Themes Removed At Apple's Behest

A couple of people wrote in noting that Themes.org has had to comply with a request from Apple that they remove the following themes: Aqua, AquaX, eMac, and eMac-GTK.

it's the logo, it's the logo, it's the logo.

let me say once again. it's the logo.

if you build a theme with the OS X widgets or even one that looks exactly like platinum, nobody can complain, because, after all, Apple already lost that battle in the '80s. it's pixels. look and feel or not, it can be copied. bla bla woof woof. there are dozens of mac-like themes that do exactly this, a lot more than the 4 or so that were pulled.

but, once you use the apple logo, a copyrighted, trademarked, protected-by-pitbulls-and-lawyers piece of Apple, you have stepped over your 'fair use' or 'parody' (or whatever) boundary.

microsoft could do the same thing, but it seems they have bigger legal fish to fry, and couldn't care less if you copied their logo, let alone user experience (sic).

Apple is completely within their rights here, once again, and is doing what is legally required of a trademark holder in defending their trademark. considering it's one of the world's best recognized brands - in some surveys even moreso than Nike's - it only makes sense that they defend it more emphatically than most companies. granted, a little more effort than having one of their freshman lawyers send out a C&D letter could smooth things over considerably, but all those here (and on themes.org) crying foul over the Big Guy bullying the Poor Little Open Source movement could be a little more mature and sympathetic as well.

Sad, but no big surprise

Apple's business is based around their UI. Sure, they get a few people using their computers on a basis Photoshop performance, but 99% of users are there because it's percieved as user-friendly.

If someone copies their design, then they really don't have a heck of a lot to sell to people. It's unfortunate that they feel a need to protect their design so rabidly, because of course a UI is more than just a color scheme, but if you live inside a company with that kind of a business scheme, your top worry is that someone eles is going to become a pretty as you, and so keeping people from using their color schemes is just one of the logical things to do, from their POV.

Quick!!!

Someone make up T-shirts with the themes in binary!

What is Apple doing?

Someone pointed out in a reply to another post I made in this section that the names of the themes being removed are all Apple trademarks.

Then I realized that OSX2, another Aqua-like theme, wasn't listed in the removed themes.

Go to the global theme search page [themes.org] and look for "Aqua". There are a heck of a lot of Aqua themes for various window/desktop managers.

So was it the names of the themes Apple objected to? Why is Apple being selective with their removal requests? Are they just not aware of the other Aqua-like themes still available, or is it something else? And I ask again; why isn't Apple trying to contact the theme creators?

Well, actually yes.

,i>I use Secret Recipe #1 for my lemonade. Jim Bob analyzes the chemical structure, duplicates it, calls it Secret Recipe #2, and starts marketing it under that name. Should I have the right to sue him for stealing my intellectual property?

Well, if he pattented his lemonade, actually yes. That's called reverse engineering. If he can prove that you performed tests on his lemonade prior to your procuring "Secret Recipe #2", he can and should sue you. If he doesn't have a pattent, and it is a trade secret, then you have decided that your lemonade is so superior to anyone else that even after your pattent runs out no one will successfully duplicate a glass of lemonade equal in quality that pattenting it will only hurt you. If someone develops the same "lemonade technology" then, unfortunately for you, more power to them.

Jim Bob comes over to my stand one day and starts talking with my customers, trying to get them to come over to his stand and try his own Secret Recipe. Should I have the right to sue him for manipulating my customers?

Well, if you own the property you have the right to have him removed for trespassing, soliciting your customers (as long as it is posted), and potential harrassment if he fails to leave when you ask him. Immediately off of your property, he can do whatever he wants. This is why there are so many people standing on the other side of the street from an abortion clinic protesting abortion normally, and not in the front lobby.

--

Re:Xerox invents overlapping windows (gif)

Here's a quote from http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_horn1.html:

"Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have self-repairing windows - you had to click in them to get them to repaint, and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows. Bill Atkinson did not know this, so he invented regions as the basis of QuickDraw and the Window Manager so that he could quickly draw in covered windows and repaint portions of windows brought to the front. "

(This was written by Bruce Horn, who worked at PARC and Apple at the time)

Granted, my memory was faulty (it was Atkinson, not Hertzfeld), but if you had overlapping windows that didn't redraw, it would be pretty crappy. The Star implementation sounds like a prototype. What Apple did is a finished product.

-jon

Copyright Infringement

The simple fact is that the themes in question violate Apple trademarks and copyrights. If someone did the same with VA Linux logos and widgets, VA Linux would do the very same thing.

