Apple Loses Claim For False Advertising Regarding Amazon "App Store"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Loses Claim For False Advertising Regarding Amazon "App Store"

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 3, 2013 @08:09PM from the apps-for-everyone dept.

An anonymous reader writes a court has dismissed Apple's allegations that Amazon's use of the "app store" phrase constituted false advertising. "Apple's efforts to protect its intellectual property sometimes result in lawsuits that leave even the most ardent of Apple fans scratching their heads. One such suit was Apple's March 2011 lawsuit against Amazon over the retailer's use of the phrase 'app store' as used in its Amazon Appstore for Android. "

138 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

i is for idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 20:17 · Score: 0, Funny

Intel still takes the cake on this kind of bullshit from when they tried to patent the letter i.
1. Re:i is for idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 20:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Apple is for Asshole
2. Re:i is for idiot. by rgbrenner · 2013-01-03 21:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You're thinking of Apple:
  http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mp3s/apples-future-wont-be-brought-to-you-by-the-letter-i-20100312-q27r.html
  Hey have you ever seen a "leaf"? Apple just trademarked it:
  http://www.webpronews.com/apples-trademark-applications-are-getting-kind-of-ridiculous-2012-12
  I would have never thought of that. Guess that's why Apple's #1
3. Re:i is for idiot. by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-03 23:03 · Score: 2
  
  You're thinking of Apple:
  No, he *sn't
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
4. Re:i is for idiot. by rgbrenner · 2013-01-03 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Right.. because "inside" is the same as the letter i (as the op said).
  Those extra letters don't count?
5. Re:i is for idiot. by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-03 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Right.. because "inside" is the same as the letter i (as the op said).
  Those extra letters don't count?
  So you can't read - is there something else you want us to know?
  "Intel tried and failed some years ago to trademark the letter "i" and the numbers "486" and "586"
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
6. Re:i is for idiot. by TrancePhreak · 2013-01-04 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Difference is Intel asked whereas Apple just starts suing. It also says Intel offered to pay for a new fancy sign. Article even calls it a "no bully" move. Perhaps read your link more carefully next time?
  
  --
  
  -]Phreak Out[-
7. Re:i is for idiot. by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Difference is Intel asked whereas Apple just starts suing.
  No, the difference is that Intel keeps suing everyone who uses "intel" anywhere - IOW there is no difference. But nice try to change the topic.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Consequences by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-03 20:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why are there no severe consequences for bringing these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits? Shouldn't Amazon at least get all their legal fees paid?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 21:25 · Score: 0
  
  The we-patented-one-click-to-buy amazon? If you had justice in mind, they should be hit with whatever frivolous lawsuit one can think of.
2. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-03 22:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why are there no severe consequences for bringing these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits? Shouldn't Amazon at least get all their legal fees paid?
  IF it were actually Frivolous, that might be possible.
  
  However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else. The name was "catchy" enough to resonate with Consumers. IANAL, and I haven't read the decision, but I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able, as it was not being used by anyone before Apple.
3. Re:Consequences by Skapare · 2013-01-03 22:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs? I most certainly would. Maybe for Amazon the multi-million dollar cost of this suit is a minor amount. But for many people, even just a ten thousand dollar lawsuit can be most of what they have.
  This is one reason lots of people don't even show up in court when sued. This is one reason the courts end up with so many bad judgments because they always favor the party that showed up.
  This is just wrong because it is very unfair.
  But even having the losing party pay doesn't always work, and it doesn't do a very good job of making things fair.
  I propose the following. Create a litigation finance pool that is covered through corporate taxes (without any loopholes). Every corporation or other business pays into this pool. When they are involved in litigation, it gets covered by this pool. Yes, I know this is so open for abuses, so it most certainly needs to be very strictly monitored. The winner gets their legal costs covered from the pool. The loser does not.
  The above applies to all cases involving a business on either side. A separate pool funded through a wider tax base is for people to people cases. This is not a perfect solution. But what we have now is certainly not perfect, either, and is actually worse.
  Frivolous lawsuits need to result in jail time.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
4. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  "without any loopholes" - good luck with that.
  I'd also want the loser if they also initiated the lawsuit to not only cover their own costs, but pay double the other parties cost into the pool.
5. Re:Consequences by thegarbz · 2013-01-04 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just simply adopting the loser pays all costs scenario the rest of the world uses would do just fine too.
  Also abolishing summary judgements for no shows would be a start too. Just because someone doesn't show up doesn't mean automatically that the opposing argument isn't complete bullshit.
6. Re:Consequences by sarysa · 2013-01-04 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they can win this because ____ store has a special place in the English language (and likely trademark law) as a generic entity. Market (formerly used by Android) does as well, by the way. General store, camera store, cell phone store, shoe store, 99 cent store, clothing store, grocery store, the list goes on. App is a generic term for application that did not originate with Apple. Any generic term with "store" placed in front of it is also generic.
  
  Now, Sony Store, Microsoft Store, Apple App Store, Amazon Appstore, Android Market, etc are all trademarkable because the non-generic company names have been affixed to the label.
  
  --
  Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
7. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  Here in the rest of the world the loser usually has to pay legal costs to the winner and there are various costs scales set by the law society/bar council. So the more frivolousness a law suit the worse the costs. Even withdrawing a lawsuit too close to the court date can see an order for costs.
  Its a long way from perfect but it cuts down on most of the worst of the troll law suites which I think is why the US lawyers seems to lobby against it.
8. Re:Consequences by __aaqvdr516 · 2013-01-04 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=340
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but from the tone of your other posts in this tread I'm thinking you're not. Apple attempted to rewrite computer history with this lawsuit and they were correctly dismissed. They should be hit with frivolous lawsuit fees.
9. Re:Consequences by SourceFrog · 2013-01-04 01:15 · Score: 2
  
  I propose the following. Create a litigation finance pool that is covered through corporate taxes ... When they are involved in litigation, it gets covered by this pool
  Wow, a million lawyers just sprung erections and drooled all over themselves.
  This really won't work well, as it creates an immediate moral hazard ... lawyers will conintually be trying to dip in and keep themselves busy earning a living off someone else's dime. The costs of the administration of such a fund would be huge and the true costs of litigation would be rendered opaque due to the complexity, actual costs will no longer even be clear.
  I'm not sure what to offer as an alternative solution but I think we could come up with better/smarter solutions if we tried.
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
10. Re:Consequences by Mathness · 2013-01-04 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  It can be made a whole lot simpler. If you sue, you pay for the defence as well (at a similar rate) if the defendant can not afford it.
  
