Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Add this to the list of Apple's frivolous lawsuits.

I'm not sure which is worse the fact that Apple thinks they own one of their deceased founders or the figurine itself.
 
This is a Chinese company. US laws do not apply in China. So, they can present all kinds of US laws but if there is no comparable Chinese law, then tough luck. So, anybody know if there is a similar Chinese law?

You mean a Hong Kong company, not a China company.

They are 2 quite different things.
 
Chinese / Hong Kong / Russian companies never really care about copyrights :D
The only real reason for SOPA...
 
Not as ridiculous as spelling the word "rediculous". Any company that doesn't aggressively attempt to protect its IP risks losing it.

Dumbest post ever. You think SJ's likeness is Apple's IP? Wow.

Cavalier treatment of someone's likeness in this regard is always a problem. You seem to think IP is just one big free-for-all. It isn't. And if the facts have a pro-Apple bias in this case, then that's what the facts happen to be.
Do you honestly think anyone can just use SJ's likeness (or any public figure's - past or present) without consulting Apple or his estate? Get real. Exercise a little common sense.

Common sense? The only way ANYONE would have to ask apple if they could use his likeness is if THEY were put in charge of HIS likeness..... now the family/estate is a different matter. Unless apple was put in charge, there would be NO need to ask them if a doll of his likeness could be made. Your argument is silly. (if they were not put in charge)
 
Last edited:
Meh, those Steve bobble-heads and plush dolls are much cuter. This is sort of creepy for my tastes. :apple:
 
...like Parallels, Inc. or many ios developers? :rolleyes:
and SOPA will work only in U.S.

A generalization. There are pirating sites hosted in Russia that are untouchable by the US and countless Chinese knockoff companies (although I support the knockoffs of Apple chargers because they are normally overly expensive). And SOPA will allow the US government to force US ISPs to block offending IPs, including foreign ones.

I don't support or oppose SOPA, but I think it's perfectly fine (and good to prevent piracy) for the US to be able to block just foreign websites. They are not protected under our US constitution.
 
Last edited:
Dumbest post ever. You think SJ's likeness is Apple's IP? Wow.



Common sense? The only way ANYONE would have to ask apple if they could use his likeness is if THEY were put in charge of HIS likeness..... now the family/estate is a different matter. Unless apple was put in charge, there would be NO need to ask them if a doll of his likeness could be made. Your argument is silly. (if they were not put in charge)

Maybe Steve Jobs left in his will or something that Apple owns his icon/name? I'd do that if I were him. Otherwise, I agree, there is no way Apple owns his "likeliness". I can think of thousands of examples to prove that this. For one, is posting a picture of Bill Gates you took copyright or patent infringement?

The :apple: iPhone he is holding is a different story. Shame on them.

And Droid does not rule unless you mean over Windows and Blackberry.
 
Last edited:
A generalization. There are pirating sites hosted in Russia that are untouchable by the US and countless Chinese knockoff companies (although I support the knockoffs of Apple chargers because they are normally overly expensive). And SOPA will allow the US government to force US ISPs to block offending IPs, including foreign ones.

I don't support or oppose SOPA, but I think it's perfectly fine (and good to prevent piracy) for the US to be able to block just foreign websites. They are not protected under our US constitution.

Ahh, SOPA. The big internet geek hoe-down topic of the day. This is probably a flamebait topic, but eh...that's never stopped me before.

For one, I don't trust any legislation that nixes due process. You're basically handing copyright holders the ability to shut down any site at will. Considering record labels have already abused the hell out of the DMCA, giving them even more power seems like a tremendously bad idea.

It's like putting a bunch of fat kids in charge of the cookie jar, trusting that, in the end, they'll do the right thing.

Secondly, blocking foreign domains at the DNS level to prevent piracy is like ripping up the interstate highway system to make it more difficult for bootleggers to get from point to point. Any hardcore pirate has the knowledge to circumvent a DNS block. They can either use a proxy, or reroute to an offshore DNS server to get their pirated goods. So the pirates are still pirating, but your average people are suddenly finding out they're not be able to get to some of their favorite sites because some guy on the same domain offered up a link to the new Ke$ha single.

And that's not even getting into the huge, debilitating headache DNS manipulation will give our ISPs. Or the hit to security, for that matter, since you'll have whole tons of people rerouting out to uncontrolled, foreign DNS servers.

The whole thing is ignorance from top to bottom.
 
I'm almost certain Apple is not doing this for the actual company. They are more or less fighting for the family by trying to block this on IP grounds.
 
