Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple sues eMachines 213

Posted by Hemos from the continuing-on-the-money-path dept.
Phrogz writes "Apple, following their July 1st lawsuits against Future Power and Daewoo for the same, is now suing eMachines for their use of an iMac-style design (the eMachines eOne). "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple sues eMachines More

Apple sues eMachines

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Ugh. (Score:2)

    by Evro ( 18923 )
    From the Yahoo article [yahoo.com]:

    "An eMachines spokesperson said in the paper that it was hoping to trade off Apple's brand name. If I was their lawyer, I would have died when I read that," says Weinstein, who practices trademark litigation. She says it gives Apple a chance to charge eMachines with willful infringement. Apple did not return calls seeking comment. "

    Here is the point: they were trying to make money off Apple's success.

    I have never seen a Fiat spider and so I can't comment on it. Maybe the fact that I've never seen one says something about why Mazda didn't get sued: the Fiat design was a flop while the Miata was a huge success.

    Sure, car companies make cars that are ripoffs of each other all the time (see any SUV), but not when the styling of the car is so distinctive, as is the case for the Vette or Firebird. Otherwise, why wouldn't cheap car manufacturers just make a replica of the Vette's body and put it on a v6 and sell it for $15k?
  • Swano, maybe you should take a rest from huffing the model glue every now and then ;-)
  • ...runs win98 on a Mac and any Applications that run on win98. I think it's about $150 (which includes the win98 price)
  • No, it's not a hard concept to grasp. I understand perfectly the intent of eMachines and FuturePower, but that doesn't mean Apple has to act fazed by their actions. Even so, clearly even the most uninformed PC consumer must understand that even though most PCs look strikingly similar (the off-white-box look), they are not created equal. Why doesn't this translate to the iMac then too? At any rate, Apple is still making a statement with their actions, and despite the fact that it's probably completely justified, it still doesn't say much to me about their confidence in their hardware and software: "Lots of people are buying our machines for the look." It scares me to think their research dollars are going into the design of the box, when it should be going into bringing the OS back into the position of most advanced as it once was (a long long time ago). As a long time Mac user and Apple fan, this is why I switched to PCs and havn't gone back. To me they seem to have no vision anymore. Although to be fair, maybe it's my vision that's changed, as I became more and more of a power user, not theirs.
  • If Mandrake's logo is similar enough to possibly confuse buyers, then RedHat could sue, and win.
  • Wow, you mistook a vaccum for a computer?
  • Apple should sue Emachines they did rip off the iMacs design style But the iMac is still far better than any thing Emachines make. Emachines are pieces crap I used one "a freind of mine was stupid enough to buy one he sent it back after and got an iMac instead"and it was the most sloppily built machine I ever use Linux would not load on it Quake II played 3 times faster on a rev A iMac then it does on the eOne also that $400 isp rebate cost over 790.20.
  • The issue here is whether or not the consumer will buy a computer thinking they've purchased an iMac. Apple isn't going to sue a mouse maker for using translucent plastic in a mouse because it isn't possible for the consumer to mistake it for an iMac and also because this doesn't strip revenue away from Apple. eMachines is leeching off Apple's R&D by using Apple's design to trick the consumer into mistaking their computer for an iMac.
  • Sorry dude, Xerox got paid with stock from Apple.
  • Inferior??? I've been using Macs for five years now (two different machines, my daughter still using the first) and have never had to reinstall system or application software once. Never. I recall reading back in '95 of all the Windows95 problems and the contortions users were going thru to render their machines useable. I remarked to my wife that had we owned one of those computers, I would have thrown it out the window.
    You would think that young /.ers with the intelligence to tinker with 'nix and mobos could realize that most computer users want to get work done with their machines - not work on them.
  • Remember from who Apple got the idea for the mouse and the GUI for their OS. I don't recall anyone at Apple paying for it either.....

    "Pirates" was drama, not an historically correct documentary. You see, Xerox did get paid- with Apple stock.
  • Is Apple suing them for ripping off a motherboard design? No, they're suing because this PC is a blatant rip off of the iMacs design.
  • Agreed, on the I-macness of said product.

    They could have made the case red and black carbon-fiber and probably not gotten into hot water. They should have patterned it after Air Jordans, would have been harder to mistake for shoes. I like the idea of the I-mac, and the E-thingy has some interesting features, but this was not the way to go.
  • As others have pointed out today, and before when the Future Power lawsuit was announced, these suits have NOTHING to do with these products being computer products. Trade dress is the name of the game here folks, and DRESS is exactly what it sounds like - IT'S NOT WHAT'S INSIDE THAT COUNTS.

    The following points will NOT be considered by the judge (or jury - I'm not exactly sure how this is handled at trial):
    - What type of operating systems these machines use.
    - What kinds of processors or specific pieces of hardware are included or not included.

    What will be considered:
    - Does the appearance of the product in question have enough similarities to cause marketplace confusion in the "average" consumers mind?
    - Was there intent to use these similarities to trade on the good will of the Apple product design?
    - If intent can be established, what damages should be awarded?

    Remember, these suits have absolutely nothing to do with these being computers. Someone on /. pointed out before that if you designed a similar bottle to Coca Cola's distinctive design, just changing the curve of the bottle slightly, Coca Cola would be all over you with lawyers. It wouldn't matter if you put a cola-like beverage in it, or maple syrup, or monkey piss! What matters is how the appearance of the product influences the consumer.

    Shallow as this is, this is point of the lawsuits.

    Marc

    - Linux shall overcome -
  • I think you're absolutely right. I also think Apple is obligated to publicly insult both Daewoo/FuturePower and eMachines.

