ObjectDock Threads Being Deleted ~


Recommended Posts

fuss??

I'm having fun.

I couldn't care less about Object Dock.

A buddy of mine is making a realistic dock and I'm doing the images for it. (Which are SWEEET!)

I've been asking him to do this for a long time because he has the skills to do it.

Wickedkitten is cool and very intelligent; I enjoy arguing with him.

I hope he rips my last post apart! Someones right, but who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Apple send in the legal eagles if Stardock released this thing - well in the state it is now they would do it for misrepresenting how good the OSX Dock is, because quite simply Objectdock is unfit for use - yes I had it, played with it, threw it away because I know a brilliant programmer who is creating a dock that does far more than Objectdock can do now, or will do so in the future, in fact more than Apples OSX dock can do now and in the future and that?s the sort of dock I want.

Apple could not and would never send in the lawyers simply because Objectdock looks and feels alike the OSX dock (in the way it functions) because the win32 code is different from the OSX code. Apple can patent and copyright their code, but not the look and feel of something. Apple now that because in the case of Apple versus HP and Xerox they lost the suite - so you cannot patent or copyright look/feel/function, but you can patent and copyright the codebase.

To be perfectly honest the only thing that I see, in Objectdock as it stands and in the semi functional state it was leaked, that Apple could decide to call the lawyers in over is images that could be, indeed I am pretty sure are, copyrighted by Apple.

In all that?s been said about this thing - i.e. - Apple maybe being less than pleased about Objectdocks existence; Stardock maybe never releasing it because they do not want to annoy Apple - I have not seen anyone mention the plain and simple fact that when Apple last went to court trying to pull that stunt they lost the case and lost big time.

Apple has not forgotten - you can tell they haven't simply by the words used when they said Aquadock wasn't a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by deadzombie

...on U.S. law and development practices. What the h3ll was I thinking? Having a little Scottsman in my lineage I'm glad it was a Scottsman who corrected me in the error of my ways.

first of all I'm a woman, and second of all anytime you do develop a prog and intend to release in more than one country you do kind of tend to study bits of copyright and development law in that other country.

Let me get this straight; You are saying that because Stardock has an internal build of an application that uses Apple imagery that it's freeware if it leaks out, even if they are involved in a legal dialog with Apple concerning that application?

unless they got apples permission to use the dock imagery which is in fact copyrighted by Apple it doesn't matter if its freeware or not. You get the legal dialog over BEFORE you develop the application not afterwards when the company finds out that you have done it and are in the process of perhaps suing you for that software being leaked by you and made available in a form that people CAN distribute it.

Hmmm...no it sounds like your still making excuses for people doing the wrong thing.

pot and kettle

Regardless of what Object Dock does or doesn't do, it's is still Stardocks intellectual property, and it is illegal for anyone else to use it without Stardocks legal permission.

Stardock does not retain intellectual property on the dock image, apple does. Regardless of what the Objectdock does and doesn't do if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it must be said its a duck. Same applies to the dock vs object dock.

At no time did Stardock legally release the Object Dock in any commercial sense, thus not violating Apples intellectual property. They did not 'reverse engineer' the OSX dock (that would be pointless). The use of Apples images and effects on an internal build that is being discussed with Apple is not a violation of law.

sorry but stardock HAS released the objectdock whether it was by a leak or by object network has no bearing on that. The use of apples images and effects (and they do have the genie effect trademarked)without their permission PERIOD is a violation of law. Have you looked at the apple copyright site lately? Obviously by your comments I'm guessing that you haven't so I'll give you the link:

http://www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3r...3rdparties.html

It seems clear that people distributing the Object Dock as warez could find themselves in legal conflict with both Stardock and Apple, under U.S. law, which is what counts in this issue. One for intellectual property, one for trademark/ copyright violations.

