Talk:Litigation involving Apple Inc./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Footnotes

Your footnotes aren't working, and I can now see why. When you split this article from Apple Computer you didn't move the footnotes over. I've not fixed it myself as I'm not familiar with the referencing scheme you use (I prefer <ref> [1]).

Not sure if you've used it or not, but this is a nice article: [2] --kingboyk 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I agree with the proposed merge of Butt-Head Astronomer into this article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs HP section

Contains the sentence "Many consider this to be a specious argument, however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely stole the MacOS GUI design from the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer". As far as I know this is not correct, Apple paid for that usage, did it not? Mikkel 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • PARC was compensated in return for allowing Apple to visit PARC. Apple did not walk out with screenshots or code. Obviously they were inspired by what they saw. Personally, I'd re-word that sentence to say something more like: "due to the fact that Apple's Mac OS GUI design was inspired by what they saw of the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer." But to say that it also matters how much of the Mac OS GUI was inspired by PARC and how much they'd already been working towards some of that stuff before PARC. If it truly ALL started w/ the PARC visit, I'd leave as is, but I thought some of that stuff they'd already been thinking about. But I have no plans to do any of this research right now and that would have to be done before changing this. I know there's good material out there about this, esp. in books. Also "Many consider this to be a specious argument" needs citation. Who is the "many"?
--Jason C.K. 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd go further and delete the whole section "Some say that Apple was at fault because they were hoarding a superior input system that would put all competitors out of business. Others say Microsoft stole Apple's ideas, and it would have been possible to create a GUI that would not infringe on their copyright. Many consider this to be a specious argument, [verification needed] however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely based the Mac OS GUI design on the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer." Apple lost its case. The rest is editorializing unless notable sources are cited.--agr 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I pretty much agree...I did put a "verify source" tag on that...if no one fixes that up in a week, delete it all?
--Jason C.K. 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Apple vs Apple

This case is of interest not only to Apple Computer enthusiasts but also to Beatles fans. Currently Apple Corps sends them here for a full analysis of the dispute. Also, I believe the earlier agreement may have some legal significance too? Therefore, if anyone here is able to flesh the story out into a full, seperate article it would be an idea I'd support. --kingboyk 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've forked this out to Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. Please expand it if you can. --kingboyk 17:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"*Some say* that Apple was at fault... *Many* consider this to be a specious argument..."

Can someone please clean the article up from these statements and/or add some references? Rm999

  • Any weaselly words that annoy you, go put a {{fact}} or {{verify source}} or some other tag on it in the article text. Guidelines here. If it remains unsourced for a week or more, consider deleting the unsubstantiated words.
--Jason C.K. 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

section order

Should the sections be ordered chronologically or based on notability? Regardless the order of the cases needs to be looked at and organized better. I think it would work nicely if they were ordered chronologically based on when the case was first brought to court. This would result in this order:

  • Apple v. Apple (1978)
  • Apple v. Franklin (1982)
  • Apple v. Mackintosh (1986)
  • Apple v. Microsoft (1988)
  • Carl Sagan (1994)
  • Abdul Traya (1998)
  • Ben Cohen (2000)
  • Apple v. Does (2004)
  • iPod Class action (2005)

Additional sections would need to be created for the eMachines lawsuit and the GEM lawsuit out of the GUI section currently at the top. PaulC/T+ 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised this, as I was wondering the same. (I'm a Beatles Apple person, but I kinda like this page :)). I think chronologically, as you've suggested, would work. Go for it! --kingboyk 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple v. Does latest info.