    Its kind of sad that just because Apple revolutionized the consumer market [again] they have to pay with immatation.

    But it was bound to happen.

  • Honestly, I would like to buy a 14k Porsche ripoff.

    CY
  • What everyone seems to be missing (probably due to an unreasonable hatred of Apple) is that these machines are designed to confuse customers into purchasing them instead of iMacs!

    eMachines, Daewoo, and Future Power aren't trying to sell neat-looking PCs. That's perfectly legal. They are trying to mislead customers. That's not legal. Apple paid a LOT of money for the iMac design. These others are stealing it, plain and simple, just like Smith & Wesson did with Glock.


    This is tantamount to Microsoft selling Win98 in boxes featuring penguins and "Open Source" stickers. If you disagree with that, disagree with the eMachines crap.

  • Why bother hating Apple at all? Get over it, people. Stick to Linux, build beige Wintel boxes from scratch, and upgrade all you like.

    If you don't like the iMac, or any Apple product for that matter, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet just like everyone else in our market economy.

    But at least try to understand that Apple and Compaq and Sony and a ton of other companies are also vying for the customers that DO like machines with colors and curves. They don't understand computers as well. They want to send email and use Quicken or something. The machine will look good in their den.

    Just because you don't feel marketed to by a certain company or product, just because they're not offering something for your "power user" tastes, doesn't mean it's worthless.

    The iMac is selling like crazy and Apple wants to protect their investment in design and marketing for as long as they can. It's just business.
  • and their RealPC product is $50 because it's the only mass-market (as mass market as any Mac software is) PC 'clone' that ships without an OS. No Windows, just (I think) QDOS. I've got Win98 on my copy (spare license) for games and various small utilities that haven't a mac equivalent.

    Unlike VirtualPC you can run any OS that'll run on generic x86 compatible hardware. At work were're looking at setting up our Powerbook G3 users with our standard Y2K build (NT4). That'd put them ahead of the poor SOBs stuck with Win95 laptops.

    Why limit yourself to one OS at a time.

  • I have had lots of luck with Display Doctor when trying to get weird graphics cards to work. You can download it from here [scitechsoft.com]. I think its a 30 day demo or something and its pretty cheap to buy it. I have no idea if it will work with the eMachine's chipset, but hey, worth a shot.

  • yeah, maybe...

  • Apple has every right and an obligation to sue to protect it's intellectual property. If any of you armchair Marxists had a clue you would know this!

    Furthermore...

    Is a tool inherently less powerful because anyone can use it? I think not. In fact, if anything it's often just the opposite. Do all you Linux purist, Mac-bashers forgo using the remotes for your TV's?

    No?

    Well, using your silly complexity/inscrutability = superior power, elitist "logic" perhaps you should be rubbing two sticks together for your morning toast too!!

    If you don't need to manually configure everything about your computer system, why the hell should you? Inconceivable as it may be for many of you, some people don't see the need for this and will gladly even pay a little more to avoid the hassle of dealing with the complexity within which you may thrive.

    Hack away and build your *nix boxes with the sweat and toil that gives you such personal satisfation, just don't presume that anyone who doesn't see the world from your miopic point of view is idiotic. This sort of arrogance is no better than that of the Windows-centric conformity which you are supposedly trying to subvert!


    get a grip! or a grep if you prefer;-)

  • Look and Feel lawsuits never worked for Apple, did they?
  • It was precisely my point that the law sucks here.

    Yes, I can pick an iMac out of a lineup with six other consumer level desktop computers. But, how different do those other computers have to be before they are acceptable? You'll just know it when you see it? Not good enough, sorry.

    If a desktop PC maker made a computer that was shaped identical to an iMac, but was in an obviously different color from any offered for the iMac, would it infringe? After all, it would be distinctively NOT an iMac, since Apple never offered an iMac in that color before. What if the colored plastic was not translucent? So, unique color and opaque plastic -- does it infringe then?

    What does Apple have rights to here? Colored computers? Translucent plastic? The retro-50's look? One-button mice? Combo CPU-Monitor packaging?

    The law, and the mindset that argues for it, is what bothers me here, because the law is too vague. A person cannot be sure when they are in violation of it and this creates anti-competitive pressure in the market -- bad for consumers.
    ---
  • Apparently there is some fairly well established law on 'Trade Dress', that this lawsuit is filed under. Makes me wanna puke, but apparently they have a case.
  • ...but eOne doesn't look much like an iMac at all. It's way more boxy, different lines. I can't see myself confusing them.

    I guess Apple feels that if you design an all-in-one computer with a translucent case you're infringing on their rights.

    I can't say it ever really appealed to me, but my pager was done in that style years ago so it's not like Apple invented it.

    Maybe it's time to do another march like we did years back: "Lotus, Apple, Ashton-Tate ... innovate don't litigate."
  • Actually, having the monitor & CPU as seperate items is the innovation, not the opposite.

    Look at terminals from the late 60's and 70's, and you will invariably see a single box for the terminal's CPU & the monitor part. Often the keyboard was part of the same box too.

    When business PCs came out (Long before the IBM PC), they us often styled the same way, for example the Commodore Pet series.

  • Explain to me something. How can a case design that was started BEFORE, and in another country, the iMac was released be a rip off? Is it because it was first on the market? If that is true then Microsoft should have sued Apple for the "look and feal" of the GUI interface instead of the other way around. After all, PC's with Windows shipped BEFORE the Macintosh was shipped.
  • Bad move Apple. This eOne is quite ugly and you had nothing to worry about. I think its just a ploy to delay possible shipment or maybe just to put the eOne in a bad light until the new iMacs come out in the Fall. oh well.
  • The question I have is is a combined cpu & monitor, colour scheme & curvyness to the case intellectual property?

