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)
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.
What's funny is that Apple Computer had to cut a deal with the Beatles record (called Apple) to keep their name.
MS is trying to get software manufacturers to stop using "Windows". Apple is going after completely unrelated businesses. Big difference.
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
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!
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.
From what I gather if you have a trademark and don't fight infringements you lose the trademark. I can understand why companies do sue over trademark infringements especially if they have put a lot of money into it.
No, they are trying to stop other IT companies from using the name Apple. You don't see them suing Apple Grocer or anything like that.
I think most people would regard the telecoms industry as separate to the IT hardware industry actually.
Not to mention that the telecom would indirectly benefit from Apple Inc's advertising...etc.
Er, how? Apples advertising is almost all designed to try and sell a very particular type of hardware. That has absolutely no repercussions on sales of bandwidth whatsoever, and assuming that 99% of people can tell the difference between their local bits'n'pieces store and their telephone company, they should also be able to tell the difference between a computer hardware company and a telephone company.
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).
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"
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.
Funny how they can be so cute and flip when they flaunt convention and IP law, but such assholes when they are on the other side of the bar.
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.
If you really want to fear, consider what this tells us about what Apple would be like if they had Microsoft's market share. Kind of makes you want to go shake billyG's hand for being the lesser of evils.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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
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
Then you're either smoking crack, or you're in a very lucky portion of the population.
I work in an office of 180 people, with an IT/engineer department of 7. Of the other 173, maybe 15 know enough about computers to install their own RAM, much less their own OS.
I also do consulting for 10 different small businesses (about 30 people), none of whom could install their own OS (including one who thought "Macintosh" was a separate company from "Apple").
If 90% of the population can do their own upgrades, then why are _any_ IT people making money?
Look around. Do 9 of 10 people you know do computer upgrades? Not just your friends... include your parents, your parents' friends, your grandparents, their friends, your mailman, your garbageman, the guy at the Dairy Queen, etc. Don't forget, you're in a very segmented portion of the population.
-T