Slashdot Mirror
iMac Clone Gets Sued
Jareth writes "Remember the iMac PC made by Future Power? Apparently Apple didn't like the idea of someone making money off of their design, so they are suing for damages. The story is over at Wired. "
Well, they can't win a case based upon "look & feel", but it'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Luckily, whoever invented the beige case isn't suing every computer manufacturer ever.
The reason Apple didnt win against the Microsoft case wasn't because of "look and feel" but a loophole in a contract wich let Microsoft off the hook.
> there's no such thing as a fuel injected bug
:)
Yes there is. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S., from 75 to 79 the bug had fuel injection.
Unless you meant to say that it didn't work well
And I have a fuller post elsewhere about the trademark issues.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer who is.
This isn't about patent, and it isn't about copyright. Forget about those, neither apply.
It's about trademark, and particularly, "trade dress," the appearance of the product.
Apple does *not* need to have filed any paperwork to have this protection, at least not in Common Law countries (generally, those that speak english and otherwise inherited the british legal system). *Use* of a trademark establishes it in the markets in which it is used. The filing of a trademark simply gives notice to areas where it is not used, and prevents anyone else from acquiring a trademark after filing.
The appearance of the iMac is distinctive. It qualifies for this protection, just as the Coca-Cola bottle (as has been noted elsewhere).
This does *not* mean that other companies cannot have translucent cases, or egg-shaped cases, etc. But if the thing looks exactly like an iMac, it's violating apple trademarks. If it vaguely resembles it so that it only reminds the viewer of an iMac, it's likely to be O.K. Somewhere in between is a cutoff point where it's too similar, and is likely to be mistaken for the other, imply a relation, or dilute the value of the trademark.
There's also a few links and comments in roger_ford 's comments, which deserves another couple of moderation kicks.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer who is.
This isn't about patent, and it isn't about copyright. Forget about those, neither apply.
It's about trademark, and particularly, "trade dress," the appearance of the product.
Apple does *not* need to have filed any paperwork to have this protection, at least not in Common Law countries (generally, those that speak english and otherwise inherited the british legal system). *Use* of a trademark establishes it in the markets in which it is used. The filing of a trademark simply gives notice to areas where it is not used, and prevents anyone else from acquiring a trademark after filing.
The appearance of the iMac is distinctive. It qualifies for this protection, just as the Coca-Cola bottle (as has been noted elsewhere).
This does *not* mean that other companies cannot have translucent cases, or egg-shaped cases, etc. But if the thing looks exactly like an iMac, it's violating apple trademarks. If it vaguely resembles it so that it only reminds the viewer of an iMac, it's likely to be O.K. Somewhere in between is a cutoff point where it's too similar, and is likely to be mistaken for the other, imply a relation, or dilute the value of the trademark.
There's also a few links and comments in roger_ford 's comments, which deserves another couple of moderation kicks.
hawk, esq.
http://www.futurepowerusa.com/i mages/epower_big.jpg
I think Apple can win this one. I'm pretty certain they trademarked that case design (something which is perfectly within their rights; Coca-Cola did it with the classic "Coke bottle" we all know and love). In this case, both companies have violated that trademark pretty badly; have you seen pictures of these things? Exact knock-offs, right down to the little ridges on the top of the case (no Apple logos of course). They're even offering them in the same colors, though they're naming them after gemstones instead of flavors.
I applaud Apple for this one. This isn't software, and it certainly isn't look-and-feel. It's a company trying to make money off of Apple's success with the iMac by making an inferior copy. Sorta like Windows only even more obvious.
I wonder where the line can be drawn when it comes to copyright infringement. I'm on Apple's side on this one... that new PC is a blatant rip-off of a currently unique product and Future Power shouldn't be allowed to sell something that's almost an exact cosmetic duplicate of the iMac.
But I probably would not feel the same way in a year or two if Apple ever decided to levy a similar lawsuit after more PC manufacturers had deviated from the standard "beige" PC cases and come out with unique designs of their own, some of which would undoubtedly incorporate a few elements of the iMac without copying the appearance verbatim.
So where do you draw the line? How long can a product be considered unique until some of the product's features become common across the industry?
Mike
I just remembered that it was one of Sid and Marty Krofft's characters (Mayor Pufnstuf) which McDonalds copied. These two were also the designers of the "Banana Splits" and "Sigmund and the Sea Monsters" and, of course, "H.R. Pufnstuf".
