Steve Wozniak Faces Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Over Branded Tech School (gizmodo.com) 93
A user quotes Gizmodo:
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is facing a million-dollar lawsuit for allegedly stealing the idea to create a Woz-branded tech school, according to a weekend Insider report.
Connecticut business professor Ralph Reilly claims he and Wozniak agreed to establish a "tech university" and sealed the deal with an on-camera handshake in 2011. The educational platform, which was aimed at teaching adults computer and other technical skills, would lean heavily on Wozniak's name and reputation as a key engineering force in Apple's early days for branding purposes. However, the partnership never got off the ground, Reilly said in court filings reviewed by Gizmodo and Insider. Wozniak went on to launch virtually the same idea under the name Woz U in 2017 after partnering with the code-learning firm Coder Camps. In response, Reilly reached out to Wozniak via email asking to be a part of the venture, according to court filings. "It's exactly what I envisioned for Woz Institute of Technology when I first approached you with the idea," Reilly wrote at the time.
"You are right on the mark," Wozniak responded. "You had the right idea... I doubt it would have happened without your initial idea!"
But when Reilly pushed back asking for partial ownership in the project, he was met with radio silence. Reilly went on sue Wozniak for alleged intellectual property theft and copyright infringement. He's seeking at least $1 million in relief and damages. Other accusations Reilly's brought against Wozniak such as breach of contract have already been dismissed by a judge...
For his part, Wozniak's team claims the two never reached a real deal on the proposal and the aforementioned on-camera handshake was just one of countless photo-ops he regularly conducts with fans.
Connecticut business professor Ralph Reilly claims he and Wozniak agreed to establish a "tech university" and sealed the deal with an on-camera handshake in 2011. The educational platform, which was aimed at teaching adults computer and other technical skills, would lean heavily on Wozniak's name and reputation as a key engineering force in Apple's early days for branding purposes. However, the partnership never got off the ground, Reilly said in court filings reviewed by Gizmodo and Insider. Wozniak went on to launch virtually the same idea under the name Woz U in 2017 after partnering with the code-learning firm Coder Camps. In response, Reilly reached out to Wozniak via email asking to be a part of the venture, according to court filings. "It's exactly what I envisioned for Woz Institute of Technology when I first approached you with the idea," Reilly wrote at the time.
"You are right on the mark," Wozniak responded. "You had the right idea... I doubt it would have happened without your initial idea!"
But when Reilly pushed back asking for partial ownership in the project, he was met with radio silence. Reilly went on sue Wozniak for alleged intellectual property theft and copyright infringement. He's seeking at least $1 million in relief and damages. Other accusations Reilly's brought against Wozniak such as breach of contract have already been dismissed by a judge...
For his part, Wozniak's team claims the two never reached a real deal on the proposal and the aforementioned on-camera handshake was just one of countless photo-ops he regularly conducts with fans.
Re:Typical Apple Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
The allegation seems to be one of basically IP theft. Is the idea of a coding camp really original enough to qualify? Did Woz explicitly sign the right to use his name away? It's hard to call it "stealing" without something more substantial.
Re:Typical Apple Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, Apple isn't the one that steals bro.Citation [scribd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A handshake does not entitle you to perpetually squat on an idea
So it's not the idea, it's the branding. And a verbal agreement is binding, although can be difficult to prove.
However Reilly has a contract that he claims Woz signed [appleinsider.com]. (Which Woz didn't recall, but also doesn't dispute his signature on the document.)
Re: Typical Apple Bullshit (Score:2)
From your link:
It is claimed Reilly asked for Wozniak to endorse the launch of the "Woz Institute of Technology," which Wozniak allegedly agreed to via email. At the time of the photography, Reilly allegedly provided Wozniak with a contract to grant an online school in Connecticut the use of the Wozniak name and the "Woz School of Technology."
In a deposition, Wozniak said he didn't remember signing such a document, but apparently didn't dispute the signature on the document.
Is the new school an online school?
Is it located in CT?
Is it named "Woz School of Technology"?
Yes, No, and No.
