Apple Nixes iPad Giveaways

KingSkippus writes "According to a story at CNN, Apple has begun enforcing third party promotion guidelines (PDF) that, among other things, restricts organizations from giving away iPads, using the word 'free' to describe any Apple products in a prominent manner, or promoting giveaways of iPod Touches in lots of less than 250 and with Apple's explicit approval."

Comments

Free Apples!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eve enjoyed it...

Re:Free Apples!

[drb226]

In contrast, consuming Apple products will put you *in* the walled garden, instead of getting you thrown out.

They did what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't prevent someone from giving your product away. If they bought one, you can't keep them from giving that product to someone else.

captcha: astound

As in, I am astounded that they think this can possibly work.

Re:They did what now?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Your "first sale" is powerless before my RDF. Go use a dell or something.

Re:They did what now?

[FrostDust]

You can't prevent someone from giving your product away.

No, but Apple could chose not to ship you anymore iP[a/o]ds. This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).

Apple is probably doing this as a proactive maneuver to protect their brand name from being cheapened.

Re:They did what now?

[Andy Smith]

Gotta take that a step further...
iP[[ad/od]/hone]s

Re:They did what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).

Did you even RTFA? It's about a TV station running afoul of Apple's "guidelines" - which I suspect wouldn't be enforceable, except for the use of their proprietary Myriad Set font being copyright 'n' all.

Re:They did what now?

[guard952]

At least next the brackets properly. iP[[a/o]d/hone]s

Re:They did what now?

[FrostDust]

Did you even RTFA?

You're right, I hadn't.

My bad.

Re:They did what now?

[williamhb]

No, but Apple could chose not to ship you anymore iP[a/o]ds. This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).

A small bank decides to run a "win one of 5 iPads" competition to new customers. How is Apple going to stop them from sending someone down to the local department store to buy them? (Or five staff to different stores if they want to be sneaky!) Heck, is Apple going to start interrogating every shopper in an Apple Store? "Admit it! You're going to give this way in some filthy raffle aren't you, Miss Whatever-your-name-is! And I bet that's not even a real beard!"

Re:They did what now?

[AngryDeuce]

I don't think Trademark law is designed to be (ab)used that way. You're not naming a different product deceivingly, it is what it is, wtf are you supposed to refer to it as?

"a tablet from a fruit company"?

Re:They did what now?

[raehl]

Don't you mean:
iP([ao]d|hone)s

Re:They did what now?

[GigaplexNZ]

Perhaps sue the bank for Trademark infringement through the use of unauthorised use of the name iPad in their marketing material? I'm sure their pesky lawyers will find some form of legal complication that they can use to apply pressure.

Re:They did what now?

[DarkVader]

It won't work. You can use someone else's trademark legally to describe the product of that company, there's plenty of case law to back that up.

Re:They did what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see the reaction of our local competition regulator (the ACCC) to that.

Re:They did what now?

[BasilBrush]

You want case law? Levi's prevented Tesco selling their Levi jeans in their store. Not by cutting off supply... they couldn't do that as the jeans were bought on the grey market. But by using their trademark rights.
http://www.managingchange.com/dynamic/levi.htm
(Read all the way to "Levi knocks out Tesco in round 3", don't stop at the first paragraph, or you'll get the wrong impression.)

Re:They did what now?

[PopeRatzo]

But you can't put on your marketing materials that you're giving away an Apple iPad. Otherwise Apple does indeed have grounds to sue you.

So you can give away the iPad, but you cannot say that you are giving away the iPad.

Another example of how fucked up intellectual property law has become. The sooner IP becomes a discarded relic of a bygone era, the better. All of it, top to bottom, gone-ski.

The only people that would lose out if intellectual property law disappeared tomorrow are a certain group of lawyers some IP trolls and the RIAA/MPAA. With all the back and forth, I'm pretty sure IP ends up costing all companies equally. It doesn't protect creators, and it hurts business and consumers.

Re:They did what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they instead give away "free fruit tablets (we can't say their name because they act like douchebags but you'll like their product)"

Re:They did what now?

[BatGnat]

Don't you mean: iP([ao]d|hone)s

I was going to say the same thing. I can never understand why people don't take the time to learn something as easy as regular expressions....

Re:They did what now?

[BatGnat]

You forgot the iCentipad....

Re:They did what now?

[Mike_K]

Actually, the current precedent says you can prevent distribution of anything with a copyright, like an Apple logo. It is not nationwide (yet) but the SCOTUS got deadlocked on it the last time. Hopefully the next time a case like this comes up, it will be decided in favor of the first sale doctrine.

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008), was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in the Copyright Office.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp.

m

Re:They did what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is probably doing this as a proactive maneuver to protect their brand name from being cheapened.

They need to work on their brand name not being associated with douchy behavior.

Re:They did what now?

[nurb432]

If you are distributor they can. if you buy them in bulk at a discount from apple, they can. if you get them at retail, no, they cant.

They can also restrict how their trademark is used, regardless of how you got it, or what you want to do with it. ( may not be good business, but its their right as the trademark holder )

Re:They did what now?

[1u3hr]

They can stop you using their trademarks in advertising the giveaway. All of Apple's products have trademarked names. So in running a promotion to benefit your company, you could say you're going to give away a tablet from a fruit company. But you can't put on your marketing materials that you're giving away an Apple iPad. Otherwise Apple does indeed have grounds to sue you.

Bullshit.Owning a trademark doesn't give you the right to prevent anyone using a word, only using it to sell a product that is NOT an iPad.

Re:They did what now?

[ILongForDarkness]

Hmm I don't know. They could make it a violation of their copyright to distribute the item as part of a "give-away" ie. promotion. You could still be free to give it away as an individual to a friend or whatever but when you are using the device to help YOUR business not be a nice guy you are making a commercial use of the product which the patent/copyright holder probably has some claim to control. Even if you've already paid for the device patents/copyright gives you the right to control how your invention is used.

Re:They did what now?

[waives]

Did you see the part where that happened in the UK?

Re:They did what now?

[CynicTheHedgehog]

IANAL, but Apple can probably control how their trademark is used. So the bank can say "Free tablet computer!" but could not use the "iPad" trademark in conjunction with words like "free". I say this because most marketing materials I see have little footnotes that say things to the effect of "[X] and [Y] are registered trademarks of [Z] used with permission" or some such. So I imagine there are limits to what they can print if the trademark holder chooses to protect their mark.

Re:They did what now?

[breser]

Thanks for posting that. Forgot about the whole Costco copyright nonsense. Sure would be interesting to see Apple try to run with that. Another case, especially a conflicting one in another circuit might encourage SCOTUS to look at that. Of course Apple would probably sue in the 9th Circuit. Ohh well.

Re:They did what now?

[EdIII]

Well they are not assured victory in this case. Trademark gives you certain rights and remedies, but I think there is wiggle room here:

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

That's pretty clear. Intent is big part of the decision process as well as marketing channels.

Some courts have recognized a somewhat different, but closely-related, fair-use defense, called nominative use. Nominative use occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product, not the user's own product. For example, in a recent case, the newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll, asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. The New Kids on the Block sued USA Today for trademark infringement. The court held that the use of the trademark "New Kids on the Block" was a privileged nominative use because: (1) the group was not readily identifiable without using the mark; (2) USA Today used only so much of the mark as reasonably necessary to identify it; and (3) there was no suggestion of endorsement or sponsorship by the group. The basic idea is that use of a trademark is sometimes necessary to identify and talk about another party's products and services. When the above conditions are met, such a use will be privileged. New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).

That's some precedence against Apple. If XYZ store was giving away 10 iPads in a giveaway for all purchases over a certain amount, Apple would have to fight very hard against preventing that and would most likely lose the case.

If you're not selling the product, but just giving it away, then Apple is not automatically correct here. IANAL, but I can read the portions of the laws above. I don't think Apple is right to be messing around with free giveaways when their is no intent to damage a trademark (ie, the Anal Bead store giving away anal bead wrapped iPad boxes), and the likelihood of the consumer believing that all free give aways are explicit evidence of Apple's sponsorship of the event.

I can't agree with your assessment. Sure they might have IP staff, but that does not mean they also don't play the strategy of "we can just bully the smaller people even when we know we are wrong". Many many corporations do so. Nissan, Monsanto, Oil & Gas, Walmart, etc.

So I don't think it works because of what I understand and can read about trademark law.

Re:They did what now?

[bhcompy]

Giving your device away would be fair use, I'd hazard

Re:They did what now?

[bhcompy]

Like that ToyYoda a few years back?

Re:They did what now?

[bhcompy]

our local competition regulator

Is that a euphemism for the mob?

Re:They did what now?

[klingens]

Only applies if the raffle sponsor (re)imports the devices. Not if they go to Newegg and mailorder 100 IPads

Re:They did what now?

[meerling]

I like using the term 'ijunk'. :D

(Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to get some, but I can't afford any of them.)

Re:They did what now?

[BlackBloq]

You comment is pathetic.What about paying with cash or a personal card? Gimmi a fuckin break!

Re:They did what now?

[ILongForDarkness]

But it isn't just giving your device away. It is using the device for your own advertising/profit. As several other posts mention it is against copyright law to devalue someone else's copyright.

Re:They did what now?

[quickgold192]

There's no trademark infringement - the bank is giving away a bona fide iPad. Just like this post is talking about *actual* iPads. Calling something an iPad that *isn't* an actual iPad is trademark infringement. Saying you'll give away an iPad is simply an accurate statement.

Re:They did what now?

[Ares]

Costco is irrelevant though. in Costco, the copyright issue was based on items imported into the country by someone other than the copyright holder. Costco pitted 17USC 602(a)(1) against 17 USC 109(a). 602 covers the importation, while 109 codifies the first sale doctrine for "copies made lawfully under this title".

in this hypothetical case, apple, the copyright holder, has already lawfully imported the items into the country, so 602 doesn't apply. Since 602 was what Costco was decided on, it wouldn't apply.

Now, honestly, I really would have liked to see an actual decision in Costco from SCOTUS. Omega was contending that 109 didn't come into play since the logo copies were made overseas so they didn't meet the lawfully made under this title clause. However they were depending on their US copyright registration in enforcing their rights. I would have loved to have been able to read an opinion (regardless of which way it went) in the case, simply because the previous case balancing 109 and 602, Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. 523 U.S. 135 (1998) was tailored specifically to constructing the 109 first sale doctrine to copies made within the US, whereas the Omega logo copies were made in Switzerland.

Re:They did what now?

[Tanktalus]

I highly highly doubt that Apple can do anything about this. If a bank goes to a retail shop, picks up five iPads, and then advertises that they're giving away real iPads(*) to 5 lucky people who take out brand new loans in the next 30 days, ((*) iPad is trademark of Apple (**)) there is simply nothing for Apple to latch on to.

Check that literature closer - I bet that "used with permission" rarely shows up. (**) "not us, you moron" -- the disclaimer is to avoid making it sound like the iPad is their own trademark... which is only needed in rare cases, such as when confusion about the ownership of that trademark may arise. If the bank is giving away an iPad, only morons are going to associate the bank with the iPad name. However, if it's "BigBankCorp with Dell" holding the promotion, the distinction is a bit blurred, as Dell really is a computer company (well, most people think of them that way). Permission to use a trademark is not generally required. Only when confusion about ownership arises is the license required.

Re:They did what now?

[nospam007]

Yes, they want people to say:
You'll get 'an overpriced, expensive tablet for nothing' instead.of 'free iPad'.

Re:They did what now?

[geminidomino]

They could make it a violation of their copyright to distribute the item as part of a "give-away" ie. promotion

If so, then copyright is even more well-fucked than we thought since an iWhatever's a goddamn real actual device and using the copyright of the software ON said iWhatever for that kind of bullshit is nucking futs.

Re:They did what now?

[Lord Kano]

But it isn't just giving your device away. It is using the device for your own advertising/profit. As several other posts mention it is against copyright law to devalue someone else's copyright.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.

Did this business pay for the iPads? Yes.
Did this business own the iPads? Yes, because they bought them.

Can you do anything you want with your own property, including giving it away to promote your business? Yes.

LK

Re:They did what now?

[Chas]

that kind of bullshit is nucking futs.

That's a fairly accurate description of Apple culture.

