Slashdot Log In
Apple Moves Again To Squash Look-Alikes
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Feb 03, 2001 04:43 PM
from the hey-you-can't-do-that! dept.
from the hey-you-can't-do-that! dept.
An unnamed correspondent writes: "Looks like Apple is at it again, according to this ZDNet article Apple is now going after anything that looks like OS X, regardless of having the Apple logos removed. I couldn't care less if Apple releases OS X for Intel, I will not do business with a company that behaves like this. Better be careful, they might sue slashdot for using the OS X-like Apple icon."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Moves Again To Squash Look-Alikes
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 458 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:5)
The long and short of litigation in the USA is the person with the most money wins.
Trade secrets have no protection (Score:3)
That's why 'trade secrets' are trade secrets.
What gets me about this (Score:5)
However, eMachines was a product clearly trying to divert potential iMac purchasers to their eerily-similar product. In short, they used the look, then tried to convince people it was their own look. This is clearly wrong.
Now we come to theme designers. If there is a product involved, it has already been purchased, and certainly not with the OS X look. The OS X skins are free, downloadable, and they all acknowledge Apple's creation of the OS X look, either through the word "Aqua", "OS X", and most (if not all) acknowledge that their themes are adaptions of Apple's Aqua GUI interface in the accompanying readmes. The theme creators are certainly not trying to deceive anyone into thinking they created and/or own the Aqua look. The themes are being created for people who have already downloaded or purchased a themeable GUI, and wish to emulate the Aqua GUI look without having to purchase the necessary hardware and underlying OS. I have little reason to believe Apple will create their own Aqua skins for GNOME, KDE, XMMS, WindowBlinds, etc.
In effect, Apple is trying to leverage their hardware and software sales by defending the UI in any way possible, saying "if you want to have a GUI with anything similar to our look, you also have to buy our hardware and software."
Stardock didn't create the Aqua-like look; a user created it using Stardock's tools, and the company is providing a way for the creator to distribute that theme. Apple has never gone after the individual theme creators, as far as I know; only the entities that allow those themes to be distributed through their websites.
I'm not saying whether this is morally or legally correct; I'm certainly not knowledgeable or wise enough to go that far. However, the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Theme creators aren't trying to pass off their copies as the real thing; they freely acknowledge that someone else created the Aqua look. Apple can try to claim copyright protection on the entire thing, but that might have to include the placement of widgets and icons - "trade dress" can be a tricky thing, and I'd love to see them try to take out the blue-and-white diagonal-striped progress bar *glances at Mozilla progress bar in certain themes*, or bubbly buttons.
Can you say "quagmire"? I knew you could!
These are Apple's graphics, bit for bit. (Score:3)
This is a re-implementation of Aqua on Windows. If I re-implement Apache on Windows, and I don't release the source, Slashdotters would be very interested in whether I used the original Apache source or not. If not, then OK. If I did, though, then I'm a dick, plain and simple. Taking someone else's work and calling it your own is being a dick.
How can anybody reasonably defend this? I clicked on a screenshot that the Stardock company said "walks the line" to see Apple's graphics, bit for bit. How is that "walking the line"? What would be "out of line" in that case
Re:It's not the first time (Score:4)
It would have been nice had that not happened - GEM on the Atari was running in a full 32 bit flat mode. It used to kill me to try to optimize my MS-DOS machine's upper memory block layout to try to get another 10K of ever-so-valuable low memory, then go home to my ST where I had 4 M of memory available to me with no fuss.
In a way, however, Apple hath reaped what they hath sown: by crippling GEM they made it easier for Windows to flourish.
Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:3)
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:4)
So, southern slaveowners who couldn't compete without owning slaves were not morally culpable, it was the fact that it was legal to own slaves that was at fault?
You're probably thinking "well this isn't slavery". Well, when corporations finally own enough of the ideas that we can't have an idea that isn't derivative of a patent or copyright, we will be slaves once again.
Legal != Right. Learn it, live it.
Bryguy
Lawsuits Threaten Industry... (Score:4)
The briefs filed in the case indicate that up to 70% of all computer industry professionals infringed upon CSC's patented "like shit" look and feel. Dr. Evidens cited studies showing that on any average Monday, sixty to seventy percent of all programmers are reported to "look and feel like shit."
The Closed Software Corporation also notes excessive unlicensed use of other patented Look and Feel combinations, top among them "like hell," "awful," and "totally gnarly."
Despite the fact that the CSC lawsuits are some of the largest and most comprehensive in the history of the computer industry, Evidens speaks of widening the scope of the litigation. "You see," he said at a press conference recently, "these violations are not limited to the information industry. I regularly see individuals in the banking industry, insurance, government, and yes, even the media, in unlicensed use of various patents that we hold." When asked about his goals in filing further lawsuits, Evidens merely smiled, and offered a flash demonstration of two of the more recent CSC patents, "filthy rich," and "powerful."