Also, note the wording on the Themes.org site: they say that they "decided to accommodate Apple's request," not that Apple had sent them a cease and decist and would have sued their asses off if they had left them up. There's a big difference, but even at that point, Apple would have every right and legal responsibility to order the removal of their logo and trademarked/copyrighted names such as "Aqua" and "Mac".

This is a very reasonable request. Note also that Apple did not order the complete removal of all Mac OS themes, just the ones that contain their copyrighted and trademark logos and names.

I think Apple is being very reasonable, and should be applauded for not taking the makers of the themes in question, to court. As much as that may piss of open source advocates, protecting and defending your copyrighted and trademarked materials is imperative in modern business.

Re:This is not the correct analysis.

It is more complex than this.

Apple originally made dozens (maybe even over a hundred) claims against Microsoft.

Because, previously, Apple had stupidly licensed Microsoft, most of their claims were thrown out by the judge. Only 4 claims remained. (Don't remember what they were. Go read InfoWorld about 1987.)

They lost those four claims. And, although I would have loved to see MS have to pay big bucks, I'm very glad that Apple lost on these particular claims. (I wish they could have won some of the other claims though, but that's just their own stupidity.)

In fact, Apple has done so many stupid things that it is just amazing that they are still in business. Of course, Spindler, and his wonderful Inventory Control almost managed to kill Apple without any help from MS. The only reason Apple survived so many of their stupid mistakes is simple. Buckets of cash to pour onto it. For a long, long time, Apple always kept about $1 billion in cash on hand, and only a tiny amount of long term debt -- enough so that they could operate for an entire year without selling anything. A very envious balance sheet.

Back to the topic... Lotus also lost a lawsuit against Borland involving Borland's Quattro spreadsheet (vs. Lotus 123) over the fact that Quattro had a macro system that enabled you to load in and make Quattro exactly emulate 123's keystroke sequences -- which require quite an investment of learning on the part of users. This was much more a functional issue than a look & feel issue and was widely regarded at the time to be bad news in Apple's suit against MS -- and it was.

The right decision

VA Linux made the correct decision here in complying with Apple's very reasonable request to remove these themes from their website. As well as avoiding potential legal trouble, the fact is that it would have been unethical for them to allow people to download these themes.

Why? Well companies like Apple spent a lot of time and money doing UI research and making their products look and feel as nice and consistant as possible. To then have someone spend half an hour knocking up a copy for another operating system simply means that their intellectual property has been appropriated and that their time and effort in making their product has been wasted.

The "big two" GUIs for Linux really need to move away from being copyware and start to develop their own "look and feel". At the moment they're playing catchup with Apple and Microsoft, and it's no wonder that people want themes that echo these GUIs on their Linux boxes. Like them or loathe them, nobody can deny that OSX and Windows have slick, professional desktops that show a consistancy and elegance still lacking in KDE or Gnome.

Perhaps as these projects mature more emphasis will be placed on the look and feel rather than functionality. Until then it's not suprising that people are jealous of more mature desktops and want to have them on their machines.

This shouldn't surprise anyone

Apple has always been protective of what they deem to be their designs, their 'look and feel'. Remember the long running lawsuit against MS for Windows being derived from Mac OS? They've brought litigation against groups that sought to use a logo like their multi-colored apple, iMac-styled cases, etc...

What I find interesting is that, to my recollection, there were never any such issues with NeXT, given how it is often Jobs who drives the designs. There were a number of 'NeXT-like' themes back when NeXT existed, and nary a peep from NeXT about them.

Disingenious, but...

It seems fairly disingenious to behave in this manner when you're trying to embrace open source software via your OS/X operating system. I'm actually an Apple supporter, but this is not smart.

I can understand that its annoying to have ideas that you've payed for (i.e. paying for interface designers, ergonomic engineers and so on) and having people steal them. It seems that there will be more harm than good to come out of this though. Apple doesn't need any more animosity than it already has.

On the other hand notice that themes.org hasn't bothered to respond to requests for information on why the themes needed to be removed. Were there some simple demands (Don't use the Apple logo, its a trademark, don't use the term Mac in your themes, its a trademark as well) that they refused to comply with?

Unfortunately Apple generates its own FUD. Since themes.org won't elaborate I would reason that either a) there was a stipulation that they couldn't post the text of the letter b) themes.org is trying to hide something. By not having an official press release from Apple they've allowed the apple bashers to generate all the propoganda.

