Once again Apple is sticking it to YOU. Thats right Apple is trying to prohibit several web sites from distributing the Aqua skin for WindowsBlinds and Skinz.<P><BR>See http://slashdot.org for more info...<P><BR>
Apple fugs Up Again...
- Thread starter Evil_Merlin
- Start date
- Status
Surprise surprise. They also did this with the KDE Drawing Board and MacOS themes, and I wanted the Drawing Board theme, too...
Yeah, damn those capitalists and their silly intellectual property laws! View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
This is from the slashdot article:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...it does not use any graphics from aqua, it does not contain any mac logos etc; it's an original work - just inspired by the aqua.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Apple is just afraid that their only chance with consumers--a super candy flavored GUI--can be easily mimicked. What a bunch of crap.<P>Why does Apple have to be so stupid?<BR>
<BR>They spent 18 months working on Aqua. ( realize that includes more than the look) So why should they let someone else steal the look? It isn't even trying to be 'similar'. It is a direct and purposeful rip off. If it is so easy to create an interface just as cool, let them do it, without stealing the look from those that created this specific look.<P>And Apple isn't "sticking it to me" at all, since I don't use Windows it doesn't matter. (or Linux) If you want the interface to look like what Apple designs, then buy MacOS. If I want a car that looks like a Corvette, I have to buy a corvette, if dodge made a car that looked just like the corvette, Chevy would sue.<P>
Despite what Slashdot says, some artwork was done pixel-for-pixel as several people have been able to show in the discussion.
Um, Resteves there are plenty of kit cars that look JUST like the Corvettes. I know, I built one.<P>From the guys who wrote the skin themselves: "...it does not use any graphics from aqua, it does not contain any mac logos etc; it's an original work - just inspired by the aqua"<P>Once again, Apple is just being spiteful and whoreish.
I kind of expected this.....remember when they sent out the Legal Goon Squads (TM) for the iMac look-alikes?<P>Sometimes I wonder what Apple would look like if they fired the lawyers, and used the money to do something like, I dunno, get OS X out before I croak!?!?<P>Dajjal
Assuming that this is actually true...<P>Woohoo! The year 2000 and Apple is still suing people over look and feel of software products. Some people never learn...<P>Now, can you people imagine what Apple would be like if they had the patent arsenal Microsoft or IBM have? Thank god Apple never became anyone important in the computer industry.
I don't own or use Windows, but I think I'll go get a copy of that skin (before Apple bullies the big companies into getting rid of it) and put it up on my ftp site. Everyone else should do the same.
EM, who the fuck r u 2 question Apples choice of intellectual and industrial design, and the way they deal with cheapskate 3rd rate copies. U r no 1 to question Apple, just a little fuck who wants wants wants. If some one was to steal intellectual property that u spent 18months developing, would u sit back like a fuck and take it up the ass....I think not....mind u, u just might like being fuck for the sake of it!!!!!!!!!!! <P>My self, if I made and app or maybe developed OS, and some fithy fuck decided that my X MONTHS/YEARS was worth flogging, I would be hauling their ass right into court and sueing them until there was nothing left.<P>This isn't a case of emulation, which would envolved owning the OS or the software to run of the OS (in conjucntion...u would also need a legal rom), this is a blatant copyright issue. I hope the fucker have good lawyers, they will need it!!!<P>Yes I use the Mac OS, but the reason I have such an opinion on this is the fact so many of u think that everything is yours to take/pirate/buggerise.<P>EM when u produce something that took 18months and cost hundreds of K or millions for that matter come and tell me...until then such the fuck up u thief!!!<P>Really pissed(as in off) regards
Well, damn, I guess I'll jut have to throw WB back on my Windows partition and see what all the fuss is about. It must be pretty good for them to jump on it like a pack of rabid dogs.<BR>Apple must use the same PR people MS does....