    Every year, there are famous clothing designers producing expensive clothing. They decide that pastel coloured short skirts with black jackets are 'this years' hot item and fill the catwalks with pastel coloured short skirts. Most people don't buy their clothes from this sort of designer, so the designers for the chain stores make their own pastel coloured short skirts & black jackets. They're not the same as the original, they not designed by the original designer, but they are what a their audience wants. No-one has ever (afaik) sued a designer for ripping off their choice of colours & fabrics.

    The translucent case with bright colours is a fashion IMO. The iMac might have been the first to sport it, but now I've seen it not only in the PC clones being sued, but also the Rio 300 Special edition and no doubt more will come.

    I'd say that most markets have fashions. Stereo components used to come in wooden style. Nowadays they all come in black. Knobs & things you can twirl were replaced by up and down buttons, but now things you can twirl are making a comeback. Remotes originally had just simple arrays of buttons, most remotes nowadays have the buttons arranged to match the function (rewind on the left, fast forward on the right).

    Fashions are not intellectual property IMO.

  • So, Apple still can't make a computer that is a good home computer so they sue the fist set of PC's that even remotely look like the failed iMac. This is just as bad as when Microsoft tried to trademark "Windows". If Apple really felt like they had something with the iMac then why didn't the PATENT the design. You can do that you know. But, they didn't.

    And why are they not suing Nintendo. Nintendo has now changed the names of all thier Color Gameboys to fruity names just like the iMac. They originaly came in Purple and Clear Purple. Now you can't get Purple, and Clear Purple is Grape. And there are other fruity clear colors as well.

    And then there are all of the clear pagers, Playstation memory cards, Playstation and N64 controlers, and 3rd party Playstation cases. Who will Apple sue next???
  • Whoa, good one.! You really got me with that one.

    AC == Anonymous Coward(you)
  • When the road gets rocky, when you see things being done wrong - in your workplace, in buisness, etc, there are 4 things you can do about it:
    1) accept it
    2) complain about it
    3) reject it (leave, have nothing to do with it),
    possibly find someplace else where things are done right.
    4) fix it

    The author doesnt do number 1, as many game developers have. He instead does 2 and 3.

    I'm doing number 4... several other developers and I, with great creative talent, etc, are founding our own game company. No CEO. No managers, ecept ourselves. We have artists, modlers, programmers, and more. Getting funding will not be easy because we dont have any non-technical staff, and our buisness model has been called 'crazy', and 'revolutionary' because of our staff structure, but at least we're trying #4...

    T, maybe if things pick up for us we'll give you a call...

    Also, with some open source projects going on now, engine design is being removed from game design...
    For example, our first product is utilizing the CrystalSpace 3d rendering engine, an open source quake/halflife type engine. We're adding things to it, yes, but with foundations like it in place, it will be easier to reuse tools just like producers and other industries do...

    Also, while I'm here, anyone in the audience know where some Free, or cheap, marketing analysis type stuff for the game industry exists? The buis plan we have needs more concrete numbers, and we dont want to pay 4k for a basic industry report...
  • Um, Compaq had a machine that intergrated the monitor and computer way back in 1984? Wow, maybe they should sue...
  • I, me, mine!

    So you think that your experience is representative of all mac users and all Apple products and therefore justifies your "hatred" ?

    Am I too assume then that all PC/*nix users are small minded sychophants like yourself?
  • Been there, tried that.

    Didn't find Display Dr any more
    capable than XF86Setup! In fact
    it looks more like a rip-off
    of XF86Setup (speaking of rip-offs.. ;-)

    As for the "tulip" chip - yes - I figured
    that out. Haven't had time to dig into
    the driver to see if I could make it
    work yet. More interested in seeing
    X work I guess.

    Oh - and as for Linux support from
    E machines. I just asked them about
    which video timings were correct in
    their manual(they have two different
    sets which conflict slightly). I got
    a kiss-off you wouldn't believe..well
    maybe the linux community WOULD believe
    it.. I thought we were suppossed to
    be "up and coming." Emachines hasn't
    figured that out yet!

    Steve
  • ---
    I think Apple is cheesed off because the eMachine box costs $400 less, and has the added benefit of being a PC-compatible.
    ---

    Benefit?

    ---
    If you can't beat them, sue them...
    ---

    Or steal from them, apparently

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • I've run Win95, Win98, WinNT 4.0, DOS, and OpenStep on VirtualPC. I got part-way through a BeOS R3 install at one point, but the install didn't recognize the CD-ROM (although with R3, it probably wouldn't have worked on a decent share of PCs either). I started on an old Red Hat install but never got it to work, but others have.

    VirtualPC is very flexible, although I'd rather run LinuxPPC and BeOS/PPC personally.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • So, Apple still can't make a computer that is a good home computer so they sue the fist set of PC's that even remotely look like the failed iMac.

    This comment takes the cake for the single most ignorant line on Slashdot today. The iMac is not only the biggest selling mac of all time, it is the best selling personal computer OF ALL TIME! If that is a failure what is a success?

    Note for those wanting details: the sales figures are gotten by combining the 5 colors of iMac into one model. Some have a problem with this, wanting to count them as 5 seperate models. I say then that each and every PC with a different spec sheet should be counted as a separate model.