Industry analysts are watching Dr. Evidens and his lawyers closely, (and, according to Evidens, are coming arbitrarily close to violating another patent, the "nervous" look and feel) to see the results of this case, and to find how it will affect future developments.
Originally posted to rec.humor.funny by goldstein@arecibo.aero.org (SAMUEL GOLDSTEIN)
Suing (Score:3)
Apple: always innovating...
---
Surprise... Slashdot title is misleading... (Score:3)
Stardock
was the company under fire. No one else.
What does stardock make? Windowblinds, a windows GUI replacement tool. And what is Aqua? a GUI. So this is not apple "coming down on anyone using the aqua likeness." Far from it. If one were to investigate, they'd see that apple is protecting their GUI from knock-off GUIs from the competition.
Apple is surprisingly good about this kind of thing IMHO. Previously, not themes were removed from themes.org or anywhere else if they did not actually use the string "aqua" in their names. (To this day there is a mac OS 9 appearance manager theme called "Liquid.") Apple lets all the TV and toaster and hair-dryer makers use the iMac style for their products, as long as they are not selling computers, which would be direct competition stealing brand value. So, it would logically follow that apple would try and stop OS GUI makers from copying a copyrighted OS GUI. That sounds like a pretty valid use of copyright... that is, if they are violating fair use. Considering that Stardock sells WindowBlinds for money, this should be cut and dry logic.
Phonics.
What is WRONG with this EXAMPLE? (Score:5)
Likewise, if you sell software in an OSX box that isnt OSX then by all means Apple should go after you. They have a duty to their customers to ensure that when someone buys something that they think is OSX they get OSX. But in this case, they are taking something that everyone knows isn't osx and making it "taste" like osx.
Re:Apples and oranges (Score:3)
Agreed a hundred percent, and when Apple went through themes.org a few months back and removed the obvious clones, most of Slashdot supported them in their Action.
But this isn't fake Apple logos, exact lines. basically, its anything which looks like a gel-capped widget.
I wonder if someone did gell capped widgets in another color (green or orange) whether Apple would sue...
Apple will not sue /. (Score:3)
Actually, it is likely that apple will not sue slashdot for using the logo. If you look very closely, you can see a little copyright symbol at the lower right corner. Apple would have no grounds for suing slashdot, so there is no possible way for them to hold up a case...
Now I feel like a complete dick for flaming a guy's innocent joke. Oh well, such is Slashdot.
47.5% Slashdot Pure(52.5% Corrupt)
Learn the facts (Score:5)
Second, Apple lost their suit against Microsoft because Apple had licensed some GUI elements to Microsoft, and the court felt that this was enough to justify the wholesale rip-off of the Mac GUI by MS.
Third, there are at least two forms of intellectual property protection for design: design patents, and trade dress. While I'm not sure about design patents, I believe that with trade dress you are required to enforce the IP or risk losing it.
Fourth, Apple puts significant effort into GUI research and development. Read the Apple Human Interface Guidelines [apple.com] if you want an idea of how seriously they take the matter. To rip them off of all their hard, expensive work against their will is just plain wrong.
The GUI constitutes a large part of Apple's advantage over their competitors, open source or otherwise. Yes, they are competing against GNOME and KDE--since OS X is Unix, they're now in the same game as Linux, BSD, etc. If RedHat could just ship RH X with an Aqua-like theme, it would hurt Apple's sales.
IMHO, GUI design is the one area where open source hasn't come close to commercial software, and possibly never will. Good GUI design is vastly different than other forms of programming, and cannot be broken down into the kind of distributed, modular development model that open source uses. Even the best open source GUIs out there are really just imitations of the Mac OS and Windows, with some pretty skinning features. When will open source developers get it that GUIs are more than just shiny buttons and widgets? Consistency is incredibly important, but it's not to be found between GNOME apps, for instance.
I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. Somebody, please make an open source GUI that is genuinely revolutionary. Don't just copy Windows. Oh, and please don't make yet another web browser...
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:3)
You are joking, right? Early car manufacturers were keenly aware of patents and used them as a regular part of their business. The Selden patent was THE most famous patent infringement trial.
A major reason the Henry Ford was able to get venture capital was that he had a strong patent portfolio - including a basic patent on the transmission.
Another famous case was the breaking of Otto's patents on the Otto cycle engine based on some prior art. This allowed Damlier to go into business.
Patents had a major affect on the early automotive industry.
Re:--double sigh-- (Score:3)
[computerlaw.com]
http://www.computerlaw.com/lookfeel.html
Jonesing for a +4 Informative...
Nice troll...not (Score:3)
If you mean GUI in general, don't make me haul out the Xerox PARC references. If you mean the current GUI, Apple only owns it because they bought the people who designed the basis for it, a little Steve Jobs operation called NeXT...
