Apple accused of appropriating rejected 'Wi-Fi Sync' app - Page 5

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

All we know is that <Apple> submitted <the iPhone> which was <wildly successful>. At a later time, <Google> released <Android on a phone> 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.

Hmmm. . . Does that change the way anyone looks at this Wi-fi Sync app issue?

Sorry, but no. You're giving the situation faaaaar too much leeway. The Kid is a hacker, and is mad because he won't be making a few hundred grand a year anymore, because no one will want or need his hack any more.

He's lucky that anyone was dumb enough to buy it from him in the first place.

Thank you. Everything changes when you actually create the idea-not just suggest it.

When Google created Android IMO they copied some iPhone ideas wholesale and drew heavy inspiration from others. However I don't think Google stole any code from Apple.

When Apple created iOS5 IMO they copied some other smartphone features and app developers ideas wholesale and drew heavy inspiration from others. However I don't think Apple stole any code.

So... nope, nothing has changed in the way I view this.

No. Because Google's OS looked nothing like iOS until iOS came out. Their CEO's place on Apple's board gave them access to software to steal. Plain and simple.

This situation is very simple. The icon is a combo of 2 existing Apple icons, so no issue there. Compare the code. If the code is the same, Apple is at fault, if it's different he can go screw. Apple has rejected apps when they had the functionality planned for addition in the near future or when it would circumvent security of theirs. I fail to see this as anything else. If they did reuse his code, that is definitely wrong and he has a case. Otherwise, not so much.

I agree. This is the only logical choice for a Mac wireless sync application, and it is not in any way original, but merely a derivative of Apple's existing icon conventions. Duplicating an Apple icon for an unreleased Apple service in development is a likely reason for app rejection, which Apple could hardly explain without revealing it's development plans.

Stole what? The code? Or the idea?
Because it's not an original idea (nor would you be legally entitled to relief unless you owned a patent)

I don't think Apple was obligated to offer the guy any means of compensation. What was he to be compensated for?

Apple ripped off a dev--this is news? Reminds me of Konfabulator.

To me a "sync" functionality is a no-Brainer.

The idea that they MIGHT reject an app that will function INSTEAD of their own sync -- doesn't seem to me about "ripping off" a unique idea -- it's more like replacing the functionality.

It's like Apple allowing someone else to write their file system and they say "no thanks" and have their OWN file system -- this is all about control, IMO.

This has not gone to trial and it is highly improbable it ever will as the developer doesn't have even close to the resources that would be required. Instead we have an attempt to smear apple in the geek-press, perhaps in the hopes of a payoff for shutting up. Trial by public.


Given that he has already gone to the press, and that the reporters he has spoken to seem to have uncritically accepted his version of events it's entirely appropriate from a journalistic stand point for bloggers, forum posters etc to rip those articles apart.

The article says that Apple copied his name, but we know that the name is 'Wi-Fi Sync', so that's enough information to judge on that matter.
The article says that Apple copied his icon, but we know that they were actually combining two of their existing icons, so again we can judge on that matter.
The article says that Apple copied his idea. That is unprovable, but irrelevant as we know from long case law that copying unpatented ideas has no legal recourse.
We also know that there are years of prior art for wireless syncing.

Those are all facts that do not appear to be subject to any dispute.

The only remaining points are why did Apple reject the app, and did Apple actually steal some of the source-code. Again, it's entirely reasonable from a journalistic point of view for people to present information as to possible valid reasons for such an App's rejection, and to point out that usually at least submissions to the App Store do not include source code - especially when the reporters are failing to do so.

If this was actually sub judice then I'd agree that such discussions were irrelevant or even harmful, but then they would still be less bad than the original articles.

Touché.

It's rather ironic that an OS Company does 90% of the heavy lifting for developers and then when the developer makes private functionality available, by default, that provides services 3rd party developers made money at it becomes a national day of whining.

http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/da...s_konfabulator

If you mean another case where Apple didn't steal source code, but produced something that had the same underlying idea, then sure.

So this guy used a set of large data centers across the country to do his syncing? And his app seamlessly syncs amongst several different types of devices?

Oh, wait, he didn't, so the whole similarity is broken. Apple and Hughes did completely different things that shared the words wifi and sync. Hell Apple even did sync over wifi before Hughes did (iCal, Mail, Contacts), Apple just didn't offer the capability to third party apps. So is it copying a rudimentary third party app for Apple to expand an already existing capability of their own?

