Slashdot Mirror
The Apple Name Game
Apple Core sent a link to an article running in Australia about Apple fighting for their name with some little telco called Apple Communications. Well, they were called that. Now they are Green.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
or are PC _and_ Mac manufacturers getting more anal by the day? First Phoenix and now this.
I know at least one person is going to bash me for this, but if you were founding a company, wouldn't you try to come up with an original name? I mean, there are a telecommunications company, so it is possible that they could be mistaken for Apple.
...all the grocery stands, supermarkets, and open-air markets would have to pay the Big A for using their name on all the produce tags.
People fighting over generic names of fruits, whats next?!? people fighting over generic names of holes, like windows???
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
MS was trying to stop other software producers from using the name "Windows". Apple, on the other hand, wants to stop *anybody* from using the name "Apple". Talk about aggressive! They make MS's lawyers look tame by comparison. Now that's a company using OSS to be proud of!
In Europe, there's also a telecomm company by the name of Orange. It appears their first selection of Apple Communications was the opposite of Orange, and now their second choice of Green is as well.
Super green!
I seem to remember Apple has been through a name fight before...
capitalize the words 'Australia' and 'Apple' when posting a story to the front page. Thank you.
Apple finds a company riping off it's name. The offending company changes it's name. this happens all the time in the buisness world, just look at all the name changes power companies with Edison in their name make to avoid copying someone elses name.
We love Apple, we hate Apple... Argh, why must this company be so fucking schizophrenic in how it treats people? C'mon, Apple! Make up your mind, are you an asshole megacorp-wannabe or a company that tries to do What's Right(tm) by people? I just... don't... get it.
Steve. Seriously. Are you a real prick or do you just play one in the courtroom?
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
"I sell digital communications and they sell computer hardware. Where's the connection?"
Well the connection is..
Intellectual property "trademark" and money.
+++ David Watts 5495 0.0 0.5 1888 884
They are one of the VERY few companies offering unlimited broadband downloads in a country full of 3 Gig caps.
-----
slashdot needs a google topic catagory
Gee, this is another Lindows/Windows thing.... but in this case its even worse.... an apple has been a generic term far longer.. when will there be a simple way in the legal system to dismiss these absurdities from even coming into being?.
What they don't mention is that when Apple did release the Mac, they named one of the system sounds Sosume /So-sue-me/, basically laughing at Apple recording.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
With names like Ogg and Vorbis it is much easier to establish a trademark given that they are completely invented name (oh! wait! Maybe they are words in another langage?). And given the controversy inside Free Software circles it gives them much marketing for free.
BTW, on close view I am for Apple on this one, I really think they will win against Apple
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Harry Shearer and Eric Idles "Ruttles" had a record label named "Banana" as documented in "All You Need is Cash." Gosh I wish they should show that satire-special again -- it was such a hoot and one is sure to pick up more of the jokes a second time around.
I am hard pressed that if there wasn't an Apple record label with all of the feel-good associated with the Beatles that Jobs and Woz would have called their computer something else. Why do you suppose Apple Computer got a free ride? Yes, a computer company and a record label (at least at the time) were completely different businesses, but Jobs would be coy to suggest that his Apple had no connection to the Beatles Apple and that he wasn't trying to make a connection in people's minds.
Zlnasdng Telecommunications? Possible, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Apple Records for infringement... It's not like they're using it anyways. Two of the guys are dead!
They may neglect to mention a certain Apple Records that they had to pay off to stay in business. From what I have been told, the very famous MacOS sound "SoSuMi" was derived from that experience. "So sue me."
And how quickly they turn the other cheek.
They used to be:
Applecomm.com.au, but on the frontpage there is an announcement regarding the settlement and the change to iGreen.
I can certainly forgive them for their apples being sour.
The only upside of this is if Apple Communications would have become an ISP (not entirely far fetched). The name Apple Internet Access or Apple Broadband could certainly be too close for comfort, and would enjoy at least a small amount of probable name association; the very thing these sorts of suits are trying to protect against. It's a tough situation on either end of the boot.
--jay
Tuxedo manufacturers suing linux companies over tux?
What about garden gnome manufaturers.
What about the Kentucky Department of Education.
What about lynx (also a popular brand of deoderant, and a courier service)
You get the idea
This sort of thing seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon--particularly cases in which big corporations go after small local companies in totally different businesses.
What has changed that suddenly makes it important for big companies to go around breaking butterflies on the wheel?
Is it just that the Internet makes it easier for big companies to search for and locate small companies with similar names?
(Anyone remember Infocom having to change the name of their game newsletter, "The New Zork Times" because the New York Times' lawyers said people could confuse the two?)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
that OLD news...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
What the fuck is this?! Somebody gives friendly spelling tips to a site editor and you call him a troll! I'd fix this if I had mod-points but you people are fucking retarded!
Apple is only obligated to go after trademark infringements by companies that are in similar industries. So, of course, they're not going to go after your local grocery store, carpet cleaning services, towing companies, maid services, or whatever else stuck "Apple" in their name so they'd be in the front of the phone book.