I shudder to think that you think Stardock could legally go after someone for distributing what a court would see as a illegal application in the first place. For it to be warez in the first place it would have to be a prog that is copyrighted and commercially available, and I highly doubt that Stardock was able to get a copyright for it considering that would violate apples copyright. Seeing as how it isn't copyrighted its considered public-domain software which is free and can be used without restrictions. Now if anyone decides to go after anyone in this case it will be Apple going after Stardock for breaking these guidelines:

a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name.

dock is trademarked under aqua and objectdock broke that guideline.

b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as "runs on," "for use with," "for," or "compatible with."
c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name.
d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product.
e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services.
f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.

since it has been "released" as objectdock and in that form these would all apply cos who knows HOW many people have it

Stardock did not distribute this, they are not liable.

stardock made it in the first place and stardock are the ones that leaked it, they are liable

As you say, "pure and simple". [/b]

yup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this has got to be the single longest post i've ever seen her make.

i agree with wickedkitten tho. i always agree with wickedkitten. i have to agree with wickedkitten. if i don't...well....then i will probably regret it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by leqin

Apple could not and would never send in the lawyers simply because Objectdock looks and feels alike the OSX dock (in the way it functions) because the win32 code is different from the OSX code. Apple can patent and copyright their code, but not the look and feel of something. Apple now that because in the case of Apple versus HP and Xerox they lost the suite - so you cannot patent or copyright look/feel/function, but you can patent and copyright the codebase.

you can think that apple cant copyright a look if you want lol

they can't copyright the concept of aqua but as look as they have it set as a tangible object which they do in the aqua interface it can and is copyrighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Stardock asks us to remove a thread where people from Neowin are linking to an App that Stardock does not want distributed we will remove it. This applies to everybody. We receive alot of messages and moderation is up these past weeks because we are seeing some 1300 posts a day here. Some are posts that are not acceptable. If we had 200 posts a day, well then the moderation would be a whole lot easier. We are not turning into a "Gestapo" it is simply alot busier now = more moderation. (does this make sense? - I hope so)

Again I will try to explain why.

Stardock has a presence on the Neowin boards, as developers I find this a bonus to the community. Other developers of software also visit these boards and use them for feedback (as they do on other sites) Why do people have a problem with this? I believe it is better to talk to the people that actually can make a difference to the apps we download than when we complain about it to a brick wall (ie: someone who cannot change it)

Objectdock as I understand it is an app that was leaked and can be considered shareware if it ever got released. because stardock makes shareware programs. So if anyone has a copy other than the developers themselves (or permitting persons) it can be consider illegal (or not totally cool)

Aside from the legal points here it is an app that stardock did not intend to have spread around the Internet, we merely complied to the request to remove the links.

As for Neowin affiliating warez. This is not true, SP3 and DirectX builds if ever linked were linked from legit news sites and the software is also freeware. I cannot put service packs and directx in the same category as warez. I dont think you can either.

We are monitored by Microsoft and have yet to receive any emails concerning DirectX and SP3 download links. The only warnings we got were for supplying MSN4 before it came out and a direct link to the XP Powertoys that MS found unacceptable.

So let us worry about that I can assure you I dont loose sleep over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Neobond

If Stardock asks us to remove a thread where people from Neowin are linking to an App that Stardock does not want distributed we will remove it. This applies to everybody. We receive alot of messages and moderation is up these past weeks because we are seeing some 1300 posts a day here. Some are posts that are not acceptable. If we had 200 posts a day, well then the moderation would be a whole lot easier. We are not turning into a "Gestapo" it is simply alot busier now = more moderation. (does this make sense? - I hope so)

Again I will try to explain why.

Stardock has a presence on the Neowin boards, as developers I find this a bonus to the community. Other developers of software also visit these boards and use them for feedback (as they do on other sites) Why do people have a problem with this? I believe it is better to talk to the people that actually can make a difference to the apps we download than when we complain about it to a brick wall (ie: someone who cannot change it)

Objectdock as I understand it is an app that was leaked and can be considered shareware if it ever got released. because stardock makes shareware programs. So if anyone has a copy other than the developers themselves (or permitting persons) it can be consider illegal (or not totally cool)

Aside from the legal points here it is an app that stardock did not intend to have spread around the Internet, we merely complied to the request to remove the links.