Re:They did what now?

[shutdown -p now]

They can't. The law defines what copyright is and is not, and where it applies, not Apple.

Did you perhaps mean EULA? But that wouldn't work, unless they actually had you sign it when you purchase the device - otherwise you would just keep the box sealed and present it like that.

when you are using the device to help YOUR business not be a nice guy you are making a commercial use of the product which the patent/copyright holder probably has some claim to control. Even if you've already paid for the device patents/copyright gives you the right to control how your invention is used.

Not really, no. First sale and all that.

Re:They did what now?

[slackbheep]

I believe you mean the Humancentipad.

Re:They did what now?

[BlueStrat]

our local competition regulator

Is that a euphemism for the mob?

The mob or the government.

It can be hard to tell the difference.

Strat

Re:They did what now?

[bennomatic]

I think what the GP poster is saying is that they are targeting iP*d retailers who get the things at wholesale through distribution agreements and then give them away in order to attract customers. Basically, Apple is saying, "If you want to sell our products, you have to *sell* them."

But even if that's what the GP meant, that doesn't cover everything. In your example, sure, the bank could go ahead and buy and give away iP*ds. That in and of itself isn't something that Apple is all that concerned about. They're concerned about the promotional aspect. They don't want to have their brand diluted as a "free give-away". And while they can't stop a bank from buying them and giving them away, the iP*d names are indeed trademarks of Apple's, so any commercial/promotional use could see action from Apple. If you put up TV ad in three states saying, "Open an account at my bank and get a free iPad!", Apple's going to hear about it and you're going to get a C&D.

And if you can't do the promotion, there's really no point in doing the give-away. That is, unless you do some amazing guerilla marketing and let your customers spread the word that if you do x, y and z, you'll get an iPad... I guess there'd be a way to fly under the radar. But for any standard marketing process, like it or not, Apple can likely find a legal precedent to shut it down.

Re:They did what now?

[mrchaotica]

Whose trademark were they worried about, the car company's or George Lucas'?

Re:They did what now?

[DavidD_CA]

It's not an issue of preventing them from making the purchase. People are capable of speeding in their cars down the highway.

But they can make it illegal to use the iPad name in a promotion without concent. And that, if the small bank gets caught, is where the issue lies.

Re:They did what now?

[wvmarle]

No: first sale doctrine.

You sell a device based on your patented invention, then the buyer is free to do with it what they want: using it, reselling it, renting it out, giving it away, taking it apart to see how it works...

Copyrighted stuff works much the same except maybe for the renting part.

Re:They did what now?

[chaboud]

You must have missed the Roberts court decision in Omega v Costco. Because these are manufacture overseas, and bear a trademark, Apple has the legal right to control/restrict subsequent sales.

Stupid decision? Oh yeah, but completely on point.

Re:They did what now?

[Anarchduke]

Yes, but can business make free use of the Apple trademark to boost their own business at the expense of Apple?
NO
Its not "drinking the Kool-Aid". (To quote Inigo Mantoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means")

There are circumstances in which Apple does not want to be associated with that business. For example, A topless bar, online casino, porn website, etc. It would be better for Apple to make a blanket refusal for all businesses to use Apple's name in marketing without Apple's express approval.

Apple doesn't have the right to say "you can't give one of their products away", but it does have the right to say, "don't drag our name through your mud".

Re:They did what now?

[Anarchduke]

how about Trademark laws?

Re:They did what now?

[Anarchduke]

nah its easy to tell the difference. The mob pays better. The government has a better retirement plan.

Re:They did what now?

[jimicus]

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.

Did this business pay for the iPads? Yes.
Did this business own the iPads? Yes, because they bought them.

Can you do anything you want with your own property, including giving it away to promote your business? Yes.

You're quite right, you can do this.

However, you'll run into a little problem straight away. In order to make it an effective promotion, you're going to have to run adverts. And those adverts are going to have to include photos and descriptions of the product on them - it's not going to be terribly effective to announce "Win a tablet computer with a line drawing of an apple with a chunk taken out of it on the back!" and no photographs of the product itself.

As soon as you do that, you're using Apple's trademark. Obviously they're not going to complain about an authorised reseller who uses their trademarks in the "approved" fashion but this is neither authorised nor approved. They'll use trademark law to force you to withdraw all the sales and marketing material announcing this promotion. So yes, you can give away an iPad. But you can't put up posters with "iPad" all over them, you can't take out an advert in the local paper, you can't run an advert on the radio.

This exact same thing has already been done several times - Sony used trademark law to shutdown Lik-Sang back in 2006; IIRC Levi Strauss used a similar argument against Tesco back in 2002.

(Disclaimer: These cases were both in the UK, which can occasionally be somewhat sympathetic to companies using trademark law to break other law. IANAL etc etc.)

Re:They did what now?

[1u3hr]

Hmm I don't know. They could make it a violation of their copyright to distribute the item Bullshit.

Even if you've already paid for the device patents/copyright gives you the right to control how your invention is used.

More bullshit. Copyright prevents you COPYING. Not USING or SELLING the object you bought. .

Re:They did what now?

[Swampash]

You can't prevent someone from giving your product away. If they bought one, you can't keep them from giving that product to someone else.

Apple's not preventing people from giving its products away. It's simply saying that it will only supply its products to those retailers who don't.

Re:They did what now?

[1u3hr]

And those adverts are going to have to include photos and descriptions of the product on them - it's not going to be terribly effective to announce "Win a tablet computer with a line drawing of an apple with a chunk taken out of it on the back!" and no photographs of the product itself. As soon as you do that, you're using Apple's trademark.

So what? Trademark laws prevent you from passing off your own products as Apple products. They don't prevent you identifying Apple products.That's what the intended and lawful use is.

Sony used trademark law to shutdown Lik-Sang

They were selling mod chips. No relevance.

Re:They did what now?

[1u3hr]

o the bank can say "Free tablet computer!" but could not use the "iPad" trademark in conjunction

Bullshit. Sorry, but so many people imagine that a company has powers far beyond what any law gives. Apple can dictate what its distributors do, they have contracts with them. Not a random person or company who just buys them and wants to give them away. Using the word "iPad" to describe an actual iPad is in no way illegal.

Re:They did what now?

[FaxeTheCat]

Actually, if you read the linked Apple document, that would be OK by Apple.

Re:They did what now?

[Zencyde]

Trademark laws are to prevent confusion of product lines. There's not a case here if they're offering real iPads.

Re:They did what now?

[PhilHibbs]

At first I thought that this was just aimed at companies that had a relationship with Apple, but it doesn't look that way upon further inspection. Maybe this is a trademark thing, they are policing usage of their trademarks, including images of the product. So you can say "Free tablet computer" with no image, and there's probably nothing they can do about that, but as soon as you say "Free Apple iPad" then you are using their trademarks to promote your business.

Re:They did what now?

[Hognoxious]

They could make it a violation of their copyright to distribute the item as part of a "give-away" ie. promotion

Not under any sane interpretation of copyright law.

Re:They did what now?

[shutdown -p now]

Trademark law can be used to prevent you from selling your own, or some other third-party product, and calling it iPad.

If you're telling everyone that you're selling an iPad, and you actually do sell an iPad, then you don't infringe upon Apple's trademark by doing so.

Re:They did what now?

[xaxa]

Try this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1261829.stm

It looks like Tesco were prevented from importing goods from outside the EU, but weren't prevented from sourcing the jeans from within the EU (but not the UK) for a lower price, then selling them in the UK.

This Wikipedia article has some possible reasons why this might be reasonable for some goods, like different safety standards for a car... hmmm.

Re:They did what now?

[makomk]

The lawsuit preventing Tesco from selling Levis used a cunning legal trick, as I recall. The Levis were imported from other countries on the grey market, which meant that they were marketed by a different Levi subsidary than the subsidary that held the UK trademark on the name, one that didn't have the right to sell them in the UK. Levi used this to successfully argue that Tesco was infringing on their trademark by importing genuine Levi jeans from abroad and selling them. There have been similar cases elsewhere.

Basically it's just another example of a company wanting to keep all the benefits of globalisation to themself.

Re:They did what now?

[nosferatu1001]

That would be a fair use of the trademark, and not something you can restrict

You are not causing dilution or confusion, after all.

Re:They did what now?

[nosferatu1001]

Unauthorised SALE

Giving away /= sale

Re:They did what now?

[bhtooefr]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/supreme-court-lets-ban-on-gray-market-imports-stand.ars

If it's not made in the US, and it's copyrighted, first sale no longer exists. So, yeah, this may actually be enforceable.

Re:They did what now?

[Hognoxious]

But they can make it illegal to use the iPad name in a promotion without concent.

Who do you mean by "they"? If it's the government, then you're right. They pass laws.

Apple don't. Yet.

Re:They did what now?

[BasilBrush]

I'm in the UK. Apple trades in the UK. What's your point?

Re:They did what now?

[Hognoxious]

I doubt it. He also missed the part where it was to do with where the products were sourced from.

But basically a supplier prevented a retailer from doing something, and to a first-class legal mind like his the cases are obviously analogous.

Re:They did what now?

[Hognoxious]

Yes, but can business make free use of the Apple trademark to boost their own business at the expense of Apple?
NO

I don't see how they'd be doing it at the expense of Apple unless they're somehow reducing Apple's sales by selling knockoffs and counterfeit items. They aren't.

If merely mentioning the name of a product is illegal as you claim, then retailers are all guilty. After all, they make money by selling others' trademarked goods.

Assuming you've been out of the basement, you will have seen retailers still operating freely. If you don't trust the evidence of your own eyes, GIYF

Re:They did what now?

[AmiMoJo]

Don't you have to register the iPhone at the store when buying it? You used to but I don't know if they changed it.

Quite a few companies seem to think they can circumvent the first sale laws, either with EULAs or DRM. I'd say EULAs are certain to be unenforceable because you can't legally sign away your consumer rights (at least not in the UK), but DRM is still a problem. We need a law banning it, or rather forcing it to allow resale.

Re:They did what now?

[TheRaven64]

There's also the issue of trademarks. If you phrase the competition in such a way that it seems to be Apple-approved, then you are using their trademark for your advertising benefit, which can be problematic. You are trying to get people to associate your brand with another (unrelated) successful brand, which is precisely what trademark law is intended to prevent. There's nothing stopping them from giving away '10 Free tablets from a famous manufacturer, RRP $699!', but when they start slapping the Apple brand over lots of their own things then things get a bit more complicated.

Re:They did what now?

[TheRaven64]

It is if they are phrasing the competition in such a way that it sounds like it is endorsed by Apple.

Re:They did what now?

[Siridar]

Oh, that's the one where you can plug it into similar devices, yeah?

Re:They did what now?

[sg_oneill]

Yeah but an iPad is a thing, not a softare package. You can't copyright it.

This was pretty much worked out in the lexmark vs SCC cases that copyright law can't be used to smuggle in restraints against property rights for things. Ie in the lexmark vs scc case the majority appeal decision held that the DMCA couldn't be used to prevent third party print cartriges from being sold.

All they can really do is grumble about the use of trademarks, but even then its limited by the fair use stuff. Ie you cant whack an apple logo on your stuff and expect a court to aprove, but you can definately write "We are giving away a free ipad", because its a truthful statement.

The fact is, unless you agree to these rules, they don't apply, because companies can't just invent rules for unwilling parties or seek rent outside of established torts. Apple trying to squash resale of retail products brought domestically (that omega case is a legal abomination by the way, but it seems to be about cross-border stuff which is.... wierd law) wouldn't last 15 seconds in a courtroom until the judge told apple to GTFO.

Re:They did what now?

[sg_oneill]

er forget I used the word tort there. Its been 10+ years since i did my undergrad law unit, and shit comes out jumbled now. serves me right for using big words, even 4 letter ones.

Re:They did what now?

[Builder]

How is it on point? Apple are an American company. Omega is not.

Re:They did what now?

[Captain.Abrecan]

I'm sorry but if Apple sued by home-town savings bank I would bomb the nearest 10 apple stores. Ruthlessly.

Re:They did what now?

[gl4ss]

yeah.. but I suppose in this special case.. it's mis-informative to say that an apple product is free even if you're given it by someone.

Re:They did what now?

