The iPhony-Should Apple stop imitators?

[Nine]

*hc tries to fake pouting, and stomps out the door to his bedroom*

Good try. Next time... err... use your mouth though.

It is an interesting topic. I am split either way - especially since I am a designer who occasionally sees his work ripped off in some form or another. I use a beautiful set of freeware Mac OSX icons with a freeware Mac OSX ZLauncher theme in which the design of each icon and the bones of the theme itself have been - effectively - stolen from the copyright holder, Apple. Would I stop using the iconset or theme because I know that the design has been purloined? No. Does that fact that they are freeware make it OK? No again.

[Adama D. Brown]

As far as I'm aware, while the content of a user interface can be copyrighted, the look and feel cannot. If someone build an iPhone lookalike using new components, even if they look similar, then Apple has little to no recourse.

[Curious Cat]

Going along with what Adama said, when we asked Apple what exactly is copyrighted, they said they didn't have to tell us!

[Nine]

Quite right, they don't - and nor should they until they choose to litigate over any perceived copyright infringement. The legal onus is hardly going to be on them to provide information that will allow people to produce 'pseudo-copies' of their designs. This is not really surprising.

[Curious Cat]

Quite right, they don't - and nor should they until they choose to litigate over any perceived copyright infringement. The legal onus is hardly going to be on them to provide information that will allow people to produce 'pseudo-copies' of their designs. This is not really surprising.

I guess you could say they didn't want to give us any ammo to use against them.

[Nine]

I guess you could say they didn't want to give us any ammo to use against them.

As the whole sorry business of Brighthand's should-we-shouldn't-we-yes-let's-oh-let's-not position over the iPhony knock-off develops - with some here almost jumping up and down with excitement daily at the thought of possibly provoking them in some other miniscule way as if it is some form of childish game - I actually find myself (and I can't believe I'm saying this) siding more and more with Apple. It is their intellectual property and they have a right to defend it as they see fit. And some people here should take a deep breath and concentrate on something else for a bit, rather than acting like kids flicking spitballs when they think teacher can't see.

[Curious Cat]

I think Apple should be able to defend their rights too. There are really 2 issues here. One, is it in Apple's self interest to be so heavy handed? Two, without passing moral judgment on what is right or wrong, should not BrightHand be able to freely discuss the subject?

Admittedly, it becomes much more of a gray area if we are providing unauthorized copyrighted material. Apple has their own problems in this same area with Cisco saying the name 'iPhone" is theirs. Personally, I'm not mad at Apple, I still will probably buy an iPhone, I just don't want to feel censored or having to be the one censoring others for their benefit.

[PDA Bach]

Going along with what Adama said, when we asked Apple what exactly is copyrighted, they said they didn't have to tell us!

Quite right, they don't - and nor should they until they choose to litigate over any perceived copyright infringement.

I have a little trouble with this argument. To be copyrighted something must be in a form that can be copyrighted and to file a copyright, you have to provide it to the proper body.

I don't think I should be able to write a book, or design a user interface, or take a photo, copyright it in secret and then sue someone who later uses some of my wording, something like my UI, or takes a picture of the same landscape.

[Adama D. Brown]

Quite right, they don't - and nor should they until they choose to litigate over any perceived copyright infringement.

Actually, if you expect to have your angry demands for removal of "your" material honored, it would help if you actually said what you consider to be "yours." Besides which, there's the problem that PDA Bach mentions: if you can demand that anyone remove anything that you claim some element of copyright on, without you having to provide proof that you own a valid copyright, then it would open the door for all sorts of chaos.

[r0k]

If BMW shows a vehicle on Monday and the boys over at Orange County Choppers are churning out fiberglass knockoff bodies the following Wednesday, OCC gets sued. This isn't because BMW is mean or nasty but because they have a right to enforce who sees their latest work and how. In the case of the Iphony UI, somebody made a very nice launcher that looks similar but doesn't work exactly like it will eventually work.

I disagree with Apple on this one. While they are within their rights, they are ignoring the viral marketing here. I have Iphony on my Treo 650. Everybody I show it to says they love the look and they have 1) never seen an Iphone either in print or online and 2) are impressed with the work apple did. So what if it's a knockoff. Apple should pay that guy rather than sue him. But that's my opinion and Apple is within their rights to decide how and where their new UI is shown. It doesn't make them a bad or mean company, but since they are missing out on viral marketing it makes them look very short sighted in my opinion.