I don't really have the time to do this, but Ars just did a nice report of the Apple v. Does lawsuit and the latest decision that was handed down. If someone could incorporate it into the article it would be very helpful. [3] PaulC/T+ 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs. Does and Apple Vs Think Secret

I've seperated out the "Apple vs. Does" case from Apple's law suit against Think Secret over its alledged trade secrets violation. There's no connection between the two cases, other than they happened at roughly the same time. The article on Apple vs Think Secret is a stub - I'll expand if/when I have time. Ianbetteridge 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cisco v. Apple

I think there's gonna be lawsuit from Cisco because they trademarked "iPhone" first. So we need to add that soon. 168.254.226.175 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (or Awesimo)

I added addational informaiotn and cleared up the lawsuit article, which appeared to have the stance that Apple and Cisco were almost settled, which was not the case accordint to Cnet.--Zeeboid 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

Should this be renamed to "Notable litigation of Apple Inc."? Shawnc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple, Lugz, and the Postal Service

I was wondering if it was appropriate to have entries reguarding Apple "borrowing" Lugz's ads and "remaking" the Postal Service's music video? Immortal Time Keeper 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

eMachines

This article and iMac each direct the reader to the other article with regard to the eOne lawsuit. Romperomperompe 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nokia

There is a current patent dispute with Nokia. The article should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.228.72 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Maybe the Carl Sagan link, at the top of the lawsuit concerning him, should be changed to the part in his article regarding Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningstripe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple vs Samsung 2011 over phones and tables

Is there any merit of the lawsuit Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. Samsung over Android phones and tablets ..? or is it just Apple trying to own ubiquitous ways of doing things ? Electron9 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There basically isn't, it's just their ubiquitous ways. But I think it would be ideal to have a new Wikipedia article for this matter as it is multi-faceted enough to earn a proper page. Significant products by Samsung and Apple are involved in continuous injunctions by both parties, and just today, Samsung is now planning on seeking court injunctions to block the sale of the iPhone 4S in France and Italy due to patent infringements for the W-CDMA standard. What do others think? I am certain this issue won't end for quite a while, so I think a new page dedicated to this matter would help document the events and the discussions at hand. Eug.galeotti (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Motorola vs Apple

I'm surprised there is nothing in here regarding the attempt by Motorola to invalidate 11 Apple patents on October 18th 2010 and the following patent infringement lawsuit placed by Motorola against Apple followed by Apple counter suing using the patents Motorola was attempting to have invalidated. It seems incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doombug5000 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

  • Apple Ruling Hits Android by Jessica E. Vascellaro WSJ 20.December.2011, exceprt ...

    The U.S. International Trade Commission on Monday ordered HTC by April to stop importing handsets that infringe the patent. The Taiwanese company said it would remove the feature found to violate Apple's patent, a move that should avoid disruption to its U.S. business. Apple is tangling over intellectual property with multiple competitors around the world, in large part seeking to hobble rivals using Android-powered smartphones from taking a larger share of the business. The long-awaited ruling by the ITC is one of the first high-profile decisions in Apple's home market.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this against Apple too? See Portal:Current events/2011 December 19 ... Samsung Electronics announces it has filed new claims of patent infringement against Apple in Germany, raising the stakes in an ongoing worldwide patent war. (Reuters)
99.19.40.211 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
See Smartphone#Patent licensing and litigation. 99.181.143.108 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sagan

I've sourced the Sagan assertion, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to competently cite it. Here is the header, from Lexis: 

CARL SAGAN, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant
CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
874 F. Supp. 1072; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154 
June 27, 1994, Decided  
June 27, 1994, FILED

12.208.150.136 (talk) 19:02, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

Itunes.co.uk

"nominet responded by publishing facts" Perhaps a link to the facts or quoteing them would help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.135.133 (talk • contribs) . 217.155.135.133 (talk) 14:38, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

merge

I think that this page should be merged with the main Apple inc. page on Wikipedia. It should be done. 74.57.32.16 (talk) 18:50, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

Proview and iPad Trademark?

Is there some reason Apple's spat with Proview over the iPad trademark in China isn't included? Not my editing genre, so not being WP:BOLD myself. J Clear (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I just haven't gotten to it yet. Thanks for the reminder though. :-) Sctechlaw (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
All done now! Sctechlaw (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please participate in the GA nomination review

I've finished expanding and cleaning up this article and forked a couple of sections to new articles. The article is now nominated for Good Article (WP:GA) status. Please participate in the review noted in the banner, above.