Um...
You *can* win on a look-and-feel basis, if you're talking about the look-and-feel of something material, and you've got a design patent for it. That's sorta what design patents are *for*.
Does Apple have a design patent on the iMac?
Actually, old IBM Selectric typewriters came in a wide variety of interesting colors like dark blue, dark red, and dark black. (None of these fruity iMac colors!). These sold pretty well, so perhaps there's a pent up demand for non-beige.
On the other hand, I got a free IBM monitor and keyboard because they were black and someone thought they clashed.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
In the case of Microsoft and Apple several years ago, Apple lost not because of "look and feel issues" but because then-CEO John Sculley signed a deal with MS saying that MS was allowed to copy certain features of the Mac's GUI in exchange for something or other (I forgot the details). The Apple legal team was unaware of this document and went ahead with the lawsuit against MS. It was because of this document that they lost, and not because of "look and feel" issues.
According to law, a company can sue if the look of the original "communicates an idea" and if the defendant's product attempts to confuse the brand identity of this "idea." In other words, having an egg-shaped case with a white front, translucent colored back and white bottom half makes you think "It's an iMac." If the E-Power's plastics cause brand confusion, then Apple might have a case. Gucci won a similar lawsuit against a company that was putting a big golden "G" on the faces of its watches (which I'm assuming only Gucci did). Their argument was that the imitators were causing brand confusion by imitating the Gucci "G," which had become a brand identifier. Apple might have a case itself this time.
What I'm wondering about is the translucent blue 4-port hub (not making this up). Who is this supposed to appeal to? The average consumer doesn't know what a hub is. Most people who do aren't going to be impressed by the translucent nature.
Why is it that all PC companies can do is copy Apple? Why can't they come out with their own innovative designs and add something to the progress of the industry? This sort of blatant rip off is absurd. They can't even come up with their own color for crissakes.
Seriously, this is a slam dunk for Apple. You cannot just go around copying designs for consumer products like this - they are protected by both patent and trademark laws out the wazzoo. What these guys are doing is equivalent to releasing a cola drink in a coke bottle shaped clone and calling it Cokee-Coola. Can you imagine how quickly Coca-Cola Inc. would be on their case?
If this flies I am going out and start my own web site, and call it Slashdit, complete with exact copies of the page layout, news stories and everything.
Do you think Mercedes-Benz would sue Ford if they developed a sports car that looked exactly like the Mercedes-Benz SLK? Of course they would.
If you read the article, Future Powers claims the egg design has "the most natural design to ensure the smallest footprint." This is not true at all. Gateway's Profile XL is flat-panel system that has a smaller footprint than the iMac and I am sure that other OEM have similiar flat-panel system as well.
Not only will Future Powers machine have the iMac design, it will be sold in FIVE different colors, exactly the same FIVE colors as the iMac.
I wonder if Future Powers machine has a round mouse too?
Here's an article with a side-by-side photograph of the machines.
#####
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
My university had quite a few of those. Not unusual in itself, until you consider that I graduated last year. Those terminals are probably still in use. Cutting-edge technology or what? :-) What "computer science budget"?
Just out of interest: I often see "Apple II" written "Apple ][" or (less frequently) "Apple //". "Apple ][" seems to be much more common than "Apple II". Why is this? Who started it?
Give Apple a break, eh? This sort of lawsuit is fairly common, more than likely the angle they'll take invovles trademark dilution. Like if Pepsi decided to give their bottle curves just like Coke's.
The fact is, Apple has [again] made a name for themselves; for many people, solely based on the iMac. It's unfair (and probably illegal) for someone else to make some $ off Apple's hard work, marketing, and perseverence.
There are probably an infinite number of possible case designs, and thus an infinite number cooler and better than the iMac -- I guess it's just easier to copy Apple's and wait until their next case to make a new 'breakthrough'.
Look at it! Why would anyone put the numeric keypad on the LEFT side of the keyboard?!
/* Yes, I know it's a reversed photo. I'm just being silly. */
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I noticed that you mention using ProTools on MacOS, but that you use BeOS. Is there something that compares to ProTools available for BeOS?
:)
I'm not really interested in the usual "make your home computer an entertainment center" software. I need something that does real multitrack recording/mixing/editing. Think ProTools, Sound Forge, or Emagic Logic -- stuff you would find in a studio.
