- Apple Inc. litigation
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. Between January 2008 and May 2010, 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': those cases include sellers of apples (the fruit), as well as many others' less unassuming use of the term 'apple'.
Apple iPod, iTunes antitrust litigation
The case In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class-action in 2005 claiming Apple violated the U.S. antitrust statutes in operating a music-downloading monopoly that it created by changing its software design to the proprietary FairPlay encoding in 2004, resulting in other vendors' music files being incompatible with and thus inoperable on the iPod. The suit initially alleged that five days after RealNetworks released in 2004 its Harmony technology making its music playable on iPods, Apple changed its software such that the RealNetworks music would no longer play on iPods. The claims of Apple's changes to its encoding and its refusal to license FairPlay technology to other companies were dismissed by the court 2009, but the allegation of Apple's monopoly on the iPod's music download capabilities between 2004 and 2009 remain as of April 2011. On March 22, 2011, Bloomberg news reported that after a related 3-year inquiry by the Competition Commission, Apple agreed in 2008 to lower its prices on iTunes tracks sold in the U.K.; and also reported that Steve Jobs had been directed by the court in March 2011 to make himself available to be deposed on Apple's FairPlay changes as they relate to the plaintiffs' monopolization claim.
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, plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, breach of warranty under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, and other violations of consumer protection laws. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that consumers were offered iPhones by Apple only if they signed a two-year service agreement with AT&T Mobility, but that unknown to consumers at the time of purchasing the iPhones, the two companies had agreed to technologically restrict voice and data service in the aftermarket for continued voice and data services after the consumers' initial two-year service period expired, while at the same time continuing to share revenue stemming from provision of voice and data services to iPhone users. Plaintiffs allegations include that such an arrangement is a violation of the U.S. federal antitrust laws, of consumer protection laws, and of the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act; that the arrangement constitutes monopolization of the aftermarket, that it constitutes a conspiracy to monopolize the aftermarket, and that as such and as an unfair and deceptive trade practice the alleged conduct deprives consumers of the benefit of their bargain in the purchase of iPhones. In October 2008 the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case on the federal claims, 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.
Consumer class actions
Technical support class action
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 battery life class-action
In 2004 and 2005, two state-level class actions were filed against Apple in New York and California, alleging the first, second, and third generation iPod music players sold prior to May 2004 did not have the battery life represented and/or that the battery's capacity to take and hold a charge substantially diminished over time. Rather than litigate these claims, Apple entered into a settlement agreement in August 2005 after a fairness hearing in the California action, with the settlement designed to end the New York action as well by the settlement's terms. An appeal followed the California court's approval of the settlement but the appellate court upheld the settlement in December 2005. Eligible members of the class were entitled to extended warranties, store credit, cash compensation, or battery replacement, and some incentive payments, with all unfiled claims expiring after September 2005. Apple agreed to pay all costs of the litigation, including incentive payments to the class members and the plaintiffs' attorney fees, but admitted no fault.
iPad and iPhone privacy issue class-action
In December 2010, Reuters reported that two separate groups of iPhone and iPad users have sued Apple, Inc. alleging that certain software applications were passing personal user information to third-party advertisers without consent. The cases are identified as: In re: Freeman et al v. Apple Inc et al, No. 5:10-cv-05881-HRL and In re: Lalo v. Apple Inc et al, No. 5:10-cv-05878-PSG, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose division. The complainants seek a ban on the "passing of user information without consent and monetary compensation". The Reuters report said that in April, Apple had agreed to amend its developer agreement to stop this from happening "except for information directly necessary for the functionality of the apps" however the lawsuit alleges that Apple has taken no steps to do this or enforce it "in any meaningful way due to criticism from advertising networks."
