Apple Moves Again To Squash Look-Alikes 458
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."
Re:Windows! (Score:2)
I ask you, what about iDVD? What about Altivec code?
Ummm, what about it?
What about making Unix plug and play?
Hmmm, seemed like my RedHat 6.0 did a fair amount of that on boot. FreeBSD 4.2 was pretty darn good at picking up all my devices as well.
Hell, even making Unix so that you can install it on a machine with literally four clicks of a mouse button is pretty impressive. The last time I had to install IRIX, I was at it for hours.
How many clicks is it for a default RedHat install anyway? I can do a FreeBSD install with a couple of down arrows and the enter key a couple of times. Seems like most Unix systems these days don't have the problems of Irix.
What about iMovie?
Umm, what about it. You're talking about this as though nobody in the history of software prior to Apple ever wrote video editing applications. Next...
What about Firewire?
Now this might have been a really great thing. Even Intel and Microsoft were behind it big time, until they got the word from Apple about the high licensing fees. This prompted Intel to drop support and pay out big bucks for their own R&D, and for MS to just drop out entirely. Yet again, another good idea down the arrogance shooter.
BTW, I know Apple finally loosened the licensing situation quite a bit. The damage was done, the world moved on, and once again Apple is left with a technology that only they will support. This will insure the prices stay stupid high.
Theres quite a bit of technology just in those products listed there man.
Yup, there sure is. You can even give credit to Apple for some of it... even some they didn't goof up on the biz side. On the flip side, care to rattle off some of the Microsoft product line, and the wide variety of things they've got going? Hey now, MS Bob doesn't count!
Re:What's wrong with that? (Score:2)
Funny, one of the default KDE themes is Win98 and I haven't heard about Microsoft suing anyone over this.
Woops, forgot my zealot pills. Everything Apple good, everything MS bad. Ahhh, it's all coming into focus now. Goooo Steve!
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
Prior art nullifying the patent. At least that's the concept of how to fight it. Nothing at all to do with whether or not they tried to enforce infringement.
Re:Apple is worse than Microsoft. (Score:2)
Not quite. You see, the one HUGE difference in what Microsoft did was to actually bring a lot of these concepts and ideas together for everyone. Not just the folks that could afford a $2,000 Mac, or those that worked with way over priced versions of Unix. Unlike all that came before them, MS actually put together something that the majority of end users could actually use and afford.
Their marketing department isn't that good. There's a reason why 90% of the desktops running or doing so on Windows. You can run McDonalds analogies against this all you like, that's just the way it is.
Wow. Do you REALLY believe this? (Score:2)
Be missed the boat. Its got nothing to do with quality (how else do you explain the very existence of M$) but its got plenty to do with marketing and being in the right place at the right time.
Be missed by "that" much but they missed. They have as much future as the NeXT cube.
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.
Re:Nice troll...not (Score:2)
You actually would select the disc or drive and choose File > Put Away.
Again, this wouldn't have had any bearing on reality to me. I didn't want to "Put Away" the CD, I wanted the freaking drawer to EJECT! Ya know, like every cassette player has done since the 70's. Like Windows shows when you right-click (that's for them mice things with more than one orthopedic button) on it. You may have seen something very similar to context sensitive menus as Apple added this into OS 8.5 to mimic Win95.
Macs also haven't had printer ports for years. What you're talking about is an easy networking system that used the printer port before Ethernet was cheap enough. There is no equivalent generic PC system to compare it to. These days, and for the last three plus years at least, every Mac sold has Ethernet, and many have gigabit Ethernet.
I know what the term Printer port means, and the G3 desktops still have them. Whether the port is there or not, Appletalk STILL reverts to it whenever it finds itself unable to flood the LAN it's connected to with broadcasts. I also know that this isn't just a point of confusion with this here Windows user, as I have needed to point this out to Mac users who couldn't figure out why they couldn't get their network going again.
