Apple falsely accuses Aqua-based sites??


  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. Apple falsely accuses Aqua-based sites??

    • I bought a Mac after using an Aqua Skin.
      4
    • I own a Mac and PC, use skin to familiarize the two
      7
    • I was or am going to buy a Mac, due to use of skin
      19
    • I am no longer going to buy a mac, due to Apples actions on skin sites
      34
    • I have or am going to sell my mac based on Apples actions
      4


Recommended Posts

You cannot protect colors, but how you use the color. our LowReview Logo (my avatar) is protected, but not the red and yellow. Anyone (i.e. Babya . . .whatever) is a retard for trying to enforce that.

This si a very tricky area of the law - and generally a court would find for Apple if there is a blatent rip off. i.e. someone copies the whole of Apples desktop and the way it works and tries to pass it off as an apple.

I do not know what the alleged infringing theme looked like, and I think it was just the icons that Apple was complaning about. If so, there is no way they can assert protection over icons unless . . . I cant think of any reason why right now. Again, especially if you created them - they are yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Eth3l  

Disclaimer - its 2:00 am here, and I am going off the cuff, very tired. (forgive poor spelling)

1) What is important to remember is the use.  Apple cannot protect a strip, or the colors red yellow or green, but can protect their use.

Example:  If you created a theme with a stoplight maximize, minimize button set you would not be in violation.  However if you did so and used it as an OSX copy - you might be, but still unlikely.

they can in fact protect colour schemes cos all of that is included under trade dress which they do own the rights to

2) The word Aqua.  Apple does nto own the rights to the word Aqua, but own the rights to the word Aqua as the name of an OS.

Example:  I recently statred a newsletter at my Law School called "The Lowreview."  I am in the process of registering this mark.  TO do so I need to define what "Class" the mark is.  Here we are registering it as a print newsletter and a Web Page and a few other things.  If someone wanted to write a book called "Lowreview" about a tree there is no infringement.  However, if someone writes a newsletter called "The Lowreview" well that is blatent infringement.  (P.S. www.lowreview.com)

sorry but they have the word aqua trademarked when used in reference to user interface.

3) "Looks" are Per Se unprotectable.  Firstly this would violate the 1st amendment becasue a "look" is a form of speech, and protecting a look would infringe on my freedom of speech.  end of story

- you could also make an argument that this protection that Apple is asserting violates your free speech.  you would need to show that you did not make a direct copy of their icons, and also prove that you were not trying to pass it off as "OSX" icons.  this last part is where I think you got in trouble and why Apple sent the letter.

looks are indeed protectable as they fall under the term trade dress, thats how icons and fonts are protected in the first place, it doesnt matter if there wasn't a direct copy of it made or not, if there are enough elements in it that it can be shown to be a direct derivative of it its violating the copyright of the icons that are owned by apple that were made for them by the iconfactory. free speech does not matter if you are doing it by breaking a copyright on a webpage.

hope this helps.  If I was you I would fight Apple.  but then again i am a LAw Student and would love the opportunity.  :D

if he actually took your advice id make you pay half when he loses the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welly kitty the fact that ur not in the usa this isn't the same from in scottland ;) and plus ur a mac users a BIG on *a good one ;) but i think thisi sthe point where apple can't do that much about it any more i think i'll have my site up and let apple do something but ill i get a fone call or something not via email cause all u got to say is u never got it ;) i'll leave it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Timan -

Wicked Kitten:

First - Before you negate someone, make sure that you are negating them. Much of what you said is the same thing I did, see below.

I am not going to get in a flaming contest with you, but I will protect my pride. I am also man enought to admit when I am wrong.

Second - In your fist criticism about what I said, you stated that:

they can in fact protect colour schemes cos all of that is included under trade dress which they do own the rights to
Note this is what I said with the modifiation that use was important, i.e. 'as a trade dress.' Whatever that is. Lookit - I took an American Copyright class, and even work with copyright attorneys, and worked on a copyright case for homestore.com where we won a 3.5 million dollar judgement. You need to explain your term Trade Dress.

