aristotle
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
I'm not missing the point. You are. They have a right to determine how their trademarks are to be used and if they did not vigourously defend them, you would see MSFT stealing even icons from OS X.
Apple is a company with a responsibility to shareholders. They are not your friends. Google is not your friend either.
The purpose of the image use is on a mac. You are also not looking at it from Apple's point of view that Apple wants to have the iPhone be a success regardless of whether the server used in a client server environment is running OS X, linux, some other unix or windows. If they were to allow some of their third party developer running OS X based services use their icons, the real client server developers running in the cloud would complain about favouritism. They have to keep third party developers under the same rules regardless of whether the app uses a mac based service or not.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 01:51 AM
And your ethics take an even worse.
The system is clearly broken and you are living proof of it.
Heck if something like that you did that me i would use this thread as poof your actions and laugh my ass off when end up in jail.
Good luck tracking my actual identity down. And also good luck getting anything you dug up admitted in court, because there is absolutely nothing legal about introducing any evidence of my identity you found by tying this account back to my IP/ISP without a warrant.
-Don
The system is clearly broken and you are living proof of it.
Heck if something like that you did that me i would use this thread as poof your actions and laugh my ass off when end up in jail.
Good luck tracking my actual identity down. And also good luck getting anything you dug up admitted in court, because there is absolutely nothing legal about introducing any evidence of my identity you found by tying this account back to my IP/ISP without a warrant.
-Don
MacSync
Sep 26, 02:34 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone that was able to switch to VOIP in areas with free 802.11 service if you choose to? It could be a part of .Mac Moblie that was discussed earlier. At home it would be on your existing wireless network and could sync with iTunes and all the other Apple Apps and serve as a remote. Away from a 802.11 network it could pick up the cell carrier towers. Would something like this be worth developing?
blahblah100
Mar 30, 12:48 PM
Sue M$
What about App�� ?
What about App�� ?
RMo
Mar 30, 12:17 PM
To those bitching a few threads back about no jobs - well, at least the lawyers and linguists get a job.
This is a bigger deal than people realize: somebody EMPLOYED a linguist! Unfortunately, he has a Ph.D. in English (linguistics concentration), not linguistics itself, so I'm not really sure it counts.
I have to say, I kind of agree with Microsoft on this, much as I like Apple, but I'm interested to see how this plays out.
This is a bigger deal than people realize: somebody EMPLOYED a linguist! Unfortunately, he has a Ph.D. in English (linguistics concentration), not linguistics itself, so I'm not really sure it counts.
I have to say, I kind of agree with Microsoft on this, much as I like Apple, but I'm interested to see how this plays out.
mdntcallr
Aug 23, 10:47 PM
yeah, but it isn't a bad deal. hell creative could have pulled a lawsuit, much like the lawsuit which almost shut down blackberry.
so... this is good. a win win. scenario. apple gets another big time vendor to sell products that accessorize apple's IPOD.
so... this is good. a win win. scenario. apple gets another big time vendor to sell products that accessorize apple's IPOD.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 03:47 AM
Now mind you, I say this as an investor, not as an enthusiast.
Is it just me, or is going public the WORST thing a company could do? When they do that, they get these crybabies who whine "I'm an INVESTOR and I DEMAND immediate results! I insist on my short-term ROI that you deliver! Don't you realize that I have invested xxxxx dollars in your company, therefore you owe me big time!".
Well boo-frigging-hoo!
Is it just me, or is going public the WORST thing a company could do? When they do that, they get these crybabies who whine "I'm an INVESTOR and I DEMAND immediate results! I insist on my short-term ROI that you deliver! Don't you realize that I have invested xxxxx dollars in your company, therefore you owe me big time!".
Well boo-frigging-hoo!
cmaier
Nov 13, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
aristotle
Nov 13, 07:07 PM
As a professional developer, I do need to point a couple of items out…
The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.
One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.
The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.
Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.
Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
Thank you. You said it better that I could right now as I'm trying to fight off a cold. :o
I'm also a professional developer for that other platform with a monopoly in the desktop market (windows client/server). I've only dabbled with OS X but the general principles are the same regardless of whether you are using OS X APIs or Win32. Just because an API can give you access to an image, it does not mean that you can use it wherever however you wish.
If I was an icon artist, I might be upset if my icons were being used on an iPhone app which were only licensed for use in a specific desktop app whether directly or indirectly because it was set as the default icon for a data type on the server.
The link that DARING FIREBALL points to (mentioned earlier in this thread) sighting "Public APIs" is not an ADC documentation site.
One of the Desktop APIs being used (sited via the Public API link) is being used in a manner that is specifically reaching into "/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Resources", this is a very large red flag… Your reaching
into someone else's bundle here.
The other Desktop API is requesting the icon of a document type - I would sure be peeved if I found someone else's Desktop application broadcasting one of *MY* hand made graphics or icons out to their iPhone application.
Regardless, Both of the API being used to obtain the graphics/icons are being called are from the Mac OS X Desktop SDK, not from the iPhone SDK. In addition, the result is being broadcast out to another machine (the phone), an image they don't hold rights to.
Just because you can get hold of an arbitrary image (including a users document) via a "Public" API, doesn't give you the right to use it without permission.
Thank you. You said it better that I could right now as I'm trying to fight off a cold. :o
I'm also a professional developer for that other platform with a monopoly in the desktop market (windows client/server). I've only dabbled with OS X but the general principles are the same regardless of whether you are using OS X APIs or Win32. Just because an API can give you access to an image, it does not mean that you can use it wherever however you wish.