Apple invented overlapping windows, pull-down menus, pop-up menus, drag and drop, double-clicking, resizable windows, and more.
And outside the halls of Apple stuff like maximizing, minimizing, task bars, resizing from multiple points on a window, actively changable drag and drop menus (Win98's start menu for example), web browsers, file managers, and thousands of other things that Apple had nothing to do with while the zealots point at everything that moves and scream how Apple invented them. I'm not opposed to giving credit where it's due, but I won't budge an inch of revisionist silliness of the "one true faith".
Macs haven't had floppy drives for years
Oh boy, this one I sure know. Although the G3 series still had them, the newer boxes dropped them. This caused me all kinds of fun as I needed to perform a Quark Express install on a laptop without said floppy. Quark uses a floppy diskette as part of it's install. So I ended up spending $90 for a freaking floppy drive! Yeah, $90 was as cheap as I could find one on short notice. Oh, but I'm sure the quality of that drive far exceeded the $15 one they were selling for PC's.
tell me why AVI is now an "unsupported format" over at Microsoft?
First off, AVI files still play just fine with MS Media Player. Secondly, it's compression sucks compared to ASF or MPG, so why bother with it? For that matter, why do we continue to bother with the still overly bloated Quicktime?
You'll probably find that most of the bad things that you've heard are untrue or taken out of context.
It's very difficult to take personal experience out of context. These aren't things I've "heard", but rather what I've had to deal with in supporting these unstable as hell machines. At most I've seen the few that I still support run for about 6 months before requiring yet another full system install. Hell, I've still got Win95 boxes going on PC's I cobbled together from spare parts over 3 years ago. Can't exactly cobble together parts for a Mac now can ya? Jobs made damn sure of that.
The people who are running Apple right now really, really know what they are doing.
Yeah, they're spending more money for less of a computer that runs about 1/3 the software and only a tiny fraction of the available hardware. What hardware there is out there is damn near always more expensive, much like my floppy story. Sorry, can't write me off as just someone who "hasn't seen the visions of truth" because I've been to the alter, and wasn't impressed.
Re:Disks... (Score:2)
It wasn't until I got to reading folks talking about Windows in public forums that it even occurred to me how silly this was. I have to admit, it is an oxymoron and all. Thing is, I never for a moment had a problem with figuring out how to shut down a Win95 box. I certainly had other things to learn when I first started using it, but once I saw the Start menu for the first time I simply acknowledged that was where the bulk of the system activities were going to take place. Also, ya kinda have to be blind to miss the whole "Shut Down" thing when you go into use the Start menu for other stuff.
Re:Apple is worse than Microsoft. (Score:2)
Of course I think inertia had something to do with it. Inertia had a LOT to do with it. Unlike many of their competitors at that time, Microsoft managed to ride that inertia away from over priced OEM hardware solutions. They were simply the first to fully recognize the importance of both supporting the old stuff while building a structure in which any component manufacturer could play.
Along these lines, Compaq deserves equal or higher billing for this very same understanding of what the future of the computer market would become. Well, here we are in the future, and it turns out that folks like Compaq and Microsoft were right. All the while, Apple is still based on the notion of a closed architecture.
Apple once asked the world to think different. The world has, and that different kinda thinking has lead us to a world in which thousands of companies can compete, succeed, and fail to provide the components that make a computer. Thank whatever god you pray to that the likes of Apple and IBM lost big time to those funky upstarts over at Microsoft and Compaq. Otherwise, our computer experiences would still be getting dictated to us by those that truly controlled all aspects of the platforms we use.
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
I think you are missing the point of IP law. Patents and copyrights give the author the ability to share their ideas in return for legal protection for exclusivity for a limited period of time. A patent is a contract between you and the government where you disclose the idea in return for a right of exclusivity. What you described, keeping an idea secret, was the state of affairs before the idea of patents took hold.
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
What is an IP right anyway but a right to sue an infringer? If you don't take action against the infringer, you have effectively lost any value of your IP vis-a-vis that infringer.
