[pjc50]

Fortunately making an app that does the same thing as an existing app isn't copyright infringement - that would be far worse than the Amazon "one click" patent, as there would only be one company allowed to make a web browser, word processor, spreadsheet, etc.

[nine_k]

There is an idea of "business dress", which can also be protected.

That is, you can make a drink that tastes like Coca-Cola, but you should not sell a drink in bottles shaped like Coca-Cola's, with a red label, and imitating the longhand of the name. That is, you should not make something excessively similar to an existing established thing in order to trick customers into buying your thing instead of the established thing.

[arrrg]

Copying texts is potentially copyright infringement, though.

[JKCalhoun]

Like the icon though, complain and they'll just tweak the text and you're back to square 0.

[newdude116]

Depends. Threshold of originality can be a bitch.

[ygjb]

So can rolling the dice and trying for remedy against a foreign entity already playing unfairly. Relying on copyright protection and courts with revenues this small is a huge gamble.

[xwdv]

Then enforce your copyright. No one will do it for you.

[function_seven]

Would be nice if the company taking 30% of my sales would offer some assistance.

[bryanrasmussen]

I suppose you could do a DMCA takedown? but that would really seem like using a morally compromised solution for good, as opposed to the more normal using morally neutral solutions for good.

[jiofih]

What would be the morally compromised part? He owns the copyright.

[bryanrasmussen]

yes, that is doing it for good, the morally compromised part is that the DMCA is a solution created to allow big content owners to shut down whoever they want without any culpability.

Most often things are morally neutral, and can be used for good or bad, some things are morally bad and it is difficult to use them for morally good things, and some things are morally good and it is difficult to use for morally bad. But most things are morally neutral. I think the DMCA is morally bad, but here he can use it for a moral good. But even when you use a morally bad thing for good it is still slightly bad, as in people could point at his usage here (if he chose to use it) and say "see the DMCA isn't bad" and the benefit for the bad solution his good usage promotes would taint his good usage ever so slightly.

As I tend to be more of a pragmatist I would say use the DMCA takedown if possible, but I can understand someone else feeling that would be bad.

[bluGill]

At that price any copyright lawyer will be happy to deal with the paperwork. You were making 2000/month, so the infringement is taking money away. For a share of that it is easy to register the copyright and then send the proper letters. Probably this will settle out of court where apple pays your lawyer from fund the developer would have got and then removes the app. you get nothing directly from the lawyer except that next months all your sales come back to you since there isn't the competitor.

[staticman2]

If the infringing App is in a foreign country the scenario is much more complicated than you are suggesting.

[bluGill]

It is, but the US and the EU legally recognize each other's copyrights. So he can sue the Chinese company in his country, and when they don't show up send Apple a notice to freeze assets related to the company, which just needs a US lawyer. In the end the lawyers win, but it is a straight forward case (assuming all the facts are as given...)

[908B64B197]

Can't he get it out of the App Store in his jurisdiction (EU + US with reciprocal agreements).

I guess the Chinese copycat will still be sold in China and other non-compliant markets for IP law but that would ba a partial victory.

[webmobdev]

Maybe it is better to sue Apple instead, for allowing such apps - they claim they have "strict guidelines" and review all apps before accepting them .... If many developers around the world start doing this, it becomes a PR issue and costs them money too in legal fees ... may even force them to fix the issue.

[rrauenza]

The Northrups did a video on this for a photo that was clearly stolen from them:

https://youtu.be/DUEbi4r8Pg0

[panic]

YouTube automatically enforces copyright on behalf of the recording industry. Why shouldn’t Apple do it on behalf of their app developers?

[matheusmoreira]

> in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery

Just because another app works similar to another app does not mean it's infringing.

[panic]

Just because a video has a similar content ID signature to another video doesn’t mean it’s infringing either. My point is that, for better or for worse, platforms already “do it for you” if you’re a record label—there’s no reason why the App Store couldn’t do something similar for app developers.

[anaerobicover]

YouTube presumably does what they do because they'd otherwise be sued by very large companies with lots of lawyers and money. (Whether or not those suits had any merit, they still take resources and are an effective threat.)

Apple is not in the same position: the businesses who would sue them to try to force them to enforce their copyright are much much smaller than it (and are additionally very reliant on Apple).

[paulie_a]

Youtube does an incredibly poor kids b at it and screws over content creators legitimately and legally using something under fair use

[dikaio]

The problem as I see it is you have developers that are willing to copy ideas, steal text and other IP. Do you really want to be installing apps from devs that have what appears little moral character? What are they doing with your data once you install the app? While this is not a country specific issue it would help if Apple allowed its users to block countries they don’t trust to download apps from the start.