But a telecommunications company is fair game since Apple does telecommunications. With the convergence of computers and traditional telephony (e.g. VoIP, modems, 2.4 GHz wireless, DSL), the two industries are becoming basically the same thing these days.
Remember that Apple has one of the top 10 most recognized trademarks, and there are a lot of companies that wish to make some money (through name recognition) off that trademark. At the same time, they hope to mount a sympathy defense by citing how small they are.
I think he certainly knew what what he was doing when he named his company. I wouldn't be surprised if he hoped that Apple would buy him out to settle the naming rights in Australia (much the same way Microsoft did with "Internet Explorer), but they already had the global naming rights. After that didn't happen, he probably figured a $100,000 settlement is pretty cheap to get nationwide publicity for his company. He gets a newspaper article about him, and the sympathy of misguided trademark-haters around the world.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
When is Apple going to take on Apple records? But wait, they have been around longer (set up by the Beatles) and they are a record company, so we all know who would win.
Apple, and all large companies, NEED to defend thier trademarks religiously. And while some people may think they are out to crush the little guy the opposite is actually true.
If a company doesn't defend it's trademark then it can lose it. If a large company ignores a competitor or possible competitor that coulds dilute it's trademark then they run the risk of losing the trademark to every other company that wants to use it.
So while some people may see this as Apple being a bully, I view it the other way. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend even the smallest possible dilution then that could open up the door and some judge could rule against Apple later.
Oh wait... (C) 1995-2002
I hope they serve iSteve up some karma...
...going to be over their choice of domain name: iGreen.com.au. These guys must enjoy being in court.
Internet copyright lawyers are generally iTools about stuff like this.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Green is being sued by a man named "Green Giant" and so is changing it's name to "Fish Communications" only to be sued by Capt. Highliner, the rock band Fysh, and Microsoft (for using the word "communications".)
Later at discovery it was discovered that there are no words left to trademark, period. (tm)
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
I'm concerned that Linux is not going to make it to the big time for one simple reason. While coders are working on the system, developers are writing applications, and the press is writing about Linux, there is no concerted effort by a central group that is pursuing important lawsuits against those who use the word "Linux," the syllable "lin," or the letter L in their product names. Further, the penquins at are zoo are labeled as such without any notice that they are not related to or shareholders of a Linux company. I for one am confused by these misleading names and animals and I am sure that if they aren't stopped, and I mean soon, Linux is sure to fade into obscurity.
Can't someone do anything about this problem before it's too late? And why isn't Linus leading the legal fight? What's he got that is more important to work on?
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
You can't patent the name Circle, Square or Triangle unless it's an appended one,(Circle-K, Square-D, Triangle-Services).
Why should common fruit be any different?
You may be right, but your tale may be a cover story told by Jobs.
Apple computers is sueing New York for $ 100 billion Dollors for using "The Big Apple" to promite the city. A spokes person for Apple (computers) said "New York is obviosly using our good name to lure overpriced high earning apple users to new york and get rid of the bad apples already there"
As the saying goes. One bad apple spoils the bunch.
Sanity is a majority vote.
A lot of large companies will higher a consulting firm to come up with a name for them.
NPR had a story about this a couple months ago about how hard it is to come up with a company name now adays. The main problem, as already stated, is that most english words are already taken. So actually finding a meaningful word or combination of words is really really hard.
When there are no real words left, the firm then gets to make up a word that brings out the values of the company, while not sounding to outlandish. It's actually rather interesting how random sounds put together can make someone thing a particular thing when it has no real basis in english. I'm guessing it's based a lot on roots and prefix's used in english.
All in all though, such a firm should be responsible for making sure the name is not already taken.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Yo listen up heres a story
about a little guy that lives in a corp world..
I'm green.. da-pen-dee-da-pen-dah
coz Jobs was mean-da-pen-deee-da-ben-dah!
Sorry I had to remind everyone of that horribl song
Later at discovery it was discovered that there are no words left to trademark, period. (tm)
Please don't use the word "period" in order to make a point. That's trademarked (See below). Our trademark will be enforced vigorously. Thank you.
- The NineNine Legal Team
Hey Apple, why don't you sue Apple Records too???
I swear to god, how do you guys like Apple? They're worse than Microsoft.
The popular beat combo known as The Beatles own their own company which manages all their affairs and rights. This company happens to be called Apple Corp and it has been going internationally since the 1960's. Its logo also happens to be an apple with a bite out of it.
Methinks Apple computer should bear in mind there were companies called Apple in existence long before it came in to being, before it goes after anyone with the word apple in their name.
Actually, Apple was having the same sort of problem in the 80s. They were being sued by Apple Records, in the end they won, but had to agree to never try to enter the recording business. Later, when the first mac was released with a high quality audio in port standard the system alert sound "Sosumi" was added. Yes that is really how they got the name for that alert sound :)
Close the world.
One who energetically defends something they have stolen, purporting they have created it.
See also: www.apple.com/osx and www.microsoft.com for further reference.
Well, I always enjoyed a good apple fight. It seems more fair than dragging lawyers into it.
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
From the article:
Originally from Hong Kong, he started Apple three years ago to challenge mobile phone company Orange.
