Slashdot Mirror
Apple Loses Claim For False Advertising Regarding Amazon "App Store"
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. "
Apple is for Asshole
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
Apple's way or the highway
Yes. Buy Amazon. It's called "going long".
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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/
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
You're thinking of Apple:
No, he *sn't
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
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.
Right.. because "inside" is the same as the letter i (as the op said).
Those extra letters don't count?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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/
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.
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.
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
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[-
I would suggest looking at their P/E ratio first, however.
He meant to say "Apple is the antithesis of utter corporate filth".
FTFY.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
I felt dirty just seeing it in the list of options.
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.
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...
Maybe you need to clean your sphincter
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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.