    ------------
    DJ Raz
    raz@wfnk.com [mailto]
  • I don't think I am a Mac hater. I am just incredibly frustrated with a company that had one of the most loyal group of users ever and proceeded, again and again, to push that loyalty to the absolute limit.

    If customer loyalty had a direct effect on profits, Apple would have gone out of business long ago.

    I'm confused. They had one of the most loyal groups of users, yet if profits and loyalty were directly related, they would've gone out of business years ago?

  • Definately... OS X is not sucking... The latest internal Apple builds look quite promising...
  • Don't bother explaining. People in this thread are too misguided by hate (and stupid I might add) to understand the real reason for the suit. It's funny really.
  • Hey, Apple, your computers run on electricity, but PCs ran on electricity first - better watch out or IBM will sue you!

    If thats not the most idiotic analogy, I dont know what is. Err Apple made PC's before IBM ever started. 1977
    Wait, I'm Thomas Jeffersons great, great, great, great, great, grandson....maybe I should sue IBM and Apple and Dell and Compaq..... sounds silly huh?
  • ... than the time Coca Cola sued to protect the distinctive shape of the Coca Cola bottle. The legal term is "trade dress".

    Apple is perfectly justified in protecting its trademarks. In fact, they are obligated to do so. They can't pick and choose which iMac rip-offs to sue and which to leave alone. The fact that they would let one company rip them off becomes a defense for the company they DO sue.

    The fact is that Apple put a lot of money into the industrial design of the iMac. And, regardless of weather or not it's popular with /.ers, it is a hot selling item among the unwashed masses. And just like an author who writes a popular book, or a programmer with popular software, Apple deserves to reap the fruits of its labors. And copyright and trademark laws are there to keep people (and companies) from being ripped off.

    Personally, I hope eMachine, Daewoo, and that other iMac knock-off all BURN.
  • I believe it's Apple's obligation to sue eMachines. The eOne looks like an iMac, but it's not an exact rip off. No one can say that -- not even Apple.

    But, it's a loose-loose situation really for Apple. They have to protect their intellectual property and sometimes they look bad for doing it. They look even dumber when they don't do anything about it.

    It's all about money. If they can get a few million from eMachines, then that's fine with me. That's probably what it'll come down to anyway.
  • Let me just ask you this: if you wrote a book, and it took you years to write it, and you were very proud of that book, and it even got on the national bestseller list, and then someone else two weeks later wrote the EXACT same book, with a few words changed, would you be pissed? This is basically what has happened with the eOne. I've seen the pictures; everyone knows it's purposefully an iMac rip-off. That's the whole point. eMachines went with a sure-fire design, one that's already been market tested. Whether you like it or not, the iMac was the top selling computer last year. I think Apple is perfectly within their rights on this one. Those unoriginal corporate nobodies at eMachines are going to get what's coming to them.
  • Just a question. Is everybody's mother supposed to be a network engineer?
  • Come on guys, let's be honest. The iMac is a wonderful design - it has charm that no PC has ever had - not to mention that the stock price of Apple has risen to the highest it has been in years because of the huge amount of people who have bought an iMac over the past year (about 2 million or so). This is great for Apple as a company - and I like to see a little difference out there. There are so many reasons why PC mfgrs would want to copy this design - profit! Not to mention that most people in the PC market want to get the hell rid of Apple and especially now because they have started to take a bite out of PC sales again.

    As far as I am concerned I give them props screw the companies who try to threaten their survival, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.
  • It worked for Apple Vs. Digital Research Incorporated. They forced DRI to take all of the good features out of PC-GEM. Part of the reason that GEM was a failure.
  • You said, "...also vying for the customers that DO like machines with colors and curves. They don't understand computers as well. They want to send email and use Quicken or something. The machine will look good in their den."

    I don't think good-looking and technologically powerful are mutually-exclusive.

    I'm a visually-oriented person -- I like design and to have well-designed things around me -- so I want my computer to look good. But I also want it to be powerful and flexible enough to let me do anything I could possibly want it to do. Why should I have to settle for a god-awful ugly beige box that looks like crap no matter *what* room I put it in?

    Why *not* have computers in different styles? iMacs are great-looking, but some people might prefer a machine with a retro style (something that looks more like a 1920s typewriter than a 1990s PC), or a classic style in a wooden case. Surely it could be possible to make PCs that appeal to the tech side as well as the visual side. There is absolutely no reason other than inflexibility and lack of vision for good-looking machines to be "beginners' computers" only.


  • If they really think that the shape of their box is whats going to keep selling their machiens, they're in the wrong business!

    Um, if the shape of the machine isn't important, than why did FuturePower and eMachines make their computers look like the iMac?

    This isn't a hard concept to grasp. These machines are designed to confuse people by taking advantage of a well-known product. They are the Ro_d_ex watches of the computer world.

    -jon

  • Apple
    ripped off the Xerox PARC concept for a GUI.

    That is a spelling of "licensed" to which I was heretofore unaware.

    That's right. Apple paid them to use their technology with some stock that later became very valuable.

  • I was going to make a similar post, but yours is better. I agree with you 100% - Apple has no choice but to sue eMachines, otherwise their lawsuit against Future Power looks weak. They need to give the courts the opportunity to decide exactly what constitutes a rip-off. The iMac is unique - nothing before it looks even remotely similar.

    If the iMac had been a market failure, then we wouldn't have any look-alikes. These two companies didn't come up with the idea themselves, yet they're trying to profit off of Apple's R&D.

  • Wouldn't that be an ass-clashing suit?

