Someone's stealing our identity on Apple's App Store
flipagr.am
flipagr.am
"We were under the impression that Apple would protect us from being in a situation like this. "
Frankly it sounds like you were under the impression that Apple is able to universally and fairly adjudicate all claims in less than 24 hours. That's silly.
What if the fraudster complained about you and Apple acted too quickly and tossed your app? I mean sure your app was there first but in lots of cases the service exists before any app and you can imagine someone come in and puts out an app for foo.com before they put out the official one.
While your case is more cut and dried than most a big corporation is not going to have a different procedure for every precious snowflake. I do hope the book is eventually thrown at this creep though!
How would the fraudster complain about a stolen app if the allegedly stolen app had been on the app store for a considerable time before the fraudster's app was submitted ?
How do you know which of the two apps has legal ownership of that name ? Or whether any of them do ?
1. App released first by Appname LLC
2. App released much later by ENTER MOBILE APPS, a company with a lot of other obvious copyright violations like using the Skitch logo in a totally unrelated app.
Well, it would certainly be a good start if they would use their lengthy review process to actually look at the apps. Their employees probably are too occupied judging what is morally appropriate for an adult Apple user to look at.
I didn't get the same impression from reading the article.
To me it sounded less related to the time it took Apple to reply, and more related to the content of that reply, specifically where they basically washed their hands of it and said (paraphrasing) "you deal with it, and let us know how it goes".
> Unfortunately since the developer is acting maliciously and mostly likely without any intention of ever responding to us, we have no way of settling this matter through that channel.
Basically, it sounds like they just decided -- without even trying -- that it wouldn't work and that they want Apple to do all the hard work for them.
I mean, I kind of understand if you're giving Apple a 30% cut of all your revenue that you'd expect something in return, but this sounds like a bit of an overreaction from the developer to me.
If I were in this developer's shoes, I would send Apple a DMCA request. After which, if Apple fails to solve the issue, I'd sue Apple.
A quote from the article:
> The next day we finally received a response which indicated that Apple had no intention of helping us with this situation. They asked that we communicate with the developer and keep them apprised of our progress
I'm not certain of the contents of the email from Apple, but it readily appears that there isn't any transparent procedure. Essentially, they're saying you should sue the company, get an injunction, and turn it over to Apple because Apple isn't going to help you without legally being forced into it.
As it should be. People don't like Apple being judge, jury and executioner, until they want it done for them.
There are proper ways to do what they need to do, Apple is not one of them. This is a legal complaint with the other developer, handle it through those means.
The product isn't even interesting enough for Instagram/Facebook to bother to buy the company if they wanted to add that particular feature.
This isn't a startup, it's the virtual equivalent of a temporary pop-up store.
It doesn't sound like their livelihoods depend on the app though, if it didn't get many downloads in its first year.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-co...
INAL, but doesn't the DMCA apply here? They took content (images, etc...) from your app and attempted to distribute / sell it as their original work. If Apple's response is not an immediate takedown of the accused app, haven't they violated the safe harbor provisions?
(Pre-emptive edit): Although the company says they filed "filed copyright and trademark violations" that doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright notice was a DMCA notice.
And it might be helpful to try to understand the mentality of post-communist countries. One of the biggest damages that communist regime did to our society is the perception still engrained in minds of many that 'if you don't steal you are stealing from your family'.
It is totally plausible that the fraudulent developer is just 'trying their luck' and all it would take to stop them would be threatening them with the lawsuit. One letter written by your Enghlish speaking lawyer hired over the internet - $500 and you will be done with it.
There are almost no good salaries, and very little chance to get caught, so this is really, the norm. And it happens on all levels of society. Frequently people who get caught for theft on the workplace are not even fired, let alone prosecuted: they can't be replaced because new ones will steal, too.
As for developers, there is still 'we vs they' mentality, fraud against Westerners is commonly looked upon as almost a patriotic act. While same kind of action against Russian devs may have bad consequences and few would dare to try (while this last may not work for Eastern Europe outside ex-Soviet Union because they never looked upon Westerners as 'they' - rather, Soviets were 'they').
IANAL, but I would be pretty surprised if there wasn't some recourse towards Apple for this. If I bring counterfeit 'Tide' (a laundry detergent made by Proctor and Gamble) to my local shopping store and Proctor and Gamble points this out, I think the grocery store has to remove the product.
Generally I understand your anger but I think that the concept of 3rd party responsibility is very dangerous and can create more damage than the fraud it is trying to prevent. If we make companies liable for actions of their clients they will preventively block everything that they are not absolutely sure about which would create huge chilling effect. And we already have one great example - see how widely is DMCA process abused to stifle competition, suppress criticism etc.
I remember this being a big deal a while back in a slightly different way: bootleg hair products. There is pretty good money in ripping off 'for salon sale only' stuff and selling it to retail outlets- but I don't know what the penalties are if caught. And that's not really fraud (on behalf of the retailer)- that's more like violating a TOS.