As well, look and feel is not protected - witness Apple's failed lawsuit against Microsoft many years ago. Also witness how Microsoft hasn't chased down Red Hat for their AnotherLevel look-alike, the qvwm team for completely porting the Win95 look, etc...
Did Anybody Read the Whole Story? (Score:3)
Wardell emphasized that Apple has rights in this matter and that it has not been unprofessional in its approach or dealings with Stardock.
"Every time a company tries to enforce their rights, they are always made out to be bad guys," he said. "The fact is Apple is trying to innovate, and if you take away their incentive to innovate, it hurts everybody. I think it's good to see Apple, within limits, protect their rights."
"We very strongly believe Apple has rights to protect its intellectual property up until they infringe on the rights of others," Wardell said. "We need to make sure we protect the rights of the 'skinny' community, too."
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
It's not the first time (Score:4)
Re:--sigh-- (Score:4)
That's not "look and feel"; that's copyright because you have actually used his HTML. The case with Apple would be more like you borrowing his color scheme.
Apple pioneered the GUI
No, they didn't. The good folks at XEROX PARC pioneered the GUI.
That is why we have law's to prevent this.
We don't have any laws concerning "look and feel." We have laws for Copyright, Patent, and Trademark protection. "Look and feel" doesn't fall under any of these unless you trademark every element of the way a GUI looks (colors, arrangement of pixels, etc).
You open-source zealots can be raving lunatics sometimes. Not everything is free for the taking.
You mean like color schemes?
Apples and oranges (Score:5)
It's another thing to blatantly use the same thin lines that adorn all the windows (and the case of the iMac). Copy the Bondi blue exactly by looking up its Pantone color. Placing an apple in the exact same areas of the screen, with the piece cut out, just like the logo.
OS X is not totally open source, folks. The underlying system is, by the GUI is entirely Apple (And rightfully so. If they didn't own the GUI they would own none of OS X, and wouldn't be able to make a profit on it [*cough* Redhat trying to make money off free products *cough*]).
If you're going to tweak your KDE 2 theme to have translucent windows (if this is at all possible) be my guest. If you want to put a blue Apple logo on your menu bar, consider yourself screwed.
What is WRONG with this? (Score:5)
Go out there and try selling a soft drink in a wasp waisted bottle shpae and see how long you last before Coca-Cola is serving you papers.
Slashdot seems to be the center of the rip-off universe. It seems to be the prevailing opinion that it's just fine to go out and rip off copies of ANYTHING that people have worked hard to create in order to earn a living. You folks really should GROW UP.
Re:That's why I like MS (Score:3)
That would take some serious balls. So much of the Windows 95-2000 UI (for example, the window control widgets) is taken directly from Apple/NeXT, that if Microsoft went after anybody, the rewards would actually belong to Apple. PARC looks practically nothing like Mac OS 9, but Windows 9x looks a hell of a lot like a NeXT/Mac hyrbrid.
Apple on the other hand just seem to look for an excuse to sue anyone.
Umm, Apple hasn't sued practically anyone in recent history. It sued eMachines and Daewoo because they were clearly trying to play off of the iMac's success by copying the industrial design. Microsoft doesn't really have any equivalent to the iMac fiasco. And furthermore, Microsoft doesn't need to sue anyone, it already owns everything, and it knows people will have to buy their products regardless.
Bottom line: if there's room for a consumer to be confused (remember, some think the CD drive is a coffee cup holder), then Apple has a case. This probably goes for Aqua as well.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
It's Not So Simple.... (Score:5)
The Supreme Court has defined trade dress as the "'total image and overall appearance'" of a good, further specifying that it "'may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even particular sales techniques.'" Furthermore, evaluation of trade dress infringement claims requires the court to focus on the plaintiff's entire selling image, rather than the narrower single facet of trademark.
The part that I'm concerned about, the selling image, is why I believe Apple has the right to go after these people. True, they are not losing customers to this, but what happens, I believe is an overall dilution of their product. People are buying the cube not necessarily because it's the latest Mac, but because it's a CUBE. I know tons of PC users who want it, and they want it solely for the design of it. Now imagine if three other companies release cube shaped computers. How special will Apple's be? How much R&D will go to waste because you can pick one up anywhere? The same thing goes for the Aqua look. True, there's a whole lot more to OSX than Aqua, but at the same time, its just another aspect of it, and if every operating system looks like it, then its not so special. Aqua's look is Apple's property, and it will hurt sales to have everything start look like it.
Re:That old chant seems appropriate.. (Score:4)
It seems to me that it is crystal clear that Apple is doing the innovating here.
Re:--sigh-- (Score:4)
WRONG. Ever hear of a design patent?
Take a look at:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/genera
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:5)
WRONG. If you do not enforce a patent, and allow an industry to build up around it, THEN try to enforce the patent you will get laughed out of court. The perfect example of this are the Xerox GUI patents - in 1989 Xerox brought suit against Apple for infringing them - and got tossed out on their ass because they had waited too long.