The Associated Press reported a pending congressional inquiry into the matter, with United States Congress members stating that commercial storage and usage of location information without a consumer's express consent is illegal under current law, but Apple defended its use of customer tracking in a letter released May 9, 2011 by the House of Representatives. NPR's senior director of technology published an article examining the data collected by his own iPhone, showing examples of the data collected and maps correlating the data. Separately, digital forensics researchers reported they regularly use the data collected in working with law enforcement officials investigating crimes and have been doing so since at least mid-2010. In contrast with earlier statements, Apple revealed in a hearing with the US Senate Judiciary Committee that a "software bug" caused iPhones to continue to send anonymous location data to the company's servers, even when location services on the device were turned off.
iTunes price-switching class action
In June 2009, complainants filed the class action suit Owens v. Apple, Inc. against Apple, Inc. seeking to certify a nationwide class of individuals who purchased iTunes gift cards. The complaint alleges that Apple wrongfully marketed, distributed and sold iTunes gift cards and songs through its online iTunes store, while representing to consumers that they could use the gift cards to purchase songs for $.99 a song, and then after such gift cards were purchased, raised the price on certain songs to $1.29 on April 7, 2009. Complainants allege Apple's conduct constitutes breach of contract, violates the state consumer fraud statute, and violates consumer protection statutes of other states. Plaintiffs seek a remedy of $.30 refund for each song that Plaintiffs and other class members purchased using a $.99 iTunes card for which they were charged $1.29, plus their attorneys' fees and costs. Apple sought to dismiss the suit but lost its motion in December 2009.
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.
Libel dispute with Carl Sagan
In 1994, engineers at Apple Computer code-named the mid-level Power Macintosh 7100 "Carl Sagan" after the popular astronomer in the hope that Apple would make "billions and billions" with the sale of the PowerMac 7100. The name was only used internally, but Sagan was concerned that it would become a product endorsement and sent Apple a cease and desist letter. Apple complied, but engineers retaliated by changing the internal codename to "BHA" for "Butt-Head Astronomer". Sagan then sued Apple for libel, a form of defamation, in federal court. The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss Sagan's claims and opined in dicta that a reader aware of the context would understand Apple was "clearly attempting to retaliate in a humorous and satirical way", and that "It strains reason to conclude that Defendant was attempting to criticize Plaintiff's reputation or competency as an astronomer. One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head'." Sagan then sued for Apple's original use of his name and likeness, but again lost. Sagan appealed the ruling. In November 1995, an out of court settlement was reached and Apple's office of trademarks and patents released a conciliatory statement that "Apple has always had great respect for Dr. Sagan. It was never Apple's intention to cause Dr. Sagan or his family any embarrassment or concern."
Trademark disputes with Apple Corps
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.
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. In November 2005, Cohen dropped all legal action against Apple.
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 (TTAB) 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 the Victoria School of Business and Technology
In September 2008, Apple sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology in Saanich, British Columbia, claiming the school's logo infringed upon Apple’s rights. Apple also claimed that the school's logo falsely suggested Apple had authorized the school's activities. The logo in question featured the outline of an apple and a leaf, however, its design incorporated a mountain and had three bumps on top instead of the two used by Apple, additionally, there was no bite out of the school's apple. In April 2011, the Victoria School of Business and Technology reported it had settled its 3-year dispute with Apple, was launching a new logo under a new name, Q College, and was expanding its operations.
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 have exclusive claim to the letter 'i'.
Apple v. Amazon.com: "App Store" dispute
In 2011 Apple filed suit against Amazon.com, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition over Amazon's use of the "App Store" phrase relating to Amazon's "Amazon Appstore Developer Portal" and Amazon's alleged other similar uses of the phrase. Reuters reported that in the case Microsoft is opposing Apple's attempted registration of the phrase as a trademark, and that part of the matter is currently before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In June 2011, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who is presiding over Apple's case against Amazon, said she'll "probably" deny Apple's motion that seeks to bar the Web retailer from using the "App Store" name.
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
Apple sued Think Secret's parent company, the dePlume Organization LLC, and Think Secret's editor on January 4, 2005, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets with regard to Think Secret's stories concerning a "headless iMac" and new version of iWork. dePlume filed a motion to dismiss the case in response, based on First Amendment grounds under California's state Anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to dispense with meritless legal claims attempting to silence valid exercises of freedom of speech.
Apple v. Franklin
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.
Object code cases and conflicts of law
Apple's litigation over object code (see also object file) was seminal in the development of contemporary copyright law because the company's object code cases brought different results in different courts. In the 1980s, Apple litigated two now-famous copyright cases with central issues that included the question of whether object code (as contrasted with source code) of a computer program is subject to copyright laws. A third case not involving Apple but involving the Apple decisions followed in New Zealand. The specific cases involved were Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v Apple Computer Inc. (1986, Australia), Apple Computer Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd. (1987, Canada), and IBM v. Computer Imports Ltd. (1989, New Zealand).