[ydrol]

Sony have been doing this for years. Especially in the hi-fi / av market. The don't like retailers discounting their "brand" because they feel it cheapens their image. So you would often get better value with other brands. Panasonic/Technics etc.

To get around it advertisers would put 'Phone for price' in flyers etc.
For consumers, knowing which brands don't like discounting is a good indicator of how much you are paying for the badge/brand relative to the product.

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

This is no way stops you from buying an iPad and giving it away. It has to do with protecting their brand and will be more about the advertisement using their trademark rather than the actual act of giving away the device. Any other company wanting to protect their image will do the same thing.

Re:They did what now?

[sorak]

Gotta take that a step further...
iP[[ad/od]/hone]s

At that point, shouldn't it just be i* ? With the iCloud, and who knows what else, the only thing we know for sure is that they will soon be trying to trademark "begins with the letter i".

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

Does anyone honestly think Apple cares about iPads being bought and given away? It's the advertising for the promotion and how the company uses Apple's brand and face it no company is going to give away free hardware without advertising it and making a big deal about it and in order to do that you need to use Apple trademarks so Apple, like any other company, will do what they think is right to protect their brand. Just as if some porn site was giving away windows discs and using MS' trademarks there is a good chance they'll complain as they won't want people thinking MS is partnering with pornography company.

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

You cannot use someone's trademark or copyright however you want for profit. But a million iPads if you want and give them to homeless people. No one including Steve Jobs cares. They made their money but if you advertise it on some lame "punch the monkey" web banner using Apple's logo then yes they'll get uppity about it.

Re:They did what now?

[MachineShedFred]

So instead of allowing the courts to give Apple the legal punch in the chin they need on this, you'd rather destroy property and potentially murder people?

And people on Slashdot call the Apple fans the zealot cultists. How about instead of threatening violence and terrorism (not "they hate our freedom" terrorism, but honest-to-goodness blowing up things and people you don't like due to some off-your-axle fanatic view terrorism), you donate to someone like the EFF who will support the legal defense of the Right of First Sale, and your home-town savings bank?

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

That's not true. The paperwork that came with my trademark made it very clear I am to protect my trademark and basically treat it like gold. Anything that implies you don't value your brand and makes it harder to defend yourself when you object to someone wanting a similar trademark or the same trademark but in a different but similar market.

Companies don't do promotions unless they get something for it. Whether it's just your personal information or to get you into their shop so they are profiting off using someone else's trademark which makes it entirely different to you giving your hardware away to someone and it is Apple's duty to protect their trademark. Just as Google wouldn't want questionable porno sites using their trademarks in a promotion to give away Android phones.

Re:They did what now?

[bhtooefr]

Yeah, but an Omega watch likely doesn't have even a single line of code, yet was still affected by this.

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

It depends if you're trying to make a profit or not. What company just gives away ipads without trying to get you to buy something, generate ad revenue or give up personal information? You are more than free to tell whoever you want that you're giving your 'Apple iPad' away so long as you're not trying to profit from it.

Re:They did what now?

[idontgno]

"(This promotion is not endorsed in any way by Apple Computers. All trademarks are the properties of their respective holders. Void where taxed or prohibited by law.)"

Right. That's sorted. Next ineffective objection?

Re:They did what now?

[mysidia]

They could make it a violation of their copyright to distribute the item as part of a "give-away"

No... copyright does not restrict your ability to sell the copy of a work that you legally possess. It is only infringement to copy and distribute. Distributing a copy you obtained legally is governed by commerce laws, but copyright does not restrict your right to give away or sell the copy you own.

And you do not have to agree to any EULA to buy an iPad or iPod, if you don't actually open the box.

It is also not patent infringement to resell a product that was made and sold from the patent holder; retailers and consumers do not need 'patent licenses'; only the manufacturers who make and first sell the product need a license.

Re:They did what now?

[MikeBabcock]

If Apple could show damages, they'd sue. I'd hazard a guess that there's no damage to the Apple trademark worth enforcing, and that Apple's just being a bully here. Apple wants their products to appear to have value, and letting people give them away makes them feel less valuable.

Re:They did what now?

[mysidia]

As several other posts mention it is against copyright law to devalue someone else's copyright.

That's nonsense.... it's not against copyright law to devalue someone else's copyright; whatever that means -- if it were true, Apple would be in trouble for devaluing some MS product lines. Copyright law carves out some very exclusive rights for the copyright owner; it is only an infringement if you improperly practice one of those exclusive rights.

Reselling or giving away a copy of the work, you legally possess, is not one of those exclusive rights. The trademark rights for the product don't even help Apple in this case -- the device is a genuine iPod. Retailers have fair use rights to use the name of the product they are giving away/selling.

The only thing that Apple can really stop you from giving away/selling your owned iPod legally is require a document such as a EULA (contract). Presented to you and agreed/signed at the time the hardware is sold to you, and your signature/agreement is a condition for the sale.

If you agreed to a contract not to give it away, and you gave it away -- this could be considered a breach of contract.

Re:They did what now?

[idontgno]

So instead of allowing the courts to give Apple the legal punch in the chin they need on this, you'd rather destroy property and potentially murder people?

C'mon, he said "Apple Stores". There would be no actual human beings involved, as long as he kept the collateral damage down (i.e., people walking by on the sidewalk).

Re:They did what now?

[sribe]

How is Apple going to stop them from sending someone down to the local department store to buy them? (Or five staff to different stores if they want to be sneaky!)

They're not, obviously. The action is obviously aimed at Apple's retailers, who actually do have contracts with Apple specifying some terms about how they sell & promote Apple products. The headline & summary (not just this one, but all across the web) are just lazy & sloppy.

Re:They did what now?

[Captain.Abrecan]

Or I could get what I want immediately, exactly the way I want it, and then make a donation to the firestation management committee. Your comment is puzzling. You say that I would not "allow" the courts to give Apple a 'legal punch in the chin', as if arson would suddenly mean that a fictional lawsuit between two fictional establishments would theoretically cease because one building was destroyed. Next you posit a course of action as an alternative to terrorism, as if the arson was in fact terrorism. In order for this mythical arson to be terrorism the fictional arsonist would have to use the crime as a publicized action with which to garner political attention. Your comment also mentions damage to citizens, which was not mentioned in the parent comment. You believe that the poster of the parent comment has a fanatical view of terrorism, although the subject does not encapsulate terrorism. You also fail to be objective in your interpretation of other people's standpoints regarding crime as a political lever, indicating that your own standpoint is irriversably polarized, which distorts your interpretation of the parent comment on a neutral basis. Your solution involves donating to the EFF, which is inefficient because it disallows the control the of the donation currency management. Also, I've never heard of recreational arson referred to as a religious experience, but it's nice to know how close you hold it to your heart. You need therapy. Without it, you will be stuck in Portland unable to properly converse with other citizens, and you will not become a role model for Liam.

Re:They did what now?

[sglewis100]

The precedence for this is well established. Businesses can't have Superbowl Parties, but they can celebrate "The Big Game".

Re:They did what now?

[nomadic]

"They need to work on their brand name not being associated with douchy behavior." That's their marketing strategy.

Re:They did what now?

[chaboud]

The point of manufacture is what matters. i.e. you make it outside of the U.S, you get special rules.

Note that trademark doesn't supercede first sale for items manufactured in the U.S. Stupid, eh.

Re:They did what now?

[1u3hr]

That's not true. The paperwork that came with my trademark made it very clear I am to protect my trademark and basically treat it like gold. Anything that implies you don't value your brand and makes it harder to defend yourself when you object to someone wanting a similar trademark or the same trademark but in a different but similar market.

"Protecting" your trademark means not allowing it to be used INAPPROPRIATELY, such as referring to similar products,. Not calling an IPad an iPad.

Just as Google wouldn't want questionable porno sites using their trademarks in a promotion to give away Android phones.

A company "not wanting" you to do something and them having the legal right to prevent you are two very different things.

If trademark law gave companies such power, they could prevent anyone criticising their products, giving them unfavourable reviews, etc.

Anyway, there may indeed be limits on how the porno site could advertise in this case, but not to stop them doing the promotion at all if they were careful.

Re:They did what now?

[elrous0]

We are Apple. YOU WILL DO WHAT WE SAY!

You wouldn't want to lose your hipster status, would you? Well?

That's what we thought.

Re:They did what now?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

No: first sale doctrine.

You sell a device based on your patented invention, then the buyer is free to do with it what they want: using it, reselling it, renting it out, giving it away, taking it apart to see how it works...

The Limits of First Sale Doctrine

Not all resale activity is allowed even if the reseller owns the item. Trademark owners’ protected interests that continue to apply relate to maintaining the trademark as identifying the source of the goods or services involved, which is the bedrock of trademark law. The balance then is between allowing the reseller to deal with its property while preventing confusion as to its immediate source or denigrating of the value of the mark.

I'll take the words of a law professor over yours.

Re:They did what now?

[Fjandr]

Given that it amounts simply to a statement of fact (e.g. We are giving away an iPad), it should be insulated from claims of attempting to profit from another's service or trademark.

Then again, modern trademark law is rife with examples of stupidity in terms of what the law was originally intended for.

Solution: Give away a coupon that's worth 99.99% off the price of the iKoolaid, then just happen to have exactly as many on-hand at the location people pick up the coupons. Unless, of course, Apple is claiming they can control second-hand sale of the devices they sell. If that's the case, fuck them and fuck anyone who supports them.

Re:They did what now?

[Fjandr]

Public broadcast (distribution) without a license, for profit, is a completely separate area of law.

Re:They did what now?

[PopeRatzo]

What company just gives away ipads without trying to get you to buy something, generate ad revenue or give up personal information?

So, I'm not allowed to use my iPad for profit? Can I try to get a job by putting in my resume that I can "program apps for the iPad"? Is it OK for me to tell my prospective boss that I know how to use an iPad? Or must I say "I know how to use a tablet computer made by the company from Cupertino"? When I go to meet my prospective employer for lunch, can I bring my iPad and ostentatiously pull it out during the meeting, or do I have to black out the Apple logo first? If I own a company, can I equip my sales force with iPads or do I have to black out the logos on those devices, too?

This is a stupid, dickish move by Apple and it would be a stupid, dickish move by any company. The purpose of trademarks is to make sure that people know what they're buying, not to prevent people from doing what they want with the products they legally purchase.

Re:They did what now?

[sglewis100]

Nobody is talking about broadcasting the game. Superbowl parties, Superbowl sales, contests to win trips to the Superbowl, etc. They cannot use the name "Superbowl". That's the precedent.

Re:They did what now?

[Stone2065]

How about just calling them shit, like a lot of people do...

Re:They did what now?

[suutar]

That ruling applies to sales that cross the border. Once it's been legally sold within the US, first sale does apply. The Omega watch case was asserting that the sale in the US was not legal. Purchase an iPad at your local (US) Apple store and you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

And Apple would do absolutely nothing about you mentioning the iPad in your resume because how in the world is telling people you're a developer of iPad apps damage the value of their trademark? They wouldn't win the case even if they thought it was harmful. Secondly your CV isn't going to be seen by millions and presumably won't contain question material especially in relation to the iPad.

Also they're not stopping people from giving away their devices. They want them to conform to certain guidelines to stop companies they don't want to be associated with from using their trademark. So it's not the end of iPad giveaways but the something like a cumdumpster.com iPad giveaway for example. You have the same rights too. A company can't use your image without consent and I'm sure there are things you wouldn't want to be associated with.

Re:They did what now?

[PopeRatzo]

And Apple would do absolutely nothing about you mentioning the iPad in your resume because how in the world is telling people you're a developer of iPad apps damage the value of their trademark?

And how does telling people you're giving away a free iPad hurt their trademark? Are the people giving it away claiming they made the iPad? Are the people giving it away in some way denigrating the iPad?

I've seen Chevy trucks given away at church raffles. Do you think that hurts Chevy's trademark?

And no, if you read this story it has nothing at all to do with "cumdumpster" web sites. But nice try.

Re:They did what now?

[thetoadwarrior]

I'm not saying a "cumdumpster" site was in this story but why you do you think they're asking to review the advertising material? They want to know how their product is being advertised and for one reason is so it isn't associated with such sites.

