×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Threatens Steve Jobs Doll Maker With Lawsuit

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-doll-for-you dept.

China 314

redletterdave writes "Apple has allegedly threatened to sue Chinese company 'In Icons' over its eerily realistic 12-inch action figure of Steve Jobs, the company's late founder and CEO. The 1:6 scale model, which was said to be distributed by DiD Corp. in late February, comes with the clothes and accessories popularized by Jobs, such as the black faux turtleneck, blue jeans and sneakers. The figurine is packaged in a box that looks like Walter Isaacson's 'Steve Jobs' biography cover, and also comes with a 'One More Thing...' backdrop, as well as two red apples, including one with a bite in it. To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare. Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.' Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

314 comments

Good luck with that (5, Funny)

Lexx Greatrex (1160847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606204)

Personally I think it will make a good addition to the sequel to Team America World Police.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Insightful)

CarboRobo (1932000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606800)

"Criminal"? Are you sure about that, Apple? And could I point out, for your idiot lawyers, that Californian and American laws don't meany anything in other countries i.e. China...

Re:Good luck with that (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606888)

Actually you're mistaken.

The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606966)

its criminal in iLaw

Apple is filing this? (5, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606220)

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

Re:Apple is filing this? (5, Interesting)

halo1982 (679554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606252)

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

It's got to be either a) Apple is doing this at the request of his family/estate or b) Steve Jobs gave his personality rights to Apple...which while creepy is not all that far fetched considering how he micromanaged everything to death (no pun intended).

Re:Apple is filing this? (2)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606470)

Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?

Re:Apple is filing this? (3, Informative)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606496)

Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?

Steve Jobs did. Hell, he / his company sued at least "likeness doll" maker while he was alive... that set the precedent.

Re:Apple is filing this? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606926)

From the article:

While Apple's copyright infringement claims are questionable, attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the "right of publicity," which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

"[Jobs's estate] has every right to enforce this," said Lawrence Townsend, an attorney with IP firm Owen, Wickersham and Erickson, based in San Francisco. "I expect there will be a lawsuit to follow."

Currently, there is no successor-in-interest claim for Steve Jobs in California's special filing registry. However, a claim for "Steve Jobs" or "Steven Paul Jobs" can be filed and registered at any time by Jobs's estate.

Re:Apple is filing this? (1)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606952)

Presumably this State law will only apply to sales of this doll in California. So if it's sold with a disclaimer: "not for sale in California" and they refuse to ship there, shouldn't it be in the clear?

Re:Apple is filing this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606528)

Well, it's really not that far fetched in normal terms. Apple was definitely an entertainment company with Steve as the star-power.

I'll happily agree with anyone that wants to say the computers weren't bad, just that doesn't enter into it. It's no different from movies or clothes that aren't bad yet tied heavily to a personality. There's no reason not to see Apple as a Studio, so there may well have been such agreements made.

What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out, but also because that's what these are.

Except possibly to the faithful who may wish to make bathtub-shrines with these and their pile of unsupported G4 kit.

Re:Apple is filing this? (3, Insightful)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606642)

What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out,

Assuming it's only state law and assuming it doesn't violate any Chinese laws then they can just not sell them in California. On top of that, if there is a distributor different than the manufacturer then why should a manufacturer in China care about a lawsuit brought under California law? The distributor would be the only ones legally responsible for breaking California's laws.

Re:Apple is filing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606432)

I thought you heard. Apple has trademarked the concept of wearing a black mock turtleneck and blue jeans.

Re:Apple is filing this? (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606736)

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

Apparently the Doll maker was including apples in the packaging, with Steve Jobs wearing his de-facto trademark Apple attire.

There's a portion of Steve Jobs' image that Apple most certainly owns

Re:Apple is filing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606950)

What does a turtleneck and jeans have to do with apple? i dont think anyone relates that to 'Apple Attire' they relate it to 'Steve Jobs'

Apples they could probably get away with suing over, despite being just a fruit this use of it is clearly a reference to the company.

Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606232)

Why would they sue, do they have the rights on the likeness? I thought that would apply only to living persons. Incidentally, does apple also hold a Jobs trademark? That's quite gross in my book, akin to the way Communist parties in Eastern Europe used to keep the mummies of their leaders for the subjects to bow to. I can almost believe the conspiracy theories that they timed the release of the last iphone with the death of the Dear Leader.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (5, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606282)

Why would they sue, do they have the rights on the likeness? I thought that would apply only to living persons.

I know that not reading the article is par for the course, but not reading the summary?

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606334)

The summary doesn't say anything about why Apple is doing this, and neither is TFA from my cursory read through. As far as I understand the matter, it is a family affair, and it is really weird and highly unusual that they would not hire a law firm to sue, but have Apple do it instead.

