or Connect
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 5

post #161 of 195
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?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #162 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post

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.

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.
post #163 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anawrahta View Post

Yeah but did you actually go out and make a colour Mac classic? Of course not. No neural capacity for such a task.

Thank you. Everything changes when you actually create the idea-not just suggest it.
post #164 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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?


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.
post #165 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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?

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.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #166 of 195
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.
post #167 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I'm not sure about the icon part of the claim. Apple has been using the "two arrows" symbol for sync for years, iSync icon has it and was released in 2003. They have also had the "signal wave" symbol for WiFi in the OS X menu bar for years. And the icon is question is just a composite of those two things.

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.
post #168 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree. It seems pretty clear they stole it.

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)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #169 of 195
I don't think Apple was obligated to offer the guy any means of compensation. What was he to be compensated for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicNReason View Post

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.
post #170 of 195
Apple ripped off a dev--this is news? Reminds me of Konfabulator.
post #171 of 195
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.
post #172 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post

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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.
post #173 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Nothing.

Touché.
post #174 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanGuapo View Post

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

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.
post #175 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanGuapo View Post

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

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.
post #176 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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?

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.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #177 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb View Post

Just like the words "app" and "store" have been around for years. Apple puts them together and it is a trademark.

See any double standards here?

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.
post #178 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Aside from whether Apple stole the idea, this highlights what I've always felt was a risk to anyone who wants to develop an app for iOS. Just how much time, effort, and money are you willing to invest in your program without knowing if at the end of the day Apple is going to reject it? Some of the guidelines are vague to begin with. And now you have to worry about being rejected even if you aren't breaking the rules!

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.
post #179 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I'm not sure about the icon part of the claim. Apple has been using the "two arrows" symbol for sync for years, iSync icon has it and was released in 2003. They have also had the "signal wave" symbol for WiFi in the OS X menu bar for years. And the icon is question is just a composite of those two things.

So he'll be slapped with a trademark infringement suit if he doesn't STFU and "go away"
post #180 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb View Post

Just like the words "app" and "store" have been around for years. Apple puts them together and it is a trademark.

See any double standards here?

But the wireless and syncing icons are both Apple's, not Greg's.
post #181 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't understand this position. Can you defend it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

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)


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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #182 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 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?
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 #183 of 195
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?
post #184 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

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 need to look up the word "accused."
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 #185 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You need to look up what the word "accused."

You accidentally the 'means'.

The WHOLE means.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #186 of 195
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)




post #187 of 195
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?
post #188 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

Wifi was present on the very first iPhone (2007)

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

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #189 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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?

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #190 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


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.
post #191 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 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.
post #192 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

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.

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

Quote:
"While he agreed that the app doesn't technically break the rules, he said that it does encroach upon the boundaries of what they can and cannot allow on their store," the developer said. "He also cited security concerns."-

--from International Business Times.



Quote:

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.

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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #193 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #194 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We'll see where this goes. There are two parts: The legal aspect and the PR aspect. ... I will tell you this: It doesn't look good for Apple, PR-wise.

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
post #195 of 195
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

Yes, it's pretty clear.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

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