In the Computer Edge case, the Australian court decided against the then-prevailing opinions in other courts (the UK, Canada, South Africa, and the US) and ruled object code was not copyrightable; while the Supreme Court of Canada in Apple v. Mackintosh reversed its earlier decisions and ruled that because object code was a translation of source code and embodied in a silicon chip, it was therefore a translation of an original literary work expressed in a material form and unauthorized reproduction of the object code was therefore an infringement of copyright. The Canadian court opined that programs within ROM silicon chips are protected under the Copyright Act of Canada, and the conversion from the source code into object code is a form of translation. It further held that such translation does not include the expression of an idea in another form, but rather only applies to the expression of an idea in another language, and that a translation has a one-to-one correspondence between works that are expressed in two different languages.
In these conflict of laws cases, Apple met with conflicting international judicial opinions: an Australian court decision conflicted with a Canadian court decision on the copyrightability of object code. The New Zealand High Court then considered these prior decisions and sided with the Canadian decision in ruling that although object code is not an original literary work in its own right, it is a reproduction of source code in material form and therefore an infringement of copyright takes place if it is copied without the authorization of the copyright owner. These legal conflicts affected not only Apple but all other software companies, and remained unresolved until the creation of an international legal regime embodied in further changes to national copyright laws, which ultimately made object code subject to copyright law.
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.
Apple v. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard
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 non-voting Apple stocks.
OdioWorks v. Apple
The Odioworks case was notable for being one of the first high-profile cases illustrating Apple's attempts to employ federal police power in its litigation practices by invoking the anti-circumvention provisions of of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a means of shielding its intellectual property from reverse engineering. In November 2008, Apple sent a cease and desist letter to BluWiki, a non-commercial wiki provider, alleging BluWiki infringed Apple's copyrights in publishing a discussion of how to make the latest iPods inter-operate with other software, and that by so doing, violated the DMCA. On April 27, 2009, Odioworks (the operators of BluWiki), backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, defensively sued Apple seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-circumvention. On July 8, 2009, Apple ceased claiming infringement, stating it was "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." After Apple withdrew its complaint and cited code obsolescence as a contributing factor in its decision to withdraw, BluWiki then republished its discussion of the issue. 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."
GEM "look and feel" suit
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."
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 touch screen patents
In June 2008, Apple was named among others as a defendant in a suit alleging patent infringement in portable touch screen technology. The suit was important for illustrating the vagaries of litigating patent licensing and royalty collection issues in the commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights. The plaintiff, Typhoon Touch Technologies, acquired two pre-existing patents, (filed in 1993 and 1994 and issued in 1995 and 1997), in mid-2007 for $350,000 plus a percentage of collected licensing fees. The patents had languished for some time and were not being policed, however Typhoon sought to begin enforcement by bringing suit against infringers. Shortly after Typhoon acquired the patents, it began to sue exploiters of the technology who had not paid licensing fees. Typhoon was successful in its patent infringement suits against some small companies, and then expanded its litigation to go after larger companies. Typhoon alleged that Apple and others used its patented technology inventions without permission. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Case No. 6:07-cv-546, and identified the technology as U.S. Patent No. 5,379,057: "Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computer System Employing Same," and U.S. Patent No. 5,675,362: "Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computing System Employing Same". Typhoon originally filed the suit in December 2007 against Dell after settling with some smaller companies, but in mid-2008 amended its complaint to add Apple, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Lenovo, Panasonic, HTC, Palm, Samsung, Nokia, and LG. In 2010, Apple settled with Typhoon for an undisclosed amount and was then dismissed from the litigation as of September 2010. Ultimately, Typhoon could not prevail against patent defense arguments of prior art and obviousness, and earned itself infamy as a patent troll. Typhoon ceased doing business in 2008 after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suspended its trading in a fraud investigation.
Apple v. HTC
Apple Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against HTC on 2 March 2010 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and 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. The suit involves 20 alleged patent infringements relating to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. "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".
