Actually, Adobe DOES license their icons, formats, etc. for Apple and Microsoft to use in programs, operating systems, etc. So if Apple come out with an app, like the MobileMe iDisk, then I'm sure that they can use them. It's just hypocritical of Apple to not do the same for developers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rogue Amoeba Retreats from iPhone Development Over App Store Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, Adobe DOES license their icons, formats, etc. for Apple and Microsoft to use in programs, operating systems, etc. So if Apple come out with an app, like the MobileMe iDisk, then I'm sure that they can use them. It's just hypocritical of Apple to not do the same for developers.
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop.
Actually, "this complaint" is about something that is in the developer's guide. The use of Apple icons. There have been lots of apps that have been rejected over it because of the use of icons to similar to other iPhone system icons, or Apple OS icons.
No, actually it says:
(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application);
This is language with legal meaning. There is almost certainly no copyright infringement (fair use, which is a multi-factor test - making money off of the "copying" doesn't eliminate it. Or implied license/exhaustion.)
It doesn't say "you can't use apple icons." It says "you can't INFRINGE apple copyright."
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop.
Mhm
That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just f*cking get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says".
You're telling developers, who are the ones to deal with the policies daily, to read the SDK agreement. Rogue Amoeba, one the most respected Mac devs, did not violate the terms of the SDK agreement. They do not need to license these icons from Apple as they are being transmitted from the Mac and not by the iPhone app.
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
*Edit*
Screenshots on other sites show airflow displaying a Firefox icon. That icon is definitely not covered any implied license through use of the API on the mac. Care to explain that to us Mr. Lawyer?
Apple is a terrible company when it comes to ETHICS and people need to just understand that basic fact of life when dealing with them. They are greedy greedy greedy and they don't CARE what you think about them, what you want in a product and whether you wasted months working on an application that they just reject for the most ridiculous illogical reasons ever. This goes to show why NO COMPANY should be allowed to DICTATE (as in a dictatorship) terms for software releases on ANY platform (No, I don't care that it's based on a "phone" platform; it's STILL a computer; the iPod Touch is STILL a computer). We need a freedom of information/software/market act for software releases on all platforms. Apple has a monopoly on software distribution for the iPhone/iPod Touch computer platform and that simply should not be allowed. If you create a new hardware platform that is open to software development, that market should be independent of the company pushing the platform since clearly that constitutes a monopoly of software for that platform and leads to BS nonsense like this example shows. Imagine if they wanted 30% of all profits for the Mac platform and insisted software for the Mac could only be sold through iTunes.... That would never stand the light of day. Yet apparently it's OK if OSX is put onto a hand-held mobile computer and then forced to interface through iTunes (shakes head). As usual, the real loser here is the consumer who does not get all the software for the platform that he/she should be able to get. Instead you get mountains of two-bit 99 cent throw-away applications because no company in their right mind would put a lot of money into developing a really good application only to have Apple reject it on a whim!
Yes I know that you brain-washed types that worship Steve Jobs will scream and moan about this sort of comment since you seem to think that Steve should be allowed to do ANYTHING he wants in this world and have some contorted view of Capitalism that seems to think competition doesn't include Apple since they are somehow special and magical and should be left alone to do things like extort 30% off the top of all 3rd party software (very Mafia-esque IMO), but I say I don't care what a bunch of brain-washed groupies think so do me a favor and spare me your opinions. I couldn't care less about any form of fan-boy or fanatical viewpoint on ANYTHING Apple related since it will clearly be completely 100% Apple biased and therefore 100% WORTHLESS. Yes I already know you think it's Apple's hardware and therefore they have no market responsibilities to ANYONE. I think that's a load of horse manure. They exist in a country based on competition and if they don't like it, they should move to Communist China where there is none. Oh wait a second, they already make their hardware there so they're halfway there already!