Seems to non-lawyer me that this "contract" is very limited, and aside from being an online school, seems sufficiently different to avoid civil liability - unless Mr. Reilly feels entitled to any online school anywhere in the world that is associated with or named after Woz.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Ideas are literally everywhere. No business start up without one, and almost all of them fail. Execution is the hard bit. Is Woz never supposed to do anything because someone convinced him to use his name one time? Cmon. Thats bullshit.
You may think this is bullshit, but these "ideas" have repeatedly been subject to lawsuits over and over again, and the courts have quite often determined that seeding these ideas makes the other party subject to some obligations. How many millions did the Winklevoss twins get awarded from Zuckerberg over an oral contract and an idea?
No. A full 6 years later, and nothing had happened. Woz went ahead
Let me stop you right there. It's quite silly to pass judgement based on the sum total of all knowledge gifted to you by a Slashdot summary. Rather than jumping to conclusions
Re: (Score:3)
thegarbz blathered:
You may think this is bullshit, but these "ideas" have repeatedly been subject to lawsuits over and over again, and the courts have quite often determined that seeding these ideas makes the other party subject to some obligations. How many millions did the Winklevoss twins get awarded from Zuckerberg over an oral contract and an idea?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
A brand cannot be copyrighted. Period. That's because copyrights are reserved for substantive creative material, not for "brands." Or for names or titles, for that matter. And Ralph Reilly's claim of copyright infringement is prima facie bogus, unless Woz's own venture has borrowed substantially from the text of Reilly's website. Which seems unlikely to me.
Brands are not subject to copyright law, because, in the USA, they are governed by trademar [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine this: An author is at a party. A party guest chats with the author and says, "Hey, I have a great story idea," which he elaborates in a single sentence. The author, many years later, writes a story that sounds similar. Should party the guest get compensated?
Here's another one: A boxer is at a party. A party guest chats with the boxer and says, "I have a great idea of someone you should fight." If this fight happens, should the party guest get compensated?
In both cases, it seems like the author and t
Re: (Score:2)
Is the idea of a coding camp really original enough to qualify
No, because copyright, trademarks and patents do not apply to ideas. They all require some sort of manifestation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because copyright, trademarks and patents do not apply to ideas. They all require some sort of manifestation.
Not just a manifestation.. Work is only copyrightable if it also contains substantial creative input referred to as the threshold of originality [wikimedia.org]
Even if Woz and the other had actually opened a school creating a manifestation.. The concept of a school leveraging Woz's reputation as part of its image would likely not meet the threshold required for Copyrightability of any work that did not add su
Re: (Score:2)
Not news (Score:1)
Why is this even considered reportable news?
Re: (Score:2)
because of the name. doesn't really need anything else to landi it here.
Exchange of Consideration (Score:2)
Re: Exchange of Consideration (Score:2)
Reilly wanted to open a school in CT in what, 2011 using Woz's name, but the deal fell thru.
Now Woz opens a school in California, and Reilly feels his agreement for a school in CT applies to a school in CA?
IF Reilly had a world-wide agreement for a school in any location, maybe he'd have a case, but I see the "contract" Reilly possesses has a quite limited scope.
Re: (Score:2)
People without implementation skills or discipline tend to overestimate the originality and value of their ideas.
Re: (Score:1)
Has nothing to do with Apple, mouth-breather.
Woz left Apple in 1985. That was 36 years ago. Jeeze.
Steve Wozniak was with Apple for a grand total of NINE YEARS, out of the 45 years it has existed.
Open up a goddamn book once in a while.
Re: (Score:1)
Furthermore, Apple became a closed-hardware appliance and gadget vendor soon after Woz left the company. It's a completely different outfit than it was.
Re: (Score:3)
Because more of Apple's OS code was available to the public in 1985 than it is now?
Re: (Score:1)
Because more of Apple's OS code was available to the public in 1985 than it is now?
No, OS code is software not hardware:
"Apple became a closed-hardware appliance and gadget vendor"
https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18951902&cid=61414806 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because more of Apple's OS code was available to the public in 1985 than it is now?
What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING????
Woz left in 1985. Do you not get it? 1985!!