They have every right to protect their trademark and in fact it's expected that they do so. Their product is a high-end product. After all that's what most people here bitch about is that they sell over priced computers. Their hardware is pricey and that is part of their image and brand so of course they don't want people ruining that image and dragging their image down to Dell's level.

Re:They did what now?

[PopeRatzo]

They have every right to protect their trademark and in fact it's expected that they do so. Their product is a high-end product.

So, manufacturers of "high-end" products should have greater recourse to "protect" their trademarks?

It sounds like a very crappy system, which is exactly what it is. And a dickish company, which is exactly what it has become.

Their hardware is pricey and that is part of their image and brand so of course they don't want people ruining that image and dragging their image down to Dell's level.

You still have not explained how a company buying an iPad and then having a contest to give it away can in any way "ruin" Apple's image. But that's not really what this is about for you is it? It's about "protecting Apple's honor" (which is more than they've ever done)

Re:They did what now?

[Fjandr]

They can't use the name in some contexts. The NFL sending lawyers after someone does not necessarily mean the person is in violation of the law. It simply means NFL has lawyers, and is unafraid to use them aggressively.

That people frequently settle, or choose to avoid the issue completely, is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I most certainly can give away Superbowl tickets legally, as a promotion. I'd wind up in court, but with enough money I'd win. Spending the money isn't worthwhile though. I'd be interested to see a single US Court of Appeals case (or higher) that favors the NFL in a case not involving leveraging the name in a non-factual (strictly leveraged for advertising, rather than factually descriptive) context or a public broadcast. I mean that seriously, too. I very much would be interested to read up on any that exist.

Re:They did what now?

[Lunzo]

Hey TSA officer, don't touch iJunk!

Re:They did what now?

[MachineShedFred]

I'm pretty sure that destruction of property and life to further your ideological or political beliefs is exactly what terrorism is. Please explain the difference between you blowing up an Apple Store because you don't like what they do, versus an eco-terrorist blowing up a Hummer dealership because they don't like what they do.

Or, a Hamas terrorist blowing up a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv because they don't like Israel.

Ok?

[TheCount22]

Ok so they don't want organizations to buy iPads for people!? Why?

Re:Ok?

[Sniper98G]

You have to understand. Who wants to buy an Apple product only to turn around and see some poor person with one. How are you supposed to feel superior to them if they have one too.

Re:Ok?

[BasilBrush]

Have you not seen "FREE iPad" and FREE iPhone" spam? Real spam in emails and forums, but also just endlessly repeated web-adverts. It pisses people off. Apple don't want that bad-will to reflect on their products. The reputation of the products and the company are worth far more than the piddling amounts of product that promoters would buy from Apple to run these promotions. Especially as most of them are scams.

Re:Ok?

[PPH]

You have to understand. Who wants to buy an Apple product only to turn around and see some fanboi with one. How are you supposed to feel superior to them if they have one too.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that scammers and spammers care what Apple says about promotions? These groups are already operating on the fringe at best.

Re:Ok?

[AngryDeuce]

I know, right. Next thing you know, they'll be filling up my Starbucks and hogging all the bandwidth on the free wifi...

Re:Ok?

[ZorinLynx]

They pretty much ARE all scams. They WILL give away a few free iPads/iPods/etc., but to very few people. The purpose of this is to create a small group of folks who will insist to their friends that they DID win one, and that the scammers aren't lying! As a result, thousands more people sign up to win, and as a result, the companies get boatloads of personal information, credit card referral checks and so on. What's better for a scammer than free advertising where a friend tells another that it's legit and they should sign up? :)

Re:Ok?

[dwightk]

this

Re:Ok?

[dakameleon]

Because "CHEAP iPad" and "PAY NOTHING FOR iPhone" will be any better? This isn't going to hit the scammers in any way, and it's not as though current promotions are legitimising those scammers either.

Re:Ok?

[BasilBrush]

"CHEAP tablet" and "PAY NOTHING FOR a smartphone" are certainly less damaging to Apple's brand. These promotions can't legally use Apple's trademarks without permission.

Re:Ok?

[Duradin]

All those Android BOGOs just scream quality product, right?

Re:Ok?

[trytoguess]

Oh pooh. If you don't have a full ensemble of things to make you feel big (depending on various factors it could be things like an iPhone, Rolex Watch, Armani Bag, trendy cloths, etc) then you're just a poser just like those poor schlubs.

Re:Ok?

[eyrieowl]

There are *non* fanboi's who own 'em?

Re:Ok?

[leamanc]

Yes, there is some merit to this argument. And Apple is not the only company who feels this way.

In 2009, the Beastie Boys reissued their classic LP Paul's Boutique, and those who ordered online got some downloadable content, including a video commentary with the Boys discussing the album's making while it played in the background. When the song "Johnny Ryall" came on, Mike D talked about the real-life homeless person who inspired the song. D gave the homeless guy one of his Def Jam jackets. Def Jam head honcho Russell Simmons promptly chewed him out for giving such nice gear to a "bum" because he didn't want the Def Jam image to be associated with poor people.

Re:Ok?

[Totenglocke]

According to that logic, Apple can sue you because you mentioned Apple (which is trademarked or copyrighted, whichever) without getting their permission first. Now do you see how ridiculous this is? If you can't mention a product without being sued, how is anyone supposed to ever advertise what they're selling or even discuss what they want?

"Hey Bob, when you go on break will you grab me a cola with the red label on it? It has a 'C' on there..."

"A Coke?"

"Bob Johnson, I'm with the Coca-Cola Company - we're suing you for $50 million for using our trademark without permission"

Re:Ok?

[vaporland]

i'm really glad you cleared that up; my previous impression of Def Jam was negatively affected by seeing that same bum wearing that jacket.

now mr simmons can return to the former high regard I once held him in.

Re:Ok?

[amliebsch]

Well, frankly, I really don't give a damn what pisses off Apple, Inc. I'm slightly more concerned with my loss of first sale rights.

Re:Ok?

[BasilBrush]

According to that logic, Apple can sue you because you mentioned Apple (which is trademarked or copyrighted, whichever) without getting their permission first.

No, because I am not profiting from from it, fair use does allow me to use enough of the trademark to identify the product.

Re:Ok?

[Hognoxious]

These promotions can't legally use Apple's trademarks without permission.

[citation needed].

Seriously. Link to an applicable statute that supports your assertion.

Re:Ok?

[nosferatu1001]

Yes you can.

You cannot dilute or confuse their trademark, however you CAN use it to describe or name their product

Re:Ok?

[Hognoxious]

No, because I am not profiting from from it

Sigh. Not that tired old meme again. Profiting is irrelevant. If my local Oxfam shop started banging out counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags they'd be prosecuted like anyone else.

Re:Ok?

[Totenglocke]

And that's all these companies are doing. Identifying a product that they are giving away as part of a promotion. Trademark law would involve them misrepresenting their product as Apple's product in order to steal business / con people into buying something they otherwise wouldn't.

Re:Ok?

[BasilBrush]

Of course they would, because they are devaluing the trademark. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. There are many aspects to trademark law.

Re:Ok?

[PPH]

Nope. The lines are too long.

And weird.

Re:Ok?

[demonbug]

You have to understand. Who wants to buy an Apple product only to turn around and see some poor person with one. How are you supposed to feel superior to them if they have one too.

Exactly. A friend of mine won an iPad in a raffle, and he is not exactly the target demographic. For God's sake he's a Raiders fan, and I don't know if he has ever sat in a (independent) coffee shop for hours on end pretending to be a writer/artist/musician. Every time he pulls that iPad out you can just feel Apple's image being sucked down the drain.

Enforceability?

[Ruke]

Is there any legal weight behind this, or is this just gesturing on Apple's part? It certainly seems like Apple shouldn't have any control over what I do with my iPad once I've bought it; no matter if I give it away for free, stick it in a blender, or install my own bootloader. It's certainly their prerogative if they want to say that any of those things void my warranty, but I don't think they can enforce any of their demands on me.

Re:Enforceability?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't stop you from giving away your iPad, but they can stop you from using the word "iPad", the Myriad Set font, and any other Apple trademarks when advertising the give-away.

Re:Enforceability?

[Raul654]

but they can stop you from using the word "iPad", the Myriad Set font, and any other Apple trademarks when advertising the give-away.

No, they can't. They can only assert their trademarks to prevent market confusion - specifically, against a competing product with a similar name or similar branding. If you are giving away a genuine Apple-made iPad, there is nothing they can do to prevent you from saying that you are giving away an Apple iPad.

Re:Enforceability?

[Planesdragon]

Can they enforce what you do with an iPad? Not legally. They can do some PRACTICAL things, and they aren't necessarily doing criminal things to stop you... but the things they can do to keep you from using, selling, breaking, or whatever with your iPad after you buy it are pretty short.

Now, there IS some authority that attaches to advertising that uses their trademarks... but, AFAIK (IANAL - don't trust legal advice you get from the internet) as long as you're not claiming to be Apple, claiming to be associated with Apple, or spreading misinformation about their products, they don't really have much legs to stand on.

To wit: the same laws that say you CAN buy five iPads and tell everyone around that you are giving away five free iPads are also the ones that say you can buy an iPad, review it, and then tell everyone your opinion about it.

Oh, and also:

It's certainly their prerogative if they want to say that any of those things void my warranty, but I don't think they can enforce any of their demands on me.

Warranties come in two parts. What's legally required in the jurisdiction of sale, and what the company does above and beyond that. While they can add special conditions to that part of the warranty that goes beyond your local legal mandates, said mandates themselves are applied based on your local law and not the arbitrary dictates of the manufacturer.

(What kind of warranties are forced? Well, for starters there's the warranty that the iPad won't burn down your house due to a flaw in design or manufacturing. So, that's something.)

Re:Enforceability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a lawyer? Can you cite the case law to backup your claim? If not, I wouldn't be so confident. Apple may well be looking to set a precedent, and if it goes to the supreme court which is currently tilted heavily in favor of "corporate rights" they would likely win quite easily.

Re:Enforceability?

[proverbialcow]

They can only assert their trademarks to prevent market confusion - specifically, against a competing product with a similar name or similar branding.

A fact of which they are acutely aware, given that they used this argument to claim distinction from Apple Corps (the Beatles' music label), on the grounds that they sold computers, not music. (Which, predictably, led to another lawsuit when they produced the iPod, iTunes music store, etc.)

Re:Enforceability?

[crankyspice]

Are you a lawyer? Can you cite the case law to backup your claim?

He's not, and he can't. Look up, e.g., trademark dilution, tarnishment, etc.

Re:Enforceability?

[Raul654]

Apple has to have an actual legal basis to file a lawsuit. I'm saying they have none. It's rather hard to provide a citation to something that doesn't exist.

Trademark law protects against trademark infringement (which is using a competitor's trademark on your own product) or trademark dillution (which is using someone else's trademark on your own product in a different market that doesn't compete with the original). Both of these are illegal under numerous laws, starting with the 1946 Lanham act (15 U.S.C. 1051-1141) However, mentioning the name of someone else's product is not illegal - it happens on TV anytime any advertisement mentions any product except the one being advertised.

Re:Enforceability?

[samkass]

They don't care what you do with your iPad. They care what Best Buy, Target, etc., do, and how it's marketed to the masses. Their enforcement, I suspect, is via allocation of additional supply.

Re:Enforceability?

[TRRosen]

Silly Fonts aren't even copyrightable let alone trademarkable. But a product name in a specific font is... that's called a logo. So yes they can prevent you from using "iPad" in Myriad. And they can enforce it on anything under the reasoning that official trademarks would indicate Apple's involvement when there isn't any.

Re:Enforceability?

[blair1q]

They only "won" the first suit on contingency that they made the distinction clear and never got into the music business. So the second suit was for breaching the result of the first as well as for stepping on the music company's trademark.

Re:Enforceability?

[BasilBrush]

Now, there IS some authority that attaches to advertising that uses their trademarks... but, AFAIK (IANAL - don't trust legal advice you get from the internet) as long as you're not claiming to be Apple, claiming to be associated with Apple, or spreading misinformation about their products, they don't really have much legs to stand on.

No. Apple have control over their trademarks. There are fair use exceptions, such as if you want to use the name of a product to identify it in a review. But if you are promoting your own business by running a promotion, and use Apple's trademarks as part of that promotion, that is straightforward trademark infringement - profiting from someone else's trademark without permission.