Apples and oranges -- get it? Is there a more obvious, yet concise and witty way to point out the supposed difference between companies?
I know the attorneys, and the company that employs them, look like assholes when they zealously protect the name -- a reason I couldn't do this kind of work -- but they have to or they'll get screwed in court by someone else. Look at the MS problem with Windows -- Lindows et al. with delicious irony retaliate by attacking all Windows branding. Note that one step in their argument was to submit a list of companies using Window in their name apparently without interference from MS. MS may have blown it, a major catastrophe for them. (Personally I think the name Lindows walks the line of -- a lot of "ordinary people" might reasonably think it's a Microsoft product.) The same could happen to Apple -- every company named Apple could be a nail in the coffin of the trademark.
As someone here has probably mentioned, Apple had early problems with Apple Records, Lennon's company IIRC, and settled by promising not to get into the music business. They got sued when they started doing MIDI; I'm not sure how that was resolved.
So, they do come across as assholes, and maybe they are, but they are trying to protect legitimate business interests, not just flex corporate muscle. Pretty much every case looks like intemperate bullshit, but that's how it works because a trademark dies the death of a thousand cuts. Look at cellophane and aspirin and the other famous lapsed trademarks. A protected trademark, unlike copyright, is immortal.
There are some things about being an 800 lb. gorilla that just have to smell bad. I don't like it -- just check out the sprawling list of reserved names, some not even in use on the Apple site. Microsoft much have an even longer one.
Anything you don't sue can and will be used against you in a court of law. Branding does protect the consumer, and keeps ripoff artists at bay, but I would welcome a solution to these petty skirmishes. Perhaps it would make sense to license the name out under the right circumstances of honest overlap, without waiver of Apple's primary rights. I don't know whether this is done, though I can imagine some pitfalls.
I see 2 ways to profit: A: 1. Intentionally select a name like windows, apple, etc. and form a company. 2. Ride the wave of free publicity and sympathy. 3. Sell Something. 4. Profit. Or B: Become a lawyer.
For some reason I have always found humour in a company that competes with apple named pear. Probably because of their fruitness. This isn't exactly related I guess but imagine a computer maker named:
Pear
They just released the Pear Barlett pBook. It runs Anjou OS X. It is fast and sexy.
You like?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Didn't "so sue me" spin out of the butthead astronomer clash?
I always wondered why sgi never sued apple over the use of indigo (sgi has the rights to a computer named indigo, yet one of the iMacs was called indigo)....
It seems silly to be fighting over a name.
The Kid who Can not Spell
Apple is only obligated to go after trademark infringements by companies that are in similar industries.
:)
I don't think that's true for a couple of reasons off the top of my head. The first is dilution, cases where the name in an unrelated field (usually porn) makes the trademarks holder look bad, as in the Candyland case. Second, failing to protect its copyright could hamper Apple's future attempt to expand. It's certainly not unheard of for a company to expand by buying up businesses in other industries; Microsoft sure has, as has virtually every big company I can think of. (When times are bad you suddenly hear about their long-forgotten "core business.")
Apple Records was the original bully here, perhaps Apple is still smarting from that lesson.
As I mention in a parallel post, trademark holders, especially bg ambitious companies, have to be bloodthirsty. And I think that sucks, but don't doubt that it is true too often to be careless.
I parrot the law, I don't write it.
Those who forget the past are condemned.
... so he hires lawyers for the same reason I hire someone to change the oil in my car. Sure, I could do it without getting too dirty ... maybe.
And Linus (first name basis!) does have better things to do
Woz was SORT of okay? I mean the guy is brilliant, yet very humble. If it weren't for him, there would be no Apple today, yet he still gets paid around $50k a year. If you read about things that Woz has done, like giving his stocks away to other apple empoyees who missed out on the IPO, and teaching computer classes for poor kids you start to realize that Woz is probably a much better guy than most of us (no "sort of" about it).
...I'd sue on grounds of trademark tarnishment. I mean, have you been to NYC in the last 20 years?
:)
Before I get flamed, I add: New York City, there's no place on earth like it.
It's actually possible for people to mistake their mouth for their asses, but I think that if we assume that's the norm, the standards for the human species have dropped pretty low.
If a telecom company is "in the same business" as one that sells computers, then a farmer is in the same industry as a supermarket and a photographer is in the same business as a lamp manufacturer.
Did you see Windows go after AMD (or the other way around) for using "XP"...? Did you see Stanislaw Lem go after Sun for using "Solaris"...? Or do you think the catholic church will go after Apple for using, well... an apple? That's not just trademark infringment, it's also probably a sin.
I can understand Windows going after some products with "Windows" in their name if they are operating systems created after MS Windows or if they are products such as "Windows MegaBackup" (which they usually ask to be changed to "MegaBackup for Windows", just to make clear that it's not a part of MS Windows). They are not going after companies that make real windows, or window-cleaners, or movies with the word "window" in their title. Because they have some respect for their consumers' ability to distinguish between them and because they have some sense of ridicule.
Once again (after buying Nothing Real, RayZ, Spruce Tech, etc., just to kill the Windows / Linux versions), Apple has out-microsofted Microsoft. In fact, they have the advantage of making you buy their hardware as well as their software.