Happy_Aardvark<P>I am ME, and what I choose, and HOW I choose to decorate my desktop is up to ME. NO ONE is copying Apple. NO ONE. It is SIMILAR to the Aqua desktop in LOOKS ONLY. And even there there are a LOT of diffenences.<P>LOoks like I hit a nerve with a RDF'ed Mac Freak.<P>Um Happy_Aardvark I HAVE and STILL do work on SEVERAL products that take MORE than 18 months to develop, and cost MILLIONS of dollars to design, roll out and implement. And you know what? When I am finished I hand the design plans out, so EVERYONE who needs to do what I did, can do so easily and without dealing with all the headaches I had to.<P>Aardvark once again proving that Apple freaks don't belong anyplace but locked in their rooms with their lickable computers.<P>
I agree that Apple needs to chill on some of these legal issues...<P>But if they can produce a pixel for pixel comparison of the interface widgets between winaqua and the Aqua screenshot and movies available, I think they have reason to be pissed. Granted, I have no idea if they can do this...<P>Simon<BR>simon@maccafe.com<P>[This message has been edited by Simon (edited January 13, 2000).]
Happy_Ardvark seems not so happy today. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Once again, Aardvark woke up on the wrong side of the bed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He has a right side of the bed???<P>Incidentally why doesn't apple also sue keyboard makers for having the alphabets and the mouse manufacturers for having a ball in the mouse (all except for the Intellieye) and monitor manufacturers for letting people see a gui etc etc
Until now I had't tried the Aqua skin (and didn't want to try it) but guess what I just downloaded .........<BR>yipppppppeeeeee AquaPC<BR>
<BR>The point is that Apple worked to come up with precisely that look, and why should somebody else be able to copy it. It is not a case of people trying to make an "aqua-like" interface, or just a "blue" interface. They even named it after Aqua as that is what it is supposed to look like. Apple plans on this being recognizable as an Apple interface, and doesn't want it used by others.<P>Why do you think it is okay to rip-off what others have done?<P>
Yep, and another thing... this here PC has a CD-ROM. Now since we all know that Apple invented the multi-media computer they ought to sue all these horrible companies putting CD-ROMs in their computers.
I really like to see how Apple will pursue this latest corporate-idiocy against Windows-people, and how it will end (take a guess!). hehehe<P>add: the posts over at this site are gems. It seems like both Mac and Windows people are <B>both</B>castigating APPLE's latest bonehead decision. Try reading it: <BR> http://skinz.org/skins.php3?skin=WinAqua&area=wb <P><BR>--treatment--<P>[This message has been edited by treatment (edited January 13, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why do you think it is okay to rip-off what others have done?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What, exactly, has been "ripped-off"? <P>Since Mac users seem so fond of car analogies:<P>This is analogous with a guy sitting in his garage, saying, "I want my car to look like that car," and doing a few alterations towards that end. BMW would not sue me for buying parts to make my car look like a BMW, nor would they sue anyone who sold me parts to make my car look like a BMW.<P>No intellectual property has been "ripped off." Unless you can <I>conclusively</I> show otherwise, ("Apple copyrighted this widget'”you used it! Muahahaha!) the argument is bunk.<BR>
How it will end? Er, didn't it already end? Didn't skinz.org just pull the skin? That's what Apple asked for, no? Problem solved.
John,<P>Uhmm, nope. The winaqua-skin is still there. I just dl'd it just to make sure.<BR> http://skinz.org/skins.php3?login=&id=&skin=WinAqua&area=wb <P><BR>--treatment--
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why do you think it is okay to rip-off what others have done?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's an excellent question, resteves. Now, how might this very same question apply to the UI paradign originally introduced on the Xerox Parc Star?<P>More seriously, can you be a bit more precise about what exactly Apple invented that's being "ripped off" here? Is it the color scheme? The look of the widgets? The lickable-ness of it all?<P>Come on, even irrational Mac-advocates can think differently. Every OS and every look-n-feel gets themed, and no one cares except Apple. All they're doing here is using pressure tactics in an attempt to put a stop perfectly legal imitation.<P>I'll say it again: "thank god Apple never became anyone important in the computer industry."
