JNZ Law Blogs

The Cingular "Jack" logo will look great on that new Apple-made phone. :(

I hear you. :eek: But, there are no Intel Inside stickers on the Intel Macs. Perhaps there is hope...

Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?

If you'd followed the dSLR world at all over the past two years, you wouldn't ask this question. :) Canon and Nikon are doing well; most everyone else is dropping like flies. Sony is trying to pick up the pieces that were Konica-Minolta's dSLR business, but at best they're going to be a distant third behind the Big Two. Pentax and Olympus are holding on as far as I know, but they are not doing well.

It would be a very poor move for Apple, and I have no doubt they realize this. You might think Apple has a rabid fan base to draw on - go read any "Nikon vs. Canon" thread on any photo discussion board sometime to see REAL rabidity. :D

Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them.

For the benefit of others who don't bother to read the article, the images in question are provided by a system API on OS X. The API is *provided* to give developers images they can use to represent the current computer, and is supposed to be used that way. All RA have done is used those same images to transmit from the desktop to the iPhone, to show the user which computer they're connecting to.

Some idiot reviewer at Apple has seen the images and decided that since they're displayed on an iPhone they're infringing one of the many incredibly vague rules in the SDK. Given the completely borked review process, it's unlikely to be rectified, and has wasted a lot of everyone's time - there's no way to know in advance which rules the reviewer may decide to impose - almost every app could be seen to infringe one of them. Like the iPhone book app rejection and many others for different obscure reasons, this is a case of a sensible rule interpreted in an insane way.

Can't blame the developers at all for walking away from the frustrating, capricious waste of time which is iTunes store approvals, and good on them for publicising this; taking three months to even give a firm reason for rejection is a real failure on Apple's part, and the entire process is a train wreck.

If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.

I think you're confusing copyright and Trademarks. This is not the case with copyright at all.

I call (early) April Fool's joke. The figures don't make any sense, and they're being given by Llamas.

certainly not if you own the content. cds don't have ads, but radio does.

And DVD's don't have ads even if you rent them (other than trailers, which is pretty standard).

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

$100B past Microsoft in 1 year is tremendous. Go AAPL!

when something jumps that quickly it tells you that value should be questions.

I think I speak for most everyone when I say that feeling we used to get, before Intel processors were in the machines, is back.

Most current phones have 64 MB of memory. According to actviity monitor, simple widgets like Gas, and Sol take between 6.2 - 8 MB of memory, where the more gui type of widgets take 20 - 32 MB of memory. Put that load on a typical phone with a OS and apps like iChat, iTunes, etc... It won't fly unless you can cram 1 GB into iPhone.

Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?

I did read it. It doesn't answer why there are no viruses today, now that Mac OS has greater market share than ever, when there were viruses back when it had a much smaller market share. The market share theory is pure nonsense. It doesn't stand up to simple math.

The theory that OS X is completely secure is equally nonsense.
You definitely don't need an anti-malware solution installed right now, but it is only a matter of time.

There is a reason malware isn't prevalent and it's certainly not because there are no flaws to be leveraged into exploits.

Just look at the security fixes of 10.6.7 update released a few days ago: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4581

Here's a list of some of the more serious 54 security fixes released

AppleScript
A format string issue existed in AppleScript Studio's generic dialog commands ("display dialog" and "display alert"). Running an AppleScript Studio-based application that allows untrusted input to be passed to a dialog may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

ATS
A heap buffer overflow issue existed in the handling of OpenType, TrueType and Type 1 fonts. Viewing or downloading a document containing a maliciously crafted embedded font may lead to arbitrary code execution.

Multiple buffer overflow issues existed in the handling of SFNT tables. Viewing or downloading a document containing a maliciously crafted embedded font may lead to arbitrary code execution.

bzip2
An integer overflow issue existed in bzip2's handling of bzip2 compressed files. Using the command line bzip2 or bunzip2 tool to decompress a bzip2 file may result in an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

ClamAV
Multiple vulnerabilities exist in ClamAV, the most serious of which may lead to arbitrary code execution. This update addresses the issues by updating ClamAV to version 0.96.5. ClamAV is distributed only with Mac OS X Server systems.