Third you stated in another criticism of what I said that:

sorry but they have the word aqua trademarked when used in reference to user interface.

If you actually read what I said you will notice that I said:

but own the rights to the word Aqua as the name of an OS
If you want to argue semantics, fine, an OS is not a user interface the UI is part of the OS. . . but I think you knew what I meant.

You are right in seeing that the elements of Aqua are protected. However these right privileges and protections are not broadly interpreted. There are limitations to the use and protection.

A kid sitting at a computer for hours making his own interpretation of the icons that Macs have is again, (as I said many times) IMHO very likely to not be an infringement.

However, making 1) a direct copy 2) pawning / selling / representing / holding it out as a MAC OSX icon and generating revenue from it is.

looks are indeed protectable as they fall under the term trade dress, thats how icons and fonts are protected in the first place, it doesnt matter if there wasn't a direct copy of it made or not, if there are enough elements in it that it can be shown to be a direct derivative of it its violating the copyright of the icons that are owned by apple that were made for them by the iconfactory. free speech does not matter if you are doing it by breaking a copyright on a webpage.

Are you serious? This would mean that Madonna and Britney could sue every little girl that dresses like them. Oh yeah, and anyone who uses Red and Yellow in their webpage logo, I'm gonna sue you too! so watch for your cease and desist letter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timan  

welly kitty the fact that ur not in the usa this isn't the same from in scottland ;) and plus ur a mac users a BIG on *a good one ;) but i think thisi sthe point where apple can't do that much about it any more i think i'll have my site up and let apple do something but ill i get a fone call or something not via email cause all u got to say is u never got it ;) i'll leave it up.

lol that was from US copyright law though :D

If you do keep it up just don't be surprised if they actually serve you with cease or desist notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you wicked Kitten from my Copyright class notes / Outline concerning US copyright law. PS The US Constitution does not allow for Federal US Trademark Law.

4. Art Embedded in Useful Article

Copyright Act 101 defines a useful article as an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to covey information. However, just because art is embedded in a useful article (i.e., applied art) does not make it uncopyrightable.

Thus, a useful / practical article is not per se protected. See below for the test to see if it is

CASE: In Mazer v. Stein, ? used a Balinese statute as a lamp base and when the D copied the base. P brought suit for infringement; D contended that he had not infringed on P's copyright because P's work was a useful and/or utilitarian article and thus not copyrightable. The court held that original works of art do not cease to be copyrightable as works of

art when they are embedded in useful articles.

P = plaintiff

D = Defendant>

5. Doctrine of Separability

In order for a PGS (pictoral, Graphic, Sculpture: here an icon) work to be copyright protected, the article must

contain some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of the article.

Thus for a PGS to be protected it must have some value when it can be separated from the work as a whole. Here, for the icon to be protected it must have some value when separated from the UI

There are 2 tests to determine if it is seperable:>

a. Physical Separability

Physical separability is not as abstract as conceptual separability. Physical separability exists when the artistic or ornamental aspect of the work can physically be separated from the utilitarian aspect (e.g., the sculptured jaguar on the hood of a car; with all the utilitarian elements of the car physically removed, the artistic creation of the jaguar would remain).

b. Conceptual Separability

Conceptual separability is much more abstract and difficult to define than physical separability. There are various "tests" or "concepts" employed by the courts to determine conceptual separability.

1. Primary/Secondary Test

If the ornamental aspect of the article is primary to the subsidiary utilitarian aspect than there is conceptual separability (i.e., the work is both useful and ornamental but more ornamental than useful).

that is the icon by itsel if is theuseful object. The Ui is dependant upon the icon. Thus, the icon canstand alone as a useful object - not applicable here, an icon alone has no use whatsoever>

2. Artistically Designed Functional Components

If the article is simply a artistically designed utilitarian article rather than an ornamental design within a useful object than it is not copyrightable.

ahh here is the key, the icon is an artistically designed useful article - not an ornament like the jaguar hood cat, thus it is NOT copyrightable>

CASE: In Kieselstein v. Accesories by Pearl, P manufactured "designer" belt buckles. When the D made imitations the P sued for copyright infringement; the D contended that there was no infringement because the articles were not subject matter protected by copyright.

