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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
I agree. It seems pretty clear they stole it.
I don't understand this position. Can you defend it?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Oh, then excuse me if I was unclear
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.
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.
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.
Nothing.
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.
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.