  --
  Carbon based humanoid in training.
11. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else.
  No, not even close. The domain theappstore.com was registered by an Australian company fully a year before Apple's App Store opened, and it's safe to say that at least a couple of companies had used the term prior to that. The iOS App Store resonated with consumers because it provided additional functionality for a really popular piece of hardware, not because the name was somehow special.
  
  I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able
  Even if you were correct about Apple being the first user of the mark, it should not have been possible to trademark it. The words "App Store" are descriptive. It would be like trademarking the word "Book Store" because you were the first store that sold only books. A store that sells apps is an app store. Period.
  If you allow a trademark to exist on what is basically the only term (other than the longer-form synonym, "application store") that adequately describes a whole category of stores, you would effectively be preventing other stores that sell apps (on any platform) from existing usefully, because no one would be able to describe them without violating that trademark.
12. Re:Consequences by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they can win this because ____ store has a special place in the English language (and likely trademark law) as a generic entity.
  And yet there are hundreds of active trademarks containing the word "store" (and all of them also the disclaimer 'NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "STORE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN').
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
13. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  So I take your patented stuff, copy it and sell it on for more or less cost, so I can't afford a defence...
14. Re:Consequences by JosKarith · 2013-01-04 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  A simpler solution - shoot all the lawyers.
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
15. Re:Consequences by sarysa · 2013-01-04 02:32 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I guess tl;dr applies to posts that are longer than one sentence.
  
  --
  Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
16. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Cool, I wander who holds the trademarks on Grocery Store, Clothing Store, and Shoe Store. Oh wait, nobody cause that is ridiculous.
17. Re:Consequences by DrEldarion · 2013-01-04 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  App Store should not be trademarkable, unless you also believe that "Shoe Store", "Grocery Store", "Hardware Store", etc. also should be. It's a store where you buy apps. Of course it's going to be called an app store.
18. Re:Consequences by Nyder · 2013-01-04 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs?
  Actually, I would think it should be a cause for a mistrial since the rich person is using unfair tactics against you. For example, lets say I was to be taken to court by one of the AA's. There is no way I could get a fair trial because I do NOT have the money they do. They can keep throwing money at the trial, delaying it, appealing it, etc way beyond what I, or any normal person could do. That isn't right. That is using money to buy the outcome you want.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
19. Re:Consequences by emho24 · 2013-01-04 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Now if they wanted to trademark the full phrase "Apple App Store" or "The Apple App Store", more power to them. Otherwise too bad.
  
  --
  You must gather your party before venturing forth.
20. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Then you will be found guilty and get the usual punishment in such cases which also includes the cost of the trial. You don't suddenly get off free for doing that. Europe have a system almost like it, where the state will pay for the lawyer, but if you loose the judge can decide to have you pay for the defence or for both sides.
21. Re:Consequences by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs?
  Actually, I would think it should be a cause for a mistrial since the rich person is using unfair tactics against you. For example, lets say I was to be taken to court by one of the AA's. There is no way I could get a fair trial because I do NOT have the money they do. They can keep throwing money at the trial, delaying it, appealing it, etc way beyond what I, or any normal person could do. That isn't right. That is using money to buy the outcome you want.
  Ahh, so you're saying that you should be allowed to do anything to anyone richer than you without legal consequences, because any legal action would be unfair against you. Unless your action made you richer than the other of course.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
22. Re:Consequences by sarysa · 2013-01-04 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not troll. I addressed this person's point in the rest of my post. I even said stuff like "Sony Store", "Apple App Store" (in full), etc was trademarkable. But you can't trademark something like "celery store" against someone else who only sells celery. Hell, someone could sell only apples and call it an "Apple Store", though Apple would surely make their life a living hell with lawsuits. (they'd lose if it drew to a conclusion, but Apple would most likely successfully scare the apple vendor)
  
  --
  Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
23. Re:Consequences by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  shoestore.com (logo) - live
  THE SHOE STORE - ABANDONED
  GROCERY STORES - ABANDONED
  THE HARDWARE STORE (logo) - live
  All of them have at least been tried to be trademarked. As logos at least they worked.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
24. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  If they have jail time or heavy fines for the lawyers, then these law suits would disappear. Seeing that most politicians making laws are themselves lawyers, chances of that happening are nil.
25. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately, this system still doesn't even slightly touch upon the 'big' problem with the legal system... whoever has the most money wins.
  So therefore, if you're some random schlub against a company, you're not only absolutely guaranteed to lose, but you have to pay for all of the legal costs of a dozen high-priced lawyers.
  Honestly, if I found myself in that situation, even if I was absolutely 100% correct, I still wouldn't show up in court, just to have my life trashed for several months before becoming poor and having 98% of my wages garnished for the rest of my natural life. I'd send a letter to the courts, preferably showing up several days before I'm due to show up, explaining exactly the above, and then just live on the run from the law. Given the choice between running from the law and the absolute certainty that my life is ruined immediatly if I show up, I'll go with the one where I might actually get a bit more time before my life is ruined.
26. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure if you're trolling or not.
  If you've been living under a rock for the past decade or so, it's understandable, but y'see... there's currently this big, MASSIVE problem with the legal system, where the winner is dictated by whoever has the highest-priced lawyers that can use loopholes and legal-speak to make the jury do whatever the hell they want.
  You might recall the judgement a while back for the RIAA where downloading... I think it was 24 songs... could have ended with the downloader paying more money than the GDP of earth to the RIAA. It was eventually dropped down to a more "reasonable" number... by reasonable, I mean "an amount that actually physically exists". It was still at least 3 orders of magnitude, possibly more, since if I recall it ended up being over a million dollars. For downloading a CD worth of songs. For personal, non-profit use.
  So y'see, THAT'S where the problem kinda lies. The law doesn't apply to the rich. The RIAA are selling and litigating over songs they don't even legally have the license for. With million dollar lawyers. Which in case you forgot, the lower caste doesn't have access to in the real world.
  But I'm tired of replying to a (from your other posts in this topic, I assume 12 year old) troll. If anyone else wants a swing, go for it.
27. Re:Consequences by spire3661 · 2013-01-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  You'll pardon me as I use your name to discount your entire post.
  