The majority held that the primary ornamental aspects of the buckles were separable from their subsidiary utilitarian function. In other words the ornamented surfaces were not required by their utilitarian function - the artistic features could be conceived as having been added to an otherwise utilitarian article.

The dissent contended that courts have followed the principle of permitting copyright to extend only to the ornamental designs contained within useful objects while denying it to artistically designed functional components of useful objects. The belt buckles were

utilitarian in nature thus not copyrightable.

3. Usage Test

In short, the usage test suggests that an article used primarily to serve its utilitarian function should be regarded as lacking conceptual separability.

This means that a PGS used solely for a utilitarian function cannot be conceptually separated - thus lacking copyrightability>

4. Market Approach

The market approach suggests that conceptual separability exists where there is any substantial likelihood that even if the article had no utilitarian use it would still be marketable to a significant segment of

the community simply because of it aesthetic qualities.

this is a possible weakness for the icon case - Apple could sell icons . . !>

5. Reasonable Observer Test

The reasonable observer test suggests that for a design feature to be conceptually separate from the utilitarian aspects, the article must stimulate an the mind of the ordinary, reasonable observer a concept

that is separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian function.

Like the hood cat of a Jag, the PGS must have some symbolic value to the populace to stand alone. I dont think a court would agree that an icon has this>

NOTE: This test employed by the dissent in Barnhart v. Economy Cover is very metaphysical, very subjective, and thus very unpredictable.

Remember this is IMHO and if you are in this position you should talk to an attorney.

Peace, im going to bed - forgive any spelling errors its now 3:45 and I am exhausted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In contrast to ?102 of the Copyright Act, ? 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides that "anyone who uses any identifying features, or false or misleading designation of a product's origin in commerce that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods, services, or commercial activities . . . shall be liable."[17]This language protects the overall "look and feel" of a product's trade dress. Trade dress is the product's overall image that is displayed to the public.[18] An interface combines words, symbols, sizes, shapes, colors, designs and devices in distinctive patterns that consumers can use to identify sources; therefore, it is considered trade dress.
A kid sitting at a computer for hours making his own interpretation of the icons that Macs have is again, (as I said many times) IMHO very likely to not be an infringement.

However, making 1) a direct copy 2) pawning / selling / representing / holding it out as a MAC OSX icon and generating revenue from it is.

if you took a copyright class you should know that it doesn't have to generate revenue for it to be a copyright infringement.

A derivative work is a work that is based on, or incorporates, one or more already existing works. Examples of derivative works include multi-media works using preexisting elements, screenplays adapted from books, new musical arrangements, art reproductions or any other work that modifies, is derived from or elaborates upon a preexisting work. To be copyrightable in its own right, a derivative work must contain enough elements of originality to qualify as as new work. Further, a copyright holder in a derivative work will only obtain a copyright interest in his original contribution, not the underlying, preexisting elements. It is extremely important to note that only the copyright owner of the underlying work, or one who has been granted permission to do so, may prepare derivative works. Unauthorized derivative works violate a copyright holder's exclusive rights under the copyright act.i>

Are you serious? This would mean that Madonna and Britney could sue every little girl that dresses like them. Oh yeah, and anyone who uses Red and Yellow in their webpage logo

do they dress originally? no so they can't get their trade dress copyrighted. However neobond could get the neowin logo trademarked and if anyone used that logo with the blue but with a different name they could get done for trademark violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw Apple! It isn't the ACTUAL skin & most all of the skins are original anyway.... what are they gonna do? Not a damn thing but try to play hardass & use scare tactics. Next thing you know, they'll be suing Microsoft for the Silver theme in XP! :) Hell, maybe Microsoft will start suing the hell out of all you skinners out there.... better be carefull........ oh, wait..... Microsoft doesn't have to resort to stupid sh** like that, they actually generate enough revenue to not have to look at other means of income for their corporation..... HA HA HA HA HA! :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy there, sport. This isn't a 'Mac vs. PC' thread. Let's have some decency.