If I was an icon artist, I might be upset if my icons were being used on an iPhone app which were only licensed for use in a specific desktop app whether directly or indirectly because it was set as the default icon for a data type on the server.
maflynn
May 3, 10:52 AM
Other then the CPU, there's not much to write home about.
Its a nice and not unexpected speed bump. No complaints from me :)
the wife has been wanting a new computer perhaps for her birthday I'll get her an imac
Its a nice and not unexpected speed bump. No complaints from me :)
the wife has been wanting a new computer perhaps for her birthday I'll get her an imac
Peace
Sep 5, 06:01 PM
What if you downloaded the movie to your Macbook Pro and went on a business trip? Or you only own a laptop?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
musiclover137
Aug 23, 05:19 PM
This is slightly disheartening news. All the info seems to suggest that Apple wanted this to end quickly so they made an offer to a small company that wouldn't cost as much as they may have lost in the lawsuit.
Makes me wonder how different they were really thinking...
Makes me wonder how different they were really thinking...
fishcove
May 3, 10:25 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?! Dual outs on the MBP would make much more sense, although achieving it may be more of a technical challenge in terms of GPU power.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
hcho3
Apr 19, 09:20 AM
Respond strongly? You mean defend yourself?
Samsung has almost no chance of winning against apple in this lawsuit in phone design/UI and etc.
Samsung clearly copied apple. Samsung phones were nothing like Galaxy S phones until iPhone came out in 2007.
Samsung did copy apple. They are about to lose billions of dollars on this one.
Samsung has almost no chance of winning against apple in this lawsuit in phone design/UI and etc.
Samsung clearly copied apple. Samsung phones were nothing like Galaxy S phones until iPhone came out in 2007.
Samsung did copy apple. They are about to lose billions of dollars on this one.
milo
Sep 5, 06:11 PM
Read my previous post :)
I did. It was about connecting AV cables to the TV. Which was covered in the pic.
Please, for the love of God, start making some sense.
By using the BOX with the HARD DRIVE next to the TV!!
They're going to use a stripped down box connected to a TELEVISION to do things like send email and surf the web??? :eek: By making that box a full fledged computer, you just tripled the price at least. What a horrible idea. If you're going to spend the money on a computer, why not make it useful as a computer instead of wasting money by using it only to play back TV programs? And with your proposal, how does someone watch TV while someone else is surfing the web?
I did. It was about connecting AV cables to the TV. Which was covered in the pic.
Please, for the love of God, start making some sense.
By using the BOX with the HARD DRIVE next to the TV!!
They're going to use a stripped down box connected to a TELEVISION to do things like send email and surf the web??? :eek: By making that box a full fledged computer, you just tripled the price at least. What a horrible idea. If you're going to spend the money on a computer, why not make it useful as a computer instead of wasting money by using it only to play back TV programs? And with your proposal, how does someone watch TV while someone else is surfing the web?
shartypants
Mar 29, 12:04 PM
I don't see how you can project that far out, this industry changes too fast.
rmwebs
Mar 30, 12:30 PM
This whole thing is getting silly. Seriously MS, do something better with your money.
Fanboy much?
Have you seen the list of companies Apple is suing... :rolleyes:
Fanboy much?
Have you seen the list of companies Apple is suing... :rolleyes:
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 11:00 PM
So the Beatles didn't use an Apple? And Woolworths Australia does? Don't be so biased.
I never said Apple going after Woolworths for their logo was a good move.
I never said Apple going after Woolworths for their logo was a good move.
beshyddaren
Sep 14, 04:55 PM
I don't know what the status on MBPs in other countries is, but back here in good old norway, no apple outlet has MBPs in store (though they have plenty of MBs, even though the MBs are the killer sellers). Both apple store and the various apple outlets I've talked to won't have MBPs in store for another 14 days (11 days now), which (in my screwed up head, atleast) fits very well with an apple event the 25th.
It also suggests that if new laptops are released, only the MBPs will see the upgrades. Apple store _does_ display the normal "ships within 24 hours" message on MBPs, but a couple of phone calls revealed they're on the same two-week lack of MBPs as normal stores.
I don't really care much for the merom, but other possible updates are enough to make me wait a bit. Hoping photokina is where my wait will be over :)
It also suggests that if new laptops are released, only the MBPs will see the upgrades. Apple store _does_ display the normal "ships within 24 hours" message on MBPs, but a couple of phone calls revealed they're on the same two-week lack of MBPs as normal stores.
I don't really care much for the merom, but other possible updates are enough to make me wait a bit. Hoping photokina is where my wait will be over :)
cube
May 3, 11:13 AM
Ivy Bridge will bring it up to 3 displays. AMD has 6 displays for embedded systems now.
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
ThaDoggg
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
Interesting how a security guard is allowed to have a gun. Interesting to see what happens to him.
jpjandrade
Mar 22, 01:20 PM
Newbie question - please don't flame me.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.Simply a speed boost. A huge one, but just a speed boost.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.Simply a speed boost. A huge one, but just a speed boost.
ChrisA
Nov 13, 07:05 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:
This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.
This will continue until the Google Android threatens the iPhone. Then Apple will change their policy. Right now Apple simply does not have to care.
tonkaxxtuph
Mar 30, 11:46 AM
This whole thing is getting silly. Seriously MS, do something better with your money.