Once you have one organization that has the right to make a copy free of encumberance you might as well pack it in, for you have no control over how many copies they make. In effect you HAVE lost your copyright.
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
-jon
Re:Quit Whining (Score:2)
Except they can't. They sued in the past over "look and feel" and lost. The courts have ruled that trade dress is not something that deserves protection. This is just bullying on Apple's part, and it's working.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Applies to Other Stuff? (Score:2)
but in western music, we only have 12 tones to choose from, so some repetition is inevitable.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:Nice troll...not (Score:2)
> network share into the trash to unmount them.
That's why this is only a shortcut, for convenience. You actually would select the disc or drive and choose File > Put Away.
> Need Mr. Paperclip to get my floppy out ya know.
Macs haven't had floppy drives for years, and right now, as of this second, something like 80% of Windows users don't have protected memory either (any DOS version). If you compare how a Mac and a Windows box use removable media, I think you will find the Mac superior, especially if you have a Unix background.
> it reverts all your networking connections to the
> PRINTER port. No, it doesn't tell you that it did that.
Macs also haven't had printer ports for years. What you're talking about is an easy networking system that used the printer port before Ethernet was cheap enough. There is no equivalent generic PC system to compare it to. These days, and for the last three plus years at least, every Mac sold has Ethernet, and many have gigabit Ethernet.
> Yes, Win95 borrows graphical elements from the
> Mac, and several other GUI platforms. So? Pretty
> much every GUI following Parc has done the same.
Apple invented overlapping windows, pull-down menus, pop-up menus, drag and drop, double-clicking, resizable windows, and more. Most of the common GUI elements you interact with each day were invented by Apple engineers and just plain copied by everyone else. You probably wouldn't recognize the Xerox GUI as even being a GUI
> and MS won't be interested in bailing them out
> a second time.
The incident you refer to only happened three years ago or so
You know, you might think I'm an Apple fanatic who is ignorant of other computer platforms, but I'm not. I bought my first Mac in early 1999 after using Windows for almost 10 years, since 3.0 first came out. I regret every minute I used Windows, now
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:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
2. As many people have mentioned, if you don't defend a trademark, you lose protection for that trademark. That's why Disney runs around suing preschools that have Mickey Mouse on the wall. It's not that they hate pre-schools or enjoy the ill will, it's that if they don't, any one can make use of Mickey. That's the way the law works. I take it you can see the analogy with Apple.
-jon
Re:Why the heated debate? (Score:2)
I haven't seen them myself. If Apple wants to sue, that's their right. Then it's for the courts to decide if they are similar enough to infringe.
-jon
What's good for the goose... (Score:2)
Re:artificial scarcity? (Score:2)
There are (and in an ip-free world there would continue to be) scarcities in other areas as you describe.
It is the EXTRA scarcity created by copy restrictions to which Gilmore was referring.
If you're good, the market will value your services even if others are allowed to copy your work.
Bryguy
Re:Why the heated debate? (Score:2)
The reason for the heated arguments are simple. There's a loony fringe which doesn't respect other people's property and complains mightily when people try to protect what's theirs. Unfortunately, members of this loony fringe get to have their stories posted on /. with their asinine spin on them intact.
I bet that if Microsoft or Apple published a product called Linux, complete with a cute little penguin, they'd be singing a totally different tune.
-jon
Go ahead, mod me down. You're still an idiot.
graphics are copywrited (Score:2)
i don't see why it's any different in user interfaces. the interface is artwork, it's drawn by artists. some people come along and completely rip off that artwork and the artist's company sues. would you think any differently if some guy was going around painting exact replicas of artist's artwork and selling them?
the fact of the matter is that Apple's graphics are copyrighted, and only Apple should be allowed to use them, end of story. i side with Apple on this one.