Kodak v. Apple
Kodak sued Apple Inc. and Research In Motion (RIM) in January 2010, filing two lawsuits against Apple and a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against both Apple and RIM, alleging Apple's and RIM's phones infringe on a Kodak digital imaging technology, after the companies refused to pay patent royalties on Kodak's digital camera technology. Kodak seeks an injunction against further imports into the U.S. of Apple's iPhone and RIM's BlackBerry.
Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets
In the spring of 2011, Apple and Samsung began to engage in what 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.
Apple sued Samsung, one of its component suppliers, in a 38-page legal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that several of Samsung’s Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apple’s intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple's complaint included specific claims for patent infringement, federal false designation of origin and unfair competition, federal trademark infringement, state unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment. Apple's purported evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of Apple iPhone 3GS and Galaxy S i9000 to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. The images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two differing products seem more similar.        
Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung's patents related to mobile-communications technologies. A German court (the Landgericht Düsseldorf) in August 2011 granted Apple's request for an EU-wide preliminary injunction barring Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab v10.1 device on the grounds Samsung's product infringed on two of Apple's interface patents. After Samsung's allegations of evidence tampering were heard, the court rescinded the EU-wide injunction and granted Apple a lesser injunction that only applied to the German market. In the same time period and in similar cases of related legal strategy, Apple filed contemporaneous suits against Motorola with regard to the Xoom and against a German consumer electronics reseller named JAY-tech in the same German court, both for design infringement claims. Apple did not state the specific relief it sought in its complaints except for the preliminary injunctions, and is expected to amend its filings after the injunctions are granted.
Shortly after the release of the iPhone 4S, Samsung filed motions for injunctions in courts in Paris and Milan to block further Apple iPhone sales in France and Italy, claiming the iPhone infringed on two separate patents of the Wideband Code Division Multiple Access standard. Samsung reportedly singled out the French and Italian markets as key electronic communications markets in Europe, and by filing suit in a different court, avoided going back to the German court where it had lost a round earlier in its battle with Apple. In late October 2011, the civil court in The Hague rejected Samsung's infringement arguments and denied Samsung's motion made there; a short time later an Australian federal court granted Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung agreed to an expedited appeal of the Australian decision in the hope that if it won its appeal before Christmas, it might salvage holiday sales that it would otherwise lose.
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 and data theft
Apple v. Microsoft, Intel, and 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 five years, and purchase US$150 million of non-voting Apple stock.
- ^ U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board search for 'Apple Inc.'.
- ^ In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig., No. C 05-00037 JW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107127, N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008.
- ^ MacLean, Pamela, and Gullo, Karen, Apple’s Jobs Must Answer Questions in ITunes Antitrust Suit, Bloomberg, 2011-03-22.
- ^ a b In re Apple & AT & T M Antitrust Litigation, 596 F.Supp.2d 1288 (N.D.Cal. 2008).
- ^ Apple - Product Support (Language)
- ^ a b California case: In re iPod Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4355, San Mateo County Superior Court; and New York action: Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc., US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 7-04-cv-5773 (the "Mosley Action"). The information site Apple created for the California class action posted the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action.
- ^ a b Mukherjee and Ahmed (28 December 2010). "IPhone and iPad users sue Apple over privacy issues". Reuters (Thomson Reuters). http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BR1Y820101228. Retrieved 28 December 2010.
- ^ Jordan Robertson, AP Technology Writer, Apple Slammed Over iPhone, iPad Location Tracking, Seattle PI, 2011-04-24.
- ^ Associated Press, Apple Defends IPhone 'Hot Spot'-Logging, NPR, 2011-05-10.
- ^ Brand, Zach, Sifting Through An iPhone's Geo Data, Row By Row, National Public Radio, All Tech Considered, 2011-04-23.
- ^ Wolverton, Troy, Investigators use iPhones to track owners' movements, San Jose Mercury News, 2011-04-21.
- ^ Tessler, Joelle, Associated Press, Sen. Al Franken calls for Apple, Google app privacy policies, San Jose Mercury News, 2011-05-25.
- ^ a b Owens v. Apple, Inc., 09-cv-0479-MJR, USDC S.Dist. Illinois, 2009.
- ^ Oates, John (2004-06-16). "Apple resellers are revolting". The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/16/apple_gets_sued/. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
- ^ Apple 10K p.41
- ^ Poundstone, William (1999). Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos. New York: Henry Holt & Company. pp. 363–364, 374–375. ISBN 0-805-05766-8.