Ideally, it would also work with a digital-only soundcard. Soundblasters just don't cut it.
This is not any sort of troll. I would get REAL interested in BeOS if something like that was available. Thanks.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
IANAL, but....s html --- also --- http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/28/1817216.shtm l --- also --- http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/16/106241.shtml ). This is something that happens all the time, this is not Apple being lunatics or monopolists. It would be really nice if it didn't happen, but it's one of those quirks of US law and corporate america. It'd also be nice if people tried using an OS or a hardware setup before either raving about how great/terrible it is. I work with Macs, PC (NT,9x, and a variety of linuxes) every day. All of them have strong points, and all of them have weak points. Being a little more objective never hurt anyone.
Read the article cited previously by Xenu. (http://www.fryberger.com/colors.html) If J. Average Consumer were to look at the PC, would they say that it was a brand new PC, or would they say "oh, it's one of them iMacs, gosh aren't they great/awful/cute/ugly?" Seems to me like there is precedent for this sort of thing, whether or not one likes Apple. There is a similay situation with not only the hourglass - shaped coke bottles, but also the word "coke." The Coca Cola company (among others) is very protective of the work Coke. They go as far as to hire people to go to restraunts and ask for "coke," then take samples of the beverage they are served. If it is in fact Coca Cola, fine. If it is Pepsi or some generic cola, they will go as far as taking the beverage serving establishment to court. They do this because there is a long standing precedent for protected trade names being allowed to keep their protection, and undefended trade names that get accepted as the common name for any item of the same type (eg, xerox rather than any old copier, kleenex rather than generic tissue, coke rather than generic cola beverage) can no longer be protected trade names. Has anyone else seen the latest batch of TV ads for Band-Aid brand bandages? That's exactly how they refer to them in the ad for the very same reason. Apple is merely doing the same thing with the visual cues of the iMac. After all, Intel came out with a whole slew of non-beige, non-cubic cases, and Apple doesn't care. Ditto several other companies dicussed here (http://slashdot.org/articles/99/01/30/1240206_F.
itachi
It does look like a cheap knock-off of the IMac. I wonder if intellectual property or even copywrite extends to the look and feel of a product. Most of the time anyone comes out with a new product, all th ecompetitors start copying the product and even the design. I guess that we shall have to wait and see.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Can you imagine if some car manufacturer came out with a car that looked just like a VW Beetle? Obviously, VW would sue the pants off the company and everyone would think nothing of that.
Why the heck would it be any different for the industrial design of a computer?
I think becasue the notion of actually spending big R&D on having a unique industrial design to a computer is still so new, that a lot of people don't grasp it. To anyone seeing a VW Beetle knock-off, it would be so blatently obvious. To most people with any common sense, one look at the e-power machine and you know its a blatent rip-off of Apple's design.
Comparing this law suit to Apple's old lawsuit against Microsoft doesn't hold any water. Apple had previously signed an agreement with Microsoft that they COULD use a lot of Apple's technology. If you know the history, you know that to many it was considered one their biggest blunders. [As you probably know too, MS just recently "invested" in Apple which was more a resolution in patent disputes among other things to the tune of 150 million dollars].
Apple can win this lawsuit despite losing to Microsoft, for one basic reason: the two lawsuits are based on entirely different legal reasoning.
u rs.html
Apple lost the Microsoft suit because they had signed a contract saying that Microsoft could use some of the features of the Mac OS in a Windows product. They have of course not signed any such document with Future Power.
There are two legal tactics Apple could use, according to computer and intellectual property law specialist Curtis E. Karnow. The first is "trade dress," which covers the distinctive appearance of a product and its association with a certain company in the minds of consumers. The classic example of this is the distinctive appearance of the Coca Cola bottle. Trade dress is very difficult to prove, however, since you have to prove that consumers could be confused.
The other tactic Apple could take is dilution of trademark. From MacWeek:
" `Apple could charge Future Power with trademark dilution, which is much easier to prove than trade dress,' Karnow said. Proof of trademark dilution requires no substantive documentation of any confusion customers might experience when they see a product that looks much like the iMac."
Apple certainly has the iMac designs trademarked (and probably has design patents too), so this would be a relatively easy case to win.
For more information, see:
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/06/27/epower.html
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/06/27/imacaliketh
-Roger Ford
remove NOSPAM from email to reply