That's great, except...

...the logo is nowhere to be found in any of the Aqua-like GTK themes!

How do I know? I'm using one of them right now, and I have the other installed.

Now, it might have been in one of the E or Sawfish themes, but I can confidently say it wasn't in any of the GTK ones. In fact, I don't think anyone would have included the Apple logo after the first Aqua theme was removed for that very reason, and removed again at Apple's request even after the logo was removed.

As for the "They spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars..." argument...please. Aqua is NeXT with curvy, bubble-like widgets, at least on the surface. They certainly don't provide any functionality improvements that Aqua gives (does it give any?)

If the logo isn't in any of these themes, Apple barely has a leg to stand on, unless they want to copyright curvy, shiny widgets. I wonder if they've sent similar letters to the theme authors. Is creating a theme enough to whiff off Apple, or do you actually have to offer it for download before they'll launch attack lawyers?

Macintosh's selfishness with their design...

This isn't the first time that Mac has decided to drop their lawyer brigade on someone that might be infringing on their copyrights with design. Another story I remember a while back, link to the slashdot story here [slashdot.org], They were suing other companies for producing what macintosh said were "iMac clones". I can't remember, but I think in one of the articles, they're reason for suing the iMac clone companies, was because they "did not want to confuse they're customers."

And this isn't even the first time macintosh has gotten on themes.org. Look at this older slashdot story here [slashdot.org].

Re:What Apple copied vs what the Aqua theme copies

Essentially what they copied was the general idea of the GUI: overlapping windows on a bitmap display.

This is actually untrue. The Xerox Star didn't have overlapping windows; they couldn't figure out how. When Andy Hertzfeld took the tour of PARC, he assumed that they _did_ have overlapping windows, wondered how they did it, and created QuickDraw (and got Apple quite a few patents).

When he told the PARC people that he figured out how to do overlapping windows, they were stunned, since they thought it impossible on the hardware available at the time.

-jon

Re:Excessive corporate flex.

It goes a little deeper than what you describe. Apple recently had some problems with Korean companies selling iMac look-alike computers. In order to assure a legal defense against companies such as these, Apple has to stop everyone from mimicking it's look and feel. For example, the companies could claim that they were copying the themes, and not the Mac OS.

Besides, I think that Aqua is has a very nice look and feel. If everyone used Aqua look-alikes, then I would get sick of it pretty fast.

Make it look like anything you want to

To take an example from the physical world. When Japanese companies started making motorcycles that looked and sounded like Harley-Davidson bikes, H-D tried to file a patent on the sound and sue. The final outcome? You can't protect the look or sound of a motorcycle.

Why should look and feel of software be any different?

Re:The right decision

Apple lost their suit against Microsoft, because Apple had already licensed some of their GUI and related technology to Microsoft, and the court found that the cross-over between Windows and MacOS was within the scope of this licensing agreement. Had Apple not licensed any technology to Microsoft, the outcome might have been much different. AFAIK, Apple has not licensed Aqua to anyone in Linux land.

Under trademark law, Apple is required to go after anyone infringing on its trade dress, or risk losing legal protection. Some of those theme developers might have been able to get Apple to license Aqua to them for free, but I can see why Apple would be reluctant to do so, considering how it got burned last time (with Microsoft)...

Please don't confuse trademark/trade dress with patents or copyrights. IANAL, so YMMV.

Apple's war on the power user continues...

I may dislike oracle and microsoft, but I hate apple.
I used to love them.
The Apple ][ was an amazing machine - it inspired a generation of hackers. (I still have one.) You can take a reasonably gifted kid, hand them an apple ][ and 30 minutes later, they'll be coding. It is so friendly. If you want to get more in depth, you can build your own hardware - it's that open.
Then Steve Jobs became the driving force behind apple's design decisions. Therein lies the problem. Woz was a toolmaker, his designs were like duct tape and bailing wire - you could use them for anything. Jobs is an artist, he wants to make something you look at, not something you interact with. Using a macintosh is like visiting an art museum, you can look, but there's a plexiglass wall keeping you from really looking closely. Using my apple ][ was (and is) like fingerpainting - you were only limited by your own creativity.
That's why I hate apple - they used to make the best computers, and now they tell us to be like everybody else and "think different."
Well I think differently - and I hate what apple has become.
--Shoeboy

Our rights?

You have got to be kidding me.

