In 1991, U2's record company sued a small US band called Negativland for using an unlicensed sample of the song I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. The lawsuit was settled out of court, with Negativland agreeing to drop the sample from all future pressings of the record.

The case was remembered by a US artist called Francis Hwang when he bought his limited- edition U2 Apple iPod on its release last year. Hwang decided to load up seven Negativland albums onto the iPod. He also changed the image on the front of his iPod so it read "Negativland vs U2".

He then decided - as a statement about intellectual property - to sell his "Extra Special Edition" U2 iPod on the internet auction site, eBay. "I paid money to Apple and I used my own credit card to buy a U2 iPod," says Hwang. "This thing that I was selling was mine to do so."

So you would think. However, one day before the auction ended, eBay got in touch with Hwang to tell him it was pulling his extra special edition iPod off its site. eBay said it was taking this action on behalf of Apple, which allegedly told eBay that Hwang's iPod infringed Apple's copyright.

Apple has a crack cocaine-style addiction to suing people. Hwang made repeated efforts to get in touch with the company which is very easy to get hold of when it has some new product to flog - but to no avail. He simply wanted to know, as he is entitled to, what particular article of copyright law he violated. His iPod was an art-joke, no more, no less.

This is just so typical of the corporate bullies at Apple. This is the same company which is currently suing several journalists. Apple alleges that the journalists are "misappropriating trade secrets". Translated from the bullshit, this means that some major fans of Apple have been writing excited blogs about future Apple products that haven't yet reached the shop shelves. Misappropriating trade secrets my arse.

"I think it's unfortunate that Apple didn't explain to me or anybody else why they got my iPod removed from eBay," says Hwang. "That kind of behaviour seems to speak of an attitude that is very corporate. You are accountable to the shareholders but not to anybody else."

There's an important issue here. Apple seem to operate under the principle that once it has sold a product to a customer, it still retains some form of copyright on it. Hwang has modified his U2 iPod as he sees fit. What would Apple argue if it brought Hwang to court: that nobody can write anything on the cover of its iPod?

Apple has friends in the media who will dutifully flog the products, but they've all been strangely silent on this story. After eBay was "persuaded" to drop Hwang's iPod sale, the artist then decided to sell the iPod on his own website (www.fhwang.net). "It's a matter of principle," he says. "This is something that I spend a lot of time on. I was excited about it and wanted to see it up for auction. Apple stopped that. I don't think they have a right to do that."

For Hwang, this was a free speech issue and he was quite prepared for the Apple lawyers to come after him to stop the auction. They didn't. A few weeks ago, a buyer in Luxembourg bought the iPod for $667. The buyer had heard about the story through an article in France's Libération newspaper.

Hwang was always clear on the fact that the money raised by the auction was not for personal profit. He has donated all proceeds to a nonprofit grouping called Downhill Battle, which is involved in "promoting a fairer music industry". (They're probably communists.)

The Apple lawyers who read this column (like I'm bothered) might like to bookmark www.downhillbattle.org.

bboyd@irish-times.ie