Re:Enforceability?

[BasilBrush]

They can only assert their trademarks to prevent market confusion - specifically, against a competing product with a similar name or similar branding.

That's not true. What you mention is part of the restrictions on what you can trademark, and over what region and industry/product category. But it has nothing to do with what rights you have once you have been assigned that trademark.

If you want to profit from using Apple's trademarks on promotional material, then you can only do it if they give you permission. Otherwise they can sue you. Apple's trademarks include the names of their products. There are fair use exceptions on using other peoples trademarks without permission. But if you are profiting from doing it, then that's not fair use.

Re:Enforceability?

[BasilBrush]

You are confusing the details of being granted a trademark with the details of what rights you have once it's been assigned.

Re:Enforceability?

[iocat]

There's some case law on this related to the Super Bowl, and whether or not I can buy two tickets to the SB and then do a "Win a trip to the Super Bowl!!" contest. IIRC & IANAL If you're drafting too much off their brand and trademark, they may have some grounds. You can do whatever you want with your iPad, including giving it away, but if you do an ad campaign in which the free iPad is basically the main thrust of the campaign, you start to tread on tricky ground. If you were like "Win great prizes, such as an iPod, a new Mustang or a Nomad MP3 player!" you're on much better ground. If your contest ad looks like an Apple ad, well, you're in trouble.

Re:Enforceability?

[russotto]

Are you a lawyer? Can you cite the case law to backup your claim? If not, I wouldn't be so confident. Apple may well be looking to set a precedent, and if it goes to the supreme court which is currently tilted heavily in favor of "corporate rights" they would likely win quite easily.

Ty Inc. v. Ruth Perryman 306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir., October 4, 2002)

Re:Enforceability?

[DarkVader]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

I think that covers it pretty well. Dilution, tarnishment, etc. don't apply.

Re:Enforceability?

[Raenex]

But if you are profiting from doing it, then that's not fair use.

Umm, people profit all the time by selling trademarked goods, and they advertise what they are selling by using the trademarks in a perfectly legal manner. Thankfully there's a limit to "intellectual property" laws.

Re:Enforceability?

[BasilBrush]

Umm, people profit all the time by selling trademarked goods, and they advertise what they are selling by using the trademarks in a perfectly legal manner.

Only because in most circumstances the trademark owners allow them to. See Levi's vs Tesco for case law on a brand that refused to allow a vendor to sell their trademarked products.

Re:Enforceability?

[breser]

For someone who acts like they really know trademark law you're getting some very basic things wrong on this story.

What you describe above wouldn't be trademark infringement. You could argue that it is trademark dilution.

Some juridictions recognize nominative use as an affirmative defense to infringement and dilution but not all. Trademark law is not uniform. Not only does it vary from country to country but in the US there are even differing state laws on trademarks.

It's probable that if Apple actually took several of these cases to court not all of them would come out the same due to these differences and the specifics of individual cases.

Neither side has a clear cut legal high ground.

Re:Enforceability?

[Raenex]

As the anon poster mentioned, that was UK case law, and a really tragic and stupid ruling at that.

For US law, elsewhere somebody in this thread linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use , and somebody else mentioned Ty Inc. v. Ruth Perryman, which goes beyond advertising materials and included the name of the website and domain name.

From the ruling in that case:

"You can't sell a branded product without using its brand name, that is, its trademark. Supposing that Perryman sold only Beanie Babies ⦠we would find it impossible to understand how she could be thought to be blurring, tarnishing, or otherwise free riding to any significant extent on Ty's investment in its mark. To say she was would amount to saying that if a used car dealer truthfully advertised that it sold Toyotas, or if a muffler manufacturer truthfully advertised that it specialized in making mufflers for installation in Toyotas, Toyota would have a claim of trademark infringement."

Re:Enforceability?

[breser]

Levi's v Tesco is a horrible case to cite for this. It only applies in the European Union. It only applies when the goods are being imported from outside the European Economic Area. If Tesco had been buying the jeans inside the European Economic Area Levi's would have had no case.

Unless the companies running these promotions are in Europe (which the TV station in the article isn't) or are importing the Apple product from another region then the case is not applicable at all.

The case you cite is almost entirely about managing separate global markets with different pricing. It's not relevant to a dilution claim from promotional give aways.

Re:Enforceability?

[rfunches]

Silly Fonts aren't even copyrightable let alone trademarkable

The U.S. Copyright Office catalog would beg to differ. Run a quick search in there for Myriad Pro -- one example is document TX0005308118 registered on 2000-10-30 to Adobe Systems, Inc. You can also see registrations for ClearViewHwy, the new font for highway signs, plus if you search USPTO you'll find a trademark application filed in 2003 for the name of the font.

Re:Enforceability?

[Compaqt]

>If you want to profit from using Apple's trademarks on promotional material

So advertising a comparison between your brand, and somebody else's brand is illegal?

And lawyers wonder why people hate them.

Re:Enforceability?

[breser]

Not all jurisdictions have recognized nominative use as an affirmative defense. SCOTUS has not ruled on a case on the issue, nevermind the rest of the world...

Re:Enforceability?

[Compaqt]

The way the guy above is arguing, even reviewing a product would be illegal, since you'd have to use the (trademarked) name of the product, and pictures of the product.

And you're website or magazine shows ads, so it's for-profit, and by reviewing a product, you're "using a trademark for your own profit", according to MAFIA logic.

Re:Enforceability?

[killfixx]

Whaaaaaaa... That's the sound of you protecting Apple... Just like the rest of the zealots. "Don't buy my product if you're not hip and cool, it'll lessen my brand. Whaaaaaa!!"

Re:Enforceability?

[PitaBred]

http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/limitations/

"In the USA, the trademark holder cannot act against domestic resellers of products he put on the market himself. The same applies if the product was manufactured by a third party with permission of the trademark holder (a licensee). This is called the "first sale" doctrine. The idea behind it is that the trademark holder has had a chance to ensure the quality of the product and to make money of the first sale, and then he no longer has a right to control further distribution of that product. Of course it only applies to the particular products he put on the market, making an exact copy of that product and selling that is trademark infringement."

Re:Enforceability?

[quickgold192]

Lol, no. Myriad Pro is a font family that Adobe created and is still selling. Trying to claim ownership over it is like.... well I don't have a good metaphor right now but it's like something shitty.

Re:Enforceability?

[shutdown -p now]

Are you seriously claiming that Apple can prevent me from reselling an iPad that I've bought in Apple store?

Re:Enforceability?

[Anarchduke]

No, it isn't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

Re:Enforceability?

[BasilBrush]

Are you seriously claiming you can jump the moon on a cow?

Re:Enforceability?

[nosferatu1001]

1. UK not US
2. Based on the goods having been imported from outside the EU, and the EU TM law allowing trademark holders to control the importation and exportation of their goods.

Re:Enforceability?

[Elbart]

I think that ship sailed when they started selling the iDevices at Best Buy.

Re:Enforceability?

[BasilBrush]

You seem to think that US law is all that's relevant. It's not. Apple trades and holds trademarks internationally.

The CD Companies tried to do this

[commodore6502]

In 2001 they were sued by the US DOJ for restraint-of-trade, price fixing, and forming an illegal cartel.

So go ahead Apple. I look forward to seeing you get the same treatment the record companies received. Especially now that the US Congress is investigating you. Not a smart move.

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this

[AngryDeuce]

In my opinion the more times the government steps-in and WHAPS these companies with legal prosecution, the better it is for everybody. I laughed when the CD Companies were sued, and laughed again when Paypal had their corporate ass...ets reemed by the justice department. We need more of that, not less.

It'd be nice to see our government going after shady businesses on behalf of the people for a change, instead of the other way around.

I'd also be looking for goatees everywhere, because surely I would have somehow ended up in the mirror universe if that ever came to pass...

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this

[Ixokai]

You're comparing apples to morons. I mean oranges.

Guess which half you're falling under?

The CD Companies tried to do this, you say; so were sued for "restraint-of-trade, price fixing, and forming an illegal cartel". What made it illegal for them to do what they did (which isn't even kind of what Apple is doing here) is that they are COMPANIES. Plural. Instead of competiting against each-other, they were colluding against the public interest. A single company can not price-fix by themselves (that's called, like, you know-- selling something for a price) and a cartel of one whole company agreeing to not compete against, er, itself, isn't very .. impressive.

Anyone who wants to go buy an iPad at retail and give it away in their store is entirely free to do so. If you want to use Apple's trademarks in your promotional material, though -- they get to set the terms, or you just don't use their marks. They also offer a service where you can contact them and get a special sort of deal for promotions -- but if you want that deal, you agree to extra terms (and those are the ones that are changing, IIUC).

That's a contract. You get a special service, you pay for it (in part) by agreeing to special terms. That's not "restraint-of-trade" -- and everything else you're comparing what they did requires the illegal collusion of multiple companies.

Also, considering the number of total jackasses in Congress, and how easy it is for them to hold "hearings" to make themselves and their agendas seem important and functional, being "investigated" by the body isn't really very scary. Especially considering the chance of a Republican controlled House passing anything even vaguely seen as getting in the way of companies doing-- well, anything sleazy at all (even though the above actual practice isn't actually sleazy)-- is like practically zero.

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this

[cpu6502]

>>>COMPANIES. Plural.

Yeah so? Paypal was also slammed by the US DOJ (forced to refund almost 1 billion dollars back to their customers), and that was just one SINGLE company.

Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether it's multiple companies or just one. And right now, Apple is breaking the law and they will eventually be prosecuted (unless they wise up).

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this

[Ixokai]

You're an orange.

Yes. Single companies can be charged with illegal things they do and fined.

But, what Apple is doing here is IN NO WAY breaking any law.

The poster I was responding to pointed out some similarity to the illegal actions-- actions that were illegal BECAUSE they were done by multiple companies on the same side who should be competiting, not colluding. "Yeah so?" you say, and somehow it gets marked Informative. The point is, the utterly wrong, factually false assertion that anything that "Apple" is doing here has any similarity to what the CD companies did is.... nonsense. Total, complete, and utter nonsense. Can the DOJ take action against a single company? Sure -- but I never said they couldn't. But they'd take completely DIFFERENT actions for entirely DIFFERENT reasons. What the "CD Companies" were doing (and still are, with no real action from the DOJ) is nothing even VAGUELY comparable by any intelligent person to anything Apple is.

Apple may be involved in things you think aren't right, or aren't legal. But they are DIFFERENT things then what industry cartels are involved in. If you can't get that the comparison is utterly nonsense -- I'm sorry.

But, Despite the sensationalist claims by the summary, and even TFA, Apple is not doing anything illegal, nor anti-competitive, nor against any law that I can find any definition of.

They are not saying you can't give away what you buy via normal channels.

They are offering as a service, a means to buy devices for promotional purposes in a special program; those who want to participate in said program can do so only according to certain terms. They are not trying to impose any rules on what you do if you buy the devices through standard retail channels. There is ZERO evidence for any such frankly silly claim.

They are not trying to control how you the buyer of a thing use the thing.

They are offering, as an option, which someone can choose to use, a program to buy devices meant for promotional purposes. They are, presumably, cheaper then a full priced device -- alternatively, they include rights to use Apple trademarks in the resulting promotion. I don't know which (reports from sources are conflicting) Either way, they are offering a value. You can choose to accept that value, and agree to certain terms for that value.

You can do whatever the frack you want with what you buy through regular channels.

If, however, you are granted a price reduction -- or rights to use trademarks-- in addition to getting the actual device, through a special program (and NOT anything ANYONE in ANY store is subject to), then in addition to whatever cost they charge, you have to agree to certain terms. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the product under that program. Walk into a regular store and buy it as everyone else, and these rules are meaningless (Assuming your advertisement for the promotion does not violate trademark law).

There is nothing illegal in this. There isn't even anything unethical in this. If you don't want to abide by their rules -- buy through standard channels, and don't use their trademarks inappropriately in your advertisements.

This entire story is idiotic.

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this

[nosferatu1001]

Advertising a giveaway of an iPad, if that is what you are actually giviing away, IS appropriate use of their trademark

Oh well,

[Jrono]

Plenty of alternatives to Apple products to give away: Android-based devices, Blackberry Playbook, etc. etc.