  • eOne (Score:1)

    by technos ( 73414 )
    This may sound, well, 'limp-wristed', but I think this eMachines would be a really cute Linux box. Enlightenment with the old DR.13 Neon theme would be just perfect.. All those trendy yuppies would step over each other to get one! I understand from earlier posts that Linux has a problem with the DEC 21145 (Tulip). Hack tulip.c and remove the tag 'HAS_MII' from the card description being detected by the kernel. I've had the same problem with a number of 'integrated' boards, and that usually works...
  • If you design your logo to look sufficiently like Red Hat's, they certainly could. And probably would, since their stockholders would throw a fit if the people running the company didn't defend Red Hat's trade dress.

  • This is different. It's not about translucent plastics. It's not about colors It's not about the fact that the eOne is an inferior ripoff of the iMac (even though that fact is true). eMachines could quite easily have made their machine look like anything they wanted to. Even with translucent plastics and different colors. They chose instead to steal the design of the iMac, with no other purpose than to confuse the consumer. Apple wasn't right in the look-and-feel suit against MS (who the hell could confuse the obscene mess that is Windows with the Mac interface?) It's right this time, though.

  • Apple (Score:2)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    Another lawsuit, eh? I always wondered how Apple makes money these days..

    Anyway, having demoed an eOne over the weekend, I can safely say that its only similarity to the iMac's case is the blue tint. What else can they sue over? Apple didn't invent the monitor-and-computer-and-other-stuff-in-case design. Just look at the Commodore PET.

    Way to go, Apple! Sue over blue plastic!

    Sidenote: The case wasn't the only thing that was blue.. The eOne demo machine I saw at Circus Shitty this past weekend kept giving a BSOD at boot time. Their excuse was, "It's really selling hot, this is our last in-house unit (as you can see)". Wonder how it'd do with another OS..

    ---

  • Bad analogy.

    What you refer to is what's in the book...the words.

    You can buy a hundred different PCs and find quite few with the exact same pieces of hardware, aka the same book.

    What you are talking about is the case, a pice of plastic or steel devoid of any technological value. This would be more analogous to the book cover. If you published a book in a blue translucent color cover and called it "Ramlings about bad analogies" by Hrothgar, and I released a book with a blue translucent cover named "Bite me" by Scola, that would hardly be grounds to sue. The internals and the name on the cover are quite distinct even if the covers look similar.
  • Apple knows that the eOne is ugly and not as complete a ripoff as the Daewoo/Future Power one. However, they have an obligation to sue so that other computer manufacturers won't follow eMachines lead. Will they win the lawsuit? Possibly. Does it matter? Not much - they are trying to discourage others. Daewoo can bring it up if they DIDN'T sue eMachines in their case and how Apple only selectively cares about their patents.

    Don't diss Apple - they worked for almost a year on their distinctive design, and they brought in experts to work out the plastics and such. They are almost required to protect their design. Like Palm and the DaVinci knockoff - they HAVE to fight back, or else everyone will think it's okay!
  • ...but eOne doesn't look much like an iMac at all. It's way more boxy, different lines. I can't see myself confusing them.

    But you're a slashdot reader, and know better. As an example, a few weeks ago, there was a big insert in the paper with this eMachines system on it. The price was $400 (w/ internet access), and the first thing my roomate (who is just your average joe) says is, "Whoa, and iMac for $400! I may have to go get one of those". Of course, I straightened him out on the spot, but it just goes to show that the average person IS confused. Had I not said something, I almost guarentee he'd be down at Best Buy looking at it.

  • So Apple should have the exclusive right to make translucent computers with integrated monitors? That's ridiculous. So is the lawsuit.

  • You're right, that second statement makes no sense. Mac users are in fact viciously loyal. Mac users loyalty has in fact saved Apple when they were in the shit hole(more than once).


  • This goes for Linux too. Is the best you can come up with is KDE and Gnome? Ripoffs of a poor ripoff(Windows) of the MacOS? And you think Linux is going to conquer the desktop? Snicker...

    The same way Apple currently rules the desktop - at what, 20% market share? Snicker...

  • It seems to me that emachines has a very similar slogan to Apple too. But like many things in the wintel world its just bulky and not as stylish.

    Apple: Think different.

    emachines: changing the way we think about computing.

    Despite how you feel about the iMac or Apple, any company should have the right to protect its trade dress and trade marks. Consumers can be easily mislead or confused.

  • >You see, Xerox did get paid- with Apple stock.

    Heh, you might as well assign a hotkey to that line of text...

    Also, the short-memory people also forget that the GUI and mouse were sitting around collecting dust. Xerox didn't have a clue what to do with them-- they just paid the researchers who thunk them up.

    CJ
  • Given that the API of choice for developing software for Mac OS X is NeXT's API...

    Apple is changing around some stuff, (dropping DPS for Quartz, for example) but it will all be _very_ interesting. Apple didn't just buy NeXT for kicks you know. And lots of the Mac OS X team is composed of the very same team that brought you NeXTStep.
  • The original Macintosh was an all-in-one, in 1984, as was the Lisa, which Apple shipped in '83. Many of Apple's consumer and education systems throughout the years have been all-in-ones.
  • Apple is not calling Mac OS 9 Mac OS 9 in an attempt to take advantage of Microware's marketing. eMachines is making the eOne look like the iMac to take advantage of Apple's marketing. eMachines actually admitted this.

    As for calling Mac OS 9 Mac OS X, that's a bad idea. Mac OS X isn't even really Mac OS anymore. It's Apple's big new next generation OS that has more in common with *BSD than Mac OS.

