According to German news agency dpa, the Regional Court of Dusseldorf’s preliminary injunction states that Samsung must halt all sales and promotion of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the EU, thanks to a stipulation that allows companies to apply for a pan-European injunction that covers all EU member states. Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents says the injunction should take immediate effect in Germany, but additional formalities may be required before it takes effect elsewhere. The new Galaxy Tab 10.1 went on sale in Britain only last week, but Samsung might have to put it back in the box, at least until the company appeals the judgement, which will take four weeks time at the soonest.

Samsung has already had to delay its launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, following similar legal wrangling by Apple. If Apple can make this and other decisions stick, this is going to put a serious kink in Samsung’s mobile ambitions. Rodman and Renshaw analyst Ashok Kumar shared with us a research report that argues as much, saying Samsung won’t be able to successfully negotiate Apple’s IP blockade, and will have to go “back to the drawing board” to come up with its own IP. That was before this decision came down, so it actually looks even more plausible in light of the injunction.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The rise of tablets in the enterprise
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015

Without going into too much history on the subject, what makes music copyright a bit unique when compared to other media is that the law recognizes two co-existent copyrights: the underlying musical composition, and the recorded performance. The law requires permission, usually in the form of a license or royalty fee, from both parties to sell a song for download, play it on the radio, play it in a bar or restaurant, and so on. Licensing is handled by publishers and record labels, and blanket licenses for certain uses are provided by performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SoundExchange and the Harry Fox Agency.

While certain uses, like “synchronization” rights to use an audio recording in a movie or on TV, or “master use” rights to put a recording on a compilation album require a specific agreement, a CD comes with an implicit license for the buyer to play the music for their own personal use. It does not allow public performance. However, the American music industry long ago recognized that it would be in their best interests to simplify licensing for certain public performance uses, like recording a song someone else wrote on your record, using a short sample on a hip-hop record, playing a CD in a bar or restaurant, or playing a song on the radio. The rates for these uses are set by congressional statute. These statutory licenses allow radio stations to play music without negotiating a specific license for each and every song with both the publisher and the record label.

In a twist of historical circumstances, U.S. copyright law treated radio airplay differently in that it required the payment of publishing royalties for the songwriter, but not performance royalties for the recording artist or their label. It was thought that this arrangement would be fair because radio airplay would help market the record and drive sales for the recording artist. Internet radio, which emerged in the mid-90s, challenged the status quo because it could lead to a future where all music would be streamed over the Internet, and only songwriters would get paid and recording artists would get nothing.

So for just over the last 15 years or so, the music industry has been trying to work out how to craft an arrangement that compensates everyone — writers, publishers, recording artists and record labels — in the face of changing technologies that demolish laws and contracts crafted in the days of AM radio. The current law requires non-interactive digital streaming services like satellite and Internet radio to pay both publishing and performance royalties, but traditional broadcasters like AM/FM radio still only pay the publisher. Interactive online services (like Rhapsody, Rdio, or Spotify where the user picks the songs) are not allowed to use statutory licenses, and have to negotiate their own deals with publishers and record labels.

For Apple, the issue is determining if their new cloud music service changes their role from a music retailer, to that of a broadcaster, or an interactive streaming service.  Should they have to pay a royalty each time that song is played or streamed over the Internet? Can they pay the statutory license fees, or do they have to negotiate with the labels?

Amazon has chosen not to reach an agreement with publishers and record labels. Google, rumored to have been rebuffed by the labels in their negotiations, is now in a similar position. They both argue that their services are simply cloud storage for digital downloads for which the consumer has already paid a one-time permanent license. By their argument, there is no difference between using a digital media player to access a file stored in the cloud, and accessing a file on a computer hard drive over your home network.

Apple is going straight to the publishers and the record labels to work out a deal that will allow them to offer the music service they want to provide at a cost that makes sense. As rumors describe it, Apple’s service would not be an interactive subscription to any music (such as Rhapsody or Rdio), but rather on-demand access to only music you’ve purchased.