Android was a physical Blackberry clone until the iPhone came out and was successful. But even Google did things differently and so was never accused of theft, even by Apple. Google is just accused of lack of imagination and an insatiable desire for all your data.

No double standard!

I have had a home computer since 1984 when I was 35 yrs old. I remember the first time I heard Steve Job use the word "App's" in a keynote Address. It was the first time that I had heard this shortened term in a public address and I remember thinking it was so like Steve to be the first to start a trend.

Of course I can not say that he was absolutely the first to ever use App as a noun, but in public statements of the day "Applications" was the word. Remember Apple was the first enduring consumer computer company; "App's" is a pure consumer-word and "Applications" is an Enterprise word. The likes of MS ppl were very late to the party with this term. So yes, "App Store" is just as good a possibility for trademarking as "Windows" was.

The guidelines are indeed vague, but Apple is quite honest about it in the guidelines document itself.
It's pretty obvious why that guy's App was problematic: it had a high potential to make iOS devices unusable would something go wrong (a bug, a network failure...) and that's the kind of stuff you can't find out until there's an extensive testing process carried out. I just can't see how Apple could take the risk of offering the App on their own store because that would imply their liability in case an unpredicted malfunction would brick users' devices or if the app would open some vulnerabilities that ill-intentioned people would exploit.
It's obviously not for the pleasure of frustrating users that Apple took all this time to finally implement wireless Sync. No need to be a computer scientist to imagine that there were lot of factors inherent to iOS' behavior that needed to be thought out carefully before going live.

So he'll be slapped with a trademark infringement suit if he doesn't STFU and "go away"

But the wireless and syncing icons are both Apple's, not Greg's.

You guys are hilarious. I said it seems pretty clear they stole it. Obviously I do have access to more in-depth facts. What I am saying is that based on the story as we know it ( he submitted it, it was rejected, he was told they were impressed nonetheless) the icon similarity, etc...it seems Apple ripped off this kid's app.

I have no idea if the code is similar. I do know that functionality is the same, and icon is very similar.

Oh, and by the way: What really makes me laugh is the references to a "criminal case" and patent infringement, because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about in either case. First, evidentiary standards in a criminal trial are completely different than in a potential case like this. They are certainly different when merely writing stuff ON THE FREAKING INTERNET, which is what we're doing. I am not a judge, you are not a jury...so kindly get over yourselves.

Secondly, my own brother is a former U.S. Patent Examiner and now an IP attorney. Suffice it to say the patent process and potential issues are far more complex than you realize. For example, did you know it's possible the kid doesn't even have to currently own a patent to eventually seek relief? No, of course not. But that won't stop you from pretending you have the resources or knowledge to conduct a mock court hearing right here on this anonymous web bulletin board.

I only asked you to defend your position, not to prove anything.

Based on the story I can't see how you can defend his use of the iSync and WiFI symbols in use long before this kid's app.. long before the iOS SDK and long before the iPhone was on the market. You've also failed to acknowledge that WiFi syncing was around long before this kid made an app and used in their AppleTV which was both demoed and released before the iPhone.

Again, what could Apple have possibly stolen that wasn't already in the public domain or already owned by Apple if not for it being the kid's codebase which we aren't privy to?

Shame on AppleInsider for spreading this BS story. Your headline implies Apple stole from this guy, but there is no evidence that they did any such thing. You're just perpetuating that myth of the apple haters, who can no longer say that Apple is irrelevant, and have started now saying Apple is evil.

IF you ever wonder why the AppleInsider readership is not growing as fast as it could, it is Apple hater stories like this. Show some integrity. You may have gotten a page view and a comment from me, but you won't see me around these parts for awhile.

AppleInsider.com is now going to be blocked in my /etc/hosts file. (So, if I click on a linkbait story by mistake, you still won't get the page view.)

I wonder if I'll miss it enough to ever take it out again?

You need to look up the word "accused."

You accidentally the 'means'.

The WHOLE means.

Apple has been using the sync and wifi notification symbols for a while now:
Sync was present in 2005 with dotmac
Wifi was present on the very first iPhone (2007)

Article says he was told by an Apple rep he didn't "technically break the rules," - I think this was either bad reporting, a miscommunication, or ignorance on the part of a certain Apple rep.

