Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Businesses Government Apple News

Apple Sues Over iPhone Smartphone Skins 197

Posted by Zonk 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Apple Sues Over iPhone Smartphone Skins More

Apple Sues Over iPhone Smartphone Skins

Comments Filter:

  • why am I not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Roachgod ( 589171 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:40PM (#17631426)
    OF COURSE they are going to sue. A lot of Apple's selling power is how COOL it looks. If everybody has something that looks the same (even if it doesn't work the same) then it dilutes the cool factor.

    • Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wondercool ( 460316 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:03PM (#17631862) Homepage
      OTAH if you sue your fanboys, you screw your most fanatical supporters, making yourself uncool rapidly.

      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?

      • Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Roachgod ( 589171 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:48PM (#17632624)
        Last I checked all 3 were doing quite well. Really, Apple doesn't have to worry about anything by doing this. They will piss off a couple 'fanboys' but most of them will keep buying Apple's stuff cause it is cool. And for every fanboy they lose, if they successfully keep their product the 'stylish fashionable gotta have it' product, they win a bunch of trendsetter types. Those people are actually much more valuable. You probably just don't notice cause basically none of them bother with sites like slashdot.
      • <blockquote>OTAH if you sue your fanboys, you screw your most fanatical supporters, making yourself uncool rapidly.</blockquote>

        Case in point: TSR.

    • Re:why am I not surprised (Score:5, Funny)

      by x2A ( 858210 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:04PM (#17631872)
      If they really want to keep the "cool" look, they should make the iPhone smoke cigarettes... everyone knows smoking makes you cool.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by falser ( 11170 )
      And of course if you dilute the cool the temperature will rise and cause a "pleasing to the eye" turquoise screen of death with soft edges and fluid animations.

    • How "cool" is suing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:31PM (#17632324)
      Apple's in very real danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg over its stance on intellectual property. Suing enthusiasts who want nothing more than to have an early little taste of their software is a good way to hurt a brand that depends almost entirely emotion and public perception of "coolness."

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        Apple's in very real danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg over its stance on intellectual property. Suing enthusiasts who want nothing more than to have an early little taste of their software is a good way to hurt a brand that depends almost entirely emotion and public perception of "coolness."

        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)

        by catwh0re ( 540371 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @04:06PM (#17635452)
        I'd have to add that some of their actions have been apt, they haven't sued any regular blogger/reporter who reported on them.. they've actually just sent a rather gently worded legal notice to the ones who are showing an image of the skin AND providing a direct download link. The legal notice (available in many of the articles about this.) is probably the most casually written and easy to understand legal notice a person could receive.. It doesn't say "DIE! REMOVE SKIN AND LINK OR DMCA PATENTS COPYRIGHT!"

        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.

      • Apple unleashed its legal team, who sent removal letters to at least one of the websites hosting the files.

        lawsuit vs cease and desist letter. there is a big difference.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by FyRE666 ( 263011 )
      Who cares? Really, it's just a phone, and not even a very good one at that. Aside from the animated interface and (wow) touch-screen, it's hardly worth what Apple are asking. It doesn't even run Java apps; in fact, there's no way for any independent developer to write any code for it. As usual, Apple are just plain greedy; trying to sew up the market by controlling the hardware and the software on the device. Fair enough, it's theirs to do with as they please. Didn't work too well against Microsoft though,

  • It's just a necessary evil in trademark protection (Score:5, Informative)

    by TigerNut ( 718742 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:46PM (#17631534) Homepage Journal
    Before everyone goes completely non-linear, it should be noted that if you have a trademark, you have to protect it if you want to keep it yours. Since one of the trademarks of Apple's latest batch of products is its unique interface style and artwork, they MUST take action when their artwork is being circulated and incorporated into other products. Even if there is a part of them that recognizes that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    • Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:4, Informative)

      by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:59PM (#17631778)
      The interface skin is not a trademark. Apple's just behaving like an ass, that is all.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ronanbear ( 924575 )
        Actually, icons are part of the applications branding and that part could be trademarked. Parent might have meant copyright anyway.