One of the sticking points is reported to be the “scan and sync” feature to avoid unnecessarily uploading copies of songs from the user’s music library if Apple already has them on file. It worries record labels that Apple might scan an illegal copy of that song on the consumer’s computer that was never paid for, and then “sync” that song to provide access to a legal copy on Apple’s service. The rumored solution is that Apple is willing to pay some amount for every “synced” song, no matter if it was originally purchased on the iTunes store or not. Despite the licensing cost to Apple, it does save Apple from paying for the bandwidth usage for everyone to upload gigabytes of music, and it saves the cost of storage to keep 10 million copies of Lady Gaga’s latest single.

While it’s difficult to predict what will happen, it does seem likely that Amazon and Google have made Apple’s offer more attractive to the record labels. Even in the complicated world of music licensing, any royalty, even if smaller than the labels desire, is infinitely better than no royalty at all.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• The Structure 50: The Top 50 Cloud Innovators

Not only is jailbreaking now okay no longer a violation of copyright, but ripping DVDs and cracking video game or software encryption is allowable too, in certain special circumstances. It doesn’t exactly mean it’s open season for any and all piracy, but it does relax things quite a bit, and will probably make it much harder to prosecute those kinds of violations.

The new rules designate six classes of work that are now exempt from prosecution under the DMCA. Here’s the categories, briefly explained:

1. Movies on DVD, when used for educational, non-commercial purposes. Bypassing encryption on said videos is now legal. NewTeeVee has more on this portion of the rule changes.
2. Applications that allow for the use of legally obtained software on platforms that otherwise wouldn’t allow it. For instance, jailbreaking iOS so you can run Backgrounder or Wi-Fi Sync.
3. Applications that allow for the use of cellular devices on networks for which they weren’t originally designed. Case in point, unlocking an iPhone so that you can use it on Sprint T-Mobile instead of AT&T.
4. Video games can be cracked when the reason behind it is to promote, investigate or test for security of a computer, computer system or network.
5. Hardware-dongle protected software for which the dongle is no longer available or is obsolete, rendering the software otherwise unusable.
6. Enabling text-to-speech in ebooks which contain methods to prevent those read-aloud features, since, presumably this limits access by those with disabilities, though that isn’t specificly stated in the rule itself.

[inline-ad align="right"]Now, as you might have guessed, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any consequences for jailbreaking. Apple is still well within its rights to void your warranty, or even to suspend your Apple Store account if it manages to discover that you’re using jailbreak software. But not having to fear the long arm of the law is yet another argument in favor of jailbreaking still being worth it.

I’ve been leaning heavily towards jailbreaking my iPad, mainly because Apple seems not to be in a hurry to get iOS 4 on the device. This ruling pretty much cinches it for me, though I think I’ll do some more research about the effect it has on battery life before I commit. Anyone else motivated to jailbreak because of this news, or was the threat of legal action never much of a scare tactic to begin with?

In an unexpected twist in the drawn-out battle between Psystar and Apple, the two companies agreed Monday to a partial settlement that could end the case after 17 months of back-and-forth between them, Computerworld is reporting. Details on the settlement are sparse, but what is known is quite surprising.

The terms of the settlement would see Psystar pay Apple damages, though the amount has not yet been determined. It would also see Apple drop any and all trademark, trade-dress and state law claims, which would effectively eliminate the need for a trial. As a partial settlement, the agreement would not go into effect until Psystar has exhausted all of its appeals before the court.

It’s an interesting deal, because it looks like it wouldn’t necessarily stop Psystar from selling its Mac clones. Instead, the company would be limited to selling its “Open” line of computers without OS X preinstalled, and that responsibility would lie instead with customers. Apparently that’s a compromise Apple is willing to live with, and with good reason, since the Mac maker would have to go after many other clone makers if it wasn’t.

Here are the terms of the deal, as stated in a motion filed Monday by Psystar:

Psystar and Apple today entered into a partial settlement that is embodied in a stipulation that will be filed with the court tomorrow. Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple’s copyright claims in exchange for Apple’s agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded. Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple’s copyright claims.