Secondly, blocking foreign domains at the DNS level to prevent piracy is like ripping up the interstate highway system to make it more difficult for bootleggers to get from point to point. Any hardcore pirate has the knowledge to circumvent a DNS block. They can either use a proxy, or reroute to an offshore DNS server to get their pirated goods. So the pirates are still pirating, but your average people are suddenly finding out they're not be able to get to some of their favorite sites because some guy on the same domain offered up a link to the new Ke$ha single.

And that's not even getting into the huge, debilitating headache DNS manipulation will give our ISPs. Or the hit to security, for that matter, since you'll have whole tons of people rerouting out to uncontrolled, foreign DNS servers.

The whole thing is ignorance from top to bottom.

A lot of ordinary people who don't know what a proxy is are pirates. Also, the US would be able to block foreign proxies without much trouble. I think there is a way to automatically block them because Wikipedia does a great job of blocking every last proxy, even the 8000th result on the 20th proxy site you find on Google (try editing on one of those yourself).

The US government would have no reason to block foreign sites except if a private company complains about piracy, in fact, it would look bad if they blocked non-pirating foreign sites, so they never would. Blocking domestic piracy sites violates the Constitution, but it's not an issue since private companies can sue US companies easily anyway, so SOPA wouldn't help with this, while it has a chance of also creating other problems. The problem with piracy is the foreign sites who get US protection of free expression but are almost impossible to sue to death currently.

And I've changed my mind about SOPA. I now support it just because so many annoying things/people keep telling me to oppose it (not meaning you, but illegal sites and people who pirate screaming at me with big red banners to petition against it). For similar reasons, Chrome users cannot go to my website. Google pays sites to tell me lies about a second-rate browser (it's good, but not the best) and pretend that certain things only work in Chrome and that it's faster. Seriously, Chrome does NOT speed up your speedtest.net result (it actually went slower for me but within the error margin).
 
Last edited:
I was talking about blocking foreign pirating sites, not every foreign site. The US government would have no reason to block foreign sites except for piracy, in fact, it would look bad if they blocked non-pirating foreign sites, so they never would. Blocking domestic piracy sites violates the Constitution, but it's not an issue since private companies can sue US companies easily anyway, so SOPA wouldn't help with this, while it has a chance of also creating other problems. The problem with piracy is the foreign sites who get US protection of free expression but are almost impossible to sue to death currently.

That's the thing. You can't just block one site. You have to take out the entire domain. Which means that anything else attached to that domain is going down with it.

The biggest problem is that the RIAA and MPAA are fairly indiscriminate about what they aim for, and what they ultimately take down. They'll DMCA videos that offer up two seconds of a copyrighted song (which is fair use protected), ICE some kid's site because he lip syncs to his favorite song, and sometimes even something that only vaguely kindasorta sounds like their it could be their IP. Sometimes even claiming they have the right to remove content they don't own, as was the case with UMG here recently.

They're already raising havoc with the system in place. Imagine what damage they can do when they're able to block sites at the ISP level on command? I mean damn, you've already got European businesses afraid to put their information on any US based servers because of the Patriot Act allowing whoever to peek into sensitive corporate documents whenever they feel the urge. Why do we want to hamstring our internet presence even more?

And I've changed my mind about SOPA. I now support it just because so many annoying things/people keep telling me to oppose it (not meaning you, but illegal sites and people who pirate screaming at me to petition against it). It might be worth it just to see thepiratebay.org get pwned :D

And that's the problem. Piratebay will go on as usual. A bunch of legitimate offshore blogs and online stores will sure as hell get taken down, though.

Here. Read this. It's aimed at the more technical end things, but it does a good job of showing why SOPA is such an ass backwards way to try to stop piracy.

...which, honestly, no one will ever be able to do.

edit: One interesting paragraph from the link above..

Smrt Doodz said:
Savvy users could simply bypass a SOPA-enabled recursive DNS server by pointing their DNS settings to an off-shore recursive DNS server. Technically savvy networks might respond by blocking port 53 externally or by hijacking port 53 traffic on their network to their SOPA-enabled recursive DNS resolvers. Anyone want to bring Net Neutrality into this discussion? What would happen to users if an infringer decided to setup a “free, non-SOPA” recursive DNS server for users to use – one that additionally hijacked legitimate banking, ecommerce and business websites, too?
 
It needs a Bill Gates action figure so kids can re-enact Pirates of the Silicon Valley scenes or ones from the upcoming film. Also would be nice if Steve's figure talked. When you press a button on his back he says "This is ****" over and over again before crying.
 
LOL, apple being pathetic as always. Suing a company over a look-a-like figurine. It's not like they owned jobs or anything. Coming from china, that's to be expected.

Pathetic I say. PATHETIC.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.