2 ms·

> To me, “fight” implies that the knives and guns are out. Then you have yourself to blame for being confused, because most people would understand given the c

> To me, “fight” implies that the knives and guns are out. Then you have yourself to blame for being confused, because most people would understand given the context that Apple and Prepear aren't engaged in a knife fight. I have a hard time believing that you are making this argument in good faith.

kstrauser 6y ago
I think you’re making too much of this. OK, then frankly, no: I don’t see this as a fight. I see this as paperwork flying back and forth, with nary a courtroom or judge or battleground to be found. This is just some routine filings that don’t IMHO raise to the level of a fight. I, too, feel like you’re trying to deliberately misunderstand what I’m trying to say.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  > I don’t see this as a fight. I see this as paperwork flying back and forth, with nary a courtroom or judge or battleground to be found. Again, the simple view that this is "paperwork flying back and forth" is not very useful and serves only to dilute the matter of those papers. You might as well say that robbery is just particles exerting force on one another. The defendant will be given time to prepare a case and procure evidence to present to an appeal board, of administrative trademark judges. The only way it won't is if Apple withdraws their opposition, or if they decide not to offer any evidence for their case. In any other case, it's going to involve trademark lawyers, which costs money. From the article it seems that they have already spent "many thousands of dollars" in costs. Whether or not they are lying is not a matter of opinion, nor in any case a mischaracterization by the author of the article. > This is just some routine filings that don’t IMHO raise to the level of a fight. Okay. I can't really argue with what your opinion on what constitutes a fight is. To you, a fight involves guns or knives. That said, I don't think that your opinion is a very solid basis for saying that the article mischaracterizes the issue by calling it a fight. Some other person might say that it's only a fight if the participants are wearing boxing gloves, but an author can't possibly account for every literal-minded interpretation one in a thousand might make. Instead, the author thinks highly enough of the readers to assume that they will understand that a "fight" in the context of a trademark dispute doesn't usually come to literal blows or even harsh language.

kstrauser 6y ago

I think you’re making too much of this. OK, then frankly, no: I don’t see this as a fight. I see this as paperwork flying back and forth, with nary a courtroom or judge or battleground to be found. This is just some routine filings that don’t IMHO raise to the level of a fight. I, too, feel like you’re trying to deliberately misunderstand what I’m trying to say.

boomlinde 6y ago
> I don’t see this as a fight. I see this as paperwork flying back and forth, with nary a courtroom or judge or battleground to be found. Again, the simple view that this is "paperwork flying back and forth" is not very useful and serves only to dilute the matter of those papers. You might as well say that robbery is just particles exerting force on one another. The defendant will be given time to prepare a case and procure evidence to present to an appeal board, of administrative trademark judges. The only way it won't is if Apple withdraws their opposition, or if they decide not to offer any evidence for their case. In any other case, it's going to involve trademark lawyers, which costs money. From the article it seems that they have already spent "many thousands of dollars" in costs. Whether or not they are lying is not a matter of opinion, nor in any case a mischaracterization by the author of the article. > This is just some routine filings that don’t IMHO raise to the level of a fight. Okay. I can't really argue with what your opinion on what constitutes a fight is. To you, a fight involves guns or knives. That said, I don't think that your opinion is a very solid basis for saying that the article mischaracterizes the issue by calling it a fight. Some other person might say that it's only a fight if the participants are wearing boxing gloves, but an author can't possibly account for every literal-minded interpretation one in a thousand might make. Instead, the author thinks highly enough of the readers to assume that they will understand that a "fight" in the context of a trademark dispute doesn't usually come to literal blows or even harsh language.