Goddamn.. A man leaves a company 36 effing years ago and you are still going to blame him for the actions of the company???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the Terminator blamed Sarah Connor for the actions of her son... So if you don't like what Apple does and you have a time machine, you might as well go after Woz in the 1970s or something.
So.. we're just gonna go with "you aren't operating in reality" and leave it at that, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh. See what I was replying to and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might have purchased a cheap Chinese counterfeit computer: genuine Apple products have a fruit on them.
Re: (Score:2)
all fruit was a flower once.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... You're correct. Kinda of like all butterflies once were caterpillars. But here's the thing: after they turn into butterflies, they generally lose their caterpillar name and are henceforth known as "butterflies".
Re: (Score:2)
We were all hydrogen once. We're literally made from star-stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same pronouns even if you're made of antimatter.
Re: (Score:2)
--
Re: (Score:2)
I can't fault your logic.
Undsoweiter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know anything about this case. I might note that Jobs used to stiff Woz on a regular basis (and about everyone else). When Apple went public, Jobs refused to grant stocks to the Apple employees. Woz took his own personal stocks and shared them around.
Woz seems to have excellent moral character or, did at the time. I don't think he has any interest in being less than decent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or because Woz has already expanded his caoacity for self sacrafice, his past is a motivator to do the opposite, as he is now on the other side, soneone else coming up get the shaft.
Yeah, that's the reasonable explanation.... Instead of assuming, by default, he's a good person and this unknown asshole is the one pulling the scam.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do good as much as possible and now he's gone evil?
I'll extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never fucked a kid.. By your logic, you've run out of self-control and now are gonna pork the next one that comes along?
You are an idiot. Woz is worth north of $120 million. Why would he need to do pull
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like this guy failed to launch a business, and his business model has 'pivoted' to lawsuit revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he need to do pull a scam? He's got all the money he needs. He's already proved he doesn't fuck people over.. So he's gonna start now?
While I think Reilly is the dodgy party in this instance, Woz being rich doesn't mean he isn't doing other shady shit:
https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
Seems he has no issue lending his name for some money to help others pull a scam.
Re: (Score:1)
While I think Reilly is the dodgy party in this instance, Woz being rich doesn't mean he isn't doing other shady shit: https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
Seems he has no issue lending his name for some money to help others pull a scam.
Why do you people always default to thinking someone is being an asshole? What has made you so bitter? Give me some evidence that HE is responsible and we can talk. But to speculate that he is, especially in the context of his previous good deeds.. That's just fuckery.
Is it not possible he inked a deal with someone and then that business went on to be assholes?
It blows my mind that someone can spend a lifetime being a relatively decent human being, but the moment some shit goes down, the majority of
Re: (Score:2)
There is no possible excuse for Woz to continue his association with that "school". He has obviously made a choice to do so STILL.
Re: (Score:1)
I provided fucking evidence. I'm not assuming he's an arsehole deep down. Lending his name to a scummy "university" makes him scummy as well. There is no possible excuse for Woz to continue his association with that "school". He has obviously made a choice to do so STILL.
It proves nothing. You don't know the details of the contract. Case in point: Regardless of how much child labor Nike seems to use, it would appear the Michael Jordan cannot prevent them from using his name on their sneakers. Either that or the man is an asshole who aligns himself with a known violator of child labor laws.
Which is the more likely situation?
Do you think that just maybe, Woz lent his name to the company, for a fee, and has no direct control? If this university isn't actually doing any
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point: Regardless of how much child labor Nike seems to use, it would appear the Michael Jordan cannot prevent them from using his name on their sneakers. Either that or the man is an asshole who aligns himself with a known violator of child labor laws.
Yes, that man is an arsehole for keeping the association. He gets paid for it, so he is profiting off child labour. Sorry, I'm not a celebrity worshipper as you are.
What has made you so bitter? Mommy remove the titty prematurely?
People like you who will excuse the rich for anything, probably because you want to be able to do the same.
Having morals is not a bad thing, you fucking psychopath.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that man is an arsehole for keeping the association. He gets paid for it, so he is profiting off child labour. Sorry, I'm not a celebrity worshipper as you are.