First of all, what rights are you refering to? The right to use copyrighted material for your own cause, without permission from the owner of the copyright? Oh yeah, I forgot about that right. Regardless of the money factor, Apple does have a right to things that originated from them. I don't care if it aligns them with open source or not - the fact remains, you don't (nor does anyone else) have a RIGHT to their material. If they decide to let you use it/have it, that is ther prerogative, but for the time being, they are not letting that happen.

You also have to understand this fact: Apple is a BUSINESS. Last time I checked, businesses were in the business (ha ha, pun!) of making money. Sure, a side effect of that may be that the consumer is elated, but it is by no means a requirement of the company to please every person on the earth - or give away their material. Sure, it would be nice, but they don't have to, and you (or anyone else) certianly do not have a RIGHT to anything of that nature.

Silent encroachments of those in power and sudden usurpations? What a joke. They just don't want people to steal their thunder, and rightly so. Most people don't.

_Had_ to?

On /. "A couple people wrote in noting that Themes.org has had to comply with a request from Apple "

On themes.org "We have reviewed the letter and decided to accommodate Apple's request"

Subtle difference.....

Why the overly negative title.

The news item says nowhere they 'had to comply', it says they read Apple's request, and decided to comply.
No court decisions, nothing like that. They simply chose to honor Apple's request, which may seem somewhat valid, though we all would probably say 'it's a theme! it's like, parody, or homage, to apple, not 'stealing''. Still....

wow...

... this makes no rational sence.

Now, I am a Mac user and have been for more than 10 years. I began learning Linux and WinNT/9x about 4 years ago, and even though I've prefered Linux, I always liked the way the Mac looked more than anything windows or X had to offer. Sure, I liked to hack the way that my mac interface looked and felt (woohoo, RedEdit!), but for the most part I've ended up going back to the classic Apple Platinum since the very first Kaleidoscope [kaleidoscope.net] theme and beta releases of MacOS 8. And now my Macs running Linux PPC all have the Aqua theme with Helix Gnome running on them.

Now... Apple... Steve, baby, talk to me. Why is this wrong? Why can't I and all the other people out there who like both their Macs and their Linux actually have them both? For that matter, why support MKLinux [mklinux.org] and then not let those of us who use it or another distro make it look and feel as Mac like as we want? We are running it on your machines.

*shrug*

No copyright for UI

As many persons have already pointed out, there's quite rich pile of case law (M$ vs. Apple, Lotus vs. Borland etc.), which makes it clear that copyright doesn't protect UI. Of course, any single element of UI can be protected, but as far as there isn't any direct copying you are in the clear water. To rephrese this, you can't protect idea (in this case look&feel) with copyright.

What comes to user perspective, at least most of legal literature from law&economics tend to think, that the benefits from not to give protection to UI clearly overrides the negative impact in UI-investments. So, you can make money with good UI but you are not going to get a monopoly from the government to support it...

Ville
My DeCSS archive:

Re:The right decision

Not at all the right decision.

For years and years the FSF (GNU) boycotted Apple (note they never boycotted Microsoft) exactly because of this despicable claim that they own the look and feel of a GUI. You can say much about Microsoft, but they never did anything like that.

Apple, who copied the GUI themselves, for years sued others e.g. for using a trashcan, or even for using a WIMP GUI at all!

Now it seems to start all over again.

Time for a new GNU boycott? That might hit Darwin hard, and thus indirectly Apple and their OS-X. Would be well deserved.

Re:Our rights?

First of all, what rights are you refering to? The right to use copyrighted material for your own cause, without permission from the owner of the copyright? Oh yeah, I forgot about that right. Regardless of the money factor, Apple does have a right to things that originated from them. I don't care if it aligns them with open source or not - the fact remains, you don't (nor does anyone else) have a RIGHT to their material. If they decide to let you use it/have it, that is ther prerogative, but for the time being, they are not letting that happen.

Strong words, and passionately written; you should be a lawyer. At first glance, everything seems in check.. but wait! I have discovered a flaw in your logic!

While I do not have the right to use their copyrighted material (unless they assign me that right), I do (according to a United States case precedent) have the right to create a desktop environment that looks and feels like theirs. Hence, your point is moot.

--
All men are great
before declaring war

This is not the correct analysis.

Apple lost a law suit that contended that all GUI's with certain functional characteristics were proprietary. Most of the other GUI lawsuits were based on similar claims.

However, the similarity of Aqua themes to Aqua is MUCH greater than the similarity of Mac OS to Windows.

Do your homework. You are looking for case law dealing with trade dress infringement.