Apple Inc. sud jarayoni - Apple Inc. litigation

Ushbu maqola bo'lishi kerak yangilangan. Iltimos, ushbu maqolani so'nggi voqealarni yoki yangi mavjud ma'lumotlarni aks ettirish uchun yangilang. (2014 yil noyabr)

Ko'p millatli texnologiyalar korporatsiyasi Apple Inc. faoliyat boshlaganidan beri turli sud protsesslari va da'volarining ishtirokchisi bo'lib, raqobatchilari va tengdoshlari singari shug'ullanadi sud jarayoni odatdagi ish jarayonida turli sabablarga ko'ra. Xususan, Apple taniqli va o'zini faol va tajovuzkor ravishda bajaradigan sifatida tanitadi intellektual mulk manfaatlar.^[1][2]1980-yillardan hozirgi kungacha Apple da'vogar yoki javobgar bo'lib kelgan fuqarolik ishlari ichida Qo'shma Shtatlar va boshqa mamlakatlar. Ushbu harakatlarning ba'zilari muhim ahamiyatga ega sud amaliyoti uchun axborot texnologiyalari sanoat va ko'pchilik jamoatchilik va ommaviy axborot vositalarining e'tiborini tortdi. Apple kompaniyasining sud jarayoni odatda intellektual mulk bilan bog'liq nizolarni o'z ichiga oladi, ammo kompaniya sud jarayonlarida ishtirok etgan antitrest da'volar, iste'molchilarning harakatlari, tijorat adolatsiz savdo amaliyoti kostyumlar, tuhmat da'volar va korporativ josuslik, boshqa masalalar qatorida.

Fon

Apple kompaniyasi a'zosi Biznes dasturlari alyansi (BSA), uning asosiy faoliyati BSA a'zolari tomonidan ishlab chiqarilgan dasturiy ta'minotning mualliflik huquqining buzilishini to'xtatishga qaratilgan; Apple o'zining barcha intellektual mulkiga biznes aktivi sifatida qaraydi, sud jarayonlarida ko'pchilik orasida o'z mol-mulkini politsiya qilish va boshqalarning unga qarshi da'volariga javob berish usullaridan biri sifatida foydalanadi.^[3] Apple-ning intellektual mulk portfeli etarli darajada kengdir savdo belgilari birgina kompaniyaning veb-saytining bir nechta sahifalarini qamrab olish uchun va 2012 yil aprel oyida u 176 ta umumiy savdo belgilarini sanab o'tdi, 79 xizmat ko'rsatish belgilari, Bilan bog'liq 7 ta savdo belgisi Keyingisi mahsulotlar va xizmatlar, va tegishli 2 ta savdo belgilari FileMaker.^[4] Apple da'vo qilmoqda mualliflik huquqi bir nechta mahsulot va jarayonlarga bo'lgan qiziqishlar va egalik huquqlari va litsenziyalar patentlar har xil turdagi va shuningdek, odatda patent portfelini litsenziyalashga yo'l qo'ymasligini ta'kidlasa-da, mahsulotning o'zaro muvofiqligi manfaatdor bo'lgan uchinchi shaxslar bilan ishlaydi.^[5] Stiv Jobs faqat 300 dan ortiq dizayn va kommunal patentlar bo'yicha taniqli ixtirochi bo'lgan.^[1][6] 2008 yil yanvaridan 2010 yil mayigacha Apple Inc kompaniyasi 350 dan ortiq ishlarni sudga topshirdi AQSh Patent va savdo markasi idorasi (USPTO) yolg'iz, aksariyati boshqalarning "olma", "pod" va "safari" atamalarini ishlatishiga qarshi yoki istisno qilish; bu holatlarga olma (mevalar) sotuvchilari, shuningdek, boshqalarning "olma" iborasini kam ishlatishi kiradi.^[7]

Monopoliyaga qarshi kurash

Apple iPod, iTunes antitrestlik sud jarayoni

Ish Apple iPod iTunes antitrestlik sud protsessida sifatida rasmiylashtirildi sinf harakati 2005 yilda^[8] Apple musiqani yuklab olish jarayonida AQSh antitrestlik qonunlarini buzganligini da'vo qilmoqda monopoliya u o'zining dasturiy ta'minotini xususiy ravishda o'zgartirish orqali yaratgan Vijdon bilan kodlash 2004 yilda, boshqa sotuvchilarning musiqa fayllari bilan mos kelmasligi va shu sababli ishlamay qolishiga olib keldi iPod.^[9] Dastlab kostyumda besh kundan keyin deb taxmin qilingan RealNetworks 2004 yilda chiqarilgan Garmoniya o'z musiqasini iPod-larda ijro etadigan texnologiya, Apple o'z dasturini shunday o'zgartirdi: RealNetworks musiqasi endi iPod-larda ijro etilmaydi.^[10] Apple kompaniyasining kodlashdagi o'zgarishi va FairPlay texnologiyasini boshqa kompaniyalarga litsenziyalashni rad etish to'g'risidagi da'volari 2009 yil sud tomonidan bekor qilindi, ammo Apple iPod-ning musiqani yuklab olish qobiliyatiga nisbatan monopoliyasini 2004-2009 yillarda 2012 yil iyul oyiga qadar saqlab qoldi.^[11] 2011 yil mart oyida, Bloomberg 3 yil davom etgan surishtiruvdan so'ng Raqobat komissiyasi, Apple 2008 yilda narxlarini pasaytirishga rozi bo'ldi iTunes Buyuk Britaniyada sotilgan treklar va Stiv Djobs sud tomonidan 2011 yil mart oyida o'zini o'zi mavjud qilish uchun boshqargan tushirildi Apple-ning FairPlay-dagi o'zgarishlari, ular da'vogarlarning monopollashtirish da'vosiga tegishli.^[8]

Apple va AT&T Mobility monopoliyaga qarshi sinf aktsiyasi

2007 yil oktyabr oyida (to'rt oydan keyin iPhone Pol Xolman va Lyusi Rivello Kaliforniyaning Shimoliy okrugida (raqamli C07-05152) sudga murojaat qilishdi. Sud jarayoni Apple kompaniyasiga tegishli edi SIM blokirovka iPhone va Apple-da (o'sha paytda) uchinchi tomon dasturlariga to'liq taqiq qo'yilgan va 1.1.1 dasturiy ta'minot yangilanishi tasdiqlanmagan SIM-kartalar va ilovalarni o'chirib qo'yish uchun "aniq ishlab chiqilgan". Sud da'volariga ko'ra, bu adolatsiz, noqonuniy va firibgar biznes amaliyoti (qarang) Soxta reklama ) Kaliforniyaning adolatsiz raqobat to'g'risidagi qonuniga binoan; ning kombinatsiyasi AT&T Mobility va Apple raqobatni kamaytirishi va Kaliforniyaning antitrestlik qonuni va qonunlarini buzgan holda monopoliyani keltirib chiqarishi kerak edi Sherman antitrest qonuni; va ushbu o'chirib qo'yish buzilishi buzilganligi Iste'molchilarning firibgarligi va suiiste'mol qilish to'g'risidagi qonun.^[12]

Ushbu dastlabki da'vo arizasidan ko'p o'tmay, boshqa da'vo arizalari berildi va ular asl Xolmanning da'vosi bilan birlashtirilib, qo'shimcha da'vogarlar va shikoyatlar kelib tushdi: Timoti Smit va boshq., Apple, Inc. va boshqalarga qarshi, № S 07- 05662 RMW, qo'ng'iroq ohanglari bilan bog'liq shikoyatlarni qo'shib,^[13] va Kliegerman v. Apple, Inc., № C 08-948 Magnuson-Moss kafolati to'g'risidagi qonun.^[14] Birlashtirilgan ish nomi "In Re Apple & AT&TM Trustga qarshi sud jarayoni" deb o'zgartirildi. Sud turli da'vogarlarning advokatlaridan etakchi advokatni tayinladi va birlashtirilgan shikoyatning bir nechta versiyalari berildi.