As for Neowin affiliating warez. This is not true, SP3 and DirectX builds if ever linked were linked from legit news sites and the software is also freeware. I cannot put service packs and directx in the same category as warez. I dont think you can either.

We are monitored by Microsoft and have yet to receive any emails concerning DirectX and SP3 download links. The only warnings we got were for supplying MSN4 before it came out and a direct link to the XP Powertoys that MS found unacceptable.

So let us worry about that I can assure you I dont loose sleep over it.

neobond I see your point about taking the links off the board because stardock asked you to

but

the prog is definatly not shareware in the sense that for a prog to be shareware it has to be copyrighted, and if in fact it is considered shareware then you can copy shareware and pass it along to friends and colleagues from a legal standpoint without it being considered warez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wickedkitten: yep I thought about that too, but I just decided not to be difficult and complied.

Edit: its also the reason I haven't called it "warez"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Neobond

Wickedkitten: yep I thought about that too, but I just decided not to be difficult and complied.

Edit: its also the reason I haven't called it "warez"

yeah, i don't see this site as being stardocks ###### at all, you were just being considerate which ya don't see much of happening nowadays.

although I have heard from several of the mods at another site which shall of course remain nameless that they were offered subs of odn to quell the anti-stardockness, hopefully that hasnt happened here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good news site is only as good as its reporters, so we try to stay as unbiased as possible. The only change in "tactics" would be that we were supported by the developers of the software that we promote. It makes it easier to submit news on certain products when the developers have a direct link to Neowin.

TGTSoft had this, however I never get emails from them now (I did when they were unknown and new) so that stardock keeps its presence here and emails consistantly (software releases) I can truly say they have won my respect because it wasnt just about a new version of WindowBlinds or promoting a single product, they have remained consistant to the very first time I had email conversations with them. We were most definetly not bought out or bribed to pimp their products. We post what is sent in and deemed appropriate for you guys.

I wish more developers would take the opportunity to use Neowin as their base for feedback and posting, we certainly have the userbase for it.

I dont chase developers/sponsors like I did when we first started so maybe thats why there is only a small percentage of interest on Neowin (from the developers point of view) the skinning community really took off at Neowin and it only seemed right at the time that Stardock and TGTSoft noticed us.

The fact remains that Stardock have continued their support for Neowin in the sense that they still have a presence here. TGTSoft seems to of just dropped us (first by announcing their preference to Themexp.org above all the other sites/links) and now we dont even get the email announcements of new versions of their software.

Is this because we support both products? (being un-biased) or did they decide that themexp could do more, I dunno. but I do know who I respect.

Edit: Spell Cecker disabeld :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wickedkitten, 3 items;

1.) The American slang for anyone living in or from Scottland is 'Scottsman'. It is a gender neutral term. No offense intended.

2.) I still disagree with your points concerning the leak of Object Dock. You call what happened a release, I call it theft. Brad had said that Object Dock may have been leaked through IRC - pure speculation on the nature of the leak.

3.) I think you're right about everything else. Thanks for the reference to the Apple legal site, and the excellent points you've made. Seriously.

deadzombie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by deadzombie

Wickedkitten, 3 items;

1.) The American slang for anyone living in or from Scottland is 'Scottsman'. It is a gender neutral term. No offense intended.

2.) I still disagree with your points concerning the leak of Object Dock. You call what happened a release, I call it theft. Brad had said that Object Dock may have been leaked through IRC - pure speculation on the nature of the leak.

3.) I think you're right about everything else. Thanks for the reference to the Apple legal site, and the excellent points you've made. Seriously.

deadzombie

its scotland, theres no person that scott that owns this land :) that bit was just about the "Wickedkitten is cool and very intelligent; I enjoy arguing with him." part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's a ridiculous comment. of course "it doesn't cost money" or "require a crack or reg number"...it's a leak of an internal proof of concept! are they going to charge themselves money or require a crack or reg number to release an internal proof of concept? it's a case of something getting into the wrong hands and no thanks we won't all die (not today and because of this anyway)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

you can think that apple cant copyright a look if you want lol

they can't copyright the concept of aqua but as look as they have it set as a tangible object which they do in the aqua interface it can and is copyrighted.