Yes I know that you brain-washed types that worship Steve Jobs will scream and moan about this sort of comment since you seem to think that Steve should be allowed to do ANYTHING he wants in this world and have some contorted view of Capitalism that seems to think competition doesn't include Apple since they are somehow special and magical and should be left alone to do things like extort 30% off the top of all 3rd party software (very Mafia-esque IMO), but I say I don't care what a bunch of brain-washed groupies think so do me a favor and spare me your opinions. I couldn't care less about any form of fan-boy or fanatical viewpoint on ANYTHING Apple related since it will clearly be completely 100% Apple biased and therefore 100% WORTHLESS. Yes I already know you think it's Apple's hardware and therefore they have no market responsibilities to ANYONE. I think that's a load of horse manure. They exist in a country based on competition and if they don't like it, they should move to Communist China where there is none. Oh wait a second, they already make their hardware there so they're halfway there already!
Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it necessary that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?
So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.
I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.
This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.
Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.
The bible frames it slightly different but that is the gist of how it appears in the bible.
To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
I'm not going to defend Rogue Amoeba because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
No body knows s**t about either side of the story, yet there are 5 pages of arguments between people saying they know exactly what happened because they read an article that had a quote by someone, and somehow that means that's EXACTLY what happened. Ignorance.
But that's arguing on the internet for you. Pointless.
I'm not going to defend Rogue Amoeba because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
No body knows s**t about either side of the story, yet there are 5 pages of arguments between people saying they know exactly what happened because they read an article that had a quote by someone, and somehow that means that's EXACTLY what happened. Ignorance.
But that's arguing on the internet for you. Pointless.
Now you are just making things up. And are you even aware of the difference between law and equity, and the role of the chancellor in old English common law? There were no "arbitrators." What on earth are you even talking about?
I hate to rely on wikipedia, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law might be a good place for you to start. You'll note the section on the influence of Roman law. You'll also see quotes like this:
"Well into the 19th century, ancient maxims played a large role in common law adjudication. Many of these maxims had originated in Roman Law, migrated to England before the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles, and were typically stated in Latin even in English decisions."
You'll also note that "arbitrator" and "arbitration" doesn't appear anywhere in that article because these are not principles of English common law. The word "Christian" appears only in the above quote.
And I'm not a historian, but lawyers are actually taught about the history of common law, since we rely on precedent dating all the way back, and we still have distinctions and rules that come from the 1400's.
You are just making stuff up.
p.s.: and where in the bible does this come from:
To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
I've had serious plans for starting to develop software for the iPhone, as an experienced software developer. I've considered buying the latest iMac version for improved performance and a bigger screen than on my 13" MacBook. But I've changed my mind. Why develop for a platform with a defect application approval process? I don't want all that frustration. I'll probably develop for the Android instead. The iPhone is still the best platform but Apple sucks. Period.
Sigh...
... Can Apple really be this dumb, still? Sort this mess out - there are clearly still major flaws with the app store approval process - as there have been since day one.
Apple - you're turning enthusiastic, passionate developers into enemies - what is wrong with you????
... Can Apple really be this dumb, still? Sort this mess out - there are clearly still major flaws with the app store approval process - as there have been since day one.
Apple - you're turning enthusiastic, passionate developers into enemies - what is wrong with you????
Another good reason to Jailbreak!
I think I'll be looking closely at other phones when my contract is up next year!!
I think I'll be looking closely at other phones when my contract is up next year!!
I think this thread has moved too far into the law and needs to move back into the 'common sense' arena. Rogue was using images supplied to him by MAC OSX. Strangely enough, Apple denied the app. Whatever, that's fine. BUT IT TOOK THREE AND A HALF MONTHS TO SORT THE SITUATION OUT!!!!
That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.
That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.
Whatever. Someone will be more than happy to come along and fill the gap, if they haven't already.
Let's see, that's, what, two developers who've decided to pack it in. That's not a "wave of discontent" or whatever it's supposedly being touted as. Esp since more developers have no doubt joined in the same period than have walked. This is the nature of this kind of thing. Not happy? Fine. Leave. Nobody's making you stay. It was your choice to get involved in the first place. Take your ball and go home.
The Doomsayers can go ***** themselves.
Let's see, that's, what, two developers who've decided to pack it in. That's not a "wave of discontent" or whatever it's supposedly being touted as. Esp since more developers have no doubt joined in the same period than have walked. This is the nature of this kind of thing. Not happy? Fine. Leave. Nobody's making you stay. It was your choice to get involved in the first place. Take your ball and go home.
The Doomsayers can go ***** themselves.