AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple accused of appropriating rejected 'Wi-Fi Sync' app
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accused of appropriating rejected 'Wi-Fi Sync' app - Page 4

post #121 of 195
6/11/11 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaperducer View Post

Not just other devices, but on OS X, itself.

I used to use a program under Tiger called Proximisync that would detect the Bluetooth signal from my Ericsson phone when I would come home, and automatically sync wirelessly. It was a great program (when it worked). And this was way back in the days of the Palm Pilot!

For this kid to feel ripped off is stupid. Somehow it never occurred to him that his app was rejected because Apple was already working on the functionality in the OS?

Duh.

Well, according to the article at http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=21871, he was rejected because of unspecified security concerns and whole rejection process was not standard one Apple serves to other rejects.

Have Apple told him (and were able to prove) they already have that functionality developed and integrated in iOS5, I think he wouldn't have much reason to complain. But the way it was presented, it seems that Apple, at best, had that idea in the pipeline for future iOS developments, but not working code... Which makes whole case a bit shady.

And I really don't see what Apple asking for CV has to do with anything. If Apple wanted his code, they should have paid him for that. If they considered to recruit him, they should have asked for CV. Completely different issues.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 195
6/11/11 at 1:35pm
I think the poor kid has no case for several reasons.

1. The name of the application is obvious and generic.

2, The App is being sold for Jail-broken phones and probably violates Apple licenses.

3. WiFi Sync-ing is done on many phones and is not patented.

4. Apple does reject apps if they duplicate existing or planned features.

5, Apple would never allow 3rd party to sync iOS

Time will tell...
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 195
6/11/11 at 1:55pm
Childish, presumptuous crap.

How many icons are out there for wifi and sync? Anyone look around? Any of them especially different?

As for the concept? Gee - I guess Apple never would have thought of this on their own, right?
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 195
6/11/11 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahnguy View Post

Oh come on man, I don't have a dog in either fight, and I'd like to think I come in here with a pretty objective viewpoint, but I just can't read a comment like that and think "hmm.. that's logical".

Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world either.

But let's set that aside and concentrate on the matter at hand..

So we know you (and if I'm being honest I'm really speaking to everyone) wouldn't argue that this kid invented the theory of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, because that would just be idiotic (if I'm being honest, I'd have a hard time believing "wireless syncing" wasn't on the docket since before the iPhone ever hit store shelves). Of course there is one potential reality that could exist, resulting in legitimate "injury" or "loss" (if we're speaking "lawyerese"), but the fact that not a single one of the comments I've read here refers to it, tells me that 99.9% of you people are same people that take every opportunity you get to rail against Apple simply because you don't like something about the company, not because logic or sound reasoning has anything to do with it - the same people that have no idea what Apple is getting at when the company points out that the Galaxy S is the inbred cousin of the iPhone 3G, and at the end of the day, the same people that destroy any chance of these "forums" becoming a place for intelligent discussion.

The one factor I'm referring to, and the one factor that anybody should even be discussing, is whether or not any of the actual code from the supposed "stolen app" exists in iOS 5. That's it. Because no one with a sane mind would ever conceive of arguing that the kid invented the idea of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, but on the other hand, if that copied code exists, none of that even matters because Apple is then morally, but more importantly (in court), legally, bound to pay the kid for his work.

Hit up my first post on this topic, you're not alone (sadly, AI is starting to pull dumber, single minded people now a days ). I said the only way this guy has a case is if Apple foolishly used some of his code. And there's no way they would be that dumb.
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #125 of 195
6/11/11 at 3:18pm
Huh, my phone has been wireless syncing with Mobile Me for years.

Apple just expanded what is being synced and to what.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 195
6/11/11 at 3:18pm
It certainly sucks that Apple incorporated the same feature and thus he lost the opportunity to profit from this app, he had to know that wireless synching would be something that Apple would surely be working on at some point in time.

