Anyone dumb enough to waste their money on a Cartier, Rolex, or other "luxury" watch is a moron. They are telling the world...look at me, I have no self esteem and I need to try and look cool by showing off my wrist watch. No one cares who makes your watch.
On the other hand, using a company's name without permission is a foul. I am sure Apple would not approve if he made a watch with an Apple logo without obtaining permission first. Going after the developer would have been the smart thing to do, maybe they did, and Apple was right to remove the program. Filing a lawsuit? Now that was a waste of money on Cartiers part.
Would be interesting if that was the case, hopefully Cartier would explain the reasons for their overreaction.
Because you have to actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, or you lose control of them. This kind of action is so routine I have to wonder why anyone would get excited or outraged about it.
The free Fake Watch application did enable users to obtain the time using their iPhone or iPod touch, a direct blow to Cartier's fancy watch business. The software developer also offered a premium, paid version of the app under the name "Fake Watch Gold Edition."
Both versions shamelessly offered to present the time using a images of "look-alike famous wristwatches." Apple did not offer a public comment on the suit, but appears to have yanked the offending Fake Watch titles from the iPhone App Store.
To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.
A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.
And please understand that the owner of a brand name has a legitimate right to defend the name, the image and the likeliness of its products. In most cases, the owner doesn't need any additional publicity for an already famous product.
The owner of a brand name product would probably insist on approving, controlling any publicity for fear that it might damage its own brand (through a defective or misbehaving application, for instance) and might ask for compensation because no one should profit, make money from their brand without paying for it.
I have to side with Apple and Cartier on this one, despite the best intentions of the application's authors.
To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.
A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.
This is Lauren. She told us she wanted a watch that "went on my wrist" and "told me the time" for under $1000. We told her "You find it, you keep it!"
Cut to shot of Lauren walking into the entrance of a Cartiers store and walking straight back out again. "Well they looked nice with the diamonds and all, but they're really not in my budget. I guess I'm just not cool enough to be a Cartier owner" she sighs wistfully.
Cut to Lauren talking to street vendor with some watches stuck to a piece of cardboard with sellotape. "Oh look, that one's got a kitten on it" she exclaims gleefully. "Wow! That one tells the time of every country in the world!' she shrieks.
Cut to Lauren in a car park waving her left arm about. "I love it! It goes on my wrist and it tells me the time and it only cost ten bucks! Oh, here's your nine-ninety change by the way."
Come on people... I know Cartier might be an unsympathetic, rich cooperation, but it certainly has the right not to have their designs ripped from under them.
Sure, an iPhone imitation probably won't cost them any profit, but the developer saved the time to design his own watch, too. Why should s/he profit from the work of designers Cartier pays for?
If I sell an Apple-branded bittorrent client, for example, I won't cost Apple any money. (They don't sell bittorrent software.) But certainly I make money off their brand I don't deserve or paid for.
Sounds fair to me....
(And sure, they could have sued the developer instead of Apple. But Apple decided to make themselves mandatory publisher for any app. So they share the responsibility.)
You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time. I expect that watches will stick around as long as there are people who want to wear metal knick-knacks. It's not as if very expensive watches were about getting much more accurate time anyways, they're jewelry and status symbols.
Because you have to actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, or you lose control of them. This kind of action is so routine I have to wonder why anyone would get excited or outraged about it.
I agree with you completely.
It's just funny how all the apple fanbois reacted in this thread.
The most simple explanation is the most likely:
(1) Cartier sent out a C&D letter to Apple's legal department and ask them to yank out the offending app.
(2) Apple's iphone app department is the most under-staffed place on the planet and even Apple's own legal department can't find a live person from the iphone app department to speak to.
Apple was busy trying to put out the flame on the baby shaker app so they didn't have the time to yank out an app because of a "routine" copyright infringing C&D letter.
Maybe the purpose of the App was to help law enforcement officers and consumers identify fake Cartier watches as the title suggests.