You call one of them - he claim he has the rights. You call the other - he claims he has the rights. Now what?
And try the other perspective... try to imagine that you are the store owner and now someone makes you responsible for making sure that none of thousands of your suppliers is doing some dirty business... it's going to cost you a lot of money and despite that you can never be certain and you will basically live in constant fear of a lawsuit. That's huge burden on any business and it's very inefficient. That's one of the reasons that we have courts... they have tools that business owners simply do not have and only they can (somehow) reliably determine who is doing legitimate business and who is not.
Every part of my business is involved in an account- from office supplies to banks to payment solutions.
It's not a huge burden at all for the business- and it's one that they certainly should be willing to bear.
I think it can be clearly shown that there is a reasonable level of expectation that any company would seek to ensure that they are interacting with an agent of a company.
Do you really think that if I were to walk into your bank, say I was you, withdraw all of your money, that you wouldn't be just a little pissed off that the bank simply took my word for it? Hell, I'm the founder of my company and when I withdraw from the company account I have to prove I have the right to do so.
I'll reiterate: this submission may not be telling the entire story. However, if it is, I think Apple should be made to repair damages in a very precedent-setting way, so companies are held to some reasonable behavioral standards.
I found also a list of 23 apps he has done http://www.appdata.com/ios_apps/devs/3706221-petru-plesca
and his linkedin www.linkedin.com/pub/petru-plesca/55/13a/380
" I did google the guy who put the fake app. He seems to be from the same country I am, Moldova. I doubt there is any company behind this app, maybe he is just a lonely hacker with lots of free time...
I found also a list of 23 apps he has done http://www.appdata.com/ios_apps/devs/3706221-petru-plesca
and his linkedin www.linkedin.com/pub/petru-plesca/55/13a/380 "
As far as I know, only the judicial branch of sovereign states are supposed to do that, even though these days it seems like everyone wants to circumvent it... and then whine when they are the ones on the wrong side of such a para-legal action because they don't deem it legitimate.
Competition and copycats exist - users have an appetite for new stuff and quality apps. Apps can be disposable - the average user has something like 64 apps on their device.
So the trick now is to make the app far better than the copycats and to get it back up on the charts.
submit your app to Apple.
Wait a few weeks for enough users to download it, toggle the switch, and put in some text string that is profane. Make sure your servers detect your app from the Users Agent of the fake one.
Apple will pull the fake one, and block their account, in action to keeping an eye on them.
Word Mark FLIPAGRAM Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers, namely, software for transforming still photographs into video slideshows for sharing on internet social networks. FIRST USE: 20120607. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20120615 Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 86042264 Filing Date August 19, 2013 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Owner (APPLICANT) Flipagram LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA 3853 Reklaw Drive Studio City CALIFORNIA 91604 Attorney of Record Craig O. Correll Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Search for any popular app name and you'll see the other apps trying to ride off the same search terms. Apple seems to be fine with that.
Where Apple will get involved is if you send them a properly worded legal request based on an actual trademark or intellectual property violation. They will act if they are compelled to, but only then.
I came up with an app name and registered it successfully. Before publishing the app, I discovered that there was an app in the store with the exact name I registered.
I contacted Apple for clarification of their policy and practice of excluding the use of existing names. They directed me to contact their legal department, but I had no reason to do so; the other app was first--my name had to change. I only wanted to know how it was technically possible that they allowed the registration.
I contacted the other developer and compared notes. He confirmed that we had both been assigned the exact same name despite Apple's documentation indicating that this was impossible. We both wondered what would happen if I published my app, but, of course, I registered a new name instead of risking harm to either business.
That said, if your IP is so easily copied that you are very vulnerable to this kind of thing, it may be an indication that you are picking the low-hanging fruit and that you need to step up your game a bit. Ideas are a dime a dozen, as are good names. If your algorithm and its implementation are very good, you will be much harder to catch.
Like many other folks are saying, I think a DMCA filing citing infringement against their art assets would be most effective.
My app was called "Draw Wireless". It was a super dinky app that let people iPhones connect to each other via Bluetooth and draw on a shared whiteboard space in real time. It had a dark blue grey icon with a wireless symbol on it.
Other than the fact the icon had a dark blue background, it looked and behaved nothing like the app "Draw Something". But yet I had to redesign the icon three times and rewrite the app description four times before the reviewer felt I had distinguished enough from "Draw Something" and let it through. It took 3 freaking months.
TLDR; if your app is prominent enough then Apple will only let will go to extreme lengths to protect your app. I guess it's only if you are a small guy like these guys you need to worry about fakers.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/instagram-cracks-down-on-co...
I'm not being hyperbolic at all, you just don't generally hear about this on news agg sites. If your cloned App has been supported by spammy ad networks, chances are it's making more money than yours, and Apple has every motivation they need to protect their App before yours and to drag their feet as much as possible.