03-09-2004, 08:30 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Yahoo News: "Pocket PC iPod Imitator Gets Apple's Attention"
"UK developer Starbrite Solutions has a $20 software offering called pBop that may remind you more than a little of Apple's iPod. While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, pBop flattered the iPod too much as far as Apple's legal department was concerned. "Apple felt pPod was being 'passed off' as an Apple iPod," Starbrite spokesman Ryan Kelly told MacCentral. "We were surprised to hear this as we have heard of no one buying a Windows powered Pocket PC application, being confused they are buying a hardware device."
While no one would mistake a Pocket PC-based PDA for an iPod, the diminutive device can run a variety of software and store a variety of files, including MP3 audio files. Starbrite developed pBop to give Pocket PC PDA users a "functional, easy to use MP3 player" that Ryan Kelly said is inspired by some of the most popular MP3 players on the market, including the iPod."
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 08:37 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 256
|
|
Re: Yahoo News: "Pocket PC iPod Imitator Gets Apple's Attention"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
"While no one would mistake a Pocket PC-based PDA for an iPod, the diminutive device can run a variety of software and store a variety of files, including MP3 audio files. Starbrite developed pBop to give Pocket PC PDA users a "functional, easy to use MP3 player" that Ryan Kelly said is inspired by some of the most popular MP3 players on the market, including the iPod."
|
Apple are completely in the right here. It is a blatant rip off of their device. The intellectual value of the "iPod" is in it's interface and software, not the silicon (though that is nice). If I released a copy of Windows XP for say a Linux machine I would not expect to get away with it. Is anybody really surprised ?
Domster
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:19 PM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 276
|
|
...
Not suprised at all. In fact the only thing that did suprise me is that the company actually did the program the way they did.
Sure, maybe if they gave it away for free, but to sell another companies intellectual property (in the form of the interface) for profit?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:22 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,329
|
|
I was wondering when Apple would get around to taking a "personal" interest in this software. The ONLY leg the developer has to stand on would be that this is software based not hardware. Possible loophole? Then again I don't think that's a leg. Maybe a peg leg in gale force winds. 
__________________
PDA History: Palm Pilot 5000 -> Apple Newton 2100 -> Casio E-11 -> iPaq 3650 (64MB Upgrade) -> iPaq 3700 -> Casio EM-500 -> HP Jornada 568 -> HP iPaq hx4705 www.spreadfirefox.com |
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:25 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 256
|
|
Anyone can code, but only a genius could have designed the iPod.... :0)
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:36 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 130
|
|
Re: Yahoo News: "Pocket PC iPod Imitator Gets Apple's Attention"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dommasters
It is a blatant rip off of their device. The intellectual value of the "iPod" is in it's interface and software, not the silicon (though that is nice). If I released a copy of Windows XP for say a Linux machine I would not expect to get away with it. Is anybody really surprised ?
|
Ok, I'll bite.....
So Apple should sue someone for implementing a skin for WinAmp/PocketPlayer/PocketMusic/(insert your favorite here) that looks like the iPOD?
How about a GUI Skin that looks like the OS/X interface on top of Windows/linux/BSD/(insert your favorite here).
Or the XP UI look and feel as a theme on top of a Linux desktop?
You made the distinction between the Software and the Hardware.... and maybe the interface and the software as well. My point is that there is obviously intellectual property in the hardware, and people argue that there is in software, but is it an infringement of that intellectual property to emulate the visual presentation and control? the visual interface? That's a BIG grey area..... and I personally could make arguments either way. The software is (by necessity) different. The hardware is different. the *feel* is different. Not like the Apple Lisa (the original Macintosh) that took it's GUI, Mouse, Icons, much of it's hardware, etc, etc, from the Xerox PARC Alto.
Back to my example of the XP theme on a Linux Desktop..... a theme or skin is a far cry from your example of releasing a version of XP that runs on Linux. The starbrite product is, after all, only a skin over an MP3 player.
Don't know that we've solved anything, but it's a fun debate nonetheless.
D.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:42 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 541
|
|
Apple HAVE told people to stop distrubuting OSX look-alike skins, thanks to look and feel patents.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:42 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 256
|
|
Re: Yahoo News: "Pocket PC iPod Imitator Gets Apple's Attention"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DMY
but is it an infringement of that intellectual property to emulate the visual presentation and control? the visual interface?
|
Yep it is :0) Now here's the difference. An XP skin on Linux just advertises Microsoft's product. They choose not to litigate but they do have that option. In the iPod case the only thing it will do for Apple is lose them sales....
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 09:55 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 130
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sponge
Apple HAVE told people to stop distrubuting OSX look-alike skins, thanks to look and feel patents.
|
Er.....
You patent methods and process,
you copyright expressions of methods and processes.
So again, challenging Apple on this front may work, it may not... but it's more of a money issue. Whether it's really right or not starts crossing into patent reform, and I'm not sure we want to go down that path.
D.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-09-2004, 10:08 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 256
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DMY
You patent methods and process,
you copyright expressions of methods and processes.
D.
|
"Patent", "Copyright" etc. The fact is these implementations of ideas are protected. Why would you want to attempt to fight Apple to steal the product of their inspired efforts ? As for being about money ... last time I looked Apple were a business. I know very few people willing to work as hard as the R&D dept at Apple AND do it for free ;0)
Diddle
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