- ^ Poundstone, p. 363.
- ^ a b Poundstone, p. 364
- ^ "This Week in Apple History: November 14–20". The Mac Observer. http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thisweek/2004/20041120.shtml.
- ^ Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F.Supp. 1072 (USDC C.D. Cal. 1994), CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx); 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154.
- ^ a b Poundstone, p. 374
- ^ Poundstone, pp. 374-375.
- ^ John, Paul, George, Ringo...and Steve?, businessweek.com. September 30, 2004.
- ^ Borland and Fried, Apple vs. Apple: Perfect harmony?, CNet News, 2004-09-23.
- ^ Apple giants do battle in court
- ^ Breaking news: "Apple Computer wins court battle with Beatles", Reuters, 8 May 2006 (link)
- ^ Brandle, L. "Apple Computer Triumphs In Beatles Case", Billboard, 8 May 2006 (link)
- ^ High Court Judgement from the website of Her Majesty's Courts Service
- ^ Transcript of full judgement from The Times, 8 May 2006
- ^ Apple Inc. and The Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd. Enter into New Agreement
- ^ Teen in dispute with Apple over domain - CNET News.com
- ^ The Mac Observer-Battle For Domain Name Between Apple And Teen Resolved
- ^ McCarthy, Kieren, Cohen disputes UK registry's legitimacy, The Register, Financial News, 27 May 2005.
- ^ Richardson, Tim, Nominet faces judicial review over itunes.co.uk ownership, The Register, Music and Media, 17 June 2005.
- ^ Richardson, Tim, Cohen ends legal bid for itunes.co.uk, Financial News, The Register, 25 November 2005.
- ^ Cisco sues Apple over use of iPhone trademark | CNET News
- ^ Cisco and Apple can both use iPhone name Yahoo! News, February 22, 2007.
- ^ Apple challenges NYC bid for new 'Big Apple' logo, Los Angeles Times, April 04, 2008.
- ^ Trademark application and history, #77179942.
- ^ Apple, Inc. opposition to NYC & Company, Inc., Opp. No. 91181984.
- ^ U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, TTAB dismissal of Apple opposition and counterclaim, July 22, 2008.
- ^ U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, NYC Trademark Status, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, February 23, 2010; and USPTO TDR Portlet for Serial No. 77179942.
- ^ No Apple for Vancouver Island School, Says Computer Corporation, CBC News, 6 Oct 2008.
- ^ CTV Will Apple's suit against B.C. school bear fruit?, Globe & Mail, 6 Oct 2008.
- ^ Business school drops use of Apple's forbidden fruit, Times Colonist, 1 Apr 2011.
- ^ Lee, Julian (5 October 2009). "Apple bites over Woolworths logo". The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html.
- ^ Sharp, Ari (2008-08-21). "Woolies shelves Safeway brand". The Age, Melbourne. http://www.theage.com.au/national/woolies-shelves-safeway-brand-20080820-3ywj.html. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
- ^ "Woolworths launches new look after 21 years" (PDF). Woolworths Limited. 2008-08-22. http://www.woolworths.com.au/resources/woolworths+launches+new+look+after+21+years.pdf. Retrieved 2008-08-23. [dead link]
- ^ Lee, Julian; Moses, Asher (12 March 2010). "Apple's future won't be brought to you by the letter 'i'". SMH. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mp3s/apples-future-wont-be-brought-to-you-by-the-letter-i-20100312-q27r.html.
- ^ "Apple Cannot Monopolize the Letter ‘i’". techpp. 12 March 2010. http://techpp.com/2010/03/12/apple-cannot-monopolize-the-letter-i-igood/.
- ^ Apple Inc v. Amazon.com Inc., 11-1327, USDC ND Ca. (2011).
- ^ Levine, Dan, Apple sues Amazon.com over APP STORE trademark, Reuters, 2011-03-22.
- ^ Lowensohn, Josh, Judge likely to deny Apple's 'Appstore' complaint, CNET News, 2011-6-22.
- ^ Rosenblatt, Joel, and Gullo, Karen, Apple Bid to Bar Amazon 'Appstore' Will 'Likely' Be Denied, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2011-6-22.