What a brilliant set of replies Wickedkitten - seriously some of the points you make could not have been put across better in the replies that I just read, however I sort of get the impression that when you say 'look' you mean one thing, because when I say 'look' I mean something quite different.

Apple versus Hewlett Packard and Xerox is one of the most infamous court cases in PC history and basically what it came down to is that Apple tried to stop HP and Xerox marketing a product that made Windows look like something that Apple created for use with their computers - Apple lost the case - the US courts ruling was that you cannot copyright the look of something, but can copyright the code used to create its appearance on screen.

What does this mean in regards to the word look and how the look of something cannot be patented or copyrighted?

Leqin takes his win32 head off and puts on his linux head for just a minute - okay well in front of me I have a PC and it is running Mandrake Linux v8.20 beta, with the windowmanager named KDE. Now KDE looks like the Microsoft Windows shell known as Explorer.exe. KDE, like the MS program, features a taskbar that runs from left to right at the bottom of the video screen. KDE also features a button that appears to work like the Explorer Start button and indeed when you click on the thing that looks like a start button in KDE a menu appears that looks like the MS Windows start menu. Amazingly enough, when you start running the programs in this menu they all appear to be like the programs you see on a MS Windows PC - they all have 3 buttons that minimize, maximize and close the programs. All the programs feature either toolbars, or menu systems, or both - in fact both Microsoft Windows and KDE appear so similar that you could ask yourself the question why it is that Microsoft do not take KDE to court for creating something that looks so like their Windows operating systems .... Apple versus HP and Xerox .... You cannot patent, or copyright, the look and feel of something .... You can only patent, or copyright, the underlying code.

KDE achieves its look using code that is nothing like the code that achieves the same thing for Microsoft. Likewise the code for a program running in MS Windows on a PC looks nothing like the code for a program running on a Apple computer under any of Apples operating systems.

Agreed the images that are copyrighted by Apple are something that Apple could pursue a case over. When I looked at Objectdock one of the first things that occurred to me is that Stardock were pretty stupid to have used any images that could be copyrighted by Apple (especially one which I am certain is a trademark), because it would have made much more sense to use generic images that no one person, or company, holds the copyright for.

So far as the general layout, on screen, of Objectdock is concerned then Apple do not really have a case that they could argue because they have already tried to and lost - erm and if they tried doing something that even remotely looked like overturning the US courts ruling then a very very very BIG company would sit up and take notice, a company that currently keeps Apple alive with software written for their computers and regular donations of money ... Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Neobond

Stardock has a presence on the Neowin boards, as developers I find this a bonus to the community. Other developers of software also visit these boards and use them for feedback (as they do on other sites) Why do people have a problem with this? I believe it is better to talk to the people that actually can make a difference to the apps we download than when we complain about it to a brick wall (ie: someone who cannot change it)

Couldn't agree more Neobond - I use a lot of Beta software and there is nothing better than being able to talk directly with the softwares developers. Sadly some seem to take their attendance here as sign that Neowin sides with them, no matter who they may be, or which company they work for. That line of arguement sounds more like the sort you used to here about magazines back in the 70s and 80s - they only give X a good review because the company making it runs such big adverts and pays big money - what absolute tosh - companys that even hinted at trying to influence the editorial in a magazine got dropped like a bombshell regardless of how much money they spent on adverts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by leqin

Apple versus Hewlett Packard and Xerox is one of the most infamous court cases in PC history and basically what it came down to is that Apple tried to stop HP and Xerox marketing a product that made Windows look like something that Apple created for use with their computers - Apple lost the case - the US courts ruling was that you cannot copyright the look of something, but can copyright the code used to create its appearance on screen.

ok I get what your getting at but first of all the case was Apple vs Hewlett Packard/Microsoft, not Xerox and in 1988 which the case went to court originally software patents and copyright law was not the same as it is now.