Re:Oh well,

[BasilBrush]

And if you do so, and want to mention the products names in the promotional materials, then you'll need permission from Google or Blackberry. Or else they can sue you, just as Apple can.

Re:Oh well,

[Rennt]

You can sue anybody for anything... doesn't mean it has any merit.

Re:Oh well,

[Anarchduke]

but the difference is Google WANTS everyone using an android device.

lolwut?

[mirix]

I'm not sure what they are going for here. If there is a give-away do they think it will water down the brand?

Re:lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Apple products have prestige value included in their price, like an expensive watch. If someone can get them for free, it doesn't matter that someone paid for the promotion. What matters is that the "Apple user = rich guy" implication is violated, so actual rich guys can no longer use Apple products to show off.

Re:lolwut?

[macs4all]

I'm not sure what they are going for here. If there is a give-away do they think it will water down the brand?

Not "water down"; but "devalue".

Personally, I was trying to figure this seemingly wrongheaded policy out myself. And I think I might have figured it out.

It's called "Perceived Value". Successful marketing in a "technology-driven" company is a curious combination of understanding current (and future) "technology", plus MBA skills, Communication skills, with a dash of Psychology. And the "Psychology" part of that equation tells the Marketeer that when people get things for free, they don't "value" them (or not as much). This, curiously enough, extends even to the people who don't actually receive the item; but even just could have received it.

Think about it: "Everybody" knows that, when when anybody, especially a business (who is, afterall, "in it for the money"), gives something away, that it is very rarely something they could have easily "made money on" (even if they don't actually sell that item themselves).

We are all somewhat "conditioned" to the fact that, only "worthless" items are given away as "Promotion". Often it is basically true. Sometimes not (like, for example, a car); but, in all cases, the "Perceived Value" effect remains in the back of everyone's mind. And Apple is smart enough to pay attention to those nuances of human behavior. it doesn't make them evil, or "dickish"; just perceptive.

Re:lolwut?

[BasilBrush]

That's all true. But you're overthinking it. The major objective seems to be to kill as many of those those "FREE iPad" and "FREE iPhone" spams and adverts that piss people off. And are in many cases scams. They turn people off the brand in a way that comes before perceived value.

Re:lolwut?

[macs4all]

That's all true. But you're overthinking it. The major objective seems to be to kill as many of those those "FREE iPad" and "FREE iPhone" spams and adverts that piss people off. And are in many cases scams. They turn people off the brand in a way that comes before perceived value.

Wow! I spent about 100 times more time typing my "thoughts" than having them; so I hardly think I "overthought" the matter, LOL!

But, your point is also valid. Let's just say there are both forces at play; because I think, in all actually, they are.

Re:lolwut?

[macs4all]

That's what is killing the music industry, the perceived value of their product dropped to zero.

Actually, at least in the case of many "Talent du Jour" faux "musicians", the ACTUAL value of the product is somewhat less than zero!

But, I get your point, and it is somewhat true. When people don't have a physical thing, like a vinyl record, or a CD, to actually covet, and then purchase and OWN; something they can look over at, hold in their hands, look at the artwork, read the liner notes, etc., the "perceived value" of the entire experience is greatly diminished.

And I am very sad to report that there seems to be no one (or basically no one) that "gets that". Least of all, those on the forefront of non-physical media distribution, like Apple is currently, and is about to become even more with iCloud.

At some point, the human psyche will adjust (it already has to some point with the current generation of teenagers), and this will no longer be the case; but for me (and likely for most people posting here), there is at least a tinge of regret that the days of making your Mom drive you to the store so you can buy a new album, then spending the rest of the evening playing it over and over (turn that thing DOWN!), while looking at the album art, etc, are basically over.

Re:lolwut?

[dakameleon]

There's a reason those scams work, and it's not because the brand is perceived as low value...

Re:lolwut?

[BasilBrush]

Indeed. Nevertheless these scams will lower the status of Apple's brand to some people, and it's thus worth clamping down on them.

Re:lolwut?

[macs4all]

Dude, lay off the quotes. It is "distracting".

And it is also "common" and even "grammatically correct" usage to put "slang", "unusual usage" and "colloquial phrases" in quotes. Quotation marks are also used to denote "terminology" or "jargon"; or, as was the case when I said " 'Everybody' knows...", in my original comment, to "distance" myself from the "everybodys" in that sentence. If you will go back and re-read my original comment, I believe you will find that all of my usage of quotation marks falls into one of the "common use" categories denoted in the "linked-to" Wikipedia article.

Now, with all that in mind, and "with all due respect", FUCK OFF AND DIE!

How's that for some non-quoted text? Feel better? I know I do!

BTW, your snarky use of quotes above, does not fall into one of the "other" uses of quotation marks. Unless, of course, you were "quoting yourself", which is actually seldom done; because it sounds too "pedantic".

Re:lolwut?

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. It is the perceived value that gets someone to pay a premium for a iPhone 4 over iPhone 3 even if they aren't going to use the new features. It is better because it is newer, but it is better also because that is what Apple wants to push now. A tech company often wants to skim the market. You get an insanely high price when the tech is brand new from the people most willing to pay for it, than you drop the price a bit and get more of the market, eventually the tech ends up in a discount bin for $10. Regardless at the high point of the products price you don't want anyone to imply to those lucrative early adopters that the device could be free or cheap soon if they only play a game or try some more. You want the product to seem rare and so cool virgins will rain from the sky begging for a date because you have the new iGadget.

Additionally: copyright and patents will win the day. First off if I own the patent or copyright I can make it a rule that you do whatever I tell you to do with my product. For example Apple could explicitly forbid you to give away an iOS device in the EULA of the application. If you do so you violate their copyright and are liable for ~150k of damages in the US at least per offense.

Lastly: Apple doesn't even have to have a case. Apple sends a couple nasty letters, you refuse and go to court. Apple sends a half dozen Harvard Law Review lawyers and you, owner of PDIDLYFM send the local lawyer from your home town of Butfuzz, AK. Apple laughs and pays there lawyers gladly to bring motion after motion dragging things on as a "lesson to others", you nearly go bankrupt trying to pay your $200 a hour bill. Usually company's realize they can't win and settle out of court. It doesn't matter who's right, it matters who's right AND can afford the legal bills to have their rights enforced.

Re:lolwut?

[klingens]

Yes, cause spammers who run scams are frightened about big bad Apple suing them!

Re:lolwut?

[macs4all]

Exactly. It is the perceived value that gets someone to pay a premium for a iPhone 4 over iPhone 3 even if they aren't going to use the new features. It is better because it is newer, but it is better also because that is what Apple wants to push now.

I hope you aren't ascribing that behavior exclusively to Apple. Obviously, that is what every manufacturer does that has "refresh cycle" does. Chevrolet doesn't waste its time promoting the 2010 HHR the nanosecond the 2011 comes out. It instantly becomes the old and broken (even though it was the new hotness just the week before), and the new model (which is likely different in fairly small ways) becomes "the new hotness". Such is the way of product life cycles.

Additionally: copyright and patents will win the day. First off if I own the patent or copyright I can make it a rule that you do whatever I tell you to do with my product. For example Apple could explicitly forbid you to give away an iOS device in the EULA of the application. If you do so you violate their copyright and are liable for ~150k of damages in the US at least per offense.

What "application" are you talking about? Software is a special case, in that it is never, or nearly never, "sold"; it is instead "licensed". But the device itself is quite another matter, and I agree with other commenters here that the doctrine of First Sale, plus centuries of Common Law, say that you are free to give it away, smash it to bits, put it in a blender, resell it, stick daisy appliques on it, or whatever. The only time patents and copyrights would enter into it, is if you decided to make a duplicate iPad and load iOS on it.

BTW, even though you misspelled "Buttfuzz", I still like the name... ;-) And are you telling me you can get a decent lawyer in Buttfuzz for only $200 an hour? You must have some connections!

Re:lolwut?

[Elbart]

Your rant just devalued the image and perception of everything Apple for me.

Re:lolwut?

[ILongForDarkness]

BTW, even though you misspelled "Buttfuzz", I still like the name... ;-) And are you telling me you can get a decent lawyer in Buttfuzz for only $200 an hour? You must have some connections!

Actually the cost of living is pretty low in Buttfuzz so prices are lower :-). How does first sale work for the movie industry? I seem to recall they charge movie rental places significantly (~4X) more to purchase a movie than Joe public. Presumably that is because they intend to rent it out. What stops the video company from going to a discount store and picking up their copies there? Is it copyright?

only applies to special contract purchases

[rritterson]

I looked at the terms linked in the article. It appears these terms are attached to special purchases from Apple solely for promotional purposes. (i.e., you contact Apple beforehand about buying some for a promotion and they give you a discount). In that case, you are accepting the contract. And it's not like they'd sell you 249 iPods then get pissy because you had fewer than 250.

But, I believe that if I buy an iPad at retail, I can use it in whatever promotional capacity I see fit as long as I do not violate Apple's IP.

In short: nothing to see here, move along

Re:only applies to special contract purchases

[am 2k]

But, I believe that if I buy an iPad at retail, I can use it in whatever promotional capacity I see fit as long as I do not violate Apple's IP.

Hmm isn't mentioning Apple, iPad or somesuch in your promotional material already a violation of Apple's IP? Unless they grant you permission for it, that is.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm isn't mentioning Apple, iPad or somesuch in your promotional material already a violation of Apple's IP? Unless they grant you permission for it, that is.

No, if you attribute the trademarks appropriately.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases

[SomePgmr]

This comment needed to appear in the summary. It would have prevented a lot of wasted armchair lawyer time.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases

[Andy Smith]

"In short: nothing to see here, move along"

Consumers have a legitimate interest in the behind-the-scenes contracts used by companies. We want to know what they're up to. For example, Microsoft forcing OEMs not to supply any machines with Linux -- it's a contract between two companies, but consumers had a legitimate interest in knowing about it.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

But but but we need SOMETHING to bitch about so we can forget about the infected apps in the Android store!

Legal basis

[Nethemas the Great]

I wonder what legal basis they're using to "enforce" their policy towards giveaways. With software you can bind people with EULAs as part of the opening packaging/installing of software, but I wasn't aware that Apple was forcing people to sign contracts before purchasing their hardware. The best they could get away with would be trademark enforcement for promotional material but there's nothing I'm aware of that could restrict transfer of ownership of purchased goods absent a contract.

Re:Legal basis

[Anubis IV]

These terms don't apply to normal users since normal users don't do promotions with advertising. If you're an organization doing a promotion with free Apple products and advertising however, then you're profiting by associating with Apple-branded products, so they have some say in that, just like celebrities have a say in how their likenesses are used. They want it to be clear that the promotions are not endorsed by them and that they won't continue selling to you if you choose to cheapen their brand by plastering "FREE" all over it. All of that is pretty reasonable.

Re:Legal basis

[Theaetetus]

I wonder what legal basis they're using to "enforce" their policy towards giveaways. With software you can bind people with EULAs as part of the opening packaging/installing of software, but I wasn't aware that Apple was forcing people to sign contracts before purchasing their hardware. The best they could get away with would be trademark enforcement for promotional material but there's nothing I'm aware of that could restrict transfer of ownership of purchased goods absent a contract.

You should probably read the article, then, since this is about special contract sales.

Re:Legal basis

[Nethemas the Great]

That still falls under trademark law which does not regulate the transfer of ownership of a good. Promotional material would even still be possible, but it must follow the winding path necessary to avoid trademark infringement. It appears however--as pointed out by a few--that these are in fact special "contract" sales. So basically they're trying to put retailers of Apple goods on a leash.

That's okay.

[WebManWalking]

I don't know what I would do with 250 iPod Touches anyway.

Re:That's okay.

[Dahamma]

Give them away?

Re:That's okay.

[hawk]

Is this a straight line?

You buy six more, and put 8 cubes at each corner of your beowulf cube.

This is still slashdot, isn't it?

Re:That's okay.

[killfixx]

God, I wish I had Mod points! That's eff'ing hilarious!

Easy workaround.

[Anonymous Coward]

A middleman party buys the iPads. This person then sells the entire lot for one cent to the giveaway party. The third party is not encumbered by the agreement, and can do whatever the hell they want.