However, I do not agree with Apple blocking apps and then recreating their functionality internally. Legality aside, it didn't pass the "sniff test" and Apple would have benefited if they just would have purchased his IP, if only from the developer goodwill generated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

As far as the logo, I don't think it's very similar at all.

Now that is just a stupid statement.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 195
6/11/11 at 4:32pm
Apple had the wireless syncing coding for years. It's the only way Apple Tv can sync with a computer. There's nothing original with this kind of coding and seems pretty obvious that Apple was going to introduce this sooner or later.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #128 of 195
6/11/11 at 4:33pm
"Stand up and defend his work"??? What exactly is he claiming Apple had done? It could be:
1. Apple stole "my" icon. Which is derived from two of Apple's previously used icons (wifi and iSync)
2. Apple stole my app or code. Prove it.
3. Apple stole "my" idea. So he has a patent on wifi syncing? I doubt it.

The f-ing hubris of some developers. Sheesh! I'm sure the FSF-loving liberanarchists over at /. are eating this story up.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #129 of 195
6/11/11 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

And odds are very good Apple will have planning documents to prove this function was on the drawing board before Hughes' app was submitted to the store.

How about the technology was alive, well and publically released in AppleTV while the student was still in high school and the year before iPhone was released?

Apple should sue the guy for making GBP500K from their invention especially as they told him not to.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #130 of 195
6/11/11 at 4:50pm
He went with Cydia. That blew his chances of getting any compensation in any form. If he would've played it clean, then maybe. Sounds like they offered to pay him for his talents through a job, which he rejected.
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 195
6/11/11 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

He went with Cydia. That blew his chances of getting any compensation in any form. If he would've played it clean, then maybe. Sounds like they offered to pay him for his talents through a job, which he rejected.

Jailbreaking is legal. There's nothing wrong with going to Cydia...
Why do people assume that "fair" compensation (again, if you believe they did steal it) was them offering him a Job? That's idiotic. Not everyone is looking for a job.
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #132 of 195
6/11/11 at 5:35pm
Yeah with 10% unemployment these days. Whose looking for a job?



Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicNReason View Post

Jailbreaking is legal. There's nothing wrong with going to Cydia...
Why do people assume that "fair" compensation (again, if you believe they did steal it) was them offering him a Job? That's idiotic. Not everyone is looking for a job.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 195
6/11/11 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yeah with 10% unemployment these days. Whose looking for a job?

For your sake, I hope you were being sarcastic...
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #134 of 195
6/11/11 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

It certainly sucks that Apple incorporated the same feature and thus he lost the opportunity to profit from this app,

It's not the same feature, for goodness sake. People need to go back to the keynote and look at what iCloud is/does again.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #135 of 195
6/11/11 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicNReason View Post

For your sake, I hope you were being sarcastic...

As... difficult (please tell me you can pick THAT up)... as it was to tell through his misuse of grammar and spelling, yes, he's being sarcastic. Though the guy wasn't looking for a job, anyway.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #136 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

As... difficult (please tell me you can pick THAT up)... as it was to tell through his misuse of grammar and spelling, yes, he's being sarcastic. Though the guy wasn't looking for a job, anyway.

Oh, the "[who's] looking for a job?" comment was clearly sarcastic, sounding like the guys should have taken the job because a lot of people don't have one. While it's unlikely, I was hoping that his stance that the guy should have taken the job was sarcastic.
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #137 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:21pm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:36pm
The grammar was wrong, but what was misspelled?

My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

As... difficult (please tell me you can pick THAT up)... as it was to tell through his misuse of grammar and spelling, yes, he's being sarcastic. Though the guy wasn't looking for a job, anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:37pm
I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #140 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:38pm
Apple didn't offer the guy a job. They asked for his resume. I don't think there are very many software developers out there who would refuse to send in the resume - even if they didn't want the job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicNReason View Post

Oh, the "[who's] looking for a job?" comment was clearly sarcastic, sounding like the guys should have taken the job because a lot of people don't have one. While it's unlikely, I was hoping that his stance that the guy should have taken the job was sarcastic.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.