As both a Mac and PC user, I have some thoughts on all of this.

I am in NO way affiliated with MS or Apple.

That said, here goes...

Apple is wrong. Not for threatening sites, not for infringment, not for copyright, but for one thing which they choose to ignore time and time again.

Skinning DOES win converts.

I was an Apple user 'back in the day' until I learned how to build my own PC's for a fraction of the cost. I was not a full convert to PC's 'cause I still appreciated the Mac OS and the choice of software that was proprietary to their OS. I did, however, move more towards PC's as a cheap alternative.

A couple of years ago, my room-mate got a Mac from a freind because the freind needed a loan. At this same time, Ritchie Chow created the now infamous WinMac. So, here I am with a PC emulating a Mac interface long before Apple considered it an issue. OK, so we had this Mac in our home. We decided to put it thru the ringer. I opened Adobe Premiere, and so did he, on the Mac. ZOOM! Took forever on my PC.

Next, we tried to capture video from the same source. Again, the Mac out did the PC, by a LONG shot. Now, the PC was running a 333mhz with 128 in ram, while the Mac was a 233 with less ram.

"How could this be?", we thought. The Mac should be slower...but it wasn't. That did it, I was re-sold on Mac's. However, I had gotten very used to PC's. I decided to continue my search for Mac GUI items. I found sites like Iconfactory and resexcellence and made my own icons. I found MacVision and had the GUI. I found sounds, wallpapers, etc. and had the full Mac OS experience on my PC. I was comfy.

Then people like Stardock began swallowing up our sites and Apps. They *******ized the practice of honest skinning. Forward to today and you have sites EVERYWHERE...StyleXP, ThemeXP, Wincustomize, customize.org, deskmod...and so on. No wonder Apple is scared, the skinning community is a major business now making millions! Well, I'm scared too....AND VERY ****ED OFF!!!

I do NOT support Stardock or any other rip off, scam, or thief of skins, nor will I ever stoop down to their level. I give their programs away as an insult to them. Noone should have to pay for that crap...their apps hog memory anyway.

Skinning used to be a community of artists having a good time, trading(FOR FREE) their works, and creating new OS themes. Some free options still exist, like Winstep, Litestep, and more, but noone gives THEM the respect THEY deserve. Where are the groups on Neo-Win for THEM? Their sites replace the crappy Win32 OS with all new experiences, including Mac OS inspired themes.

Bottom line, since I like to go off in tangents, is that Apple should calm down and review the numbers, Stardock should kiss my a$$, People should keep skinning FOR FREE, and MS should let go of its share of the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know precisely what it is, that Apple don't agree with? I think it is the names OSX, Aqua and to some degree Mac. That would explain why the OSX themes were pulled from ThemeXP.og after Apple's threat. I don't believe it was because Apple found them to be souch an accurate Aqua rip off that they caused confusion between the real thing.

So I would ask Apple what it is exactly that they don't agree with. Then tackle each point from a legal and copyright point of view. No harm in asking and there may be much to be gained. Wouldn't it be a good thing if a simple name change solved all or most of the issues.