- j
Re:graphics are copyrighted (Score:2)
Re:--sigh-- (Score:2)
if you are so into socialism (Score:2)
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
Where would our car industry be today if that were the case?
The patent system was created because inventors would come up with brilliant things--and then take them to the grave, rather than tell the secret and get ripped off. Part of the deal with a patent is that you have to tell the secret, and everybody can use it soon enough.
Re: Jobs-aphrenic (Score:2)
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.
Use Satire (Score:2)
You should make it look like a satire. It will then be protected by the First Amendment (I assume you're American; if you're not, check your local law, but most democratic countries protect satire).
although it isn't OSX, it does incorporate an Apple logo so I'd be interested to see how this develops.
Bad. Vulnerable to trademark infringement suit (IANAL). But if you change the logo in some funny fashion while leaving evident where it was spoofed from, you should be in the clear. Heck, it worked for Larry Flynt, didn't it?
Re:The real truth of the matter is... (Score:2)
-Toad
--
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
Re:Applies to Other Stuff? (Score:2)
Re: Jobs-aphrenic (Score:2)
No, you're not. Mac OS X is far more than BSD with a skin. BSD doesn't have the Cocoa APIs, the PDF-based graphics engine, NetInfo, Bundles, or any of the many other things that Mac OS X interesting.
Apple has far more to offer than just slick design. The problem is that the clueless think if two things look the same, they are the same. This means that people will use Windows or Linux or whatever with an Aqua skin, and they'll think what they've got is just as good as OS X, when the reality is very different.
In other words, Apple needs to protect design so rabidly because so many people can't see past it.
--
Re: Jobs-aphrenic (Score:2)
--
Re:skinable? (Score:2)
I forget exactly where the skin site is for OsX but people have already skinned the login screen, and the interface widgets.
I think there's a link at www.resexcellence.org...
Apple still designed quartz and the appearance for it. Defending themselves against Stardock who sells a product that makes windows feel like osX is clearly a violation of Apple.
Now I like Gnome and its freedom, but it's wrong to steal something that's not licensed as free.
Period.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
Re:www.readingcomprehension.com (Score:2)
I sure hope that the /. editors were not trying to spin this story their way. I like coming here because usually if the comments are biased, they at least link to good sources. I hope that doesn't change.
Re: (Score:2)
Sue me, Apple! I made an Aqua game (Score:2)
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:3)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
http://www.inventors.about.com/science/inventors/
--
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
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
Or as the widow of the president of Cleo-Cola said to Walter Mack (of Pepsi-Cola) "My husband thought he was right too, but they still put him out of business. And I still have a photograph of the check they gave him." After a copy of this check was introduced into the Coke vs Pepsi lawsuit, Coke asked for a 2 day recess and met with Walter and offered to withdraw the suit, which they did.
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)
Re:--sigh-- (Score:2)
The MS stake in Apple is something like $200M. It ain't billions of bucks.
Re:Why the heated debate? (Score:2)
Despite that, I believe Apple is in the wrong here. I believe these skins were sufficiently different from Aqua to not violate Apple's IP, whether trade dress, copyright, or design patent. And I think Apple has historically shown itself to be overzealous, targeting any design that is inspired by but less than derivative of its designs.
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
Good Freaking Lord.
The Napster users who compare themselves to Rosa Parks and Ghandi are appalling enough -- but you're seriously comparing restraints on your ability to copy Apple's industrial designs to slavery? Do you have the slightest sense of proportion?
Not that I'm such a corporate serf -- I'm posting this in Konqueror with an Aqua GTK theme I got off themes.org before it was pulled. But slavery? That people should be expected to pay for what they're unable or unwilling to make for themselves?