Now how will I be able to tell a fake Cartier from a real one without consulting this community service application?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.
A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.
And please understand that the owner of a brand name has a legitimate right to defend the name, the image and the likeliness of its products. In most cases, the owner doesn't need any additional publicity for an already famous product.
The owner of a brand name product would probably insist on approving, controlling any publicity for fear that it might damage its own brand (through a defective or misbehaving application, for instance) and might ask for compensation because no one should profit, make money from their brand without paying for it.
I have to side with Apple and Cartier on this one, despite the best intentions of the application's authors.
Probably pulled the suit after sales went up! I'm sure the iPhone ALSO appeals top Cartier's target market and would be a great way to mainline into it.
Anyone dumb enough to waste their money on a Cartier, Rolex, or other "luxury" watch is a moron. They are telling the world...look at me, I have no self esteem and I need to try and look cool by showing off my wrist watch. No one cares who makes your watch.
On the other hand, using a company's name without permission is a foul. I am sure Apple would not approve if he made a watch with an Apple logo without obtaining permission first. Going after the developer would have been the smart thing to do, maybe they did, and Apple was right to remove the program. Filing a lawsuit? Now that was a waste of money on Cartiers part.
Some luxury watches are worth it. My sister got me a SKAGEN for my birthday while ago & it's been an incredible watch. It's Titanium, very slim design & very durable. I don't wear it to look cool, in fact I've dinged it up a bit, but the thing never quits & I have had every watch I've owned previously die on me (sometimes after a year, sometimes 3, yes I know how to change batteries).
I agree Rolex is a waste of money, though they often cost so much because they are fitted with diamonds & made of gold or platinum. Probably worth what you pay for them but I think you could probably file them under BLING.
Unfortunately, nobody here has actually seen the app, so we can't judge if there is any merit to this threat or not.
If the author actually scanned in a Cartier watch face, then he is infringing on their copyright. If he drew his own design, inspired by Cartier's design, then there is no infringement (unless they are going to try and claim a patent for what can't possibly be protected beyond the bounds of copyright law.)
But until someone posts side-by-side pictures of the FakeWatch app and a Cartier watch, most of us will never be able to decide what the deal really is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time.
And that's a big part of this suit - proving damages. People buy Cartier watches as jewelry. Nobody willing and able to buy one would consider buying a cheap knock-off, and absolutely nobody would consider an iPhone-based software clock applet as an alternative.
There's no way Cartier could ever prove damages, even if they manage to justify a claim of copyright infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
That's making some assumptions. How do you know that a C&D wasn't submitted? How do you know that hypothetical C&D wasn't ignored? Some people do ignore C&Ds if they don't think it's serious, sometimes it takes actual filing to get the attention of the other party.
I remember reading that many lawyers routinely advise their clients to ignore all C&D letters. These letters are typically generated by the thousands for the most frivolous and pointless reasons. Any company that actually reads them is going to find itself bogged down in nothing but responding to wastes-of-skin that would be better off serving humanity by being homeless.
Apple really should have nothing to do with this. If Cartier has a complaint about the app, they should sue the author. You don't sue Best Buy because a musician sold on their shelf is copying another artist's work.
Apple has been very stupid in yanking the app. By doing so, they are assuming responsibility for this app, and for everything else they resell, even though they have no such legal responsibility (and I'm sure the standard iPhone developer license explicitly says so.) They may well have created sufficient precedent to invalidate a major piece of their iPhone developer license.
I remember reading that many lawyers routinely advise their clients to ignore all C&D letters. These letters are typically generated by the thousands for the most frivolous and pointless reasons. Any company that actually reads them is going to find itself bogged down in nothing but responding to wastes-of-skin that would be better off serving humanity by being homeless.
Apple really should have nothing to do with this. If Cartier has a complaint about the app, they should sue the author. You don't sue Best Buy because a musician sold on their shelf is copying another artist's work.