That means that Apple’s permanent injunction, which it filed last week, would still be decided by the court. Psystar moved to have its software, the Rebel EFI program, to be excepted from the injunction. Rebel EFI allows users to install any OS on any hardware, but Psystar maintains that since it is entirely its own product, and is not sold together with any hardware or Mac OS X, it should be exempt from Apple’s motion. Also, Psystar goes onto note that even its customers, should they choose to use Rebel EFI to install OS X on non-authorized hardware, should also be exempt from any legal repercussions:

Psystar’s end users do not engage in commercial use of Mac OS X and their use would qualify as use for “internal purposes” even under the standards articulated by Apple in its summary-judgment briefing.

Hard to vilify this new moderate stance taken by the clone maker, which is probably why Apple seems to have agreed to the terms. Whether or not Rebel EFI will continue to be sold, however, is now up to the courts.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

In other words, if you desperately want that Open(7), you’d better place an order ASAP, because you might never get a chance again once the decision comes down. The complaint, is based on the premise that Psystar is now “trafficking in circumvention devices,” which is causing “unquantifiable” harm to Apple’s image.

The new motion specifically targets Psystar’s recently released software product, Rebel EFI, which bypasses the built-in prevention measures that limit the installation of OS X 10.6 to Apple-built hardware only. Using Rebel EFI, customers can supposedly install OS X on any Intel-based system, although the compatibility of individual components will vary widely.

Up till now, Apple has succeeded in dealing serious blows to Psystar, including winning a summary judgment, but it hasn’t managed to get a ruling that would shut down the company’s operation for good. The clone maker can continue doing business even if it keeps having to pay damages, since it can declare bankruptcy and reform as long as it can raise enough operating capital to stay afloat…hence the attempt by Apple to put an end to the expensive cycle.

Apple SVP of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller puts it succinctly in an affidavit for the latest claim:

So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple and its brand will continue.  I believe Apple should not be required to file a new lawsuit to stop Psystar from infringing Apple’s intellectual property each time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X. Requiring Apple to file multiple lawsuits to stop the same infringing conduct would be unfair, expensive, and a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources.

Apple also recently tried to shut down Atom support in OS X, which would seriously derail the efforts of at-home netbook hacking, so it looks like Cupertino is just generally trying to shut down any and all efforts to wrestle control of the operating system from its iron grip.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 14, and the official trial will start in January 2010. Psystar doesn’t look to be in good shape as it is, but if Apple manages to get this permanent injunction, all hope is lost for the hackintosh purveyor.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

According to TUAW, the trademark troll in question is none other than Tim Langdell, founder of the “gaming company” Edge Games. In reality, Edge Games produces very little beyond copyright infringement suits, which it launches against any and all games that feature the word “edge” in their title. EA’s Mirror’s Edge recently fell between Langdell’s crosshairs, for example, despite the fact that the game itself bears no similarity to any of Edge Games’ roster of “planned” titles.

Apparently the App Store has been a prime target for Tim Langdell and Edge Games. Reports claim that all he has to do is contact Apple and let them know that a game is in violation of his trademarks — which again, basically means it has “edge” somewhere in the title — and Apple pulls the game without much fuss. No doubt Apple just doesn’t want to deal with yet another legal battle that could ensue if Langdell gets the opportunity to take things beyond the cease-and-desist phase, but this really seems unfair to honest game devs who actually work for their money.

In protest, a group of iPhone devs are changing the names of their games to include “edge” in the titles, with the desired outcome being that Apple will realize that to continue just disallowing the word completely will significantly affect the App Store’s catalog of offerings. So, for example, Canabalt becomes “Canabedge,” the Eliss sequel becomes “Edgeliss” and Critter Crunch becomes “Critter Credge.” All of the changes mentioned haven’t actually been made to the apps in the store, but on developer web sites as a show of solidarity.

Even though this particular protest limits itself to the area beyond Apple’s sphere of control, it does demonstrate a promising solution to App Store bully tactics. If developers could organize in a similar manner, but with bigger numbers and with the support of some of the pillars of the App Store, they could more effectively combat unfair policies. Apple will be less likely to anger content producers if it has potential ramifications across its catalog. Let’s see a developers rights advocacy group come to pass, so articles about the injustices of the App Store can become a more infrequent occurrence.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide
• Virtual Worlds: Trends and Opportunities

To clarify, home-grown Chinese songs aren’t the issue. It’s just those nasty foreign tunes with their subversive, poisonous propaganda that are the problem. Any online service that provides the ability to search for or buy foreign music is affected by the new rules.