- ^ "Apple may have tough road in Amazon lawsuit". Reuters. 2011-06-22. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/22/us-apple-amazon-idUSTRE75L79Y20110622.
- ^ O'Grady v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, modified by O'Grady v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 675b.
- ^ Fried, Ina, Apple suit foreshadows coming products, CNET, Jan 5, 2005.
- ^ Think Secret goes on offensive, asks to have Apple lawsuit dismissed. Think Secret. 2005-03-04. Archived from the original on 2008-01-25. http://web.archive.org/web/20080125174705/http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antislapp.html.
- ^ Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).
- ^ Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v Apple Computer Inc. (1986) 65 ALR 33;  F.S.R. 537, (High Court of Australia).
- ^ Apple Computer Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd. (1987) 44 DLR (4th) 74 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal) (later affirmed, Supreme Court of Canada).
- ^ International Business Machines Corporation v. Computer Imports Limited  2 NZLR 395, 409.
- ^ In Computer Edge the court looked to 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.)).
- ^ The 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), the 1991 European Economic Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs ("EC Directive"), the Copyright Act of Canada, the New Zealand Copyright Act of 1994, and other national copyright law revisions.
- ^ Corbett, Susan, What if Object Code Had Been Excluded from Protection as a Literary Work in Copyright Law?, a paper for presentation at the 4th Annual Intellectual Property Conference: Rewriting History: Counterfactuals and Alternative Stories in Intellectual Property and Cyberspace Law, Michigan State Univ. College of Law, March 2007.
- ^ a b Kawamoto, Dawn; Heskett, Ben; Ricciuti, Mike. MS to invest $150 million in Apple, CNET News, August 6, 1997
- ^ a b Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, FindLaw, August 5, 1997
- ^ OdioWOrks v. Apple, N.D. Cal. No. C 09-1818, 2009.
- ^ Von Lohmann, Fred, Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA, Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 2010.
- ^ McNamara, Paul (2009-07-22). "Apple takes legal heel off throat of wiki operator". Network World. http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43762.
- ^ "Apple Confuses Speech with a DMCA Violation". EFF. 2008-11-25. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/11/apple-confuses-speech-dmca-violation.
- ^ "Wiki Operator Sues Apple Over Bogus Legal Threats". EFF. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/27.
- ^ "Re: OdioWOrks v. Apple, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 09-1818". 2008-09-08. http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/odio_v_apple/apple_letter.pdf.
- ^ Clayburn, Thomas, Apple Drops Complaint Against BluWiki, Information Week, 2009-07-22.
- ^ "Apple Withdraws Threats Against Wiki Site". EFF. 2009-07-22. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/07/22-0.
- ^ Reimer, Jeremy, A History of the GUI, ArsTechnica, May 05, 2005.
- ^ Apple Computer Inc. v. eMachines Inc., No. 99-CV-20839 (N.D. Calif. filed Aug. 19, 1999), (settled).
- ^ Kanellos, Michael (19 August 1999). "Apple sues eMachines for iMac look-alike". CNET. http://news.com.com/Apple+sues+eMachines+for+iMac+look-alike/2100-1040_3-230054.html.
- ^ eMachines' Registration Statement Amendment 1 to Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, May 1, 2001.
- ^ Miles, Stephanie, Apple settles suits over iMac knockoffs, CNET News, March 8, 2000.
- ^ Before the suit was settled, an analysis of the claims appeared in the National Law Journal: Coolley, Brady, and Campagna, Cases suggest iMacs' trade dress merits protection, January 31, 2000.
- ^ Apple counter-sues Creative - Gadgets - MSNBC.com
- ^ Apple sues iPod rival over patents - New York Times (International Herald Tribune), 2006-05-18. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
- ^ Creative Files Suit Against Apple For Patent Infringement :: iPod Hacks
- ^ Apple & Creative Announce Broad Settlement Ending Legal Disputes Between the Companies
- ^ Harris, Larry, Red Flags at Typhoon Touch Technologies, Seeking Alpha, 2008-7-9.
- ^ Typhoon Touch Techs. v. Dell, Inc., No. 6-07-cv-546 (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 23, 2008).