RMN
~~~
How can you blame Apple for fighting this company? Apple has spent large amounts of money to promote their name, logo, trademarks, etc. Most people do not see a difference between computers and telecommunications. You can't tell me that Apple Communications wasn't hoping to gain some quick name recognition by using "Apple" in their name. I can see it now..."Gee, it says Apple so it must be real easy to use, I know I saw that on TV yesterday."
Besides doesn't trademark law say that if you don't actively protect your trademarks then you can't complain when someone starts using them? Purely from a legal standpoint I'm sure a lot of this has to do with setting precedent for future trademark infringement cases.
"No Comm, No Bomb"
Bayer still considers it trademarked judging from all the ® warts here. No, I can't explain it.
Interesting about WWI, I had not heard that. I heard how well reparations worked out, though. What a headache.
Apple Apple Bo Bapple
:-)
Banana Fanana Fo Fapple
Me My Mo Mapple
Apple!
<laugh>
I couldn't resist the urge, sorry.
~ kjrose
In this case, the average - read
- not
aTo the trademark lawyers, we're a really insignifigant portion of the population - most people really know next to nothing about computers.
-T
The name "Apple" in "Apple Computer, Inc." is rather generic and is not even in the neigborhood of International Business Machines or Hewlett-Packard, names that clearly isolate them from the pack. Why should a small company be find $100k because Jobs & Wozniak decided to use such a simple name that gasp was already in use by at least one well known record label, the Beatle's Apple Records.
Apple just doesn't play fair and if they continue to be the "underdog that turns around and bites you" then they should go out of business. Remember, Jobs or whoever, from which you came - a garage, and the creator of Apple Communications seems to be coming from rather humble beginings as well.
But this site claims:
I suppose it is "Bayer Aspirin" that is trademarked. Interesting.
And my original point about genericide stands. Try thermos or trampoline or kerosene.
_6dD$think they have the right to forbid everyone else from using the word "Apple", even if they have nothing to do with computers or operating systems.
Apple Communications sells broadband. What the hell do you think people will be hooking up to that, tin cans to holler into? There is a clear conflict there.
(what's next, suing McDonald's and Scotsmen for using "Mac"?
Actually, Apple had to pay off McDonald's so they could use "Mac," even though there's no connection between a computer and shitty fast food.
You want to rail against a big corporation being ridiculous with the trademarks, McDonald's is a much better choice. They were actually in a legal battle in Scotland with the centuries-old Clan McDonald over the use of the name, for pretty much anything. Now THAT is being a dick.
~Philly
The irony of this is way back in the day when Apple was just getting started, they were sued by Apple Records (I believe they're British) for basically the exact same thing. Apple Records was concerned that some of the computers Apple Computers was producing had the ability to record sound and that consumers would be confused as to which compnay was which. That's where the old Mac "sosumi" sound came from. Jobs was basically telling Apple Records where to stick it.
uh oh - Dartmouth is gonna be pissed now.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
..It's X Window System, not X.
Lowmag.net
Here's another example of what they've been up to. In short, Tex9 (a small company which makes open source software) launched xtunes, but got a letter from Apple telling them to change the name... (sounded like iTunes) now it's known as sumi . (sounds familiar, right? :) )
www.apple.com/osx:
r ite
Apple - Page Not Found
iHypocrite, defined on google:
http://labs.google.com/glossary?q=ihypoc
Sorry, there are no definitions for ihypocrite
I think this, and the "Windows" debacle earler this week, are an example of what I consider a flaw in the current laws. I dont think a company should be able to use just some random noun as their company/product name. Noun combinations are another issue, but naming something "Apple" or "Windows" is ridiculous.
"Apple Computer" should be considered the full name, and if some guy wants to make "Apple Teleco," thats a completely different company, and I defy you to find more than 1% of people who would make the mistake.. and even if they did make the mistake, what does that hurt? "Hi, I want to buy one of those new ibooks" 'oh, no thats Apple Computer. www.apple.com.'
Again, along with things like corporations operating sweatshops in other countries, big companies have WAY too much power. I don't think the founders had the postmodern era in mind 230 years ago, when industry was still relatively local and nascent. I think two things need to happen: a) analysis and updating of current laws, b) multi-national corporations/companies need to be held up to OUR laws, not the laws of the target nation (which is essentially a colony to the corporation by current laws). Part (b) is also another way we can start to "grow up" and face globalization, and be less hypocritical when we say we're an advanced culture.
My $0.02
Apple sells online storage, file sharing, web hosting, email addresses, photo albums, and backup services.
.Mac
Apple
It's not a pretty law, but Apple does have an obligation to shareholders to protect the name and brand that Apple has developed for the last 26+ years, or lose the trademark.
What's your name? Your real life given name? What would happen if someone else just 'took' your name and got a new credit card? The basic idea is the same, identity fraud and riding the coattails of someone else with a good name, rather than using your own. Apple may not have a choice in this, just like you wouldn't have a choice in defending *your* name.
GPL Deconstructed
Why is this article not in the Apple section?!
It does have the Apple logo but it is not linked anywhere.