If you think that Apple can't copyright a look I think you'd better take a look at these links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/17461.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archi...hive/16579.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmm about this whole leak thing..... not to start a debate etc.. etc... but when does a leak become illegal? Is this new BeOS build (5.1) leak illegal to own? Even though it would most likely have been free anyways? I guess it all does come down to whether permission was given, but then again I'm sure MS doesnt give permission for IE6 or DX leaks ;) afterall a leak is a leak because permission wasnt given for it to be let out, but if it was free in the first place..... hmm I just confused myself, try to make sense of what I said, may take awhile ;) Anyways I just want to know whether a leak is "illegal" all of the time, legal all of the time or maybe a lil of both :ermm: Maybe we'll never truely know cause I'm sure everyone will have different opinions on the matter. Dont mind me.. I've had a long day :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...half the time these things aren't illegal just in and of themselves.

like the aqua themes. there's no court presidence to say that themes that look like aqua are illegal and infringe on apple's copyrights. now, they may infringe on apple's intellectual rights, but, that's something completely different. i mean, the apple v microsoft case turned out where microsoft gave apple a few million in settlement (150 maybe?) and promised to release office and internet explorer versions of software for mac os. frankly, apple should be thanking ms for giving them something better than claris works, or appleworks, or whatever they call that crappy office suite nowadays...

the thing about apple is, they have lawyers. lots of lawyers. lawyers that have offices DOWN THE HALL from stevey-boy jobs. if that's not keeping things in-house, i don't know what is. apple may not have a leg to stand on if it tried to sue stardock for making a taskmanager similar to the aqua dock, but that wouldn't matter, because, in the end, i'm sure apple has a lot more capital than stardock with which to draw out a legal battle.

reminds me of my favorite childhood bedtime story:

Controlling the Playground: Respect Through Fear

:old:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by mephistocorugan

reminds me of my favorite childhood bedtime story:

Controlling the Playground: Respect Through Fear

:old:

Uh huh and I bet that your favourite bit was when Little Billy got smacked in the back of his head with a shovel and buried under the monkeybars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

ok I get what your getting at but first of all the case was Apple vs Hewlett Packard/Microsoft, not Xerox and in 1988 which the case went to court originally software patents and copyright law was not the same as it is now.

If you think that Apple can't copyright a look I think you'd better take a look at these links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/17461.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archi...hive/16579.html

Apple can copyright anything that they like so far as original imagery is concerned. They will have a damned hard case (and a very costly one also) proving that, simply because something appears to functionion on a Intel PC screen n a fashion like it appears to function on a Apple PC screen then they must be exactly the same thing and work in the same way - they do not - they could not because the operating systems are completely different.

It maybe seems a bit pedantic (it seems that way to me also [big smile]) but the only reason I restate this point is because in a thread (one thats since been deleted) someone said that Apple will be ill amused because Objectdock appears to function like the dock in OSX - but then there is also another reason to keep that lost court case back in 1988 in mind. If Apple went to court to prove that item x was like their item y, but this time the decision went their way, then it raises the issue of would they appeal to have that original ruling back in 1988 overturned, because it was a decision that they desperatly wanted to win. Because they lost they more or less ceased to be a functional competition and lost the race against Intel/Microsoft - in the 90s the PC began to take off, ending up becoming a consumer item - joe everage doesn't buy Apple - had things been different joe average would have had a choice between 2 more equal alternatives.

Yes your right - HP/MS not HP/Xerox - kicks self (different case). Apple tried the same stunt with practically every customization website. By the time the Register got hold of it that was old news. Apple was merely posturing prior the release of OSX and since then they haven't said a word about the number of Aqua like skins that are readily downloadable, despite the fact that some copy the look of Aqua even more accuratly than those they wanted pulling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timan

Woot why don't we all just shut up lol :D:D:D:D:D:D I mean a dock is a dock and buggs bunny is buggs bunny so .....

why don't you go find a thread thats better suited to your intellectual ability like the "what did you eat for breakfast" one over in general discussion.

people here are trying to carry on for once a non flaming discourse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.