No one here is a lawyer (right?) so we're all just guessing, but there seems to be a precedent for this stuff. First, there's the iMac look-alikes that weren't even exact copies of the iMac. They were just blue and translucent. Apple seems to be winning those cases. Second, in the software world (from a slashdot comment):<P><BLOCKQUOTE>"in the Swing GUI toolkit, the Windows look and feel is disabled for all other platforms but Windows because Microsoft did not give permission for it to be used on other platforms. In the same way, the Macintosh L&F is disabled on all other platforms but Macintosh"</BLOCKQUOTE><P>It seems pretty cut and dry to me. No, the FBI isn't going to blow down your door for running a Win95 scheme in Kaleidoscope or an Aqua theme in Windowblinds, but the actual legality seems pretty clear.<P>[This message has been edited by John (edited January 13, 2000).]
Quote'd by redd from /.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Apple have no right to tell us what we can and cannot put on our desktop. If they can't sell products on merit of being better products then they clearly can't keep up with technology. Why doesn't MacOS have themes yet? <P>I actually see Apple being a great deal more of a threat to open-standards than M$ (remember the Indeo codec?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey resteves, how come if you feel so strongly about this issue, you never started up any threads saying how bad those Kaleidoscope scheme builders were for making Win 3.1, 95, 98, NT, NeXt, BeOS, Amiga schemes??
<BR>I don't know if I actually care if WinAqua is available or not. I don't think it should be that big of a deal. But I do think that Apple should be able to protect that which they have developed. It is meant to be more than just a utilitarian interface, and the *recognizable* look has been ripped off.<P>I don't have as much trouble with the older looks for either platform as they are older. I suppose Apple/MS/etc could reserve the right for all their respective 'looks', but I think that for OS's that are already out it isn't as important to them. I am not sure about the reasoning of the suit (and not one for platinum) but I think they should be allowed to reserve it.<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>"Apple have no right to tell us what we can and cannot put on our desktop."</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He's judge and jury all rolled into one! Who needs that silly legal system anyway? View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>"If they can't sell products on merit of being better products then they clearly can't keep up with technology."</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Technology is just one factor (and not always the most important one) in making a good computer product. Apparently, as Apple discovered with the iMac, "cuteness" is at least equally important to many consumers View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's a crazy world! Too bad we're not all Vulcans... View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>"Why doesn't MacOS have themes yet?"</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>A better question is, why doesn't this guy know that Mac OS has themes?
Well, I found an apple logo in the theme - if you click on the start button, then click on it again, a little apple logo replaces the windows logo for a brief moment. Still don't think that's grounds for a freakin' lawsuit, though
Why the heck would a pc user want to make their desktop look like a mac? That just strikes me funny. I would consider it a moral victory for Apple if pc users are emulating the Apple desktop. Maybe there is a market for an x86 build of OS X.<P>Hegor<BR>
John:<P>IANAL, but the software look-n-feel argument has been on shaky ground ever since Apple lost their lawsuit against Microsoft in the early nineties.<P>I would say that the 'Aqua' skin is legal under not-for-profit fair use grounds, even if it is an actual direct copy. And if it isn't a direct copy, Apple has very few legs to stand on.<P>(BTW, the hardware lawsuit you pointed out seems different to me, because there was a profit motive and it could be reasonably argued that the similarity of the boxes might cause customer confusion. Neither of those apply to this issue.)