What? That's like journalism or something. Journalism is dying. It will be replaced by twitter and blogs.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #142 of 195
6/11/11 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

What? That's like journalism or something. Journalism is dying. It will be replaced by twitter and blogs.

What do social networking solutions have to do with research and citations.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 195
6/11/11 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadoe View Post

...

Goodness greif.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #144 of 195
6/11/11 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahnguy View Post

Oh come on man, I don't have a dog in either fight, and I'd like to think I come in here with a pretty objective viewpoint, but I just can't read a comment like that and think "hmm.. that's logical".

Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world either.

But let's set that aside and concentrate on the matter at hand..

So we know you (and if I'm being honest I'm really speaking to everyone) wouldn't argue that this kid invented the theory of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, because that would just be idiotic (if I'm being honest, I'd have a hard time believing "wireless syncing" wasn't on the docket since before the iPhone ever hit store shelves). Of course there is one potential reality that could exist, resulting in legitimate "injury" or "loss" (if we're speaking "lawyerese"), but the fact that not a single one of the comments I've read here refers to it, tells me that 99.9% of you people are same people that take every opportunity you get to rail against Apple simply because you don't like something about the company, not because logic or sound reasoning has anything to do with it - the same people that have no idea what Apple is getting at when the company points out that the Galaxy S is the inbred cousin of the iPhone 3G, and at the end of the day, the same people that destroy any chance of these "forums" becoming a place for intelligent discussion.

The one factor I'm referring to, and the one factor that anybody should even be discussing, is whether or not any of the actual code from the supposed "stolen app" exists in iOS 5. That's it. Because no one with a sane mind would ever conceive of arguing that the kid invented the idea of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, but on the other hand, if that copied code exists, none of that even matters because Apple is then morally, but more importantly (in court), legally, bound to pay the kid for his work.

BOOM, headshot. Nailed it. I often feel like I'm getting stupider reading messageboard posts. 99% of the comments are knee-jerk cliched garbage based on preconceived feelings, rarely if ever employing real objectivity and a reasonable and rational assessment of the facts.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 195
6/11/11 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadoe View Post

It was wrong for Apple to reject his App...

Their store. Their allowed APIs. Their rules.

Quote:
...it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas...

You can't steal that idea. It wasn't his idea.

Quote:
...and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement...

Please explain why Apple owes someone who wouldn't follow their rules anything at all.

Quote:
...before Apple found a creative way to rip them off...

Ah, so that's it.

I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet.

Quote:
That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X.

Which it does, as of Lion.

Quote:
For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it.

LOL, as if you're that important.

And no, it's perfectly fine for you to do that with Lion as long as every single one of their computers uses YOUR account. Though as Apple IDs can only be used on a certain number of computers and as if they change that Apple ID to a new one (read: theirs), they're not allowed to keep using Lion, the point is moot.

Quote:
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.

Enjoy your pirated software. Heaven forbid you ever make anything to sell.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #146 of 195
6/11/11 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadoe View Post

That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.

I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."

If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.

So much idiocy and ignorance in this post. Amazing.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 195
6/11/11 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahnguy View Post

Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world

SalesForce Dec 2006.

That doesn't affect your point though.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 195
6/11/11 at 9:47pm
The issue is not whether Apple already had wireless sync planned or in development. The issue is whether they used this guy's code to ultimately implement the functionality (as I doubt he patented any methods he used). There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests they did. Trying to hire him is one such piece. His claim that Apple told him their engineers had seen his app is another. It doesn't mean they did, but it is a bit silly to claim there is no evidence to support his potential claim. Discovery could very well reveal more evidence. Or not, but he is within his rights to find out.

As for the wireless sync, some keep describing it as sync only to iCloud. That's not true. It actually includes wireless sync between iTunes on your personal computer and the iOS device.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 195
6/11/11 at 10:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

What do social networking solutions have to do with research and citations.

Nothing.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #150 of 195
6/11/11 at 10:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadoe View Post

That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.

