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. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but it litigates in other areas as well. Since Jan 1, 2008, Apple, Inc. filed more than 350 cases with the US Trademark office alone, most in opposition to or taking exception to others' use of the terms 'apple', 'pod', and 'safari'. These cases include sellers of apples (the fruit), as well as many others' less unassuming use of the term 'apple'.

Consumer class actions

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.

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.

Unfair trade practice

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.

Defamation

Libel dispute with Carl Sagan

See also: Carl Sagan#Personal life and beliefs

In 1994, Apple engineers code-named the Power Macintosh 7100 "Carl Sagan" after the astronomer and science popularizer in the hope that Apple would make "billions and billions" with the sale of the PowerMac 7100. Given that his name was only used internally, 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. Sagan perceived that Apple was comparing him to what he considered pseudoscience, implying he was a hoaxer, and sued. Although Apple won the suit, they retaliated by changing 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."

Intellectual property

Trademark

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, 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, after the introduction of the Apple IIgs, a computer with an Ensoniq music synthesizer chip, which Apple Corps alleged to be in violation, 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 favor of Apple Computer on May 8, 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.

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.

Trademark dispute over itunes.co.uk

The iTunes case was important because it turned around prior decisions by awarding a domain name to a subsequent registrant (Apple), rather than to the prior registrant (Cohen). (The full text of the following decision, including the full history of the use of the domain, is available at nominet.org.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 (the DRS), 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 DRS rules). 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. 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 November 2005, Cohen dropped all legal action against Apple.

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 an apple-shaped mark

In January 2008, Apple filed an opposition with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against New York City's (NYC) trademark application for the "Big Apple" logo for NYC's GreeNYC initiative. NYC originally filed for its trademark: "a stylized apple design" for "Education services, namely, providing public service announcements on policies and practices of the City of New York in the field of environmentally sustainable growth" on May 14, 2007, and then amended its application on Jun 27, 2007. The TTAB's Notice of Publication was published September 18, 2007, and then Apple filed an opposition with the TTAB the following January, claiming a likelihood of confusion. On June 26, 2008, NYC filed a motion to amend its application to delete the leaf element from its design, leaving the stem, and the TTAB dismissed the Apple's opposition and counterclaims in accordance with the parties' stipulation on July 22, 2008. As of February 23, 2010, NYC's trademark application is pending.

Trademark dispute with Woolworths Limited over Apple logo

In October 2009, Apple disputed a trademark application by Woolworths Limited in Australia over its new supermarket logo, a stylised green "W", similar in shape to an apple. Apple reportedly took objection to the breadth of Woolworths' application, which would allow it to brand products, including consumer electronics, with the logo.

Apple v. DOPi

In March 2010, an Australian Trademarks tribunal denied Apple's attempt to prevent a small company from trademarking the name DOPi for use on its laptop bags and cases for Apple products. Apple argued that the DOPi name - which is iPod spelled backwards - is too similar to its own product's name, the iPod. The order effectively meant that Apple can no longer monopolize the letter 'i'.

Trade secret

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 subpoenaed 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. The court adamantly chastized Apple's litigiousness by remarking:

... the discovery process is intended as a device to facilitate adjudication, not as an end in itself. To accept Apple’s position on the present point would empower betrayed employers to clothe themselves with the subpoena power merely by suing fictitious defendants, and then to use that power solely to identify treacherous employees for purposes of discipline, all without any intent of pursuing the underlying case to judgment. An employer pursuing such an objective might prefer not to join any defendants lest it expose itself to negative consequences up to and including a countersuit for malicious prosecution or abuse of process. Our sympathy for employers in such a position cannot blind us to the gross impropriety of using the courts and their powers of compulsory process as a tool and adjunct of an employer’s personnel department.

Apple v. Think Secret

Main article: Think Secret

Further information: [[:Criticism of Apple Inc]]

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.

Copyright

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.

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.

OdioWorks v. Apple

In November 2008, Apple sent a cease and desist letter to BluWiki, a non-commercial wiki provider, alleging a violation of the DMCA. Apple claimed that a discussion of how to inter-operate with the latest iPods infringed their copyrights. On April 27, 2009, Odioworks (the operators of BluWiki), backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sued for a declaration of non-infringement and non-circumvention. On July 8, 2009, Apple ceased claiming infringement, stating that they are "withdrawing [Apple's] takedown notifications", and that "Apple no longer has, nor will it have in the future, any objection to the publication of the itunesDB Pages which are the subject of the OdioWorks complaint." The EFF noted, "While we are glad that Apple retracted its baseless legal threats, we are disappointed that it only came after 7 months of censorship and a lawsuit."

Trade dress

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 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 eMachines' losing the ability to sell the eOne as intended. In eMachines' EDGAR statement for May 1, 2001, eMachines stated that its "net loss for the first quarter of 2001 was $31.1 million, or $0.21 per share, compared to a loss of $11.9 million, or $0.13 per share, in the first quarter of 2000", but that these results "reflect the substantial discounts and incentives that we gave to retailers to enable liquidation of product inventories."

Patent infringement

Creative Technology 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, 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.

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 v. HTC

Apple Inc. has filed a patent infringement against HTC on 2nd March 2010 at the US District Court for the District of Delaware. They (Apple Inc.) also filed a complaint against HTC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) at United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours". This centers around 20 patent infringements relating to iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware.

Kodak vs. Apple

Kodak filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. and RIM in April 2010. Kodak filed two lawsuits against Apple and a complaint with the International Trade Commission against both Apple and RIM, alleging their phones infringe on a Kodak's digital-imaging technology.

Licensing

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 Mac OS X only be installed on Apple-brand computers.

Corporate espionage & data theft

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.

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