I am a typical PC user with several systems at home used by my kids. I don't buy complete systems, just keep upgrading each one with relatively low cost enhancements and I now have a big investment in PC HW and SW. The systems all mimic a certain OS using Disciple's excellent MSstyle theme and I use Aqua like icons and wallpaper from various sources. What I find inteseting is that my kids adore the Apple look, and while I will propably never buy an Apple (because PC's have several big advantages for me), I notice that my kids and their friends have really bought ino the Apple thing. I bet these are already lined up to be future Apple customers. So I think the whole idea of making a PC look like a Mac is in no way harmful to Apple and in most cases will turn PC people onto the idea of buying an Apple.

What I do get fed up with seeing, are poor Mac or Apple themes that don't do anyone any credit. I welcome the day that perhaps Apple might sanction a PC theme and say offer to download it from Apple.com. This could turn out to be Apple's biggest PR stunt. Ha ... It'll never happen ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade dress is governed by the same set of laws that protects unregistered trademarks. Like a traditional trademark, trade dress is a form of commercial shorthand that provides a "source-associating cue" for the unthinking purchaser. However, unlike traditional trademark law that protects words or logos, trade dress law protects the total packaging and design of a product.  

To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (the public associates the packaging with a single source). Further, the trade dress must be non-functional.  

As a rule, for trade dress to be protected, it must be instantaneously identifiable in the mind of the purchaser. This is usually the function of strong sales over a long period, supported by consistent advertising, promotion and publicity.

a point.. this claims that it must be NON functional... i'm not sure what that means.. but would a GUI not be Functional ??

and not be able to be called under trade dress ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most AquaStyled themes for Windows (with the exception of WB Skins) are NOT confusingly similar...

i worked very hard on my own skin.. to make it as close as possible.. but there are some, accidental and/or purposly made distinguishing marks...

1. Apple's buttons are all on the left of the window...

Windows has them on the right... (even when skinned)

2. Apple's buttons are in the order R Y G

My theme uses the order Y G R (not merely a flip)

3. Apple's windows when inactive have a Semi-Trans titlebar

Windows themes have a Darker titlebar..

ANY mac user can tell a Windows theme, right off, due to the fact that the buttons are on the Right (not left) side of the window..

the common PC user, may not.. however.. and may be confused.. however.. as the above poll shows.. the confusion lead not to the loss in Apple sales (as apple claims) BUT to the Gain in sales...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II. Non-Protectability of Graphical User Interfaces Under Copyright Law

{4} Section 102 of Title 17 of the United States Code affords copyright protection only to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression."[9] This language creates several obstacles that prevent an interface creator from securing copyright protection for the interface. First, the statute requires that the interface be original. Originality is satisfied if the interface either includes new features or creatively selects and arranges existing features.[10] If the new interface modifies the appearance of existing icons, scroll bars, menus and pop-up windows, or adds previously unknown visual impressions, the originality requirement is likely fulfilled. For example, Microsoft Windows, which was based upon Apple Macintosh, and Windows 95, which was based upon Windows, sufficiently modified existing interface impressions and added new visual impressions to satisfy the originality requirement.

{5} A second statutory obstacle that may prevent copyright protection for interfaces pertains to authorship. Typically, an interface that exists on a computer screen is the joint product of the application program and the operating system. Without either, the interface cannot exist. In most situations, the author of the application program is not the author of the operating system. This leads to three authorship possibilities: the application owner may be deemed the sole owner, the operating system owner may be deemed the sole owner, or the parties may be deemed joint authors. The best way to avoid potential authorship problems is to clearly identify the author/owner within a copyright ownership agreement.

{6} A third statutory obstacle arises from the fixation requirement. The interface may not be considered fixed in tangible form since the screen image is constantly changing.[11] Finally, the copyright statute bars mere ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries from receiving copyright protection.[12] Interfaces have been found to fall within this category.[13]

{7} Recent case law underscores the fact that copyright protection for interfaces is not a viable option. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai [14] and Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.[15] essentially provide a death blow to copyright protection for interfaces. Altai heralded the abstraction-filtration-comparison test. This test, which is beyond the scope of this paper, affords courts numerous opportunities to find that the interface comprises unprotectable copyright matter through a "death by a thousand cuts". In Lotus, the court analogized an interface to buttons on a VCR remote control. Through this reasoning, the court concluded that the interface was a method of operation and, as such, not entitled to copyright protection. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.[16]