The criminal threats are also mildly surprising, and the way Apple is clinging to Jobs is indeed sort of sick. As are the people who might want to buy a figure like this one.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (1, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606596)

As are the people who might want to buy a figure like this one.

Personally, I have no interest in anything that creepy, but given that Apple is being such a legal dick about this (and many other things recently) I'd buy one on principle.
BR And then I'd stash it away, unopened, until I retire and then I'd put it on E-Bay.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (4, Interesting)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606870)

Personally I don't find it creepy at all. I find it incredibly realistic. I don't think I have ever seen a doll in my lifetime that is a realistic looking as this one. There is no mistaking Steve Jobs face and stare etc on this doll. I am not a fan of Jobs but would purchase one of these in a heartbeat just because of the realism of the face.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (3, Funny)

j35ter (895427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606602)

it is a Chinese company. They sooooooo dont give a sh** about California law. Oh, and count the rest of the world in as well :)

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606686)

Which is rather pointless as it is a state law not a federal law, in both cases it is state not federal law. Basically the manufacturers can tell Apple to go get knotted and leave Apple to pursue retailers in the affected US states. US federal laws don't apply in China and obviously US state laws are complete and utterly meaningless, as of course US states can not enter into treaties with other countries to enforce laws across international boundaries. So manufacturer and sell and deliver my mail order in the affected states, in the rest of the world, thumb their noses at Apple Inc. Besides "Think Different" Einstein billboards for Apple. So maybe Apple can complain if the dolls are blue and sport IBM logos, otherwise their history of theft pretty much leaves them in the cold.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606802)

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

How constitutional is this, given that we do not (yet) have a two-tier justice system? Either everyone's personality rights are "protected" or no one's. Unless we do have First Class and Second Class citiziens, of course.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606292)

Steve kicked the bucket, but the company has internalized his megalomaniacal desire for control.

Corporations are people, after all. Like the zombified shell of SCO, litigation might be their only consistent source of revenue in light of a lack of direction. [arstechnica.com]

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (1, Interesting)

wanderfowl (2534492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606404)

This definitely reeks of a personality cult, in the most disturbing, North Korean sort of way. Nobody has the rights to Dear Leader's image but us, and how dare you produce false idols. At least they didn't keep his body in state on the Apple campus...

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606606)

This definitely reeks of a personality cult, in the most disturbing, North Korean sort of way. Nobody has the rights to Dear Leader's image but us, and how dare you produce false idols. At least they didn't keep his body in state on the Apple campus...

I understand that he's been cryogenically stored in a sealed underground chamber in their new headquarters, surrounded by iPhones with his picture on them.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606464)

They're using CA's law that says Jobs' estate owns his image for 75 years after death, the problem is, how do they enforce CA law if the dolls never leave China?

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606720)

They're using CA's law that says Jobs' estate owns his image for 75 years after death, the problem is, how do they enforce CA law if the dolls never leave China?

How do they enforce California law if the seller never ships to California?
It's not unusual for online vendors to say "For legal reasons we don't ship to these states: X, Y, Z"

Job (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606238)

telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.'

Look, Apple. The Chinese are great at knocking stuff off, and their language system doesn't have plurals as ours does. There is a BIG difference between Job and Jobs. Hey, it might be a knockoff, but you can't do anything if it's a Steve Job doll.

Apple (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606258)

The one thing Apple is better at than designing closed computers is suing people.

I want one! (1, Interesting)

cadeon (977561) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606264)

I could do so many things with one of those...

Re:I want one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38607082)

Doing "things" with a 1:6 scale doll?

The penis-size jokes write themselves...

California = International Law? (5, Insightful)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606266)

So what law are they violating? I am talking about China not the US. A Chinese company does not have to answer squat to Apple nor the US legal system. They could make a doll with a penis on the head of Obama and the US Government couldn't touch them. Selling these dolls in the US is another matter (the Steve Jobs ones), but those that want them could simply import directly from China.

Re:California = International Law? (3, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606290)

So what law are they violating?
... Selling these dolls in the US is another matter (the Steve Jobs ones), but those that want them could simply import directly from China.

It's likely they're selling or offering the dolls for sale in California, at least via a website. That counts as sufficient contact to place them under California law for those transactions.

Re:California = International Law? (3, Interesting)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606426)

If they own a website in the US: valid If they offer to ship to California but the site is hosted in China: not valid.

Re:California = International Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606368)

Actually, if you put a penis on anyone's head and then make a doll of it, it would probably be deemed satire and be legal in the US. The hard part is legally getting the penis on said person's head.

Re:California = International Law? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606808)

Making an action figure of someone like Steve Jobs is already satire.