Apple has been very stupid in yanking the app. By doing so, they are assuming responsibility for this app, and for everything else they resell, even though they have no such legal responsibility (and I'm sure the standard iPhone developer license explicitly says so.) They may well have created sufficient precedent to invalidate a major piece of their iPhone developer license.
No lawyer would advise their clients to ignore C&D letters --- it is the job of the lawyer to actually review the C&D letters first and give legal opinion later.
Cartier can sue whoever they want --- and companies always sue the people with money (Apple) instead of "independent" software developer who lives in his parent's basement.
Apple yanking the app isn't taking the responsibility for anything --- after Cartier withdrew the lawsuit against Apple, Cartier can still sue the independent developer (they don't because the independent developer doesn't have any money). Apple is just yanking the app, not taking responsibility for anything --- the iphone developer license gives them broad powers to yanking the app for any reason (like competing with itune's podcasting function).
Come on people... I know Cartier might be an unsympathetic, rich cooperation, but it certainly has the right not to have their designs ripped from under them.
Sure, an iPhone imitation probably won't cost them any profit, but the developer saved the time to design his own watch, too. Why should s/he profit from the work of designers Cartier pays for?
If I sell an Apple-branded bittorrent client, for example, I won't cost Apple any money. (They don't sell bittorrent software.) But certainly I make money off their brand I don't deserve or paid for.
Sounds fair to me....
(And sure, they could have sued the developer instead of Apple. But Apple decided to make themselves mandatory publisher for any app. So they share the responsibility.)
I still think it was silly. As far as I'm concerned, the app almost falls under the category of satire (which is protected.) The developer should just change the name from Cartier to Kartier or Carteea or something and change a few design elements so it doesn't replicate a Cartier watch exactly. And I'd bet Cartier and/or its lawyers don't even realize that anyone can post almost anything on the Apple App Store. They probably think Apple designed and/or paid for the app.
I still think it was silly. As far as I'm concerned, the app almost falls under the category of satire (which is protected.) The developer should just change the name from Cartier to Kartier or Carteea or something and change a few design elements so it doesn't replicate a Cartier watch exactly. And I'd bet Cartier and/or its lawyers don't even realize that anyone can post almost anything on the Apple App Store. They probably think Apple designed and/or paid for the app.
I forwarded the story to a friend and they complained that I'd promised not to send them any more fake stories from "The Onion"
Comments
On the other hand, using a company's name without permission is a foul. I am sure Apple would not approve if he made a watch with an Apple logo without obtaining permission first. Going after the developer would have been the smart thing to do, maybe they did, and Apple was right to remove the program. Filing a lawsuit? Now that was a waste of money on Cartiers part.
Would be interesting if that was the case, hopefully Cartier would explain the reasons for their overreaction.
Because you have to actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, or you lose control of them. This kind of action is so routine I have to wonder why anyone would get excited or outraged about it.
The free Fake Watch application did enable users to obtain the time using their iPhone or iPod touch, a direct blow to Cartier's fancy watch business. The software developer also offered a premium, paid version of the app under the name "Fake Watch Gold Edition."
Both versions shamelessly offered to present the time using a images of "look-alike famous wristwatches." Apple did not offer a public comment on the suit, but appears to have yanked the offending Fake Watch titles from the iPhone App Store.
To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.
A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.
And please understand that the owner of a brand name has a legitimate right to defend the name, the image and the likeliness of its products. In most cases, the owner doesn't need any additional publicity for an already famous product.
The owner of a brand name product would probably insist on approving, controlling any publicity for fear that it might damage its own brand (through a defective or misbehaving application, for instance) and might ask for compensation because no one should profit, make money from their brand without paying for it.
I have to side with Apple and Cartier on this one, despite the best intentions of the application's authors.
To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.
A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.
Good point.
Cut to shot of Lauren walking into the entrance of a Cartiers store and walking straight back out again. "Well they looked nice with the diamonds and all, but they're really not in my budget. I guess I'm just not cool enough to be a Cartier owner" she sighs wistfully.