2008 yil oktyabr oyida sud sudlanuvchilarning federal da'volar bo'yicha ishni rad etish to'g'risidagi iltimosnomalarini rad etdi va Kaliforniya, Nyu-York va Vashingtondan tashqari, davlatning adolatsiz savdo amaliyoti to'g'risidagi da'volarini rad etish to'g'risidagi iltimosnomalarini qondirdi, ammo da'vogarlarga ushbu da'volarni o'zgartirish uchun ruxsat berdi. .^[15] 2011 yil dekabr oyida tuman sudi Apple va AT & T kompaniyalarining Oliy sud qaroridan keyin hakamlik sudlarini majburlash to'g'risidagi iltimosnomalarini qondirdi AT&T Mobility v Concepcion va sinfni belgilab qo'ydi; 2012 yil aprel oyida To'qqizinchi davra da'vogarlarga shikoyat berish huquqini rad etdi.^[16]

2011 yil dekabrda, avvalgi ish bo'yicha dekertifikatsiya qilinganidan so'ng, Robert Pepper boshchiligidagi yangi da'vogarlar guruhi Shimoliy okrugida shikoyat yozish orqali sud binosida g'olib chiqdi, bu birozdan keyin topshirilgan hujjatlar bilan birlashtirilib, "Qaytadan Apple iPhone antitrestlik sud jarayoni ", ish 11-cv-06714-YGR. Yangi ish aslida bir xil, ammo AT&T Mobility-ga emas, balki faqat Apple-ga qarshi ish ochilgan. 2013 yil oxirida tuman sudi tomonidan ishning turli qismlari bekor qilindi. SIM-blokirovka bilan bog'liq qismlar rad etildi, chunki AT&T tomon emas edi va da'vogarlar AT&T-ni qo'shishni xohlamadilar.^[16] Qolgan da'vo, uning so'nggi versiyasida, Apple iPhone ilovalari bozorini monopoliyalashtirganligi va da'vogarlarning App Store-dagi pullik arizalari uchun Apple kompaniyasining 30% komissiyasini to'lash bilan zarar ko'rganligi, sud esa bu komissiya "xarajat" deb rad etgan mustaqil dasturiy ta'minot ishlab chiqaruvchilari tomonidan iste'molchilarga etkazilgan ", to'g'ridan-to'g'ri iste'molchilar tomonidan to'lanmagan va shuning uchun da'vogarlar" Illinoys g'ishtlari ta'limot.^[17]

Da'vogarlar to'qqizinchi okrugga murojaat qilishdi, sud okrugining ishdan bo'shatilishini bekor qildi. To'qqizinchi davr, Illinoys Brickni hisobga olgan holda, agar Apple ishlab chiqaruvchi yoki ishlab chiqaruvchi sifatida qaralishi kerak bo'lsa, u holda sinf sudga murojaat qilmasa yoki ular distribyutor bo'lsa, bu holda sinf bo'lishi mumkin degan savolni berdi. zararni qoplash uchun sudga murojaat qilish.^[18][19]

Apple ushbu ish bo'yicha apellyatsiya shikoyatini yubordi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi, ishni ko'rib chiqishga rozi bo'lgan, Apple Inc. va qalampir uning 2018 yil muddatida.^[20] Oliy sud 2019 yil may oyida to'qqizinchi tumanning qarorini qo'llab-quvvatladi, chunki sinf Apple kompaniyasini monopoliyaga qarshi masalalar bo'yicha sudga bergan.^[21]

Evropa antitrestlik tekshiruvi

2008 yilda Apple kompaniyasi Buyuk Britaniyaning iste'molchilari iPod-lariga musiqa yuklab olish uchun to'laydigan narxni pasaytirishga rozi bo'lishdi Evropa komissiyasi Buyuk Britaniyaning iste'molchilar guruhidan Qaysi? Buyuk Britaniyada boshqa joylarda sotilgan bir xil iTunes qo'shiqlari uchun yuqori narxlarni namoyish etdi Yevropa Ittifoqi (EI).^[22] Komissiya shikoyat berilgandan so'ng 2007 yilda Apple kompaniyasining biznes faoliyati bo'yicha antitrestlik tekshiruvini boshladi,^[23] ammo oxir-oqibat Komissiya tekshiruvi Apple va iTunes-ning Evropada qanday ishlashiga oid asosiy yozuvlar o'rtasida hech qanday kelishuv topmadi,^[24] faqat Apple Buyuk Britaniyadagi musiqa yorliqlariga ulgurji narxlarni to'lagan va bu narxni Buyuk Britaniya mijozlariga etkazgan.^[24][25]

Elektron kitob narxlarini aniqlash bo'yicha sud jarayoni

2012 yil aprel oyida AQSh Adliya vazirligi (DOJ) va AQShning 33 shtati Apple kompaniyasiga qarshi fuqarolik monopoliyasiga qarshi ish qo'zg'atdi, HarperCollins, Macmillan Publishers, Pingvin kitoblari, Simon va Shuster va Hachette Book Group, Inc., Sherman qonuni buzilganligini da'vo qilmoqda.^[26][27][28] Da'vo arizasida berilgan Nyu-Yorkning janubiy okrugi va sudlanuvchilar sotishda chakana narxlar raqobatini cheklash uchun fitna uyushtirgan deb da'vo qilmoqda elektron kitoblar chunki ular ko'rishgan Amazon ularning an'anaviy biznes modeli uchun jiddiy muammo sifatida narxlarni arzonlashtirish.^[28][29] Xususan, Apple haqida, federal shikoyat "Apple noshirlarning ayblovchilarining chakana narxlar raqobatini tugatish bo'yicha jamoaviy sa'y-harakatlarini barcha chakana savdo do'konlari bo'ylab agentlik modeliga o'tishni muvofiqlashtirish orqali osonlashtirdi. Apple bu sxemadagi ishtiroki narxlarning oshishiga olib kelishini aniq tushundi. iste'molchilarga. "^[30] Bunday agentlik-modelda noshirlar sotuvchilardan ko'ra narxlarni belgilaydilar.^[31][32] O'n besh shtat va Puerto-Riko, shuningdek, Texas, Ostin shahrida, Apple, Penguen, Simon & Schuster va Macmillanga qarshi federal ish ochdi.^[33] Xuddi shu oyda HarperCollins, Hachette va Simon & Schuster ikkala DOJ va shtat bosh prokurorlari bilan kelishib oldilar, HarperCollins va Hachette Texas va Konnektikutga iste'molchilarga 52 million dollar to'lashga rozi bo'lishdi, Apple, Penguen va Macmillan esa qolgan ayblanuvchilar sifatida qoldirildi.^[34] 2012 yil iyul holatiga ko'ra, ish hali ham kashfiyot sud jarayonining bosqichi.^[35] 2013 yil 10 iyulda Manxettenning tuman sudi sudyasi Denis Kot Apple Inc kompaniyasini chakana savdo raqobatini yo'q qilish uchun noshirlar bilan fitnada "markaziy rol" o'ynaganligi to'g'risida "ishonchli dalillar" ni keltirib chiqargan holda, federal antitrestlik qonunlarini buzganlikda aybdor deb topdi. elektron kitoblarning narxi.^[36]

Yuqori texnologiyali xodimlarning antitrestlik sud jarayoni

2014 yilda Apple ham monopoliyaga qarshi da'vo arizasini, ham sudga tegishli ish bo'yicha sud da'vosini hal qildi sovuq qo'ng'iroq boshqa kompaniyalar xodimlari.^[37]

iOS to'lovlari bo'yicha sud jarayoni

Kaliforniyaning Shimoliy okrug sudiga iOS ilovalarini ishlab chiquvchilar tomonidan Apple kompaniyasi iOS App Store-ni o'z nazoratidan suiiste'mol qilib, 30 foizli daromadni qisqartirishni va 99 AQSh dollari ishlab chiquvchilar uchun to'lov. Ishlab chiquvchilar avvalgi elektron kitob narxlarini aniqlash sxemasida g'olib chiqqan xuddi shu qonuniy firma tomonidan namoyish etilmoqda.^[38]

Epic Games sud jarayoni

2020 yil 13 avgustda, Epik o'yinlar a Google bilan bir qatorda Apple-ga qarshi da'vo monopoliyaga qarshi qonunbuzarliklar va raqobatga qarshi xatti-harakatlar uchun. Apple, Google va boshqa raqamli do'konlarning 30% daromad ulushiga uzoq vaqtdan beri qarshi bo'lgan Epic, to'lov variantini taqdim etdi Fortnite Battle Royale o'sha kuni foydalanuvchilarga sotib olishga imkon berdi mikrotransaktsiyalar to'g'ridan-to'g'ri Epic-dan chegirmali narxda. Apple darhol olib tashlandi Fortnite ilovalarning App Store to'lov tizimini chetlab o'tishlari taqiqlanganligi sababli, ularning siyosatini buzganliklari uchun do'konlarning old tomonlaridan; Google ham shunga o'xshash sabablarga ko'ra o'yinni Play Store-dan olib tashladi. Keyinchalik Epic o'yin tortib olingandan so'ng ikkala kompaniyaga qarshi da'vo qo'zg'adi.^[39]

Iste'molchilar sinfining harakatlari

Texnik qo'llab-quvvatlash sinfining harakati

1993 yildan 1996 yilgacha Apple marketing strategiyasini ishlab chiqdi, u asl xaridor ushbu mahsulotlarga egalik qilgan paytgacha ba'zi mahsulotlarga bepul va cheksiz jonli telefon orqali yordam berishni va'da qildi; 1997 yilga kelib, Apple-dagi o'zgarishlar AppleCare qo'llab-quvvatlash siyosati Apple-ni taklifni bekor qilishga olib keldi, natijada iste'molchilar sinfining shartnomani buzganligi uchun sud jarayoni.^[40] Apple huquqbuzarlikni rad etdi, ammo da'volarni qondirish chog'ida Apple, aks holda eskirgan mahsulotlarga asl egalik muddati davomida telefonni qo'llab-quvvatlashni tikladi va ushbu o'zgarish ta'sirlangan mijozlarga, agar ular telefon orqali yordam berishdan bosh tortgan bo'lsalar, ularga to'lov cheklangan. voqea boshiga yoki uchinchi tomon tomonidan qo'llab-quvvatlash ayblovlari kelib chiqqan bo'lsa.^[41]

iPod batareyasining ishlash muddati

2004 va 2005 yillarda Nyu-York va Kaliforniyada Apple kompaniyasiga qarshi birinchi, ikkinchi va uchinchi avlod ayblovi bilan ikkita davlat darajasidagi ish bo'yicha da'vo qo'zg'atildi. iPod 2004 yil may oyidan oldin sotilgan musiqa pleyerlarida batareyaning ishlash muddati ko'rsatilmagan va / yoki batareyaning zaryad olish va ushlab turish qobiliyati vaqt o'tishi bilan sezilarli darajada pasaygan.^[42][43][44] Ushbu da'volarni sudga berish o'rniga, Apple 2005 yil avgust oyida Kaliforniyadagi sud jarayonidagi adolatli sud jarayonidan so'ng kelishuv shartnomasini tuzdi va kelishuv shartlari Nyu-Yorkdagi harakatni ham tugatish uchun mo'ljallangan. Apellyatsiya shikoyati Kaliforniya sudining kelishuvni ma'qullashidan so'ng, apellyatsiya sudi ushbu kelishuvni 2005 yil dekabrda qo'llab-quvvatladi.^[45][46] Sinfning tegishli a'zolari barcha kafolatlanmagan da'volar muddati 2005 yil sentyabridan keyin tugagan holda kengaytirilgan kafolatlar, do'kon krediti, naqd pul kompensatsiyasi yoki batareyani almashtirish va ba'zi rag'batlantiruvchi to'lovlar olish huquqiga ega edilar. Apple sud jarayonining barcha xarajatlarini, shu jumladan rag'batlantiruvchi to'lovlarni to'lashga rozi bo'ldi. sinf a'zolari va da'vogarlarning advokatlari to'lovlari, ammo hech qanday aybni tan olmadilar.^[44][46] 2006 yilda Apple Canada, Inc., shuningdek, Apple tomonidan iPod batareyasining ishlash muddatiga oid noto'g'ri ma'lumotlarga oid bir nechta shunga o'xshash Kanadalik sud ishlarini hal qildi.^[47]

IPad va iPhone maxfiyligi muammosi sinfi

2010 yil dekabr oyida ikkita alohida iPhone va iPad foydalanuvchilar Apple kompaniyasini sudga berib, ba'zi dasturiy ta'minot dasturlari foydalanuvchilarning shaxsiy ma'lumotlarini foydalanuvchilarning roziligisiz uchinchi tomon reklama beruvchilariga uzatayotgani haqida da'vo qilishdi.^[48] Shaxsiy holatlar Kaliforniyaning Shimoliy okrugi uchun AQSh okrug sudi, Sarlavha ostida San-Xose divizioni Re iPhone dasturida sud jarayoni, va yana ayblanuvchilar harakatga qo'shildi.^[49] Shikoyatchilar sudga "foydalanuvchi to'g'risidagi ma'lumotlarni roziligisiz va pul kompensatsiyasiz uzatishni" taqiqlash to'g'risida iltimos qilishdi.^[48] shaxsiy hayotni buzganlik uchun etkazilgan zararni undirdi va boshqa sanab o'tilgan da'volarni qoplashni talab qildi.^[50] Matbuot xabarlarida aytilishicha, 2011 yil aprel oyida Apple "dasturlarning ishlashi uchun to'g'ridan-to'g'ri zarur bo'lgan ma'lumotlardan tashqari" bunday bo'lishini to'xtatish uchun ishlab chiquvchilar shartnomasini o'zgartirishga rozi bo'ldi; Biroq, da'vo Apple kompaniyasining "reklama tarmoqlarining tanqidlari tufayli buni hech qanday mazmunli tarzda" amalga oshirish uchun hech qanday choralar ko'rmaganligini da'vo qilmoqda.^[48]

The Associated Press Kongressning ushbu masala bo'yicha olib borilayotgan tekshiruvini xabar qildi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Kongressi iste'molchilarning aniq roziligisiz joylashuv ma'lumotlarini tijoratda saqlash va ulardan foydalanish amaldagi qonunchilikka binoan noqonuniy ekanligini bildirgan a'zolar, ammo Apple 2011 yil 9-may kuni chop etgan maktubida mijozlarni kuzatib borishdan himoya qilgan. Vakillar palatasi.^[51][52] Milliy jamoat radiosi Texnologiyaning katta direktori o'zining iPhone-da to'plangan ma'lumotlarni o'rganib chiqadigan maqolani nashr etdi, unda to'plangan ma'lumotlarning namunalari va ma'lumotlarning o'zaro bog'liqligini ko'rsatdi.^[53] Bundan tashqari, raqamli sud ekspertizasi tadqiqotchilari jinoyatlarni tergov qilayotgan huquqni muhofaza qilish idoralari vakillari bilan ishlashda Apple mobil qurilmalaridan to'plangan ma'lumotlardan muntazam ravishda foydalanganliklarini va 2010 yil kamida o'rtalaridan beri shu kabi ishlarni olib borganliklarini xabar qilishdi.^[54] Avvalgi bayonotlardan farqli o'laroq, Apple kompaniyasi tinglovda AQSh Senatining Adliya qo'mitasi "dasturiy ta'minotdagi xato" iPhone'larning qurilmadagi joylashuv xizmatlari o'chirilgan bo'lsa ham, kompaniyaning serverlariga joylashuv ma'lumotlarini noma'lum yuborishni davom ettirishiga olib keldi.^[55]

2011 yil sentyabr oyida Tuman sudi Apple kompaniyasiga haq berdi ishdan bo'shatish to'g'risida iltimosnoma etishmasligi uchun III modda tik turib va da'voni bildirmaslik, lekin da'vogarlarga shikoyatlarini o'zgartirish uchun ruxsat berishdi va shu bilan da'volarni doimiy ravishda o'chirib tashlamadilar.^[50] Sud sud qarorini ko'rsatmasdan qaror chiqardi qonuniy zarar amaldagi qonunchilikka muvofiq qoplanishi mumkin, da'vogarlar sudlanuvchilarning xatti-harakatlari bilan aslida ularga shikast etkazganliklarini ko'rsatmaganlar. Da'vogarlar oldida turgan muammo - elektronning hozirgi holati maxfiylik to'g'risidagi qonun, maxfiylikni buzganlik uchun kompensatsion zararni qoplashni nazarda tutuvchi milliy maxfiylik to'g'risidagi qonun yo'qligi va bu jabrlanuvchilar duch keladigan masala. ma'lumotlar buzilishi, buzilishlar sababli, o'z-o'zidan, pul yo'qotish kabi haqiqiy va o'lchovli zararni ko'rsatmasdan qonuniy zarar ko'rmaydi.^[56] 2012 yil iyuldagi AQSh qonunchiligiga binoan, faqat ma'lumotlar buzilishi amaldagi qonunchilikda belgilangan haqiqiy yo'qotishlarga olib kelganda, kompensatsiya qilinadigan zararlar kelib chiqadi.^[57] Ushbu ish Kaliforniya sudining qo'riqxonasida 2012 yil iyul oyiga qadar qoldi.^[58]

iTunes narxini o'zgartirish klassi harakati

2009 yil iyun oyida bir guruh iste'molchilar sinf kostyumlarini topshirdilar Ouens va Apple, Inc. va Jonson va Apple Inc. iTunes-ni sotib olgan amerikalik shaxslar nomidan Apple-ga qarshi sovg'a kartalari va keyinchalik iTunes musiqasini kartada e'lon qilingan narxda sotib olish uchun kartalardan foydalana olmaganlar, chunki Apple ushbu kartalarni iste'molchilarga sotgandan keyin musiqa narxini ko'targan. The Jonson ish^[59] singdirilgan Ouens ish^[60] va 2012 yil 10 fevralda Apple tomonidan iste'molchilarga to'lovlarni amalga oshirish bilan hisob-kitob qilingan.^[59] The Ouens Apple kompaniyasining iTunes sovg'a kartalari va qo'shiqlarini onlayn ravishda iTunes do'koni orqali noto'g'ri sotganligi, tarqatganligi va sotganligi, shu bilan birga iste'molchilar sovg'a kartalaridan qo'shiqlar sotib olishlari mumkinligi haqida shikoyat qilingan. BIZ Qo'shiq uchun $ 0.99 va undan keyin, bunday sovg'a kartalari sotib olingandan so'ng, ba'zi qo'shiqlarning narxini 2009 yil 7 aprelda $ 1,29 ga oshirdi. Sud da'volariga ko'ra, Apple kompaniyasining xatti-harakatlari shartnomani buzganligi, iste'molchilarning firibgarligi to'g'risidagi davlat qonunlarini buzganligi va iste'molchilar huquqlarini buzganligi. boshqa davlatlarning nizomlari. Da'vogarlar sinf a'zolari .99 dollarlik iTunes kartasidan foydalangan holda sotib olgan har bir qo'shiq uchun .30 AQSh dollari miqdorida pulni qaytarib berishni so'rashdi. Ulardan 1.29 AQSh dollari undirildi, shuningdek advokatlari to'lovlari va xarajatlari. Apple shiddatli mudofaani o'rnatdi va da'voni rad etishga urinib ko'rdi, ammo 2009 yil dekabrida harakatini yo'qotdi.^[60] Jismoniy shaxslar da'vogarlar sinfiga kiradi, agar ular iTunes sovg'a kartasini sotib olgan yoki olgan, kartaning o'zi yoki uning qadoqlarida qo'shiqlar 0,99 AQSh dollari narxiga teng bo'lgan tilni o'z ichiga olgan va kartadan bir yoki bir nechtasini sotib olish uchun foydalangan bo'lsa. 2010 yil 10 mayda yoki undan oldin iTunes do'konidan 1,29 dollarlik qo'shiqlar.^[61] Hisob-kitob, agar onlayn da'vo arizasi 2012 yil 24 sentyabrda yoki undan oldin taqdim qilingan bo'lsa, sinf a'zolariga iTunes Store krediti 3,25 AQSh dollarini tashkil etadi.^[62]

Macbook MagSafe quvvat adapteri sinfi

Apple 2011 yilda eski T-shaklidagi MagSafe quvvat adapterlariga nisbatan AQSh sinfidagi harakatni hal qildi. Apple adapterlarni yangi adapterlar bilan almashtirishga va almashtirish adapterlarini sotib olishga majbur bo'lgan mijozlarga kompensatsiya berishga rozi bo'ldi.^{[63][64][65][66]}

Ilovadan xaridlarni sinfi

2011 yilda beshta ota-ona "ilova ichidagi" xaridlar uchun Apple-ga qarshi ish bo'yicha da'vo arizasi bilan murojaat qilishdi, bu xaridlar ("ilovalar") ichida amalga oshirilishi mumkin. Ota-onalar Apple kompaniyasining bolalar tomonidan ishlatilishi kerak bo'lgan "bepul" dasturlar ota-onadan xabardor bo'lmasdan to'lovlarni qoplash imkoniyatiga ega ekanligini oshkor qilmaganligini ta'kidlashdi. Potentsial ravishda 23 million mijoz sinfni tashkil qilishi mumkin. Apple to'lovlari 30 dollardan oshgan mijozlar uchun hisob-kitob variantini taklif qildi.^[67] 2011 yilda Federal savdo komissiyasi (FTC) shunga o'xshash da'volarni tekshirdi.^[68] Bu 100 million dollarga tushdi.^[69] FTC harakati 2014 yil fevral oyida 32,5 million dollarlik to'lovni to'lashga olib keldi.^[70]

Xuddi shunday ishni 2014 yil mart oyida ota-ona qarshi qo'zg'atdi Google.^[69]

IPhone sekinlashuvi sinfidagi harakatlar

Apple yangi foydalanuvchilarni yangi mahsulotlarni sotib olishga undash uchun operatsion tizimlarini sozlash orqali eski iPhone modellarini ataylab sekinlashtirishi da'vo qilingan. Kompaniya bu shubhalarni tasdiqladi, ammo sekinlashuv faqat eski lityum-ionli batareyalarning ishlashi vaqt o'tishi bilan pasayishi bilan bog'liqligini aytdi. Shunga qaramay, foydalanuvchilar telefonlarining avvalgi tezligini tiklash uchun batareyani almashtirishga qo'shimcha mablag 'sarflashga majbur bo'lishdi. 2017 yilda sud jarayoni va uzoq davom etgan sud jarayoni chiqarilgandan so'ng, 2020 yilda Apple 500 million dollar (har bir zarar ko'rgan foydalanuvchi uchun taxminan 25 dollar) tovon puli to'lashga rozi bo'ldi.^[71]

Savdo amaliyoti

Sotuvchilar Apple-ga qarshi

2004 yilda Apple kompaniyasining mustaqil sotuvchilari Apple kompaniyasiga qarshi sudga da'vo arizasi bilan murojaat qilishdi, chunki kompaniya o'zlarining sotuvchilariga nisbatan o'zlarining savdo nuqtalariga ustunlik berib, sotuvchilarning savdosiga zarar etkazadigan nohaq ishbilarmonlik amaliyotidan foydalangan holda, adashgan reklama amaliyotlaridan foydalangan.^[72] Sud da'vosida ta'kidlanishicha, Apple mustaqil dilerlar uchun mavjud bo'lmagan chegirmalarni taqdim etish orqali kompaniyalarga tegishli do'konlarga ustunlik beradi. Shikoyat Apple kompaniyasining o'z do'konlariga foydasi tegishidagi harakatlari shartnomani buzish, yolg'on reklama, firibgarlik, tuhmat qilish, tuhmat qilish va istiqbolli iqtisodiy afzalliklarga qasddan aralashish deganidir.^[73] 2006 yildan boshlab^[yangilash], Apple barcha da'vogarlar bilan hisob-kitoblarni amalga oshirdi, shu jumladan muvaffaqiyatsiz bo'lgan bitta sotuvchi uchun bankrotlik bo'yicha ishonchli shaxs,^[74] ushbu kompaniyaning sobiq direktori bankrotlik sudining kelishuvni ma'qullashiga shikoyat qilgan.^[75]

Tuhmat

Karl Sagan bilan tuhmat nizosi

1994 yilda Apple Computer kompaniyasining muhandislari kod bilan nomlangan o'rta daraja Quvvatli Macintosh 7100 "Karl Sagan "mashhur astronomdan keyin Apple umid qiladi"milliardlar va milliardlar "kompyuterni sotish bilan.^[76] Apple bu nomni faqat ichki sifatida ishlatgan, ammo Sagan bu mahsulotni tasdiqlashiga aylanib qolishidan xavotirda va Apple-ga to'xtatish va to'xtatish xat.^[77] Apple bunga bo'ysundi, ammo uning muhandislari qasos olishdi, ichki kod nomini "BHA" ga o'zgartirib, "Butt-Head Astronomer" uchun.^[78][79]

Keyin Sagan Apple kompaniyasini sudga berdi tuhmat federal sudda. Sud Apple kompaniyasining Saganning da'volarini rad etish to'g'risidagi iltimosnomasini qondirdi va o'z taklifini bildirdi dikta kontekstdan xabardor bo'lgan o'quvchi Apple kompaniyasining "kulgili va satirik tarzda qasos olishga urinayotgani" ni tushunishi va "Ayblanuvchi da'vogarning astronom sifatida obro'si yoki malakasini tanqid qilmoqchi bo'lgan degan xulosaga kelish qiyin. Bu jiddiy emas. "ko't-bosh" aniqlanmagan iborasini ishlatib, olimning tajribasiga hujum qiling. "^[78][80] Keyin Sagan Apple kompaniyasining uning ismini va o'xshashligini asl tarzda ishlatganligi uchun sudga murojaat qildi, ammo yana sud qarorini yo'qotdi va shikoyat qildi.^[81] 1995 yil noyabrda Apple va Sagan suddan tashqari kelishuvga erishdilar va Apple kompaniyasining savdo markalari va patentlar idorasi "Apple har doim doktor Saganni juda hurmat qilgan. Bu hech qachon Apple kompaniyasining doktor Sagan yoki uning oilasi har qanday xijolat yoki tashvish ".^[82] Loyiha uchun Apple-ning uchinchi va oxirgi kod nomi "LaW", qisqasi "Advokatlar - Wimps".^[79]

Savdo markalari, mualliflik huquqlari va patentlar

Savdo belgisi

Apple Corps

Taxminan 30 yil davomida Apple Corps (Bitlz - asos solingan yozuvlar va xolding kompaniyasi) va Apple Inc. (keyinchalik Apple Computer) "Apple" nomidan savdo belgisi va uning musiqa bilan bog'liqligi. 1978 yilda Apple Corps kompaniyasi Apple Computer kompaniyasiga savdo belgisini buzganligi uchun da'vo qo'zg'atdi va tomonlar 1981 yilda Apple Computer kompaniyasiga ma'lum bo'lmagan miqdorni Apple Corps kompaniyasiga to'lash bilan kelishib oldilar, keyinroq 80000 dollar deb topildi.^[83] Ushbu kelishuvning asosiy sharti shundaki, Apple Computer musiqa biznesidan chetda qolishga rozi bo'ldi. 1991 yilda, Apple taqdim etganidan keyin Apple IIgs bilan Ensoniq musiqa sintezatori chipi, Apple Corps mahsulotni ularning kelishuv shartlarini buzgan deb da'vo qildi. Keyin tomonlar yana bir kelishuv kelishuviga erishdilar va Apple Apple Corps-ga 26,5 million dollar to'ladi, shu bilan Apple jismoniy musiqiy materiallarni qadoqlash, sotish yoki tarqatmaslikka rozi bo'ldi.^[84]

2003 yil sentyabr oyida Apple Corps yana Apple Computer-ni sudga berdi, bu erda Apple Computer yana bir bor buzilganligi uchun ayblov e'lon qildi, bu safar iTunes va iPod. Apple Corps kompaniyasi Apple Computer-ning musiqa ijro etuvchi mahsulotlarini iTunes musiqa do'koni Apple musiqani tarqatmaslikka rozi bo'lgan avvalgi kelishuv shartlarini buzgan. Sud jarayoni 2006 yil 29 martda Buyuk Britaniyada ochilgan.^[85] sud 2006 yil 8 mayda Apple Computer foydasiga qaror chiqarishi bilan yakunlandi.^[86][87] "[Tijorat markasi to'g'risidagi bitimning buzilishi aniqlanmagan deb o'ylayman", - dedi sud raisi Mann.^[88][89]

2007 yil 5 fevralda Apple Inc. va Apple Corps o'zlarining tovar belgilariga oid mojaroni yana bir bor hal qilishlarini e'lon qilishdi va Apple Inc kompaniyasining "Apple" bilan bog'liq barcha savdo belgilariga egalik qilishiga va ushbu savdo belgilarining ayrimlarini Apple Corps-ga davom etishi uchun litsenziyalashlariga rozi bo'lishdi. foydalanish. Ushbu kelishuv kompaniyalar o'rtasida davom etayotgan savdo markasi bo'yicha sud jarayonini tugatdi, har bir tomon o'z huquqiy xarajatlarini o'z zimmasiga oldi va Apple Inc iTunes-da Apple nomi va logotiplaridan foydalanishda davom etdi. Qarorning to'liq shartlari maxfiy edi.^[90]

Swatch guruhi

2019 yil aprel oyida Shveytsariya sudi Apple kompaniyasining soat ishlab chiqaruvchisi tomonidan ishlaydigan "Tick Different" shiori haqidagi da'vosini rad etdi Swatch guruhi Apple kompaniyasini buzgan edi Boshqacha o'ylang 1997 yildan 2002 yilgacha davom etgan reklama kampaniyasi. Swatch Apple kompaniyasini Shveytsariyada himoyani kafolatlash uchun yetarlicha tanimaganligini ta'kidladi va Federal Ma'muriy Sud Apple o'z da'vosini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun etarli hujjatlar ishlab chiqarmadi degan xulosaga keldi.^[91]

Domen nomiga oid nizolar

appleimac.com

Erta domen nomi kelishmovchilikni e'lon qilishdan ikki oy oldin iMac 1998 yil iyulda Apple o'sha paytdagi o'spirin Abdul Trayani sudga berdi. Domen nomini ro'yxatdan o'tkazish appleimac.com veb-xosting biznesiga e'tiborni jalb qilish maqsadida u ota-onasining podvalidan chiqib ketdi, Trayaning saytida uning rejasi "bizning serverlarimizga trafik yaratish va domenni sotuvga qo'yishga urinish."sic ]"^[92] Taxminan bir yil davom etgan huquqiy nizolardan so'ng Apple Trayening yuridik to'lovlarini to'lab va unga domen nomi evaziga "token to'lovi" berib, suddan tashqari qarorga keldi.^[93]

itunes.co.uk

Apple-Cohen kelishmovchiligi a kiberquatting yuqori darajadagi domen registratorining qarori oldingi qarorlardan farqli o'laroq, domen nomini oldingi ro'yxatdan o'tganga (Cohen) emas, balki keyingi ro'yxatdan o'tganga (Apple) berish. Qaror esga olinsa,^[94] 2000 yil noyabrda, Benjamin Koen CyberBritain domeni nomini ro'yxatdan o'tkazdi itunes.co.uk. Dastlab domen ko'rsatildi skipmusic.com, keyin esa cyberbritain.com, va keyin bir muncha vaqt ishlamay qoldi. Apple Buyuk Britaniyaning savdo belgisiga murojaat qildi iTunes 2001 yil mart oyida taqdim etilgan 2000 yil oktyabrida, so'ngra Buyuk Britaniyadagi iTunes musiqa do'koni xizmatini 2004 yilda ishga tushirgan. Keyinchalik, Koen ro'yxatdan o'tgan domen nomini qayta faollashtirdi va uni iTunes-ning o'sha paytdagi raqibiga yo'naltirdi, Napster;^[95] Keyinchalik Koen domen nomini o'zining CyberBritain-ning naqd pulni qaytarish / mukofotlash veb-saytiga yubordi.^[94]

2005 yilda Apple bu masalani boshqaruvchi Nizolarni hal qilish xizmatiga murojaat qildi .uk domen nomlari registri Nominet UK (DRS), Apple kompaniyasining "iTunes" nomidagi savdo belgisiga egalik huquqiga ega ekanligini va Cohen kompaniyasi tomonidan domen nomidan foydalanish suiiste'mol qilinganligini da'vo qilgan (bu DRS qoidalariga binoan ikkita sinov, faqat shikoyat bilan bog'liq bo'lgan masalada ustunlik qilish uchun) savdo markasi nomidan keyin foydalanishga).^[96] Nizo bepul hal qilinmagan vositachilik bosqich va shu tariqa Apple ishni hal qilish uchun mustaqil ekspert uchun pul to'lagan; mutaxassis nizoni Apple foydasiga hal qildi.^[94][95]

Shundan keyin Koen ommaviy axborot vositalarida hujum uyushtirdi, chunki DRS yirik korxonalar foydasiga yon bosdi va Nominetga qarshi tez-tez da'volar bilan tahdid qildi.^[97] Koen, DRS tizimi bir qancha sabablarga ko'ra adolatsiz deb hisoblaganini va Nominetga qarshi sud bilan murojaat qilishini aytdi. Oliy sud orqali sud nazorati.^[96] Nominetning ta'kidlashicha, Koen ishni DRSda shikoyat qilish jarayoni orqali shikoyat qilishi kerak. Koen rad etdi va bir necha oydan so'ng sudga qayta ko'rib chiqish uchun protsedura chiqardi.^[98] Birinchi instansiya Oliy sudi Cohenning ishini 2005 yil avgust oyida rad etib, Cohen kompaniyasining Cyberbritain Group Ltd., Nominet domeni hal qilish xizmatining bir qismi bo'lgan apellyatsiya jarayonidan foydalanishi kerakligini ta'kidladi.^[99] Shundan so'ng, Koenning kompaniyasi mashg'ulot o'tkazishni so'radi va shu vaqt o'tishi bilan vaqtinchalik domen nomi mutaxassisning qaroriga binoan Apple-ga o'tkazildi va keyinchalik Apple musiqiy saytiga ishora qildi. 2005 yil noyabr oyida Koen Apple kompaniyasiga qarshi barcha qonuniy choralarni bekor qildi.^[100]

Cisco tizimlari: iPhone belgisi

2006 yilda, Cisco tizimlari va Apple kompaniyasi Apple huquqlariga Cisco-dan foydalanish huquqini berish to'g'risida muzokara o'tkazdi Linksys iPhone savdo belgisi, ammo Cisco ikkita mahsulotni bir-biriga mos kelishini talab qilganida muzokaralar to'xtadi. Ochiq namoyishidan so'ng Apple iPhone 2007 yilda Macworld Expo, Cisco kompaniyasi Apple kompaniyasiga qarshi sudga murojaat qildi^[101] 2007 yil yanvar oyida Apple kompaniyasining iPhone nomini Cisco-ning iPhone savdo belgisiga tajovuz qilganlikda ayblab. Cisco, Apple o'z muzokaralaridan so'ng huquqlarni boshqa yo'l bilan olishga harakat qilish uchun o'zining old kompaniyasini yaratgan deb da'vo qilar ekan, Apple esa bunday bo'lmaydi deb ta'kidladi. chalkashlik ehtimoli ikkala mahsulot o'rtasida, chunki Apple-ning iPhone mahsuloti bunday nomga ega birinchi mobil telefon bo'lsa, Cisco-ning iPhone-i esa VoIP telefon.^[102][103] Bloomberg Cisco-ning iPhone-lari 100 dollardan kam narxga sotiladigan mahsulot va uning bir qismi sifatida xabar berdi Linksys uy routerlar, orqali Internetga asoslangan qo'ng'iroqlarni yoqish Skype va Yahoo! Rasululloh, va uni Apple iPhone-ga nisbatan Mobil telefon 600 dollarga sotilgan.^[104] 2007 yil fevral oyida Cisco va Apple ikkala kompaniyaga ham butun dunyo bo'ylab iPhone nomidan foydalanishga ruxsat berilishi to'g'risida kelishuv e'lon qilishdi.^{[104][105][106]}

Sektor laboratoriyalari: Pod-dan foydalanish

2007 yil mart oyida Apple qarshi chiqdi tomonidan savdo belgisiga ariza ish boshlash Sektor laboratoriyalari, "Video Pod" ni video proektor mahsuloti bilan bog'liq tovarlarni belgilaydigan belgi sifatida ro'yxatdan o'tkazishga intildi. Apple taklif qilingan belgi shunchaki "tavsiflovchi" ekanligini ta'kidladi va rad etish kerak, chunki ro'yxatdan o'tish Apple kompaniyasining ilgari mavjud bo'lgan "iPod" markalari bilan chalkashliklarni keltirib chiqaradi.^[107] 2012 yil mart oyida AQSh Savdo markasini sinash va apellyatsiya kengashi (TTAB) Apple foydasiga qaror chiqardi va "iPod" belgisi "mashhur" ekanligini va shu sababli AQSh savdo markalari qonunchiligiga binoan keng himoya huquqiga ega ekanligini aniqlab, Sector Labs-ni ro'yxatdan o'tkazishni rad etdi.^[108]

Nyu-York shahrining "GreeNYC" logotipi

2008 yil yanvar oyida Apple AQSh Savdo markasi bo'yicha sud va apellyatsiya kengashiga qarshi norozilik bildirdi Nyu-York shahri savdo markasi (NYC) uchun "Katta olma "NYC logotipi GreeNYC tashabbusi, dizayner Bleyk E. Markiz tomonidan.^[109] NYC dastlab o'z savdo belgisiga murojaat qildi: "elektron xizmatlar uchun" stilize qilingan olma dizayni ", ya'ni 2007 yil may oyida Nyu-York shahrining ekologik barqaror o'sish sohasidagi siyosati va amaliyoti to'g'risida jamoat reklama e'lonlarini taqdim etdi" 2007 yil iyun oyida kiritilgan o'zgartirish.^[110] TTABning nashr to'g'risida bildirishnomasi 2007 yil sentyabr oyida nashr etilgan va Apple keyingi yanvar oyida TTABga qarshilik ko'rsatib, chalkashlik ehtimolini talab qilgan.^[111] 2008 yil iyun oyida NYC, barg elementini dizaynidan o'chirib tashlash uchun o'z arizasini o'zgartirish uchun iltimosnoma kiritdi va poyani qoldirdi va TTAB Apple-ning oppozitsiyasini rad etdi va qarshi da'volar tomonlarning talablariga muvofiq shart 2008 yil iyulda.^[112] 2011 yil noyabr oyida TTAB NYC savdo belgilarini ro'yxatdan o'tkazdi.^[113]

Viktoriya biznes va texnologiyalar maktabi

2008 yil sentyabr oyida Apple to'xtash va to'xtatish xati yubordi^[114] Viktoriya biznes va texnologiyalar maktabiga Saanich, Britaniya Kolumbiyasi, maktab logotipi Apple kompaniyasining savdo markasi huquqlarini buzganligini va maktab logotipi Apple kompaniyasi maktab faoliyatiga ruxsat berganligini yolg'on taklif qilganligini da'vo qilmoqda.^[115] Ko'rib chiqilayotgan logotipda olma va barg tasviri aks etgan edi, garchi dizaynida tog 'bo'lgan bo'lsa ham, Apple tomonidan ishlatilgan ikkitasi o'rniga olma tepasida uchta tepalik bor edi va Apple logotipidan farqli o'laroq olma ichidan tishlamadi.^[116] 2011 yil aprel oyida maktab Apple bilan 3 yillik mojarosini hal qilgani, yangi nom bilan Q kolleji logotipini chiqarganligi va o'z faoliyatini kengaytirayotgani haqida xabar berdi. Qarorning to'liq shartlari oshkor qilinmadi.^[117]

Woolworths Limited logotipi

Woolworths kompaniyasining "W" logotipi, stilize qilingan "W" savdo belgisi bilan Apple qarshi chiqqan

2009 yil oktyabr oyida Apple tomonidan savdo markasi arizasi bilan bahslashdi Woolworths Limited kompaniyasi yilda Avstraliya supermarketlar tarmog'ining yangi logotipi ustida Woolworths supermarketlari,^[118] shakli "olma" ga o'xshash stilize qilingan "W".^[119] Ma'lumotlarga ko'ra, Apple Woolworths dasturining kengligiga e'tiroz bildirgan, bu mahsulotni, shu jumladan maishiy elektronikani logotip bilan markalashga imkon beradi.^[120] 2011 yil aprel oyida Woolworths savdo markasi dasturiga turli xil tovarlar va xizmatlarni olib tashlash uchun o'zgartirish kiritdi, masalan, "ovoz yoki tasvirni yozib olish, uzatish yoki ko'paytirish apparati".^[121] va Apple o'z muxolifatini qaytarib oldi,^[122] savdo belgisini ro'yxatdan o'tkazishga o'tishga imkon berish.^[123] In August 2011 Woolworths introduced a shopping app for the iPhone,^[124] and, as of January 2019 continues to use the logo,^[125] including on the face of its iPhone app. The Woolworths smartphone app is also available on Apple's Uskunalar Do'koni^[126] where the logo is featured prominently; Apple closely manages its App Store offerings.^[127]

Apple v. DOPi: lower-case i use

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.^[2]

Proview: iPad trademark

In 2006, Apple secured Tayvanliklar rights to the iPad mark from the Taiwanese company Proview Electronics; yilda Xitoy the iPad mark was still owned by the subsidiary of Proview Electronics, Shenchjen kompaniya Proview Technology, as of April 2012.^[128][129] Proview Technology sued Apple over the rights to the mark in China in 2011; Apple counter-sued but lost and then appealed, with the case before the Xicheng district court, where Proview claimed $1.6 billion USD in damages.^[130] Apple paid Proview approximately $53,000 – $55,000 for the mark in 2009.^[128][130] In February 2012, Proview sued Apple in the Santa Clara Superior Court,^[131] alleging several permutations of firibgarlik (intentional misrepresentation, concealment, inducement) and unfair competition.^{[132][133][134]} Apple paid $60 million to Proview to end the dispute in a court-mediated settlement in the Higher People's Court of Guandun viloyat; the U.S. case was thrown out of court.^[135][136]

Amazon "App Store"

In 2011, Apple filed suit against Amazon.com alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and suyultirish ostida Lanxem qonuni and related California state law 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.^[137] In its complaint, Apple did not refer to "apps" as a common name, but described its applications store as a place consumers license "software programs or products"; Amazon countered in its answer that "app store" is a common phrase meaning a "place to buy apps".^[138] Reuters bu haqida xabar berdi Microsoft was opposing Apple's attempted registration of the phrase as a trademark and that part of the matter was before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).^[139] Apple motioned the court for a dastlabki buyruq to bar Amazon from using the "App Store" name but, in July 2011, U.S. District Judge Filis Xemilton, presiding over Apple's case against Amazon, denied Apple's motion.^[140] In July 2012, the case was still in the discovery stage of litigation.^[141]

In January 2013, Apple's claims were rejected by a US District judge, who argued that the company presented no evidence that Amazon had "[attempted] to mimic Apple's site or advertising", or communicated that its service "possesses the characteristics and qualities that the public has come to expect from the Apple APP STORE and/or Apple products"^[142] In July 2013, Apple dropped the lawsuit.^[143]

Savdo sirlari

Apple v. Does

Ultimately decided under the title O'Grady v. Superior Court, the suit filed by Apple against unnamed bloggers raised the issue for the first time of whether bloggers hold the same protections against revealing sources that jurnalistlar bor. In November 2004, three popular veb-blog sites featuring Apple rumors publicly revealed information about two unreleased Apple products, the Mac mini and an as yet unreleased product code-named Asteroid, shuningdek, nomi bilan tanilgan Project Q97. olma sudga chaqirilgan three sites to force them to identify their confidential sources: Apple Insider, Power Page, and, separately, Think Secret, which did no original reporting on the case and thus had no sources to reveal.^[144][145] In February 2005, a trial court in California decided that website operators do not have the same qalqon qonuni protection as do other journalists. The journalists appealed and, in May 2006, the Kaliforniya apellyatsiya sudi reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that activities in question were covered by the shield law.^[146]

Apple v. Think Secret

Yilda Apple Computer v. DePlume, a case illustrating one of Apple's methods of protecting its claims in savdo sirlari, Apple sued Think Secret 's parent company, the dePlume Organization LLC, and Think Secret's editor in January 2005,^[147] alleging misappropriation of trade secrets with regard to Think Secret's stories on a "headless iMac" and new version of Men ishlayman.^[148] In response, DePlume filed a motion to dismiss the case based on Birinchi o'zgartirish grounds under California's state SLAPPga qarshi statute, a law designed to dispense with meritless legal claims attempting to silence valid exercises of freedom of speech.^[149][150] In late 2007, Think Secret announced "Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published".^[151]

Mualliflik huquqi

Apple va Franklin

Apple va Franklin established the fundamental basis of copyright of computer software, even if it was provided only as object code or in proshivka. 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 operatsion tizim va ROM. The case was decided in Franklin's favor but reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.^[152]

Object code cases and conflicts of law

Apple's litigation over ob'ekt kodi^[153] contributed to the development of contemporary copyright law because the company's object code cases brought different results in different courts, creating a qarama-qarshi qonunlar that resulted in international litigation. In the 1980s, Apple litigated two copyright cases with central issues that included the question of whether object code (as contrasted with manba kodi ) of a computer program is subject to copyright laws. A third case in which Apple was not a party but that involved the Apple decisions followed in New Zealand. The specific cases were Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v Apple Computer Inc. (1986, Australia) ("Computer Edge"),^[154] Apple Computer Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd., (Canada, 1987) ("Apple v. Mackintosh"),^[155] va IBM v. Computer Imports Ltd. ("IBM v. Computer Imports"), (New Zealand, 1989).^[156]

In Computer Edge case, the Australian court decided against the then-prevailing opinions in other courts (the U.K., Canada, South Africa, and the U.S.) and ruled object code was not copyrightable,^[157] esa Kanada Oliy sudi yilda 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 Kanadaning mualliflik huquqi to'g'risidagi qonun and the conversion from the source code into object code is a form of tarjima. 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. Yilda IBM v. Computer Imports, Yangi Zelandiya Oliy sudi 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.^[156] Such legal conflicts affected not only Apple, but all other software companies as well, and the conflicts 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.^[158] These revisions of law in favor of making object code subject to copyright law are still controversial.^[159] The revisions also form the technical underpinnings (via the Raqamli Mingyillik mualliflik huquqi to'g'risidagi qonun (DMCA) va Elektron aloqa maxfiyligi to'g'risidagi qonun )^[160] for the legal notions of electronic privacy violation^[161] and computer trespass, as well as the further development of anti-hacking law-making such as the Vatanparvarlik to'g'risidagi qonun va Kiberjinoyatchilik to'g'risidagi konventsiya.^[162][163]

Apple v. Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard

In 1988, after the introduction of Microsoft's Windows 2.0, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard deb da'vo qilmoqda Microsoft Windows and HP's NewWave violated Apple's copyrights in the Macintosh foydalanuvchi interfeysi. Cited, among other things, was the use of overlapping and resizable windows in Windows 2.0. The case was one of the "qarash va his qilish " copyright lawsuits of the 1980s. After several years in court, Apple's claims against Microsoft were dismissed, primarily due to a license Jon Skulli had negotiated with Bill Geyts 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.^[164][165]

Xerox v. Apple Computer

Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer was a 1989 case where Xerox sued Apple over its grafik foydalanuvchi interfeysi (GUI) copyrights.^[166] A federal district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's.^[167][168]

OdioWorks v. Apple

The OdioWorks ish^[169] was 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 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a means of shielding its intellectual property from teskari muhandislik.^[170] In November 2008, Apple sent a cease-and-desist letter to BluWiki, a non-commercial wiki provayder,^[171] alleging BluWiki infringed Apple's copyrights in publishing a discussion of how to make the latest iPods interoperate with other software and that, by so doing, violated the DMCA.^[172] In April 2009, OdioWorks, the operators of BluWiki, backed by the Elektron chegara fondi (EFF), defensively sued Apple seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-circumvention.^[173] In July 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".^[174] 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.^[175] 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".^[176]

Savdo kiyimi

GEM "look and feel" suit

Ning dizayni GEM 1.1 desktop was a copy of that of the Mac GUI.

Prevailing in an early mualliflik huquqining buzilishi suit in the mid-1980s, Apple forced Raqamli tadqiqotlar to alter basic components in Digital Research's Grafika muhiti menejeri ("GEM"), almost a direct copy of the Macintosh's graphical user interface (GUI), or "look and feel". Features Digital Research removed from GEM as a result of the lawsuit included disk drayveri 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 GUI.^[177][178]

Apple v. eMachines

In 1999, Apple successfully sued eMachines, kimning eOne too closely resembled the then-new iMac's savdo kiyimi.^[179][180] 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", and that these results "reflect the substantial discounts and incentives that we gave to retailers to enable liquidation of product inventories".^{[181][182][183]}

Patent

Creative Technology v. Apple, Inc. (menu structure)

In a dispute illustrating the nature of claims, defenses, and counterclaims for patent buzilishi based on arguments of oldingi san'at va avval faylga, rival digital music player maker Ijodiy texnologiya sued Apple in May 2006 for Apple's alleged infringement of Creative's Zen Patent^[184] claiming Apple infringed Creative's patent for the menuing structures on an MP3 o'yinchi.^[185] Creative claimed it began using its menuing method on its Nomad players in September 2000, approximately a year prior to Apple's first iPod release in October 2001.^[186] Creative, a Singapore-based consumer electronics group, also filed a trade complaint with the Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining xalqaro savdo komissiyasi (ITC) against Apple.^[187][188] Creative asked for a court buyruq to block the import and sale of Apple's iPod and iPod nanoSIM in the United States and for money damages for past sales. Apple filed a countersuit against Creative on similar grounds.^{[189][190][191]}

In August 2006, Apple and Creative settled the suit with Apple agreeing to pay Creative $100 million USD for the right to implement Creative's method of sorting songs on the iPod.^[192][193] The settlement effectively ended the patent dispute and five other pending lawsuits between the two companies. Creative also secured an agreement to participate in the "Made for iPod" program by producing accessories for the iPod.^[194]

Typhoon Touch Technologies (touch screen)

In June 2008, Apple was named among others as a defendant in a suit brought by plaintiff Typhoon Touch Technologies in the federal Texasning Sharqiy okrugi uchun AQSh okrug sudi alleging patent infringement in portable sensorli ekran texnologiya.^[195] The suit illustrated the vagaries of litigating patent licensing and royalti collection issues in the commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights. Ultimately, Typhoon could not prevail against patent defense arguments of prior art and aniqlik and earned itself a reputation as a patent troll.^[196] Typhoon 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.^[197] The patents had languished for some time and were not being policed; shortly after Typhoon acquired the patents, it began enforcement by bringing suit against 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 ones. Typhoon alleged that Apple and others used its patented technology inventions without permission. 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,^[198] Fujitsu, Toshiba, Lenovo, Panasonic, HTC, kaft, Samsung, Nokia va LG.^[199][200] In 2010, Apple settled with Typhoon for an undisclosed sum and was then dismissed from the litigation as of September 2010.^[201] The other large companies were able to rebuff Typhoon's claims, and Typhoon ceased doing business in 2008 after the AQShning qimmatli qog'ozlar va birjalar bo'yicha komissiyasi (SEC) suspended its trading in a fraud investigation.^[202][203]

Nokia v. Apple (wireless, iPhone)

In October 2009, Nokia Corporation sued Apple for Apple's infringement of Nokia's patents relating to wireless technology;^[204] Apple countersued Nokia in December 2009.^[205] The two companies engaged in nearly two-years of litigation and both parties amended their claims multiple times and in multiple courts before finally settling in June 2011. For an undisclosed amount of cash and future ongoing iPhone royalties to be paid by Apple, Nokia agreed to settle, with Apple's royalty payments retroactively back-payable to the iPhone's introduction in 2007, but with no broad cross-licensing agreement made between the companies. Apple only agreed to cross-license some patents to Nokia. "Apple said in a statement today that Nokia will have a license to some technology, "but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique". Apple gets a license to some of Nokia's patents, including ones that were deemed essential to industry standards on mobile phones.^[206]

Apple v. HTC

Apple filed a patent infringement suit against High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) in March 2010 in the Delaver shtati okrug sudi^[207] in the two companies' ongoing battle with each other,^[208] and a complaint against HTC under Section 337 of the 1930 yilgi tarif qonuni bilan AQSh Xalqaro savdo komissiyasi (ITC) in Washington, D.C.^[209][210] Apple's suit alleged 20 separate patent infringements relating to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware.^[211] Steve Jobs exclaimed "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 ... [We] think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours".^[212] The ITC rejected all but one of Apple's claims, however, ruling for Apple on a single claim relating to data tapping.^[213][214] HTC motioned the Delaware court for a joyni o'zgartirish to the Northern District of California, arguing against Apple's desire to consolidate the case with the similar cases brought by Nokia against Apple,^[215] alleging insubstantial overlap between those cases and Apple's complaint, but Judge Gregori M. Slit denied HTC's motion for a venue change, ruling that Apple's choice of forum would prevail.^[207] HTC countersued Apple in September 2011 in the same court claiming infringement of four patents HTC obtained from Google,^[216] also filing a counter-complaint with the ITC, with HTC's general counsel saying "HTC will continue to protect its patented inventions against infringement from Apple until such infringement stops."^[216][217] In May 2012 the Delaware court ordered mediation between the companies.^[218] In November 2012, HTC and Apple ended the patent dispute by settling the case, but did not disclose the terms of the settlement. The companies reported the settlement included a 10-year agreement for licensing both companies' current and future patents to each other."^[219]

Kodak v. Apple (digital imaging)

Eastman Kodak sued Apple and Harakatdagi tadqiqotlar (RIM) in January 2010, filing two lawsuits against Apple and a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against both Apple and RIM after the companies refused to pay royalties for use of Kodak's patents for digital cameras. Kodak alleged Apple's and RIM's phones infringed on patented Kodak raqamli tasvirlash texnologiya.^[220][221] Kodak sought an injunction against further imports into the United States of Apple's iPhone and RIM's BlackBerry.^[222] After Kodak filed an additional suit in January 2012 against Apple and another against HTC claiming infringement of four of its key patents, Apple filed a countersuit with the AQSh bankrotlik sudi to block Kodak's efforts to use the disputed patents as collateral for loans.^[223] In the January complaint Kodak claimed violations of the same image preview technology at issue in the original dispute between Kodak, Apple, and RIM that is, as of 2012, pending before ITC.^[224] 2012 yil mart oyida, bankrotlik court judge Allen Gropper, overseeing Kodak's restructuring, denied Apple's request to file a patent complaint with the ITC over some of Kodak's cameras, photo frames, and printers.^[225] 2012 yil iyul oyida Federal davra bo'yicha apellyatsiya sudi ruled that Kodak did not infringe on Apple's patent technology for digital cameras, although a few days earlier Kodak lost its case before the ITC against Apple and RIM; Kodak announced it would appeal that decision.^[226]

Motorola Mobility v. Apple

In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and HTC were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement and encompassed multiple forums in multiple countries as each party sought friendly venues for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included ma'muriy huquq rulings as well as ITC and Evropa komissiyasi ishtirok etish.^[227] As of April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court's default charchash doktrinasi yilda Quanta va LG Electronics kompaniyalari.^[228] In June 2012, appellate Judge Richard Pozner ordered dismissal of the case xurofot bilan and Apple announced its intention to appeal a month later.^[229][230]

VirnetX patent infringement lawsuits

Since 2010, at least three different cases have been filed against Apple by VirnetX related to patent infringement on at least thirteen of their patents in Apple's FaceTime and VPN On Demand technology in the iOS system. The first case, involving four of VirnetX's patents, was found in favor of VirnetX, and while Apple was able to content one of the patents with the Patent Office, the other three stood up to scrutiny. Apple further appealed up to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in February 2020, leaving in place a US$440 million verdict against it. Other cases cover redesigns versions of FaceTime that VirnetX claim still violate their patents.^[231]

Apple va Samsung: Android phones and tablets

Apple Inc.va Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of many lawsuits between Apple and Samsung. In the spring of 2011, Apple sued Samsung while already fully engaged in a patent urushi with Motorola.^[232] Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as the mobil qurilma patent wars:^[233] Extensive litigation followed fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were engaged in 19 ongoing lawsuits in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents; by October, the fight expanded to 10 countries,^[234][235] and by July 2012, the two companies were embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them.^[236] As of August 2013, the ultimate cost of these patent wars to consumers, shareholders, and investors is not known.^[237][238]

A U.S. jury trial was held on July 30, 2012, with Apple prevailing and Samsung ordered to pay more than $1 billion in damages,^[239][240] after which Samsung stated: "This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims."^[241] Hakam Lucy H. Koh later decided that the jury had miscalculated $450 million in its initial damage assessment and ordered a retrial that commenced in November 2013.^[242] Following a week-long trial, also overseen by Judge Koh, Samsung was ordered to pay $600 million to Apple for the 2012 lawsuit.^[243]

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its decision regarding an Apple-initiated case, whereby Samsung is accused of infringing four Apple patents related to user interfaces and headphone input functionality.^[244] The USITC sided with Apple in what was described in the media as a "mixed ruling" and stated that some of Samsung's older devices infringe on two of Apple's patents—one covering touch-screen technology and another regarding headphone jacks; however, no violations were identified in four other patents. The final determination of the ITC was signed by Lisa Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission.^[245]

In a damage-only retrial court session on November 13, 2013, as ordered by Judge Koh in December 2012, a Samsung Electronics representative stated in a San Jose, U.S. courtroom that Apple's hometown jury found that the company copied some features of both the iPhone and iPad. Samsung's attorney clarified the purpose of the damage-only retrial and stated the result of the first trial, "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property," but the company has disputed the $379.8 million amount that Apple claimed — Samsung presented a figure of $52 million.^[242] The San Jose jury eventually awarded Apple $290 million in damages after jurors completed a one-page assessment form for each infringed patent. The six-woman, two-man jury reached its decision after a three-day period.^[246]

In the first week of January 2014, a filing with the U.S. District court in San Jose showed that legal executives from both parties agreed to meet prior to February 19, 2014, to engage in settlement discussions. Both Samsung and Apple were responding to a court order that instructed the completion of such a meeting before a new trial begins in March 2014. One of three Samsung chiefs met with Cook, but the filing did not reveal the name of the representative.^[247]

A new trial is scheduled for March 2014, in which Apple will seek to prevent Samsung from selling some of its current devices in the U.S. The case will involve further debate over monetary compensation.^[242] In the 2014 lawsuit, Samsung is accused of infringing five of Apple Inc.'s patents in 10 phone and tablet models, while Samsung has responded with a counterclaim, in which it states that two patents for nine phones and tablets have been infringed on by Apple. Jury selection for the trial occurred on March 31, 2014.^[248] Samsung stands to gain $6 million if the jury rules in its favor, while Apple is seeking $2 billion in damages and could proceed with similar lawsuits against other Android handset makers, as the relevant patent issues extend beyond Samsung's software technology.^[249]

Corephotonics v. Apple

On 6 November 2017, Isroil ish boshlash Corephotonics sued Apple. They claimed that the technology behind the dual-camera systems in Apple's iPhone 7 Plus va 8 plyus infringed four patents owned by them (Corephotonics). Corephotonics said that they approached Apple over a possible partnership, but Apple's lead negotiator apparently declined the idea, with Apple going ahead and launching the iPhone 7 Plus in late 2016, and then the 8 Plus in late 2017.

Apple's lead negotiator expressed contempt for Corephotonics' patents, telling Dr. Mendlovic and others that even if Apple infringed, it would take years and millions of dollars in litigation before Apple might have to pay something.

— Corephotonics LTD.

The patents claimed by Corephotonics to be infringed are: two patents on mini telephoto lens assembly, one patent on dual aperture zoom digital cameras, and one on high resolution thin multi-aperture imaging systems.

Corephotonics also blamed Apple's consumers (who bought the 7 Plus or 8 Plus) to be infringing the patents, as they claim that Apple sells the products with "knowledge of or willful blindness", which the consumers buy.

The lawsuit demands monetary compensation for the lawyers the start-up had to hire, as well as for damages. They are also asking Apple to immediately stop producing dual-lens cameras systems. The iPhone X is not included in the lawsuit, despite having a dual-lens camera.^{[250][251][252][253]}

Litsenziyalash

Norvegiya iste'molchilar kengashi

In June 2006, the Consumer Ombudsmanlar yilda Norvegiya, Shvetsiya va Daniya challenged Apple's iTunes end user license agreement (EULA) through the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon, who claimed that Apple was violating contract and copyright laws in their countries. Thon stated that Apple's "being an international company does not entitle [it] to disregard the laws of the countries in which it operates. The company's standard customer contract violates Norwegian law".^[254] An official complaint^[255] tomonidan topshirilgan Norvegiya iste'molchilar kengashi 2006 yil yanvar oyida,^[256] after which German and French consumer groups joined the Nordic-led drive to force Apple to make its iTunes online store compatible with digital music players made by rival companies.^[257] A French law allows regulators to force Apple to make its player and store compatible with rival offerings.^[257] The consumer protection regulators of Norway, Sweden, and Finland met with Apple in September 2006 in hopes of resolving the issues without litigation,^[258] but the matter was only resolved after Apple discontinued its Vijdon bilan digital rights management (DRM) scheme.^[259]

Adolatli savdo bo'yicha tergov boshqarmasi

In 2008, the UK Milliy iste'molchilar kengashi (NCC, now Consumer Focus) called on the UK's Adolatli savdo idorasi (OFT) to investigate Apple's EULA, claiming Apple's EULA, and those of multiple other technology companies, misled consumers and infringed legal rights. The NCC's product complaint included Apple's iLife as well as Microsoft's Office for Mac, and products by Corel, Adobe, Symantec, Kasperskiy, McAfee va boshqalar.^[260] The OFT determined the licensing agreements were unfair and Apple agreed to improve its terms and conditions to make them clearer and fairer to consumers.^[261]

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation

In July 2008, Apple Inc. filed suit against Psystar Corporation^[262] alleging Psystar sold Intel -based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed and that, in so doing, violated Apple's copyright and trademark rights and the software licensing terms of Apple's shrink wrap license. Bu litsenziya restricted the use of Mac OS X to Apple computers, and specifically prohibited customers from installing the operating system on non-Apple computers.The case brought the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking facets of the DMCA into this licensing dispute, with Apple ultimately prevailing and awarded permanent injunctive relief, and the decision affirmed on appeal in 2011.^[263] Psystar's appeal asserted copyright misuse as a defense by arguing that Apple's license agreement was an unlawful attempt to extend copyright protection to products that are not copyrightable. The appeals court ruled that Psystar failed to demonstrate "copyright misuse" by Apple because Psystar must show either that the license agreement restricts creativity or that it restricts competition, and that Apple's litsenziya agreement does neither.^[264]

Corporate espionage and data theft

QuickTime code theft litigation

In 1995, Apple added Microsoft and Intel to an existing lawsuit against the San-Fransisko kanyoni kompaniyasi, 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 Windows uchun video.^[265] After a threat to withdraw support for the Macintosh edition of Microsoft Office^[266][267] the suit was settled in 1997, along with all lingering issues from the Apple Computer, Inc. Microsoft korporatsiyasiga qarshi "look & feel" suit. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser over Netscape, while Microsoft agreed to continue developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next five years and to purchase $150 million of non-voting Apple stock.^[164][165]

FBI demand to unlock iPhone

2016 yil fevral oyida Federal tergov byurosi, bilan bog'liq tergov qismi sifatida 2015 yil San-Bernardino hujumi, obtained a court order that demanded that Apple create a version of its operating system that would allow the FBI to circumvent security controls, so that it could inspect the contents of an iPhone used by one of the terrorists involved in the attack. Apple claimed the order "would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect" and appealed.^[268] On March 28, 2016, the DOJ reported that it had retrieved the data from the attacker's iPhone through an alternative method without Apple's assistance, ending the legal proceedings.^[269]

Shuningdek qarang

• Antennagat
• Batareya eshigi
• Smartfonlarning patent urushlari

Adabiyotlar

Tashqi havolalar

• Apple Legal