California == China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606268)

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

Didn't realize California's laws applied to China.

BJM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606272)

anyone getting a "being john malkovich" vibe from this doll?

California (3, Insightful)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606274)

While Apple's copyright infringement claims are questionable, attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the "right of publicity," which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

I don't see where California law is in any way binding or enforceable for a product unless they tried to sell it in California. Just because it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama doesn't mean I can't do it in Michigan.

Re:California (3, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606300)

I don't see where California law is in any way binding or enforceable for a product unless they tried to sell it in California. Just because it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama doesn't mean I can't do it in Michigan.

You're absolutely right... including that "unless" clause. The dolls are being offered for sale in California via their website, so the state law applies to those transactions.

Re:California (5, Insightful)

SecurityGuy (217807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606320)

I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.

Re:California (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606998)

I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.

Every other kind of border, real and imagined (wait, aren't they all imaginary?) can be enforced with some degree of success, why not borders between information systems? The Internet is full of borders, but they're mostly not nationalized, yet. Nothing is 100% impervious, but that does't make it unsuccessful.

Can a country regulate information systems inside its borders? As well as it can anything else, for sure.

In the United States, there is a place you can stand on the border of four different states. I don't think there would be any doubt that business conducted there would be subject to each state's and federal laws as you passed over the borders, as trivial as it may seem. Blah, blah, satellites, blah, I know. A person making a high altitude drop into a country still crosses a border at some point and is subject to laws on the other side. Arbitrary borders are arbitrary.

Re:California (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606356)

Wrong, California has no jurisdiction over the Chinese company period for sanctions unless the Chinese government enforces it, irregardless of how the transaction is occurring. The US government should be intercepting the dolls at customs if they shouldn't be sold in the state. Arguably, the onus should be on the purchaser for knowing what they are importing is violating the law.

Re:California (2)

Jesse_vd (821123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606550)

This reminds me of the case of Marc Emery. He's a Canadian currently serving 5 years in the US for selling marijuana seeds on the internet. It's not illegal in Canada and Health Canada was even sending patients to his site to buy seeds. The documentary 'The Union' likened it to a Canadian buying a handgun online and then the Colt company being charged instead of the person importing illegal firearms.

Re:California (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606584)

But ONLY to those transactions. Any transaction without a party in California is not enforceable under California State law.

Dear Apple: (0)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606280)

China != California.

I know, I know, you could easily mistake the last bastion of Communism for the failed socialist utopia you've tried to create over there (complete with rationing and rolling blackouts), but seriously, Californian law just doesn't apply to China. Or France. Or even to Nevada, for that matter.

Thanks for playing, though, better luck next time.

High Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606284)

It has ball joints.

bad summary from submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606286)

n/t

Stupid (5, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606310)

If they REALLY wanted to stop it, simply threaten to pull the manufacturing and bring it back to USA. Then Chinese gov. will stop it.

Re:Stupid (5, Funny)

kanto (1851816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606604)

If they REALLY wanted to stop it, simply threaten to pull the manufacturing and bring it back to USA. Then Chinese gov. will stop it.

Wouldn't work, the Chinese would just insist that "All your Jobs are belong to us".

The doll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606324)

is probably more human than the original.

Doll demands human status, emancipation (4, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606338)

The Turing Heat had to steal the Phillip K. Dick automaton head to keep it from going sapient. The small but spunky Jobs Droid snuck under their radar and reached critical neural connections state just after this story broke.

Extra Creepy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606362)

From the article: "To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare."

I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...

Re:Extra Creepy? (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606612)

From the article: "To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare."

I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...

Or blinked.

Re:Extra Creepy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606622)

I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...

That's what I was thinking. I wouldn't want a doll that blinks at me.

US Laws.... (1)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606364)

US laws are not enforceable outside the US, but of course the US is trying to bully other countries!

just put a label on it. (4, Funny)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606380)

warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.

Re:just put a label on it. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606624)

warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.

New Frosted Pop Torts, breakfast of hooligans.

Malarkey (0)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606414)

Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.'

No, not a criminal offense, any more than making such ridiculous statements is a criminal offense.

Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law

Bah. Laws don't make rights. They just justify bullies, tyrants, and parasites.

True law is immutable, not subject to a popularity contest.

Could they package (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606450)

it in an Android like case and Steve wearing an Android shirt and say its a Parody? Just put the actual Apple case inside the Android one and have the "Jobs Style" clothing under the Android shirt.

Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertising. (3, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606458)

Hypocrisy.

Apple is guilty of the far more serious crime of having dead celebrities endorse their products in TV commercials [wikipedia.org].

