3 ms·

It is not Apple but the copyright system that is rotten to the core. Copyright infringement requires the copyright holder to litigate to keep the copyright. If

It is not Apple but the copyright system that is rotten to the core. Copyright infringement requires the copyright holder to litigate to keep the copyright. If there is a preceding history of infringement that Apple knowingly ignores, there comes a day when a willful and harmful infringement cannot be stopped.

darklajid 15y ago
Copyright infringement? Where? - The common word 'apple' plus translations in every language ('Apfel')? - A generic image of an apple? Using completely different colors, a wildly different style and lacking the 'missing bite' identification? Humor me and do a google image search for 'still life apple' and tell me why not every one of those could be flagged as 'infringing' just as well?
- martinkallstrom 15y ago
  It's seems many people don't understand how a market works. Companies are not evil for evil's sake, not even a company like Apple. Sending a cease and desist letter to a small restaurant is a cost that would be eliminated if it was possible without risking a much greater cost. Apple is not ignorant about the PR pitfalls either. They are forced to weigh risk vs risk and act accordingly. Instead of coming to premature conclusions that border on delusion, we should ask ourselves what mechanisms exist in the market that forces a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate to go after a small restaurant. Forget the notion that Apple or any company is doing stuff like this out of spite. That is a red herring. The system within which Apple and AppleADay are actors needs to be changed and situations like these are data on what is wrong with it.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    Listen, I'm not conflating Apple into a single person with horns and a tail. I'm none of their fans, but that only plays into my tone/adds some sarcasm to my posts and doesn't change my general attitude. As someone pointed out you first talked about copyright, but this seems to be a trademark issue. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm not a lawyer etc. pp, I don't know shit about trademarks. And I certainly have not the slightest clue about US (Apple's home) laws and regulations. But no, this is not something that makes sense under any regulation that mankind can have invented while sober people were in charge. An apple is a fruit. Period. Not a trademark. If you happen to grant a trademark for that name than that's unfortunate, but doesn't change the fact that this word has a meaning and will be used for that. If you choose a specific image for your company you need to protect that logo. But this _doesn't_ include scaring little guys that happen to draw this common everyday thing in a totally different way for their totally different business. That's insane. I kind of understand your point and fair enough: We should blame that trademark (and .. copyright) system every day, just because. But please, you cannot conflate these things. However broken the system(s) are, these cases don't make sense in any case. Compare the images. Think about the business involved. Aluminum gadgets with distinct apple icon engraved vs. food shops serving apple based dishes and drinks using the word apple in their name / a drawing of an apple as their logo. Out of spite? No, probably not. Totally unnecessary, even considering your point about broken markets and laws? But of course! Probably some lawyers gone mad, as others stated - they might be able to bill some hours for this crap. Just please don't ~defend~ this by saying that Apple needs to do this, or else..
    - martinkallstrom 15y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't get your point.
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    Okay, I'm interested. In what way is this elimiting some risk for Apple? Is the restaurant going to start selling android tablets?
    - martinkallstrom 15y ago
      Okay, I'll try to explain. It is a reasonable question. First, it's important to understand that trademarks are unique among kinds of intellectual properties because they are valid in all eternity if you continue to use them. Patents and copyrights are at least supposed to expire. Not trademarks. Now let's say you are managing a team of highly coveted people with the task of protecting the Apple brand world wide and for all eternity. What is the biggest threat you can identify? Is it that Samsung will suddenly launch the Samsung Apple phone? No. Trademark dilution laws are in place only for very famous brands, and dilution is for brands what erosion is for mountain tops. Apple wants their brand to remain strong for 200 years and more. During that time natural erosion will have completely reshaped our cities and landscapes. Our language will have changed many times over and many of the idioms and sayings we use now will be incomprehensible to most people. It is in this environment that Apple the brand must survive. A modern skyscraper has a theoretical infinite lifetime because it is constantly maintained. Otherwise it would erode and break down in a couple of decades. In a similar way will a brand erode in the minds of people if not properly maintained. Basically what happens is that the brand over time becomes associated with a general category of products instead of a specific manufacturer. So that when someone says "I'm thinking of buying an Apple, can you recommend a good model?", no one any longer thinks she actually means a device manufactured by Apple. It's like ordering a Coke and getting a Pepsi without reflecting on the difference. So you are the brand manager. The biggest threat you have identified spells long-term dilution. You think about the term "Apple". It is different from let's say "Coca-Cola" because it's also a fruit. How do you factor this into your anti-dilution strategy compared to the brand manager at Coca-Cola? Are you more afraid of dilution than they are? Or do you think that the existence of the namesake fruit will help protecting you from dilution? No matter what your decision would be, Apple's brand division has clearly decided that they need to be more thorough than most brands. It might be their culture or strategy, but if anything it is a sign of thinking long-term and risk-averse. And when people say "how can they act like this, don't they know that apple is a fruit?", my theory is that they are completely aware of the fact and it actually makes them more anal than they would have been if their brand would have been Xcrublbob.
mdc 15y ago
You mean trademark. Copyright doesn't work that way and is not relevant to this issue.
- martinkallstrom 15y ago
  Thank you.
yaix 15y ago
Why is this downvoted? Unfortunately its true.
- rcfox 15y ago
  No, it isn't.

