Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal•Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?
Only Apple can sell this app- correct? Isn;'t there an sale agreement and review process by Apple and Apple only?
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
This is so obviously an attempt at trolling, it's funny.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
Apple is more than just a store - What is Apple then?
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. - How would you monitor someone ripping someone off? How would you monitor idea stealing or espionage?
Can this guy sell this app without Apple's approval?- NO.
Can he sell it on his own? NO- only Apple can sell it.
If that's doesn't make sense - then what does?
I asked for legal grounds, that's just your own speculation. Just because Apple is the only seller, what legal basis makes it their fault and not the dev? And again, please give a precedent where the "store" was found responsible for IP violation in something they sold.
And what does make sense is that the dev is responsible for the app and any IP violations it may have.
I asked for legal grounds, that's just your own speculation. Just because Apple is the only seller, what legal basis makes it their fault and not the dev? And again, please give a precedent where the "store" was found responsible for IP violation in something they sold.
And what does make sense is that the dev is responsible for the app and any IP violations it may have.
You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
You can't say anything against Apple without being called a troll?
That's called pathetic.
What's pathetic is trying to find any and every way to argue against and bash Apple amongst a bunch of Apple fans. You know what kind of reaction it'll get and that's why you do it. It's called trolling.
Would you be making this same argument if another store like Amazon sold an item that allegedly used a copyrighted image?
Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
They released it, I don't see how that's giving it a "seal of approval" - what makes you think that by selling it, they are guaranteeing that it has no IP violations? When Borders sells a book and it turns out to have violations, why aren't they found liable?
And again, you keep ignoring the request for ANY legal grounds that Apple is responsible. THAT is what looks like trolling.
As a practical matter, if you were Apple, how would YOU check all the content in an app to make sure none of it is an IP violation? Much less tens of thousands of apps.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
And a lot of seemingly spurious Appstore rejections were caused by Apple citing copyright concerns. Apple has been criticised for this. Now one slipped past their vetting and you slap them for not being strict enough.
Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal?Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?
If somebody sells a bootlegged CD, she or he is liable. The question is always how obvious the copyright infringement is.
You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
Yes, Apple approved it for sale in their store. That's no different than Barnes & Noble "approving" a book for sale in their store. The app creator is the party that infringed the copyright, not Apple. I wouldn't be surprised to see this case tossed out. Regardless, I'm 100% certain that the plaintiff will not win this case at trial and appeal. Whether Apple throws him some money in a settlement just to not have to deal with it is another question.
If somebody sells a bootlegged CD, she or he is liable. The question is always how obvious the copyright infringement is.
This isn't the equivalent of a bootleg CD, it's more comparable to a store selling a book containing copyrighted text or a CD using an unauthorized sample.
For an example, look at the song Bittersweet Symphony which the Rolling Stones successfully argued ripped off one of their songs and ended up getting 100% of the writing credit and monies. Were any of the stores that sold that CD found guilty of copyright violation?
Only Apple can sell this app- correct? Isn;'t there an sale agreement and review process by Apple and Apple only?
Only Wal?Mart sells the Wal?Mart exclusive editions of movies. This is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter that they're the only store selling it. They're still just the store selling it. I take your attempt at a tangent and your ignoring of the actual question to mean that you are not in fact aware of any precedent cases and are in fact just making shit up as I suspected.
I do hope some ex-Apple store employees, or current part timers get jobs at the MS stores if for no other reason than to keep MS honest. If management makes them tell lies about Apple they can blow the whistle. They can also correct people who have mistaken ideas about Macs, although they may have to do it subtly. Although I am a former Apple Store employee, I couldn't do it because I know zilch about Windows machines.
I do hope some ex-Apple store employees, or current part timers get jobs at the MS stores if for no other reason than to keep MS honest. If management makes them tell lies about Apple they can blow the whistle. They can also correct people who have mistaken ideas about Macs, although they may have to do it subtly.
Considering the number of Apple fans that enjoy telling lies, half truths and exaggerations about MS, I think they'd do well to actively avoid former Apple Store employees altogether.
The lawsuit should be directed at the i.TV developer. End of story.
Its like the US government suing china because retail stores there sell ripped off US products. After all the Chinese gov't has to give permits to do business right.
IP laws is easily abused in this day and age. The one with the more cunning lawyer wins. Not the one who is right.
From everything I've read, the Microsoft stores will not be selling the machines, just software, Zunes, X-Boxes, and accessories. I wish I lived close enough to one of these stores so I could go hang out and watch customers reactions when the salesperson convinces them that they've found the computer they need and want but they can't buy it.