    It would be a marketing mess to have to change it's name. Apple could call Mac OS 9 Mac OS 8.99999 or something though :-)
  • Apple does make real computers too you know. I'm using a Power Mac G3 right now. Looks great, fast, and it's the easiest case to open and work in I've ever seen. Go here [apple.com].

    Runs Linux too. (Actually, so does the iMac)
  • No. Apple has the right to make transluscent computuers with integrated monitors that look like the iMac.

    That is NOT the only posible design or color arrangement you can choose for a computer. Now, I'm not so sure about this eOne since it does look somewhat different, but the Daewoo/FuturePower machine looked just like it and should have been sued.
  • (which makes it much easier to install Linux)

    That's just FUD. Linux generally installs more easily on Macs because the hardware set is much more limited. There are a couple advantages to a closed architecture, and that's one of 'em.
  • I am suprised that still, no one has gotten it right like apple. That is a disgusting clone that I'd be ashamed to own.
  • I'm tired of Apple basically admitting in court that "trade dress" is all they have to differentiate their product in the marketplace

    Ok, say you weren't the intelligent reader of /. you are today. Say you have little to no knowledge of computers (except how to use Word and that Windows crashes when you don't want it to). You look at these two computers. They look very much alike, but you don't know the difference between a MHz and a CDROM.

    At this point, all Apple has is the designs of its case. With people who don't know these things, technical merit means squat. You and I (and hopefully everyone on /.) know what's what. The difference is that the iMac isn't being marketed to us (which is why I dismiss techies who complain about the iMac's lack of floppy drive). It's being marketed to the entry-level consumer market.

    If you want quality, buy quality, Joe Schmoe who has never touched a computer in his life but really wants one will definately be going at least partly on looks.

  • Maybe Apple is hoping that they can use the settlement from iMac wannabes like Emachines & Daewoo to pay their settlement to Microware for using "OS 9"
  • But the intellectual roadblock to this line of thinking is that it is a subjective assessment whether one thing looks like another. The line has to be drawn somewhere to distinquish between things that look alike and things that do not look alike. And drawing that line is the problem. Because that line will always be fuzzy, no one can be certain when they cross it and intrude into someone else's claimed protected turf.

    Product clones have been around for years. It happened in apparel, thus we have high-profile designers actually putting their names on their products and stumbling into the popular designer apparel industry. Golf clubs are cloned. And, to my eyes at least, most late model 4 door coupes look pretty much the same.

    The market can decide whether the cloned product is as desirable as the original. Typically, cloned products are of inferior quality and many buyers won't buy them because of this. The best asset a manufacturer has is their own name and the price/quality they put in their products. Apple would be better off trying to make the best damn iMacs they can and let the public decide whether the clones are a better buy. And, of course, they should proudly place their name across the front of their product. Consumers aren't dummies. They will know if they are dealing with an Apple product or not.

    So, I think Apple is doing something wrong here. They are wasting stockholder's money trying to establish a legal monopoly on a particlar, vaguely-defined product look.
    ---
  • Besides, doesn't the e-one come with a WinModem?
  • I'd have to say I am not behind Apple on this one. THe eOne doesn't look much like the iMac (Unlike the Future Power clone). It's taken roughly a 9 months to year for the iMac-similar PC's to hit the market, and Apple is close to introducing new designs. I think that as long can stay a year ahead, the needn't worry about companies copying thier old designs.
  • Finally some hits the nail squarely on the head! This is the best post by an anonymous coward I've ever seen! The whole idea of the iMac is that it is sold to idiots! The iMac is geared towards people who cannot/do not want to learn about computers. These people want a machine which works like a TV: Plug it in and it works. No automatic driver configuration like in Win95. In fact, no technical words mentioned at all. It is this group of people who will be confused, and who eOne intends to confuse (and admits to it!). Geeks like you and I will neither be confused, nor even be targeted customers. If I were Jobs, I'd even be proud. It previously took Apple years to change the industry. Now it only takes months. --Jeff 'You can use NT, Linux, or MacOS. I, however, will take the high road and use some of each.'
  • Finally some hits the nail squarely on the head! This is the best post by an anonymous coward I've ever seen!

    The whole idea of the iMac is that it is sold to idiots! The iMac is geared towards people who cannot/do not want to learn about computers. These people want a machine which works like a TV: Plug it in and it works. No automatic driver configuration like in Win95. In fact, no technical words mentioned at all.

    It is this group of people who will be confused, and who eOne intends to confuse (and admits to it!). Geeks like you and I will neither be confused, nor even be targeted customers.

    If I were Jobs, I'd even be proud. It previously took Apple years to change the industry. Now it only takes months.

    --Jeff

    'You can use NT, Linux, or MacOS. I, however, will take the high road and use some of each.'
  • Those of you ranting about the iMac isn't an original box, or how the eOne is a crappy copy, are missing the point.

    It is not legal, nor right, to try to "steal" a brand identity. The Coke bottle, the IBM logo, the corvette shape and logotype, hell even then name "Linux" all imply a certain value to the consumer. If you see a fluted bottle filled with a brown liquid, with a script typeface on one side and a serif typeface on the other, you are clearly looking at a bottle of "Coca-Cola"-and can choose to drink (or not-if you really hate coke, the bottle's a quick way to avoid it).

    Emachines in is no way positioning thier product as a better product. In thier ideal world, they would have the eOne right next to the iMac so that uninformed customers would buy it.

    Hell, even their little demonstration applet is cribbed from the iMac commercials.