  --
  Good-bye
28. Re:Consequences by TrancePhreak · 2013-01-04 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Apple was very late to the game. I remember devices coming with Handango. I think my Moto RZR had it as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_distribution_platforms_for_mobile_devices
  
  --
  
  -]Phreak Out[-
29. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, this system still doesn't even slightly touch upon the 'big' problem with the legal system... whoever has the most money wins.
  So therefore, if you're some random schlub against a company, you're not only absolutely guaranteed to lose, but you have to pay for all of the legal costs of a dozen high-priced lawyers.
  Honestly, if I found myself in that situation, even if I was absolutely 100% correct, I still wouldn't show up in court, just to have my life trashed for several months before becoming poor and having 98% of my wages garnished for the rest of my natural life. I'd send a letter to the courts, preferably showing up several days before I'm due to show up, explaining exactly the above, and then just live on the run from the law. Given the choice between running from the law and the absolute certainty that my life is ruined immediatly if I show up, I'll go with the one where I might actually get a bit more time before my life is ruined.
  Exactly. So-called "Loser Pays" (known in legal circles as "The Englsh Rule"), as distinguished from "Pay Your Own Costs" (a/k/a "The American Rule"), pretty much has all the disadvantages of the American Rule, with the added "benefit" (that is, to the well-heeled litigant) that if they simply wear down the less well-endowed party, they not only win a Judgment, but also AUTOMATICALLY win their costs.
  
  At least with the American Rule, the litigant who is "worn down" by the other side can simply call it quits, and not be DOUBLY "punished" for simply trying.
  
  Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, it is VERY important to keep in mind that there are always exceptions made for litigants who file COMPLETELY frivolous litigation. In those cases, judges can (and do) charge the costs to the frivolous litigant, and can even impose Sanctions on the Party (and/or their counsel), as well. But always remember: Just because a lawsuit is basically "hopeless", doesn't mean it is frivolous and vexatious litigation.
30. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Just simply adopting the loser pays all costs scenario the rest of the world uses would do just fine too.
  Also abolishing summary judgements for no shows would be a start too. Just because someone doesn't show up doesn't mean automatically that the opposing argument isn't complete bullshit.
  You mean "Default Judgments". And those are fairly easy to have "set aside" if you can show you didn't receive actual (as opposed to "Constructive") Notice. Also, if the "Notice" was by "Publication", Courts will almost always give you a "do-over" if you then later "show up".
  
  However, if you do away with Default Judgments, no one would even bother to Answer a Civil Complaint against them. Why should they?
31. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=340
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but from the tone of your other posts in this tread I'm thinking you're not. Apple attempted to rewrite computer history with this lawsuit and they were correctly dismissed. They should be hit with frivolous lawsuit fees.
  What Computer History would that be? Point out another venture called an "App Store" (specifically) before Apple.
32. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else.
  No, not even close. The domain theappstore.com was registered by an Australian company fully a year before Apple's App Store opened, and it's safe to say that at least a couple of companies had used the term prior to that. The iOS App Store resonated with consumers because it provided additional functionality for a really popular piece of hardware, not because the name was somehow special.
  
  I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able
  Even if you were correct about Apple being the first user of the mark, it should not have been possible to trademark it. The words "App Store" are descriptive. It would be like trademarking the word "Book Store" because you were the first store that sold only books. A store that sells apps is an app store. Period.
  If you allow a trademark to exist on what is basically the only term (other than the longer-form synonym, "application store") that adequately describes a whole category of stores, you would effectively be preventing other stores that sell apps (on any platform) from existing usefully, because no one would be able to describe them without violating that trademark.
  A Domain Name is not a Trademark. That's a straw man.
  
  The PHRASE "App Store" SHOULD be Trade-Mark-able; partially because "App" is NOT a WORD. This in no way impedes trade (at least no more than any trademark does); because calling another venture an "Application Store" IS Generic; but "App Store" is not. If you can show me a Corporate Entity (or in fact ANY business) with the SPECIFIC Name "App Store" in existence before Apple's, then I'm listening. Otherwise, STFU.
33. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Cool, I wander who holds the trademarks on Grocery Store, Clothing Store, and Shoe Store. Oh wait, nobody cause that is ridiculous.
  If the "word" "App" was in fact a word, you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.
34. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yikes another pool of money for lawyers ! I am not saying I have an answer but lawyers would see all that money and say its meant for us anyway.
35. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  You'll pardon me as I use your name to discount your entire post.
  Many idiots do. It's called an ad Hominem attack, and is the last refuge of the debater with no true points to argue.
36. Re:Consequences by Algae_94 · 2013-01-04 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  And I should be able to trademark the term "Clothing Store" for my store that sells clothing.
  
  App is a reasonable abbreviation for application, a standard product name. An "App store" sells apps.
37. Re:Consequences by spire3661 · 2013-01-04 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Your name exposes a certain bias, that when weighted with your comments lends doubt to your objectivity, which i expressed quite eloquently above. It is ironic that you accuse me of ad-hominem attack with an ad-hominem.
  
  Sent from my mac mini
  
  --
  Good-bye
38. Re:Consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  App is, however, an abbreviation of a generic word, and an abbreviation that was in use long before the App Store existed. Likewise, a store called "PC Store" can't be trademarked because even though PC isn't a word either, it's still an abbreviation of a common term.
  Even the article points out:
  
  Jobs repeatedly made reference to "app stores" that existed outside of Apple's iTunes App Store.
  "So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
  Even though Android's app store was called Android Market, and is currently called Google Play, the term is so generic that even Steve Jobs couldn't stop himself from referring to them as an app store.
39. Re:Consequences by thegarbz · 2013-01-04 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  How about not abolishing completely? Many Civil Complaints are completely frivolous (at least where I live). Heck our neighbour sued us because we refused to pay for half of a fence. He filed the wrong paperwork, built the wrong fence, and for the wrong reasons. We didn't even say anything in court. We just turned up and won. The judge too one look at a picture of the fence and decided we shouldn't have to pay for the neighbours desire to build a huge mansion in an otherwise very ordinary street.
  Funny part is we offered him 1/5th of the cost as settlement beforehand (which was the half the cost of putting in the same chicken wire fence we had), and he left with nothing. Yet if we hadn't shown up he would likely have won.
40. Re:Consequences by Aighearach · 2013-01-04 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not troll.
  Quit trolling, and
  GET
  OFF
  THE LAWN
41. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  And I should be able to trademark the term "Clothing Store" for my store that sells clothing. App is a reasonable abbreviation for application, a standard product name. An "App store" sells apps.
  Not so fast there, buddy!
  
  Apparently, the Federal Circuits are DEEPLY divided on this particular subject.
  