Cut to Lauren talking to street vendor with some watches stuck to a piece of cardboard with sellotape. "Oh look, that one's got a kitten on it" she exclaims gleefully. "Wow! That one tells the time of every country in the world!' she shrieks.
Cut to Lauren in a car park waving her left arm about. "I love it! It goes on my wrist and it tells me the time and it only cost ten bucks! Oh, here's your nine-ninety change by the way."
Congratulations Lauren, you are a
Sure, an iPhone imitation probably won't cost them any profit, but the developer saved the time to design his own watch, too. Why should s/he profit from the work of designers Cartier pays for?
If I sell an Apple-branded bittorrent client, for example, I won't cost Apple any money. (They don't sell bittorrent software.) But certainly I make money off their brand I don't deserve or paid for.
Sounds fair to me....
(And sure, they could have sued the developer instead of Apple. But Apple decided to make themselves mandatory publisher for any app. So they share the responsibility.)
You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time. I expect that watches will stick around as long as there are people who want to wear metal knick-knacks. It's not as if very expensive watches were about getting much more accurate time anyways, they're jewelry and status symbols.
I meant that it was a generational thing.
Because you have to actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, or you lose control of them. This kind of action is so routine I have to wonder why anyone would get excited or outraged about it.
I agree with you completely.
It's just funny how all the apple fanbois reacted in this thread.
The most simple explanation is the most likely:
(1) Cartier sent out a C&D letter to Apple's legal department and ask them to yank out the offending app.
(2) Apple's iphone app department is the most under-staffed place on the planet and even Apple's own legal department can't find a live person from the iphone app department to speak to.
Apple was busy trying to put out the flame on the baby shaker app so they didn't have the time to yank out an app because of a "routine" copyright infringing C&D letter.
Now how will I be able to tell a fake Cartier from a real one without consulting this community service application?
To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.
A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.
And please understand that the owner of a brand name has a legitimate right to defend the name, the image and the likeliness of its products. In most cases, the owner doesn't need any additional publicity for an already famous product.
The owner of a brand name product would probably insist on approving, controlling any publicity for fear that it might damage its own brand (through a defective or misbehaving application, for instance) and might ask for compensation because no one should profit, make money from their brand without paying for it.
I have to side with Apple and Cartier on this one, despite the best intentions of the application's authors.
who the fuck cares?
Cartier, Apple, and the app developer?
McD
Anyone dumb enough to waste their money on a Cartier, Rolex, or other "luxury" watch is a moron. They are telling the world...look at me, I have no self esteem and I need to try and look cool by showing off my wrist watch. No one cares who makes your watch.
On the other hand, using a company's name without permission is a foul. I am sure Apple would not approve if he made a watch with an Apple logo without obtaining permission first. Going after the developer would have been the smart thing to do, maybe they did, and Apple was right to remove the program. Filing a lawsuit? Now that was a waste of money on Cartiers part.
Some luxury watches are worth it. My sister got me a SKAGEN for my birthday while ago & it's been an incredible watch. It's Titanium, very slim design & very durable. I don't wear it to look cool, in fact I've dinged it up a bit, but the thing never quits & I have had every watch I've owned previously die on me (sometimes after a year, sometimes 3, yes I know how to change batteries).
I agree Rolex is a waste of money, though they often cost so much because they are fitted with diamonds & made of gold or platinum. Probably worth what you pay for them but I think you could probably file them under BLING.
If the author actually scanned in a Cartier watch face, then he is infringing on their copyright. If he drew his own design, inspired by Cartier's design, then there is no infringement (unless they are going to try and claim a patent for what can't possibly be protected beyond the bounds of copyright law.)
But until someone posts side-by-side pictures of the FakeWatch app and a Cartier watch, most of us will never be able to decide what the deal really is.
You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time.
And that's a big part of this suit - proving damages. People buy Cartier watches as jewelry. Nobody willing and able to buy one would consider buying a cheap knock-off, and absolutely nobody would consider an iPhone-based software clock applet as an alternative.
