Talk:Litigation involving Apple Inc./GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take on this review. It may take me several days, however, given its size. Per the "external links" report on the side, there are 10-11 dead URLs in the article and resolving them would make my task here easier. Canadian  Paul  14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Comments:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * 1) Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce information that is not present in the main body of the article as it is supposed to summarize the key points. Currently it is written as a separate entity entirely; I would recommend using it (or at least the first two paragraphs) as a sort of "Background" section in the body itself and re-writing the lead to summarize the article as compliance with WP:LEAD.
 * 2) In the lead, first paragraph "Like all large, multinational technology corporations," seems to be unnecessary - for one thing, it could be challenged and isn't really verifiable, for another, it seems to be a little fluffy and unencyclopedic, possibly even running afoul of WP:PEACOCK. I would just remove it because the rest of the sentence works fine without it.
 * 3) Under "Apple iPod, iTunes antitrust litigation", "The case In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class action in 2005". Filed by whom? The government or someone else?
 * 4) Under "Apple and AT&amp;T Mobility antitrust class action", "In the class action filed in 2008 against Apple, Inc. and AT&amp;T Mobility In re Apple &amp; AT&amp;T Mobility Antitrust Litigation, the plaintiffs claim that Apple and AT&amp;T illegally restrained competition, locked consumers into agreements with AT&amp;T, and punished them if they tried to leave." Again, who filed?
 * 5) Under "Libel dispute with Carl Sagan", "Apple's third and final code name for the project was "LaW", short for "Lawyers are Wimps"." requires a citation.
 * 6) Under "itunes.co.uk", first paragraph, "The Apple-Cohen dispute was a high-profile cybersquatting case", calling it "high-profile" seems to be a bit POVish to me and could be challenged. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, your best options would be to cite evidence showing that it was high-profile or to remove the word, discuss the case, and let the reader decide for themselves whether or not it was "high profile".
 * 7) In fact, that paragraph could use more citations in general, as most of that information could be challenged (that Napster was iTunes biggest rival, where the domain was redirected to etc.)
 * 8) Same section, second paragraph, "The dispute was unresolved at the free mediation stage and so Apple paid for an independent expert to decide the case; the expert decided the dispute in Apple's favor." requires a citation.
 * 9) Under "Woolworths Limited logo", "The Woolworth's smartphone app is also available on Apple's AppStore where its once-disputed logo is featured prominently." Why is it referred to as "once-disputed" here? The paragraph doesn't mention anything about the dispute being resolved.
 * 10) Under "Apple v. Think Secret", the resolution of this case should be included in the paragraph.
 * 11) Under "Object code cases and conflicts of law", first paragraph, "Apple's litigation over object code was seminal in the development of contemporary copyright law because the company's object code cases brought different results in different courts." seems pretty POV to me. I did remove a handful of instances of this kind of POV, but I left this one in because removing the offending parts of the sentence would alter its meaning. If it's "seminal", that fact should be directly cited per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as it has the potential to be challenged.
 * 12) Same section, second paragraph, the Canadian decision needs a citation. Same with the New Zealand ruling in the third paragraph.
 * 13) Same section, third paragraph, "These revisions to copyright law in favor of including object code are still controversial and form the technical underpinnings for the legal notion of computer trespass and the following development of anti-hacking law-making such as the Patriot Act and such as are defined by the Convention on Cybercrime." Aside from the latter part of this sentence requiring a citation, and it's long and confusing to read and would do well being broken up into at least two sentences.
 * 14) Under "Apple v. HTC", "In the year before Apple and Samsung were engaging in their own patent wars..." Since you haven't introduced this subject yet, and it won't be mentioned for several sections, and it's not particularly relevant to the rest of the paragraph, does it need to be here? It would also help because then the whole sentence could be tweaked to make it shorter and less confusing if this were removed. It's also repeated again in the "Motorola Mobility v. Apple" section, making it further unnecessary.
 * 15) Under "Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets", "In the spring of 2011, while Apple and Motorola were fully engaged in a patent war on several fronts, Apple sued Samsung, expanding its ongoing war to fight another major technology company at the same time." This whole sentence seems a bit unencyclopedic and disrupts the flow. Maybe toning down the rhetoric/POV ("its ongoing war", "another major technology company") would help.
 * 16) Same section, "The ultimate cost of these patent wars to consumers, shareholders, and investors is yet unknown, but it is not trivial..." "It is not trivial" sounds like a POV judgement and introduces a distinct narrator with an opinion (ie. patent wars are bad for consumers) into what has otherwise been neutral text. Cutting out that section may solve the problem, but the whole sentence seems a bit POV.

One question as well, although it has nothing to do with GA Criteria, but why all the "leave extra lines" comments? Just curious. Anyways, I went through and did a copyedit, hopefully nothing too controversial, but otherwise the article is very nice considering its length and depth. I will need to check references as well, but I will do that once the above concerns have been addressed. Finally, as this nomination has been sitting here since April, I will be checking for completeness by going through the unresolved cases to see if any developments have occurred. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  05:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor response
Editor: Sctechlaw (talk · contribs)

Thank you Canadian Paul for your substantial effort and time commitment in reviewing this lengthy and rather technical article. I believe I have now addressed your concerns, hopefully in a way that satisfies. I have used edit summaries that reference the above-enumerated concerns in most cases. The lead is now two paragraphs, and could be longer, but I think it complies with WP:LEAD. The material I removed from the lead I pasted into a new section just after the lead, "Background", where it does indeed fit better. The comments I left on your talk page regarding the extra lines being needed for visual rest and accessibility in a long article may have been better made here, but they are at least preserved. Won't you please review the changes I've made? Thank you so much, Sctechlaw (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks very good so far, no more problems with external links either. I think per WP:LEAD, the lead could probably be a bit longer, but I would be worried that it would devolve into arbitrary examples of case decisions, so I think that it's fine for GA purposes. Anyways, here's what needs to be done next:

