Skip to Content

Free TUAW iPhone app -- try it now!
AOL Tech

AppleLegal posts

Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Bad Apple

Apple versus Woolworths: logo smackdown

UPDATE 2: Be sure to read Engadget's analysis of what appears to be a non-event here.

Apple is apparently getting hot and bothered over Australian/New Zealand supermarket chain Woolworths' new logo. Woolworths insists the logo is merely a stylized "W," but Apple's copyright lawyers aren't buying it. They're trying to knock down Woolworths' copyright application for the logo by claiming it violates Apple's intellectual property.

Apparently, according to trademark lawyer Trevor Choy, Apple does this fairly often, trying to make sure that some other company's branding can't be mistaken for its iconic logo.

I'll admit that at first glance the logos look similar (to me, anyway – my ex-graphic designer wife doesn't agree). Even so, it seems kind of a stretch to assume anyone is going to confuse Woolworths, a supermarket chain based only in Australia and New Zealand that mostly sells, you know, food, with Apple, a worldwide company that sells computers. Trust me, I shop at the Woolworths here in Palmerston North every week; it's a decent grocer, but nobody's going to wander in there looking for a MacBook Pro.

What do you think? Does Apple have a case here? Or is it sort of ridiculous for Apple to claim that anything roundish with a leaf on top endangers its trademark? Sound off in the comments.

UPDATE: A couple of points we should clear up on this post. First, Apple is not, in fact, the aggressor in this case. No one is, really. It is a trademark action, and as far as we know it has NOT become a lawsuit. It appears to be a part of the trademark process as it happens down under. Apple is free to object, and since Woolworths is attempting to register their mark across a huge range of products (like computers), they are practically obligated to do so. We'll keep an eye out for any interesting developments, however. - Ed.


Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Hardware

Member of Psystar's legal team quits

Earlier this week, David Welker (co-founder of lawfirm Welker and Rosario) left Psystar's legal team. He will be succeeded by Eugene Action, who is already listed as the council of record.

If you're unfamiliar with this story (and who could blame you, it's so ridiculous), here's a primer. Psystar sells Mac clones with Leopard installed. Apple played the conspiracy theory card and then declared copyright infringement and sued. Psystar responded with a counter suit, filed Chapter 11, recovered, sued over Snow Leopard ... you know what? Just check the history here. It's an epic exercise in red tape manufacturing.

At this point, Psystar is like that cricket you hear but can't find. Ultimately harmless, hard to ignore and supremely annoying.

Filed under: Apple Corporate, iTS, iTunes

Eminem, Apple prepare to square off again

Eminem's publisher, Eight Mile Style LLC, is preparing to go to trial against Apple this week over the rapper's iTunes sales, Reuters reports.

This comes just months after Eminem's production company, FBT Productions, lost its royalties case against Apple.

This is an on-going battle since 2007, when Eminem sued Apple claiming that his music was being sold through iTunes without his consent. Apple claims that the deal, done through Aftermath Entertainment with distributes Eminem's music, is not only legal, but Eminem is making money off of it. Aftermath Entertainment is also being included in the lawsuit.

Reuters says that if the two sides do not reach a deal, the trial will start on Thursday.

Eminem has also previously sued Apple over its use of "Lose Yourself" in an iTunes Store ad that aired in 2003.

[Via Apple Insider]

Filed under: Apple Corporate, iTS, iTunes

Eminem loses iTunes royalty case

Eminem's production company, FBT Productions, has been arguing that their artist is entitled to half of all royalties generated by sales of his music in the iTunes Store. Of course, Apple takes a commission before the artist receives their compensation. FBT's argument hinged upon whether the arrangement constitutes a licensing agreement.

MacNN reports that a Los Angeles jury decided no, iTunes is simply another distribution channel, so Em will not be receiving the $1.47 million he was after. Bummer, dude.

This certainly isn't the first time Eminem's legal team has clashed with Apple's. Back in May of 2005, Apple was forced to pull an iPod ad that featured a young user singing (Rapping? Speaking?) the lyrics to "Lose Yourself." The story at the time was that Eminem refused to give Apple permission to use the song, but they did anyway.

Later that same year, the folks at Lugz footwear had Apple pull an Eminem-approved TV ad that looked a lot like their own. Oops.

Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware

Apple: Psystar clones part of a larger conspiracy

Earlier this year, manufacturer Psystar began selling computers capable of running Mac OS X Leopard. They've gotten the Mac community's attention, and Apple's. Of course, Psystar found themselves involved with Apple legal shortly after their announcement. That was no surprise, but this week's news kind of is.

Apple is claiming that Psystar is part of a larger group of individuals or corporations. Here's a quote from the recently amended claim:

"...persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as ... the "John Doe Defendants"...Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained."

Yikes. What does make sense in light of this accusation, if proven to be true, is Psystar's apparent brashness. When faced with an opponent as high-profile and well-funded as Apple, they've continued to sell machines. Either they're crazy or they've got some serious backbone. We shall see.

[Via World Of Apple]

Filed under: Accessories, Apple Corporate, iPod Family

Apple legal not amused by "iGasm"

It seems that Apple's legal department have got their knickers in a knot* over an ad campaign for the iGasm, which is a rather intimate accessory for the iPod. The ads look just like the original "silhouette" iPod spots (see the ad at right), just not so much, you know, for the family.

Now, this certainly isn't the first iPod sex toy we've seen (or benign iPod case that only looks like a sex toy), nor is it the first time Apple has sued such a manufacturer for their advertising. And it probably won't be the last.

*I know, I know. I just couldn't resist.