There's no way Cartier could ever prove damages, even if they manage to justify a claim of copyright infringement.
That's making some assumptions. How do you know that a C&D wasn't submitted? How do you know that hypothetical C&D wasn't ignored? Some people do ignore C&Ds if they don't think it's serious, sometimes it takes actual filing to get the attention of the other party.
I remember reading that many lawyers routinely advise their clients to ignore all C&D letters. These letters are typically generated by the thousands for the most frivolous and pointless reasons. Any company that actually reads them is going to find itself bogged down in nothing but responding to wastes-of-skin that would be better off serving humanity by being homeless.
Apple really should have nothing to do with this. If Cartier has a complaint about the app, they should sue the author. You don't sue Best Buy because a musician sold on their shelf is copying another artist's work.
Apple has been very stupid in yanking the app. By doing so, they are assuming responsibility for this app, and for everything else they resell, even though they have no such legal responsibility (and I'm sure the standard iPhone developer license explicitly says so.) They may well have created sufficient precedent to invalidate a major piece of their iPhone developer license.
I remember reading that many lawyers routinely advise their clients to ignore all C&D letters. These letters are typically generated by the thousands for the most frivolous and pointless reasons. Any company that actually reads them is going to find itself bogged down in nothing but responding to wastes-of-skin that would be better off serving humanity by being homeless.
Apple really should have nothing to do with this. If Cartier has a complaint about the app, they should sue the author. You don't sue Best Buy because a musician sold on their shelf is copying another artist's work.
Apple has been very stupid in yanking the app. By doing so, they are assuming responsibility for this app, and for everything else they resell, even though they have no such legal responsibility (and I'm sure the standard iPhone developer license explicitly says so.) They may well have created sufficient precedent to invalidate a major piece of their iPhone developer license.
No lawyer would advise their clients to ignore C&D letters --- it is the job of the lawyer to actually review the C&D letters first and give legal opinion later.
Cartier can sue whoever they want --- and companies always sue the people with money (Apple) instead of "independent" software developer who lives in his parent's basement.
Apple yanking the app isn't taking the responsibility for anything --- after Cartier withdrew the lawsuit against Apple, Cartier can still sue the independent developer (they don't because the independent developer doesn't have any money). Apple is just yanking the app, not taking responsibility for anything --- the iphone developer license gives them broad powers to yanking the app for any reason (like competing with itune's podcasting function).
Come on people... I know Cartier might be an unsympathetic, rich cooperation, but it certainly has the right not to have their designs ripped from under them.
Sure, an iPhone imitation probably won't cost them any profit, but the developer saved the time to design his own watch, too. Why should s/he profit from the work of designers Cartier pays for?
If I sell an Apple-branded bittorrent client, for example, I won't cost Apple any money. (They don't sell bittorrent software.) But certainly I make money off their brand I don't deserve or paid for.
Sounds fair to me....
(And sure, they could have sued the developer instead of Apple. But Apple decided to make themselves mandatory publisher for any app. So they share the responsibility.)
I still think it was silly. As far as I'm concerned, the app almost falls under the category of satire (which is protected.) The developer should just change the name from Cartier to Kartier or Carteea or something and change a few design elements so it doesn't replicate a Cartier watch exactly. And I'd bet Cartier and/or its lawyers don't even realize that anyone can post almost anything on the Apple App Store. They probably think Apple designed and/or paid for the app.
I still think it was silly. As far as I'm concerned, the app almost falls under the category of satire (which is protected.) The developer should just change the name from Cartier to Kartier or Carteea or something and change a few design elements so it doesn't replicate a Cartier watch exactly. And I'd bet Cartier and/or its lawyers don't even realize that anyone can post almost anything on the Apple App Store. They probably think Apple designed and/or paid for the app.
I forwarded the story to a friend and they complained that I'd promised not to send them any more fake stories from "The Onion"