What has made you so bitter? Mommy remove the titty prematurely?
People like you who will excuse the rich for anything, probably because you want to be able to do the same.
Having morals is not a bad thing, you fucking psychopath.
Nice tactic. Don't actually address my points but instead accuse me of being a celebrity worshiper (you're an idiot - I used him because he's well known, you ass-baby, not because I care about him. I don't even watch basketball). And then accuse me of being a psychopath.
Nike hasn't been convicted of anything, as far as I know. And yeah, I know they're evil, but I suspect if he tried to break his contract they'd sue the shit out of him and, without a conviction for Nike, he's going to have a hard time con
Re: (Score:1)
Because thats the american way, many CEOS earn tens of millions, that never stops them from grabbing even more next year around.
You have issues. That's not the "American Way".
You're taking the traits of a select group of people and applying it to the whole population (be it Americans or CEOs in general).
How many massive companies have CEOs like this? 1,000? 2,000? Forbes lists the Fortune 100, 500, and 1000 (and they aren't even all US companies - but for the moment, let's pretend they are). Let's double that for the sake of argument. 2,000 greedy CEOs. Okay... The US has north of 1,000,000 businesses and around 350,000,0
Re: (Score:1)
Strange thats not what Hollywood or American pop culture tells me. You might want to review them first.
> How many massive companies have CEOs like this? 1,000? 2,000?
My comment validity has nothing to do with whether there are 1000 or 5000. Read any americans news article, or tv story or hollywood or song, and its theres always a special mention of the CEO like they are a god.
CEOs are always portrayed as special with special abilities or special
Re: (Score:3)
Generally speaking, it's probably a misunderstanding.
The guy thought he had a business deal with Woz, and Woz thought differently. Perhaps Woz was expecting a more formal contract to be sent, while the other guy was expecting Woz to work startup-style.
Woz was probably interested but either forgot about it, or was waiting for something formal to be drawn up. When none was forthcoming, he probably assumed something happened and it wasn't happening just because
Especially if you're going to rely on celebrity en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because Woz has already expanded his caoacity for self sacrafice, his past is a motivator to do the opposite,
What does that even mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
yeh Woz gave three employees $5000 each. Wow, a few thousand and still kept hundreds of millions.
He left Apple in 1985. He didn't keep hundreds of millions. There was no golden parachute.
Keep drinking your bitter juice.
Re: (Score:1)
His shares are worth hundreds of millions, and you just confirmed my statement that he basically gave away nothing.
I can understand copyrighting a story (Score:3)
A novel that is full of ideas, setting, characters, and the author's expression.
What exactly does a vague business plan express that can be copyrighted? At least Amazon's 1-click patent went to the effort to demonstrate a process and patent it, as looney at that abuse of IP law was.
Honestly I don't recommend sharing your business ideas with anyone unless:
1. you have something that no body else can easily reproduce. like business contacts, creativity, or an actual fucking business.
2. you intend to follow through with the idea before the rest of the world gives up and moves on without you.
As a long time member of the club known as talking shit while drinking at the pub. I can tell you that business ideas are on average not even worth the price of a drink.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a business plan. It's an idea. I can write a book about a school for wizards and not be sued for breaching the Harry Potter copyright. Or the Worst Witch copyright. Probably a bunch of books with the same theme that predate that as well.
If it is a whole business plan, business plans can't be copyrighted. They're stolen and recycled all the time. He might have had a case for breach of contract if there was anything resembling a contract, but evidently not, because
Re: (Score:2)
J. K. Rowling ripped off the hidden world themes of John Bellairs (The House with a Clock in Its Walls), the hero's rise and story structure of Lloyd Alexander (Prydain Chronicles), and the zany academic institution of Terry Pratchett (Discworld). The latter probably a parody of Tom Brown's Schooldays among others of the genre.
To be fair, fantasy authors all influence one another. Almost none of it is created in a vacuum and you can watch various fads rise and fall through the decades to a degree that you c
Not much of a case (Score:5, Insightful)
So, a guy approaches a famous man with an idea to start a school using the famous man's reputation. Famous man is interested at first, then decides against it.