{8} In contrast to ?102 of the Copyright Act, ? 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides that "anyone who uses any identifying features, or false or misleading designation of a product's origin in commerce that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods, services, or commercial activities . . . shall be liable."[17] This language protects the overall "look and feel" of a product's trade dress. Trade dress is the product's overall image that is displayed to the public.[18] An interface combines words, symbols, sizes, shapes, colors, designs and devices in distinctive patterns that consumers can use to identify sources; therefore, it is considered trade dress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ja450n  

II. Non-Protectability of Graphical User Interfaces Under Copyright Law

Originality is satisfied if the interface either includes new features or creatively selects and arranges existing features.[10] If the new interface modifies the appearance of existing icons, scroll bars, menus and pop-up windows, or adds previously unknown visual impressions, the originality requirement is likely fulfilled. For example, Microsoft Windows, which was based upon Apple Macintosh, and Windows 95, which was based upon Windows, sufficiently modified existing interface impressions and added new visual impressions to satisfy the originality requirement.

okay then.. i move the main function buttons to the Right side.. and it becomes original.. as stated here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning-

Wicked Kitten, you have missed everything I said and while you try to contradict what I say ou in fact repeat it.

Jason here is the answer to your question: (where did you get this?)

II. Non-Protectability of Graphical User Interfaces Under Copyright Law

{4} Section 102 of Title 17 of the United States Code affords copyright protection only to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression."[9]This language creates several obstacles that prevent an interface creator from securing copyright protection for the interface. First, the statute requires that the interface be original. Originality is satisfied if the interface either includes new features or creatively selects and arranges existing features.[10] If the new interface modifies the appearance of existing icons, scroll bars, menus and pop-up windows, or adds previously unknown visual impressions, the originality requirement is likely fulfilled. For example, Microsoft Windows, which was based upon Apple Macintosh, and Windows 95, which was based upon Windows, sufficiently modified existing interface impressions and added new visual impressions to satisfy the originality requirement

The first part are the prerequisites to obtaining a copyright under Title 17. Title 17 is the Copyright rules under the US Code for copyright. The second part showes why a GUI does not satisfy the general rule - what this appears to say is that a GUI / UI is unoriginal(?)

A second statutory obstacle that may prevent copyright protection for interfaces pertains to authorship. Typically, an interface that exists on a computer screen is the joint product of the application program and the operating system. Without either, the interface cannot exist. In most situations, the author of the application program is not the author of the operating system. This leads to three authorship possibilities: the application owner may be deemed the sole owner, the operating system owner may be deemed the sole owner, or the parties may be deemed joint authors. The best way to avoid potential authorship problems is to clearly identify the author/owner within a copyright ownership agreement.
This is interesting . . . to obtain a copyright the work must be a work of 'authorship.' that is someone must have created it and this must be clear. Apparently this says that because the GUI is 'created' by an application which is created by a person, the GUI cannot receive protection. In essence its a technicality.
A third statutory obstacle arises from the fixation requirement. The interface may not be considered fixed in tangible form since the screen image is constantly changing.[11] Finally, the copyright statute bars mere ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries from receiving copyright protection.[12] Interfaces have been found to fall within this category.[13]

For anything to be protected it must be fixed, and not etherial or temporary. what you see on your screen does not exist. Hell if you are set at a refresh rate of 75Mhz doesnt the screen refresh like millions of times a second? What this is saying is that becasue the image on your monitor is always changing with the refresh rate, it is not fixed. This is valid and there are many cases to support this fact.