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
Mickey is copyrighted and quite simply shouldn't be any more. Disney is being a major ass when they sue a pre-school for infringement. I just hope the verdict on Eldred v. Reno overturns the Sonny Bono Act. Otherwise come 2018 we'll see Disney tossing a few million once again upon Congress to keep Mickey out of the public domain. Come 2019, when Mickey's copyright expires, Disney will have owned him for 91 years. That's what? 3-4 generations? For all intents and purposes, Disney has a perpetual copyright on Mickey and this is in violation of the letter and spirit of the law.
btw, it is either or when it comes to IP. You get to copyright or trademark. Not both. Apple can trademark their logo. Fine. They can't trademark their gui. Nor can they copyright it. The gui is essentially a collection of controls. They'll have to go back to the Supreme Court and get Lotus v. Borland overturned. Possible but unlikely.
Suing (Score:3)
Apple: always innovating...
---
Re:Trade secrets have no protection (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but could you please explain why the MPAA versus (DeCSS team and distributor) focused so much (ie, was based) on trade secrets is lieu of this?
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.
Gigabit ethernet (Score:2)
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:Suing (Score:2)
Ironically, when Apple first rose to prominence, theyw ere sued by Apple Records UK (the Beatles record company). Apple won, but a part of the agreement were forbidden to make musically related products.
Hence all system sounds in MacOS are not musica instruments. Except for one entitled `sosumi', or `so sue me'...
Re:--sigh-- (Score:2)
Simple. Let's say I like the "look and feel" of your website [myip.org] and decide that I'm going to use your design that you came up with on my page. Yep, that's right, I just click View Source, and copy and paste the html, changing nothing but the content.
You probably wouldn't be too happy about that, would you? That's exactly what's happening to Apple. Apple pioneered the GUI, and they deserve to have other people respect their creations. Apple's R&D team probably spent several million dollars designing the interface for OSX, and it would be wrong for some other company to snatch it up without paying Apple it's dues. That is why we have law's to prevent this.
The same scenerio occured several years ago when eMachines copied Apple's design for the iMac in their eOne computer. The courts ruled that Apple owned the design of the iMac and eMachines was forced to stop production of the eOne. You open-source zealots can be raving lunatics sometimes. Not everything is free for the taking.
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...
Xerox (Score:2)
Speaking of which...
For those of you who haven't heard it yet, hurry and download "Every OS Sucks" by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie!!!
Get it here [mp3.com]. Quite humourous.
----
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
No, the reason that it was laughed out of court was US Code 35, PART III, CHAPTER 29, "Remedies". You will find that paragraph 286 clearly states that you have to sue within six (6) years to be able to collect damages.
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
Re:What is WRONG with this EXAMPLE? (Score:2)
In court, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that everyone knows it's not osx. Which, I'm sure you would agree is a far-fetched proposal at best. Not everyone knows it isn't osx. Some people don't even know what an os is. Hard to believe but very true -and to a larger extent than you think. And really, that's beside the point. In Apple's case, osx is trade dress. The reason being that someone could use Aqua-ish graphics being *displayed* on a wintel pc to aid in the sale of that pc and thereby affect Apple's sales. Actually, I think there would be a better argument for this by calling it a willful dilution of product value by another company. But I'm not a student of law and I may have that wrong.
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:Apple will not sue /. (Score:2)
Actually, it looks more like a K. So, the only people who might be coming after Slashdot are the orthodox Jews...
---
My opinions are mine -- not those of my employer.
Re:What gets me about this (Score:2)
I don't know about the US, asides from it being, as Alan Cox puts it, `a small country between Canada and Mexico'.
Butin Australia, Apple sued a company that made a machine made out of darkish transparent plastic. A seperate monitor, shared like a regular PC just a little more rounded. and a seperate case which wasshaped like a bloody great big fish because `it looked like an imac'.
See it four youself and judge [fishpc.com.au].
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.
I'd like to eat an Apple... (Score:2)
Did you hear that? No, not that suspicious slurping sound. I meant the sound of karma being dragged-and-dropped into the "Trash" Icon on some moderator's OS X desktop.
