It is an game done in legal circles, see how much you can get away with in getting the courts to legalise it. May not be the most moral way of circumnavigating the law, but companies have been expanding the law in their direction for ages. The judges are supposed to be moral guardians of the law, but as they are just like the rest of us sometimes, that can fail. Governments are supposed to pass laws that rectify these mistakes with better laws, but as companies get to see politicians with shallower pockets than them, this is circumnavigated too often.
Apple has been good at seeing how much it can get away with in redefining what encroaches their IP. I forget what the eventual outcome of the famous look and feel case (in the 80's that had the rubbish bin thing, or was that "waste paper basket") but I think MS did an deal, but it might have been overturned. What was just as worrying, was another companies attempt to copyright individual words in an menu (I.E. like the word "save").
Laws need to clearly define the limits to what can be claimed, rather than this subjective wondering as to how much can be claimed for profit. This also goes in hand with fair use terms.
In legal circles everything is up for grabs, until the courts/government finally say no (then governments can be bought to change the law again, and more trials further "refine" what is the law in an desirable way). The other biggest way is "bluff" and "money", you legally challenge somebody (say an website with an take down order) or put an exploratory ceasure on their files for evidence. In ceasure the target party might have all sorts of personal information and extraneous, but vital, equipment ceased, and not realise you can challenge the extent of the order, or that whatever they are claiming is not right, in whatever jurisdiction that applies to, and that they can't really carry through very far with the threat. The target party caves in because they a) don't want legal action, or b) don't want to even pay an lawyer to find out if it is right or not. Of course, this sort of behaviour is immoral (swell as waving "boiler plate" clauses at somebody, that are invalid because the law overrides them) with laws/rules against some of it depending on jurisdiction, but this depends on you knowing that, having the time resources and money to take action and follow it through against all sorts of threats and obstructionism. The other consideration, is that they are cashed up and can send you broke with litigation hurdles over time. In legal circles even the representative "safeguards" of more lawyers, can be biased against you. This does not touch on lawyers who do illegal things, or support others that do illegal things, and stand over people they do it too, in order to get way with it. Hence forth, some reason why people hate politicians, layers, and big business.
Having said all that, the above paragraph is only an generalisation of things that happen in the broader community, and I am not implying that Apple does that. I am not aware of any case where Apple has acted in the way described in the above paragraph, and am unaware of how they act.
However, none of the above should be regarded as an legal opinion, or legal advice, professional opinion, or valid in any way, and proper legal advice should be sort instead.
However, I am increasingly frustrated with the way that people are throwing the term "Clone" around in concern of anything Apple, that you can squint really hard in an dark room and it looks similar. An prime example of this is the Meizume Minione, or M8. It is too early to say how far look and feel issues will go with the phone, but it looks similar to an Iphone and claims to do as much or more, with rival software from Microsoft. Some screen shots I have looked at have some small amount of similarity in form, though not really in detail. As it does not have the same software, and most likely not the same Apple data structures, or run MacOSX programs, have the same specification chips and general circuits copied, it rather like calling every popular, slightly tanned, tall dark haired, singer, and clone of Elvis Presley. Or imagine if the inventor of the car, or Henry Ford himself, said, "Stuff Patents, trademarks etc, I will rely on copyright, to stop anybody making anything that looks like an car, or has wheels". The debates on copyright in times past, sort of reminds me of this sort of unreasonable excessive stretch of logic.
But the problem with actual cloning, in an way that fakes an product identity, complete compatible circuits duplication, or encroaches on actual copyright, is seriously on the rise. Popular Science has an good article on it, and the Meizume MiniOne in the September issue, where they are not only cloning every part in an car, or products passed of as originals, but whole companies, and even companies attempting to trade as an original company. This is the sort of stuff the law needs to worry about sorting out.
Apple has been good at seeing how much it can get away with in redefining what encroaches their IP. I forget what the eventual outcome of the famous look and feel case (in the 80's that had the rubbish bin thing, or was that "waste paper basket") but I think MS did an deal, but it might have been overturned. What was just as worrying, was another companies attempt to copyright individual words in an menu (I.E. like the word "save").
Laws need to clearly define the limits to what can be claimed, rather than this subjective wondering as to how much can be claimed for profit. This also goes in hand with fair use terms.
In legal circles everything is up for grabs, until the courts/government finally say no (then governments can be bought to change the law again, and more trials further "refine" what is the law in an desirable way). The other biggest way is "bluff" and "money", you legally challenge somebody (say an website with an take down order) or put an exploratory ceasure on their files for evidence. In ceasure the target party might have all sorts of personal information and extraneous, but vital, equipment ceased, and not realise you can challenge the extent of the order, or that whatever they are claiming is not right, in whatever jurisdiction that applies to, and that they can't really carry through very far with the threat. The target party caves in because they a) don't want legal action, or b) don't want to even pay an lawyer to find out if it is right or not. Of course, this sort of behaviour is immoral (swell as waving "boiler plate" clauses at somebody, that are invalid because the law overrides them) with laws/rules against some of it depending on jurisdiction, but this depends on you knowing that, having the time resources and money to take action and follow it through against all sorts of threats and obstructionism. The other consideration, is that they are cashed up and can send you broke with litigation hurdles over time. In legal circles even the representative "safeguards" of more lawyers, can be biased against you. This does not touch on lawyers who do illegal things, or support others that do illegal things, and stand over people they do it too, in order to get way with it. Hence forth, some reason why people hate politicians, layers, and big business.
Having said all that, the above paragraph is only an generalisation of things that happen in the broader community, and I am not implying that Apple does that. I am not aware of any case where Apple has acted in the way described in the above paragraph, and am unaware of how they act.
However, none of the above should be regarded as an legal opinion, or legal advice, professional opinion, or valid in any way, and proper legal advice should be sort instead.
However, I am increasingly frustrated with the way that people are throwing the term "Clone" around in concern of anything Apple, that you can squint really hard in an dark room and it looks similar. An prime example of this is the Meizume Minione, or M8. It is too early to say how far look and feel issues will go with the phone, but it looks similar to an Iphone and claims to do as much or more, with rival software from Microsoft. Some screen shots I have looked at have some small amount of similarity in form, though not really in detail. As it does not have the same software, and most likely not the same Apple data structures, or run MacOSX programs, have the same specification chips and general circuits copied, it rather like calling every popular, slightly tanned, tall dark haired, singer, and clone of Elvis Presley. Or imagine if the inventor of the car, or Henry Ford himself, said, "Stuff Patents, trademarks etc, I will rely on copyright, to stop anybody making anything that looks like an car, or has wheels". The debates on copyright in times past, sort of reminds me of this sort of unreasonable excessive stretch of logic.
But the problem with actual cloning, in an way that fakes an product identity, complete compatible circuits duplication, or encroaches on actual copyright, is seriously on the rise. Popular Science has an good article on it, and the Meizume MiniOne in the September issue, where they are not only cloning every part in an car, or products passed of as originals, but whole companies, and even companies attempting to trade as an original company. This is the sort of stuff the law needs to worry about sorting out.
