Litigation involving Apple Inc.

From the 1980s to the present Apple Inc. has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Several of these actions have determined significant case law for the technology industry, while others simply captured the attention of the public and media.

Trademark disputes with Apple Corps

Main article: Apple Corps v. Apple Computer

In 1978, Apple Corps (The Beatles-founded record label and holding company) filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to US$50–US$200 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. In 1991, another settlement of around US$26.5 million was reached, and Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.

In September 2003, Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps again, this time for introducing iTunes and the iPod which Apple Corps believed was a violation of the previous agreement by Apple not to distribute music. The trial opened on March 29, 2006 in the UK. Judgement was issued in favour of Apple Computer on 8 May 2006. "I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," the presiding Justice Mann said.

On February 5, 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential.

Apple v. Franklin

Main article: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.

In 1982 Apple filed a lawsuit against Franklin Computer Corp., alleging that Franklin's ACE 100 personal computer used illegal copies of the Apple II's operating system and ROM. Decided in Franklin's favor but reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Apple v. Franklin established the fundamental basis of copyright of computer software, even if it was provided only as object code or in firmware.

GEM "look and feel" suit

The design of the GEM 1.1 desktop was a copy of the Mac OS.

Apple forced Digital Research to alter basic components in its Graphical Environment Manager ("GEM"), almost a direct copy of the Macintosh's "look and feel" with a copyright infringement suit. Features removed from GEM as a result of the lawsuit included drive icons on the desktop, movable and resizable windows in the file manager, shading in the title bars, and window open/close animations. In addition, visual elements including the scrollbar thumbs and the window close button were changed to be less similar to those in the Mac OS.

Apple Computer Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd.

Main article: Apple Computer Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd.

This 1986 case involving Apple became a leading Canadian case on copyright law regarding the copyrightability of software. The Court found that programs within ROM silicon chips are protected under the Copyright Act, and the conversion from the source code into object code is a form of translation.

Apple v. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard

Main article: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

In 1988, after the introduction of Windows 2.0, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard alleging that Microsoft Windows and HP's NewWave violated Apple's copyrights in the Macintosh user interface. Cited, among other things, was the use of overlapping and resizable windows in Windows 2.0. The case was one of the significant "look and feel" copyright lawsuits of the 1980s. After several years in court, Apple's claims against Microsoft were dismissed, primarily due to a license John Sculley had negotiated with Bill Gates for Windows 1.0. The decision was upheld on appeal in 1994, but legal disputes on this topic were still ongoing until 1997 when the two companies came to a wide-ranging agreement that included Microsoft buying 10% of Apple stocks.

Libel dispute with Carl Sagan

See also: Carl Sagan#Personal life and beliefs

In 1994, Apple code-named the Power Macintosh 7100 "Carl Sagan" after the astronomer and science popularizer. Though his name was only used internally as a homage to his work, the code-name might not have caused any problems if Apple hadn't also released models codenamed "Cold Fusion" and "Piltdown Man" at the same time — implying that Carl Sagan was a hoaxer. The astronomer was upset at being compared to what he considered pseudoscience and sued. Although Apple won the suit, they changed the internal codename to "BHA." When Sagan learned that this meant "Butt-Head Astronomer," he instigated a libel suit. Apple claimed the right to free speech under the First Amendment and again won. This prompted Apple to change the codename for the 7100 again to "LAW," known internally as meaning "Lawyers Are Wimps."

Apple v. Microsoft, Intel, and San Francisco Canyon Company

Main article: San Francisco Canyon Company

In 1995 Apple added Microsoft and Intel to an existing lawsuit against the San Francisco Canyon Company, alleging that Microsoft and Intel knowingly used the software company to aid them in stealing several thousand lines of Apple's QuickTime code in an effort to improve the performance of Video for Windows. After a threat to withdraw support for the Macintosh edition of Microsoft Office, this lawsuit was ultimately settled in 1997, along with all lingering issues from the "Look & Feel" lawsuit. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser over Netscape, and Microsoft agreed to continue developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years, and purchase US$150 million of non-voting Apple stock.

Apple Technical Support Class Action Lawsuit

From 1993 to 1996, Apple developed a marketing strategy that promised free unlimited live-telephone support on certain products for as long as the original purchaser owned it. However, by 1997 changes in Apple's AppleCare support policy led them to rescind the offer, resulting in a class action lawsuit which ultimately reinstated the phone support for the duration of original ownership of these otherwise obsolete products. Customers who were refused telephone service and charged per incident or incurred third party support charges were given a limited reimbursement.

Trademark dispute over appleimac.com

In July 1998, Abdul Traya registered the domain name appleimac.com, two months before Apple announced the iMac, in an attempt to draw attention to the web-hosting business he was running out of his parents' basement. A note on his site stated that his plan was to "generate traffic to our servers and try to put the domain to sale. [sic]" After a legal dispute that lasted until April 1999, Traya and Apple settled out of court with Apple paying legal fees and giving Traya a "token payment" in exchange for the domain name.

Apple v. eMachines

In 1999, Apple successfully sued eMachines, whose eOne too closely resembled the then-new iMac's trade dress. The eOne was taken off the market, resulting in huge losses for eMachines.

Trademark dispute over itunes.co.uk

In November 2000, Benjamin Cohen of CyberBritain registered the domain name itunes.co.uk. The domain was initially pointed to skipmusic.com, then to cyberbritain.com and then inoperative for some time. Apple applied for a UK trademark for iTunes on October 23, 2000 and this was granted on March 23, 2001. Apple launched its popular iTunes music store service in the UK in 2004. Once they had done this, Cohen reactivated the domain name, which was then for a while redirected to iTunes' then-biggest rival, Napster. The domain name then forwarded to CyberBritain's cash back/rewards website.