Re:graphics are copywrited (Score:2)
I think they'd be ok if they figured out how to do an aqua-like effect in Photoshop (It's not
--K
Thanks for the link... (Score:2)
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
Yes it IS Apple's fault... Their license agreement forbids them from using the IBM PPC chip, which has already hit 1 GHz, I believe...
And several reputable hardware sites have already debunked the myth of the G4 PPC being faster clock per clock than an Athlon...
Face it. Apple is dead. They are relying on pretty plastic cases and a pseudo-Unix OS to save them. Unfortunately they don't know that plastic cases suck (RF leakage) and that they should just adopt an established Unix (BSD/Linux) rather than copy and call it "OS X"
Re:--double sigh-- (Score:3)
[computerlaw.com]
http://www.computerlaw.com/lookfeel.html
Jonesing for a +4 Informative...
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
All right, one more time. Apple PAID Xerox to use their GUI technology. Apple then improved it substantially for the initial version of the Mac OS. (For example, I don't believe Xerox's UI could have overlapping windows.) There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Apple, but the "Apple-stole-from-Xerox" fabrication is not one of them.
They are never going to be able to caputure enough marketshare just by trying to make computers that looks "cute" like the VW Beetle.
Looking cute is hardly the only redeeming feature of Apple hardware and software. Why are many people here looking forward to OS X? Generally not because of the candy-colored UI, but because it is the first OS that provides the full power of Unix in a form that regular consumers can easily use.
Finally, Apple has over $4 billion cash in the bank and is expected to return to sustained profitability this quarter. They are hardly in "imminent danger of death".
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...
Re:They MUST defend the appearence... (Score:2)
> - USB standard
Intel
> - FireWire standard
That one was Apple, True.
> - 802.11b wireless LAN easy add-on (and first affordable base unit)
I believe that was Cisco
> - UNIX-based (BSD, Mach) mainstream OS
You've got to be kidding! Apple invented UNIX?
> - Open Postscript imaging model everywhere
Adobe
> - Open OpenGL standard for 3D imaging
SGI
> - Promoted (BTO and standard) DVD-RAM and DVD-R
Sony
> - Digital Video monitor support standard
True -- they created two of their own properiatary interfaces. But ignoring the other standards out there to create something that accomplishes the same purpose and improves upon nothing (except forcing people to buy Apple hardware with their Macs) is not innovative, except perhaps in a marketing sense.
> - Gigabit Ethernet standard
I believe that was Cisco also.
> - SMP standard (on high-end)
That's been around since the '60s
> - Darwin open source
You mean the Darwin name, or the open-source concept? Darwin is an Apple API... of course they invented it. That's like praising Microsoft for inventing Win32. What ABOUT Darwin is so innovative?
> - QuickTime Streaming open source (server)
They own the QuickTime trademark, true. But RealNetworks was the first with streaming video servers.
> - World-class industrial design (Cinema Display, G4 Cube, Pro Mouse, Titanium G4 PowerBook, etc.)
See the above message... this is just design. Nice design, but that was his point.
> - Real Java in mainstream OS (in MacOS X)
Sun
> - First mass-market, consumer-friendly application for video editing (iMovie), audion (iTunes), DVD production (iDVD).
These have been on the shelves at software stores for 10 years. iDVD has some nice features, but is most innovative in that it brings the ease-of-use of Toast to the DVD.
> - Integrated remote storage (iTools)
XDrive, idrive, driveway, freedrive.
> - Objective C, Interface Builder, etc., in mainstream OS.
Next.
Apple's done some cool stuff, but don't believe their marketing lies... they're about style, not technology. Of all the ones you named up there, the only innovation was FireWire. The rest were either someone else's innovation, or something that i would never consider an innovation (like a trademarked name, rather than an idea).
How is this any different... (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
their themes using graphics copied from Apple screenshots, rather than 'cloning' the graphics without copying.