        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.
        • I didn't mean copyright, although incorporating artwork (icons, graphics, backgrounds) into a phone skin when you didn't design or acquire the rights to that artwork, would be a pretty clear case of copyright infringement. To the extent that the bloggers were providing links to the places where the skins were available, they're aiding the copyright infringement process.

          I was thinking trademark infringement because I assumed that Apple would have trademarked certain aspects of the interface design. To the ex

          • Patent applications are not made public immediately. Apple could have made patent applications some time ago. Patents would be irrelevant in any case for this complaint.
        • Actually, it'd probably be classified as a design patent [wikipedia.org]. Even computer icons can be protected by design patents.
        • "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."

          That's why Cisco is suing apple over the word iPhone (since they own it). The people at Cisco know how much Apple values trademarks so they want to see just how much Apple values a trademark.

          Plus, they're probably suing Apple first knowing that Apple will shortly sue them anyway. Maybe they'll lay claim to the whole iProductName thing.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Macka ( 9388 )

        Oh fuck off ! Until about a week ago that particular look and feel didn't exist anywhere on any smart from in the entire history of smart phones!

        Apple come up with something new, of which the look and feel is an essential part, and someone takes less than a week to rip it off and transplant it onto a PocketPC. Apple have every right to be pissed off about this. Hell if you were in their shoes YOU would be pissed off about this.

        The only person who's being an ass right now is you .. idiot !
    • What trademark? Cisco owns the iPhone trademark.
      • Yeah, exactly. One of the ways Apple may be trying to get it from cisco is because cisco sat on it for 5 years and never used it. Additionally, they failed to file the proper paperwork showing they were using it in some meaningful way.

    • Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:5, Insightful)

      by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:06PM (#17631914) Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aristotle-dude ( 626586 )
        Fine, it is not trademark infringement. It is copyright infringement. They are taking the icons and graphics and creating a derived work without permission of the original copyright owner.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )
        Speaking of trademarks...

        I believe that Cisco owns the trademark for "iPhone". I find it hypocritical that Apple appropriated this trademark for their own product without compensation and then turns around and sues their own fanbois for copying their cute icons.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by fishboy ( 81833 )
          I don't think that anyone knows who owns the trademark and legal rights to the name iPhone until a judge decides, the matter is before the courts. There is certainly a case to be made that Cisco dropped the ball and lost their usage rights. Apple has a cracck legal and marketing team, don't everyone be too eager for them to fall flat on their face, I fully expect Apple to win the rights to the iPhone name, they've already created the brand.

          • Re:It's just a necessary evil in trademark protect (Score:4, Interesting)

            by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @04:31PM (#17635970)
            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.

      • You say ``Regarding "trademark": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."''

        According to the USPTO: "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others."

        See also http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/tra de_defin.htm [uspto.gov]

        So there are many aspects of the iPhone that could be Trademarked, as well as the artwork itself being Co
    • And for that reason, they should go after the people selling & manufacturing items that illegally use their trademark. However, when they go after people talking about their trademark, even in a context they don't like, they have crossed the line. There is a reason that freedom of the press is in the constitution. Some people want to argue semantics about the press, but people reporting other people doing something wrong is what it is about. Most of those blogs, probably helped Apple find the exact
    • That's kind of ironic, considering Apple brazenly stole the trademarked name of their product from Linksys/Cisco...
    • They couldn't sue Microsoft for copying the Macintosh's look and feel in Windows so I doubt this will go very far.

  • Sounds like cheap publicity... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:46PM (#17631552) Homepage Journal
    ...for nothing more than the cost of a Cease & Desist.

    Nice. (For Apple, that is.)

  • Disingenuous summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:46PM (#17631554) Homepage Journal
    skins for smartphones that resemble the iPhone

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sheldon ( 2322 )
      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?

      • 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?

        Am I sure? Not 100%. But from the FA, "The skins don't add any new functionality to the devices, but make use of the iPhone's copyrighted icons to create a UI that distinctly resembles Apple's hybrid mobile phone."

        See also this forum post with an Apple C&D letter posted [modaco.com]. The icons came from a screenshot.

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

        Apple published pictures on their Web site.

        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?

