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.
"I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do."
While i agree with what you're saying, but don't you expect us to be able figure this obvious fact out for ourselves?
If it's news for nerds, keep this kind of commentary out of it please.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Well, with snipeing like this right the news portion of a Slashdot "news" story, I certainly hold no respect for CowboyNeal and have nothing but disgust for wallykeyster. There are two side to this issue. No matter what you believe the proper outcome should be, one has to admit that Tiger did get a trademark on the name for software use well before Apple used it for exactly that. And the above quoted statement is simply a lie. Although I doubt that Tiger would ever have any good software sold under the Tiger trademark, I certainly respect their right to trademark the name and to try to protect that trademark.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you buy something from TigerDirect online, you will be asked, in the very last field of the last window, for the last four digits of your social security number. At that point, you either have to abandon the results of your shopping efforts, or provide private information that could be used for identity theft.
Orders can be canceled only by calling TigerDirect, and they are reluctant to cancel.
That is my experience. I ordered something from the company, but then decided to cancel, because the length of the warranty was very unclear. I finally decided that the company does not seem reputable enough for me to feel comfortable buying from them.
Screw them.
This little publicity stunt already backfired with bad press, rather than free brand exposure.
Lets all boycott them a bit. See if the slashdot community is strong enough to put them out of business.
IMHO any company who goes to this length to get their name in the news has no place in business.
Nobody needs this level of stupidity. It's a waste of court time, and money (which us consumers eventually end up paying for).
Tiger -- (come on sue me)
I'd rather live in a world with Tigerdirect and no Mac than a world with Mac and no TIgerdirect.
Actually, with Microsoft it wasn't because Windows is a common English word. You can trademark common words. If you can't trademark common words, I can use "Apple" for any computer related thing I want. I can come out with my Apple Word Processor or Apple OS. Windows was a commonly used word to refer to something in computers before Microsoft used it. Apple already used the word (as well as many others) to refer to, well, windows in a computer environment. It was already a term in use in computers.
Also, the court did !!!!NOT!!!! rule that Microsoft couldn't trademark Windows. It was brought up that there might be a problem because it was already a generic computer term before Microsoft's use, but Windows is still a trademark of Microsoft. I can NOT come out with a My Name Windows.
Finally, you aren't allowed to take part of a trademark and use it. Here, Apple is taking the primary term of Tiger and removing the modifier Direct. What if I wanted to start a mail-order catalogue called TigerComputers? Should that be legal? I can tell you it isn't.
Apple's only hope here is to claim that an operating system is a different industry than mail-order computer catalogues. That claim can be made quite well and whether it is good enough will depend on who is hearing the case. Of course, the Firefox name came about because a database was close enough to a web browser. Of course, those are two pieces of software. You can debate whether Apple is in the same industry as TigerDirect, but if they are in the same industry, TigerDirect's case is air tight.
"Oh, of course! Obviously the US is to blame! You don't need to explain it or back it up. Hell, your statement is so bad that it's not even false - it's just plain nonsensical."
The only thing nonsensical here is your childish reply to a completely foreign concept.
Depending on how much you treat the internet as a source, there's an article here about what I previously mentioned: click.
Be careful though, it may be too much for you to grasp in one sitting. Particularly striking is this quote, "Virtually no one knows that in Wright-Patterson Field in Ohio, in the Library of Congress and in the Department of Commerce in Washington, a "mother lode" of 1,500 tons of German patents and research papers were being mined furiously after the war. One gloating Washington bureaucrat called it "the greatest single source of this type of material in the world, the first orderly exploitation of an entire country's brain power."
Mining a country's brain power = intellectual property theft. A plan for a machine or a process is intellectual property. Prior to the war Germany was very strict about not patenting it's inventions in other countries or licensing the tech to other countries for production. Now you see why.
There are many, many documents and books related to this subject. It's just not that well known, because who wants to admit that the tech they're working with was stolen? If you come up with a revolutionary idea, and I shoot you and claim it as my own, is that wrong? When you said, "Things like copyrights and patents can certainly be good and useful, but they are not property law and they do not deal with peices of property. Thinking that it is property, thinking that it is or should be the same as property law, well that just leads to mistaken conclusions", did you ever consider books? You believe in physical property rights but not intellectual property rights? Do you think that books also should not be copyrighted because they are just made up of words in different order?
Oh and not to nitpick, but you should attend your English classes. I before E except after C would teach you that it's 'piece' not 'peice'. Also, 'rediculous' is spelled 'ridiculous'. It's one of the few words you know which is not spelled like it sounds.