The one-minute commercial featured black-and-white footage of 17 iconic 20th century personalities. In order of appearance they were: Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Richard Branson, John Lennon (with Yoko Ono), Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Edison, Muhammad Ali, Ted Turner, Maria Callas, Mahatma Gandhi, Amelia Earhart, Alfred Hitchcock, Martha Graham, Jim Henson (with Kermit the Frog), Frank Lloyd Wright and Pablo Picasso.

Typical Apple, talking the talk, without walking the walk. Again.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin (2)

melted (227442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606548)

I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606650)

Undoubtedly they acquired rights to use the photos, but what about the rights to use the likenesses of those people? Do you think they made a deal with Gandhi's heirs to use his photo in some stupid commercial?

Einstein, MLK, Lennon, Fuller, Edison, Callas, Gandhi, Earhart, Hitchcock, Wright, and Picasso all died before 1985, so their likenesses could be used commercially in California. Dylan, Branson, Ali, and Turner aren't dead yet, so Apple definitely needed to get their permission.

Graham and Henson were the only dead people that Apple would have had to get likeness rights for.

dom

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin (1)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606658)

Did they acquire rights from the families of the celebrities as well as from the photographers? If not, they're still hypocritical.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin (3, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606892)

I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.

Apple obtained permission from the photographer to use a copyrighted image, not permission from Gandhi's family to use his likeness to sell a product that he most likely would have been opposed to.

Hypocrisy. Again.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin (1)

ehynes (617617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606590)

And Apple is guilty of nothing IF they secured permission for the footage before hand. (And if they didn't, someone representing someone in that group would have sued them by now.)

You stupid asshole (-1, Troll)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606598)

Apple legally acquired the rights, you fucking idiot. Why don't you use some common sense before embarrassing yourself again, asshole?

Re:You stupid asshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606640)

You mad?

Apple fandork

WRONG DIPSHIT. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606936)

Wow, you're a stupid dipshit, you have absolutely NO FUCKING idea what you're talking about.

Apple did NOT acquire the rights to use Gandhi's image to endorse their products.

You think obtaining copyright to a photo gives you this right? That's because you're a blind piece of shit with your head stuck too far up your own ass to understand.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606726)

Why is this bullshit modded up. Apple DISTINCTLY licensed all of those images. Lay off the Apple hating and go back to trolling something else.

Oh dam it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606462)

They had to make it with round corners.

The Doll itself wasn't the issue (3, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606498)

It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.

Re:The Doll itself wasn't the issue (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606634)

It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.

Actually, I think it was the free plastic liver that did them in.

Quick question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606524)

How does one give their consent to use their identity if they are in fact already deceased? The way i see it, i am already dead, so why should i give a crap what others do to my identity then? I probably should hire some goons to insure some corp doesn't harass some poor souls after I am gone.

Watch this... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606560)

Apple will succeed in getting the product pulled, and six weeks later, will release their own creepy doll of Steve Jobs that looks (not surprisingly) identical, but costs five times as much. ;)

Burn (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606616)

That's exactly what they do all right, they copy what other manufacturers make and then charge 5x for it. Absolutely, no question about that--no wonder they are losing so much money.

jobs shmobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606628)

you can't sue for those reasons when (1) they arent in the states (2) they dont give a shit who steve jobs is (3) fuck apple! O_o
now what yah gonna do..

Criminal offense? (3, Interesting)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606674)

How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?

Re:Criminal offense? (5, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606764)

How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?

It probably doesn't, but lawyers are paid to write scary cease and desist letters, not accurate ones.

Deja Vu (1)

paleo2002 (1079697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606692)

Didn't all this happen last year? The unauthorized Steve Jobs doll. The sketchy Chinese manufacturer. The lawsuits.

Eh...not really eerily, except that... (1)

SpeedBump0619 (324581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606708)

It's the mini lovechild of Steve Jobs and Stanley Tucci. That's kinda creepy in itself I guess.

Not much California can do about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38606712)

The terminator isn't governor anymore.

Good Info! (4, Funny)

Zalbik (308903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606796)

Well I'm buying one right now!!!

Good thing Apple sued, otherwise I might have never known about this.

Think I'll pick up a Barbara Streisand doll too while I'm at it....

Wait (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38606896)

Why would a chinese company be bound by california law? Wouldn't it be easier to sanction the company or something like that? Also, when did Apple OWN Steve Jobs' identity; that's something for the Jobs estate to deal with, not Apple...

Another day that ends in -y... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38607008)

Geeze...it wouldn't be a day that ends in -y (in English) without yet another Apple lawsuit...

On another note, I bet there are entire countries that could feed their starving people with the money that ridiculously wasteful company puts towards their lawyers ALONE...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...