  I smell a SCOTUS case coming in 3... 2... 1..
42. Re:Consequences by Nyder · 2013-01-04 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs?
  Actually, I would think it should be a cause for a mistrial since the rich person is using unfair tactics against you. For example, lets say I was to be taken to court by one of the AA's. There is no way I could get a fair trial because I do NOT have the money they do. They can keep throwing money at the trial, delaying it, appealing it, etc way beyond what I, or any normal person could do. That isn't right. That is using money to buy the outcome you want.
  Ahh, so you're saying that you should be allowed to do anything to anyone richer than you without legal consequences, because any legal action would be unfair against you. Unless your action made you richer than the other of course.
  No, what i am saying is the rich corporations are unfairly using the courts high cost to win cases they shouldn't be winning, and because they know they can win by stretching out the cost, this is how they choose to fight in court. The big corporations will keep court cases going if they don't like the judgement, that's been in the news left and right. When they lose, they appeal it and drag it out.
  It's an unfair advantage because they can buy the decisions they want, just by spending more money then the other person.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
43. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Your name exposes a certain bias, that when weighted with your comments lends doubt to your objectivity, which i expressed quite eloquently above. It is ironic that you accuse me of ad-hominem attack with an ad-hominem. Sent from my mac mini
  I freely admit to bias; but facts is facts. If you can refute my facts, then by all means do so. But otherwise, your ad Hominem attack actually makes you, not me, appear to hold the weaker position, and would be losing this debate.
  
  Also, the basic premise of your comment, above, is fatally flawed, to wit: I did not attack you directly; hence, by definition, not an "ad Hominem" (which my Latin-language-taught brain cells translate to "to (about) the person"); rather, I attacked an oblique Class (Idiots). Then I stated that these hypothetical "Idiots" would use ad Hominem attacks in the absence of compelling facts and argument.
  
  It seems that it is you with the "Transference" problem. ...And, apparently, an utter lack of cogent facts and argument as well.
  
  Otherwise, why wouldn't you just "show me" how wrong I was? I'll wait...
44. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  App is, however, an abbreviation of a generic word, and an abbreviation that was in use long before the App Store existed. Likewise, a store called "PC Store" can't be trademarked because even though PC isn't a word either, it's still an abbreviation of a common term.
  Even the article points out:
  
  Jobs repeatedly made reference to "app stores" that existed outside of Apple's iTunes App Store.
  "So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
  Even though Android's app store was called Android Market, and is currently called Google Play, the term is so generic that even Steve Jobs couldn't stop himself from referring to them as an app store.
  So what? Doesn't NECCESSARILY mean it's not Trade-Markable. There is actually considerable dissension amongst the various Federal Circuits on this VERY subject. I posted a link to a really nice study on this elsewhere in these comments. Check it out. I think this may be headed to SCOTUS.
45. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  How about not abolishing completely? Many Civil Complaints are completely frivolous (at least where I live). Heck our neighbour sued us because we refused to pay for half of a fence. He filed the wrong paperwork, built the wrong fence, and for the wrong reasons. We didn't even say anything in court. We just turned up and won. The judge too one look at a picture of the fence and decided we shouldn't have to pay for the neighbours desire to build a huge mansion in an otherwise very ordinary street.
  Funny part is we offered him 1/5th of the cost as settlement beforehand (which was the half the cost of putting in the same chicken wire fence we had), and he left with nothing. Yet if we hadn't shown up he would likely have won.
  So you won on the merits of the case, and you're whining???
46. Re:Consequences by thegarbz · 2013-01-04 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  No I'm whining that the merits of the case were obvious with only one party showed up to court. The winning party didn't say anything yet had to take a day off work for these proceedings.
  Automatically awarding a case to the only party that shows up doesn't make sense in a frivolous lawsuit. The clerk at the filing desk could have told the guy that he wouldn't win.
47. Re:Consequences by macs4all · 2013-01-04 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  No I'm whining that the merits of the case were obvious with only one party showed up to court. The winning party didn't say anything yet had to take a day off work for these proceedings.
  Automatically awarding a case to the only party that shows up doesn't make sense in a frivolous lawsuit. The clerk at the filing desk could have told the guy that he wouldn't win.
  Likely not. They cannot "dispense legal advice".
C is for consumer by Stonefish · 2013-01-03 20:45 · Score: -1, Flamebait

C is for consumers that support this behaviour. Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions. Apple is at the apogee of their corporate life and they are using the legal system to stay there as long as possible because they are no longer capable of innovation. Here's a bet apple's share price will plummet over the next three years as they completely fail to innovate and vainly try to use the legal system as a club against competitors.
1. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  Does anyone know how to use derivatives or other financial products to use this intel?
2. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Apple's way or the highway
3. Re:C is for consumer by Tough+Love · 2013-01-03 20:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes. Buy Amazon. It's called "going long".
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
4. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's already started, for the past year they've done nothing but ride the high of their earlier success. Resorting to this kind of tactics instead of better marketing and improving relationships with other companies, tells us one more thing. They have nothing in the works.
5. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  Have to agree. Apple seems to be making some really careless mistakes / decisions of late. Antenna, Camera, Maps, Adaptor/Port woes etc. These have been big enough problems to make non-technical users complain about the phones. Their public relations team are not really helping them out either, telling people to hold their phones differently, to retake photos at different angles, etc. The advice might be accurate but it's an obvious cop out and users are only going to put up with so much before they switch to a product without the faults.
6. Re:C is for consumer by mangu · 2013-01-03 22:00 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Start by reading this book.
  This one is somewhat simpler and easier to read, but it still is a very good and useful introduction to the market.
  There's no big deal in making money in the market, the simple fact is that, like in any other profession, you must learn the trade before you get in.
  People like those "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters preaching about the market are like the pope preaching about sex. You must try to learn about things before you can have an opinion on them.
7. Re:C is for consumer by wonkey_monkey · 2013-01-03 22:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions.
  And anyone who uses ReiserFS is an accessory to murder!
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
8. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-03 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  C is for consumers that support this behaviour. Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions. Apple is at the apogee of their corporate life and they are using the legal system to stay there as long as possible because they are no longer capable of innovation
  Wait. I thought that the /, meme was that Apple never innovated anything.
  
  So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.
  