darklajid 15y ago

Copyright infringement? Where? - The common word 'apple' plus translations in every language ('Apfel')? - A generic image of an apple? Using completely different colors, a wildly different style and lacking the 'missing bite' identification? Humor me and do a google image search for 'still life apple' and tell me why not every one of those could be flagged as 'infringing' just as well?

martinkallstrom 15y ago
It's seems many people don't understand how a market works. Companies are not evil for evil's sake, not even a company like Apple. Sending a cease and desist letter to a small restaurant is a cost that would be eliminated if it was possible without risking a much greater cost. Apple is not ignorant about the PR pitfalls either. They are forced to weigh risk vs risk and act accordingly. Instead of coming to premature conclusions that border on delusion, we should ask ourselves what mechanisms exist in the market that forces a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate to go after a small restaurant. Forget the notion that Apple or any company is doing stuff like this out of spite. That is a red herring. The system within which Apple and AppleADay are actors needs to be changed and situations like these are data on what is wrong with it.
- darklajid 15y ago
  Listen, I'm not conflating Apple into a single person with horns and a tail. I'm none of their fans, but that only plays into my tone/adds some sarcasm to my posts and doesn't change my general attitude. As someone pointed out you first talked about copyright, but this seems to be a trademark issue. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm not a lawyer etc. pp, I don't know shit about trademarks. And I certainly have not the slightest clue about US (Apple's home) laws and regulations. But no, this is not something that makes sense under any regulation that mankind can have invented while sober people were in charge. An apple is a fruit. Period. Not a trademark. If you happen to grant a trademark for that name than that's unfortunate, but doesn't change the fact that this word has a meaning and will be used for that. If you choose a specific image for your company you need to protect that logo. But this _doesn't_ include scaring little guys that happen to draw this common everyday thing in a totally different way for their totally different business. That's insane. I kind of understand your point and fair enough: We should blame that trademark (and .. copyright) system every day, just because. But please, you cannot conflate these things. However broken the system(s) are, these cases don't make sense in any case. Compare the images. Think about the business involved. Aluminum gadgets with distinct apple icon engraved vs. food shops serving apple based dishes and drinks using the word apple in their name / a drawing of an apple as their logo. Out of spite? No, probably not. Totally unnecessary, even considering your point about broken markets and laws? But of course! Probably some lawyers gone mad, as others stated - they might be able to bill some hours for this crap. Just please don't ~defend~ this by saying that Apple needs to do this, or else..
  - martinkallstrom 15y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't get your point.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  Okay, I'm interested. In what way is this elimiting some risk for Apple? Is the restaurant going to start selling android tablets?
  - martinkallstrom 15y ago
    Okay, I'll try to explain. It is a reasonable question. First, it's important to understand that trademarks are unique among kinds of intellectual properties because they are valid in all eternity if you continue to use them. Patents and copyrights are at least supposed to expire. Not trademarks. Now let's say you are managing a team of highly coveted people with the task of protecting the Apple brand world wide and for all eternity. What is the biggest threat you can identify? Is it that Samsung will suddenly launch the Samsung Apple phone? No. Trademark dilution laws are in place only for very famous brands, and dilution is for brands what erosion is for mountain tops. Apple wants their brand to remain strong for 200 years and more. During that time natural erosion will have completely reshaped our cities and landscapes. Our language will have changed many times over and many of the idioms and sayings we use now will be incomprehensible to most people. It is in this environment that Apple the brand must survive. A modern skyscraper has a theoretical infinite lifetime because it is constantly maintained. Otherwise it would erode and break down in a couple of decades. In a similar way will a brand erode in the minds of people if not properly maintained. Basically what happens is that the brand over time becomes associated with a general category of products instead of a specific manufacturer. So that when someone says "I'm thinking of buying an Apple, can you recommend a good model?", no one any longer thinks she actually means a device manufactured by Apple. It's like ordering a Coke and getting a Pepsi without reflecting on the difference. So you are the brand manager. The biggest threat you have identified spells long-term dilution. You think about the term "Apple". It is different from let's say "Coca-Cola" because it's also a fruit. How do you factor this into your anti-dilution strategy compared to the brand manager at Coca-Cola? Are you more afraid of dilution than they are? Or do you think that the existence of the namesake fruit will help protecting you from dilution? No matter what your decision would be, Apple's brand division has clearly decided that they need to be more thorough than most brands. It might be their culture or strategy, but if anything it is a sign of thinking long-term and risk-averse. And when people say "how can they act like this, don't they know that apple is a fruit?", my theory is that they are completely aware of the fact and it actually makes them more anal than they would have been if their brand would have been Xcrublbob.

mdc 15y ago

You mean trademark. Copyright doesn't work that way and is not relevant to this issue.

martinkallstrom 15y ago
Thank you.

yaix 15y ago

Why is this downvoted? Unfortunately its true.

rcfox 15y ago
No, it isn't.