— Sctechlaw (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Apple Inc. litigation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take on this review. It may take me several days, however, given its size. Per the "external links" report on the side, there are 10-11 dead URLs in the article and resolving them would make my task here easier. Canadian Paul 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce information that is not present in the main body of the article as it is supposed to summarize the key points. Currently it is written as a separate entity entirely; I would recommend using it (or at least the first two paragraphs) as a sort of "Background" section in the body itself and re-writing the lead to summarize the article as compliance with WP:LEAD.
  2. In the lead, first paragraph "Like all large, multinational technology corporations," seems to be unnecessary - for one thing, it could be challenged and isn't really verifiable, for another, it seems to be a little fluffy and unencyclopedic, possibly even running afoul of WP:PEACOCK. I would just remove it because the rest of the sentence works fine without it.
  3. Under "Apple iPod, iTunes antitrust litigation", "The case In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class action in 2005". Filed by whom? The government or someone else?
  4. Under "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action", "In the class action filed in 2008 against Apple, Inc. and AT&T Mobility In re Apple & AT&T Mobility Antitrust Litigation, the plaintiffs claim that Apple and AT&T illegally restrained competition, locked consumers into agreements with AT&T, and punished them if they tried to leave." Again, who filed?
  5. Under "Libel dispute with Carl Sagan", "Apple's third and final code name for the project was "LaW", short for "Lawyers are Wimps"." requires a citation.
  6. Under "itunes.co.uk", first paragraph, "The Apple-Cohen dispute was a high-profile cybersquatting case", calling it "high-profile" seems to be a bit POVish to me and could be challenged. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, your best options would be to cite evidence showing that it was high-profile or to remove the word, discuss the case, and let the reader decide for themselves whether or not it was "high profile".
  7. In fact, that paragraph could use more citations in general, as most of that information could be challenged (that Napster was iTunes biggest rival, where the domain was redirected to etc.)
  8. Same section, second paragraph, "The dispute was unresolved at the free mediation stage and so Apple paid for an independent expert to decide the case; the expert decided the dispute in Apple's favor." requires a citation.
  9. Under "Woolworths Limited logo", "The Woolworth's smartphone app is also available on Apple's AppStore where its once-disputed logo is featured prominently." Why is it referred to as "once-disputed" here? The paragraph doesn't mention anything about the dispute being resolved.
  10. Under "Apple v. Think Secret", the resolution of this case should be included in the paragraph.
  11. Under "Object code cases and conflicts of law", first paragraph, "Apple's litigation over object code was seminal in the development of contemporary copyright law because the company's object code cases brought different results in different courts." seems pretty POV to me. I did remove a handful of instances of this kind of POV, but I left this one in because removing the offending parts of the sentence would alter its meaning. If it's "seminal", that fact should be directly cited per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as it has the potential to be challenged.
  12. Same section, second paragraph, the Canadian decision needs a citation. Same with the New Zealand ruling in the third paragraph.
  13. Same section, third paragraph, "These revisions to copyright law in favor of including object code are still controversial and form the technical underpinnings for the legal notion of computer trespass and the following development of anti-hacking law-making such as the Patriot Act and such as are defined by the Convention on Cybercrime." Aside from the latter part of this sentence requiring a citation, and it's long and confusing to read and would do well being broken up into at least two sentences.
  14. Under "Apple v. HTC", "In the year before Apple and Samsung were engaging in their own patent wars..." Since you haven't introduced this subject yet, and it won't be mentioned for several sections, and it's not particularly relevant to the rest of the paragraph, does it need to be here? It would also help because then the whole sentence could be tweaked to make it shorter and less confusing if this were removed. It's also repeated again in the "Motorola Mobility v. Apple" section, making it further unnecessary.
  15. Under "Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets", "In the spring of 2011, while Apple and Motorola were fully engaged in a patent war on several fronts, Apple sued Samsung, expanding its ongoing war to fight another major technology company at the same time." This whole sentence seems a bit unencyclopedic and disrupts the flow. Maybe toning down the rhetoric/POV ("its ongoing war", "another major technology company") would help.
  16. Same section, "The ultimate cost of these patent wars to consumers, shareholders, and investors is yet unknown, but it is not trivial..." "It is not trivial" sounds like a POV judgement and introduces a distinct narrator with an opinion (ie. patent wars are bad for consumers) into what has otherwise been neutral text. Cutting out that section may solve the problem, but the whole sentence seems a bit POV.