Online music sites as well as search engines that provide links to songs will be required to obtain prior approval from the Chinese government for songs recorded outside the country, according to the WSJ. This includes big players like Google, Baidu and Yahoo’s Chinese presence, Alibaba. And it most certainly will affect Apple’s iTunes service, as well.

In a statement from China’s Ministry of Culture, the new measures are designed to:

…weed out bad content, a large amount of unapproved imported music and copyright violations, as well as to establish more supervision and regulation over the market.

Seeking permission and approval is easy. All that’s required is a copy of the lyrics and evidence of the copyright owner’s permission to sell and distribute the songs online. For every single song. Easy. Not a supremely unnecessary pain drain on resources at all.

Even the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) — normally the first to jump up and down with glee at the implementation of efforts to observe artists and record label’s copyrights — aren’t entirely convinced this is the best way to move forward. Neil Turkewitz, RIAA’s executive vice president, International, had this to say:

We understand that China has particular sensitivities about the distribution of content, but introducing new controls on the legitimate delivery of music will do little to address these sensitivities. At present, an estimated 99 percent of the online music accessed by Chinese users is infringing. Hopefully these new regulations will be applied to all services that provide access to music, and not only to the few legitimate services that are providing legal materials.

Turkewitz added, “China should apply and implement these regulations in a careful manner, so that they target copyright violators and don’t become a burden to legitimate providers.”

All this talk of copyright ownership and market regulation is, on the surface, noble and decent and worth applauding. But it’s also a stark reminder that, for big corporations like Apple, Google and Yahoo to continue to do business in that country, they must acquiesce to rules and regulations that, in the West, would be considered completely unacceptable infringements on our rights to freedom of self-expression and commerce.

Certainly, Apple, Google and the rest will do what it takes to continue doing business in China — the market (and the potential revenue it makes possible) is simply too huge to ignore.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Cloud in the Forecast For Apple
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era

Normally, Apple removes apps from the App Store at a rate we can digest and analyze, but it looks like it’s now adopting a different tactic, maybe to frustrate criticism with sheer volume. This time around, it has given the boot to a stunning 900 apps in one fell swoop. The apps aggregated various web content, and charged $4.99 for the service, despite not being copyright holders of any of it.

The app’s developer, a company called Perfect Acumen owned by one Khalid Shalik, employed 26 Indian and Pakistani programmers who churned out 943 apps last year alone. The purpose of all of the apps was to grab content tailored to a specific target audience and just display it on the iPhone. Even this simple task it didn’t handle very well, according to user reviews, which mainly criticized the app, and worse still, Perfect Acumen held no copyrights for any of the content they republished, including photos of hot celebrities, which tend to catch the attention of fair-use publication enforcers.

According to The iPhone Blog, Apple says it revoked Perfect Acumen’s developer account and removed the apps when Shalik or any company representative failed to respond to any of the 100+ complaints Apple received as a result of the applications. Other developers also criticized Acumen’s shady marketing tactics. All in all, it seems like for once, Apple’s review process actually got something right, albeit belatedly.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. Perhaps as a direct result of the kinds of complaints received against Perfect Acumen, Apple seems to be clamping down on all content source provider apps, according to Erica Sadun at TUAW. First to go are e-book applications, which, according to TUAW’s sources, are now being met with a blanket rejection policy because of third-party rights infringement. Like its stance on charitable applications, it just doesn’t want the onus of having to vet each app for the accuracy of its claims.

The policy appears to be a blanket one, though, and covers even apps where the developer is the owner of the content, or has the right to reproduce it and can prove it. It’s bound to be a major door-closing for app store developers, and one that will only continue to sour developer sentiment towards Apple and the way it does business. Finally, the icing on the cake, all e-book readers apparently also now run afoul of Apple’s policies (which might explain the lack of a Stanza update in recent memory).

