Slashdot Log In
Apple Sues Over iPhone Smartphone Skins
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:37 PM
from the don't-talk-about-that-thing-we-don't-like dept.
from the don't-talk-about-that-thing-we-don't-like dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
why am I not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Smoke What?? (Score:4, Funny)
That, sir, depends directly on what they are smoking.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh... I've heard of [zdnet.com] one [zdnet.com] too [wowt.com] many [foxnews.com] cell [consumeraffairs.com] phones [nbc11.com] smoking [mms.gov]. I don't want to see another one....
:-)
Re: (Score:2)
How "cool" is suing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:How "cool" is suing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using the Series 60 v3 browser [nokia.com] for quite a while now, which (ironically enough) is based on Safari. Furthermore, one can get a J2ME [opera.com] (which is available in almost every cell phone nowadays... but not the iPhone) version of Opera for free. Whether the iPhone will be as revolutionary as it is hyped to be remains to be seen, but "implementation of a real web browser" is hardly the first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
It's just a necessary evil in trademark protection (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Sounds like cheap publicity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice. (For Apple, that is.)
Disingenuous summary (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Parent
Re:Disingenuous summary (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/pr/products/iphone/iphone.ht
Parent
Cisco is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
how do they qualify this?
Re:Cisco is silly (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
I'm not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
fair warning (Score:2)
During the keynote, Steve was talking about how vigorously they were protecting the phone. Patents in particular numbered in the many dozens, but you know by extension that they're gonna be protective of everything related to the dang thing.
Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
The Bloggers are 'assiting copyright infringement' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
From the article, it seems Apple did not sue any bloggers. They sent takedown notices to bloggers who were directly violating their copyrights and who were contributing to copyright infringement by linking directly to information on how to break Apple's copyrights. Both of th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 whe
Linking (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Stupid to go after bloggers (Score:3, Interesting)
Soft and cuddly on the outside... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally... (Score:2)
Their troubles are over. (Score:4, Funny)
5 years ahead on technology (Score:2)
Man, no other companies are ever going to be able to catch up after Apple's done owning the market for over a century with this skin-based monopoly. Boy do I wish I had some of their stock.
Note to Apple Lawyers: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politely fuck the hell off.
- Sleazy P. Martini
- GWAR and Assc.
Apple v Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Blog Apple, get a free lawsuit.
Hah yourself (Score:4, Informative)
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 [salon.com] to something can get you in to legal troubles these days.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hah (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Parent
Re:Hah (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The level of creativity involved in directly copying Apple's icons and widgets is significant. The type of person who would do this needs to be protected from big corporations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how that means Apple is stifling creativity. If anything the skinners are the ones who are stifling creativity by stealing someone else's designs and undermining the value of the (no doubt expensive) work done by Apple.
Re:Wow, looks like an iPhone, and wow Apple suing? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent