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.

Comments

apple sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

and tiger is shitty -MikeTROLL

Does that mean...

[pmazer]

I can say "Tiger" again?

Re:Does that mean...

[DoraLives]

I can say "Tiger" again?

Only if you say it indirectly.

Re:Does that mean...

[gvc]

Yes, but you still don't have enough free vocabulary to relate the opening scene from The Flintstones. As you may recall, Fred puts the tiger out but it re-enters the house, not through the door but through the winspire.

Re:Does that mean...

[macthulhu]

I don't know... The 80 year old man that lived next to me as a child used to call me "Tiger"... That was 1974. You'll be hearing from my lawyers.

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your girlfriend calls me "Tiger"--more prior art :).

Re:Does that mean...

[antic]

My neighbor used to call me the same thing, until I stopped leaping out of the bushes in his front yard and scratching at his face.

Re:Does that mean...

[arodland]

I thought it was the Winstone. You'll be hearing from Ziff-Davis.

Re:Does that mean...

[jlebrech]

And linspire will also for having a similar sounding name.

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of dog, legal analysis has absolutely no place on Slashdot. Look, the armchair lawyers have already torn this apart!! Ha Ha! What fools to bring a lawsuit! So meritless! Wooha!

1.) You people know nothing about the law
b.) You're all idiots
III.) Suck my cock

Re:Does that mean...

[digitalcowboy]

I don't know... The 80 year old man that lived next to me as a child used to call me "Tiger"... That was 1974.

How old are you and what dimension are you from? As a child, this now 80 year old man lived next to you and that was in 1974?

Oh, wait. I parsed the sentence wrong, didn't I?

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is a sabretooth tiger. Different species.

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

your girlfriend calls me. all the time. tell her to come get her panties and leave me alone.

Re:Does that mean...

[AndroidCat]

Sure, the judge said "Hold that Tiger!"

Re:Does that mean...

[scottv67]

You do know that John Titor posts to Slashdot once in a while, don't you? ;^)

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple will sue you

Re:Does that mean...

[umrgregg]

Funny! You made my day. Thanks

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother called me the Apple (of her eye). Does that mean I can both sue the Beatles and that other bunch of suits?

Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

If Microsoft trampled over a business' IP rights like this, they'd be hammered in the press, in blogs like this one, and harassed by the courts. But Apple can do it, and since they're all sweetness and light, they also get a pass on advocating DRM, making DMCA threats, and maintaining an OS monopoly. Go figure.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

Maintaining an OS monopoly? Heh, yes, of course, because we all know there aren't other operating systems available for the Mac...

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

So you concede then, that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, because Linux is available for the PC. Fair enough.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[skingers6894]

IP rights? To the name "Tiger"?

Right.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this anything but TigerDirect attempting to use a frivolous lawsuit to gain some free advertising? If you do a little bit of digging you will find the use of Tiger goes back farther than either of these two companies.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

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.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Clanner]

I don't see how naming an operating system after after an animal is trampling anybody's IP rights. Last time I checked, the word "tiger" was a common english word- it's not Apple's problem that TigerDirect choose that word to be part of their name. Besides, do you really think anyone was confused about Mac OS X Tiger and TigerDirect?

And as far as being hammered, Apple does get hammered, and rightly so, when it comes to DMCA threats, etc. Apple certainly is far from perfect or an ideal corporate citizen. But all-in-all, I think they are better than Microsoft when it comes to their corporate citizenship.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

I do remember the DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 issue. There was a version check in a *beta* of Windows 3.1 to ensure Windows 3.1 wasn't running on an unsupported OS. Of course, the fact that they encrypted the code didn't make them look so good, but lots of software checks the platform on which it's running and refuses to run on unsupported ones--while we may not like that, it doesn't lend itself to accusations of monopolistic practice.

With respect to OEMs, where can I buy my iMac at a discount if I don't want Mac OS X? They force me to buy OS X with the hardware, which is no different that what Microsoft is doing.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[cowscows]

Yes, but MS was forcing that through another company. They were using their market share an importance in a market to set the business plans of companies that they had no direct ownership in. And they directed those companies not to even offer competing OS's. That's not cool. It's certainly anti-competitive.

No one is saying MS should be forced to offer X-box'es with linux preinstalled. They can ship them with whatever they like, they're manufacturing them and selling them. But when they tell Dell that every person who orders a computer there has to also buy a copy of windows, that's pretty crappy.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Richard_at_work]

Win 3.1 was prevented from running on DR-DOS, sounds much like the recent Real and Ipod saga. Microsoft prevented OEMs from distributing Windows AND other OSes at the same time, Apple does just the same - in both cases the after sales market isnt prevented from doing anything. Apple doesnt like competition any more than Microsoft.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Flamebait (dares to criticize Apple)

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

So if Microsoft buys Dell, then everything is cool. So the issue is that Microsoft "forced" a multi-billion dollar company to bundle its operating system. More likely, Microsoft offered Dell a deal, and Dell willingly took it. They probably pay $10 a box for Windows instead of $200, and pass that on whether the customer wants it or not (marked up a bit, of course). So again, it's pretty much the same thing as Apple's doing, without the technicality of Microsoft owning Dell.

(I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft buy a large PC manufacturer to get TCPA/NGCSB/Palladium off the ground, but that's neither here nor there. And mark my words, Apple will produce "trusted computers" once they've let Microsoft, Intel, and all take the PR flak.)

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

You might want to have a look at this. A quote:

"It is technically possible for a manufacturer to install any number of operating systems on a computer. The user then has to choose which operating system to use during the boot process (after switching on the machine). However, Microsoft OEMs are only allowed to install Windows. No machines with both Windows and, for example, the free (!) operating system Linux, can legally be sold by OEMs."

Doesn't sound especially fair to anyone but Microsoft, that. Remember who the convicted monopolist is?

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

So Apple's selling dual boot Linux systems now? If not, I still don't see a difference, other than that Microsoft was prosecuted and Apple wasn't.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

Apple aren't, but you can buy a Mac running Linux from here. They're an authorised Apple OEM. There you go.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

But I still have to pay for OS X. It's not as if they allowed the dealer to unbundle it. So the effect is the same, except that with a Microsoft OEM, I might have to buy a CD from Cheapbytes if I want to install Linux.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

You asked for a dual-booting machine. Don't move the goalposts.

In any case, it is not the same. When you buy a computer from Apple, you are getting just that - an Apple. Apple have the right to ship whatever they want with their own computers. If Microsoft made a PC, they'd be allowed to ship Windows with it no matter what.

The problem is that other companies, building their own computers, are being forced to ship nothing but Windows - or they get no Windows at all. Now, if Apple forced other companies who made PPC board to ship the Mac OS, then maybe it would be similar.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[cowscows]

You're still missing the point. Apple can put whatever they want on their computers when they sell them. Microsoft can put whatever they want on their computers. Of course, MS doesn't sell computers. So instead they almost blackmailed Dell, Gateway, etc, into only providing Windows on their machines.

Then it went a step further. So Dell is putting windows on all their machines. Then MS says, you can't include netscape either, even if it runs on top of Windows. You have to use our browser only. And if you don't, we'll revoke your ability to sell our OS, and you'll go out of business. That's pretty crappy if you ask me.

But yeah, if MS bought Dell, they'd be free to sell Dells with whatever software they liked, and they wouldn't have to offer linux. I'd be fine with that. You can limit your own company however you want. Just don't go around telling other companies not to support your competitors.

You can sort of draw a parallel with Apple and the iPod. They don't have the huge marketshare that MS had with Windows, but they're definitely the major player in mp3 players. Belkin makes a lot of iPod accessories. I'm sure they're making plenty of money off of them. But they also make accessories for the Dell DJ. Maybe Apple should call up their CEO and tell them to stop making stuff for Dell's mp3 player, or Apple will do everything they can to make the belkin accessories not work on ipods. Would you approve of that? Now pretend that losing their ipod business would kill the Belkin company, put them out of business. It wouldn't, because they're well diversified in products, but with MS it was different. If Dell or Gateway had lost their windows licenses, it would've been the end of their companies. MS was holding incredible power with their OS monopoly, and they were not the least bit shy in using it. That was very detrimental to consumers, and that's why the DOJ took interest in it.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

> When Apple deliberately prevent competing operating systems from working,

They deliberately prevented MacOS 9 from working at a time when it was the largest competition to OS X.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

- IP rights? To the name "Windows"?

Right. :-)

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, Microsoft OEMs are only allowed to install Windows. No machines with both Windows and, for example, the free (!) operating system Linux, can legally be sold by OEMs.

Dell, a company that is chided on Slashdot regularly for their MS-only stance, is a good example of a company that provides an alternative to Windows if a user wishes - FreeDOS. Granted it is not a real OS, as users who order a PC with this option usually end up just formatting and installing another OS. If you don't like the fact that a company only provides support for one operating system, then it is really should not be a hard decision to bring your business elsewhere. From a business perspective, if a company is making good money by selling a product with one OS, it makes no sense in their minds to increase support costs and provide more OS options. One might think that by providing more of those options, that the company has more potential to increase profits, but for a company like Dell that is not their target market anyways (atleast not at this point).

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[SA Stevens]

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.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[SA Stevens]

Now, if Apple forced other companies who made PPC board to ship the Mac OS, then maybe it would be similar.

Apple drove THOSE folks completely out of the market by deliberately preventing them from producing hardware that would run the Mac OS.

Umm, that doesn't weaken your arguement, but it strongly reflects on what kind of operation Apple runs.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[dadragon]

Microsoft prevented OEMs from distributing Windows AND other OSes at the same time, Apple does just the same

Oh? What about these?

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[SA Stevens]

The outrageous thing about some of the points in your comment is that Apple specifically DID run several computer companies out of the market telling them they would no longer be allowed to run the MacOS on their hardware. Yet you draw the analogy only to Microsoft, and only as a hypothetical threat that Microsoft MIGHT have done. Whereas Apple actually took said action.

Seems Microsoft might have committed assault. Apple, however, committed murder.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[SA Stevens]

TigerDirect is claiming rights to the name 'Tiger'.

Apple is claiming the same rights.

Which party were you ridiculing?

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[tezbobobo]

Think of it in terms of circles with the example TSR. The letters mean nothing by themself. But in an IT setting, they indicate Terminate and Stay Resident programs. In gaming circles they represent a popular role play gaming company. Unless you purposely used "Intelectual Property" as opposed to "Trademarks", in which case you'd be astute, but only in your obfuscation and condfusion.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[cowscows]

Apple bought out the contracts that they had with the clone manufactures. They didn't just stop sending them copies of the MacOS and pretend like nothing happened.

The whole Mac clones thing was a fiasco, and neither Apple nor the clones companies acted very well. I'm not going to apologize for anything Apple did.

But I still think the magnitude of between those issues is notable. Apple killing the cloning just made Macs more expensive. Apple is a very small percentage of the computer market. MS dictated the course of over 90% of the market, and arguably held back the growth and variation in the "computer industry" in some very significant ways.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Sumocide]

IP rights? To the name "Apple"?

Right.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they are better than Microsoft when it comes to their corporate citizenship

I would actualy say the opposite. They sued over the 'look and feel' of icons. MS learned from a true master of litigation...

MS practicaly gave away the SDKs (100 bucks) while Apple was charging 20k per dev. That did not even include the compilers...

Apple has always used slimey lock in tactics. MS again learned from a true master.

Apple has always discouraged true inovation on their hardware unless it is THEM doing the inovating. It is why you can find tons of hardware for a pc yet at many points in time the mac was just plain hard (drivers, cables, etc) to get anything to work on. Funny it was IBM that tried this. Maybe Apple in this case learned from a true guru.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Prevented"? It sounded more like Apple "refused to help" Be. And Be made a stink about it at the exact same time they recieved a big investment from Intel to port to x86.

Anyway, Macs are closed platforms, PCs are open. That's not exactly news.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

I agree. Apple were losing market share to the cloners - instead of growing the Mac user base, the clones simply ate sales that would have been Apple's. Apple really had little choice but to end the cloning scheme.

As for Microsoft and innovation, Douglas Adams held the same view: "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all his customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who by peddling second-hand, second-rate technology, led them all into it in the first place."

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[markwalling]

But when they tell Dell that every person who orders a computer there has to also buy a copy of windows, that's pretty crappy. Easy fix: don't buy a Dell. Look at http://www.newegg.com/ or *shudder* TigerDirct. They have complete systems or you can have your local geek tell you what parts to buy and (s)he can build it for you. Total flexability.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[SA Stevens]

I'm glad at least somebody concedes that Apple deliberately kept a competing operating system from working. I doubt if the grandparent commenter would approve of any other hardware vendor introducing system functions that, say, make it impossible to run anything but Windows on their hardware....

But then when was this a reasonable forum?

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Winkhorst]

With all due respect, it's really not about what Microsoft *does*, it's about what they are implicitly *threatening to do* if Dell doesn't stay on board, i.e., charging them the full $200 per box. And that is more than a technicality, it's blackmail.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is that no sane "competing operating system" vendor would have targetted closed hardware like Macs in the first place. Be only did so because they wanted to be Apple's operating system vendor.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[SA Stevens]

Be did so because they themselves were originally a hardware vendor, with PPC hardware. It was natural for them to shift over to another PPC hardware platform when they moved away from hardware to become an OS vendor. And Apple was a natural fit. BeOS was a staggering improvement in many regards over classic MacOS on the Apple hardware.

It was somewhat later that they competed with NeXT to be 'the next MacOS' after Apple's engineers proved incapable of producing an inhouse modern OS themselves.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[skingers6894]

I was ridiculing the idea that choosing a name is "IP".

Trademark maybe, IP, I don't think so.

I think if you are going to trade with something as common as "Apple" "Tiger" or "Windows" then you should EXPECT it to be used all over the place.

Come up with something unique like "iPod" or "Coca-cola" if you want to be able to trademark something.

The whole idea of being able to trademark common use terms is stupid.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

So again, the only difference is that Apple happens to own the hardware they're force-bundling with. Big deal.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[oberondarksoul]

And that's entirely the point. Apple can bundle whatever they want with their own hardware - but Microsoft were forcing other companies to sell Windows. There's a world of difference.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

See, the "forcing" thing seems a little excessive. I mean, did Bill send one of his minions to put a gun in Michael Dell's mouth? I was under the impression that this was a contract, not a deal orchestrated by Michael Corleone. And the effect on the customer is exactly the same--s/he pays for an operating system whether he wants it or not.

Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple.

[hawk]

They didn't "prevent" in any normal sense of the word (such as when it was used above to describe the check for dr-dos in the pre-release of windows).

Apple failed to provide proprietary information and free engineering to Be.

There *is* a difference.

hawk

both people

[forceflow501]

lol both people who held repect for tigerdirect.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

So it looks like TigerDirect's injuction was nothing but a paper tiger.

Re:So...

[Green Salad]

Just for that, you'll be wearing stripes.

You Mean 2

[wanebo]

People still had respect for TigerDirect? With the crap they sell?

They still have a shot.

[wls]

Next up, TigerDirect sues Microsoft for using the word Direct in DirectX.

Re:They still have a shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple have been dying ever since Steve 'rim' Jobs founded it. Although it may have a fancy GUI, OSX is not any more functional than Windows 3.x and is on average 5 times less than reliable. This is mainly due to poorly written proprietry code hashed onto a stolen communist operating system - linux. To complement the inferior software, Apple sells hardware which is generations behind its equivilant PC counterparts - albeit disguised in white enclosures which it markets as 'trendy'. Unfortunately they can at best be described as gay. One can only hope that Apple throw in the towel soon and recall their entire product range before there are any more victims of fires caused by their inferior products. APPLE IS TEH SUXXORS

In order to enjoy a smooth running reliable and lightning fast operating system which will run on anything from the original 80186 CPU to the newly released Pentium II processor, we recommend that you use Microsoft Windows Millenium Edition (TM). To obtain this software please visit www.microsoft.com

Re:They still have a shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed the trolls.

Re:They still have a shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Are you kidding? That's the +5 Funniest thing I've read all day.

Re:They still have a shot.

[mbaudis]

everything true. and the design! they should fire this european guy, and hire the design team from dell, or better from e-machines. also, put some neon lights in their boxes - they have all those unused holes. and, you forgot to mention the file transfer times. 2 hours for an email attachement. and no floppy for years, and no known viruses => no geek challenge!

Re:They still have a shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points. That thing was great.

Re:They still have a shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of order Mr. Speaker:

The people of LinuxBerg object to Mr. Coward's characterization of Linux as "Communist", and I'd like to point out that the honourable Mr. A.Coward is in error. OSX is *NOT* based on Linux, it is in fact based on BSD. I request an apology on behalf of the good people of Linuxberg

The Rt. Hon. A.Coward Jr.

Re:They still have a shot.

[loraksus]

Indeed, but does RED ink not flow like a river of blood?

Slashdot Denies Request For Less Pro-Apple Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that both people who still held respect for Slashdot no longer do.

Re:Slashdot Denies Request For Less Pro-Apple Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple biased news, Microsoft ads, and linux-zealotry readership. This site really adds up well.

Watch Out...

[MarkMcLeod]

Tony the Tiger, you're next!

Re:Watch Out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Grrrrreeeaaat!

Re:Watch Out...

[Winterblink]

Imagine if you will, the legal 69 that would occur if TigerDirect changed its slogan to "TigerDirect. We're GRRREEEAT!"

Re:Watch Out...

[kfg]

From now on he's going to be known as Tony the Panthera tigris, and all Esso (remember them?) advertising collections will confiscated and redacted to read "Put a panthera tigris in your tank."

Of course America's entry into WWII was not really sparked by the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 as most people think, but by TigerDirect getting pissed off by Hitler's Tiger Program launched the previous May. TigerDirect argued that the tank's intended use in Blitzkrieg warfare, bringing them "direct" to you was an obvious complete ripoff.

Tune in later when we'll have the latest news on Pathera Tigris Woods, that bastard who keeps getting first page Google rankings.

The species, of course, will now be known by the common name of "That big strippy cat thingy" to knock them out of the first hit slot for the word "Tiger."

KFG

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Good way to ruin one's business name.

Unnecessary comments

[A beautiful mind]

"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.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

First, let us both agree that killing two birds with one stone is a good thing. Second, let us recognize that "News for nerds" and "Stuff that matters" are two things.

Then logically, putting that kind of commentary in article summaries is clearly killing both "birds", "News of nerds" and "Stuff that matters", which we agreed was a good thing.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[cowscows]

I generally think the editor's comments are annoying attempts by them to try and sound funnier and smarter than they really are.

But this one at least made me smile. Lighten up. It's their website, not yours. They've been adding commentary like this for years, most of it's dumb, sure, but that's how the world works.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Timesprout]

Are you insane! How will the slashbots know what the current group think is without the asinine comments!

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

hey.. man this is an edgy news source.. get used to it. it's how you know you're getting real news.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[A beautiful mind]

It's their website, thats true. They can disable the ability of mine to post comments if they don't like what i'm saying, that would be well within their rights.

What i'm saying is that they are running the site, but slashdot is above all, a community. If they decide to close it, they are free to do but until that moment it doesn't cease to be one, with the good and bad parts alltogether.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[mattdm]

If it's news for nerds, keep this kind of commentary out of it please.

*Man* do we need a "Haha you're new here" moderation for these kinda comments. This isn't a journalism site -- it's an entertainment and discussion site. I damn well *expect* there to be snide partisan commentary from the editors (a poorly-chosen job title, but oh well -- deal with it).

Re:Unnecessary comments

[ebuck]

Exactly. Unfortuanetly this is an entertainment site with the byline "News for Nerds." However, people who notice this oddity shouldn't be harrased.

So it's an entertainment site that pretends to be a news site. With enough time, you'll understand that the title of "editor" in this context is meant to convey that the person is responsible for putting "spin" on the article to make it appeal to the pre-existing beliefs of the editors, or to contrast those beliefs in a subtle act of trolling for more posts.

The byline here is not much more than an backhanded attack. First indicate that nobody really believes TigerDirect, then indicate that the maximum number of people that ever did believe them is two. It is close to the truth to state few people believed TigerDirect was right, but the complete lack of hard evidence that there were only two people makes the final editorial comment a joke akin to calling TigerDirect "Nazis" or MOG a "journalist".

Some could liken this spin and false fact finding to articles from MOG, except in this case, the spin is at least in the neighborhood of liklihood, and may be excused somewhat by some as an attempt at humor. It's like hearing an offensive joke, but one that's mostly funny. Such fine balancing acts are very dependent on the audience, and Slashdot has done a lot to galvanize and polarize their audience.

For many years, there has been some desire in the readership for the editors to actually provide editorial comment resembling that of more traditional news publications. Usually these people go far out of their way to indicate how broken this system is. Others rally to the aid of Slashdot indicating that old-fashioned ideals slow the stream of news that is presented at the site.

I believe that Slashdot is an extreme case of the Good - Fast - Cheap triumverate. Slashdot does not literally pay to link to articles, so the equation becomes oddly balanced. In other words, it becomes a competition between (Good) and (Fast / Cheap). With two strikes against good, you can't expect too much.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

This is especially grating given the fact that as recently as yesterday slashdot had banner ads for tigerdirect in rotation.

"these people are bad unless they're giving us money, mmmkay?"

At least reserve that level of hypocrosy for microsoft, ok guys?

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be slashdot then. Good or bad, for as long as they've been serving it up, editorial slant has been part of the recipe.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we tone down the commentary in the comments please? The tagline is "NEWS for fags."

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you expect us to be able figure this obvious fact out for ourselves?

What a stupid remark. So they aren't supposed to say anything that "we" don't already know? How, pray tell, are they to determine this? Or are you really only speaking for yourself, and trying to generalize that into something that appears to represent the opinion (note: singular) of "us"?

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

whaaaaaaaat?

you're an idiot, move along.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[clackerd]

i thought it was pretty funny, and nerds can have senses of humor too, right? relax, nerd.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Afrosheen]

"First, let us both agree that killing two birds with one stone is a good thing."

No no no. That's not a good thing _at all_. About the only time you'd accomplish this goal is if you killed a mama bird sitting on a nest of new hatchlings. And that's just plain mean.

Wait till PETA hears about this one!

Re:Unnecessary comments

[Anonymous Coward]

However, people who notice this oddity shouldn't be harrased.

Yeah, you're right, they should be booted square in the butt and told to get off our grass!

Re:Unnecessary comments

[lowid (24) _________]

Made even better because Tiger Direct happens to be advertising at the top of the page. Snide partisan commentary can only be improved when it is simultaneously biting the hand that feeds it.

P.

Re:Unnecessary comments

[mrchaotica]

Do you know what a question mark is!

Re:Unnecessary comments

[mattdm]

Exactly. Unfortuanetly this is an entertainment site with the byline "News for Nerds." However, people who notice this oddity shouldn't be harrased.

I dunno about harrassed, but I'm pretty sure they don't need to be modded up all the time. I'm just sayin'.

So it's an entertainment site that pretends to be a news site.

"News for Nerds" doesn't strike you as being intended with a bit of humor? No? Hmmm. Oh well, then.

Telling the difference between the two

[Faust7]

Judge Lenard said "any given customer who cross-shops TigerDirect and Apple, whether over the internet or in person at their retail local stores, will be able to distinguish their respective retail outlets due to the distinctive differences in their marketplaces' appearance and messages."

Need proof? Look at the shiny polished Slashdot logo at the top. When was the last time you looked at that and thought "Oh, I'm in the TigerDirect section of Slashdot!"

Re:Telling the difference between the two

[rpozz]

Yes, TigerDirect are being absolute dicks about it. Even a complete idiot could tell the difference.

Anyway, use the usual way to deal with people like that. If enough slashdot users don't ever do business with them, then hopefully they'll learn, and maybe it'll set an example.

Re:Telling the difference between the two

[pmazer]

Also, TigerDirect is a store, OSX Tiger is a product sold at a store...

Re:Telling the difference between the two

[slantyyz]

While I never thought TigerDirect had much of a case, their attempt did bring a smile to my face.

They have also been known to use their legal eagles as bullies.

It's good to see that what comes around, goes around.

Re:Telling the difference between the two

[Tony Hoyle]

Damn. I've been trying to install this shop on my mac for days, and *now* you tell me I should have been buying a product sold at a store not the store itself.

Re:Telling the difference between the two

[Anonymous Coward]

I clicked on it looking for pr0n.
C'mon, it's X, it's blue.

Re:Telling the difference between the two

[g-san]

Did you try holding down the T and D keys while booting your mac?

This is dumb.

[Entropius]

The number of trademarkable things is increasing daily, as more people go into business making more products.

The number of words in the English language, however, remains the same.

Just a namespace collision isn't evidence of trademark infringement. That requires (or should require -- I gave up on learning the details of IP law once I realized that it made no sense) one company to choose their name specifically to leech off another successful name.

Tigerdirect has been around since before Apple picked the name Tiger.

Apple wouldn't want anything to be named after such a shitty company.

So what's the deal?

Re:This is dumb.

[cowscows]

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!

Re:This is dumb.

[LiquidCoooled]

Bullshimble!
The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tigerdirect obviously felt it had nothing to lose in trying. Even if they didn't get the injunction, they got some free publicity. Why else would they sue Apple only one day before Apple released "Tiger?"

Re:This is dumb.

[damsa]

The second test for infringement is likelihood of confusion. How likely are people going to get confused between TigerDirect and Tiger. The judge said, not that many. So Apple wins.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they saw an opportunity to protect their trademark, so they don't lose it. And the people that lose respect for them are simpletons that deserve Apple, in all its one button glory.

What brand of kleenex do you buy?

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

finally...someone reasonable. Tough to find in the comments, these days...

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I doubt anyone will want to call their company Bullshimble.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why else would they sue Apple only one day before Apple released "Tiger?"

Because there was no legal issue until Apple printed up boxes saying "Tiger" and put them in stores?

Re:This is dumb.

[SpeckledJim]

Who'd have thought it? George W Bush posting on Slashdot.

Re:This is dumb.

[cowscows]

Yeah, there's so much in common with this Tiger case and what happened to kleenex. A made up word used as a brand name for a product becomes a common term sometimes used for all similar products. Sucks for Kleenex.

A company that has an already common word as part of their company name is upset because another company uses the same already common word as part of the name of one of their products. Oh God, the world is coming to an end! Between Tiger Direct, OS 10.4 Tiger, the approximately 6 bazillion sports teams named the Tigers, a dominate golfer named Tiger, oh and some stupid animal using the name too...I don't think I can function anymore, my brain is overloaded!

Besides. Apple announced their product as Tiger a long time ago. Then TigerDirect decides to make a big deal of it right before it's about to ship? The timing seems awfully suspect to me. Must be because I'm an Apple simpleton.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kleenex is very much an enforced trademark.

> Apple announced their product as Tiger a long time ago.

Everyone seems to forget there's a big difference between Mac OS X 10.4 Codenamed "Tiger" and an actual product that says "Tiger" on the box. Almost as a rule, these codenames are only used in buildup marketing and almost never used as an actual product name.

Re:This is dumb.

[Vellmont]

The number of words in the English language, however, remains the same.


Actually no. Before 1993 had anyone ever heard of the word pentium? Athlon and Opteron certainly weren't english words before AMD created them.

The problem you describe in your first sentence is exactly the reason why large companies go to extreme lengths to create a new word solely associated with their product. Pharmeceutical companies have done this exact same thing for every new drug for probbably 100 years.

That doesn't mean the Tiger case has any merit (the whole thing was ridiculous to start with). Trademark law is based on consumer confusion. If a reasonable consumer can be confused by a trademark (Say I open a restaraunt serving chicken sandwiches with a clown mascott and call it McVellmont's) that would likely be ruled a violation of trademark because consumers might think my business is a spinoff of McDonalds.

Re:This is dumb.

[tourvil]

The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.

Wouldn't words come out of the lexicolon?

Re:This is dumb.

[cowscows]

Apple has done it before. They did it with Panther and Jaguar. When they first announced Tiger, they referred to it as Tiger, they had big banners that said Tiger, etc. If TigerDirect was truly taking this seriously as a real threat to their trademark value, they would've done enough research to find this out (it wouldn't have been hard). They were just looking for some easy money.

Re:This is dumb.

[NotPeteMcCabe]

Just for completeness sake, the number of words in the English language does not remain the same. New words are added on a real-time basis, both to the English language in use among English-speaking people, and to the various dictionaries which chronicle that use.

Re:This is dumb.

[Scrameustache]

Bullshimble!
The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.

...perfectly cromulent word.

Re:This is dumb.

[tezbobobo]

1. Languages (not dead) constantly evolve; words are created, destroyed, etc... Look at the process of creating nouns in German.

2. Whilst more people go into business, capitalist economies cause business to be centralised into oligopolies, e.g. the HP merger.

3. Trademarks don't have to to be words,eg NT, XP Scheppervescence.

4. Apple and Tigerdirect are both IT firm, and its up to the judiciary as to how much they overlap.

5. I still hear people argue about how to pronounce "OS X" (is it Oh Es Ten; Oh Es Ex...

PS your name Entropius is an example of words being introduced to the language as part of etymological development; for example, the common use of Zion or Zionic in everyday language.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you know that TigerDirect was not in contact with Apple? For all you know Apple BSed them about it being a codename or told them to fuckoff until release day.

Anyway, there was nothing legally actionable until the product showed up in the retail channel. Futhermore, if they waited any amount of time, it would be held against them. And yeah, duh, it's about money. What about business isn't?

Re:This is dumb.

[Have Blue]

lexicolon

I know you were joking, but this is seriously the best word ever. We can use it for the entire vocabulary of horribly abused words on the Internet and cell phones.

Re:This is dumb.

[jruschme]

Just a namespace collision isn't evidence of trademark infringement. That requires (or should require -- I gave up on learning the details of IP law once I realized that it made no sense) one company to choose their name specifically to leech off another successful name.

Tigerdirect has been around since before Apple picked the name Tiger.

Interesting... but then, if I had gone out a year ago and opened a Mac-oriented store named "PantherDirect" would Apple (not to mention Tiger Direct) have had cause to sue me?

Anybody think Apple's attorneys would have even hesitated a moment to do so?

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Writer]

... a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man

Re:This is dumb.

[Che Guevarra]

So what you're saying is that the expandinig english language is driven by a bunch of marketing majors? I wonder what the english majors think about this.

Re:This is dumb.

[antifoidulus]

Though you have to hand it to Hormel, they were really cool on the whole "spam" thing, all they asked is that when talking about the canned meat you write it in capital letters.

Re:This is dumb.

[1u3hr]

The number of words in the English language, however, remains the same

Actually, English is acquiring new words at a fast pace, probably thousands per year. Even the staid Oxford Dictionary records many new words in each edition.

Re:This is dumb.

[raju1kabir]

...perfectly cromulent word.

That's exactly the post I was going to make (you beat me to it), but I have to admit I never imagined it would be modded +1 Informative.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what addendumated means, silly!

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, Apple would've brought the legal smackdown on every single one of the i(Name) ripoffs that've been multiplying like rabbits since 1998. Since that hasn't happened, I question whether that would actually happen in the case of McDonalds', too.

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey,

What about that stupid animal. How dare it have the name Tiger. Both Apple and Tiger Direct had better get their asses into gear and sue it before people confuse the animal with the product ! :-)

Re:This is dumb.

[connorbd]

I would hardly call Oxford "staid" anymore -- they're quite fond of neologisms, which really if you think about it is as it should be. Someone's going to have to look "bootylicious" up at some point a hundred years down the road, and it may as well be in the biggest big dic of them all -- who else is going to record it?

Me personally, I think Oxford's new word listings remind me of Necco's annual revealing of the new sayings for their Conversation Hearts every V-day season. A little silly, a lot of fun for word geeks.

Re:This is dumb.

[Alsee]

Bullshimble!
The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.

...perfectly cromulent word.

I dissagree. 103 letters, 16 spaces, 4 punctuation marks, and a line break makes for a most disencromulent word.

-

Re:This is dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kleenex is just a much better word than "tissue".

"Would you please pass me a tissue?"

"It's a fucking kleenex, snotface!"

Re:This is dumb.

[tricorn]

Creating new names isn't creating new "English words". Google is a "new English word", because people are actually using it as a verb. Creating a new product called "Farstinium" doesn't create a new word, just a new name. Pentium, AMD, Athlon, Opteron aren't "new words". They're just names, until they end up having a meaning beyond what they name. I suppose you could conceive of a sentence such as "They opteroned those pentiums", meaning to come out with something cheaper, better AND faster over an acknowledged leader, even when the subject matter isn't microprocessors, or specifically those microprocessors, but as far as I know, they're still "just names" at this point.

Re:This is dumb.

[stinerman]

Add "incriptive" to your list. In a sentence:

The bank says its definitely safe to check my balances online since the connection is incriptive.

Pardon? What intellectual property?

[dscho]

How could a term like "Tiger" in any non-judicial sense (such as common sense) ever be accused of being an intellectual property?

Re:Pardon? What intellectual property?

[jimicus]

If you're a great big stripy cat with the power to rip out someones' guts with one swipe of razor-sharp claws, your name is damn well protected.

Not that sort of tiger?

Re:Pardon? What intellectual property?

[UrgleHoth]

How could a term like "Tiger" in any non-judicial sense (such as common sense) ever be accused of being an intellectual property?

You mean common words like apple and windows?

Re:Pardon? What intellectual property?

[stubear]

It's all in the use. Tigers are not typically associated with operating systems so Apple's use of the tem in trade is legitimate (as is TigerDirect's). Not to overuse the automobile comparison's but this is a great industry example. Companies used to name their cars after animals, amongst other common objects (comet anyone?) all the time and they were protected trademarks.

Re:Pardon? What intellectual property?

[Drantin]

If it was in a country that didn't have english as an official language...

Re:Pardon? What intellectual property?

[ucblockhead]

Because it's a "Trademark". Please read up on them so that you know what they are.

The purpose of a trademark is to prevent others from selling under your name. It's what prevents me from starting a search engine named "Google", and what prevents you from opening a computer company named "Apple".

Doesn't that seem like common sense? Do you really think it'd be "common sense" for me to be allowed to manufacture computers and tell people they are "Apple Computers"?

Trademarks have nothing to do with inventiveness. They are about preventing people from trying to deliberately confuse their products with someone else's. Do you think that's a bad thing? Do you really want Microsoft to have the right to start selling something under the name "Linux"? 'Cause if you don't, then it's exactly this trademark law that prevents it.

Yes, TigerDirect's claim was bogus, but not because Trademark law is bogus. It is bogus because no reasonable purpose would confuse TigerDirect the computer reseller with Tiger the operating system.

Re:Pardon? What intellectual property?

[scottv67]

It's what prevents me from starting a search engine named "Google", and what prevents you from opening a computer company named "Apple"

But, what if you started a company that built computers that were sold exclusively to farmers who have apple orchards to keep track of their harvest. Could you call that product an "Apple Computer"?

;^)

hah

[Gillious]

There were people who still respected Tiger Direct?

Tiger Direct owns errno.h

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay up, freeloaders.

-AC

respect

[sanosuke001]

shit... TigerDirect EARNED my respect for suing Apple

Re:respect

[sanosuke001]

Flaimbait? There are countless people talking about how they never had respect for TigerDirect and I just say that I gained respect for them... and because whoever voted this down LOVES Apple and would have Steve Jobs' child, I get -1 Flamebait? Slashdot is too critical about who doesn't agree with the common view.

How about:

Down with Apple, let's see Macintoshes burn in the dark streets tonight! Heil mein fuhrer and all that shit :P

or... shut up you fanboys

Nope, they are being sued themselves by T-Com ...

[dscho]

... for their use of the letter "T"

we need article moderation

[Xarius]

Mod the post -1: flamebait

Marketing budget

[Marcion]

"According to court documents, over the last year Apple has spent over $50 million to orchestrate a carefully planned marketing campaign and product launch of Mac OS X 10.4."

Considering how much FOSS there is in OS X, surely more has been spent on advertising OS X than has been directly spent on developing OS X between .3 and .4.

Re:Marketing budget

[macpeep]

Right, because as we all know, Spotlight, Dashboard, ImageCore, QuickTime, iTunes, FileVault, Aqua, Quartz, Finder, Carbon, Cocoa, iChat, iCal, iSync, DVD Player, Preview, XCode, etc., etc., etc. are all developed by the open source community and given to Apple for free.

Safari and the BSD layer of OS X are just about the only things of any significance that have roots in open source. But even for those, just about *ALL* the new code that ends up in OS X in those, is being done by Apple's own engineers.

Re:Marketing budget

[bani]

yeah, because mach and gcc are so insignificant, right?

if apple had to write all the stuff in OSX from scratch, OSX would still be unreleased and still in development to this day.

apple owes its very existence today to FOSS. if there were no mach, no gcc, there would be no OSX and no apple (if you believe apple could still be floating today on an os as backwards as macos 9, you're mistaken).

well, i suppose an apple without osx would be primarily an ipod manufacturer, and itunes would be running solely on win32...

Re:Marketing budget

[macpeep]

The point in this thread was that FOSS has had very little to do with the development of 10.4. Not that FOSS has had very little to do with OS X as a whole.

And while gcc and mach are significant, they are proportionally very small parts of OS X, and they could be replaced by something else. There are certainly other compilers out there than gcc - betters ones too - and there are certainly other kernels too. I mean, Apple could have potentially licensed the Solaris or BeOS kernels, maybe QNX, or whatever else. Hell, perhaps even WinCE or something. There *ARE* options. Some are better than others, of course. But to say that there would be no Apple without FOSS, and especially to suggest that 10.4 is largely developed by the open source community, well, that's just bull.

Re:Marketing budget

[bani]

You forget -- Apple tried several times to create a replacement os. nukernel, Pink, Copland, etc. -- all utter failures.

They eventually gave up and went with mach/gcc/etc. It is notable that apple did briefly look at BeOS and rejected it outright.

Sure, it's possible apple could have licensed QNX or whatnot -- but OSX would be much lesser if they had. They couldn't have licensed WinCE because WinCE didn't exist at the time apple was writing their new OS.

I've never heard anyone claim 10.4 is largely developed by the open source community. Sounds like a strawman to me.

The OSX you have today would be a radically different beast had they not gone FOSS. Its quite possible OSX would not even exist at all, and where would apple be today without OSX?

Re:Marketing budget

[macpeep]

The parent post to which I replied seemed to suggest that 10.4 owes just about everything to OSS. That's why I replied to it. Here's the original text from the root post in this thread - note how it specifically says "between .3 and .4":

"Considering how much FOSS there is in OS X, surely more has been spent on advertising OS X than has been directly spent on developing OS X between .3 and .4."

What I'm saying is very simple: No, between .3 and .4, OSS had very little to do with the development, contrary to what is being claimed here by the original poster.

I was not saying anything about the role of OSS in OS X as a whole. And that's the only thing you're talking about. So you're not countering my claims. You're countering some claims that you believe I made, but in fact didn't.

Now, later in the thread, I said that OS X would have been possible without FOSS. You counter that by saying that it would be radically different or that "possibly it would not even exist". Well, yes, of course, that might be the case. But it's also possible that they would have made good friends with Sun, licensed Solaris for X86, used closed compilers for it, developed OS X in exactly the way it's today, but using Java instead of Objective-C with Cocoa, done a Cocoa port for SPARC Solaris, complete with the Aqua GUI. It's possible that it would have resulted in Sun and Apple having 25% market share in desktop computers today.

That's perhaps not the most likely scenario. I'm simply using it as an example of how you can't predict what might have happened if they had not used OSS. There are lots of other possible outcomes than Apple being dead today.

Re:Marketing budget

[Marcion]

"What I'm saying is very simple: No, between .3 and .4, OSS had very little to do with the development, contrary to what is being claimed here by the original poster."

My point was more to do with how much money was spent on marketing rather than active development. The FOSS point I admit is secondary and rightly does not change much between .3 and .4. What I question is whether it is really in the long-term interests of Apple users.

Why was my original post was marked as flamebait? It was a serious point. Was that mod a devoted Apple user by any chance who has just spent all his spare cash on Tiger and is still coming to terms with it?

Re:Marketing budget

[Anonymous Coward]

It is notable that apple did briefly look at BeOS and rejected it outright.

I think Be wanted too much money for their OS and Apple therefore decided to go with something else.

Re:Marketing budget

[bani]

That was part of it, the other part was BeOS was incomplete and largely broken -- it had significant design flaws and would require far too much work to fix it and get it to do what apple wanted, while mach/bsd/etc met their needs nearly perfectly out of the box.

Re:Marketing budget

[bani]

Ohhh man, I can't think of any better way to insure a dead apple than using java for cocoa. The complaints about OSX 10.0 being slow and unstable were legion -- and that was native binary objc and c. If it were java apple would have been dead -- nobody would have tolerated it.

Fortunately you do not design operating systems :-)

Re:Marketing budget

[macpeep]

Do you understand the concept of an "example"?

I have mod points

[Richard_at_work]

So where can I moderate Cowboyneals comments on this story?

Re:I have mod points

[LiquidCoooled]

So where can I moderate Cowboyneals comments on this story?

In your hosts file.

Something like this should suit you nicely :)

64.236.24.28 slashdot.org

Re:I have mod points

[Richard_at_work]

And now Im in a wierd position, I would *love* to moderate you for that comment (up incase youi were wondering) but I cant because Ive commented, but you wouldnt have made that comment if I hadnt commented, so I couldnt have moderated you if I hadnt commented. Oh well :)

Re:I have mod points

[Anonymous Coward]

As funny?

But seriously, can anyone deny the asshattery of TigerDirect's lawsuit?

Re:I have mod points

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's make it a bit more twisted with some time travel, it is all too simple at the moment.

Re:I have mod points

[FidelCatsro]

I think you just did .
personly it gave me a good chuckle (+3 funny) .
The nature of slashdot really allows us to put our views down on the story in words as opposed to numbers .
I found the story intresting as its good to see that atleast some trivial time-wasting lawsuits go down the pan.
Though your post raised an intresting point on should slashdot storys be subject to moderation.
It would be great if they were , it would allow us to filter storys even further.

I wouldn't take Cowboyneils comments to heart though ,i think it was a just a quip .

Re:I have mod points

[Hinhule]

Oh no, no time travel, there will be fish in my pond and I don't like fish.

Re:I have mod points

[TFGeditor]

Bias of Slashdot editors is a time-proven fact. Which is okay in the overall scheme of things--it is their website, after all.

Nonetheless, as a service to those with an interest, I offer the following (which the editors chose not to post):

11 May 2005: Bruce Perens, owner of Technocrat.net, a site based on the Slashdot model and running the same open source Slashcode http://www.slashcode.com/, has shut down the site, citing declining readership and lower than expected growth. Sometimes touted as "a more mature Slashdot," the site carried news and discussion on topics ranging from politics to technology, and many involving biological sciences. This blog article http://bre.klaki.net/dagbok/faerslur/978545404.sht ml suggests Perens might be making a mistake shutting down the site because syndication offerings through RSS feeds and other technology obscure the actual number of readers. The article contains more info and a letter to Perens about the shutdown. On a side note, as of this posting Perens' personal website http://www.perens.com/ was inaccessible.

Re:I have mod points

[rednip]

Let's make it a bit more twisted with some time travel, it is all too simple at the moment.

Richard Berman, I didn't know you posted on Slashdot!

Re:I have mod points

[FidelCatsro]

Is this 100% and have you got any links to an anouncement by Bruce.
http://bre.klaki.net/dagbok/faerslur/978545404.sht ml is the 2001 announcment
of it shutting down so thats fairly out of date

Re:I have mod points

[TFGeditor]

The site itself, http://www.technocrat.net/ has been down since 11 May 2005. I cannot find any other annoucement, and Bruce's personal site also remains down.

(shrug)

Re:I have mod points

[FidelCatsro]

I made a post on my journal so hopefully i will start to colate some info on if its as soon as i get any reports back , As for now i am assuming its a server issue (i think perrins homepage and technocrat are on the same server , not sure though) so it may be a hardware/software problem or it may have come under attack etc.

I am sure we would have heard if it was closing down

Theft of shell's marketing ip!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Put a tiger in your tank!

What the future holds

[LP_Tux]

Will companies and products have to have numbers in place of names? After all just about everything is trademarked these days until you decide to invent words... Right now I'm off to buy a 5759852850 by 1284257630530. See you later...

Re:What the future holds

[LazyEmc2]

It will be like screen names:

We're sorry but the term Fruit Loops is trademarked. Try one of the below suggestions:
1)Fruit_Loops_4623
2)Fruity_Hoops
3)FrtLps2005
4)Fruit_Loops_V2.0

Re:What the future holds

[Anonymous Coward]

Will companies and products have to have numbers in place of names?

Yes, eventually the only thing left will be 666.

Re:What the future holds

[Tjoppen]

Reminds me of Futurama:

"The only names not yet trademarked are 'Popplers' and 'Tastesicles'"

TigerDirect ads

[Anonymous Coward]

As I type this there is a TigerDirect banner ad at the top of my Slashdot page...

I'm sure there's some witty comment I could be making here, but I have no idea what it is.

Re:TigerDirect ads

[Anonymous Coward]

?? You see an ad?

That's odd... all *I* see is the 127.0.0.1 homepage of my webserver.

You should Try installing Spybot or a similar product.

- Tony the Tiger
http://www.tonyking.tk/
(yes, I have my own top-level domain)

How about a TigersDirect.Com

[Anonymous Coward]

A dot-com site selling live tigers, tiger statues, etc, online.

Re:How about a TigersDirect.Com

[dhandler]

Well - you are close: www.5tigers.org www.tiger.to www.tigers.co.uk Lawyers - sharpen up your pencils!

I never bough from TigerDirect, and now....

[borgheron]

I never will.

In a society run by lawyers, no one seems to get along.

GJC

Re:I never bough from TigerDirect, and now....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather a society run by lawyers than one run by generals.

Re:I never bough from TigerDirect, and now....

[borgheron]

Indeed, that would be a bad thing.

Re:I never bough from TigerDirect, and now....

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you ever buy from Apple though?

They never use their legal dept for evil do they?

No respect

[frovingslosh]

I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.

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.

Re:No respect

[almostmanda]

Right, except Apple was also granted a trademark in 2003 for the use of "tiger" in reference to an operating system. Why didn't Tiger Direct take action then? Oh, I know, because this is a blatant PR grab.

I look forward to the day...

[LP_Tux]

When they try to sue the oxford dictionary for including the word tiger...

Re:I look forward to the day...

[cpghost]

Yeah: imagine a dictionary full of (C)s and (R)s:

Tigers(C) (Panthera tigris(R)) are mammals of the Felidae(TM) family, one of four "big cats"(R)(C) that belong to the Panthera(R) genus. Tigers(R) are "predatory carnivores"(TM)

Re:I look forward to the day...

[A beautiful mind]

Imagine if someone would register (TM), (R) and (C)! Recursive endless loop!

Re:I look forward to the day...

[arodland]

Except that there's no requirement to print(C) on anything, anywhere, and the only uses of (TM) and (R) are for a business to protect its own trademarks (on the grounds that if you don't label your trademarks prominently as such, then you're not doing enough to prevent them from becoming common words).

Re:I look forward to the day...

[RinzeWind]

That's full of (C)s, (R)s and (TM)s.

Re:I look forward to the day...

[Lemmy Caution]

Because we know that Apple would start foolish lawsuits.

Re:I look forward to the day...

[Alsee]

Tigers(C) (Panthera tigris(R)) are mammals of the Felidae(TM) family, one of four "big cats"(R)(C) that belong to the Panthera(R) genus. Tigers(R) are "predatory carnivores"(TM)

You did not properly tag all of the existing trademarks you used. All of the following can be verified at the US Patent and Trademark website.

Panthera: serial number 78308042
Are: serial number 76529298
Mammal: serial number 75769435
Of: serial number 76165824
The: serial number 75726394
Family: serial number 78410485
One: serial number 78570482
Four: serial number 78450854
That: serial number 78270174
Be-long: serial number 78507203
To: serial number 76217768
Genus: serial number 78456711

What you should have written was:
Tigers(C) (Panthera(TM) tigris(R)) are(TM) mammal(TM)s of(TM) the(TM) Felidae(TM) family(TM), one(TM) of(TM) four(TM) "big cats"(R)(C) that(TM) belong(TM) to(TM) the(TM) Panthera(R) genus(TM). Tigers(R) are(TM) "predatory carnivores"(TM)

-

Re:I look forward to the day...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think companies trying to protect pre-releaced products is a foolish lawsuit

Tiger..

[wzeallor]

missed another cut :-(

Re:Tiger..

[Anonymous Coward]

Another cut? It's been seven years since he last missed a cut.

Funny

[Zebra_X]

If the tables were turned, I'm sure apple would do the same thing to tiger direct. Apple has quite a colorful litigeous history.

Re:Funny

[dhovis]

Yeah, just like Apple has sued Mac Warehouse, MacMall, Club Mac, and all those other Apple retailers.

Oh...... Wait......

Never mind.

blah blah blah...

[east coast]

From the blurb: "I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.

From my dealing of people who put TigerDirect first on their lists I doubt that many of the TigerDirect customer base give a damn about either Apple or Geek politics. Let's not take ourselves too seriously here.

Re:blah blah blah...

[chasingporsches]

actually, i used to buy a bunch of stuff from tigerdirect. mainly because i had never heard anything bad about it, somehow missed all those comments while browsing the web, none of my friends had ever said anything bad... and they had great deals.

so i would be one of both people that still had respect for them, and yes, i no longer do.

maybe i should have picked up on that when i got a case with a dented in side panel. damn, i venture into the PC world (from the mac world) for one $300 PC and i help contribute to their legal funds.

Re:blah blah blah...

[scottschor]

My wife has had good interactions with Tigerdirect prior to this incident. Their prices are good, and their service and support were very good. ... But being the "mac simpleton" that I am ... I'm not sure if I would buy from them after this ...

Re:blah blah blah...

[east coast]

But being the "mac simpleton" that I am

I never insulted the Mac crowd, simply said that most TD customers don't care about Mac.

Besides, let's be honest here; TD was in no way threatening Apple in the grand scheme of things. Do you honestly think that TDs lawsuit would have stopped Tiger from being released? Do you think that even if the lawsuit had been succesful that it would have put a dent in the cash flow of Apple?

Re:blah blah blah...

[adzoox]

"I doubt that many of the TigerDirect customer base give a damn about either Apple or Geek politics. Let's not take ourselves too seriously here"

That's the point of taking ourselves seriously here - if we agree that TigerDirect is bad company to do business with and we spread the word - it does matter and does show the effectiveness of geek politics!

This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[tempshill]

On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark, courts will rule that it isn't a trademark anymore and isn't protectible. Aspirin, Zipper.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[notque]

On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark, courts will rule that it isn't a trademark anymore and isn't protectible. Aspirin, Zipper.

and the request for an injunction was just for the fun of it.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Jesus_666]

Note that aspirin mainly is not a trademark because Germany lost WWI. There was no way fo the Bayer company to protect their trademark against the Allies.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah? You and whose army .. oh."

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Klivian]

>and the request for an injunction was just for the fun of it. And the timing, just in front of a major product release was purely accidental.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

while they are at it, Bayer can always try to protect the name Heroin that they coined a century or so ago.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Afrosheen]

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).

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Goo.cc]

So the wait for a year after Tiger was announced till the week it was to ship to complain. Sorry, not buying that one.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[1u3hr]

On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark...

From TFA "... evidence of over 200 federal registrations of marks containing the term "Tiger" -- including 24 companies, other than TigerDirect, which employ Tiger marks to promote computer products and services."

So will these 200 companies lose their marks because they didn't challenge the 201st?

It has to be a similar product with a similar mark, the degrees of similarity being the things a judge decides on. In this case, not very, just the word "Tiger" isn't enough.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe that will teach those fuckers that it's not nice to go around calling yourselves the master race and killing your neighbors. they deserved everything they got. i'd say the us went pretty easy on them really...

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[dwntwnboi]

Escalator and Elevator also were both trademarks that lost it due to "Common Use", as trade mark law puts it. Kleenex was so very close to losing it about 10 years ago.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Jesus_666]

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. ;)

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Reaperducer]

Note that aspirin mainly is not a trademark because Germany lost WWI. There was no way fo the Bayer company to protect their trademark against the Allies.

I think Aspirin is still a trademark in Canada. Or at least the last time I was there, it seemed to be advertised as such.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Reaperducer]

It was the single largest theft of intellectual property the world has ever seen

How is it theft? Sounds like the spoils of war.

And don't forget -- this is Slashdot where it's not politically correct to say intellectual property can be stolen. Otherwise people might have to pay for their music.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Jesus_666]

It is in some countries (like Canada), but I think that the trademark belongs to Sterling Drug, Inc, who bought the rights from the US government.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, remember when the US called itself a master race (re: "Manifest Destiny") and started killing all its neighbors (the Native Americans)? Not to mention slavery.

When do we the ram up the ass we so richly deserve?

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You work for SCO, don't you...

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Afrosheen]

I had no idea that 'spoils of war' was still an acceptable ideal. I've heard reports from Iraq that everything stay in Saddam Hussein's palace.

How, too, do you describe indiscriminate looting that eventually led to the Jews getting some of their gold back? If it's spoils of war, then it's fair game, and they shouldn't get it back at all since it was German gold.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tsk tsk tsk. Such a naive post. The history books are full of societies that believed they were more advanced or better than another and therefore was given the right to conquer another. Europe and the Middle East (central asia) alone have volumes on this type of conquest. The Germans were just better at it than any other single entity since the Roman Empire. The whole thing about Germany vs. the Jews is overblown, and was more Hitler's agenda and propaganda than was the German war effort.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[illumnatLA]

On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark, courts will rule that it isn't a trademark anymore and isn't protectible. Aspirin, Zipper.

The only thing is, Apple has been calling OS X 10.4 Tiger for about a year now. TigerDirect didn't file their injunction then, which would've been appropriate if they were in fact trying to protect a trademark. The fact of the matter is, they waited until Apple was just about to release Tiger to file their injunction, probably in an attempt to weasel out a nice payment from Apple.

Protecting your trademark is fair game, but TigerDirect's timing leaves them suspect in their motivation.
--J

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Enrique1218]

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.

To be PC, I like to call it a war tribute.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the single largest theft of intellectual property the world has ever seen

Wait, this is Slashdot. You can't steal intellectual property, remember? What the US was doing in this case was freeing trapped "property" to be shared by the world!

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Reaperducer]

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.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[__aaeaks4554]

The discussion should have ended at this point because tempshill said all that was necessary to say about this case and anyone who know a smidgen about the law would agree.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[connorbd]

More to the point, Apple has been using its code names in shipping products for some time now, at least for the operating systems. They've done it for two other versions -- why would they be expected to stop now?

(Besides, they're only doing what both Mac and Windows users have been doing informally for, like, forever.)

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Alsee]

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.

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.

Are you suggesting that people in England and Canada and Russia had to pay the US government for manufacturing a German-invented machine gun? LOL!

I really don't see what you are claiming the US did or the US took. Sounds to me like anti-US anger and blind blame. Heay, maybe I'm wrong. If so then I welcome you to explain how Germany lost their patents to the US. Oh, and be sure to clarify how it was the US taking them and how it does not apply to England and Canada and Russia.

theft of intellectual property

Ah, intellectual property. Well that partially explains your nonsensical statements. It doesn't explain why you blame the US, but it explains the rediculous idea that it can somehow be "stolen", and in particular the rediculous idea that it could be "stolen" by a particular person (or country). You're imagining that it's an actual peice of property.

If you're suggesting that German patents were not enforceable in most of the rest of the world, well yeah. What else would you expect? "No, England and Canada and the US and Russia can't manufacture that new machine gun because it's patented!" LOL!

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.

The words of a novel is not a peice of property, and an invention is not a peice of property. Copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies. They each take rights away from the public and temporarily grant them to the author/inventor. It is done for a purpose - to promote progress and benefit the public. Obviously when you are at war with another country it makes absolutely no sense to take rights away from your own people to promote and benefit the enemy. That is obviously counterproductive, and such patents would be unenforceable or simply cease to exist. It is each government taking those rights away from it's own people. It's not like the US can "take" German patents and enforce them on Russians, LOL.

Again, copyrights and patents can be good and usefull things. People just go astray when they forget what they actually are - government granted monopolies taking the public's rights and temporarily loaning them to the creator. People go astray when they forget they exist for a purpose - to promote progress and benefit the public. People go astray when they think it is somehow "property" law.

Did the US declare German patents unenforcale when war was declared? Of course. Did England and Canada and Russia do the same? Of course. Did Germany enforce American and British and Russian patents after they declared war? Wahahahahaha. Neither side was enforcing the other side's patents. Was there any patent system inside Germany after the government ceased to exist and during reconstruction? Probably not. They were too busy trying to keep people fed and clothed and rebuild buildings - too busy to screw around imposing monopolies and suing people in some effort to promote progress.

All countried involved declared/treated patents as unenforcable. There's no way some particular country "stole" patents.

-

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. What you did is move German factories outright to the US. Remember that the next time you use your Oster blender.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Afrosheen]

"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.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Concerned Onlooker]

Political correctness. That's the term people use when they're angry that they're being held to a higher standard than they would have chosen for themselves.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, "i" before "e" except after "c" jackass.

Now go make sure your "support the troops" magnet hasn't been stolen.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Alsee]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

You're citing John Nugent? John Fucking Nugent? Delusional white-supremacist holocaust-revisionist John Fucking Nugent? America belongs to the whites because europeans were here before the indians John Fucking Nugent?

Oh, and this is really your lucky day. You really hit the jackpot. One side of my family was exterminated in concentration camps, and you're citing a delusional holocaust-hoaxist.

For your sake I really hope you had no idea that you were reading and citing that sort of psycho. That libertyforum.org seems to be crawling with an appalling number of borderline neo-nazis. Not everyone there of course, but a very very ugly subgroup.

On the bright side I did get a chuckle out your link of when he explained that all of the UFO sightings since World War II were due to the magical futuristic stolen German inventions we never found out about. Not merely a holocaust denier, but a UFO conspiracy theorist to boot. That's just icing on the psycho-cake.

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'.

Hmmm, lets review the "ei" words from my post. There was 'their' 'peice' and 'neither'. Ok, I botched 'peice'. However if your "English class" is the worthless I before E except after C you're going to be misspelling 'their' and 'neither'. I before E except after C except when pronounced as "A" and in neighbor and weigh, except science and species, except in pluralized 'cy' such as frequencies and vacancies, except in neither and either and eight and foreign and dreidel, and most of all in my daily caffeine. And on and on. But enough with the grammar Nazism, as if we didn't have enough Nazism with John Nugent already.

---
When you said, "Things like copyrights and patents ...", did you ever consider books?

Well I dunno... "things like copyrights"... books... "things like copyrights"... books...
Hmmm. There might just be a connection there.

You believe in physical property rights but not intellectual property rights?

There are property rights.
There are copyrights.
There are patents.
There are trademarks.

Good and useful things. Only one of them is property rights.

The term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, and it is an extremely harmful misnomer. Copyrights are different than property rights and they are SUPPOSED to be different than property rights because information is different than property. When someone starts thinking or talking "intellectual property" they almost inevitably misunderstand what the law actually says, and they almost inevitable try to "fix" the law to become what they *thought* it was supposed to say.

Do you think that books also should not be copyrighted because they are just made up of words in different order?

As I said, copyrights can be a good and useful thing. However it is important to understand what the law actually says and what the law is actually supposed to be and what it is supposed to do.

To some people the following is going to sound like an attack on copyright. It's not. It is a defense of good old traditional copyright. It is merely an attack on a "backwards" view of copyright.

The Constitution grants congress the power to promote progress if they choose to do so. If congress did not choose to exercise this power then there would be no copyrights at all. The initial state is that the public has all rights to do whatever they please with information. To the extent information itself is "property" it is fundamentally public property.

If congress does choose to promote progress, the constitution grants a means of doing so. Congress may secure certain limited rights from the public and temporarily grant them exclusively to the author or inventor. A government granted limited monopoly. Th

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Afrosheen]

I had a strong feeling someone would discount that source regardless of the research that went into it. I admit he goes off on a weird tangent towards the end but that's not what I was concerned with.

I'm usually not in the habit of feeding trolls or doing research for them, and I'm not going to do that today. Basically, it happened, the US profited, end of story.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Reziac]

Closest I've personally seen is a local clone shop called "Tiger Tech". That one, TigerDirect might have a case against, since they are essentially in the same *business* (all too closely -- selling low-end components and systems with a questionable warranty policy). OTOH, neither actually manufactures a product themselves. Where is the line usually drawn in such cases?? does just being a reseller make your name trademarkable?

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Jm_aus]

"...Aspirin..."
Heroin was also a Bayer trademark.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[tootlemonde]

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.

This story is highly unlikely. There were two international conferences, one in 1997 and one in 1998, on the disposition of Nazi gold. As this CNN report on the first conference shows, the U.S.'s objective was always to return the gold to its rightful owners:

Britain, France and the United States set up the Tripartite Gold Commission after World War II to return looted gold to 10 countries whose treasuries had been sacked when Nazi Germany's troops swept across Europe. The commission has returned all but 5.5 tons of the 337 tons it recovered to central banks, but none to individuals.

Your story is even more unlikely if one knows the difference between monetary and non-monetary gold. Monetary gold is gold bars of 99.9% pure gold that are used by central banks. Non-monetary gold is jewelry and ornamental gold. For non-monetary gold, the type that would be stolen from individuals, to be "re-pressed with the Federal Seal", as you put it, it would not only have to be melted down but also refined to the level of purity required by monetary gold. There's no evidence in the report of the international commission that the U.S. ever employed this process.

The Nazis certainly did convert non-monetary gold into gold bars but once they did, there would be no way to distinguish it from gold that was looted from national treasuries.

In addition, while gold may increase in value it does not accumulate interest. If the U.S. did return gold to anyone it would return the exact number of ounces they were owned. It would not "pay them back, with interest" because the gold did not earn any interest.

Reading the final report of the international commission shows that no advocacy group forced the U.S. to return the gold in its possession. The complaint of the World Jewish Congress was that the gold belonging to Holocaust victims was returned to European countries after the war, not that it was held by the U.S. treasury.

In addition, the report of this commission also notes:

Following Allied victory over Germany, the U.S. and the Allies conducted negotiations with the neutrals over the return of looted gold, the liquidation of German external assets, and the use of such assets for European recovery and for resettlement of stateless Nazi victims. Another key objective of these negotiations included denying Germany its external assets, and hence the capacity to wage a future war.

The objective of impeding German's "capacity to wage a future war" may also bear on you allegation that the U.S. seized German patents.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[CrankinOut]

How do YOU know this "little-known" fact. How about citing a reference rather than inciting an argument?

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Afrosheen]

My intention was never to incite an argument, but the lazy folks who cannot use Google or the local library couldn't accept it.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically you were proven to be the troll and Alsee was proven to be the debunker. Take a look in the mirror and breath deeply. You are the troll.

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[Reaperducer]

The presumption of anger is flawed. Also, "different" standard is more appropriate. Not necessarily higher. Who are you to say that one standard is higher than other? That wouldn't be politically correct. You have to respect my right to human self-esteem. Isn't that the game you play?

Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it.

[LWATCDR]

" 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."

Your right and the poor German people are to this day under the control of the US government living in poverty. The US left them destitute and just lined there pockets with the wealth they stole from the poor German people...
How do you explain companies like Krupp, BASF, and Bayer?
Of course the US and the other nations went in at took all the tech they could. But they also rebuilt the nation.

TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[saterdaies]

TigerDiret is a company that I would never do business with, but do you really think their case has no basis in this case? I mean, when Apple came out with Jaguar, they weren't allowed to market it as Jaguar in Brittain because of Jaguar cars. Now that case had no basis and yet Jaguar cars got their way. Here, TigerDirect uses the name "Tiger" for computer stuff. Apple is also trying to use it for computer stuff. The founder of RedHat said he'd license the trademark to Apple for free, but his trademark comes from sports, not computing.

TigerDirect has a pretty good case here. Apple is using a name they used before Apple in the same industry. Could I come out with an operating system called OS X? Apple doesn't have anything called OS X, but they do have a Mac OS X. By the same token, TigerDirect doesn't have anything named Tiger, but they do have TigerDirect. While this case might not have been good enough for an injunction, that is a far cry from saying that the case is baseless.

As a lifelong Mac user (until this Linux box which will be replaced by another Mac soon), this is one of those cases where Apple just didn't do their research. Apple didn't mean to do anything bad, but they picked a name that was already being used in their industry. It was a mistake. Apple doesn't want to fix it because they have put a lot of money into the Tiger name. It's a crappy situation for all.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't going to convince the Apple: Right Or Wrong crowd here.

However, Apple Computer does have a bit of a history of gobbling up the trademarks of smaller organizations: Apple Music and UNIX(tm) to name a few. It seems like a pattern of behavior where they use their size and lawyers to roll over anyone impeading their coolness.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[takev]

I don't know how it is in the US, but in the Benelux (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) you should not be able to get a trademark on a common word. So both Jaguar and Tiger should not be able to get a trademark.

However you can get a trademark on a image mark, which could include a common word, but it will also be accompanied by the font used, other graphic elements and the colors used.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[UnknowingFool]

I mean, when Apple came out with Jaguar, they weren't allowed to market it as Jaguar in Brittain because of Jaguar cars. Now that case had no basis and yet Jaguar cars got their way.

In that case, it was probably more expedient for Apple to settle as the laws in other countries are different than US laws. Companies run into problems like this when selling overseas.

TigerDirect has a pretty good case here. Apple is using a name they used before Apple in the same industry.

It would different if Apple used "TigerDirect" for the code name of their OS but they used a common English word. For example, in the case of MS, US courts have ruled that you can't claim a common word (Windows) but you can claim distinct combinations of common words and letters (Windows 95, Windows Me). Also adding the company name also makes it distinct.

Could I come out with an operating system called OS X? Apple doesn't have anything called OS X, but they do have a Mac OS X.

Microware sued Apple over OS 9. It had a real-time OS on PowerPC embedded systems called OS-9. After a few years, a judge ruled that since both companies occuped different markets, it was unlikely that a consumer would be confused. In your case, if you wrote an OS for personal computers called OS X, I think Apple would have a case.

this is one of those cases where Apple just didn't do their research.

And you know that how? Again "Tiger" is a common word. TigerDirect does not own "Tiger" but combinations of "Tiger" and other words. There are 200 trademarks containing "Tiger" but no OS named "Tiger". I think they did their research.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[polysylabic psudonym]

Could I come out with an operating system called OS X?

Try starting at OS I, then OS II... eventually OS IX then OS X. I distinctly remember something in US IP history that says you can't protect a number. X is just another number - I was going to say "just not in the common numerical system, then I realised that one place that system is commonly used is legal documents. Long story short, go ahead, market an Operating System X - just make sure you lead up to it appropriately.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[NutscrapeSucks]

In the US, you can trademark common words, so long as it's unrelated to the product being marketed -- so Mustang(tm) Cars is a legit trademark, but Mustang Horses are not.

IIRC, you also have the right to defend your trademark as it applies to a broad category of products. So, for example, Apple Computer's trademark applies to "Computer Hardware and Software", but not "Recorded Music" (where Apple Records has the trademark and is suing Apple Computer over iTunes).

So, at least on the surface, it seems like a computer company called Tiger has a case against an operating system called Tiger. But, it sounds like the judge's preliminary decision was basically "Apple is a much bigger company, so follow the golden rule: Those with the gold makes the rules. Apple spent a lot of money marketing Tiger/10.4, so it stays on the market.".

Still it wouldn't suprise me to see TigerDirect walk away with several million bucks from all of this. In other words this lawsuit is just a negotiating tatic.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the cowardly Underrated modbombing on this one.

ObGodwin: Apple should go back to making brown computers, to better match the shirts of their users.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Bones3D_mac]

I just had an unusual thought on this... what if the judge himself is a mac user?

Is it possible that one's preferred operating system/computer or choice could skew a decision like this into one company's favor over another? Would this be considered a conflict of interest, considering how many Mac users tend to be rabidly protective of their systems, that could easily get a ruling like this overturned?

As far as I know, something like this has not been put into practice yet, but it could certainly be a factor that could influence the decision making process.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[saterdaies]

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.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[saterdaies]

I actually think that Apple has a right to use the UNIX trademark the way they have. They say that their system is based on UNIX, which I think 99.9% of people will agree with - heck, even the people who own the UNIX trademark agree. Here, they want Apple to pay in order to use the trademark. If I make a product that is based off of Linux, do I need Linus Torvalds permission to say "this is based on Linux"? No. I would need his permission to call it CoolBeansLinux because that would be creating a trademark based off his trademark, but stating informationally that it uses Linux is fine. Did I just say cool beans?

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[saterdaies]

Well, I don't think the Judge's decision was based on Apple being bigger so much as it is really, really difficult to get a preliminary injunction. TigerDirect would have to have proven irreperable harm and an exceedingly high chance of winning the case to justify a preliminary injunction. This case could still go in TigerDirect's favor and it all rests on whether mail-order computer seller and an operating system are considered the same industry.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Well, I think if the siuation was reversed and TigerDirect was selling an product called "AppleDirect", you can bet the injunction would have been granted. AFAICT, how well known a company is and the amount of marketing money they spend is grist for the mill in trademark cases, so the law is somewhat biased towards large corporations. Which means that Apple could be 100% in the wrong and still walk away with the "Tiger" name, although it might cost them some $$$.

(Correction: I was under the impression that TigerDirect sold computers under their own name brand. Looks like they don't or no longer do so, and they are just a retailer.)

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I realize that "most people" on the Internet have their own ideas about the term Unix. But what you've missed is that X/OPEN was formed specifically to prevent this sort of abuse of the UNIX trademark. Their ONLY rational for existence is to ensure that UNIX(tm) means a set of technical standards -- which Apple's largely archaic '80s OS design does not follow.

It wouldn't even be a big burden for Apple to get OS X qualified as UNIX, they just refuse to do because it's easier and cheaper for them to steal the trademark!

Linux(tm) is entirely different story because Linus proactively set a very low bar for licencing his trademark. http://www.linuxmark.org/ But he also has to deal with shitheads like VA Linux and LinuxWorld running amok.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could I come out with an operating system called OS X?

Remember the tiff between OS 9 and MacOS 9? Apple wasn't guilty for naming their OS MacOS 9 because it's a progression from MacOS 8 and MacOS 8.5. Besides, it's said *Mac*OS.

Now, you may try it with OS X, but you should start as OS I as the parent says. But I suspect that you'd get in trouble with OS IX (OS 9) before you get to OS X.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had an unusual thought on this... what if the judge himself is a mac user?

Then the lawyers will just have to speak slowly.

Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, why else wasn't M$ broken up a few years back?

Can we combine SCO and Tiger...

[OSXexpert]

Scigger?

Re:Can we combine SCO and Tiger...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, nigger is better, from "naughty tiger".


---
Testing the tolerance of americans since 1998.

Yeah, and...

[interactive_civilian]

Apple had long been calling the things that opened in their Operating Systems "Windows" long before Microsoft ventured away from the DOS prompt.

What exactly is your point?

AFAICT, Tiger Direct does not market an operating system under their name, and it seems quite obvious that Apple is not using the word "Direct" in any of their marketing or naming strategies.

Again I ask, what exactly is your point?

Trademarks only reach so far, and Tiger Direct's does not (rightly IMHO) reach far enough. Next thing you know, African tour operators will be trying to sue Apple over the name of their browser, the French will be trying to sue Apple over their chosen name for autoconfig, mathemeticians and philosophers the world over will be trying to sue Apple over the name of their (bought out) music software, auto makers will be suing them over the use of the term "dashboard", etc. etc. etc.

Trademarks only go so far.

Re:Yeah, and...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, since Apple doesn't make spreadsheet programs, I'm sure Steve Jobs will be OK with me releasing my "AppleWare Direct spreadsheet".

Re:Yeah, and...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they do. It's called Clarisworks. Get a fucking clue before you make such an ass of yourself trying to be smart.

Re:Yeah, and...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your own advice and realize the parent was being sarcastic.

Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDirect?

[PocketPick]

Oh, I'm sure Apple wouldn't have a problem that.

Way to put salt in my wounds.

[fr2asbury]

I'm still pissed about going all the way down to Comerica Park last night just to have the Tiger's (Detroit Baseball) game rained out.
Now here comes Slashdot yelling "Tiger Tiger Tiger" at me.

Re:Way to put salt in my wounds.

[JenovaSynthesis]

Did you enjoy the cocktail onion sized hail at least?

Re:Way to put salt in my wounds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here comes Slashdot yelling "Tiger Tiger Tiger" at me.
"Mushroom, Mushroom!" "Gates! It's Bill Gates! Ahhhgh, it's Bill Gates!"

Beware TigerDirect

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Beware TigerDirect

[imag0]

No, you don't get asked for the last 4 digits of your SS number. i just ordered something last week.

Mod a troll.

Re:Beware TigerDirect

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? They don't hide anything about the deal. If you're too lazy to read terms of sale, don't by from any vendor, let your mom do it for you.

Re:Beware TigerDirect

[blackmonday]

I ordered a refurbushed X1 projector a month ago, and they never asked for any part of my SSN. My order came through perfectly, and I already got the rebate check.

Re:Beware TigerDirect

[polysylabic psudonym]

you will be asked, in the very last field of the last window, for the last four digits of your social security number.

Child posts say they don't, but even if they did, how would they tell if you gave a fake? How would they know that your SSN doesn't end in 1234? Seem's a foolish thing to either believe of worry about.

PS. IANAA (I ain't a yank) so I'm only assuming that no organisation other than the government and perhaps your employer would know your SSN or be able to verify its veracity.

Re:Beware TigerDirect

[SA Stevens]

Well, there we have it. Both remaining TigerDirect customers have responded.

Heh.

Re:Beware TigerDirect

[SacredNaCl]

You are only asked the last 4 digits of your social security number if you are applying to buy something under their extended payment plans. In which case they use another company to extend the credit out and it is needed for the approval process (just like any other loan application) to verify your credit rating and help them make a decision on whether or not to extend credit.

You will never be asked your SS number, or any part of your SS number if you are not applying to purchase on credit from them.

they got two things out of this

[SideshowBob]

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.

Re:they got two things out of this

[Bullseye_blam]

1) Assloads of publicity from suing Apple. Suing the fruity one always gets you some attention no matter how frivolous.

Judging from the commentary I've seen here and around the web, this doesn't look to be _good_ publicity.

Bye Bye

[digitalgimpus]

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)

Re:Bye Bye

[Winterblink]

This little publicity stunt already backfired with bad press, rather than free brand exposure.

Surprise! All that "bad press" you speak off is free brand exposure.

Re:Bye Bye

[kencurry]

good point.

cool sig by the way (ingnore mine!)

Re:Bye Bye

[Winterblink]

Heh, a self referencing sig, eh? :) And thanks. Thought it was a decent enough Trek quote, sig worthy at least. :)

Re:Bye Bye

[digitalgimpus]

If we boycott it, and take them as the frauds they are...

it's negative exposure.

Brand exposure is only good if it's positive exposure.

Mother Teresa's Name had good exposure.
Bin Laden is even better known... but not good for his 'brand'.

Re:Bye Bye

[technothrasher]

Mother Teresa's Name had good exposure.
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.

MOD THIS UP

[Anonymous Coward]

The comment is so simple, yet so elequently points out the facts of corporate America.

Re:MOD THIS UP

[DebianDog]

(cartman voice)
GOD DAMNNED HIPPIES!
(/cartman voice)

Allah forbid anyone has to protect what is rightfully theirs.

Evil or not... Get BIG enough and someone is going to try and sue you. Look at poor Wendys finger.

Re:MOD THIS UP

[Anonymous Coward]

that you are unemployable

Editorial

[northcat]

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.

Re:Editorial

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I thought all the dupes and stuff were some kind of troll tactic to lure the slashdot crowd to whine and complain about them and thous create page impressions for the ads.

Re:Editorial

[fbartho]

"Its funny because its true..."

I'd rather live in a world with Tigerdirect

[jbplou]

I'd rather live in a world with Tigerdirect and no Mac than a world with Mac and no TIgerdirect.

Re:I'd rather live in a world with Tigerdirect

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean you'd rather have a world with shitty commodity crap hardware that TigerDirect sells?

Possible Drop in Sales

[CrownFive]

So, let's say sales drop because people are disgusted with TigerDirect's boneheaded move. Obvious, they were right. Apple diluting their brand name. Er, right? post hoc ergo propter hoc

Re:Possible Drop in Sales

[The Cisco Kid]

Actually, their boneheaded move *would* in fact be the cause of their lost sales, not Apple's use of the trademark. Most soound-minded persons would presupposed that had TigerDirect *not* taken action against Apple, that their sales would have not been affected. Unfortunately, lacking a time machine, there is no way to actually and completely prove that.

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[Anonymous Coward]

What about AppleCore :D or a company called Banana :D

Uh, no. That was Exxon.

[zentec]

That was Exxon.

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[eluusive]

Or MacMail?

TigerDirect's behavior...

[trudyscousin]

...is something that just comes with the territory, one could hypothesize.

(No insult intended to the many decent folk and businesses that are down there, but your situation's akin to your IP addresses being located in a block infested by spammers.)

Next Move...

[Ogman]

No doubt TigerDirect will now appeal to the Dutch courts.

What's wrong with TigerDirect?

[superdude72]

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.

Re:What's wrong with TigerDirect?

[Peaked]

I too have bought hardware from TigerDirect in the past and had nothing to complain about. Of course, part of this may have to do with the fact that they have an outlet store within convient reach of my home so I have never order anything online from them. I'm curious, what problems have people had in the past with TigerDirect?

I'm not saying that their lawsuit wasn't utterly ridiculous, it was. I just want to know if it was problems with service or products or if they just have a history of this kind of stupid litigation.

Re:What's wrong with TigerDirect?

[Fox_1]

Nothing, at least as far as I can tell. It's just like any other transaction when dealing with Tiger Direct. I've bought from them a number of times, everything shipped on time, never had a defective part arrive, and that hasn't been the case with every tech shop I've dealt with. People say all sorts of horrible things about them on a regular basis and I just haven't had that experience. Now I deal with tigerdirect.ca - same company as I understand it, but maybe it's the US side of the company that gets people up in arms. Use your head and make sure you research what you are buying before you spend your money, not every deal they have is so great, but welcome to the reality of commerce.

Re:What's wrong with TigerDirect?

[The Cisco Kid]

I dont think anyone is suggesting anything is wrong with them, other than the fact that they tried to *way* overstep their rights with regards to this trademark.

Re:What's wrong with TigerDirect?

[Xoder]

One thing ever went wrong with a shipment from them. The case that went with a barebones kit got smashed. I sent it back to them, and they sent the replacement to my billing address, not where I was at school. My dad had to remail the package, but they gladly reimbursed me the cost of the re-ship. Verdict: Sometimes dumb (who isn't?) but generally helpful.

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[SA Stevens]

One of the companies Apple ran out of business by suing them was Orange Computer, who made the Orange Peel, an Apple 2 clone.

Apple celebrates by visiting Exxon

[theurge14]

They'll put a Tiger in their tank.

Thanks TigerDirect!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I know who NOT to buy anything from.

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[Sheepdot]

No, but these guys might.

Lawyers are ticking time bombs

[Scrameustache]

If the tables were turned, I'm sure apple would do the same thing to tiger direct. Apple has quite a colorful litigeous history.

Big businesses hire lawyers.
Lawyers that just sit around the office all day, looking for someone to sue. You either sick 'em on outsiders or they start looking fo a reason to sue their coworkers ;-)

Usage

[shoebert]

I heard that TigerDirect is going to allow anyone free use of the word "tiger," but only after you pay in full for it and wait 4-6 weeks for the mail-in rebate.

The Puns!

[empaler]

The horrible, horrible puns!

Re:The Puns!

[ahknight]

Oh come on, you know it's punny.

There's only so many letters -was:Re:This is dumb.

[polysylabic psudonym]

Athlon and Opteron certainly weren't english words before AMD created them.

Funny. I drive to work every day on a road named Athllon Drive (spelt differently, pronounced the same). Have done for a number of years. Before that, I rode my bike along the same road to get to school.

Don't assume, just because you haven't heard it before, that a word is new. It may be borrowed (deliberately or accidentally) from another arena or another language.

Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are.

[dscho]

My point was not about trademark law itself. But on the practice to allow companies to trademark such common expressions as Tiger, Apple, Windows, Kinder, or even regular peoples' names like Milka, Mercedes or Ford. The problems which ensue are well earned (but mostly not by those suffering from them).

Ciao,
Dscho

---

Who sues Sue?

Re:Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are.

[ucblockhead]

But these names are only supposed to apply to a narrow domain. I can, for example, open "Apple Delicatesin" tomorrow. I can start advertising Windows Plumbing Service" tomorrow. I don't see any reason why common names are a problem when they apply to a narrow domain.

This suit is bogus because it is not at all confusing to have a "Tiger" OS and a "Tiger Direct" computer reseller. These aren't the same products. The commonness of the name makes no difference. There are like what, at best, twenty OSes in the world? There's no reason to worry about real, honest to God name collisions.

You mention Ford. Are you saying that Fred Ford should be allowed to sell cars called "Ford"? Do you think that'd be good for the consumer?

The only real problem with trademark law today is that lawyers sue knowing that that their victims will settle. (For instance, Penny Arcade certainly would have won had they fought.) That's not a problem with trademark law, that's a problem with a legal system in which money rules.

Re:Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are.

[dscho]

> 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?

> You mention Ford. Are you saying that Fred Ford should be allowed to sell cars called "Ford"? Do you think that'd be good for the consumer?

No. I am saying that this name shouldn't have been trademarked in the first place. If my name is "Fred Ford" and I decide to sell cars, what am I supposed to do? Change my name?

> ... in which money rules.

Well, it shouldn't be. That is why it is called "legal system", not "monetary system". And before I hear "but that's just the way it is!": it is no law of physics. It does not need to be that way. Everybody who does not try to change things like this, deserves no better.

Re:Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real. "Fred Ford" doesn't have a chance in hell selling cars under his name. It just would never happen in the United Corporations of America.

Re:Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets the domain www.tiger.com?

Whoever leases it.

If my name is "Fred Ford" and I decide to sell cars, what am I supposed to do? Change my name?

Call your car company Fred? Or perhaps put your ego aside and not name it after yourself? There are lots of options here.

Re:Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are.

[scottv67]

> 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

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[znu]

That's not quite the same thing. Apple actually does have direct sales operations, and your 'AppleDirect' could easily be confused with those. TigerDirect does not, in contrast, have an operating system.

ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

and tigerdirect even sells apple ipods.

Difficulty at the gas pump

[Basehart]

I hope they get this Tiger business sorted out soon.

I was at an Esso gas station the other day and everyone was trying to force a copy of Apple's Tiger installer disk into their gas tanks.

I wish this was the judge in the monster cases...

[mobiux]

So Monster Cable wouldn't be able to extort money since they think they own the god damn word.

Nice muscles in that throwing arm

[Farrside]

I've got a tip for you in my pocket... but my arthritis... why don't you reach in there and get it?

publicity

[X_Caffeine]

am I the only person who thinks that TigerDirect wasn't hoping or caring about an injunction or settlement at all?

I think they are just trying to pull more eyeballs toward their site, get the interest of people who had never heard of them, and decided not to Switch.

Tiger,tiger burning bright

[panurge]

In the forests of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Protects thy brand integrity?

Under India's burning skies
IP issues do not rise
If you've passed on being shot
You still can't sue the goddam lot

Genus felis does not code
Nor shifts boxes by the load
Salesmen in expensive shirts
Don't care if your image hurts

Tiger,tiger burning bright
In the forests of the night
Though extinction faces you
It faces all those brand-names, too

With sincere apologies to William Blake.

Re:Tiger,tiger burning bright

[Alsee]

What immortal hand or eye
Protects thy brand integrit-eye?

-

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[justins]

Come on man, it's not like Apple just sues random people willy-nilly with little provocation.

Oh wait... Apple...

I think there a basic difference in US laws...

[arete]

I think there a basic difference in US laws...

The US trademark and patent laws, as a rule, make no sense anymore.

Oh, the irony!

[Wabbit Wabbit]

"I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do."

Must mean the /. editors, because I see TigerDirect ads here all the time! Yes, yes, I know they don't control the individual ads. I still find it very funny and quite ironic.

Mod parent -1, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are using TigerDirect's extended payment plan or other credit services, you WILL get asked for a SS number.

Mod Parent a troll.

80 year old man ... used to call me "Tiger"

[runlvl0]

Old Man: Hey, muscly arm, why the long face?
Chris: It's this girl. I can't talk to her. It's like girls are a different species or something.
Old Man: Who needs them? You like Popsicles?
Chris: Well, sure.
Old Man: Then you need to come on down to the cellar. I got a whole freezer full of Popsicles.
Chris: No, thanks. I gotta get going.
Old Man: Don't make me beg now.
Chris: You're funny. Bye.
Old Man: Get your fat ass back here.

Hmm

[Opaleg]

They should just eat some frosted flakes and wake up earlier in the morning, I say that would help a lot to make them a little less uptight. You don't see Tony going crazy because people say Tiger a lot. This is making me hungry.

vcfdfd3

[Mustafu]

asdf. 'Nuff said.

sdfdsfdsfdsfdsfsdvcxv
cx
ds
fds
f
dsf
ds
fdsfdsfdsa

They gave some other reason for asking.

[Futurepower(R)]

They gave some other reason for asking, which I don't remember. I certainly did not apply for credit. It would have been a very large order.

search results

[ayeco]

If you search (Google) "tiger software" the second link is tigerdirect.com, "tiger hardware" the only ad is tigerdirect. Seems like things work just fine. "Tiger deal" has NO results for Apple's Tiger but does have the 5th link as tiger direct.

It's like tigerdirect didn't even try it for themselves.

Frosted Flakes?

[Typoboy]

Forget FF. You want Tiger Power(tm) cereal! That's what I've been having since T-day..

they could however be accused of 'crying wolf'

[toby]

they can't say that TigerDirect failed to protect their TM.

WTF with Perens' Technocrat.net?

[1u3hr]

11 May 2005: Bruce Perens, owner of Technocrat.net,... has shut down the site ... blog article http://bre.klaki.net/dagbok/faerslur/978545404.sht ml suggests Perens might be making a mistake

NO NO NO!!!! The blog article is from 2001. For once Slashdot were right in rejecting. Bruce tried Technocrat in a different form back then, and did shut it down until a few months ago when he reopened it. But I don't think its recent sudden disappeance from the web -- I can't even get its DNS to resolve -- is deliberate on his part. His personal domain, Perens.com, is similarly AWOL, and as that's where the only email address of his I know is, I haven't been able to follow up. Something is going on, but I have no idea what -- domain hijacks?

Re:There's only so many letters -was:Re:This is du

[Vellmont]

Though Athlon may be someones name or some diss-used english word that doesn't diminish the point that companies create words that didn't exist before to associate with their product. Had I been arguing specifically about Athlon, that would have been relevant. Since Athlon is merely an example in a larger point your story is interesting, but not immaterial to the discussion.

You seriously can't see?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can sell whatever they want on *their systems.*

Microsoft was pressuring *other companies* to sell with their OS installed.

If there weren't a difference, every device sold would have to have a choice of OS... VCRs, Palms, Tivos.... That's ridiculous.

Microsoft sells an OS and does not manufacture PCs. If it uses its OS monopoly to restrict trade by locking up other markets, it's in trouble.

This is what people tend to fail to understand about antitrust law. It isn't that having a monopoly is a moral sin. It's that using a monopoly so you get *all* of a restricted market instead of *some* of a freer market is bad for everyone but the monopolist. It's like racketeering.

Apple's own product line is not a market. Therefore they can do whatever they want with it. Only when they tell someone else what product line to have will they have trouble, and then only under very specific circumstances.

On the playground today...

[Anonymous Coward]

...my friend said this rhyme, and it started "Eenie meenie meinie moe, catch a tiger by the toe..." Should I recommend he contact his lawyer?

suing apple is fashionable

[micromuncher]

Everyone that thinks they have a trademark whether it is registered or not believes that suing Apple is a good idea.

Apple has a tendency to entertain the lawsuits, so every corporate lawyer thinks its a great make-work type project.

Marketing types agree, because its free advertising.

Even individuals, like Carl "Butthead Astronomer" Sagan love to sue Apple over the use of internal project code names, because suing Apple is both fun and profitable.

Apple should have learned by now that using any word in the english language can result in a lawsuit, just like George Lucas has learned he can be sued by any writer thinking they own the notion of a hairy cute alien.

Maybe Apple should start using H4xx0r for its project naming. Tiger could be T1gg3r, but then they'd probably be sued by Disney (who, btw, totally screwed the estate of Milne out of millions.)

Retard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples have been around longer than Tigers. How could a term like "Apple" in any non-judicial sense (such as common sense) ever be accused of being an intellectual property?

Tiger Direct = NO SALE

[Anonymous Coward]

Never bought from them... never will. Here's hoping no one else will either.

In other news....

[SCVirus]

Slashdot has been sued by SCO for infringing on the trademark for all directories. Here is the SCO press release:
Earlier today we filed suit against Slashdot.org for infringing on our intellectual property. 'slashdot' or /. refers to the directory you are currently viewing with most Unix shells, as everyone is well aware SCO owns unix, and everything to do with unix and as such Slashdot is infringing on a copyrighted directory.

Re:In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

'slashdot' or /. refers to the directory you are currently viewing with most Unix shells

Certainly not. "." refers to your current working directory, as does "./". "/." refers, in a slightly redundant way, to the root directory - it's equivalent to "/", but the directory entry "." in "/" is a link to the same "/" directory.

$ ls -ldi /
2 drwxr-xr-x 18 root wheel 512 Aug 30 2004 /
$ ls -ldi /.
2 drwxr-xr-x 18 root wheel 512 Aug 30 2004 /.

The "2" above is the inode number, which shows you exactly what /. points to.

RE: protecting what's rightfully theirs

[King_TJ]

Bah... I think you're missing the point. Yes, companies should be able to protect their trademarked names from abuse. Yes, they may be at a disadvantage if they DON'T sue when appropriate opportunities arise to protect said name.

*BUT*, this was a case where the threat of customer confusion was non-existant. Apple already had an established trend of using names of wild animals for each of their OS releases (Jaguar, Panther, etc.), and it's obvious they went with "Tiger" this time around simply to continue that trend ... not to try to steal customer-share from Tiger Direct!

I'm sure Tiger Direct tried to argue that they were "both in the computer business!" .... but IMHO, that's simply not good enough. Tiger Direct is a *reseller*. They don't even make their own software or hardware. If someone WAS actually confused and thought they should shop for a copy of OS X Tiger via Tiger Direct, how would this hurt Tiger Direct in any way, shape or form? (Heck, they might end up selling them something else and getting a new customer out of the deal.)

This isn't the same thing as, say, Apple's old lawsuit against "Orange Computer" - who was directly competing with Apple and trying to sell clones of their systems.

In other news,

[ebbomega]

Tigerdirect sues Spiderman, the city of Detroit and Rudyard Kipling for similar use of the word.

I used Tigerdirect.ca once for buying a Rio Karma. Never again. About a month after buying my Karma (20G HD mp3 player) it broke (nothing against td). So I call Tigerdirect for warranty information.

First of all, they changed their website so that it no longer advertised the 1 year warranty I saw when I purchased the player and changed it to 90 days (the same as the manufacturer's warranty), and disavowed any knowledge of this mythical 1 year warranty (one of the reasons I picked TD over others). They just tried to refer me back to the manufacturer.

So finally I say fine, take the 1-800 phone number.

Phone number doesn't work in Canada. The web page did say .ca, right? Turns out all that means is they converted their prices to Canadian Dollars. That no-duty thing they advertised? Hah. I had to pay a $130 C.O.D. on the player when it showed up at my door because they shipped from Pennsylvania.

So yeah, the toll free number doesn't work.

I call back Tigerdirect. Complain that the number they gave me doesn't work in Canada. So the buddy tells me that they'll get in touch with me about it.

That was a year and a fucking half ago. I still never heard back. Ultimately, after a week of waiting, I went to Rio's site, and after extensive digging I finally found a number in Toronto I could call. So I call Rio directly, they honour the warranty and in two months (ugh) I have a refurbished player. That one lasted a year (never buy Rio hard drive players, they suck. There's a reason iPods are more expensive).

Tigerdirect is a horrible company that is out there for the same reasons microsoft is: Make a cheap buck out of people who don't know any better.

Re:In other news,

[Repugnant_Shit]

Out of curiosity, did your headphone jack get messed up? I had a Karma for about 4 months and then the jack stopped working properly - crackling, hissing, etc. I've heard others had this problem too.

I'm an idiot...

[ebbomega]

Kipling?

Blake. I meant Blake.

Re:I'm an idiot...

[Reziac]

Don't worry about it -- they'll sue Kipling next.

BTW your experience with TD is, by all I've read, highly typical. They are the Fry's of the direct marketing world.

google rank

[tgibbs]

Apple has done it before. They did it with Panther and Jaguar. When they first announced Tiger, they referred to it as Tiger, they had big banners that said Tiger, etc. If TigerDirect was truly taking this seriously as a real threat to their trademark value, they would've done enough research to find this out (it wouldn't have been hard). They were just looking for some easy money.

So what should they have done? Sued Apple in advance? Changed their name and made it hard for previous customers to find you. The ruling is clearly correct as far as Trademark law is concerned. TigerDirect customers are not going to get confused and start buying things from Apple that they previously bought from TigerDirect. People are not going to be calling up TigerDirect and complaining about problems with Apple products. Still, TigerDirect used to come up at the top of a Google search for Tiger, and now they don't. A high Google rank can have considerable value. TigerDirect was clearly hoping the court would broaden Trademark law to cover this, but the court declined to do so. What it comes down to is that where web searches are concerned, a big company like Apple is the 600 pound canary. If they happen to announce a product that knocks your company off of the first Google search page, you are just SOL.

Re:google rank

[ZorinLynx]

You'd think a web page about tigers (you know the stripey big cats who chuff and all) would be what should come first in a google search for "Tiger".

Tiger is a generic word. Anyone searching for TigerDirect would either enter tigerdirect in for the google search or something like "tiger mail order computer components". Both of which return TigerDirect as the top hit.

Someone searching for just "Tiger" probably just wants to learn about tigers, which were around long before humans even figured out how to use tools.

-Z

Re:google rank

[cowscows]

Exactly. TigerDirect is just SOL. Tiger is a generic word. Saying you deserve the higher google rankings for that just because you had it once in the past is not a good argument.

And the google ranking doesn't make that much sense. If I was just looking for any ol computer selling website, I wouldn't put tiger in as my query. I'd put Computer Sales, or something to that effect. If I'm looking for TigerDirect specifically, I might put tiger, and then go through the results till I find what I'm looking for. Apple's tiger might make that take a few seconds longer, but it won't mislead me.

I don't just put random words into google, and buy random stuff from whatever companies come up. And I doubt anyone else does either. If that's how commerce worked, then maybe TigerDirect would have a better complaint.

Re:google rank

[stor]

A high Google rank can have considerable value.

True, however retaining that is not guaranteed. TigerDirect is not paying for their position on the first page of search results, right? We are discussing a service provided by a third party, for free. I'm sure there are plenty of ways (apart from Apple releasing a new OS) that someone can lose their high Google rank.

I guess TigerDirect could pay for advertising space from Google to ensure they're on the first page of results.

It's a bit tough on TigerDirect but does not seem to have a strong foundation for litigation.

Cheers
Stor

Re:google rank

[tricorn]

I don't know what TigerDirect used to come up with, but as many people have pointed out, they still come up higher than Apple's Tiger OS. I'm not sure by what theory anyone could claim that Tiger Direct lost first place to a web site about real tigers because of Apple's branding a version of their OS as Tiger, yet still have Apple come up two places BELOW Tiger Direct. Even if the theory were correct, the facts don't support the case.

As far as what they "should have done": they should have contacted Apple to ask them not to use an infringing mark as soon as they found out about it. That's assuming they think it really was infringing. If that didn't work and they really thought it was infringing, then yes, they should have sued as soon as they found out about it.

If they were merely worried about possibly losing trademark protection, they don't have to sue. They could, for instance, make an agreement with Apple that each one agrees that the other's trademark doesn't infringe on their own. That makes it perfectly clear that they aren't ceding any rights to it.

What I learned about TigerDirect

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew little about TigerDirect before the lawsuit. I had made several purchases from them, because like J&R Music World, they show up frequently as the lowest price in Amazon.com electronics searches.

In the discussions related to their frivolous lawsuit, I found out lots of their customers were reporting horrible service and they managed to earn a really low rating from the BBB.

So their lawsuit lost my business, not because I'm an idealist Apple fan, but because I don't want to be shafted by a shitty mailorder outfit.

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[mojowantshappy]

Apple's got hell to pay from one Ms. Granny Delicious.

What respect - the spamming bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, they suck. They don't listen. I've asked, called, emailed all addresses and they STILL send me their catalog spam message! They give you the run around, even when you speak to them directly. Bunch of people who just don't care.

I don't get it

[No Such Agency]

I only have two data points - a friend and I have ordered various items from them - but I didn't detect anything unsavory, fraudulent, or even vaguely shitty about TigerDirect. Delivery seemed fairly prompt, and the items worked and were as advertised. So what do the rest of you know that I don't?

Note: I ordered from the Canadian side of the business.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I placed one order from them, several years back. It was a mistake.

I ordered a motherboard from them, choosing it because it had a very large (1MB) L2 cache. I got a different board entirely with eitehr 128K or 256K cache (I don't recall anymore, this was when AMD released the K6-2). They claimed that the new board was better and a lot of other stuff and refused to replace it/refund money. I relented.

The board was part of a bare-bones setup that came with a no-name PSU. I plugged in the board and the PSU, and nothing happened. They replaced it with the same board, and the same thing happened. I called them back, suggested the problem might be elsewhere, such as the PSU, and they said 'no, definitely the mother board' (in a very thick Indian accent that made it difficult to understand at times). They replaced it a second time. I figured I'd give the board one last chance before replacing the PSU. It didn't work. Chances are the PSU fried all three boards, or they just kept giving me dead hardware. I called them back, but because there returns had taken so long the warranty had now expired, and they refused to replace it anymore.

I was a sophomore in highschool at the time. Nowadays, I would have handled the situation much differently. Knowing what I know about them now, I refuse to let myself back into this situation with them.

We also purchased a pre-built system from them at the same time. It was the worst built system I'd ever seen. Taking off the case there were components glued all over the place for who knew what reason. When originally powered on the power cable for the cpu fan was caught in the fan so there was this very loud noise coming from it. The components were obviously no-name and what you'd expect from a cheap computer; most of the parts have failed by now (including CD-ROM, RAM and mobo).

How about AppleDirect?

[aqk]

I'm considering marketing apples (the fruit) from my orchard via the internet, and possibly have a small software package as an option.

My company will be called AppleTiger.

Do you think TigerDirect may object?

- Tony the Tiger
http://www.tonyking.tk/ ... Ahhh, dontcha just love those top-level domains!

Re: protecting what's rightfully theirs

[DebianDog]

I think you missed my point but... thanks for agreeing with me ;-)

Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a problem, if you're selling fruit. Well at least not from Apple Computers.

Karma to burn - so here's the answer

[panurge]

Clearly you do not know the original poem. The original is

What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry

I actually took care to preserve Blake's exact half rhyme. I may write feeble burlesques, but I do try to retain the scansion and rhyme schemes.

But we'll take their $ in the meantime

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to love the anti TigerDirect sentiments while looking at the TigerDirect banner ad at the top of my screen. Whores, we are all whores.

Actually...

[FredFnord]

...compiled Java exists in any number of places. Heck, Metrowerks had it eight years ago.

Replacing Objective C (a language) with Java (a language) and using them in the same way (compiling them into native machine code) wouldn't have caused problems.

If the entire OS were interpreted, okay. But remember, just because the current usual use case for Java is interpreted doesn't mean it must be.

-fred

And if they came out too fast..

[sean.peters]

... would that be called logorhea?

Sean

it was a mistake

[zogger]

he's been on vacation and his hosting provider shut off his domains at the same time. It will supposedly be fixed this week. We have a temporary technocrat backup board hosted at user Rajahs forums

Technocrat backup forum

Feel free to pass this on. I did a journal entry about this but obviously it didn't get around much.

temp site

[zogger]

snafu with his provider while he was vacationing, fixed soon, here is the temporary technocrat forum

Re: protecting what's rightfully theirs

[tricorn]

Actually, Tiger Direct does sell Tiger branded computers.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the Tiger in your tank!

Nope...

[ebbomega]

First Karma I got that went tits-up had a faulty hard drive that kicked out after two weeks.

My latest problem is that I can't charge the bugger. Plug it in, nothing happens. It sucks too because I've got this hard drive on there with a bunch of mp3s/oggs and my computer was recently stolen (yeah, I know, back up back up back up) so I've got a bunch of music on there I want to get off of it but can't.

Anybody here know of any home solutions? I'm out of warranty and don't mind opening her up if it'll fix the problem.