Please, editor(s) give us an answer.
Hey, this is /. spelling and grammer go out the window ;) Damn I hate homonyms.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
He should have asked /. for a better name. green apple would have been better than green. green is being used for everything from ass_paper to zippo liter fluid. how about linux digital telecom LDT. He could also sell flowers.
Interesting to note that Apple leaves alone people like Apple Auto Glass here in Canada -- different industry!
We should be more concerned with the ownership of generic words at the DNS level which is the real trademark travesty these days.
"Hello? Is this Apple? I have trouble with your Internet service and your Operating System is flakey."
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
For-profit companies that remain viable entities do so because they understand that the primary purpose of a corporation is to make money. Understanding this clarifies why they act the way they do. If they can make money by being decent to people, then they will do that. If being complete jack-holes will make money, then they will do that. Note that these are not necessarily exclusive, companies can be both in different situations or even to different groups of people at the same time.
Apple is no different than any other corporation. Sometimes it is in their "interest" to be nice and sometimes it isn't. But you can understand why if you understand their purpose. (even if you disagree with what they do) Apple doesn't exist to make you feel warm and fuzzy. If they do, it is only because it is in their financial interest to do so.
This just in. Apparently a Granny Smith is being sued by Apple Corp. Smith contends that she had has had the name rights to Apple for over 100 years, but in a California court today Smith was forced to change her name to Granny Smith Penquin Snacks and forfiet over $1,000,000 dollars of damages to Apple. Smith was quoted as saying, "This trial is a travisty. It's a travisty of a mockary of a sham of a mockary of a travisty of two mockaries of a sham". (bananas)
The thing about trademarks are you MUST defend them or you will lose them. One instance where you could have reasonably known of the existance of trademark ingringement where you don't defend will strip you of your trademark. Its that simple.
Both offer webhosting, email addresses, online storage... .Mac
.Mac, and it does things such as file sharing, email, web hosting, backup services, etc... Everything except the actual dialup connection.
Now, arguably, Apple Computers had the name first but Apple nee iGreen had the service first, but Apple does offer something called
Is Apple computer in the right? Well, they do have an obligation to protect the name/trademark or lose it. Is Apple Computer being a bully about it? Possibly, I don't know the full story, other than the article.
But Apple Computing is more than just computers, you know. They do video editing, DVD authoring, MP3 players, computers, rackmount servers, Unix, office productivity, internet application servers, homepage hosting, email services, backup services (limited), online storage, and file sharing now, all for profit.
So anyone making MP3 players calling themselves Apple has a problem.
Anyone making video or DVD software calling themselves Apple has a problem.
Anyone making rackmount servers calling themselves Apple has a problem.
Anyone selling a Unixed based OS for home computers calling themselves Apple has a problem.
Anyone selling web services calling themselves Apple has a problem.
GPL Deconstructed
Oh, wrong corporation.
No wonder Apple Computers cost $100 more, all that extra money goes to defending their name!
Anyone have an explanation for why this wouldn't be in the apple section?
Word Mark
APPLE
software; maintenance and repair of computer software applications; updating of computer software; computer programming services; computer services dealing with providing access to multimedia and interactive computer products; provision of computer databases and on-line information; services relating to downloading of information and data from the Internet; leasing of computers, computer peripherals and computer software. FIRST USE: 19800900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19800900
"services relating to downloading..." sounds a lot like telecom to me. However, it would require remarkable prescience to include the word Internet in a trademark app filed in 1980, so I checked the filing date. The filing date on that trademark application is 0ctober 2,2002.
I wonder when the former Apple Telecommunications company was founded, and if Apple Computer actually had a trademark covering telecommunications before the October 2,2002 filing date. Or at any rate, before Apple Telecom was founded.
The question here is if a large company can add items to its trademark coverage specifically so they can sue companies they suddenly discover have a similar name that are working in areas they might want to work in someday.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Aside from the demands to pay for the legal team, I think Apple handled this situation better than they could have.
1) They didn't take it to court, which is a hell of an expense
2) They offered monetary compensation
It sorta sucks, but it's part of the business. If a mattress manufacturer developed a new very very soft matress and called themselves Micro-Soft Matresses they wouldn't get away with it. Since both companies are in the IT business, there is reasonable conflict.
OTOH, to start some rumors, Apple also has a tendency to shut things down when they plan on doing something similar themselves (buy outs of companies, law suit over DVD equiped eMacs). Be on the look out for a web service provided by Apple.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I run a discussion forum which focusses on broadband internet access in Australia.
The previously named Apple Communications has some really competitive broadband plans, and they are discussed often. However, I have often seen people casually confusing the huge computer company and the micro-Telco.
This was not a paranoia strike or an over-reaching hand by Apple Computer -- they were being confused. This wasn't apples and oranges, it was apples and apples. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the previously named Apple Communications.
Simon Wright
http://whirlpool.net.au
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Trademark holders are obligated to fight for their trademark in order to keep it. Some Random Technology Company + Protecting Their Trademark = Story Posted? Lame.
This got me to thinking (Stand back or the explosion might hurt you).