  Idiots.
9. Re:C is for consumer by node+3 · 2013-01-03 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  If people are complicit in the actions of the corporations they buy from, then most people are guilty of far worse offenses than losing a lawsuit.
  But I do need to question your logic to begin with. If you buy something from me, then I go commit a crime, you are guilty? Doesn't it make more sense to lay the blame at the people who are actually in charge of the entity involved, and the actual actors in the "offense" under discussion?
10. Re:C is for consumer by Skapare · 2013-01-03 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Using money to abuse the system, and abuse consumers, is what is wrong. And the OWS movement did focus on that, despite so many members being so completely ignorant about it. But in a way that shows the problem. Most people ARE ignorant about these things. Most people are ignorant about computers, so many of those who are not so ignorant end up trying to make computers easier to use. We don't seem to get that out of the legal system (legislative and judicial). This unfairness is just out of place in modern society and so it need to be outlawed.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
11. Re:C is for consumer by Tough+Love · 2013-01-03 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  He meant to say "Apple is the apothesis of utter corporate filth"
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
12. Re:C is for consumer by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-03 23:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  People like those "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters preaching about the market are like the pope preaching about sex. You must try to learn about things before you can have an opinion on them.
  Uhh. Considering the boneheaded mistakes "Wall Street" has made in the last decade, maybe its them who should finally learn their trade.
  Remember it wasn't the "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters that caused the global economy to collapse.
  But then, maybe everything went as planned, and at least some of the Wall Street people successfully played "the market" with this.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
13. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-03 23:20 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  It's already started, for the past year they've done nothing but ride the high of their earlier success. Resorting to this kind of tactics instead of better marketing and improving relationships with other companies, tells us one more thing. They have nothing in the works.
  No. Nothing at all...
  
  Just:
  
  New Desktops and Laptops with the highest-resolution displays on the planet.
  
  New "Fusion" hybrid SSD/Spinning-Platter Drives for these new computers, with innovative support baked into OS X. TWO new generations of 10" iPad.
  
  iPad mini.
  
  iPhone 5.
  
  New iPod Touch
  
  Completely New iPod Nano
  
  Entirely new (and innovative) position-agnostic connector system for all their mobile devices. along with several adapters for VGA output, etc.
  
  New, improved Earbuds.
  
  New version of OS X (Mountain Lion), with over 200 New Features.
  
  New version of iOS (6), with over 200 New Features (and, yes, unfortuately, Apple Maps...). Unlike Android, iOS 6 is immediately available for several generations of devices, all the way back to iPhone 3GS, and the iPad 2.
  
  And I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff...
  
  And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
14. Re:C is for consumer by gmack · 2013-01-04 00:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.
  The "fusion" drives are standard hybrid drives that use flash as the cache for the spinning media. Support is not baked into OS X and everything they described in the link you listed are functions provided by the drive firmware. The fact that they make it seem like OS X is doing anything for this at all is just laughable since I could throw the drive into a windows 2000 system and still have everything in that paragraph still apply.
  I guess they finally realized their earbuds were terrible but the replacement doesn't look like it would be anywhere near as good as my Sennheiser ear canal set.
15. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade.
  There is nothing worse than being the kid whose Mom couldn't afford real Kool-Aid.
16. Re:C is for consumer by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.
  Apple's Retina Display Patent Comes to Light
  On June 28, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals a system and method to improve image edge discoloration. Yet at the heart of the patent, Apple states that "some embodiments of the LCD panel may be a model of the Retina display, available from Apple Inc."
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
17. Re:C is for consumer by mangu · 2013-01-04 02:48 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  it wasn't the "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters that caused the global economy to collapse.
  It was the regulations that created a bubble in the housing market that caused it, which amounts to the same thing. People who know nothing about financial markets trying to manipulate things. It's not "Wall Street" that makes mistakes, it's the politicians who try to regulate it who cause shit to happen.
  
  But then, maybe everything went as planned, and at least some of the Wall Street people successfully played "the market" with this.
  Of course they did. When you apply the principles mentioned in the books I posted above, which a couple of dimwit moderators termed "flamebait", it doesn't matter if the market plunges, you are out by then.
  You only lose in the market if you ignore the signs it gives. A good investor knows how to detect early signs that the market is going down and cuts his losses in time to avoid the worst of it. By correctly applying the technical analysis of the market you may not win every time, but when you lose it will be a small loss, when you win it's a big win, in the end it averages in your favor.
  The first methodical studies of market dynamics were done by Charles Dow in the late nineteenth century. Since then there have been many people who studied the behavior of te market with mathematical tools. The only people who lose money in the market are those who try to play it without knowing the tools.
  As in every other human activity, ignorance is a hindrance.
  However, what is different in financial markets, is that so many people pretend to know something about it without going to the trouble of learning the basics. Why is it that OWS and other people think they have the right to point out the supposed shortcomings of the market if they don't know shit about it?
  We all need money to live, knowledge about finances and the way markets work should be a basic requirement for everyone.
18. Re:C is for consumer by PoopMonkey · 2013-01-04 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
  You have a more liberal definition of "done deal" than the rest of the world, methinks. One word: maps. Unless in that case you think a done deal is "sub-part mapping software circa 2001"
19. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  At least do a little research before you make a fool of yourself. Fusion drive is absolutely not an off-the-shelf hybrid drive, and the support is baked into the OS.
  http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/apple-fusion-drive-wait-what-how-does-this-work/
20. Re:C is for consumer by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  it wasn't the "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters that caused the global economy to collapse.
  It was the regulations that created a bubble in the housing market that caused it, which amounts to the same thing.
  Even if the regulation allowed it, it was greed, ruthlessness and carelessness that made the people responsible give out loads risky loans in the hope their scheme would work out by putting the risk into bundles, completely ignoring the (all too obvious in hindsight) risk of a domino effect.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
21. Re:C is for consumer by mangu · 2013-01-04 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  it was greed, ruthlessness and carelessness
  You sound like the pope talking about masturbation. Yes, it's a sin, according to your opinion.
  It was the policies enacted during the Clinton government that created the situation that led to the bubble in real estate.
  
  by putting the risk into bundles, completely ignoring the (all too obvious in hindsight) risk of a domino effect.
  What "puts the risk into bundles" is a Government-Sponsored Enterprise. It's not the "greedy, ruthless, careless" bankers that do it. It's the democratically elected federal government of the United States who is responsible for that.
22. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.
  Did he say it was both?
23. Re:C is for consumer by spire3661 · 2013-01-04 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I have full suite of Apple gear(mac mini, ipad 2, iphone 4S, ATV2) on the maxim "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer"
  