Only applies to special purchases.

[Jane Q. Public]

As someone else mentioned, this only applies -- CAN only apply -- to special purchases made under this agreement. If I go buy an iPad at the store, Apple store or otherwise, good luck trying to enforce something like this. I doubt Apple would be stupid enough to try.

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[artor3]

This is the company that thinks it invented the word "app". I wouldn't put anything past them.

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[ILongForDarkness]

Go head try. Apple owns the trademarks to their product names. If you try to profit of those trademarks even if you aren't reselling the products themselves they have a legal say in the matter. Just like I can't slap a NBA stars name all over some carwash I own just because it will help me sell. People have a right to their names and so do company's who own the trademarks.

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[flimflammer]

What a silly comparison. Sticking NBA player names all over a car wash you own is not even remotely the same thing as giving away free iPads in a promotion. In your example, you're flat out abusing what I assume are trademarks of the NBA. In the second, you're factually giving away a product and the only mention of the trademarks associated with that product are the fact that they're giving it away. There is nothing that says you're not allowed to name a product you're giving away, even if it's trademarked. Just because they may be using the specific product as enticement to get you to do business with them doesn't mean anything. It's not an abuse of trademark.

That's why Apple has crafted a specific agreement you must agree to before buying a certain number of units. If what you suggest were actually possible, there would just be a blanket requirement and Apple would start cracking down.

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[vaporland]

Guy Kawasaki coined the term "killer app" to describe PageMaker in relation to desktop publishing, and he was an Apple employee at the time.

Maybe SJ sees that as prior use.

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[Jane Q. Public]

People have a right to their trademarks, but there is also such a thing as "fair use". I can put an Apple computer, complete with glowing Apple logo, in a movie I make and Apple can't do a damn thing about it. I can say that I am giving away an iPad, and I can put a picture of the iPad I am giving away in the ad for my giveaway, and Apple can't do a damned thing about it...

UNLESS they can get me to sign some kind of "agreement", like this one, in advance...

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[Anarchduke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[unitron]

So my plans for a chain of "Larry ByrdBaths" is on hold indefinitely, huh?

Re:Only applies to special purchases.

[Sardokaur]

Yes, but if the car washer is that NBA star, you can say that he is the one who is washing the cars. iPad is the name of the product, if you sell it, give it away or talk about it, how will you do it without mentioning the products name? Also according to your logic, you infringed upon Apples trademark, because you mentioned their name in your post to promote the point you made and so you profited from it.

Such sheninigans

[Roachie]

encheapin our over priced product. We must put a stop to it!

Re:Such sheninigans

[iluvcapra]

You make a cromulent point, sir.

Re:Such sheninigans

[exomondo]

encheapin our over priced product. We must put a stop to it!

Aren't most competing tablets more expensive? iPads are the cheap ones.

Re:Such sheninigans

[MooseTick]

You have such an embiggened mind

Re:Such sheninigans

[Roachie]

Then why? Answer: They want lock-in. They dont want the image of their product as being that of a cheap giveaway. So they can charge a double or a triple for the same hardware AND get vendor lock-in with their crappy DRM product. Its the Starter jacket of the 21st century.

Re:Such sheninigans

[Roachie]

Thanks dude! I'm up for review... do you have some time to speak to my lead? I need my paycheck enbiggened.

Wow!

[Mullen]

What a dick move by Apple!

PS> I love my Mac's but they are mine to do I as see fit.

Re:Wow!

[BasilBrush]

Indeed they are. But that has precisely nothing to do with this story.

What?

[NiceGeek]

I'm usually ambivalent toward Apple, but if the people giving the items away legally purchased them, then they can dispose of them as they see fit. Fuck Apple.

Re:What?

[R3d M3rcury]

Depends on how you purchased them.

If you went to your local Apple Store/Best Buy or wherever iPads are sold and bought an iPad for the manufacturer's suggested retail price and then said, "The 2398th person in my store will win themselves this free iPad," there's nothing Apple can do. You're 100% correct.

If you contacted Apple directly and said, "Hey, Apple, I'm planning on giving away 32 iPads at a promotional event for my business. Can you cut me some slack on the prices?" Apple will be more than willing to do so--providing that you follow their rules. Don't like their rules? Then go buy them at retail.

I don't think this is a big deal.

Re:What?

[Ixokai]

That's the thing. This entire story is just stupid.

People who buy things in Apple stores or through any regular channel can do anything they damn well want.

There's no question of that. But everyone is reacting in some absurdly idiotic way as if Apple were declaring that they can't give away or sell what they buy.

That isn't even vaguely what's going on here.

Apple has a program to provide devices to people for promotional purposes; this isn't "people" who are "buying" things. This is organizations entering into special, specific agreements with Apple to get things to give away, sell, discount, or otherwise promote some service in conjunction with the device. There's a lot of possible mutual benefit there.

Hotels might want to offer iPads to every room, for example, as a service option. It benefits both Apple and the hotel itself to do so. The hotel could go out and just buy the devices at retail, and do whatever the hell they want with them.

Or they could talk to Apple and enter a sort of partnership; Apple benefits by getting the iPad as a real thing out more as advertising and coolness, the hotel benefits by hipster love. But this isn't even VAGUELY the same sort of relationship of "I go in and buy an iPad, now Apple is saying who I can give it to?" which is being implied by this story.

Apple is offering devices to partners for special terms -- for promotional purposes. The "buyers" aren't mere consumers buying a thing and maybe reselling it. They are getting value above and beyond the simple device itself (be it a discount, or rights to use trademarks in promotion, or something else) in return for an agreement to abide by certain terms. Thus, both parties benefit.

There's this whole frankly absurd narrative around this issue that Apple is somehow declaring that once you buy a device they are controlling what you can do with it. That isn't even vaguely accurate.

Apple sells things through regular channels. They are asserting no control nor influence over those channels or how you use what you buy through those. They have other channels, though: they may offer their products in other ways -- and those other channels may have rules that you agree to. Obviously, those other channels are cheaper then the regular one, or you wouldn't bother with agreeing to new rules. If you choose to adobt a program and agree to it, great. If you don't, buy it like anyone else, use it as anyone else, sell it as anyone else.

penny bidding

[MickyTheIdiot]

Why don't they go after the Penny Bidding scams instead?

It's so sad that Apple has moved towards the Microsoft school of customer abuse...

Re:penny bidding

[Nethemas the Great]

Not that I'm any particular supporter of Microsoft, but that's a bit unfair. This is an entirely new class of pissing on the customer that MS wouldn't even dare.

Sign up for two years of iCloud service...

[Neptunes_Trident]

and receive a free 16g iPad.

Apple, I know what you are up to, along with the rest of you who have your head in the clouds.

Just remember, when your fluffy white cloud is gone, there is nothing left but clear blue sky.

Re:what's the point?

[creat3d]

Apparently, they think it devalues their products... might wanna do something about the fanboys first!

I wouldn't dream of it -- it's inconceivable!

[VortexCortex]

"... using the word 'free' to describe any Apple products in a prominent manner."

Why would anyone do such a thing? Apple's seems to have put extreme effort into their proprietary products and services with the express purpose of keeping the idea of freedom furthest from my mind. Why anyone would attribute to them the honorable designation of "free" is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I encourage all in my home to be brave, and teach them all how to live under the full freedom afforded them in this land of free. Truly, to sign away any freedoms via Apple's EULA for a bit of entertainment or convenience is not the American way.

I live by the words, "Live free or die," It's clear to me that Apple does not -- otherwise the choice they have made is obvious and grim.

Re:I wouldn't dream of it -- it's inconceivable!

[Anarchduke]

hey that's not fair at all. Apple has been diligent in offering their customers freedom from choice for years.

Re:It's official now.

[betterunixthanunix]

!news

Re:It's official now.

[Nethemas the Great]

! see what you did there...

Re:It's official now.

[thestudio_bob]

Apple is worse than Microsoft.

No, no. That day is when Steve Jobs throws chairs and people refer to them as $pple. Sheesh.

Re:It's official now.

[techsoldaten]

You know, I don't agree, but I think we are getting there.

Bill Gates may be coming back to Microsoft, now that investors are calling for Ballmer to go away.

Imagine the hardcore tech geek drama if he makes some dramatic return and restores the company to the glory of it's previous hegemony based on vendor relationships and partner dealings. Just like Steve did...

Re:It's official now.

[Dahamma]

I'm sure Steve Jobs throws chairs all the time. The difference is, he hits what he is aiming at, but then very large tattooed "Apple PR reps" secretly buries the bodies under the Infinite Loop late at night. And no one ever hears about it...

errm _no_

[mufflon]

I looked at the terms linked in the article. It appears these terms are attached to special purchases from Apple solely for promotional purposes. (i.e., you contact Apple beforehand about buying some for a promotion and they give you a discount). In that case, you are accepting the contract. And it's not like they'd sell you 249 iPods then get pissy because you had fewer than 250.

But, I believe that if I buy an iPad at retail, I can use it in whatever promotional capacity I see fit as long as I do not violate Apple's IP.

In short: nothing to see here, move along

If you mean the guidelines then no. There is no mentioning of rebates. The following is a excerpt from apple's third party promotion guidelines as of the date my posting.

Purchasing Apple products. You may purchase products for your promotion direct from Apple (via an Apple Retail, Online Store, or Telesales representative) or from your Apple Authorized Reseller. Visit http://www.apple.com/buy for more information.

It simply says that you may buy your promotional material from any authorized source. A cursory glance of http://www.apple.com/buy reveals nothing. There is rebates mentioned on this site however, which might have been what you presumed was related to this, however they are for mail in rebates and so forth offered by apple themselves.

nothing to see here

[TRRosen]

Don't get so excited this is only for Apple sanctioned promotions where the advertiser wants permission to use Apple trademarks in their ads. Every company has guidelines for this. This really only applies to Apple dealers and sellers. Your free to do whatever you want if your not using Apple's IP or under contract with Apple already.

Its not a EULA it's an advertising contract. it has nothing to do with consumers.

So one should say ...

[PPH]

... "We can't even give these things away".

Not the sort of PR Apple would want IMO.

Doctrine of First Sale

[Nom du Keyboard]

IANAL, but isn't there a Doctrine of First Sale that comes into effect here? As long as you're not promoting yourself to be in any way associated with Apple itself, you can pretty much do anything you want (except mod your game console) with your purchase once you own it. This seems like just another Apple power grab, enforced not by the law, but instead by their threat of legions of lawyers who will descent on to you the moment you offend King Jobs.

Apple truly is becoming The Evil Empire.

Re:Doctrine of First Sale

[Ixokai]

No.

Because this "nixing" Apple is doing has nothing at all to do with anyone who is buying anything through regular retail channels.

It applies only to those who are buying through special channels, i.e. those who want a better deal to promote their service off the back of the iThing.

This is all about the doctrine of first sale. It is absolutely important here. And the entire point is -- the first person who buys the product (who is NOT anyone who buys any devices in any Apple Store) agrees to certain terms, in return for some additional consideration.

This has NOTHING, at ALL, to do with anyone who goes and buys an iThing. You can go buy an iThing and give it away as a promotion in your shop.

BUT.

If you don't want to buy all the iThings at retail, and instead want to convince Apple to subsidize the cost for advertising reasons or some other, then they may choose to do so -- if you agree to certain terms.

Apple is not imposing any rules on what you do with their products after you buy them.

But, they are offering an entirely separate channel where you can buy things-- if you opt to do so-- if you agree to some more terms. In return for certain concessions (Be it price, IP, or whatever).

Re:Doctrine of First Sale

[HikingStick]

Yours was the single most informative comment I found in the sea of threads.

WTF?

[tibit]

Do they even have any legal standing to enforce using of a trademark to identify their own product? I mean, if they don't want it called an iPod, maybe they should have called it something else to begin with? If I want to promote my company be giving away free iPods, good luck with convincing anyone that I can't state it as a fact.

Too late

[zerofoo]

Pharmaceutical companies are already giving away iPads to doctors.

Sorry, scratch that. Pharmaceutical companies are distributing their product literature on iPads.

-ted

That's not the way trademark law works.