I'm not sure the logo is relevant to anything, it's the artwork in the skin itself that Apple probably objects to. Also, is there any sort of lawsuit? All I've read is that Apple asked that the skin be removed. No lawsuit has been filed, AFAIK.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by hegor:</I><BR>Why the heck would a pc user want to make their desktop look like a mac? That just strikes me funny. I would consider it a moral victory for Apple if pc users are emulating the Apple desktop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wouldn't - it's just a case of variety being the spice of life. The actual functionality of the GUI doesn't change - just the look. I've skinned my desktop with several different themes: Amiga, Be, GEM, Mac, OS/2, Next, Solaris, even Win 3.1. Even the perfect OS gets stale after a while. I was using the Aqua theme for a few hours today, but it's too dadgum washed out looking for me. Went back to blue steel (my personal fave)
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>ANAL, but the software look-n-feel argument has been on shaky ground ever since Apple lost their lawsuit against Microsoft in the early nineties.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That case was very different. There was a licensing deal between MS and Apple. MS (et al) won that case because the judge ruled that the look and feel of Mac OS was not protected under that licensing deal. In other words, Apple (or more precisely, John Scully) signed away their rights with that licensing deal and thus lost the case.<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>I would say that the 'Aqua' skin is legal under not-for-profit fair use grounds, even if it is an actual direct copy.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Possibly, but I'm sure Apple would argue that it is being materially damaged by these free themes being out in the market (and before its OS, no less) creating a "reputation" (or whatever the legal term is) for it. It's sort of the same "trade dress" argument used in the iMac suits. Like, someone will use an Aqua skin for a year and then when Mac OS X comes out, they'd be like, "Ho hum, I already have that." That is, they'd ignore Mac OS X because they think the skin they have is all there is to the GUI.<P>Anyway, I'm not saying it's a particularly "nice" line of reasoning, but Apple could very well win a case against even a free skin using such an argument. The copyright law has a clause that allows for it:<P><BLOCKQUOTE>"<B>Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use</B><P>In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ... the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."</BLOCKQUOTE><P>(See this post on slashdot for the full text)<P>so it's almost certain that Apple would argue this point if it ever made it to the courtroom.<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>And if it isn't a direct copy, Apple has very few legs to stand on.</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm not sure the "effect of the use upon the potential market" argument requires that it be an exact copy. After all, none of the iMac clones were exact copies.<P><BLOCKQUOTE><I>(BTW, the hardware lawsuit you pointed out seems different to me, because there was a profit motive and it could be reasonably argued that the similarity of the boxes might cause customer confusion. Neither of those apply to this issue.)</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think they both do. First, the effect on the potential market may be even worse if a skin is free (and therefore spreads rapidly). Second, the more widespread the Aqua look is before Mac OS X is released, the greater the chance of customer confusion about Mac OS X when it is released. "Didn't I see that already?" "I think my friend already has that."<P>We'll find out, I guess, if anyone ever actually sues.<P>[This message has been edited by John (edited January 13, 2000).]
Heh, I had forgotten about the very similar hubbub over Apple's old "HiTech" theme for Mac OS 8.x. From this article at slashdot:<P><BLOCKQUOTE>Were you a Kaleidoscope interface hacker around the time of the C-Futuro Classic flap? Apple at the time was keeping its options open w.r.t a darker techy sort of interface theme, with a very specific design. One person (for the c.p. Church Windows, I believe) did a really accurate copy, and Ed Deans did C-Futuro Classic by basically taking Apple's 'HiTech' theme and adapting it as accurately as possible into a straight rect window.<P> Apple persecuted this vigorously, too, and there was much discussion and ranting and noise about the matter, but the end result was the removal of HiTech themes 'from the wild'. If you wanted a high tech theme, you had to *gasp* make one up. Seeing as on the kaleidoscope scheme archive there are 127 different schemes from authors with names beginning with 'A' alone, there are a lot of alternatives to using a clone of HiTech- or Aqua.<P> Plain and simple- don't blatantly rip Apple's expensive and fancy interface designs until _after_ they are released. They are less pissy when their product is actually shipping. When it's a nebulous project (HiTech, which got 'steved') or the next big thing that's being built as a replacement to Apple Platinum (Aqua), they get real pissy about someone heisting a facade of what they're building and offering it around."</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
This whole winaqua-shenanigan is gonna be another bad PR for Apple. They can complain all they want and they can sue all they want, but the fact remains that not a single I-P code was taken nor was the Aqua de-compiled/reverse-engineered at the lowest byte-level for use on the WinAqua. For pete's sake, it's just a theme. Maybe this whole issue was concocted as a cheap PR/Marketing vehicle for Apple that's backfiring.<P>Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. They should just be glad that they're being noticed at all.<P><BR>--treatment--
- Status