One question as well, although it has nothing to do with GA Criteria, but why all the "leave extra lines" comments? Just curious. Anyways, I went through and did a copyedit, hopefully nothing too controversial, but otherwise the article is very nice considering its length and depth. I will need to check references as well, but I will do that once the above concerns have been addressed. Finally, as this nomination has been sitting here since April, I will be checking for completeness by going through the unresolved cases to see if any developments have occurred. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 05:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor response

Editor: Sctechlaw (talk · contribs)

Thank you Canadian Paul for your substantial effort and time commitment in reviewing this lengthy and rather technical article. I believe I have now addressed your concerns, hopefully in a way that satisfies. I have used edit summaries that reference the above-enumerated concerns in most cases. The lead is now two paragraphs, and could be longer, but I think it complies with WP:LEAD. The material I removed from the lead I pasted into a new section just after the lead, "Background", where it does indeed fit better. The comments I left on your talk page regarding the extra lines being needed for visual rest and accessibility in a long article may have been better made here, but they are at least preserved. Won't you please review the changes I've made? Thank you so much, Sctechlaw (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good so far, no more problems with external links either. I think per WP:LEAD, the lead could probably be a bit longer, but I would be worried that it would devolve into arbitrary examples of case decisions, so I think that it's fine for GA purposes. Anyways, here's what needs to be done next:
  1. I don't see that anything has been done to resolve concerns #9 or the Canadian part of #12 above. For the latter, even though it's cited in the paragraph above, there still needs to be a citation at the end of the paragraph because the paragraph contains material that could be challenged and that falls under the list of things that need to be cited by the good article criteria.
    1. I addressed item 9 in this change by informing the reader that there was no report (I could find) that the case was either settled or dropped (which often happens in law), however, Woolies continues to use the once-disputed logo even on Apple's site (which requires Apple's acquiescence), therefore, while the legal outcome of the dispute is unknown, the practical outcome is that Woolies prevailed. The meaning is decidedly implicit in the outcome and therefore could be worded differently, and I am open to suggestions.
    2. As to item 12, because both the Canadian and New Zealand decisions are cited in the previous paragraph, are established law, there was and is no expert debate as to their meaning, and the article's recounting of the content is highly unlikely to be challenged except by some extreme fringe legal theorist, it is unnecessary to re-cite them, and since they would be extraneous it seems to me to do so has an opposite effect on credibility (thou dost protest too much sort of thing) — however, if you insist I will throw them in. Also, I think your choice of word "contr" in your last edit to that section is confusing for most readers. Those object code cases are some of the most significant copyright cases in the industry, ever, so it is reasonable to state that fact. Just why that is so is explained in the section, thus using the phrase "were important because" or "were significant in" is reasonable. I suggest replacing "contr" with "were significant in".
  2. Under "Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets", "Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as the mobile device patent wars: extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011 Apple and Samsung were carrying out their legal battles in 19 ongoing lawsuits in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents; by October, the fight expanded to 10 countries." Neither of the references after these sentences support the fact that the activity became known as "the mobile device patent wars"
    • I did a cut and paste from that section to a new article on Apple v. Samsung, and in the process it appears the cite you seek went there, so I'll fix that.
  3. Under "Sector Labs: use of Pod", "The Board found that the "iPod" mark was "famous" and therefore entitled to broad protection under U.S. trademark law." This should be sourced directly to the board's actual decision, rather than the current citation, because a blog is generally not considered to be a reliable source and I don't see a reason why an exception should be made here (although feel free to convince me otherwise).
    • Agreed and done.
