Slashdot Mirror
Judge Denies TigerDirect's Request for Injunction
wallykeyster writes "As predicted in previous discussions the judge has ruled against TigerDirect's request for injunction to prevent Apple from using 'Tiger' in their advertising." I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.
When Apple deliberately prevent competing operating systems from working, I'll have my doubts. Microsoft, on the other hand, have been less than welcoming to competition in the past - remember the DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 incompatibility?
Apple make their own computers and are well within their rights to ship their own OS. Microsoft, on the other hand, forces OEMs to ship Windows, and uses decidedly underhand techniques to ensure their OS prevails.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
The deal is that TigerDirect saw the possibility of some easy money, hoping that just the threat of an injunction so close to Tiger's release would scare Apple into sending them some cash just to forget about the whole thing. Apple didn't bite. And a judge didn't fall for it either.
So TigerDirect revealed themselves as a bunch of jackasses, and the courts worked as they're supposed to. Yay!
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
1) Assloads of publicity from suing Apple. Suing the fruity one always gets you some attention no matter how frivolous.
2) The precedent of defending their trademark. So if another catalog retailer ever comes along with a name that really does infringe, they can't say that TigerDirect failed to protect their TM.
I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.
That's right, CowboyNeal, say what everyone wants to hear. It'll drive up the ad revenue.
Or MacMail?
What's wrong with TigerDirect? I've bought stuff from them before. Cheap prices, good selection, everything shipped on time. No problems. BTW, the banner ad at the top of my screen right now is for TigerDirect.
Apple deliberately prevented BeOS from working on their newer hardware.
In effect, they forced Apple hardware users to use their OS, in a time period when a significant part of the 'leading' mindshare was defecting.
No, but these guys might.
That's a little known facet of WW2. The Germans lost not only the war but every single patent they ever had. Who did they lose them to? Oh, the USA of course. It was the single largest theft of intellectual property the world has ever seen, not to mention the absolute looting of major banks and households.
Ironically enough, a percentage of German gold was actually stolen from displaced/killed Jews and other countries that Germany had conquered. Tons of that gold made it back to New York where it was re-pressed with the Federal Seal, thereby making it US money. Through following paper trails and lots of hunting, Jewish advocacy groups located much of their own gold and the US government was forced to pay them back, with interest. This all happened very recently (the payback itself).
Bin Laden is even better known... but not good for his 'brand'.
I dunno, did you ever see the episode of TV Nation with the segment called "Direct Mail"? Moore sent out two letter campaigns asking for money. One for "friends of Jeffery Dahmer" and one for an average young couple just trying to make ends meet. If you can't guess who got more money, you'll have to watch the show to find out.
Another interesting fact about WW2 is that the looting of the German industry (pretty much all machines were taken) is partially responsible for the Wirtschaftswunder: As we had no machines to produce anything we had to replace them, which we did - with the most moderm machines on the market, which boosted productivity. Had we not lost all the old machines, economy would still have boomed, but not as much as it actually did.
;)
All in all, it seems that the people who profited from the massive looting are not the looters themselves, at least as far as physical things are concerned. The intellectual property (what an ugly word) theft, however... Hmm, didn't Microsoft just start this contest where people make movies about "Thought Thieves"? This sounds like the perfect topic for an entry.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
> I don't see any reason why common names are a problem when they apply to a narrow domain.
Well, I do. Who gets the domain www.tiger.com?
For an interesting twist on this question, point your browser at www.nissan.com.
-s
I had no idea that 'spoils of war' was still an acceptable ideal.
I never said it was still acceptable. We're talking about a war that was fought 60 years ago, when ideals were different. It is folley to apply today's political correctness to yesterday's society.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."