It’s one thing to make sure you’re covered when it comes to legitimate accusations of enabling copyright infringement, but it’s another altogether to wage war on an entire subcategory (literally, since “Books” is one of the App Store’s categories of apps) of software. I suspect this has something to do with the rumored launch of a tablet-type device in the fall, which is said in some circles to have e-reader capabilities.

If so, this preemptive thinning of competition borders on the sinister, and I’m seriously considering a permanent switch to RIM just to protest these shady business practices. That said, there’s still plenty of opportunity to prove me wrong Apple. Let’s hope you do.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Operators’ Strategies for Connected Devices
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

Apple is constantly fighting a losing battle with jailbreakers on the hardware and software front, issuing updates that are quickly analyzed and broken by the Dev Team and other highly motivated individuals.

Recently, they’ve been trying to cut off the jailbreak community from another angle: by making it illegal to unofficially alter their handsets. In order to get the U.S. Copyright Office to see things their way, they told them recently (PDF) that the act of jailbreaking could actually cause transmission towers to fail.

I’m pretty confident that this is little more than a sensationalist scare tactic on Apple’s part, but the accusations make for pretty heavy reading. Not only could they take out transmission towers, but they also might be able to get around paying for calls (gasp!) and conduct denial-of-service attacks to purposefully crash the tower. As far as I know, none of these things have ever actually happened, but kudos to Apple for giving people ideas.

Apple argues that since jailbreaking gives users access to the OS code, it could be used to allow users to access the baseband process (BBP) and make changes to the device’s unique exclusive chip identifier (ECID). By changing that number, users could then either make calls anonymously, or even assign responsibility for calls to another ECID, the registered user of which would then be responsible for charges.

In their filing with the Copyright Office, Apple even went so far as to suggest what such a hack might be used for: “With access to the BBP via jailbreaking, hackers may be able to change the ECID, which in turn can enable phone calls to be made anonymously (this would be desirable to drug dealers, for example) or charges for the calls to be avoided.” Bringing up the specter of the war on drugs in the U.S. clearly shows that Apple knows what buttons to push to get its way.

As PCWorld rightly points out, network operators rely on SIM information, not the ECID, in order to identify customers for billing and liability purposes. Unlike the BBP, jailbreakers cannot access and change their SIM card information, so in theory all “drug dealers” would still be identifiable via their carrier, even if Apple couldn’t pinpoint exactly which iPhone they were using. Still, the denial-of-service attack threat still does pose a potential threat, in theory.

Apple’s argument is a response to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) claim that the iPhone jailbreak lock is invalid from a copyright perspective, and only serves to stifle the distribution of independent third-party applications. The U.S. Copyright Office is expected to rule either way later this year.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Wrapping up another seven days and bringing you the freshest picks, it’s time for this week’s App Store Roundup.

Tom Reetsman kicked off the week by calling Technologizer’s Ed Oswald out on an article he wrote about MobileMe, the general gist of it being that Oswald canceled MobileMe, only to lament the disappearance of his data.

By Tuesday, Google added Tasks syncing to the already impressive Gmail web app. Wednesday saw a roundup of iPhone time tracking apps, essential tools for freelancers managing multiple projects. As I’ve mentioned before, Harvest — my favorite time tracking service — has a fantastic web app available for iPhone.

Finally, our own Matthew Bookspan pitted two productivity services against each other — DEVONthink Pro Office and Evernote Premium. Contrary to my preference (I’m an avid Evernote iPhone and OS X app user), it seems that DEVONthink’s tool came out on top.

Moving on, let’s talk about apps, this week I’ve been looking at ExZeus, Aggravate Nails on Chalkboard, Audio Memos Free – The Voice Recorder, Epiphany Recorded and Rolando Lite.

ExZeus ($5.99)
Giant robots, laser cannons, alien invasions, explosions — these are inherently exciting things. Distill these things down to videogame form and there’s a good chance you’re on to a winner. ExZeus finds you playing a robot with a laser cannon causing explosions while fighting off an alien invasion: this is hyperbolic space shooter action at its best. The gameplay captures old Sega classics like Space Harrier while the rainbow gun metal 3D graphics bring Transformers instantly to mind (plagiaricious!).