  4. I'm not sure that citation #157 (Creative Files Suit Against Apple For Patent Infringement, iPod Hacks, 2006-05-16. Accessed 2012-4-11, via archive.org.) is needed; the information is sourced by two other references and that source just looks like a rehashing/reposting of the other material on a website that doesn't strike me as particularly notable/reliable.
    • Agreed, however, where possible I tried to include sources that non-lawyers might read too. :-) We can leave it in or take it out, your choice.
  5. Citation #203 (Oates, John, Consumer group slams 'unfair' software licenses, EULAugh, I cry, 2008-2-19.) needs to list the publisher of the article, so that it can be more easily found (or referenced) if the link goes dead.
    • Agreed and done.
  6. Under "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action", "In October 2008 the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case on the federal claims and granted their motions to dismiss the state unfair trade practice claims except in California, New York, and Washington, but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend those claims. The case remained pending before the Ninth Circuit appellate court in late 2011." Is it still pending? Have their been any updates worthy of updating the section for?
    • This is an extraordinarily complex case that may take years to resolve. I'll check for further developments that are more than just motions hearings in discovery, and report back, but in the meanwhile I added that fact to the section so the reader knows not to hold dinner while waiting to find out.
      Sctechlaw (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  7. Please check for any updates on the following sections and add the information if necessary: "Federal eBook price-fixing claims", "Proview: iPad trademark", "Amazon "App Store"", "Apple v. HTC", "Kodak v. Apple (digital imaging)", "Motorola Mobility v. Apple", "Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets"
    • I'll check and report back.
    • Updated Motorola Mobility v. Apple;
    • Updated Apple v. Samsung;
    • Updated Kodak v. Apple;
    • Udated Apple v. HTC;
    • Updated Amazon "App Store"
    • Updated Proview: iPad trademark.
      Sctechlaw (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Finally, and this is NOT a GA requirement, but the referencing style is pretty haphazard at times (for example, sometimes accessdates are included, other times not) - if you're thinking of bringing this beyond GA, that will be something of concern to higher level reviews but, as far as I can tell, the references all make it clear where one would find the information should they need to look it up (except for the one noted above), which is sufficient for GA. Anyhow, once these concerns are address, the article should be ready for promotion to Good Article status. Canadian Paul 17:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The access dates do need to be updated so I'll address that today. Is there something else you noticed about the referencing besides the access dates? If so I'll be glad to fix them.
    Thanks so much! Sctechlaw (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "contr", that was meant to be "contributed to"; I don't know how that got cut off, but I have fixed it. I feel that this is a more neutral way of saying what you're looking to say - it highlights that there is relevance without telling the reader how you (or how they should) feel about it. Regarding the former #9, I just removed "once-disputed", as it just throws off the reader - you already mention "disputed" in the previous sentence, so there's no need to repeat it. Regarding the citations for the Canadian decision, I still think that the article would be better off with a citation to the decision, but perhaps it is fine as is, so I'll let it be. Regarding the iPod hacks citation, that makes sense I suppose, and since it's not independently verifying anything, there's no real reason it can't stay.
Anyways, everything looks ready to go now so I will go ahead and pass this article for GA status. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Infinite Loop reference is pointless and childish

Apple refers to a drive on its campus as Infinite Loop in reference to programing terminology. There is no point to bring this up and it adds nothing to one's knowledge of the subject at had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

and Xerox litigation ?

Lost in the mists of night, there is the "famous" 'Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.0, 734 F. Supp. 1542 (N.D. Cal. 1990)... [4]. All the thing is quite funny, 'cause Xerox sues Apple and basically (wrongly) lost. And for the same reason instead (yet probabily wrongly!) Apple lost vs Microsoft ... Some details in Apple vs M$ war here. 88.149.240.100 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Sctechlaw (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Monopoly" in letter "i"

