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.'"

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.

Stupid to go after bloggers

[doormat]

The ESRB made the same mistake when they went after bloggers who talked about a shirt from some online store that said "Your mom, rated E for Everyone", they eventually issued an appology to the bloggers they harassed. Somehow I doubt Apple would ever say they were sorry to bloggers.

Soft and cuddly on the outside...

[Yaddoshi]

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

Re:Apple first should settle its trademark issue

[Wateshay]

How exactly is copying Apple's trademarked graphics to make an interface that looks almost identical to Apple's in any way creative.

Re:Disingenuous summary

[sheldon]

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.

How'd they get the icons from the iPhone when it hasn't been released yet?

You sure they didn't just make their own icons that looked SIMILAR to what had been seen in the media reports on the iPhone?

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.

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.