- ^ Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement at 5–6, Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 6:07-cv-00546-LED (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2009) (asserting,inter alia, that the iPhone infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 5,379,057 and 5,675,362); and see Seaman, Christopher B., Reconsidering the Georgia-Pacific Standard for Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages, BYU Law Review, No. 5, p. 1661, 2010; Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property, Science & Technology Research Paper No. 10-030, 2011-2-1.
- ^ Apple Inc. and 9 Others Added to Greatly Expanded Dell, Inc. Patent Infringement Suit Brought by Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc., Business Wire, QuoteMedia.com, 2008-6-23.
- ^ Thompson Financial News, Apple, Nokia, others added to Typhoon Touch lawsuit launched vs Dell, Forbes, 2008-06-24.
- ^ Marks, Joseph, Apple Strikes Deal In Typhoon Touch-Screen IP Spat, Law360, New York, 2011-9-15.
- ^ Shrestha, Sannu, Trolls Or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis Of Nonpracticing Entities, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 110, p. 114, 2010, Appendix B.1., 2009-11-22.
- ^ SEC temporary suspension of Typhoon Touch Trading, SEC, 2008-07-18.
- ^ Securities registration termination [Section 12(g) Acc-no: 0001221508-08-000051 (34 Act)], 15-12G filing of firm 000-52130 081032074, SEC records of Typhoon Touch Technologies, SEC, 2008-08-21.
- ^ Patel, Nilay, Apple vs HTC: a patent breakdown, Engaget, 2010-03-02.
- ^ Bilton, Nick, What Apple vs. HTC Could Mean, Bits, The New York Times, 2010-03-02.
- ^ Foresman, Chris, Apple vs HTC: proxy fight over Android could last years, ArsTechnica, 2010-03-04.
- ^ Eastman Kodak Company v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:2010cv06022, NY W. Dist. Ct. (Rochester), filed January 14, 2010.
- ^ Lloyd, Mary Ellen, Kodak Sues Apple, RIM Over Patents, Wall Street Journal, 2010-01-14. Date Accessed: April 19, 2010.
- ^ Decker, Susan, Apple, RIM Accused of Infringing Kodak Patents (Update4), Bloomberg, 2010-01-14.
- ^ Albanesius, Chloe, Every Place Samsung and Apple Are Suing Each Other, PC Magazine, 2011-9-14.
- ^ a b Australian court to fast-track Samsung appeal on tablet ban, Reuters, 2011-10-27.
- ^ a b Yukari Iwatani Kane and Ian Sherr, Apple: Samsung Copied Design, Wall Street Journal, 2011-04-19.
- ^ Complaint, Apple v. Samsung, CV-11-1846-LB, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N. Dist. CA), April 15, 2011.
- ^ Ibrahim, Tony. "Apple Submit Misleading Evidence In Samsung Case Claims Lawyers". smarthouse.com.au. smarthouse.com.au. http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Phones/Industry/M8C7H4S3?print=1.
- ^ Holwerda, Thom. "Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case". osnews.com. osnews.com. http://www.osnews.com/story/25087/Apple_Also_Manipulated_Evidence_in_Dutch_Apple_v_Samsung_Case.
- ^ "More False Evidence Pops Up In European Apple vs. Samsung Case". http://androidandme.com/2011/08/news/more-false-evidence-pops-up-in-european-apple-vs-samsung-case/. androidandme.com. http://androidandme.com/2011/08/news/more-false-evidence-pops-up-in-european-apple-vs-samsung-case/.
- ^ "Apple Back to Manipulate the Evidence in a Lawsuit Against Samsung?". Androidshine.com. Androidshine. 21 August 2011. http://www.androidshine.com/2011/08/21/apple-back-to-manipulate-the-evidence-in-a-lawsuit-to-samsung/.
- ^ Hemphill, Kenny, Apple and Samsung in legal battle, MacUser, 2011-04-19.
- ^ Ogg, Erica, Apple securing $7.8 billion worth of Samsung displays, memory?, CNet News, 2011-02-14.
- ^ Rosoff, Matt, Apple Says Samsung Ripped Off The iPhone And iPad, Business Insider, 2011-04-18.
- ^ Trefis Team, Apple’s Samsung Lawsuit Could Fatten Up iPad Profitability, Forbes, 2011-04-20.
- ^ Elgan, Mike, The Field Guide to Apple’s Samsung Lawsuit, 2011-04-21.