There is no way to implement wifi syncing from within the closed confines of an iOS sandbox without toying with closed APIs - that's probably the sole reason this app was rejected.

Now can we stop with the conspiracy theories already?

Long, LOOOOOONG before, when AirPort came out. 1999, in fact.

1. He didn't use the iSync symbol. The image on the left is what he used:



Here is the iSync symbol:



2. He didn't add functionality to an Apple TV. He submitted an app for the iPhone.

3. True, wi-fi sync has been around. That's not the issue. He didn't claim to invent wi-fi sync. What he DID do is write an app that allows the iPhone to sync wirelessly. It's the app itself, not just the functionality, that is at issue.

4. Apple clearly is using an extremely similar symbol for their app. They also had access to his app and denied it, saying they were "very impressed" (according to him, anyway).

Now, I will grant you my comment about it being "clear" they stole it may have been overstated. Given what what we know, it certainly merits investigation. Further, I happen to believe that if the details of the story as they've been presented are true, then it's very likely Apple "stole" the app from him.

There's really nothing to investigate. Anybody who has used a Mac or iPhone knows that Apple has used these symbols for years.

Apple used the same symbols they use for MobileMe sync and Wifi on the iPhone, iPad, iPod, Touch. Since they're adding wifi-sync, they have combined the two ideas.

I will tell you why the app was rejected, as the kid said they told him it did not violate any of Apple's published itune app store guidelines, however it did violate internal product guidelines. These guideline basically said do not approve any app which includes a feature or function which already exists on existing product roadmaps.

Apple knowing they were going to release or incorporate a feature, do not want these kinds of apps released in the store, because they allowed it, this would give the app developer a stronger position that his ideal what used or taken. By refusing it, this would show any court that Apple already plan to release this app or functionality.

Any company who know anything about IP and Patents and we know Apple does, they have policies and procedures in place to do exactly this, and before the days of email, and such people use to send product idea to company on the hope they will take their idea and use it. Well most companies would get these idea and return them unopen to the sender since it was always a bad idea to open only to find out it was an idea you already had in the works and this person would attempt to come after you since they send you their idea.

So basically apple will reject anything which they already have plans to do.

This kid should just take the money he already made and run, and not get any lawyer involved since it will cost him money.

No, they have no used "these" symbols. They've used SIMILAR symbols. And if we're talking solely about the icon, then Apple did not release said icon until well after the developer did.


Eh...that's not what they said, as far as we know.





He didn't send an "idea." He submitted a working application. He owned the rights to that app. Apple allegedly told him they were impressed, but couldn't approve it for reasons listed above. They then added that feature with a nearly identical icon.

We'll see where this goes. There are two parts: The legal aspect and the PR aspect. Apple may well decide to pay him a settlement and not admit to any wrongdoing or using any of his product in their own. If it goes to court (doubtful, as I'm sure he has few resources), both he an Apple will present how and when they came up with the app/feature. I will tell you this: It doesn't look good for Apple, PR-wise.

I still think the kid is blowing hot air. His app merely "tricks" iOS into thinking its docked via USB. Apple's implementation goes off of iCloud and existing information in a user's account whilst doing it silently in the background. The icon is similar and the name is the same. But the icon is two of Apple's already well established icons glued together and the name is generic.

I also don't believe that the iPhone team said they were "impressed" with the application. Apps like this for the iPhone have been around for years (uSync in 2007, for example) and I don't hear reports of Apple being "impressed" with any other wireless sync options out there.

If Apple's implementation was named anything else other than "WiFi Sync", I can guarantee you this kid would have not thrown a hissy fit and went into the limelight. Its the name and icon that are getting his knickers in a twist, not the concept.

PR is certainly the only serious threat here, because legally the guy has no case - unless a smoking gun piece of code turns up. However who is going to get bothered by this PR? Techies? They already tend to categorize neatly as Mac-lovers or Mac-haters and this won't change that. Regular Folk? They won't even hear about this, or if they hear about it they won't care - it certainly never stopped them using IE did it? iOS Developers? They are sophisticated enough to understand why the App was rejected and why this isn't stolen/ripped-off or even copied.

The only people who seem to be excited about this are people who's brothers work in IP law and therefore think they know more than they actually do

Yes, it's pretty clear.