Windows has been around for almost 20 years now. It would seem that with it's home market share that it would have become a common term for OS's. Much like Klennex is now klennex, it's a generic term for tissue and any tissue maker can use the term in their product description without a TM or R mark.
Being a techincal person I am well aware that 'windows' in computer terms is MS Windows ( though 'window' may not be. But I wonder what 'windows' means to the average non technical computer user. Would they equate windows with Mac/OS, Windows, Solaris, etc.. etc.. . While not being completely on target with this article it could bring up an interesting circumstance for Apple.
Some comanies sue over this because it Dilutes their Trademark, so I guess the price for becoming so sucessful is that you loose any hold on your trademark.
Any thoughts to round this out or clarify my statments/questions?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
apple.co.uk Where do these guys fit in then?
Window
7.(computer science) a rectangular part of a computer screen that contains a display different from the rest of the screen
Sorry, a window has an intrinsic meaning to every modern GUI. The generic term that Microsoft uses has nothing to do with glass panes.The post you respond to makes a valid point.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
The Apple Communications logo was similarly not a squillion miles away from the Apple Computers logo. Even I was confused for a few seconds the first time I saw their ads - "What's this cheap arsed thing that Apple's gotten into?" were the exact words that bounced through my head.
I'm glad that Apple Computers pursued this one - Anyone who has the naivety to name an electronics/communications company "Apple" in the last few years can only blame themselves if they are eventually called on it.
Slashdot will explode under the weight of Apple apologists saying there was nothing wrong with Apple's actions, and that despite appearances to the contrary, Apple is all sweetness and light and nothing like the corporate scum their actions indicate.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Apple always was better at suing people than building computers.. I'm sure they have more lawyers than engineers.
Actually, Apple had to pay off McDonald's so they could use "Mac," even though there's no connection between a computer and shitty fast food.
Care to present any evidence of that...?
If it weren't for him, there would be no Apple today
That was a rather unfortunate choice of words. There would be at least all the companies named "Apple" that had to change their name because of Apple Computer's bullying.
Woz is probably a much better guy than most of us
Yes, but he was nicely evened out by "Superior" Steve (who is, I'm pretty sure, behind this decision, and others like it that Apple have made recently).
Apple is quite consistent in how they treat people: they tell them what to do, they tell them what's good for them. In the case of the operating system, that translates into "ease of use" because users don't have to think as much and don't face such a bewildering array of choices. In the case of legal and business issues, well...
Everything you just said was fucking stupid.
From page 109 of the hardcover version of Insanely Great, by Steven Levy:
Ultimately, after some deft negotiating with the McDonald's fast-food chain on the status of trade names prefixed "Mac," it became the computer's true name.
While not specifically stating that any money changed hands, I highly doubt that 'deft negotiating' only consisted of Steve Jobs repeatedly calling them and saying, "Plllleeeeeeeeease, please, PLEASE, can we use it????"
Oh, and while we're on the subject. Apple also had to pay off McIntosh Laboratory, makers of ultra-high-end audio equipment, for the use of the Macintosh name, because it was a phonetic infringement on the former's trademark. And that tidbit comes from pages 86-87 of The Mac Bathroom Reader.
~Philly
Except Gates *isn't* the lesser of two evils.
Right now, in our reality, he is the greater of two evils.
*If* Apple were in Microsoft's position, they *might* be the greater evil. Since they are not, they *aren't* the greater evil, only the *lesser* evil.
Apple Communication and Apple Computers both sell web space, email addresses, and online storage. Whether that's enough to litigate over, I won't decide since I am neither Apple company.
However, Apple Computer did eventually infringe on Apple Records by allowing Macs to operate as recording studios. Apple Records and Apple Computers came to an agreement, as have Apple Computers and Apple nee iGreen. If, later, iGreen 'flaunts' the agreement as Apple Computers did, that's up to iGreen to face the consequences, isn't it?
But Apple Computers *did* settle with Apple Recording, after all. Don't forget that bit.
GPL Deconstructed
If people decided to refer to, say, legacy free PCs in non-beige boxes, as "apple computers", there is nothing Apple Computer could do about it--they'd lose their trademark and the term would become generic. Ultimately, Apple Computer and their trademarks are at the mercy of common usage. The only legal power they have is over other businesses So, start talking about "my apple" when talking about your cool PC, and help take back the trademark...
Who came up with "Amazon"?
I heard someone say a while ago that all the good URL's are taken. That's not far from saying all the good tech company names are taken, given the internet's global reach. The anti-cybersquatting rules and decrease in tech speculation, not to mention lots of bankruptcies that freed up more than office chairs, generally seem to have eased the pressure a bit. It must be challenge to come up with an internationally unique but memorable name that isn't an obscenity it some language you don't speak.
Trademark can also be violated with similarly spelled or rhyming words. So it looks like English majors will be able to get jobs, other than naming new pharmaceuticals with nonsense words.
Endnote: Remember Pan Am "the sky is no longer the limit" (2001: A Space Odyssey)? The trademark actually lives in a vestigial form, sort of like Lord Voldemort. A good trademark is valuable long after the company is dead. Don't expect commuter service to ISS anytime soon, however.