Apple has never had an exclusive right to use the letter "i" in trade marks. Contrary to the article "Apple Cannot Monopolize the Letter 'i' – iGood!", cited as a reference under Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. DOPi: lower-case i use, it is factually incorrect to say that Apple "no longer has a monopoly on the letter 'i' as part of the name for its products" as a result of that case. The cited article uses hyperbole to suggest that Apple's perchant for using a lowercase "i" in product names such as iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., amounts to some kind of exclusivity, but this should not be cited to support a "monopoly" as being fact. It's hyperbole, not fact. The article itself refers to two competing trade marks, iSkin and iSoft, which would contradict any such claim that Apple formerly had a "monopoly". At most, we might say that:

"Julian Lee and Asher Moses stated in the Sydney Morning Herald that the decision confirmed that Apple did not have "a monopoly on the letter 'i' as part of the name for its products." (Note that cited reference replicates this article from the SMH which should be cited as the primary source for the "monopoly" claim.)

However, I do not think there is any value even making this mention. As discussed above, it is factually incorrect to say Apple ever had "monopoly" in the "i" prefix, much less the letter "i" as a whole, and there is little (if any) value making a spurious reference to it. It is simply unencyclopedic. —sroc (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets

Can someone with expertise please check the accuracy of this section, as I did my best, but it became confusing due to the amount of information I was dealing with. I am most concerned about the timeline and the veracity of the content.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Section headings

I've reverted "antitrust" to "antitrust claims" because that's the technically correct term and it chimes with the content of the section, particularly the subheaders. "Antitrust" on its own is ambiguous and the reader should not have to peruse the section to find out what the section header means.

Ditto "unfair trade practice" - that's what people call it and removing the word "unfair" makes it unclear - not all trade practices that are capable of bearing law suits are necessarily unfair.

Andyjsmith (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the double standard, when I edit "Antitrust" to match "Defamation" magically "Antitrust" becomes ambiguous but "Defamation" is crystal clear. If you're going to try and nit pick at least do a consistent job of it. no one reads the section "Antitrust" and thinks there is "multiple interpretations" Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why add "Claim" in each section

I propose that saying "Defamation Claim", "Trade Practice Claim", and "Antitrust Claims" is not necessary, if anyone disagrees. feel free to say why you want to put Claim in every title. ( or only some things and forget about consistency ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This is hyperbole and rather silly. There are no sections called "Defamation Claim" or "Trade Practice Claim"! I think what you mean is to rename "Antitrust Claims" as "Antitrust" and "Unfair trade practice" as "Trade practice". If so, I've given my reasons why the original text is perfectly fine. As far as I can see it ain't broke, so please don't try to fix it unless other people agree it's an improvement. If you wish, for consistency, we could rename "Defamation" to "Defamation claims"... Andyjsmith (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Suits ≠ Claims. Mostly, this article about suits not claims. A suit is what happens when the parties can't agree how to settle the claim. Strictly speaking those headers should refer to suits. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • per Lawsuit "A lawsuit or (very rarely) "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have". Lawsuits are claims, this article is called Apple Inc. litigation the reason we don't put Antitrust litigation is that "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." So When we put a section called "History" in an article titled "Gun Violence" that section in the readers mind is "History of Gun violence" but we just simply say "History" When we put "Antitrust" in an article "Apple inc litigation" the article is in the readers mind "Apple antitrust litigation" but we simply put "antitrust" if we say "antitrust claims" what is in the readers mind is "apple antitrust litigation claims" which isn't any better since while lawsuits contain claims there is more to litigation then claims. That is why we are going to simple say "Antitrust". Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why we say Trade practice instead of Unfair trade practice

Per the MOS "headings can be assumed to be about the subject[article title] unless otherwise indicated." So the title Apple Inc. Litigation gives every section the attribution "litigation" so our subsections are organized what is being litigated. in the section Defamation the thing being litigated is in fact Defamation (technically libel but close enough), in the section Antitrust that is what is being litigated. in the section "Trade practice" what is being litigated "trade practices." We could write "Fair Defamation" since the court ruled that apple was ok to call Carl Sagan a butt head. but that's not what the litigation is about. Trade Practice and Defamation = what the litigation is about in each section. Fair Defamation and Unfair trade practice set a precedent that mixing what is claimed and what is ruled ( which will be confusing) best for NPOV is simple to title the sections what is the litigation about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn´t the very first sentence void of real information?