I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."

If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.

Isn't it way past your bedtime?
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #151 of 195
6/11/11 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The grammar was wrong, but what was misspelled?

My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.

Oh, then excuse me if I was unclear . I was not saying it was insult. Rather, I was saying that if you're of the belief that Apple DID do something wrong offering him a job (which they didn't actually do) is NOT an adequate means of compensation.
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #152 of 195
6/12/11 at 2:57am
He did sign the iPhone SDK Agreement.

Did he read it? Particularly Section 5.3?

From WIRED: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ga...-agreement.pdf
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 195
6/12/11 at 3:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

It would be very surprising if Apple stole his code.

Agreed. When you submit to the appstore you don't submit the code, you submit the compiled app. So unless he sent his code to Apple separately for another reason (and I can't think why he would) they can't have stolen his code because they never had it.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 195
6/12/11 at 3:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

He did sign the iPhone SDK Agreement.

Did he read it? Particularly Section 5.3?

From WIRED: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ga...-agreement.pdf

There is a word to describe Huges. "Screwed"

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #155 of 195
6/12/11 at 3:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

Slightly off-topic, but if Apple's SDK *lets* developers see un-approved APIs then someone at Apple needs to read a book.

It doesn't. The private APIs aren't in any header files, aren't listed in the documentation and you can only find them by dumping the libraries. The nature of objective-c however is such that if you find out a method exists, you can call it and the library has to export the names of methods, you really can't hide them very well.

Apple's app store submission process actually looks for any uses in the compiled app of any private APIs or even apps which have used the same method name as a private API and the app is automatically rejected.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 195
6/12/11 at 4:32am
While I passionately support the exchange and debate of ideas, I also think it is important to remember that, under our current legal system, it is impossible to determine a person's entitlement to a legal remedy merely by discussing the matter on an online forum.

Many posts in this thread purport to declare a decisive and proper conclusion, notwithstanding that not a single poster claims to have any first hand knowledge of the facts other than having used this kid's app.

It may be the case that the publicly available information about this matter is complete and accurate. It may also be the case, however, that there is relevant information that has not been publicly disclosed. In either case, it is almost certain that, should litigation ensue, that the Federal Rules of Evidence will be called on by both sides to filter the proof offered up in any potential infringement case.

I guess my point is simply this: Regardless of whether this kid is a "Lodesys Lite," or the next Woz, we should all consider the degree to which we conclusorily assume that we "know" who the wrongdoer is in a particular case. We all may potentially end up in a situation where we depend on the impartiality of others for justice to be done.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 195
6/12/11 at 6:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duo View Post

I'm not saying it's okay for your work to be ripped off cause he chose not to work for them, but rather that he should have realized why Apple must have wanted him to work for them. If the iOS team were as impressed as his liaison implied, it would have been the perfect opportunity for him to gain prominence within Cupertino had he gone in and gotten involved.

I agree. It seems pretty clear they stole it.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #158 of 195
6/12/11 at 6:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree. It seems pretty clear they stole it.

I don't understand this position. Can you defend it?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #159 of 195
6/12/11 at 6:18am
I believe this whole storm-in-a-teacup was started by this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06..._rejected_app/

It is indeed a sad day that every "respectable" Apple news site or forum is following TheRegister's lead -- it dishes out more crap than most websites I know, and is rabidly anti-Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 195
6/12/11 at 6:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree. It seems pretty clear they stole it.

I'd love to see the facts which allow you to reach that conclusion.

In order to reach that conclusion, you would have to establish that Apple wasn't working on anything like that before this guy submitted his app, that the concept was not obvious, that Apple stole the guy's code, and so on. So far, no one has submitted any evidence to support ANY of the allegations.

All we know is that this guy submitted an app which was rejected. At a later time, Apple released an app which has some similar functionality.

If that's what you consider proof of theft, I sure hope that you never serve on a jury in a criminal case.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple accused of appropriating rejected 'Wi-Fi Sync' app