Actually, eWorld was an earlier effort than what I was thinking of. (More.) It appears the focus was on setting up a portal but not trying to compete on access. Their early alliance with Earthlink (what happened to that?) might have been a gesture towards some sort of synergy. Anyway, the distinction between access and portal probably goes right by most consumers, taking us back to the trademark problem. (I went through enough agony in my old job trying to explain to my boss the difference between RAM and hard drives, and why we needed to buy both.)
I remember that there is www.appleisp.net What up with that? There's not even the usual "in no was associated with" disclaimer.
Non-UK Mac users might not have realised this, but the Apple we know doesn't own www.apple.co.uk. Don't ask me how the agency that does has got away with it, but it's been this way for some time.
it's not about the karma, it's about the whuffie
Microsoft doesn't have to buy *anything*.
Developers already develop only for PC as it is; Corel killed Wordperfect for Mac, Half Life was never released for Mac, etc, etc, etc.
Mac versions for many products just don't exist. Why is it economically unjust for Apple to stop producing an unprofitable PC version (since it doesn't sell Macs and since it's only got 500 licenses compared to Linux) when it's okay for Corel to stop producing an unprofitable Mac version? Or are you complaining about Apple *buying* good software, instead of producing it from scratch?
In my engineering background, I've heard that there are only two solutions for any problem. Buy or build. Microsoft bought Bungie (an in the process has denied thus far the PC and Mac versions of Halo). Are you supporting Microsoft by using Microsoft powered PCs? That would be slightly hypocritcal of you. Microsoft bought IP from SGI, relating to 3d technology. Do you use DirectX? Do you deny Microsoft wants to minimize OpenGL? It hasn't succeeded in killing OpenGL yet, fortunately. Or how about how the fact that Microsoft bought Spyglass Mosaic instead of writing their own browser, and always release IE years behind on the Mac version, as well as killing Netscape in the process?
Everyone plays the same game. Refusing to buy a PowerBook (and buying what, a PC instead? Or will you use Linux?) is only denying yourself access to stuff. If you use a Microsoft PC then you only foster the same behavior from Microsoft. If you use Linux, well, then good luck, cause it is Linux.
GPL Deconstructed
I'm wrong, actually.
Apple killed it's eWorld online service years before Apple nee iGreen went into business, so I guess Apple *was* there first.
GPL Deconstructed
So, tell me, does Steve Jobs' cock taste good?
Carl Sagan was the code name for the PowerMac 7100. The other computers they had in development at the time were the 6100 and the 8100. The 6100 was code named Piltdown Man, and the 8100 was Cold Fusion. As you can see, this would imply that Carl Sagan is also a hoax. Yes, they got sued, and changed the 7100's code name to BHA. When Carl Sagan got wind of what BHA stood for, he sued again, and the engineering team changed the code name to LAW (Lawyers Are Wimps).
Also, in response to the post that this post is responding to, the sound name was Sosumi, not Sosume.
> Developers already develop only for PC as it is;
> Corel killed Wordperfect for Mac, Half Life was
> never released for Mac, etc, etc, etc.
And ISS Pro was never released for Windows, which is a shame because FIFA sucks. But your point is...? You can't force developers to port software when porting that software is not economically viable. Valve is a small company, they don't have the staff to port their games to a market as small as the Mac (they took forever to make console ports, and those sell nearly as much as PCs).
And neither was released for Linux, by the way, which has more users than Mac (although most dual-boot or use Windows emulation).
Take a look at one of the few companies that always made Mac versions: Adobe. What does Apple do? They start competing with them, releasing their own alternatives (some of them included in the OS). Result? Adobe gets pissed off and they start optimising their software for x86. Result of that? Some Adobe software (ex., After Effects) now runs twice as fast on an average x86 than on a top Mac. Result of that? Macs look less and less attractive to the high-end market.
Not that I'm saying Apple shouldn't make alternatives; just as I think it's great that Microsoft makes a web browser. Is just don't think it's great that they bundle it with their OS hoping that people won't even try the other ones (and most people won't, because they're lazy or because they don't even know there are alternatives to what came bundled with their OS).
> Mac versions for many products just don't exist.
Neither do Linux or OS/2 or BeOS versions. Again, what does that have to do with Microsoft's or Apple's way of doing "business"...? It's pretty hard to find Beta tapes, although Beta is much better than VHS. Maybe Beta would have been more successful if Sony had made it public instead of proprietary. Maybe OSX would be more popular if it could run on non-Apple hardware (ex., x86).
> Why is it economically unjust for Apple to stop producing
> an unprofitable PC version (since it doesn't sell Macs
> and since it's only got 500 licenses compared to Linux)
Oh, it's not "economically unjust". It's just immoral. And stupid. They're not going to sell more Macs. The high-end professional market doesn't care what software or hardware they're using, they care only about money and deadlines. If it's cheaper and gets the job done faster, then it's better.
And it shows that Apple knows it can't compete. If they're keeping the x86 Linux versions, they could easily keep the Windows version too (it's the same code, just a different GUI).