The first sentence of this article conveys, in my opinion, no significant information, as any multinational corporation is constantly involved in some kind of litigation.Amchamp (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Most of this article seems to exist only as a resource for those curious people, who clog the comments sections of technology blogs, with their religious hatred for all technology companies except the one whose smart phone they bought! Evidently, in the 21st century, football barracking has been replaced with corporate boosterism. (Now that is an interesting phenomenon, worthy of a Wikipedia article!)
Turning to the actual article:-
  1. The description of Apple as a "multinational technology corporation" is otiose in this context and ought to be moved to the main article about Apple.
  2. Saying that Apple "has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims ..." amounts to nothing more than "Apple behaves as you'd expect," as does the statement that begins "In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively ..."
What evidence is offered for Apple's litigious hair-trigger?
  1. The case described in "Apple iPod, iTunes antitrust litigation" has now been settled. I believe Apple has been exonerated of any wrongdoing.
  2. The next section ("Apples and AT&T Mobility..") spends 500 words saying "no news here."
  3. The "European antitrust investigation" spends 100 words explaining that Apple overpaid for some music and passed the cost onto consumers.
  4. Finally, in the "eBook price-fixing lawsuit" and "High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation" we reach two cases in which Apple actually acted illegally, but the details are elsewhere.
I won't go on.
Shouldn't the presumption of innocence mean that cases where the accused is exonerated ought to be regarded as non-events, except to legal specialists? If so, then most of this article ought to be erased, and the same holds for the corresponding sections of Microsoft litigation, Google litigation and all the other similar articles. Otherwise we'll see the Wikipedia grow ever larger, as it becomes packed with articles about the innocent going free, or the non-arrest of the not-guilty.
A Bloke Wandering (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Update

This article has been tagged for a Good Article reassessment and currently has a tag on it asking for an update (since 2014). This probably needs to occur if it wishes to retain its Good Article status. AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree I am nominating this article for reassessment (criterion 5. stable). I’m not sure whether or not to remove this tag Template:update after 5 years, so I’m erring on the side of caution. —Nemoschool (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cohen et al. v. Apple Inc. et al.

Is this a significant case? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed A.pl logo entry to here

This dispute is before an administrative office, rather than being in the courts (so far), thus it is not litigation, yet. Moving the text here for later use should the matter progress to litigation. The media reporting the matter using the words "sues" and "is suing" are confusing an administrative hearing with a lawsuit. The Polish news telepolis.pl actually says:

The proceedings before the Patent Office may result in cancellation of the right of protection for a commodity or dismissal of an application made by Apple. In both cases, the parties are entitled to appeal to the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw. Judgment and the WSA may be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The dispute may take up to two or three years.

______

A.pl logo

In September 2012, Apple sought to prevent the Polish online grocery store fresh24.pl owned by A.pl from registering its trademark, claiming a likelihood of confusion in the store's logo as "trying to deliberately confuse customers by using Apple's well-known likeness and reputation."[1] The dispute began when Apple objected to the store's registration of its logo with Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (the Polish patent office).[2][3]

— Sctechlaw (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Sctechlaw (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

===References (for A.pl matter)===
  1. ^ Jacobsson Purewal, Sarah, Apple vs. A.pl: Tech company sues online Polish grocer over logo, PCWorld, pcworld.com, 2012-9-12. Accessed 2012-12-21.
  2. ^ Protalinski, Emil, Apple is reportedly suing Polish online supermarket A.pl over trademark issues [Updated], The Next Web, thenextweb.com, 2012-9-10. Accessed 2012-12-21.
  3. ^ Apple is activist in Poland - wants a declaration of invalidity A.PL, telepolis.pl, 2012-09-10. Accessed 2012-12-21. (in Polish) (Google translate)

links not in order

just added new section Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application but the links are out of order and I don't know how to fix them. Contribute14 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc./Archive_1&oldid=1214693161"