Sctechlaw (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Sctechlaw (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Finally, and this is NOT a GA requirement, but the referencing style is pretty haphazard at times (for example, sometimes accessdates are included, other times not) - if you're thinking of bringing this beyond GA, that will be something of concern to higher level reviews but, as far as I can tell, the references all make it clear where one would find the information should they need to look it up (except for the one noted above), which is sufficient for GA. Anyhow, once these concerns are address, the article should be ready for promotion to Good Article status. Canadian  Paul  17:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see that anything has been done to resolve concerns #9 or the Canadian part of #12 above. For the latter, even though it's cited in the paragraph above, there still needs to be a citation at the end of the paragraph because the paragraph contains material that could be challenged and that falls under the list of things that need to be cited by the good article criteria.
 * 2) I addressed item 9 in this change by informing the reader that there was no report (I could find) that the case was either settled or dropped (which often happens in law), however, Woolies continues to use the once-disputed logo even on Apple's site (which requires Apple's acquiescence), therefore, while the legal outcome of the dispute is unknown, the practical outcome is that Woolies prevailed. The meaning is decidedly implicit in the outcome and therefore could be worded differently, and I am open to suggestions.
 * 3) As to item 12, because both the Canadian and New Zealand decisions are cited in the previous paragraph, are established law, there was and is no expert debate as to their meaning, and the article's recounting of the content is highly unlikely to be challenged except by some extreme fringe legal theorist, it is unnecessary to re-cite them, and since they would be extraneous it seems to me to do so has an opposite effect on credibility (thou dost protest too much sort of thing) &mdash; however, if you insist I will throw them in. Also, I think your choice of word "contr" in your last edit to that section is confusing for most readers. Those object code cases are some of the most significant copyright cases in the industry, ever, so it is reasonable to state that fact. Just why that is so is explained in the section, thus using the phrase "were important because" or "were significant in" is reasonable. I suggest replacing "contr" with "were significant in".
 * 4) Under "Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets", "Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as the mobile device patent wars: extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011 Apple and Samsung were carrying out their legal battles in 19 ongoing lawsuits in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents; by October, the fight expanded to 10 countries." Neither of the references after these sentences support the fact that the activity became known as "the mobile device patent wars" I did a cut and paste from that section to a new article on Apple v. Samsung, and in the process it appears the cite you seek went there, so I'll fix that.
 * 5) Under "Sector Labs: use of Pod", "The Board found that the "iPod" mark was "famous" and therefore entitled to broad protection under U.S. trademark law." This should be sourced directly to the board's actual decision, rather than the current citation, because a blog is generally not considered to be a reliable source and I don't see a reason why an exception should be made here (although feel free to convince me otherwise). Agreed and done.
 * 6) I'm not sure that citation #157 (Creative Files Suit Against Apple For Patent Infringement, iPod Hacks, 2006-05-16. Accessed 2012-4-11, via archive.org.) is needed; the information is sourced by two other references and that source just looks like a rehashing/reposting of the other material on a website that doesn't strike me as particularly notable/reliable. Agreed, however, where possible I tried to include sources that non-lawyers might read too. :-) We can leave it in or take it out, your choice.
 * 7) Citation #203 (Oates, John, Consumer group slams 'unfair' software licenses, EULAugh, I cry, 2008-2-19.) needs to list the publisher of the article, so that it can be more easily found (or referenced) if the link goes dead. <ul><li>Agreed and done.</li></ul>
 * 8) Under "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action", "In October 2008 the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the case on the federal claims and granted their motions to dismiss the state unfair trade practice claims except in California, New York, and Washington, but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend those claims. The case remained pending before the Ninth Circuit appellate court in late 2011." Is it still pending? Have their been any updates worthy of updating the section for? <ul><li>This is an extraordinarily complex case that may take years to resolve. I'll check for further developments that are more than just motions hearings in discovery, and report back, but in the meanwhile I added that fact to the section so the reader knows not to hold dinner while waiting to find out.
 * 1) Please check for any updates on the following sections and add the information if necessary: "Federal eBook price-fixing claims", "Proview: iPad trademark", "Amazon "App Store"", "Apple v. HTC", "Kodak v. Apple (digital imaging)", "Motorola Mobility v. Apple", "Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets" <ul><li>I'll check and report back.</li><li>Updated Motorola Mobility v. Apple;</li><li>Updated Apple v. Samsung;</li><li>Updated Kodak v. Apple;</li><li>Udated Apple v. HTC;</li><li>Updated Amazon "App Store"</li><li>Updated Proview: iPad trademark.

Thanks so much! Sctechlaw (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The access dates do need to be updated so I'll address that today. Is there something else you noticed about the referencing besides the access dates? If so I'll be glad to fix them.


 * Regarding "contr", that was meant to be "contributed to"; I don't know how that got cut off, but I have fixed it. I feel that this is a more neutral way of saying what you're looking to say - it highlights that there is relevance without telling the reader how you (or how they should) feel about it. Regarding the former #9, I just removed "once-disputed", as it just throws off the reader - you already mention "disputed" in the previous sentence, so there's no need to repeat it. Regarding the citations for the Canadian decision, I still think that the article would be better off with a citation to the decision, but perhaps it is fine as is, so I'll let it be. Regarding the iPod hacks citation, that makes sense I suppose, and since it's not independently verifying anything, there's no real reason it can't stay.


 * Anyways, everything looks ready to go now so I will go ahead and pass this article for GA status. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian   Paul  14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)