    Building a simple, all in one computer dosen't violate look-and-feel. Even the most ignorant user wouldn't confuse the Compaq Presario 400 series and the iMac. If they had made the case solid blue-or black-or white-or a different shape- then look-and-feel wouldn't have been violated.

    But they 1) Made parts of the case transparent blue, 2) Installed the CD-ROM dead center, 3) Offer matching-color coordinated keyboards and mice-the keyboard practially looks like it is an iMac keyboard 3) Chose a simliar name (four characters, with the second capitalized. 4) Chose similar logos (Apple-Think Differerent, Emachines-Think. Learn. Play.)

    What if someone put out an operating system called "Finux?" (nods to Neal Stephanson), and called the windows manager "Dwarf" -and used a handprint as the logo?

    Winning by better technology (ie-two button mouse vs. one button, FDD vs. no FDD) is fine. Winning-or even competing-by stealing identity cues is wrong, and always will be.

    This case is *FUD*-at it's core. They are sowing uncertainty and doubt by deliberatly aping the iMac identity-and it's wrong. If the eOne is so superior and easy to use, it should triumph on its own over the iMac. Instead, Emachines is trying to say "well, our all in one computer is just the same, but with our extensions." Does this sound familiar.

    I'm against lame lawsuits as much as the next guy. Apple lost the look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft, because it was obvious, at first glance, that the Macintosh System and Windows were two different products. That's what "look and feel" means-Is a product distinctive?

    In this case, no. Emachines deserves to lose. If they can make a better iMac, then they should make it look distinct-so customers wouldn't buy the iMac by mistake. The fact that they made it damn near identical means they don't think they can beat the iMac, so they are trying to snipe a few sales away.

    Feh. Typical Microrwellian tacticts. Put aside your hated of Apple and realize that the tactic is wrong.



  • This just in - Microsoft has announced their newest product, ready for release in October of 1999 - Winux 1.0. It is a UNIX based OS featuring the time tested multi-tasking, stability, and power of Linux. It will be "Open-Sourced", meaning you can look at the code and submit improvements to Microsoft.com. However, you are not allowed to post code to any other sites. It features the Window Manager WindowsKD, as well as Office 2000 for Winux. Most impressively, Winux can run existing Windows applications natively.

    Winux comes packaged in a black box featuring the Microsoft penguin named "Nome" wearing a red beret. It will be available on CD-ROM worldwide in October for a street price of $59.99. It is 100% incompatible with Linux and features the Microsoft-proprietary variation of TCP/IP known as MS-IP, as to which only Windows 98 and NT curently have drivers for. Microsoft has no plans to announce licensing of MS-IP to any outside parties.

    When asked about the similarities to Linux, Microsoft President Steve Balmer said "We are aware of Linux and the strides it's made in the marketplace. We feel that by offering a Windows version to our customers they can capitalize on the benefits of Linux without suffering from the lack of software. Linux is a nice product but we feel Winux beats it in every category." Ballmer went on to introduce the project manager for Winux, a gentleman by the name of Linus Torwindous.

    Winux is expected to ship 3 million copies in it's first 2 months, and pass up Linux distribution by mid-2000.


    ...do you really believe that Red Hat and every other legal organization with ties to Linux wouldn't sue immediately? Apple has every right to sue - the iMac and it's design is their lifeblood until Mac OS X ships.



    ------------
    DJ Raz
    raz@wfnk.com [mailto]
  • even that Apple washed out brain admitted that MacOS X is sucking big time

    I've got an idea. Let's judge the OS after it ships and not before. I doubt very much that your "friend" has actually seen internal OS X builds, but even if he has, it ain't finished yet.
  • Wow! I never knew so many people had hard, shiny, translucent, fruit-flavored butts!

    Is your butt PnP, as well? Does it support Hot-Swapping? How expandable is it? Can the iMac even compete with your butt's inuendo potential?
  • Makes me wanna puke, but
    apparently they have a case.

    No pun intended, right? =)

    -=- Leviat -=-
  • So, what they're trying to say is, it's illegal for anyone but Apple to sell tacky, non-upgradable computers?

    I can see it now... "GM sues Ford, claims Ford has stolen its intellectual property by manufacturing cars in colors other than black."
  • I'm not an expert on industrial patents -

    But since I actually HAVE one of these
    nice little boxes - and have seen IMacs
    up close and personal too -

    IMHO - they are different enough in
    shape and "racing stripes" to not
    be a violation. Though in staring at it
    a little closer - If you turned your
    Imac on it's side you'd be about the
    shape of the EOne. So the orientation
    of the physical shape is about 90 degrees
    different. Who wants to use a computer
    on it's side? ;-)

    As for peripheral content - well - the
    EOne has a floppy ;-)

    Lastly - and this is for anyone thinking
    of putting Linux on this, then running
    KDE with the Mac theme. It doesn't. Linux
    loads just fine -but is un-aware of the
    newer 21145 Enet chip, and the video
    timings on the EOne seem to be beyond
    X's kin. I haven't found a "nice" video
    timing of ANY SORT yet. Even the VGA
    driver doesn't work?

    Steve

  • Check this out:
    Donna Weinstein, a principal at the law firm of Fish & Richardson, says she was stunned when she read eMachines' rationale for its new product.

    "An eMachines spokesperson said in the paper that it was hoping to trade off Apple's brand name. If I was their lawyer, I would have died when I read that," says Weinstein, who practices trademark litigation. She says it gives Apple a chance to charge eMachines with willful infringement. Apple did not return calls seeking comment.

    from: http://fnews.yahoo.com/street/99/08/18/valley_9908 18.html


  • So what if eMachines STOLE this idea?

