[jariel]

My instinct is that this is for legal attribution purposes, i.e. a legal moat.

It sounds ridiculous, but in my experience, there are 1000 things that lawyers will identify as possible sources for legal trolling and this looks like that. Apple has a zillion dollars in the bank and they are sued daily. All it takes is for a judge who may nor not be knowledgable or a sufficiently grey area ... and you have a major problem.

So it could be risk mitigation: they are including the attribution in the copy so as to not be perceived as partisan to some kind of IP dissolution paradigm.

On the other hand, this could just be one of those wayward culty Apple kinds of things they think is 'good UI' when it's not.

[otterley]

Unlikely - see my comment elsewhere in this post.

[jariel]

So yes, I see in your comment that given the context of 'Apple Books' it's probably a contractual issue, I agree there.

Though I can see that a reasonable legal opinion might not support my more cynical view, when the risk dynamics are high, a different kind of logic creeps in.

I worked for a software platform that refused to provide usable snippets of code anywhere in the documentation for fear of liability.

We also 'perpetually sued' an organization that was infringing on our brand, even though they were really helpful to us (a user-managed fan-site which used our name in theirs) and otherwise had a positive relationship with them. Our 'perpetual legal action' was merely cover give the appearance that our brand was being defended, without which action, we could feasibly lose rights to it. So, literally suing people, while dragging out and 'nudge-nudge-winking them' to not worry about it, literally inviting the people we were suing to events, dinners etc..

I don't think most people understand the risk dynamic in many large organizations with respect to these issues, the calculation seems bizarre even to most regular product types, it really takes a legal view to understand this. And also the personal fears and biases of the executives.

[AndrewStephens]

> Our 'perpetual legal action' was merely cover give the appearance that our brand was being defended, without which action, we could feasibly lose rights to it.

Was that really easier than just licensing your trademark with a strong contract that preserved your rights while letting the website use your name for one specific purpose? Make the licensing costs $1 per decade or something if it is a question of money.

Misusing the legal system in this way seems like it could backfire if the third party did something you genuinely wanted to stop and they could prove your ongoing action was a sham.

[jariel]

I'm not a lawyer, and I was not involved, other than I knew there was a many-years-long legal action regarding branding against another company with whom we had otherwise a really good relationship.

My point is not about branding or lawyers, it's about risk.

Said company gave up a huge amount of money to patent trolls, and their lawyers were empowered to mitigate risk, with the backing of the CEO, their rationality being: "We make a huge amount of over here, why on earth would we allow that to be risked by speculative activity over there?" which is not entirely irrational, it just depends on implementation.

Everything is so gray, it's so hard to tell. Consider that we have no idea how open-source software licensing will work out because it hasn't been really pushed through the court system, and how limiting that ambiguity is for the entire industry.