        In some cases they probably did, but depending on how closely they mimic Apple's work it can still be copyright infringement. In many cases in the past artwork has been reproduced by hand to copy an existing work and the copy has differed slightly. That doesn't me

      • Re:Disingenuous summary (Score:4, Informative)

        by blugu64 ( 633729 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @03:13PM (#17634288) Homepage
        Probably from Apple's PR website. They've got *huge* images of the iphone.

        http://www.apple.com/pr/products/iphone/iphone.htm l [apple.com]

  • Cisco is silly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alewar ( 784204 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:46PM (#17631556)
    A couple of days ago Apple said that Cisco suing them over the name iPhone was "silly"...
    how do they qualify this?

    • Re:Cisco is silly (Score:4, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @02:19PM (#17633236)

      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.

  • I'm not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fahrvergnuugen ( 700293 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:48PM (#17631576) Homepage
    During his keynote, Jobs mentioned that the iPhone is protected by over 200 patents (surely some of those cover the interface) - and that they intend to protect them.
    • This has nothing to do with patents. They're using Apple's copyrighted icons. These are just skins, they don't provide all the functionality of the iPhone or anything. There's no pinch/unpinch to zoom for example (there's no zoom! but the next OSX is supposed to be device independant, like Display Postscript always was) and it's not like the skin adds a proximity sensor or an accelerometer - of course you couldn't patent the accelerometer-in-a-PDA thing since AFAIK it was first done by some hackers who adde

  • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:49PM (#17631602)
    Why is Apple suing? Isn't the iPhone a Cisco product? Wierd, I'm confused.

  • The Bloggers are 'assiting copyright infringement' (Score:5, Funny)

    by paladinwannabe2 ( 889776 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:53PM (#17631676)
    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...

    • 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

      • contributing to copyright infringement by linking directly to information on how to break Apple's copyrights

        This [google.com] is Kings Cross, Sydney, Australia. It is possible to buy drugs down just about any side street on just about any night of the week.

        There -- I've linked directly to information on how to buy drugs. When do I go to jail?

        • There -- I've linked directly to information on how to buy drugs. When do I go to jail?

          Well, since the location of the drug purchase is not in the US and since you did not provide specific instructions, just general ones, you don't. If, however, you are in the US and tell someone on the phone that if they go talk to Jimmy on the corner of 4th and Wilson, and he's holding crack, you can be arrested for it. That is about the same level of contribution to the crime as linking to a download.

          Please note, I'm

      • First, I'm obviously going for funny.
        Secondly, I feel I should be able to discuss illegal actions without fear of reprisal. If someone is doing something illegal, I would like to be able to point out what they are doing (and where and how they do it) without being an accessory to the crime.
        Thirdly, How am I overreacting? Posting pictures of someone else's product for the purposes of discussing said product should be fair use. Next you'll be telling me that the logo they have on Apple Stories is a c

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

          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

    • From what I'm reading, it seems more like if you provided a link to the Pirate Bay page for OSX or to the tracker itself, you would get a letter from an Apple lawyer asking you to stop.

      ... and that would be just about what I would expect to happen.

  • Linking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by prelelat ( 201821 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:54PM (#17631690)
    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.

    • 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.

      The problem is the existence and interpretation of contributory copyright infringement laws. The ACLU and EFF have been involved in several such cases and they have money, but realistically, the problem is that our politicians

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by smoker2 ( 750216 )
      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.
      Well this site [smh.com.au] doesn't seem to be feeling the heat.

  • Stupid to go after bloggers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @12:56PM (#17631730) Homepage Journal
    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... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yaddoshi ( 997885 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:01PM (#17631810)
    Boy, if Apple and Disney ever teamed up...I'm not sure how to finish that thought.
  • Apple has fallen from their pedastal in recent years. They were the "cool but geeky and not very market savvy company" that I always looked up to. In the past couple of years, they have sued john does' of the world just to keep out information and they have forgotten that they are upsetting the fan club that blindly praises anything the company puts out.

