Apple's PR website. They've got *huge* images of the iphone.

http://www.apple.com/pr/products/iphone/iphone.htm l

Cisco is silly

[alewar]

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

Re:Cisco is silly

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Apple suing? Isn't the iPhone a Cisco product? Wierd, I'm confused.

The Bloggers are 'assiting copyright infringement'

[paladinwannabe2]

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...

Linking

[prelelat]

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.

Re:Hah

[x2A]

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.

Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect

[mobby_6kl]

The interface skin is not a trademark. Apple's just behaving like an ass, that is all.

Soft and cuddly on the outside...

[Yaddoshi]

Boy, if Apple and Disney ever teamed up...I'm not sure how to finish that thought.

Hah yourself

[multisync]

"Apple therefore demands that you remove this screenshot from your website and refrain from facilitating the further dissemination of Apple's copyrighted material by removing the link to http://forum.xda-developers.com/ where said icons and screenshot are being distributed."

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.

Their troubles are over.

[Rob T Firefly]

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.

Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect

[idontgno]

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.

Re:Hah

[TheNetAvenger]

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."

Re:Wow, looks like an iPhone, and wow Apple suing?

[TheNetAvenger]

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.

How "cool" is suing?

[Valdrax]

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.

Re:How "cool" is suing?

[drinkypoo]

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."

Once, I would agree with you, and I think I remember making comments like these myself.

Since then, I have realized that the Apple iFanboys don't work that way. No matter how abusive Apple is to the community (witness their pogroms against Apple rumor sites) people keep buying their slick but overpriced equipment. I will probably be among them to buy an iPod simply because no other music player has a dock connector that lets me interface to a car stereo... but I digress. (And I guess I could buy a music keg... Maybe I'll do that instead.)

I have come to the conclusion that suing everyone and their mother is actually a good thing for Apple. The rumor sites haven't given up and gone away, so they still get that kind of free marketing. The lawsuits themselves are marketing for Apple; "So many people want to be us that we have to file a new lawsuit every week." And making it harder to get the look and feel without buying Apple means that so long as they are considered stylish, people will simply keep buying the Apple goods.

The only cure for Apple is to come out with sexier products than they do. Unfortunately most people blow it at this stage (aka 2. ???)

Re:How "cool" is suing?

[catwh0re]

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.

Smoke What??

[mkiwi]

Totally, teenagers all smoke and they seem pretty on the ball

That, sir, depends directly on what they are smoking.

Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect

[mspohr]

Well, the USPTO clearly has Cisco on record as owning the iPhone trademark (Trademark registration number 2293011 uspto.gov) so I don't think there is any confusion about who owns the trademark.

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.

Apple v Microsoft

[WarwickRyan]

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.

Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect

[mspohr]

Word Mark: IPHONE

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606

Sounds like the Apple phone to me... except that Cisco owns the trademark.

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.