[raehl]

Of course, anyone can sue anyone for anything, but Apple would have to prove that the marketing was done in a manner to make it appear that Apple endorsed the contest; simply advertising that you are giving away a product by the name of the product is not sufficient.

Re:That's not the way trademark law works.

[thetoadwarrior]

They don't have to imply Apple is associated. They just have to do something that the trademark holder views as devaluing their trademark. It is the owner's sole duty to protect their mark and doing anything that implies it's not of value or a lesser value makes it harder to fight people wanting similar marks or the word / phrase in another area.

Re:It's official now.

[BasilBrush]

It's official: You need to grow up.

WTF is wrong with Apple

[gatkinso]

Is not being successful (after nearly being utterly destroyed by Microsoft in the 90's) enough?

It makes sense

[JRHelgeson]

90% of the advertisements that show "Free [iPad/iPod/iPhone]" are targeted at kids scams to get people to click links and get infected with malware. Therefore, Apple does not want anyone to legitimize those fake sites by other people advertising the same thing. It is simply a method to help people hone a BS detector. If any legitimate organization wishes to award an iPad as part of a prize package, they can do that... they just cannot do it with "Click HERE to win a Free iPad".

Re:It's official now.

[BatGnat]

No, you're wrong.

It happened a while ago.

Don't use the word Free???

[pookemon]

I can think of another phrase to use when referring to Apple.

Sieg Heil!

This will cost apple sales from charitys and other

[Joe_Dragon]

This will cost apple sales from charitys and other orgs that give way stuff in sweepstakes, raffles, volunteers, blood donors and for other stuff.

also

[obarthelemy]

they have started enforcing user profile guidelines:

- people above 25 a body mass index of 25 may not use an iDevice in public. Nor in private in BMI > 30.
- iDevice users must at all times maintain perfect cleanliness and decorum.
- conversely, certain professions may *not* use iDevices: exotic dancers, janitors, butchers, fishmongers... if in doubt, contact a Genius, or point your iDevice's camera at you in your trade dress with your last paycheck, and ask "is this OK" twice. A genius will contact you shortly.
- customers thinking they caught a virus will report to their closer AppleCamp for training on how Apple does NOT have viruses. Repeated offenses will result in termination.
- your iDevice must remain pristine at all times. Don't allow it to become dirty, no stickers, no un-approved cases.
- iDevices may not be taken to non-approved areas. if your device starts beeping loudly with a screen flashing red, immediately get back to an approved iDevice utilization zone.

Apple thanks the California Bureau of Investigations for their help in enforcing those guidelines.

Re:also

[killfixx]

HAHAHAHA!

One problem, you forgot the monthly "App"(lication) purchase minimum.

If you choose to NOT download at least 3 programs from Apple's Official Store you accept the remote "monitoring and cleansing" of your iDevice. This, of course, is done to keep YOU safe from viruses. You're welcome.

Re:also

[DaFallus]

I don't know. If Apple starts enforcing bathing requirements, they'll lose most of the US hipster market, as well as the majority of the European markets...

Easy Solution

[grapeape]

Give away android tablets...

Reverse Lawsuit

[ue85]

Clearly you trademark your name so that when they try and pursue a lawsuit you claim they are using your trademarked name without permission within all of their legal documents and any media coverage of such. Such a defense is as crazy as the idea that you can't call a product by its marketed name "IF" you give it away for free.

Re:It's official now.

[Compaqt]

olds.

Hopefully...

[worx101]

This will cut down on some of the free ipad advertisements.... Just maybe.... Things seem to make up almost 70% of webspam.

iTouch you with my iPad for Free

[Ice Station Zebra]

I read the article, but it didn't make much sense. What freaking company wouldn't want free advertising and promotion? Guess the Cult of Apple is so strong that no body can speak of it without feeling the wrath of Lord Steve Jobs.

just when you think Apple can't get any douchier

[Ensign Nemo]

do you think Apple fanboys get tennis elbow from all the circle jerking?

I was at the gym the other day and felt embarrassed that I was wearing a pair of Apple earbuds (they were free). "These aren't mine! I'm not a douchebag I swear!"

Uses of ``intellectual property'' law

[Max Hyre]

First, note that I believe rms has the right of it when he decries the use of the term ``intellectual property''. It screws up your thinking because it tosses many contradictory legal regimes into one bag, so that talking about, say, copyright, gets confused by concepts from trademark, or trade secrets, or patent, or....

True, copyright needs a major overhaul---it's outlived its usefulness in its current form. Arguably, patent law is even worse—certainly in the matter of patenting software.

Trademark has its problems, too, but just think about about a marketplace where trademark didn't exist. What's that widget you're buying? Oh, it's from Foo, Inc., and they make good stuff. But how do you know it isn't from Bar Corp., which pushes trash that masks itself as Fooware? You'd need a chain of custody similar to what you see on precision instruments: ``Calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology''. Except you couldn't be sure the attestation was kosher. You'd have to do a careful analysis of every object you bought more complex than, say, a spoon, to be sure you got what you paid for.

That's the scenario trademark law is written to avoid. What we have here is a baby/bathwater situation caused by blind use of the term ``IP''.

Re:Uses of ``intellectual property'' law

[PopeRatzo]

concepts from trademark, or trade secrets, or patent

Get rid of it all, I say.

The notion that information can be proprietary in an age when it can be made ubiquitous instantly is a relic.

but just think about about a marketplace where trademark didn't exist

I don't dispute the need for differentiation, but "trademark" no longer means what it used to. Just read the article above. Apple is trying to extend its trademark to places it was not meant to go (stopping someone from giving away an iPad and saying they're giving away an iPad).

Until corporations prove they can behave, I believe consumers should act to subvert intellectual property. And yes, I mean in its broadest sense. Sorry, but the old modes of behavior are leading us to some very dark places.

So basically

[Danny0109]

You sign a contract with Apple, you have to follow the rules stated by the contract.
You don't sign a contract but just buy the products retail, you can do whatever you want (within the law).

To cut off "legitimized scalpers"?

[ericvids]

Where I currently live (Singapore), the iPad 2 was advertised as "available now!" for several days, but if you ask for one the store will tell you they're out of stock.

Meanwhile we got so many ad promotions with the magic words "win a free ipad 2" everywhere we turned, from restaurants to supermarkets to banks.

Long story short: People who wanted them can't buy them for weeks because they've been snapped up by companies intending to give them away instead of selling them. I think Apple is simply preventing this situation from happening again.

Re:To cut off "legitimized scalpers"?

[ericvids]

That doesn't explain why each apple store has new stock every single day.

Not where I live, no. Just weeks ago I was already planning on getting one (because of GarageBand) but every day I asked, all the retailers said they don't have it.

(Now they do have stock, but in the interim my phone got stolen so I ended up buying a new phone instead.)

Re:To cut off "legitimized scalpers"?

[gl4ss]

yes, because someone who gets a product for free isn't as likely to spend money on buying content for it - if he did, he'd feel like that it was a ripoff.

Re:It's official now.

[mkiwi]

I like to think the iPod silhouette people are the ones who do the dirty work.

Thanks for the suggestion, but

[WebManWalking]

I foresee having difficulty gluing 4 iPod Touches into a cube (x 8 x 8).

I would definitely need to get my gluon.

Apple promotional purchases

[gnasher719]

I don't know if anyone notices, but Apple offers iDevices for promotions etc. on their store website. Quote "Contact your Apple representative and ask about special volume pricing: ".

If you buy devices through this program, probably at a lower price than I pay in a store, then obviously any rules that Apple sets will apply. If you buy devices at a store, then all the usual copyright and trademark law will apply.

Re:Apple promotional purchases

[SilenceBE]

Offcourse this has been noticed, but it is slashdot afterall. When stories about Apple are posted there is no room for logic or solid facts.

And the amusing part is...

[Anarchduke]

[ Re:The CD Companies tried to do this(Score:5, Troll) ]

LOL, your score on this post. I guess you get +5 troll points.

How can they enforce this AT ALL?

[DrXym]

If I'm a radio station and I walk into an Apple store and buy 10 iPads as prizes, they are mine to do with as I see fit. If I run a competition where the prize is a free iPad then that's my choice. What the hell can Apple do about it? I expect the situation is a little more tricky for gift cards, but again it's not hard to buy gift cards from various places including online, so how are Apple supposed know?

Maybe their intent is to stop matrix scams, dutch auctions etc. but I don't see how it would help there either. People running these scams are hardly likely to care what Apple thinks.

Finally, if they're cracking down on the term "free", why not do it where everyone knows the term is abused - phone contracts. i.e. Get a FREE iphone when you sign up for some ludicrous 2 year contract and so on. In the example link's case the free phone merely requires the user pay £1512 to receive it and service, and that doesn't even include any data!

Re:You're all idiots.

[DrXym]

Do you think these scammers would pay the slightest attention to what Apple thinks? They're already treading a fine line with legality (e.g. matrix sites are just pyramid schemes) already and it doesn't appear to bother them.

Mail-in Rebate

[Kamiza Ikioi]

AT&T and Verizon do this all the time, and this won't stop them. I didn't read the full document, but from the summary I find this laughable. They'll just get creative. Instead of "Buy 1 iPad and get another Free! (w/ new contract)", they'll say, "Buy 2 iPads and get a $499 Loaded Visa(r) Card back(w/ new contract)".

They don't need to say free, rebate, or anything. They could do these on credit as well. "Purchase an iPad with our new Consumer Debit Card!" and on a different poster "Spend at least $499 with our new Consumer Debit Card and you're automatically entered to win to have it paid off for you!"

Quite honestly, Apple may know all the ways to lock something down, but they are RANK AMATEURS if they think retailers won't find each and every loop hole.

I'd rather have a Xoom anyway.

[tarogue]

That is all.

Re:I'd rather have a Xoom anyway.

[Pop69]

Asus EEE Transformer, same spec and cheaper

Similar protection exists for Super Bowl...

[klubar]

Without permission you can't use the word "Super Bowl". Therefore you often see promotions for Super Bowl events that use other language. For example, you can't have a give away for free Super Bowl tickets, but you can offer tickets to "The big game" as a prize.

Individuals and businesses are protected under the First Amendment in what's called "nominative fair use," in which a trademark is allowed to be used if it describes a phrase and lacks commercial intent, Basin says. For instance, an electronics store ad could suggest to customers that they "Come get your TV before the Super Bowl," because it is describing an event.

http://www.businessinsider.com/att-gocharge-kiosks-dodging-the-super-bowl-trademark-2011-2#ixzz1O7E1h52l

They could probably have gotten away with "Win a free tablet computer" as the prize.
 

Apple as control freak throughout time and space

[hexagonc]

It's amazing how consistently Apple acts like a control freak. It can't just be Steve Jobs because this is a trait that seems to permeate the company at all levels. Any Apple employees want to confirm? I can just imagine what the hiring process for new managers would be like. No technical expertise required, just this: "Do you support a firm and controlling management style for customers, partners, friends, colleagues and those that report to you? Oh, you do? Well, then you're hired!"

yeah right..

[SuperDre]

And how are they gonna enforce it, as it's not illegal for a thirdparty to give away an iPad/iPod/iPhone/whatever.. Apple has no say in anything what a thirdparty does with the Apple product.. Screw Apple for trying to limit people what they can do with their product.. As far as I'm concerned the last good apple product was the Apple ][, the rest is just ripped stuff courtesy of asshole Steve Jobs..

Keep this up Apple...

[DiEx-15]

You know, I have never had a problem with Apple till now. At this rate, Apple could exceed Microsoft's and Facebook's level of evil...

Oh wait, too late...

Guns

[ff1324]

If Smith & Wesson put forth a policy stating gun users may not use guns to kill people, that would eliminate all firearm homicides, right?

Well, according to The Steve's legal eagles anyway...

There is a precedent

[Radicals]

This isn't the first time I've seen something like this. Back in the heyday of Palm, if you had a reseller agreement with them, you had to agree to the same condition: no "buy a computer, get a free Palm" type giveaways.

I agree with the others that said that Apple (and Palm) are just trying to avoid devaluing the product in the eyes of consumers. And I'm sure, like Palm, they couldn't and wouldn't try to enforce this on anyone who wasn't an authorized reseller.

First sales doctrine...?

[RichiH]

wtf?

But then, this is Apple.