CoreText
A memory corruption issue existed in CoreText's handling of font files. Viewing or downloading a document containing a maliciously crafted embedded font may lead to arbitrary code execution.

File Quarantine
The OSX.OpinionSpy definition has been added to the malware check within File Quarantine.

ImageIO
A heap buffer overflow issue existed in ImageIO's handling of JPEG and XBM images. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

A buffer overflow existed in libTIFF's handling of JPEG encoded TIFF images and CCITT Group 4 encoded TIFF images. Viewing a maliciously crafted TIFF image may result in an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

An integer overflow issue existed in ImageIO's handling of JPEG-encoded TIFF images. Viewing a maliciously crafted TIFF image may result in an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.6.

Image RAW
Multiple buffer overflow issues existed in Image RAW's handling of Canon RAW images. Viewing a maliciously crafted Canon RAW image may result in an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

Installer
A URL processing issue in Install Helper may lead to the installation of an agent that contacts an arbitrary server when the user logs in. The dialog resulting from a connection failure may lead the user to believe that the connection was attempted with Apple. This issue is addressed by removing Install Helper.

Kerberos
Multiple cryptographic issues existed in MIT Kerberos 5. Only CVE-2010-1323 affects Mac OS X v10.5.

Kernel
A privilege checking issue existed in the i386_set_ldt system call's handling of call gates. A local user may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges. This issue is addressed by disallowing creation of call gate entries via i386_set_ldt().

libxml
A memory corruption issue existed in libxml's XPath handling. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

A double free issue existed in libxml's handling of XPath expressions. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.6.

Mailman
Multiple cross-site scripting issues existed in Mailman 2.1.13. These issues are addressed by updating Mailman to version 2.1.14.

PHP
PHP is updated to version 5.3.4 to address multiple vulnerabilities, the most serious of which may lead to arbitrary code execution.

QuickLook
A memory corruption issue existed in QuickLook's handling of Excel files. Downloading a maliciously crafted Excel file may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.6.

A memory corruption issue existed in QuickLook's handling of Microsoft Office files. Downloading a maliciously crafted Microsoft Office file may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

QuickTime
Multiple memory corruption issues existed in QuickTime's handling of JPEG2000 images. Viewing a maliciously crafted JPEG2000 image with QuickTime may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.

An integer overflow existed in QuickTime's handling of movie files. Viewing a maliciously crafted movie file may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. For Mac OS X v10.5 this issue was addressed in QuickTime 7.6.9.

A memory corruption issue existed in QuickTime's handling of FlashPix images. Viewing a maliciously crafted FlashPix image may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. For Mac OS X v10.5 this issue was addressed in QuickTime 7.6.9.

A cross-origin issue existed in QuickTime plug-in's handling of cross-site redirects. Visiting a maliciously crafted website may lead to the disclosure of video data from another site. This issue is addressed by preventing QuickTime from following cross-site redirects.

A memory corruption issue existed in QuickTime's handling of panorama atoms in QTVR (QuickTime Virtual Reality) movie files. Viewing a maliciously crafted QTVR movie file may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. For Mac OS X v10.5 this issue was addressed in QuickTime 7.6.9.

Ruby
An integer truncation issue existed in Ruby's BigDecimal class. Running a Ruby script that uses untrusted input to create a BigDecimal object may lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution. This issue only affects 64-bit Ruby processes.

Samba
A stack buffer overflow existed in Samba's handling of Windows Security IDs. If SMB file sharing is enabled, a remote attacker may cause a denial of service or arbitrary code execution.

Subversion
Subversion servers that use the non-default "SVNPathAuthz short_circuit" mod_dav_svn configuration setting may allow unauthorized users to access portions of the repository. This issue is addressed by updating Subversion to version 1.6.13. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.6.

X11
Multiple vulnerabilities existed in FreeType, the most serious of which may lead to arbitrary code execution when processing a maliciously crafted font. These issues are addressed by updating FreeType to version 2.4.3

Many people want to buy a phone that looks like an iPhone, but are willing to buy a Samsung phone as long as it looks the same. Yes, that is a stupid reason to buy a phone, but some people are like that. Apple thinks that all those people should have to buy the real thing.