In 2005, Apple took the matter to the Dispute Resolution Service operated by .uk domain name registry Nominet UK, stating that they had rights in the name "iTunes" and that the use of the domain name by Cohen's company was abusive (these being the two tests under the Dispute Resolution Service). The dispute was not resolved at the free mediation stage and Apple paid for an independent expert to decide the case, who decided in Apple's favor in the dispute. The full text of the decision, including the full history of the use of the domain, is available. Cohen immediately launched a media offensive stating that the DRS was biased towards large businesses and made frequent threats of lawsuits against Nominet.

This version of events gained wide press coverage, and although Nominet responded by publicizing the facts of the case, their version of events did not capture public imagination to the same extent. However, Cohen then stated that the DRS was unfair for a number of reasons and stated that he would take Nominet to the High Court via judicial review. Nominet said that he should appeal the case via the appeal process in the DRS. Cohen refused to do this, and after several months did issue proceedings. The judge at first instance rejected his case noting that Cohen's company, Cyberbritain Group Ltd, should have used the appeal process which forms part of Nominet's domain resolution service, and Cohen's company asked for a rehearing. As that case progressed, the interim domain name was transferred to Apple in accordance with the expert's decision and it now points to the music site. The High Court proceedings are not an appeal of the Nominet DRS Decision.

In December 2005, Cohen dropped all legal action against Apple.

Resellers v. Apple

In 2004 independent Apple resellers filed a lawsuit against the company alleging misleading advertising practices and unfair business practices were harming sales while boosting company owned Apple outlets. The lawsuit claimed that Apple had favored Apple stores by providing significant discounts that were unavailable to independent dealers. The complaint further accused the corporation of breach of contract, false advertising, fraud, trade libel, defamation, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. As of 2006 Apple had reached settlements with all of the plaintiffs, including the bankruptcy trustee for one reseller that failed. The former principal of that company has appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement.

Apple v. Does

Main article: Apple v. Does

In November 2004, three popular weblog sites that feature Apple rumors publicly revealed information about two unreleased Apple products, the Mac mini and an as yet unreleased product code-named Asteroid, also known as Project Q97. Two sites, Apple Insider and Power Page were subpoenaed for information to identify their confidential sources (a third site, Think Secret, was also subpeonaed but did no original reporting on the case, and thus had no sources to reveal). The suit raised the problem of bloggers, and whether they hold the same protection that journalists do. In February 2005 it was decided by a trial court in California that the website operators do not have the same shield law protection as do other journalists. The journalists appealed, and in May 2006, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that activities in question are covered by the shield law.

Apple v. Think Secret

Main article: Think Secret

In a separate case, Think Secret was sued for misappropriation of trade secrets over stories concerning a "headless iMac" and new version of iWork. The site filed an Anti-SLAPP motion in response.

iPod class-action settlement

In May 2005 Apple entered into a class action settlement, upheld on December 20 2005 following an appeal, regarding the battery life of first, second, and third generation iPod music players sold prior to May 2004. Eligible members of the class are entitled to extended warranties, store credit, cash compensation, or battery replacement.

Creative patent dispute

On May 16 2006, Creative Technology sued Apple for alleged infringement of a Zen patent in the United States. Also, the Singapore-based company filed a trade complaint with a United States trade agency against Apple Computer, and a lawsuit in California alleging that Apple had infringed its patent. Creative asked for a court injunction to block the import and sale of Apple's iPod and iPod nano in the United States. It also sought undisclosed damages for past sales. Apple, in return, filed suit against Creative on much the same grounds.

On August 23 2006, Apple settled with Creative Technology for US$100 million dollars, effectively ending the patent dispute and 5 other pending lawsuits between the two companies. In return, Creative secured an agreement to participate in the "Made for iPod" program by producing accessories for the iPod.

iPhone trademark

On January 10 2007, Cisco Systems filed a lawsuit against Apple, standing that Apple's iPhone infringed on their iPhone trademark. The two companies were in negotiation to allow Apple the rights to use the name, although the meetings came to standstill when Cisco pushed for the two products to be interoperable. Cisco has alleged that Apple subsequently created a front company to try to acquire the rights another way. Following the public unveiling of the iPhone at the 2007 Macworld Expo, Cisco filed the lawsuit. Apple claimed that there will be no confusion between the two products, and that their iPhone is the first cell phone with such a name, Cisco's "iPhone" being a VoIP phone. On February 21 2007 Cisco and Apple announced an agreement under which both companies would be allowed to use the iPhone name worldwide.

Trademark dispute with New York City over Apple logo

In January 2008, Apple filed an opposition against a US trademark application for New York City's "Big Apple" logo for the GreeNYC initiative. The opposition is currently pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Typhoon Touch Technologies lawsuit

In June 2008, Apple was named among others as a defendant in a suit alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff, Typhoon Touch Technologies, alleged that the company used its touch screen technology ideas without permission.

Apple Inc. v Psystar Corporation

On July 3, 2008, Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit against Psystar Corporation alleging the computer company sold Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed. This act violated trademark, copyright and software licensing laws, which is not in accordance with Apple's shrink wrap license. The shrink wrap license requires that the OSX operating system only be installed on Apple-brand computers.

See also

• Computer Edge Pty Ltd. v. Apple Computer Inc. 1986 161 CLR 171 (test in Exxon for literary work is "not intended to establish a comprehensive or exhaustive definition of literary work for copyright purposes" per Mason and Wilson JJ (Aus.))

External links

• Apple Legal