- ^ Yang, Jun, Samsung Counter Sues Apple as Patent Dispute Deepens, Bloomberg News, 2011-04-22.
- ^ Foresman Chris, Apple stops Samsung, wins EU-wide injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1, ArsTechnica, 2011-08-09.
- ^ Jin, Hyunjoo and Gupta, Poornima, Apple blocks Samsung's Galaxy tablet in EU, Reuters Canada, 2011-08-10.
- ^ Foresman Chris, After Samsung win, Apple targets Motorola Xoom in German court, ArsTechnica, 2011-08-10.
- ^ Albanesius, Chloe, Samsung Wants Apple's iPhone 4S Banned in France, Italy, PC Magazine, 2011-10-5.
- ^ "Samsung wants iPhone 4S banned in France and Italy". BBC News. 5 October 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15184461. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
- ^ Sang-Hun, Choe (5 October 2011). "Samsung to Seek Block on iPhone in Europe". New York Times (Seoul). http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/technology/samsung-to-seek-block-on-iphone-in-europe.htm. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
- ^ Ramstad, Evan (5 October 2011). "Samsung to Seek Ban on Apple iPhone 4S in France, Italy". Wall Street Journal (Seoul). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576612263249472784.html. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
- ^ Dutch Court Refuses Samsung's Request to Ban iPhone, iPad Sales, Associated Press report on Law.com, 2011-10-17.
- ^ Miller, Amy, Judge Stumps Samsung's Lawyers in Apple Patent Case, Law.com, 2011-10-17.
- ^ "Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation" (PDF). July 3, 2008. p. 1. http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/videos/Apple-Psystar-complaint.pdf. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
- ^ Keizer, Gregg (2008-07-15). "Apple Sues Mac Clone Maker Psystar". Computerworld. http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570F3005978D8002574870067E25A.html?ref=technology. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
- ^ Markoff, John. Intel and Microsoft Added to Apple Lawsuit, New York Times, February 10, 1995
- ^ Duncan, Geoff. "Apple Sues Intel, Microsoft - Again', TidBITS, February 13, 1995
- ^ Mace, Michael. An Open Letter to the Computing Community, archived from apple.com, February 9, 1995
- ^ Mace, Michael. Second open letter from Apple, archived from apple.com
- ^ Lea, Graham. Maritz on... Apple, The Register, February 1, 1999
- ^ Chalmers, Rachel. Apple And Microsoft: Jobs Barefoot Under A Tree, Computergram International, January 26, 1999
Apple Inc. Founders Board of directors Hardware products Accessories Software products Stores and services Executives Acquisitions Related
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Apple Inc. — This article is about the technology company. For other companies named Apple , see Apple (disambiguation). Apple Inc … Wikipedia
Criticism of Apple Inc. — Apple Inc. has received criticism for the use of sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, and unethical business practices. Additionally, it has been criticized for its litigious legal policy of suing before first gathering all the facts … Wikipedia
Portal:Apple Inc. — edit … Wikipedia
Outline of Apple Inc. — The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to Apple Inc.: Contents 1 Essence 2 Branches 3 History 4 Influential people … Wikipedia
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation — This article is about the look and feel copyright lawsuit between Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and Microsoft Corporation. There have been other lawsuits between the two companies. Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation , 35… … Wikipedia
Apple Corps — Ltd. is a multi armed multimedia corporation founded in January 1968 by British rock band The Beatles to replace their earlier company (Beatles Ltd.) and to form a conglomerate. Its name (pronounced apple core ) is a pun. Its chief division is… … Wikipedia
Apple TV — Fabricante Apple Inc. Tipo Receptor digital multimedia en un decodificador … Wikipedia Español
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. — Apple Computer, Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. (1986), 10 CPR (3d) 1, is 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… … Wikipedia
Apple Corps v. Apple Computer — Between 1978 and 2006 there was a number of legal disputes between Apple Corps (owned by The Beatles) and the computer manufacturer Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) over competing trademark rights. In the latest dispute, the English High Court… … Wikipedia
Apple Cinema Display — 24 Apple LED Cinema Display + 15 MacBook Pro The Apple Cinema Display was a line of flat panel computer monitors introduced in September 1999 by Apple Inc. It was initially sold alongside the older line of Studio Displays, but eventually replaced … Wikipedia