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.'"
A couple of days ago Apple said that Cisco suing them over the name iPhone was "silly"...
how do they qualify this?
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.
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
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
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?
If they really want to keep the "cool" look, they should make the iPhone smoke cigarettes... everyone knows smoking makes you cool.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
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.
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."
Totally, teenagers all smoke and they seem pretty on the ball
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").
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.
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.