Audio Memos Free – The Voice Recorder (free)
On to serious stuff then, as we take a look at this voice recording tool. There’s a bevy of options available to those looking for a memo recorder for the iPhone. For those still searching for a audio recording tool, this free, ad-supported app is a good starting point. The app can use either the built in iPhone mic, or the headset mic, records in up to 44100 kHz and even has a scrub tool — letting you skip to the essential parts of each recording.

Epiphany Recorder (free)
While Audio Memos Free is a traditional voice recorder app, Epiphany Recorder has a unique angle on the whole memo recording concept. The idea behind the app is that often you’ll hear something worth recording and, before you get the opportunity to capture it, the moment will be gone. To combat missing those all-important moments, Epiphany Recorder captures the previous two minutes of audio from the moment you hit record. Of course, you have to keep the app open, but it’s still a commendable way of solving an issue for students, journalists and seminar attendees everywhere.

Rolando Lite (free)
Released last year, Rolando is a fantastic tilt ‘n’ touch based puzzler for the iPhone and touch. I wrote up a comprehensive and complimentary review for it a couple of months back, stating that Rolando is an essential for iPhone and touch gamers, “… what we have here is the benchmark for what a complete iPhone (or touch) gaming experience could be and, furthermore, should be.” If you don’t have Rolando and you’ve never tried it, you’re now fresh out of excuses as Rolando Lite is a free demo containing the first few levels of the full game. Get it now!

Aggravate Nails on Chalkboard (free)
Wonderful, yet another way to simultaneously alienate your close friends while illustrating the fact that your state-of-the-art iPhone, with GPS, Bluetooth, 3G and all that digital jazz, is nothing more than a shiny digital whoopee cushion. Except this app is actually quite good, for starters, it knows its place in the pricing pantheon (next to worthless) and is free. And therefore worth the 5 minutes of unadulterated joy you’ll derive from watching your friends’ skin crawl as you screech your fingers down the iPhone’s screen.

Just One More Thing

I’ve noticed a fantastic new trend emerging over at the App Store. It all started two months ago when Olivier Bernal, a French iPhone app developer, decided to pinch stock photography from iStock Photo. Then a too-close-to-the-bone clone of Nintendo’s famous zapper game Duck Hunt appeared on the App Store, only to be pulled last week following a complaint from Nintendo.

It seems that app developers are already running out of original ideas and instead running rampant with other people’s copyrights. I picked three copyright infringing apps, released in the last week, that flaunt it like a middle-aged divorcee speeding round town in a second-hand Porsche with a “Single and Lovin’ It” bumper sticker.

First up is The Eggs, described by the developers as, “A simulation of a popular Soviet game ‘Electronica IM-02′ which was a clone of Nintendo’s Game&Watch series game ‘Egg’.” So, effectively, we’re talking about an iPhone simulation of a simulation of a game which, in itself, was an emulation of a classic Nintendo title.

There are several things I’m not sure about here; firstly, I’m not sure whether I correctly used simulation and emulation. Most importantly though, I’m not up on my Soviet copyright law — was the game originally infringing copyright? Or, in Soviet Russia, does copyright infringe you?

Then there’s Flipt – Heroes Edition, a traditional tile matching game that uses images culled from the Heroes TV series and is almost certainly not an official spinoff. The app description is a giveaway, “Find pairs of matching images all themed around the popular sitcom Heroes™.”

Because, of course, Heroes is indeed a sitcom. I’ve always thought that Sylar is the Chandler of the bunch. And, I particularly enjoy that the app description used the ™ symbol while totally infringing the trademark.

And I’ll skip straight to the point with CuBert — it’s a direct rip of classic Q*Bert, heck the character is exactly the same as the original retro hooter-nosed weirdo. To the guys at LagMac, the game’s developer, this may apparently be “… in homage to Q*Bert creators,” but it’s still a massive copyright infringing bag of profit-generating plagiarism.

How can the people behind these apps be smart enough to program a game for the iPhone and then actually get it on the App Store, but either have no concept of copyright or are simply just risking it? How can you be that smart and yet also that dumb?

I’ll leave you to ponder that final question and see you next Saturday for another App Store Roundup. In the meantime, let me know which apps you’ve been downloading in the comments.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide
• Virtual Worlds: Trends and Opportunities