    "There is an unlimited number of original designs that eMachines could have created for their computers, but instead they chose to copy Apple's designs," said Steve Jobs, Apple's interim CEO.

    What about the GUI & Mouse? Apple STOLE that idea from Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). Jobs himself was even quoted quoting Pablo Picasso - "Good artists copy. Great artists steal."

    Seems a little hypocritical? I think Apple will lose this battle. You can't copyright the idea of a translucent case, the color blue, and an all-in-one computer. Apple is silly to think that they can. Even if it does look like the iMac, it doesn't look THAT much like the iMac. I can't see THAT many people being confused by it.
  • Because you all sure seem to put forth the image that you are. I guess the *normal* Mac users are the ones who STFU when they have nothing better to say, eh.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • Last I heard, it worked fine if you didn't mind not being able to use the keyboard or mouse.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • > If I encase my computer and colored gel and
    > sell it to a friend will I be sued to?

    Depends. Are you going to style it as close to an iMac as possible in an attempt to confuse your friend into thinking he's buying one, or will it look more like one of those weird Intel boxes (which Apple apparently doesn't see as a threat)?

    There's a fine line between imitating a trend and ripping it off in the hope of a cheap sale. The eMachines and Daewoo models simply look too much like an iMac for Apple's comfort.

    Before anybody gets the chance to burn me to a crisp, I worked in retail from 1994-1998 and I can say with assuredness that most people couldn't tell the difference between the machines, and most salespeople couldn't tell the difference either. In fact, most of them couldn't tell the difference between Whizzo butter and a dead crab. In both cases, you are typically dealing with, shall we say, knowledge-disadvantaged people.(My time was not a happy one, so perhaps I'm slightly biased.)

    It'll be very interesting to see if anybody comes up with a translucent-and-orange or translucent-and-blue laptop computer with a built-in handle, eh?


  • its no wonder Apple is suing.
    The eOne is expandable...it has 2 PCMCIA slots
    its a perfect multimedia machine, its got video input! The CD-Player controls are on the front of the machine and even work when the machine is off.....some of it may be a rip off, but there are many differences....not to mention 400Mhz processor and a much, much lower price tag.

    I support eOne, infact I wouldn't mind having one for a internet terminal...its got everything i want in an all in one...where-as the iMac is MISSING any type of internal expansion and doesn't have any video input, which is something i love on my dual celeron.
  • I think the EOne is different enough that it will be allowed to be sold; however, the other iMac clone looks almost exactly like it. I can't remeber its name but someone will post it.

    But I think the real reason why Apple is doing this is because the pc clones are some much cheaper than the iMac. You can buy 2 or 3 pcs for the price of the mac, plus you can run everything a pc can run.

  • Ugh. (Score:2)

    by Evro ( 18923 )
    How about this. Ford "designs" a car that looks almost exactly like the Corvette. It has a different interior and the steering wheel's on the right side and it has a bigger engine. Oh, and a cup holder. But the body style is distinctly Corvette. Don't you think Chevy would complain? Don't you think they would have every right to?

    I don't get why people seem to have this inbred hatred of Apple. First their open source efforts are just "not good enough" and now they fight to try and protect a design that has become their signature and they are some kind of pirates out to stop everybody from making computers to compete with iMac.

    Listen, Apple is not doing anything wrong here. The eMachines computer was a clear design ripoff. Even the keyboard is practically identical. Like Jobs said, there were millions of designs they could have come up with, but instead they decided to copy a design Apple spent lots of money developing because it's a hot selling item. I don't see why people make Apple the bad guy here and simply exonerate eMachines from any wrongdoing. It's that "Apple Sucks" mentality that everybody seems to propagate, and these days it's really baseless, and very aggravating.

  • "Use it or lose it" (Score:3)

    by G-Man ( 79561 ) on Friday August 20, 1999 @05:30AM (#1736026)
    I'm sure people are going to get in a huff about this, but it does make sense in light of trademark law. (We'll leave out the whole intellectual property debate for now.) Apple has already sued Future Power under 'trade dress' for what is most decidely an iMac ripoff.

    Yeah, I don't think the eOne is a blatant ripoff, but it walks up to the line. Further, I think an eMachines spokesman told a reporter they were looking to trade on the brand name of the iMac (don't have the exact quote), which surely sent their legal department into conniption fits.

    Since you *have* to defend your trademarks to keep them valid, I think Apple feels compelled to at least go through the motions regarding the eOne. Otherwise, Future Power can say "Hey, eMachines has a translucent blue all-in-one but they didn't get sued!"

    My prediction: eOne gets settled out of court, while the Future Power never sees a store shelf.
  • Because one ass cheek didn't know what the other ass cheek was up to in Xerox. They lost in court because Apple showed that they had a licensing agreement in the form of a stock offering. BTW, the same thing happened between Apple and Microsoft.
  • Car companies make cars that look like distinct ripoffs of other peoples cars all the time. It's no big deal.

    The eOne definately doesn't look exactly like an imac. It looks like the iMac's inbred, retarded country cousin. A hackneyed immitation. Nobody is going to mistake this one.

    It looks about as much like an iMac as a Mazda Miata looks like a Fiat Spider 2000. And Mazda has made no secret of their inspiration. People *Don't* get sued over this sort of thing in the "real world".

    You would think Apple would have understood by now, they'v never won a look-and-feel case before, and aren't likely to win one in the future.

  • I think Apple is cheesed off because the eMachine box costs $400 less, and has the added benefit of being a PC-compatible.

    If you can't beat them, sue them...

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close