how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to Daemon
Re: We've passed Peak Apple.... said by Daemon:said by Metatron2008:You actually got one right. Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble.
Apple has a long history of making good devices and then acting like it invented the entire market. You wanna also say that Apple invented the term App store?
I was talking about patents and mobile operating systems, not lawsuits from decades ago or those involving trademarks (which operate completely differently--if you don't sue on a trademark, you lose it by default). So you got me on the Nokia one, but the rest are not relevant in this context. Stating Android v iOS is about Linux vs Unix is a little silly. The core is not where the controversies arise--nearly all of the lawsuits have been about interfaces not about core feature implementations. Some of them have been algorithmic, but none have involved the actual kernel of the operating system that I am aware of. (The only 'core' lawsuit I can think of is Oracle vs Google re:Android APIs) And not all OSes share UI features. Apple likes to use Windows Phone as an example of how you can do things in a different enough way that you don't infringe, while still making a device that does all the things users want. The microsoft one is related, as they actually sued for look and feel of various icons. They sued because a garbage can on windows looks similar to a garbage can on mac os.
And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'. | |
DaemonPremium
join:2003-06-29
San Francisco, CA Reviews:
 ·webpass.net
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| said by Metatron2008:And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.
This is how trademark law works. In order to prevent erosion of your trademark, you virtually have to sue over ridiculous non-infringement. Your trademark is only protected with a moat as far as you can sue. By suing as far as you possibly can, you keep that moat as large as possible. One missed lawsuit and the moat gets irreparably smaller.
Unlike patent law, where your rights remain whether you sue or not once the patent is issued, under trademark law, you automatically lose rights if someone infringes and you don't sue, and you lose them forever.
It's why Microsoft sued a student who ran a teenage web programming business called mikerowesoft.com.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die. | | |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by Daemon:said by Metatron2008:And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.
This is how trademark law works. In order to prevent erosion of your trademark, you virtually have to sue over ridiculous non-infringement. Your trademark is only protected with a moat as far as you can sue. By suing as far as you possibly can, you keep that moat as large as possible. One missed lawsuit and the moat gets irreparably smaller. Unlike patent law, where your rights remain whether you sue or not once the patent is issued, under trademark law, you automatically lose rights if someone infringes and you don't sue, and you lose them forever. It's why Microsoft sued a student who ran a teenage web programming business called mikerowesoft.com. So you are saying its okay to bully smaller companies who actually have equal right to similar things?
Nissan Motors is still bullying a guy who is actually named Nissan over his domain Nissan.com. Nissan motors claims they have more right to the domain than someone with Nissan as a surname.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
DaemonPremium
join:2003-06-29
San Francisco, CA Reviews:
·webpass.net
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| said by Kearnstd:So you are saying its okay to bully smaller companies who actually have equal right to similar things?
Nissan Motors is still bullying a guy who is actually named Nissan over his domain Nissan.com. Nissan motors claims they have more right to the domain than someone with Nissan as a surname.
The premise of your question is an ad hominem. My personal feelings on the matter do not change in any way how trademark law operates. That said:
Morally, no. But I feel corporations are not bound by morals the way individuals are. Corporations are bound only by laws, so the most effective way to prevent the kind of bullying you're talking about is not to claim it's immoral but to change the laws so it's not legal.
--
-Ryan
I use Linux, OS X, iOS and Windows. Let the OS wars die. | |
sk1939Premium
join:2010-10-23
Washington, DC
kudos:9 Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by Daemon:Morally, no. But I feel corporations are not bound by morals the way individuals are. Corporations are bound only by laws, so the most effective way to prevent the kind of bullying you're talking about is not to claim it's immoral but to change the laws so it's not legal.
This is filed under "social responsibility" for companies. We all know the laws are not likely to change, at least for the better. | |
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by sk1939:said by Daemon:Morally, no. But I feel corporations are not bound by morals the way individuals are. Corporations are bound only by laws, so the most effective way to prevent the kind of bullying you're talking about is not to claim it's immoral but to change the laws so it's not legal.
