5 ms·

Sounds like someone from management needs to head down to legal and tell them that maybe now might not be the best time in the world to make themselves look lik

Sounds like someone from management needs to head down to legal and tell them that maybe now might not be the best time in the world to make themselves look like a bunch of courtroom bullies as billions (with a b) of dollars are riding on their pending cases. (Public opinion notwithstanding) The job of management is to tell legal that sometimes even though you can do something, you probably shouldn't. I'm sure in this case some sharp legal tack will start in with something about defending trademarks to keep them in force etc. This is where a manager takes some responsibility and decides that that's a acceptable risk in order to keep the company from looking like a cosmic dick.

lazugod 14y ago
The common refrain is that trademarks must be defended even in far fetched cases, else you'll automatically lose them. I'm curious how many people protest that facet of law, given the many protests against patents.
- praptak 14y ago
  Compared to patents, trademarks do not really generate that much abuse of the law. On top of that everybody seems to agree that their benefits (i.e. prevent businesses from confusing consumers) totally outweigh downsides, which is not the case with patents. The rare cases of abuse actually generate quite a lot of bad publicity.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  Its far from automatic. In any case, all they'd have to do is send a polite letter to the little store granting them the perpetual right to be similar in the way that the currently are. As SJ said, "not that big a deal".
mbesto 14y ago
Playing devil's advocate here... Does the general public really care about a company bullying other companies legally? Are consumers really not going to buy a specific product because the company is suing an insignificant company? And if so, how much is impacting sales? I realize there probably is not enough substantial evidence to support a rational conclusion to this question. However, considering EVERY large company does this, I don't see how this is going to harm the bottom line. Is it unethical? That's another question. ps- I do agree with most people here that these legal arguments are getting quite asinine.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  Apple's phenomenal dickery is making me seriously consider divesting myself of their products, so yes. Then again, I'm not the typical consumer. Their rectalitude certainly doesn't seem to have hurt their sales any.
  - brandoncapecci 14y ago
    There is certainly the fans that will buy anything Apple because it's Apple regardless of what Apple does. That being said, like you, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to support undoubtedly one of the most unethical companies in the world. They haven't have a big product release since the Samsung case but any sales lost were certainly more than made up for with their patent winnings.
    - coob 14y ago
      > one of the most unethical companies in the world. Less ethical than Total? Philip Morris? Freeport-McMoRan? Halliburton? Monsanto? Save the hyperbole. Companies sue one another.
      - freehunter 14y ago
        Less ethical doesn't mean least ethical. One of the most unethical doesn't mean the most unethical.
        brandoncapecci 14y ago
        Thanks, this is exactly what I was intending to convey. Never did I say the Apple lawsuits were my justification for thinking Apple is unethical. I simply alluded that recent patent bullying is one of the bigger public outcries against the company and we are yet to see how consumers will react to it. We are all in agreement that it won't noticeably hurt their sales, but it is also further swaying those without brand loyalty to the company. I realize if I kept tabs on all large corporation's ethics, in all likelihood I would find myself unable to purchase anything from someone respectable. That being said, despite becoming a large company being synonymous with it losing it's innocence, it doesn't mean that they all have to become porn stars. Anyone who thinks my opinion is cheery picked or hyperbole doesn't follow the sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, discrimination against customers, etc in Apple's last few years alone. Using other unethical companies (none of whom were tech might I add) to justify their atrocious actions is borderline retarded. We might as well just let murders off the hook because those serial killers are so much worse in comparison, right? As a consumer, all I'm trying to do is support companies that act the best, even if that means picking whomever is the least undesirable.

lazugod 14y ago

The common refrain is that trademarks must be defended even in far fetched cases, else you'll automatically lose them. I'm curious how many people protest that facet of law, given the many protests against patents.

praptak 14y ago
Compared to patents, trademarks do not really generate that much abuse of the law. On top of that everybody seems to agree that their benefits (i.e. prevent businesses from confusing consumers) totally outweigh downsides, which is not the case with patents. The rare cases of abuse actually generate quite a lot of bad publicity.
noonespecial 14y ago
Its far from automatic. In any case, all they'd have to do is send a polite letter to the little store granting them the perpetual right to be similar in the way that the currently are. As SJ said, "not that big a deal".

mbesto 14y ago

Playing devil's advocate here... Does the general public really care about a company bullying other companies legally? Are consumers really not going to buy a specific product because the company is suing an insignificant company? And if so, how much is impacting sales? I realize there probably is not enough substantial evidence to support a rational conclusion to this question. However, considering EVERY large company does this, I don't see how this is going to harm the bottom line. Is it unethical? That's another question. ps- I do agree with most people here that these legal arguments are getting quite asinine.

redthrowaway 14y ago
Apple's phenomenal dickery is making me seriously consider divesting myself of their products, so yes. Then again, I'm not the typical consumer. Their rectalitude certainly doesn't seem to have hurt their sales any.
- brandoncapecci 14y ago
  There is certainly the fans that will buy anything Apple because it's Apple regardless of what Apple does. That being said, like you, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to support undoubtedly one of the most unethical companies in the world. They haven't have a big product release since the Samsung case but any sales lost were certainly more than made up for with their patent winnings.
  - coob 14y ago
    > one of the most unethical companies in the world. Less ethical than Total? Philip Morris? Freeport-McMoRan? Halliburton? Monsanto? Save the hyperbole. Companies sue one another.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Less ethical doesn't mean least ethical. One of the most unethical doesn't mean the most unethical.
      - brandoncapecci 14y ago
        Thanks, this is exactly what I was intending to convey. Never did I say the Apple lawsuits were my justification for thinking Apple is unethical. I simply alluded that recent patent bullying is one of the bigger public outcries against the company and we are yet to see how consumers will react to it. We are all in agreement that it won't noticeably hurt their sales, but it is also further swaying those without brand loyalty to the company. I realize if I kept tabs on all large corporation's ethics, in all likelihood I would find myself unable to purchase anything from someone respectable. That being said, despite becoming a large company being synonymous with it losing it's innocence, it doesn't mean that they all have to become porn stars. Anyone who thinks my opinion is cheery picked or hyperbole doesn't follow the sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, discrimination against customers, etc in Apple's last few years alone. Using other unethical companies (none of whom were tech might I add) to justify their atrocious actions is borderline retarded. We might as well just let murders off the hook because those serial killers are so much worse in comparison, right? As a consumer, all I'm trying to do is support companies that act the best, even if that means picking whomever is the least undesirable.