  • Their troubles are over. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @01:06PM (#17631912) Homepage Journal
    Now that they are suing people for posting leaked Windows source code^H^H^H DeCSS^H^H^H The Grey Album^H^H^H Paris Hilton pr0n^H^H^H Metallica MP3s^H^H^H iPhone skins for Smartphones, they will surely vanish from the Internet forever.
  • 150 years plus the life of the author (who is? Jobs?) ahead on skins.

    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.

  • So revolutionary Japan laughs at us... again..... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Apple,

    Japan thinks your phone is cute, or rather, was cute. They can't seem to figure out why you think you've reinvented the wheel though, you know, since they can already buy phones like this for much less that are much better.

    Sorry, but only a true trendwhore would ever carry that overpriced, technologically stunted, not-a-smartphone "smart"phone.
  • My experience with most organizations is that bad attitude tend to trickle down from the top. Apple's land shark behavior does not reflect positively on Jobs or most Apple officers.

  • Note to Apple Lawyers: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @02:01PM (#17632842) Homepage Journal
    You've already lost a major lawsuit over a competing product imitating "look and feel". Simply because you've decided to go after those with more shallow pockets this time doesn't mean you're any less wrong this time.

    Politely fuck the hell off.

    - Sleazy P. Martini
    - GWAR and Assc.

    • Note to Chas: This is about copyright infringement, in which some users actually used Apple's icons, garnered from a screen shot. Next time RTFA.

      P.S. Sleazy told me to tell you that someone is coming around with a brickbat, and not to use his name again unless you want to be shot in a cannon to Uranus.

  • So what? Apple's device, whatever they're calling it this week, is a multi-touch surface. You can copy the image, but it can't be manipulated like Apple's interface on single-touch devices.

    Multi-touch is going to be a big deal. Being able to grab two things and manipulate them at the same time is a huge win. It's the next step beyond the object-verb and verb-object GUI approaches.

  • Apple is evil. No doubt about it. They can't compete with what is still vaporware, so they sue. Frigtards!!
  • You have to defend a trademark to keep it, if you don't defend a trademark then you loose it. Apple is defending it's property, the stuff that it generates it's income from. Sueing bloggers for linking to the sites? is taking action against people who are helping to promote the material, so as bad as the situation may seem, Apple is within their rights to do what they did.
  • I'm going short on Apple's stock right now. It is hugely overbought. They have a lot of hype and no product. Cisco will win the Trademark suit against Apple and the iPhone will be a Cisco product name. Steve Jobs will be either in Jail or kicked out of the company within a year over his stock option fiasco. Things are looking grim for Apple's future and I could not be happier. Stupid ass pompous Apple.
  • That stuff is out there: http://btjunkie.org/torrent?do=stat&id=3784442036 7 eed57ec7300ee938ded2e9e9c599910a7 [btjunkie.org]
    Bringing in the lawyers will only push the skin's popularity up for a few days/weeks and will cost apple a chunk of good will.

    Note: linking is not a crime. Neither is fair use (exercised by bloggers/journalists posting about the iphone and using a screenshot).
  • ... with this very neat torrent [fileshack.us]

    Enjoy :)

  • 'Ironically, Apple's attempts to have the files removed from the web have only given the skins greater publicity,

    This statement would only make sense if "ironically" actually meant "predictably," which it doesn't.

  • Apple v Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

    by WarwickRyan ( 780794 ) on Tuesday January 16, 2007 @05:44PM (#17637340)
    Blog Microsoft, get a free Ferrari ahref=http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/27/ 1423234rel=url2html-19021 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/artic le.pl?sid=06/12/27/1423234>

    Blog Apple, get a free lawsuit.
  • Ever since I saw how badly Apple screwed us Mac owners over back in '94-'96 regarding Rhapsody, I've been trying to explain to folks how Apple's corporate culture was far FAR MORE EVIL than Microsoft Corporation could ever hope to me. I tend to use Linux (OpenSUSE these days for compability reasons) as much as I can, and then XP on my Desktop and Laptop to get work done. I just will not touch an Apple product again ever, and not because I think the hardware and software is better or worse, but because I j
    • And for the longest time, I owned a Laser machine.

      Yes, the AppleII clones. It ended up getting fried in a power mains accident.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close