This is filed under "social responsibility" for companies. We all know the laws are not likely to change, at least for the better. Sadly corporate America lacks that. They seem to forget they can make barge loads of money without being complete assholes.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
 ·Dish Network
| reply to Daemon
said by Daemon:said by Metatron2008:And saying you have to sue based on a trademark is a rediculous method of excusing a company suing a grocery store, WHICH SELLS APPLES, for having an apple logo. That is bullying, from a company that doesn't want anybody else using it's 'forbidden fruit'.
This is how trademark law works. In order to prevent erosion of your trademark, you virtually have to sue over ridiculous non-infringement. Your trademark is only protected with a moat as far as you can sue. By suing as far as you possibly can, you keep that moat as large as possible. One missed lawsuit and the moat gets irreparably smaller. Unlike patent law, where your rights remain whether you sue or not once the patent is issued, under trademark law, you automatically lose rights if someone infringes and you don't sue, and you lose them forever. It's why Microsoft sued a student who ran a teenage web programming business called mikerowesoft.com. You can repair your trademark. It's difficult, but rights aren't necessarily lost forever. For example, Xerox has done a good job repairing their mark.
Also, Apple takes their trademark protection to extremes. I've been doing IP law for over 18 years, including trademarks. No other company for whom I've done trademark law was as loony as Apple, although Ty Industries was close.
By the way, your comments about patent law aren't quite accurate.
--
Awesome. More handouts, food stamps, welfare and entitlements to come. I'm so proud. | |
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Don't forget Monster Cable for loony... they once sued an indoor minigolf place that had monster in its name.(no clue if they have tried to sue Monster Energy Drinks, But I am guessing the drink maker has a wallet too deep for a maker of overpriced cables to harass.)
and how loony you mention apple being, Didn't they once try and sue NYC over calling itself "The Big Apple"?
Actually how well has Xerox done? I know I have not heard the term Xerox a document in a long time.
I know Google is facing the old Xerox and Kleenex problem though. I once heard someone say they where going to Google something and they went to Bing...
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| Regarding Monster and Apple, I don't know who advises these guys, but the craziness leads me to believe that someone's looking for billable hours.
Exactly, since the phrase "xerox this page" or "please xerox this for me" is no longer being commonly used, the mark hasn't become (or is no longer) generic. That's why they've successfully taken back their mark.
Exactly right on the Google thing. But no doubt the Google lawyers are well aware of the dangers.
--
Awesome. More handouts, food stamps, welfare and entitlements to come. I'm so proud. | |
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by Goober:Exactly right on the Google thing. But no doubt the Google lawyers are well aware of the dangers.
appears very aware.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29
quote:
The transitive verb[1] to google (also spelled to Google) refers to using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. However, it can also be used as a general term for searching the internet using any search engine, not just Google. A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance[2] of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002."[3] It was added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006,[4] and to the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006.[5] The first recorded usage of google used as a participle, thus supposing the verb, was on July 8, 1998, by Google co-founder Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: "Have fun and keep googling!"[6]
Fearing the genericizing and potential loss of its trademark, Google has discouraged use of the word as a verb, particularly when used as a synonym for general web searching. On February 23, 2003,[7] the company sent a cease and desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of Word Spy, a website that tracks neologisms.[8] In an article in the Washington Post, Frank Ahrens discussed the letter he received from a Google lawyer that demonstrated "appropriate" and "inappropriate" ways to use the verb "google".[9] It was reported that, in response to this concern, lexicographers for the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary lowercased the actual entry for the word, google, while maintaining the capitalization of the search engine in their definition, "to use the Google search engine to seek online information" (a concern which did not deter the Oxford editors from preserving the history of both "cases").[10] On October 25, 2006, Google sent a request to the public requesting that "you should please only use 'Google' when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services."[11]
on a side note while looking this up I discovered that at some point dry ice was a registered trademark as is/was plexiglass.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 | Thermos, aspirin, etc. The list goes on and on. Companies/products that are a victim of their own success.
--
Awesome. More handouts, food stamps, welfare and entitlements to come. I'm so proud. | |
|