[Via MacDailyNews]

Filed under: Apple Corporate, Odds and ends, Apple Financial, Bad Apple

Apple's ex-lawyer retains her own lawyer

Nancy Heinen, Apple's former general counsel who was just replaced by Donald Rosenberg, has retained a Berkley white collar crime lawyer just in case she needs to defend herself against charges resulting from the whole messy options backdating problem. Heinen abruptly exited her post at Apple last spring with no explanation given and neither Apple nor Heinen has bothered to elaborate on what exactly went down or even whether she was fired or resigned on her own.

Heinen has hired Cristina Arguedas of Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, who said in an interview last week that federal authorities have not contacted Heinen about her possible role in Apple's option grants and Miles Ehrlich, a lawyer at Ramsey & Ehrlich. "Every executive, CEO, CFO, general counsel, any high-up person in Silicon Valley in their right mind is getting themselves legal representation because of this legal environment right now," Arguedas said. "I have a number of clients who are executives who think it would be a good idea to be represented. It doesn't mean anything that they have chosen me to do that."

Fellow TUEWstress Erica Sadun discovered that Cristina Arguedas, aside from being Apple's ex-lawyer's lawyer is go-to-lawyer for lawyers in general, according to the Wall Street Journal law blog. In addition to defending Nancy Heinen, she has also defended legal eagle Ann Baskins, Hewlett Packard general counsel, among others. Is there a special Counsel the Counselors class in law school we wonder?

More than 90 companies are the subject of stock option inquiries right now. The FBI said Wednesday that it's investigating 45 backdating cases, while prosecutors in the past three weeks have charged five former executives of two companies, including two ex-CEOs. Sounds to me like Heinan is very wise to retain counsel at this stage of the game.

Filed under: Apple

Court upholds bloggers' rights against Apple

An appeals court has ruled that Apple is not entitled to subpoena information from a blog's email service provider in order to uncover the identity of  Apple employees who allegedly leaked secret  information to several blogs about Asteroid, a firewire interface for GarageBand that Apple was developing. The decision against Apple has implications beyond the facts of this case. It was a major victory for bloggers, webmasters, and email service providers.

One of the issues in the case was whether bloggers are entitled to protect the identity of their sources to the same extent as offline journalists. In the opinion in favor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who represented the blogs Powerpage.org and AppleInsider, the court rejected Apple's contention that the blogs were not engaging in legitimate journalism, writing:

"We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

EFF says that the decision is also a victory for anyone who uses email, because it means that litigants in a civil lawsuit can't subpoena your email from your service provider.

The text of the court's opinion is available from EFF. For background on the case, take a look at our earlier post.

Filed under: Apple

Appellate arguments heard in Apple v. Does subpoena dispute

A California appellate court heard arguments yesterday on a highly charged discovery issue about a subpoena issued by Apple in its trade secret lawsuit, Apple v. Does. The twists and turns of legal process can be a mystery to non-lawyers and even to those of us who had the dubious honor of sweating through law school and years of practice. So here's some background that may help put yesterday's proceedings in context.

The discovery issue is an offshoot of the main Apple v. Does case, filed in December 2004, in which Apple alleges that unnamed defendants ("Does"), leaked trade secrets about an unreleased Apple product to several blogs, including PowerPage.org and AppleInsider.com, which published the information. The unreleased product, code-named Asteroid, was a firewire interface for GarageBand.

The discovery dispute argued yesterday is a side issue about a subpoena that Apple sent to nFox, the email ISP for PowerPage.org, seeking emails and other information that might reveal the identity of the sources who leaked the alleged trade secrets. PowerPage.org publisher Jason O'Grady, along with two other online publishers, filed a motion for a protective order against Apple in February, 2005 asking for a stay of the nFox subpoena. Neither nFox, O'Grady, nor the other online publishers in the discovery action are named parties in the main lawsuit. O'Grady et al are represented in the discovery suit by The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Continue readingAppellate arguments heard in Apple v. Does subpoena dispute

Filed under: Apple Corporate, iPod Family

Yes, Virginia, there is an Apple legal department

Here's the situation. A young girl (3rd grade) has ideas on how Apple can improve her iPod. So, she writes a letter expressing her ideas as a class project, and sends it off to 1 Infinite Loop. She received a reply...from Apple legal. The letter stated that Apple does not accept or appreciate unsolicited product ideas with all the warmth and humanity that you would expect from the legal department of a billion dollar company. I don't know what this girl's teacher expected to happen, but I'm guessing it wasn't this.

Apple has since apologized to the girl and is now thinking of implementing a new policy for interacting with kids.

[Via Cult of Mac]

Tip of the Day

Reply in the Mail.app with a specific quote.
Select the text you want quoted and then hit the reply button.
Only your selected text will copied to the reply email.


Follow us on Twitter!
 TUAW [Cafepress]

Featured Galleries

DNC Macs
Macworld 2008 Keynote
Macworld 2008 Build-up
Google Earth for iPhone
Podcaster
Storyist 2.0
AT&T Navigator Road Test
Bento for iPhone 1.0
Scrabble for iPhone
Tom Bihn Checkpoint Flyer Briefcase
Apple Vanity Plates
Apple booth Macworld 07
WorldVoice Radio
Quickoffice for iPhone 1.1.1
Daylite 3.9 Review
DiscPainter
Mariner Calc for iPhone
2009CupertinoBus
Crash Bandicoot Nitro Kart 3D
MLB.com At Bat 2009
Macworld Expo 2007 show floor

 

More Apple Analysis

AOL Radio TUAW on Stitcher