You walk into an Apple store, and you walk out with a computer. You walk into a Microsoft store, and you walk out frustrated. Situation normal. Once again MS doesn't get it. Ballmer must personally be in charge of this one.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
You need to show me where it says it is Apple's responsibility to monitor this.
Comments
Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal•Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?
Only Apple can sell this app- correct? Isn;'t there an sale agreement and review process by Apple and Apple only?
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
Apple is more than just a store - What is Apple then?
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. - How would you monitor someone ripping someone off? How would you monitor idea stealing or espionage?
Can this guy sell this app without Apple's approval?- NO.
Can he sell it on his own? NO- only Apple can sell it.
If that's doesn't make sense - then what does?
I asked for legal grounds, that's just your own speculation. Just because Apple is the only seller, what legal basis makes it their fault and not the dev? And again, please give a precedent where the "store" was found responsible for IP violation in something they sold.
And what does make sense is that the dev is responsible for the app and any IP violations it may have.
I asked for legal grounds, that's just your own speculation. Just because Apple is the only seller, what legal basis makes it their fault and not the dev? And again, please give a precedent where the "store" was found responsible for IP violation in something they sold.
And what does make sense is that the dev is responsible for the app and any IP violations it may have.
You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
You can't say anything against Apple without being called a troll?
That's called pathetic.
You can't say anything against Apple without being called a troll?
That's called pathetic.
What's pathetic is trying to find any and every way to argue against and bash Apple amongst a bunch of Apple fans. You know what kind of reaction it'll get and that's why you do it. It's called trolling.
Would you be making this same argument if another store like Amazon sold an item that allegedly used a copyrighted image?
Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
They released it, I don't see how that's giving it a "seal of approval" - what makes you think that by selling it, they are guaranteeing that it has no IP violations? When Borders sells a book and it turns out to have violations, why aren't they found liable?
And again, you keep ignoring the request for ANY legal grounds that Apple is responsible. THAT is what looks like trolling.
As a practical matter, if you were Apple, how would YOU check all the content in an app to make sure none of it is an IP violation? Much less tens of thousands of apps.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
And a lot of seemingly spurious Appstore rejections were caused by Apple citing copyright concerns. Apple has been criticised for this. Now one slipped past their vetting and you slap them for not being strict enough.
Is there precedent for that or are you just making it up? Has a retailer like Amazon or Wal?Mart for instance been successfully sued for selling something that violates copyright that was created by someone else?
If somebody sells a bootlegged CD, she or he is liable. The question is always how obvious the copyright infringement is.
Man, I can't wait to go.
I hope the M$ store employees wear that nostalgic nerd look, I can just see a whole store of people wearing vee neck sweaters, and loafers.
Man, I can't wait to go.
Don't forget the argyle socks.
You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
Yes, Apple approved it for sale in their store. That's no different than Barnes & Noble "approving" a book for sale in their store. The app creator is the party that infringed the copyright, not Apple. I wouldn't be surprised to see this case tossed out. Regardless, I'm 100% certain that the plaintiff will not win this case at trial and appeal. Whether Apple throws him some money in a settlement just to not have to deal with it is another question.
If somebody sells a bootlegged CD, she or he is liable. The question is always how obvious the copyright infringement is.
This isn't the equivalent of a bootleg CD, it's more comparable to a store selling a book containing copyrighted text or a CD using an unauthorized sample.
For an example, look at the song Bittersweet Symphony which the Rolling Stones successfully argued ripped off one of their songs and ended up getting 100% of the writing credit and monies. Were any of the stores that sold that CD found guilty of copyright violation?
Only Apple can sell this app- correct? Isn;'t there an sale agreement and review process by Apple and Apple only?
Only Wal?Mart sells the Wal?Mart exclusive editions of movies. This is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter that they're the only store selling it. They're still just the store selling it. I take your attempt at a tangent and your ignoring of the actual question to mean that you are not in fact aware of any precedent cases and are in fact just making shit up as I suspected.
I do hope some ex-Apple store employees, or current part timers get jobs at the MS stores if for no other reason than to keep MS honest. If management makes them tell lies about Apple they can blow the whistle. They can also correct people who have mistaken ideas about Macs, although they may have to do it subtly.
Considering the number of Apple fans that enjoy telling lies, half truths and exaggerations about MS, I think they'd do well to actively avoid former Apple Store employees altogether.
Its like the US government suing china because retail stores there sell ripped off US products. After all the Chinese gov't has to give permits to do business right.
IP laws is easily abused in this day and age. The one with the more cunning lawyer wins. Not the one who is right.
You walk into an Apple store, and you walk out with a computer. You walk into a Microsoft store, and you walk out frustrated. Situation normal. Once again MS doesn't get it. Ballmer must personally be in charge of this one.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
You need to show me where it says it is Apple's responsibility to monitor this.