  --
  Good-bye
24. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  All of the mortgage backed securities that were full of subprime loans but got rated triple-A instead of triple-B had nothing to do with the government sponsored enterprises or Clinton's regulations. Try reading "The Big Short"... it goes into a lot of detail about how the ratings agencies had no idea what was in these bonds they were rating with a "score" that then got invested into by pensions and other groups.
  And unfortunately so much of America things that Wall Street's performance matters that we then supported these investments houses rather than just letting them collapse and the DOW plummet. Who cares about the stock market? Yet we hear every day on the news about the performance that day of the DOW and S&P as if that matters on a daily basis.
  Paul
25. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the markets were stable for 30 years after WWII. It was after Reagan and presidents after him started DEREGULATING because of Wall Street lobbying, the markets went to shit.
26. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  When the DOW drops, I smile to myself thinking of all the scum-of-the-earth bankers crying their eyes out, and I hope for suicides.
  Macabre, sure, but fuck 'em. Like, really, fuck 'em all.
27. Re:C is for consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, I think I saw this ad on the Glenn Beck show! Right between commercials for buying gold and for buying seed banks to survive the apocalypse.
28. Re:C is for consumer by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-01-04 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest looking at their P/E ratio first, however.
29. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  He meant to say "Apple is the antithesis of utter corporate filth".
  
  FTFY.
30. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.
  The "fusion" drives are standard hybrid drives that use flash as the cache for the spinning media. Support is not baked into OS X and everything they described in the link you listed are functions provided by the drive firmware. The fact that they make it seem like OS X is doing anything for this at all is just laughable since I could throw the drive into a windows 2000 system and still have everything in that paragraph still apply.
  I guess they finally realized their earbuds were terrible but the replacement doesn't look like it would be anywhere near as good as my Sennheiser ear canal set.
  No, they caused those displays to be created. They went to their "glass" Vendor with a design, and had that Vendor (Samsung, I think) FABRICATE their Design. They don't fabricate their ARM-based "A"-Series SoC chips, either; but they most assuredly designed them.
  
  As for the Fusion drives, are you actually postulating that the DRIVE ITSELF is moving file around? If so, then why did Phil Schiller say that it was OS X that was watching the user habits, and doing the moving? I'm pretty sure he said exactly that. And in fact, as this Ars article shows, this is a form of "auto-tiering", which is a technique employed in large data storage arrays. Read, THEN Post. What you are mistaking this for is simple caching. This is more, and DOES involve the cooperation of at least a part of the OS.
  
  As for the "EarPod" Earbuds, this was actually something like the THIRD re-design. Are they Audiophile material? Hardly; but they are significantly better, especially in the bass region; and I submit they are now at least on-par with any other, and significantly better than, the other "freebie" earbuds included with similar devices from other manufacturers. By the way, Apple is under no allusions as to the quality if their earbuds; otherwise, why would they offer several other Third-Party earbuds and headphones in their stores?
31. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade.
  There is nothing worse than being the kid whose Mom couldn't afford real Kool-Aid.
  But better than the Mom who gave their kids Strawberry Flavor-Aid...
  
  What? Too soon?
32. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".
  You have a more liberal definition of "done deal" than the rest of the world, methinks. One word: maps. Unless in that case you think a done deal is "sub-part mapping software circa 2001"
  No, it is you that seems to have an alternate definition for "done deal" than the rest of us. Everyone else who read my comments knew that what I meant was "Ready to be REVEALED". It does not confer a warranty of merchantability nor fitness of purpose. Learn English next time.
33. Re:C is for consumer by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-04 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  it was greed, ruthlessness and carelessness
  You sound like the pope talking about masturbation.
  At least I don't sound like a moron. Bye.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
34. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Don't mean to respond to my own post; but necessary for clarification.
  
  I realized after I clicked Submit that Done Deal actually denotes something that is considered "already decided", or "unavoidable".
35. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.
  Did he say it was both?
  Why yes, yes he did.
36. Re:C is for consumer by Algae_94 · 2013-01-04 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, "macs4all" is a totally unbiased user.
  
  I notice that a lot of your listed items are things that have already been released. I don't see how that refutes a claim that they have nothing in the works.
37. Re:C is for consumer by Aighearach · 2013-01-04 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  I felt dirty just seeing it in the list of options.
38. Re:C is for consumer by Tough+Love · 2013-01-04 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  He meant to say "Apple corporate sphincter is utterly filthy".
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
39. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, "macs4all" is a totally unbiased user. I notice that a lot of your listed items are things that have already been released. I don't see how that refutes a claim that they have nothing in the works.
  Oooo, another ad Hominem attack. Way to start a compelling argument...
  
  I guess you didn't notice that I was replying to the GGP's claim that Apple "for the PAST YEAR...", nor did you notice my (obviously true) statement that typically NO ONE outside of Apple and others under NDA knows what they "...have in the works."
  
  Fucking children. Learn to read...
40. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  He meant to say "Apple corporate sphincter is utterly filthy".
  I only had to change one word...
41. Re:C is for consumer by Tough+Love · 2013-01-04 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you need to clean your sphincter
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
42. Re:C is for consumer by macs4all · 2013-01-04 18:36 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you need to clean your sphincter
  That's ok. Your mother has that job licked.
43. Re:C is for consumer by Tough+Love · 2013-01-04 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  I totally understand that your sphincter does not smell bad to you, after all, you're willing to use Apple products.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
So is 'App Store' safe to use now? by detain · 2013-01-03 21:06 · Score: 1

So with this ruling does it mean its safe for the rest of us to use App Store or will we still have to worry about going up against Apple in court?

--
http://interserver.net/
1. Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 21:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So with this ruling does it mean its safe for the rest of us to use App Store or will we still have to worry about going up against Apple in court?
  Situation unchanged. They still won't have a leg to stand on but they'll still be able to sure anyway and it'll still cost you a fortune.
2. Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  Should be good...
  Unless you're outside of the US; or
  Unless case matters... "app store" != "App Store"
  And remember (as per the article) the ruling only applied to the false advertising claims; the trademark infringement issue case continues :)
3. Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? by moronoxyd · 2013-01-03 22:43 · Score: 2
  
  So with this ruling does it mean its safe for the rest of us to use App Store or will we still have to worry about going up against Apple in court?
  Not yet.
  So far only the claim that Amazon was doing false advertisment was thrown out of court.
  The claim that Amazon infringes the trademark is still to be decided.
4. Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? by Skapare · 2013-01-03 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing has changed with regard to them being able to sue you. What has changed is that you now have a better body of case law to draw on. You better have that attorney ready.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Are they even allowed to sell iPads by Andy+Prough · 2013-01-03 21:09 · Score: 0

in Shenzhen, China yet? Maybe they should deal with the trademark litigation required to get their own products on the shelves before trying to shut everyone else down?
1. Re:Are they even allowed to sell iPads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  You know, Mac OS have been able to truly multitask for quite a while now...
Apple has a problem and they know it by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · 2013-01-03 22:06 · Score: 0, Troll