And some people base their decision on how nice a phone looks, and they think the iPhone looks nice, and since the Samsung phone looks the same, they think that one looks nice as well. These people might buy a Samsung phone because Apple put lots of effort into designing a nice looking phone, and Samsung just copied it. In Germany, that would fall straight under "unfair competition" and would be blocked for that reason; if one company spends lots of money developing a product and another company just copies it, that is "unfair competition".
+1

While I didn't buy my HTC Android because it "looked nice," I did buy it because it was the most iPhone-like phone experience at Sprint at the time. I now pay for that decision everyday (iOS 1.0 puts Android 2.2 to shame) and cannot wait for my contract to be over. Steve Jobs would put someone's head on a pike in front of 1 Infinite Loop if Apple ever released an OS this half-baked. Say what you will about Apple's walled garden, but the Android market is more like a flea market complete with grifters. I've given up buying apps after too many that caused frequent crashes.

Verizon iPhone 5, you cannot arrive soon enough.

It really infuriates and frightens me when senators play the "Do what we ask voluntarily, or we'll force you to" card.

App market?

Program Store?

Program Market?

App Hub?

App Universe?

App Base?

Tool Shed?

Imagination?

Hello?

What is the App Store? It is a store where you buy apps, an app store.

It's not a "shed where you buy apps", for example.

I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321



So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.

It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.

What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.

I think Apple's app-approval process is pretty arbitrary, so how much do they care about precedent in the first place? Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. There is much bile spilled over it, but Apple's sales continue to soar.

I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.

Agreed. But Trapster is primarily for speed traps, DUI traps is just a secondary function.

After looking around the apple website this morning.. I don't believe that we are getting the new chips until AFTER the iPod rebate offer.. and here is why.

The only legal way Apple could offer the new processor would be to offer it ONLY to out-of-education persons. If you read the fine print of the Apple iPod offer, it ONLY lists the current models (and G4) as acceptable units to use when filing a rebate.... if they were to place the new chip models on the store, it would invalidate the rebate, should someone have the old rebate forms, and a new machine. Just a thought.

But in Europe this same rebate ends at October 7th, 2006...

The AirPlay private key wasn't made public by Apple for the same reason the FairPlay private key wasn't-- having the private key essentially gives you access to an unencrypted stream of whatever content is encrypted by AirPlay.

THIS

As you correctly highlight, the significance of this isn't that it enables others to implement 3rd party Airplay clients for innocent playback... it's that it allows Airplay-based software rippers to be constructed.

Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.

This is the biggest worry for Apple. They can't raise lawsuits against free software apps hosted outside the US in the same way they could block the selling of non-licenced hardware in the US.

USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only

Sounds like TB just died.

Thanks, McAfee,

Ever since I got my first mac in you and other antivirus vendors have been reminding me, every six months or so, that OS X is facing an imminent security meltdown.

Though this is yet to happen, it's always enough to remind me to make sure I've got the latest version of the excellent and free ClamXav, and that I have a good working backup of my machine, which is made possible by many other wonderful free tools.

Though I'll never buy your software, you provide a great service to me.

Thanks, Ed

ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.

if samsung stops providing displays to apple, it would be the best thing ever..NO MORE YELLOW TINT ISSUES!!!

Just for the record, I hate greencepeace and everything they stand for.

I was thinking how they would be able to deliver movies of large sizes, and it seems to me if that they are going with full resolution feature length films, they will have to use BitTorrent, Quantum Streaming, or some other unknown method. If they do this right, this will be more innovating than iTunes/iPod legal music download. But will the customers buy.....

If Samsung breached the supply contract, they would be sued again. The difference is that in the infringement suit, Apple has a moderate case and the remedy if they win will be $100M-$2B range. In a contract infringment, Apple would have an ironclad case, and the remedy would be $100B-$300B-- in other words, Samsung would become a division of Apple.

Could you please link the contract (since you seem to know everything about it), and out of curiosity where did you get your law degree?

You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.

Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).

It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.

Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.

It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.

PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.

I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.

Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.

Crap... I just ordered a 27" iMac from store.apple.com Friday morning. It hasn't shipped yet as i did some custom changes. I am going to call in the morning to see if I can hopefully cancel the order. I also purchased a 27" Cinema Display but that has already shipped. And doesn't look like it is in this upgrade round.If only there was a buyer's guide for Apple products on this very website. :rolleyes: