Hasta La Gadget!

If Palm ends up in court over the Pre’s multitouch, it’ll join a prestigious line of firms that have tussled with Apple, which loves a good legal battle almost as much as sexy aluminum.

In Apple’s legal trail are, for the most part, corpses. Save for one little skiffle with you-know-who that haunts them to this day. And along their bloody way, they’ve managed to be involved in several landmark decisions that continue to shape technology IP law to this day. Behold, Apple’s most important legal disputes, arranged by date:

Apple Computer Inc v. Apple Corps – 1978-2007
Back in the tender year of 1978, when news of wily upstart Apple and their crazy “computers” filtered across the pond to the folks at the Beatles’ famed Apple Corps label, they stopped drinking tea and doing hash long enough to realize they still had a business, and that they should protect their trademark. They settled three years later, with Apple Computer paying Apple Corps $80,000 and entering into a gentlemanly agreement to stay off of each other’s turf—no music business for Jobs, and no Beatles-branded personal computers for the Brits. It sounded like a good idea at the time.

In 1991, litigation cropped up again when Apple Corps. lawyers realized that a handful of Macs with built-in MIDI hardware or CD-ROM drives could be used to play back and create music (a computer? play music? what?). This resulted in another payment to the Corps, to the tune of $26.5 million, and the creation of the “sosumi” alert sound (So. Sue. Me.) that lives on in OS X to this day.

But it wasn’t over yet: A little thing called the iTunes Music Store perked up the Beatles’ lawyers’ ears again in ’03, but a judge ruled in favor of Apple Computer three years later, claiming a distribution network did not count as an entre into the music business as spelled out by the original agreement.

All was settled, finally, in 2007: After Jobs was spotted getting love-y with the Beatles in his keynotes, the two companies announced that Apple Inc. would now own all of the Apple-related trademarks the two had spent the last two decades fighting over, licensing the Corps’ own trademarks back to them for their use. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for that Beatles discography to hit the iTunes store—or anywhere on the internet.

Winner: Apple

Apple Computer Inc v. Franklin Computer Corp. – 1982
Franklin, they of tip calculators and pocket dictionaries, produced the Franklin Ace 100, a line of Apple II-compatible computers in the early 1980s. Said Apple II compatibility, however, was achieved by doing the ol’ Ctrl-A Ctrl-C Ctrl-V on Apple’s OS and ROM source code. Franklin was pretty sloppy about it: They didn’t even bother to replace strings in the code that were obviously unique to Apple’s version, including “James Huston,” an Apple programmer and the word “Applesoft.”

The district court initially agreed with Franklin’s defense, which treated the code not as a written work which could easily be copyrighted, but more like a machine part, the shape of which needed to match the other “parts” it would be compatible with. The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, and in doing so, set the first legal precedent proving that computer software itself (the actual code) could be protected by copyright, not just the visual and more tangible results of the software.

Winner: Apple

Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft, Xerox and Intel – 1983-1997
When Apple’s John Sculley first saw early versions of Bill Gates’ rough and buggy Windows 1.0 OS in 1983, he spotted a number of UI elements, such as window menu bars and apps like Write and Paint, which he viewed as direct rip-offs of the soon-to-be-released Mac OS and its MacPaint and MacWrite applications. No one at Apple though was too worried—their revenues of well over $1 billion dwarfed Microsoft’s $25 million in software sales at the time—so they struck a deal with Gates, allowing him to license infringing UI elements for a fee (elements many would argue were themselves licensed/stolen from Xerox) in exchange for giving Macs exclusive access to Excel for two years. At the time the Mac platform had all the momentum, and Microsoft was just an app maker, essentially, with a hobbyist OS on the side. Sculley believed their agreement was valid only for the 1.0 version of Windows and that it was a great deal.

And then along came Windows 2.0 in 1987, and with it, one of the landmark software “look and feel” disputes to date.

Windows 2.0 was significantly more polished (and successful) than the previous version, and Apple had to act quickly to quell a rapidly-strengthening competitor. They claimed Windows 2.0 ripped off the Mac OS even more extensively and illegally than before. Apple argued that things like overlapping, resizable windows, a “desktop” with icons, and specifics like the trash can all amounted to a single entity referred to as “look and feel,” which could then be protected as a whole via copyright (which MS was allegedly infringing). This was essentially a move by Apple to gain exclusive use of the “desktop” GUI metaphor, which is now ubiquitous to all modern operating systems. It would have been a gigantic legal coup.

Meanwhile, Xerox filed a defensive suit against Apple, claiming they were the actual source of the disputed GUI elements, hoping to in turn win control over the “desktop” should Apple win its case against Microsoft. It was dismissed on the grounds of a statute of limitations technicality.

Then Apple’s case fell apart on a technicality of its own. The judge, not buying the “look and feel” voodoo, insisted on treating each UI element as its own infringement. And of Apple’s list of 189 infringing elements, he judged all but ten to be legal under the original licensing deal Sculley made for Windows 1.0, which the court found to still be applicable to Windows 2.0, much to Apple’s shock and chagrin.

The suit was bloody, and it lasted four years. When the judge ruled in Microsoft’s favor in 1992, Apple tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, and was denied. Even so, bad blood continued to bubble until 1997 (along with additional side lawsuits that alleged Microsoft and Intel ripped off QuickTime code for optimizing video in Windows), until a final agreement was made. With Apple floundering and Windows the undisputed OS king, the deal tipped heavily in Gates’ favor: It stipulated that Microsoft should continue to develop Office for the Mac (by then a huge bargaining chip), but at the same time forced Apple to make Internet Explorer its default Mac OS browser (ahem, seeds of anti-trust, ahem), and gave MS the chance to buy $150 million worth of bargain non-voting Apple stock—a 10% share. And of course, Windows could keep being Windows.

So in the end, what started in Apple’s mind as a promising play for exclusive rights to the entire graphical user interface schema as we know it became a massive financial and legal defeat that continues to define the two companies to this day. Fanboys, this is where your hatred was born.

Winner: Microsoft

Apple Computer Inc. v. eMachines – 1999
Jobs returned to a still-smoldering Apple in 1997, and with him came the iMac a year later, which promptly inspired everything from steam irons to George Foreman grills to come adorned in colorful candy plastic. But eMachines, makers of cut-rate Wintel hardware, hit a little too close to the bone with their eOne, which was released a year after the original Bondi iMac. The eOne looked almost exactly like the iMac, and came pre-loaded with Windows 98 at a price point $400 below the iMac’s—a recipe for litigation. Apple took eMachines to court citing a somewhat obscure “trade dress” infringement, which is effectively a way for companies to trademark and defend distinctive industrial and graphic designs that aren’t literal trademarks themselves. They successfully shut down sales of the eOne, and eMachines went on to get folded into Gateway and then Acer, where they now continue to crank out Best Buy-filling cheapos to this day.

Winner: Apple

Apple, Inc v. Creative Technology, Ltd. – 2006
In 2006, Creative was awarded a patent for browsing hierarchical listings of music files in MP3 players it had applied for five years earlier in 2001, just barely nicking out similar patents filed for Apple’s then-nascent iPod. Creative immediately attempted to leverage the patent, filing suit against Apple for infringement; Apple responded by counter-suing on the basis of several other Apple patents its lawyers found being infringed upon in Creative’s Zen players. Yep, it was an all-out patent war, which was eventually settled to Apple’s clear advantage: Apple agreed to break off $100 million in licensing fees to Creative (a pittance compared to its $1.5 billion in iPod revenues that quarter) for rights to the disputed patent moving forward. Creative didn’t get the international injunction on iPod imports it wanted, but $100 million was an 85-cents-per-share boost for their quarterly profits. And in a trademark Jobsian zing, Steve remarked in Apple’s press release: “Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent.” Translation: “Look at you, Creative, so cute with your patents. Take this $100 million I found under the seat of my SLR Benz and go buy something nice. And, oh, don’t think about trying this ever again.”

Winner: Apple

Apple Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. – 2007
Remember the original iPhone? We sure do. And so did Cisco, who owned the trademark since 1996 for a VoIP product. Apple knew this and didn’t care, and the day after Jobs announced iPhone 1.0, Cisco filed an infringement suit. But it didn’t last long. Our guess is that El Jobso took Cisco boss John Chambers out for a nice dinner, reminded him that he made his billions on internet backbone infrastructure and not shitty 6-year-old VoIP phones, and the whole thing was settled before the appetizers were cleared. Just over a month later, the two companies announced they would share the iPhone name like good little boys, and would even “explore” opportunities for “interoperability.” Do you see how Apple can’t resist the condescension in the press releases? Writing Apple press releases must be fun, as far as press-release writing gigs go.

Winner: Apple

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation – 2007-Present
This one’s still brewing. Apple claims Psystar’s Hackintoshed “Open Computers” violate the OS X license, which dictates that the OS only be run only on official Apple or Apple-approved hardware. Apple sued for this violation in July of this year, and the two parties have been lobbing legal clown pies back and forth ever since. Psystar’s claims tend to border on the outrageous, including a claim that Apple’s copyrights on OS X are invalid due to “failure to register said copyrights with the copyright office as required.” Something tells me that’s a little task Cupertino’s law troupe would not let slip off their to-do lists.

Documents have surfaced that indicate the two companies are pursuing alternative dispute resolution (for settling the matter privately and out of court), but the volleys are still flying—the most recent being Psystar’s claim this month that everything is fine and dandy since they legally purchase each copy of OS X they (illegally?) load onto their Open Computers. It’s a tangled web, and if Apple’s tendency to shut down even the slightest hint of Hackintoshing is any indication (just ask Brian from Wired), this case will eventually reach a settlement or a trial. Meanwhile, you can still order (or at least pay for) an Open Computer on Psystar’s site.

Winner: TBD??

Conclusion
One thing is clear: It takes a Microsoft to beat Apple at the patent and copyright litigation game. Not even the Beatles could win, in the end. And even when facing a Microsoft-caliber opponent, the grand mal Microsoft-Apple suit for all the bananas was essentially settled over a technicality arising from a Sculley-helmed Apple’s sloppy contract writing. Microsoft got lucky.

So is Palm ready to bet their entire company on the Pre’s multitouch? Many agree that without the Pre, there isn’t much of a company left anyway, so there’s no reason not to. And these days, patents provide only the squishiest legal ground that gets squishier by the day—to the extent where almost every software-specific patent can be “designed around” to achieve an almost imperceptibly similar user experience without infringing earlier patents.

The fact remains, the iPhone is now the gem in Apple’s crown and the truest embodiment of the company’s soul. Jobs and his army of lawyers aren’t going to let it be challenged without a fight.

In testing iPhoto ’09 for my full review, I plowed through more than 30,000 photos using over 40 identified faces, mostly human. Here’s how iPhoto’s face detection and recognition works—and doesn’t work:

Face Detection
Apple says it uses facial detection to determine the existence of faces, and then facial recognition to separate one person from the other. The problem is, that first step is far from a catch-all:

• It suffers from the typical face-detection problem of an incomplete picture—it won’t pick up all faces turned to the side, revealing just one eye. But far worse than that, it has a very hard time picking up faces tilted to either side, even if they’re otherwise perfectly clear and symmetrical. In other words, if the year is 2029 and Apple’s deathbots are coming for you, cock your head to the side, and they’ll just truck on by.

• The other problem iPhoto’s face detection suffers from is overconfidence. Sure, it makes sense that it picks up the faces of Mount Rushmore (well, at least Lincoln’s) but it’ll invent eyes and a nose from any old rumpled curtain or wood grain when it wants to.

Face Recognition
Once you get past the detection, the recognition kicks on. Some people are already saying it’s crap, but it’s remarkable when it wants to be. How do I know it’s working? Because on many occasions I have seen it correctly identify faces in frames in the background of a shot. But recognition has some hang-ups of its own:

• Once you name a person and click on their face on the corkboard, iPhoto suggests lookalikes, which you approve or reject by clicking. The first round of suggestions are mainly nonsense—iPhoto needs a lot of data to work correctly. Confirm the identity of your subject 10 or 20 times then click Done so the system can recalibrate.

• In the first round or two, recognition errs on the side of inclusion: A bald guy with a beard and glasses won’t just bring up similarly described gents, but will attract everybody who is bald, everybody who wears glasses and everybody with a beard. In my experiences, the images with the closest resemblance appear first, but as you scroll down, there are more and more random guesses. When it comes to babies, good luck—in those early rounds, iPhoto thinks all babies look alike. Again, you approve the suggested photos that are of the same person, and reject the ones that are not.

• Once you’ve done a round or two greenlighting more accurate shots of the person, it’s important to reject ones that are not. If you leave them there, iPhoto will keep on suggesting them. I found that, if two people look kinda alike, it pays to identify them both, and go back and forth between them confirming more and more shots, so iPhoto learns faster who belongs where.

• Baldness, hair color and facial hair are all strong indicators for iPhoto. If your friend has a goatee or some kind of fancy moustache, don’t ever let him shave it off. Likewise, if your mom switches hairstylists and starts getting a different dye job, she may as well don full hunter’s camouflage. For some reason, iPhoto had an easier time discerning the blondes than the brunettes.

• People wearing glasses cause iPhoto to suggest matches of other people wearing glasses, in some cases people who are otherwise comically different. But iPhoto seems to have a lot of trouble with glasses in general, and can’t always grasp the glasses-wearer well enough to confidently suggest more of that same person. Sunglasses are obviously a problem for recognition, but people wearing sunglasses are often suggested for anyone wearing glasses, as if it was all the same to iPhoto.

• There are two kinds of recognition dead-ends you can encounter, where iPhoto won’t suggest any more photos for a person, even though you know they’re out there, and where iPhoto suggests an endless supply of random faces as potential matches, clearly unable to narrow it down further. Both are infuriating, and require you to go out and identify photos manually in hopes of jogging its memory.

• Pets are not guaranteed to work with recognition. I’m not going to slander the good people of MacLife by calling BS, but seriously, I can’t get neither cat nor dog to be recognized in any way by iPhoto, and I don’t believe it’s possible. You can identify them yourself, of course, but the reason it doesn’t pull up suggested shots containing the same furry animal is that it’s not looking at furry animals.

The Faces system is technically a time saver even when the recognition is not up to snuff, because by batching the more-or-less appropriate pictures together, you can tag them a lot faster than you otherwise could. There are plenty of user interface problems that I will address in the actual review, but in the meantime, I will leave you with this: After heavy testing for half a day, iPhoto became shockingly good at identifying my face. I can only imagine that, given more calibration and identified content, it will be better and better. My biggest fear is how many photos aren’t clearing the first hurdle—face detection—and are therefore left completely out of the system. Who would have thought that the recognition would be easier to nail than the detection? Not me. [iPhoto ’09]

Even if you are a Giants fan like me, there are plenty of reasons to get excited about the Super Bowl. It’s an excuse to drink beer, eat little cocktail weenies—and get great gadget deals.

HDTV
Alright, first thing’s first—we need to talk HDTVs again. With the game looming, you may be thinking about an upgrade or, in some cases, your first HDTV set. In this economy, spending money is always an issue, but at this point, waiting for even cheaper HDTVs will probably keep you on the sidelines for a good long while. In the meantime, you are missing out on all the crystal-clear action. I mean, even The Simpsons are going high-def this year.

No worries though—retailers are busting out some great deals on HDTVs in anticipation of the Super Bowl crowd. Here are some examples:

• Westinghouse 32” 1080p LCD HDTV for $364.99 (normally $564.99—use this rebate form).
• Samsung 40” 1080p LCD HDTV for $1,108.83 plus free shipping and a $200 gift certificate to NFLShop.com (normally $1,699.99—use this gift certificate claim form. Valid through 1/31).
• Vizio 42” 1080p Widescreen LCD HDTV (factory refurbished) for $589.97 (normally $999.99).
• Toshiba 42″ 1080p LCD HDTV for $749 plus free shipping (normally $1,399. Use coupon code “MMCHTV50”).
• Toshiba Regza 46” 1080p LCD HDTV for $999.99 plus free shipping (normally $1,499.99).
• Sharp Aquos 52″ 1080p LCD HDTV for $1,449.99 plus free shipping (normally $2,099.99. Use coupon code “MMCHTV50”).
• Walmart’s Super Bowl HDTV sale—$100 off/$100 Walmart gift card included (for example: 32” Samsung for $498, 46” Sony for $1,298).

If you decide to take advantage of these sales or any others you may have found through shopping comparison sites like PriceGrabber.com and Shopping.com, there are a few things you need to keep in mind. Most importantly, you need to know which HDTV is going to work for you and your budget. Our guide How to Choose and HDTV Like a Pro and the followup How To Buy and HDTV Today (Or Any Day) will give you all the information you need to make smart decisions.

It’s a good idea to carry around a web-enabled cellphone to comparison shop in the store, or have a friend at a computer standing by. If they have an in-store pickup service, that could lead to even bigger savings—not to mention a guarantee to have your TV before the game on Sunday.

What To Watch Out For
As always, it’s almost always a good idea to avoid pricey warranties, profit-heavy accessories like HDMI cables and unnecessary services offered in the store. There is a 99% chance you are getting screwed.

Don’t fall for liquidation sales. You may feel that the demise of Circuit City presents an ideal opportunity to score some new gear for the game. The reality is, if you’re not constantly cross-checking those supposedly slashed prices, quite the opposite may be true.

It Isn’t All About the TV
The Super Bowl isn’t just about a big HDTV. It’s about people getting together, getting drunk and yelling at that HDTV. It’s also a good time to pick up some of the extras you are going to need like cool remotes, cooking equipment, and other football-related gear. Here are some of the best deals going:

Remotes:
• Logitech Harmony 550 Universal Remote Control for $59.97 plus free shipping (normally $99.97)
• Logitech Harmony 610 Universal Remote Control for $49.99 (normally $79.99)

Other Home Entertainment Gadgets:
• Sling Media Slingbox Pro-HD for $259.99 (normally $299.99)
• Cambridge Soundworks Surround Speakers for $99.99 (normally $299.99)
• Polk Audio Two-way Floorstanding Loudspeaker for $99.99 plus free shipping (normally $199.99)
• Pioneer HTP-2920 5.1 Surround-Sound System for $199.99 plus free shipping (normally $329.99)

Gaming:
• Madden 2009 on PS3 for $36.99 plus free shipping (normally $56.99 / Great for exacting revenge on a blown season. Damn you Giants!)

DVDs:
• NFL History of the Pittsburgh Steelers on DVD for $13.99 (normally $26.98)
• Pittsburgh Steelers: Super Bowl Champions on DVD for $8.86 (normally $19.98)
• Any Given Sunday on DVD for $4.86 (normally $14.96, and Wilson’s favorite Oliver Stone film)
• Friday Night Lights for $3.15 (normally $12.98)
• Remember the Titans for $5.73 (normally $14.99)
• The Comebacks on DVD for $4.99 (normally $14.98)
• Jerry McGuire on DVD for $8.99 plus free shipping (normally $19.95)
• Little Giants on DVD for $6.99 (normally $14.97)
• The Waterboy on DVD for $8.26 plus free shipping (normally $19.99)
• We Are Marshall for $4.99 (normally $14.98)

Grills:
• Tool Box Jumbo Grill with Stand for $24.97 (normally $99.99)
• Coleman Outdoor Grill and Stove for $32.36 (normally $82.99, in Target stores only)
• Hamilton Beach HealthSmart Grill for $18.99 (normally $36.11)
• George Foreman Champ Grill for $19.99 (normally $39.99)

Beer and Popcorn:
• A handful of deals and rebates on beer (This is what it is all about)
• Nostalgia Movietime Popcorn Maker for $22.54 (normally $36.23)
• Presto PopLite Hot Air Popcorn Popper for $14.99 (normally $29.99)
• Orville Redenbacher’s Original Popping Corn Kernels for $6.95 (normally $26.95)

For the Ladies:
• Football for Dummies for $7.99 (normally $19.99)
• Arizona Cardinals earrings for $5.99 (normally $21.95)
• Arizona Cardinals apron for $12.95 (normally $14.95)
• Pittsburg Steelers earrings for $3.99 (normally $13.95)
• Pittsburg Steelers apron for $12.95 (normally $14.95)
• 5 lbs. of Holiday Chocolate for $1.49 (normally $24.99 – use coupon code “AVA910”)

Hobomodo:
• Mini Football for $0 (use fake e-mail address, could possibly be spam)
• 1,200 Digital Photo Prints for $0 (use coupon code “FREE800”)
• Diet Dr. Pepper for $0
• Orville Redenbacher Natural Gourmet Popcorn for $0
• Bruce Springsteen Songs for Guitar Hero World Tour for $0 (valid until 2/04)
•3D glasses for Super Bowl commercials for $0 You may want to hold on to these.

Now get out there and enjoy the game. And I would like to take this opportunity to say that the last six weeks or so of the Giant’s season made me want to puke. If I wanted to see a team look like crap, I would go back to a standard-def TV.

Prof. Dealzmodo is a regular section dedicated to helping budget-minded consumers learn how to shop smarter and get the best deals on their favorite gadgets. If you have any topics you would like to see covered, send your idea to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Professor Dealzmodo” in the subject line.

You didn’t think we’d let this one go without a followup, did you? Portal gun replica creator Harrison Krix was gracious enough to invite us to his workshop and get some hands-on time with it. Let’s get the two most common inquiries out of the way first: no, it’s not photoshopped and no, it doesn’t actually “work” (as in, it doesn’t create portals). The armament weighs between five or ten pounds, and all color shifting is done via a switch inside the back end. The middle tube, interestingly enough, is an acrylic plunger handle with a clear matte. The 26-year old graphic designer and graduate of Savannah College of Art and Design estimates he spent 150 hours and $350 in parts, although later models should take much less time. He’s had offers to create more iterations from employees at Bungie and Infinity Ward, and he’s thinking of making one to give to the Penny Arcade crew for their Child’s Play charity. For a look at it both in action and disassembled, check out the video after the break. Next up? A BioShock Big Daddy costume, with arm extensions and a working drill, just in time for next August’s Dragon Con in Atlanta.

Hands-on with the Portal gun replica

Portal gun replica (work in progress)

Portal gun replica build images and wiring

Continue reading Video: Portal gun replica hands-on

Filed under: Gaming

Video: Portal gun replica hands-on originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:13:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Companies are turning to downsizing to cut costs in this troubled economy. If you were caught up in the layoffs or you simply sucked at your job and got canned, these gadgets can help.

[Image via Flickr]