I would just like to say, with the amount of patents Apple are filing and the lawsuit with Samsung; Apple have been quite devious and covert in their operations. As a company they know they are losing a large customer base and everything they do at the moment just compounds the fact that they cannot be trusted!
Other companies are getting a bigger bite of the Cherry....Not Apple! (No Pun Intended) and Apple have generated ph33r for themselves losing market share.
The CEO of Yahoo Marissa is sooner or later going to have to admit she made a mistake "sharing a bed with Apple and iphones for all Yahoo staff".
This will probably come out in the news over the next two weeks. There is something seriously wrong with Yahoo including siding with law enforcement agencies now and a privacy policy almost worst than Microsoft, Google, Paypal, Facebook.
Well at least I have got that off my chest.
P.S Happy New Year to all the honest people out there,
Love
NSN

--
All cows eat grass!
Let's face it ... by thomst · 2013-01-03 22:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Under Steve Jobs, Apple always was litigious. Tim Cook is just continuing the same strategy - and, long-term, that's pretty much the problem Apple faces.
What I mean by that is that Jobs, whatever you might think of him as a person, was clearly a visionary. He envisioned products for needs that people didn't even know they had, until Apple produced them - and thereby created markets that hadn't previously existed. The problem Apple faces is that Cook is not Jobs. Not even, not by a long stretch. Jobs was a conceptual thinker and a design maven. Cook is a bean counter. His vision is strictly limited to cost control and supply-line dynamics.
So Apple now faces the same problem it had when its Board of Directors kicked Jobs to the curb in the late 1980's, and handed control of the company over to a series of bean-counting "business leaders", instead: a complete lack of product vision on the part of management led to technological stagnation and chronic laurel-resting on the part of the company. Sure, they retained their profit margins ... but their market share and total sales first stagnated, then started dwindling away. By the time the Board hired egomaniac Gilbert Amelio to run the company and HE hired Ellen Hancock (the woman who previously had single-handedly destroyed IBM's PC software division) as Apple's CTO, the best minds at Apple were diving overboard in lemming-like droves.
And it sure looks like that same cycle of stagnation and decline is facing the latter-day Apple Corp. Sure, the i-Stuff is selling really well now - but there are NO new breakthrough products on Apple's horizon, and my bet is that there aren't going to be. Steve Jobs was pretty much the avatar of the modern Key Man Problem, and, in order to replace him, Apple's Board first would have to FIND the next Jobs, and then would have to push Tim Cook aside and entrust the company to Jobs II. My bet is that that just ain't gonna happen. Ever.
So Apple's riding high on a mountain of cash right now, and the i-Stuff is deluging its coffers with more money every quarter - but the end of that ride is in sight, and it won't be much more than a decade before litigation is ALL the company has left - because Steve Jobs, the technological Elvis, has left the buidling for good.

--
Check out my novel.
1. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  (..) Jobs, whatever you might think of him as a person, was clearly a visionary. He envisioned products for needs that people didn't even know they had, until Apple produced them - and thereby created markets that hadn't previously existed.
  Really? That may be right for the Apple II or the first Macintosh, but apart from those I can hardly see other examples... Can you give us some?
2. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-03 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nowadays I think of Apple as a jewelry store. People are still buying their higher-priced products because they shine really well but don't offer much innovation anymore.
3. Re:Let's face it ... by Swampash · 2013-01-04 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.
  In other words, STFU.
4. Re:Let's face it ... by drinkypoo · 2013-01-04 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.
  The difference is that a performer's death increases the value of their works in many cases, whereas Jobs' death decreased confidence in Apple because they had built a cult of personality directly around him. Since Jobs wouldn't hire anyone potentially capable of upstaging him, Apple has no other charismatic face.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Let's face it ... by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · 2013-01-04 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  I really do like your comment when you said;
  So Apple's riding high on a mountain of cash right now, and the i-Stuff is deluging its coffers with more money every quarter - but the end of that ride is in sight, and it won't be much more than a decade before litigation is ALL the company has left - because Steve Jobs, the technological Elvis, has left the buidling for good.
  Thank you for a bit of sanity
  
  --
  All cows eat grass!
6. Re:Let's face it ... by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · 2013-01-04 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.
  In other words, STFU.
  Compare the Drugs Elvis took, he is dead... get over it or try pimping your arse in Las Vegas as Elvis. Lisa Marie-Prestley has also made a hash of things, from Danny Keogh, to Scientology and another husband etc etc......
  End of file
  
  --
  All cows eat grass!
7. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Tend to agree with this... I don't see anything with an Apple logo on it that wasn't the next logical step. Sure, they did a good job with the design. Sure they, got there first in terms of bringing their products to market and making them THE product to have (for the time-being). But there is nothing REVOLUTIONARY in any of it.
  Mostly, the consumer went - its about fucking time!
  now, where's my flying car damnit!?
8. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, I wrote the same thing in another thread a few weeks ago and got modded down. That's Slashdot moderation for you.
9. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  Jewelry at least retains its usefulness (but probably only a fraction of its value, i.e. the value of the raw gold, note that there's practically no market for 2nd hand diamonds). The Apple iStuff is practically worthless after 3-5 Years, since they fall victim to the planned obsolescence and the lack of software updates that goes along with that.
10. Re:Let's face it ... by thomst · 2013-01-04 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Swampash blathered:
  
  Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.
  In other words, STFU.
  Compare the revenues Apple received on the Mac II with the revenues it's receiving ON THE MAC II now, Mr. Pathetic.
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
11. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Jobs was never an innovator, he had two main strengths:
  1) He knew how to market to people and get them to believe they need Apple's products.
  2) He was an asshole and a perfectionist, and wasn't afraid to use the first one to make sure the second one was satisfied.
  Everything Apple did was done previously by other companies. Apple just got rid of some of the shitty parts and marketed the hell out of the results.
12. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Those bean counters saved Apple from bankruptcy which is where it was heading because Jobs was approving projects one day cancelling the next then bringing them back again. He was completely clueless.
  The iPod and iTunes software were developed outside Apple so it is again up to outsiders to develop the products that are Apple's vision.
13. Re:Let's face it ... by cheesybagel · 2013-01-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.
  Are you accounting for inflation? The man had his own airliner back then.
14. Re:Let's face it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-05 20:43 · Score: 0
  