If they just wanted a "starting point", to build their own compositing / post-production program, they wouldn't need to buy Shake and RayZ. They did it to kill the competition, pure and simply. Imagine Microsoft bought Macromedia or Adobe and stopped making the Mac versions. What would you say then?
> when it's okay for Corel to stop producing an
> unprofitable Mac version?
I think that even you can see the two situations are totally unrelated. The Windows versions of Shake, etc., were clearly profitable, otherwise Nothing Real would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. It was certainly a lot more profitable than the Mac version, because it sold a lot more, and at a higher price. Apple is hoping to make up for the lost sales by selling more hardware, but they won't. The people who really profited from Apple's move were Discreet (makers of Combustion) and Eyeon (makers of Digital Fusion). It doesn't matter that the Mac version is cheaper. x86 is faster, and that pays for the difference over and over. They also lose a ton of 3rd party plug-ins that only run on x86.
> Or are you complaining about Apple *buying* good
> software, instead of producing it from scratch?
I'm not complaining about anything. One the contrary. I use Digital Fusion and I know that from now on I'll have a lot more plug-ins and a lot more industry support, because the Shake and RayZ user base has taken a major hit, and plug-in makers are starting to look for alternatives. I just feel sorry for all current Shake and RayZ users.
> and always release IE years behind on the Mac version,
And your point is...? Does Apple make Windows ports at all? If they're not happy with IE, why not use Mozilla or Opera instead? Or why don't they make their own (better) browser?
> as well as killing Netscape in the process?
I don't think they bought Netscape, did they? Yes, what they did was against the market rules (losing money on a product just to eliminate the competition), but at least they did make a competing product, they didn't just buy NS and killed the *nix versions to force people to move to Windows. In fact, they even make IE for Macs. And Microsoft doesn't force you to buy their hardware, either.
BTW, I used Netscape for a long time and it pretty much killed itself (bugs, bugs, bugs, and I don't mean just the page renderer). I moved from NS to Opera and I occasionally use Mozilla (less and less, now that Opera 7 is out).
RMN
~~~
Ha!!!! Fuckin HA!!!!!!! Somebody mod this up before I die of laughter!!!! FUCK YEAH!!!!
Every single Macintosh has onboard sound! They just don't have onboard synthesizers as the original article said.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Change the name from Apple to Orange.
Adobe makes around 50% of their sales from Mac products. It's in their best interests to keep producing Mac software because of their symbiotic relationship with the platform. Adobe optimizes for BOTH.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Yes, they do. I never said they stopped optimising the Mac version; just that they started optimising the x86 version.
The Windows version of Photoshop 5.0, for example, was basically a port of the Mac version, with no extra tweaking. But 6 and 7 were written for x86 from the ground up, and so is After Effects since version 3.
Which gives you a better picture of the hardware difference between Macs and PCs (to put it bluntly, an Athlon XP 2200+ is almost twice as fast as a dual G4 in Photoshop or After Effects). This is obviously not in the best interest of Apple if they want to convince people their systems are faster than PCs.
BTW, care to present any evidence to sustain that theory that "half of all Adobe sales are for Macs"? Let me just remind you that Macs are approximately 3% of the personal computer market, while PCs are approximately 90%. If Adobe only managed to sell the same number of units in the PC market as they sell in the Mac market, they would immediately sack their PC marketing department. They sell more copies of Premiere than Apple sells computers. So unless all Mac users buy several copies of each Adobe program, I find that theory a bit unlikely...
RMN
~~~
Death Islamic Muslim Cleric of Killing the Innocents, Mr. Death 100 Percent.
Eye gouging, tongue amputating, piercer of hands and other live body parts with electric drill, electric shock giver, sexual abuser who breaks open glass bottles in a torture victim's anus, Falaqa giver, mock and real executioner, acid bath giver!
We know what you do. Your Muslim version of "porn" mags are torture pictures and videos. Your crooked evil Koran and your vile devil ways will be noticed, stopped and you will be killed, you fucking slimly stupid piece of fucking trash killer trash. NOI member? Terror supporter? Apple Lover (makes sense for your fucking communist terrorist anti society ass to love a shit fucking Apple.)
You will be rooted out, weed. And you will be killed like a dog, in the same way you and your cabal of killers levy death on the innocents.
While it seems as if Apple (Computer) is picking on a company in a different industry because they have the word "Apple" in their name, the truth is a little different.
...", "Apple today announced....", "Apple's Internet plans...", etc.
In fact Apple Communications referred to themselves on their web site and in various publicity not as "Apple Communications", but as "Apple" - "Apple offers
In other words, Apple Communications was portraying themselves as just "Apple", a name that would be easily confused with Apple (Computer).
The funniest thing about Apple Communications is that they offered no support for Macintosh users!!
Either they are very naive or they set out to cause trouble for themselves. No sympathy from me.
David
Strange that every page brings up a Microsoft Server 404 page linking to Microsoft Support for more information.
Damn, I went to that site to buy a G4 Powerbook, but instead of getting the Apple Store, UK, I'm told to go to Microsoft for further support.
Shame that Aussie guy didn't hold the rights to apple.com.au - to point it to microsoft.com.au
Well seems the above company could be in for a rough ride if this is anything to go by.