Later on, famous man starts his own school together with someone else.
So, does original guy somehow "own" the idea? Without famous man, there would be no business potential. At most, original guy had the first idea of milking famous man's reputation. But the reputation, which is the only thing of worth here, belongs to the famous man, not the original guy who thought he wanted to milk it.
Re: (Score:3)
I would also note Woz actually went ahead and /did/ it. Anyone can have an idea, but actually executing on it is a different thing. I know nothing about Woz U or how well it has done; a reputation like his would certainly help but at the end of the day, he had to get out of bed and go Do Stuff to make it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Handshake deals are bullsh*t. Show me the document that proves that the two decided to do this together.
Re: (Score:2)
Something Stinks Here (Score:3)
This whole story smells of bullshit.
Why would Woz say in email that Woz U wouldn't have happened without this guy's idea and then claim he's a random fan? I know Woz got knocked in the noodle but this is too much. Are the email headers authenticated?
Why would Woz say he has practically zero input into Woz U? That seems like setting up future fraud claims.
Too many alarm bells for this story to be the full and real version of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Something Stinks Here (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like he had a beer or something with Woz at a convention years back. The email sounded like a kindly reply to fanmail: Why yes, you are important. Thank you for your support. I couldn't have done it without you.
I doubt he thought to check with a lawyer on the wording of the email, if they were never actually in business together. Maybe that's an indiscretion when you've got that much money. Barring something of great substance that's yet to be revealed, I'm guessing his lawyer will get it taken care of with little more than a brief appearance on Woz's part.
The dude who filed the suit probably saw this email and thought "lottery ticket". Not expecting to win, but willing to play. With how many courts operate, the odds actually might not be that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright? (Score:2)
Connecticut business professor Ralph Reilly
Reilly went on sue Wozniak for alleged intellectual property theft and copyright infringement.
Is this what Reilly is suing for, or a paraphrase by the journalist? Because there is no "copyright" merely for an idea of a school, and using Woz's name would only be "alleged intellectual property theft" if it was already a registered trademark owned by Reilly.
Either this business professor doesn't know IP law, or the journalist is reporting it wrong.
Stoner friend has app idea (Score:2)
A vague idea for starting a school (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A vague idea for starting a school (Score:4, Insightful)
A vague idea of starting a website to connect with fellow students is not copyright or patentable. None the less the Winklevoss twins were awarded millions by the courts because someone else ran with the idea and it was a success.
I would expect a Statute of Frauds to apply. (Score:2)
I would expect a Statute of Frauds class of law to apply. (They amount to laws that say "A verbal contract for one of THESE sorts of thing (e.g. more than $x, takes more than a year, etc.) is unenforcable (i.e. "only worth the paper it's (not) written on" B-) )"
IANAL and my understanding of the ins and outs of that class of laws is sketchy. But the US and the states have a number of variants of this, inherited from British Common Law, included in the Uniform Commercial Code, regulations, state laws, etc.
Copyright? (Score:2)
Someone is very confused about the difference between copyright, trademark, and patents. Ideas are neither copyrightable nor trademarkable. They are patentable, but if Reilly didn't patent it, or get Woz to sign an agreement, he has no case. (I am not a lawyer.)
Re:Copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
As insane as IP laws can be (such as lumping them all together in the first place), merely having an idea is not protectable, since even the most pro-patent judge should understand any idiot can have an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Source? (Score:2)
Can we please just put stories like this to rest until someone bothers enough to find a link to the court documents?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [courthousenews.com] is a link to the most recent ruling on the case, in which the Court dismisses the contract claims but rules that the copyright claims against Woz can proceed.
Too many tabs open. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
Missed opportunity. (Score:2)
AMerican bullshit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Base a business simply on a celebrity name factor, like its solid gold.
You give America too much credit. Businesses based on what is what is known as a rock star today even if it's the Woz dates back past Roman times. They used to sell Gladiator sweat and so on. Here is Emperor Vistavian's sword. So if anything, it's European bullshit. It still sells.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing special here just (Score:3)