  The iPhone is a critical example of revolutionary. Ignore that it is an evolution of the already existing PDA merged with the already existing iPod with a phone feature added to it, and instead see how it empowered both Apple as a non-carrier or handset maker in the telecom business as well as consumers of mobile phones. Prior to the iPhone, we mobile phone users in America were forced to bend over and accept what Verizon, A&T and others were willing to give us. Apple was even able to dictate to Verizon the terms of Verizon getting an iPhone. Verizon could not put its logo on the device and it could not load it with its own software. Verizon had to accept that an apps-based smartphone like the iPhone would be able to free customers from much of the nickel and diming Verizon has always done.
So you want to double++ the number of law suits? by csumpi · 2013-01-04 00:49 · Score: 2

Let's start with the assumption that when a corporation files a law suit they have about 50% chance of winning. So with your "litigation finance pool" they would have half of their litigation costs for free. This would mean that they could file 2x as many law suits for the same amount of money.

Now let's add to this the fact that most things can be argued either way, so whoever has the better argument, as in whoever can afford the better attorney, wins more often. That would make litigation even more affordable for companies with lots of $$ to burn.

You sure you thought this one through?

"Frivolous lawsuits need to result in jail time."

We already have something even better for this in the US. The burden is on the lawyers, and they can be penalized big time for not doing their due diligence. From wikipedia:

In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.
Lawyers LOVE you. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 01:17 · Score: 0

With your subsidized legal fees, lawyers could double their rate!

First I didn't know where you were coming from. But then I figured it out: you are a mole! Dude, you're a lawyer!
doesn't work by terec · 2013-01-04 02:03 · Score: 2

Germany has this system ("loser pays"). It means that the risk when getting sued is even higher than in the US, because if you defend yourself against an accusation and fail, you have to cover the opponent's costs and court costs (up to some statutory limits) as well. The statutory fees themselves become a means of blackmailing people legally. There is a "pool" to cover this: legal insurance. Both businesses and private individuals have it, but it's expensive, and it may still not cover the costs. In different words: your ideas have been tried and they just don't work.
1. Re:doesn't work by Kartu · 2013-01-04 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't call 100-200 Euro annually expensive.
2. Re:doesn't work by terec · 2013-01-04 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I would. $200 annually over 40 years at 5% is about $25000. That is in addition to home owner's insurance (which would cover or avoid many of these costs in other countries). And what is actually covered is complex to figure out. For example, if you get sued for something that required intent, your costs are generally not covered by legal insurance even if you are eventually found innocent.
Not Scratching My Head At All by whisper_jeff · 2013-01-04 02:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm an Apple fanboy and I wasn't left scratching my head at all. And anyone with even a basic understanding of trademark law wouldn't be either. Apple has a registered trademark for "App Store" ( http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:2zpo7n.2.5 ). If they failed to defend that trademark in court, they are assumed to accept unauthorized usage of the trademark. Even if defending it is a longshot (which this was), they must defend it or they lose it.
There are many examples from about 20 or 30 years ago but they are rare now because most legal departments have learned that if you want to keep your trademark protected, you are required to defend it.
This is different from copyrights and patents. Trademarks must be defended or they become harder and harder to defend.
So, no, I wasn't left scratching my head. I thought this lawsuit was a longshot but they were required to file it to defend their "App Store" trademark.
1. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by whisper_jeff · 2013-01-04 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Since I know someone will demand a citation of my assertion that trademarks must be defended, here:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
  (Relevant section bolded for emphasis)
  
  Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use".
2. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by Frankie70 · 2013-01-04 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to due to defend their trademark later on.
  That's the stupidest thing I have heard of.
  They should have never registered a trademark for a generic phrase like "App Store" in the first place.
3. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by Frankie70 · 2013-01-04 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to due to defend their trademark later on.
  Meant to write "So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to sue to defend their trademark later on."
4. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to due to defend their trademark later on.
  That's the stupidest thing I have heard of.
  That's not his logic. That's the legal system's logic. Really. You could argue that the law is set up as some sort of grand conspiracy to force everyone to litigate, but that's really, truly the way it works with trademarks. Use it or lose it.
  Contrast that with, say, patents, where you can apply for them, sit on them and then go trolling years later. It has its advantages.
  
  They should have never registered a trademark for a generic phrase like "App Store" in the first place.
  Probably not, but that's a totally different issue.
5. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by Frankie70 · 2013-01-04 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's not his logic. That's the legal system's logic.
  No it's not. You don't apply the trademark unless want to prevent others from using. You can't apply for it and then say that the only reason you are suing now is so that you can sue later.
  Why would you apply for the trademark other than wanting to prevent others from using it by suing them?
6. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by Tony+Isaac · 2013-01-04 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The issue with the App Store trademark is not legal defense, but the fact that Apple ever thought it could own such a generic term. It would be like attempting to trademark "Computer Store" or "Furniture Store." One of the basic criteria for trademarks is that they cannot be generic terms; this is what the court recognized. Trademarks that were once valid can become so generic that they lose their protection. Aspirin, Yo-Yo, and Escalator are all examples of trademarks that lost their legal protection because they became used so widely as generic terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Examples.
  The head-scratching is not about the fact that Apple would try to defend its trademarks, but that it would think it could own "App Store" in the first place.
7. Re:Not Scratching My Head At All by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Wow you're a fucking idiot. OP replied to himself (since you're obviously 'special': http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3356817&cid=42474799 ) with a citation to backup his point. Specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
  That was tough, right?
2013, the year the world wakes up by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-01-04 02:29 · Score: 0

I seriously think the world's love affair with Apple is coming nigh. This downward trend in love for Apple is starting to reflect in the way judges are ruling cases. No judge wanted to be seen as that asshole that told Apple NO when they were the most highly valued company in the world. Now their stock is slumping and Apple has shown significant signs of weakness it has become perfectly acceptable for judges to slap Apple back a few pegs and tell them their stupid trivial patents and whiny legal complaints are no longer going to be tolerated. And its about time too.
Apple is going to be around for a long time yet but I seriously hope that a year or two of constant setbacks might help to change them from some overly competitive, highly litigious, massive asshole of a company into something a little more sane and human in the near future. A company that actually respects its customers rather then rolling out trivial product updates and whipping up their customers into a frenzy of purge and purchase of essentially the same old shit every 6 months.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-04 05:07 · Score: 0

Just call it an Application Store. I think most users today get that an 'app' is an 'application'.