Recent case law underscores the fact that copyright protection for interfaces is not a viable option. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai [14]and Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.[15] essentially provide a death blow to copyright protection for interfaces. Altai heralded the abstraction-filtration-comparison test. This test, which is beyond the scope of this paper, affords courts numerous opportunities to find that the interface comprises unprotectable copyright matter through a "death by a thousand cuts". In Lotus, the court analogized an interface to buttons on a VCR remote control. Through this reasoning, the court concluded that the interface was a method of operation and, as such, not entitled to copyright protection. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.[16]

Yes- this is true we studied these cases. This:

In Lotus, the court analogized an interface to buttons on a VCR remote control. Through this reasoning, the court concluded that the interface was a method of operation and, as such, not entitled to copyright protection. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
is key.
In contrast to ?102 of the Copyright Act, ? 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides that "anyone who uses any identifying features, or false or misleading designation of a product's origin in commerce that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods, services, or commercial activities . . . shall be liable."[17] This language protects the overall "look and feel" of a product's trade dress. Trade dress is the product's overall image that is displayed to the public.[18] An interface combines words, symbols, sizes, shapes, colors, designs and devices in distinctive patterns that consumers can use to identify sources; therefore, it is considered trade dress.

IN COMMERCE is the key - your stuff is not in commerce. This means that I cannot make a soda called Coka, put it in a red can with white lettering and a squiggle, and sell it. Although I could say its different, what I am doing iss causing confusionin the market place. I dont think that anyone who uses a PC is going to be confused that theoir PC is a MAC by using your icons.

Wicked kitty Kat:

do they dress originally? no so they can't get their trade dress copyrighted. However neobond could get the neowin logo trademarked and if anyone used that logo with the blue but with a different name they could get done for trademark violation.{/QUOTE]

You really missed the point on the Britney Spears thing, and I am going to let someone else explain it to youb>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Eth3l  

Good Morning-

Jason here is the answer to your question: (where did you get this?)

i do my homework....

Apple has no case against us... and if the owners of these sites would do the research as i did... they would see this.. and they could stand up to apple...

i hope that buy using this post.. getting info out...

and hopfully giving someone what they need to get a new site up.. a site that will stand up to Apple's lawyers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is missing the point of how the United States legal system really works!

Apple has an airtight case against these sites, because they have the financial resources to pursue the matter!

Unless everyone is privy to something I'm not, most of these sites are not operated by people that have the financial resources to fight off an Apple legal onslaught. Apple has the expensive, top dollar legal team. They can keep appealing lost desicions. They can take the issue into millions of dollars of legal fees. Apple can issue motion after motion, delay after delay, hearing after hearing before this even goes to trial. Basically, they can bankrupt whomever wants to fight them.

Thus, they win. You cannot fight that. Welcome to American justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm - sorry dude. The only thing correct about that is that Apple has millions of dollars to spend.

Note, howevr, that they would need to justify to their shareholders why they spend millions of dollars to sue a 22 year old kid with 2000 in his bank account.

Its a cost / benefit analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ja450n  

okay then.. i move the main function buttons to the Right side.. and it becomes original.. as stated here....

Eth3l

am i legally right in saying this ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the cost/ analysis could easily be justified to shareholders as protecting one of Apple's major strengths; it's original and unique design base, which it needs to survive in these competative times.

Everyone knows that this is one of Apples strengths in a competative market. I could very easily believe that Apple upper management could easily persuade it's board of investors to pursue not just a lawsuit against a single website, but an entire series of legal actions against many websites.

This could actually be spun in Apple's favor, bringing focus on their unique and superior design, giving them excellent exposure on their new candy coated interface.

It is said that any publicity can be spun into good publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you are right, this could be spun, however, I find it highly unlikely that Apple would pursue mass litigation against web masters.

First, sites which artists contribute their works would be immune from legislation (see the recent eBay decision)

Second, the strength of Apples design is not under fire. using icons Ja50n made on my PC does lower the value of the icons design on a mac. I am not confused by the use of the icons, I use a PC with mac icons, I do not htink I am using a mac.

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.