So, in a sense, they were
(Which, judging by how they dealt with the KDE/GNOME theme designers, they don't mind
--K
Re:Apple is worse than Microsoft. (Score:2)
What you have just said is really not true. Or, it is no more true of Microsoft than it is of Apple. Asides from Xerox Parc, other researchers in Bell Labs, MIT and Stanford were working with the elements windowing systems long before the Mac. Like Apple, Microsoft worked with existing ideas, and has created a pretty good UI out of them (for actual functional multitasking, I much prefer the Windows and X ways of doing things far more than traditional Apple way; I've always thought that the unrestrained praise for the Mac interface has been overwrought and uninformed.) And the actual design elements on scroll bars is the issue, anyway - Apple isn't suing based on real "innovation" when it is a suit about color schemes and the shape of window borders. The bare fact of it is that Microsoft has chosen NOT to sue small companies that mimic its unique design elements for skinning purposes, and Apple again has.
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
Yes, the mac may win a couple benchmarks. But thats just for marketing, as the graphic design industry will never leave the Mac platform... It's just a jab at intel hoping to get the fence sitters on apples side.
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
I'm not saying that Apple's actions are on a par *scale-wise* with slavery, but just that a theory of moral responsibility has to assign blame properly, and if you let Apple of the hook in this case, you let slaveowners off the hook in others. Perhaps an argument could be made about the ways in which severity of moral wrong lower the bar for culpability, but in my universe it goes the other way- if you commit a tiny wrong with only minimal culpability you are still wrong, it just doesn't matter much.
Furthermore, you assert in high dudgeon that when people can't / won't make things for themselves, they should pay. But this is the core of the IP struggle we are facing: If we can create artificial scarcity to preserve rent for market-players by applying IP restrictions, then eventually we will be slaves. Slaves of a different sort, but slaves nonetheless.
No, we're not there yet.
Thank goodness.
bryguy
=====
What is wrong is that we have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity.
-John Gilmore http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm [cryptome.org]
Re:What is WRONG with this? (Score:2)
Incidentally, read the fine print on a plastic 600mL bottle of Coca-Cola and you'll discover the bottle shape itself is a registered trademark of Coca-Cola. I think that's what you're referring to.
--
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?
Re:Apples and oranges (Score:2)
Another thing that is not especially clear from your references to Red Hat is how theming your window to look like OS X hurts apple financially. Care to elaborate on that?
On the other hand, these law suits do seem to involve freedom of creative expression. The way I see it the themers can not be motivated by money since they don't make any from their work. Perhaps a paralel to this in the music world is that if someone writes a song that you like then you can perform it at a party without paying any royalties to the artist. (I hope that's a legal example.
Some where there is a line to be drawn on these issues. I generally tend to side more on the freedom end of things. In my opinion, as a programmer is that I should be able to write any program I want to and give it to whomever I want. Perhaps, graphics artists deserve the same right... Except if they "clone" another persons work it's as if they have the "source code" so the paralel breaks down at some point...
In the end I think that Apple should take it easy... Smell some roses or something. Artists goof around doing stupid stuff like this all the time... Let them have their little fun.
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
This type of behavior is childish at best. In every industry companies create knock-off products. It's just something you have to deal with. Besides, it's not like an Aqua GTK theme is going to steal any business from Apple. Maybe finally people will realise that Apple is no better than Microsoft, just smaller.
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:--sigh-- (Score:2)
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]
Re:Nice troll...not (Score:2)
Re:Nice troll...not (Score:2)
Re:Protecting Intellectual Property (Score:2)
Re:Is this right? (Score:2)
Excellent example. I believe Coke actually won that one for trade dress. There was room for the consumer to be confused as to the maker of the product.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
Re:Nice troll...not (Score:2)
The read story is that Apple sued Microsoft for Windows 2.1 and HP for their Windows shell. During the trial, Xerox sued Apple. Xerox claimed that the look and feel was not copyrightable but that if it was then Apple had no claim to sue since the elements sued over had been developed by Xerox and not Apple.
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.