Apple fails in it's bid to own the letter 'i'.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mp3s/apples-future-wont-be-brought-to-you-by-the-letter-i-20100312-q27r.html


Apple has been dealt a severe blow having been told that it no longer has a monopoly on the letter "i" as part of the name for its products.
A trademarks tribunal has knocked back (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ATMO/2010/7.html) Apple's bid to stop a small company from trademarking the name DOPi for use on its laptop bags and cases for Apple products.
The California-based technology company argued that the DOPi name - which is iPod spelt backwards - was too similar to its own popular portable music player, which has sold in excess of 100 million units worldwide.
Apple has long since relied on its legal muscle to pursue any individual or company it sees as infringing on its copyright and trademarks.
But its ambitions to make widespread claims on the letter "i" came to a grinding halt when the tribunal rejected Apple's claim that punters might be confused into thinking that they were buying an Apple product.




Why can't a company own a letter, there are plenty of others left over.

[Cavemonster]

This doesn't look like an attempt to hold a copyright on the letter "i" but on it's own product name (spelled backwards).

I don't think it's such a ridiculous claim, a reasonable case could be made either way.

[Piggy]

This doesn't look like an attempt to hold a copyright on the letter "i" but on it's own product name (spelled backwards).

I don't think it's such a ridiculous claim, a reasonable case could be made either way.

No, I don't think so.

I don't see how anyone could see the name "DOPi" and think "Oh, that must be an Apple product".

I don't believe they ever had a case.

[not daSkeptic]

I don't see how anyone could see the name "DOPi" and think "Oh, that must be an Apple product".

I don't believe they ever had a case.

I'm inclined to agree. I really don't see much potential for marketplace confusion there.

[Cavemonster]

No, I don't think so.

I don't see how anyone could see the name "DOPi" and think "Oh, that must be an Apple product".

I don't believe they ever had a case.

A quick google search for DOPi leads to two different products (not the one in question) made to work with iPODs. An ipod karaoke machine, and an application designed to streamline uploading to an iPOD.

So, it isn't much of a stretch to say that the name evokes Apple's product.

I don't think their case was incredibly strong, but it was based on more than the use of the letter i.

[a_unique_person]

This doesn't look like an attempt to hold a copyright on the letter "i" but on it's own product name (spelled backwards).

I don't think it's such a ridiculous claim, a reasonable case could be made either way.

The article seems to imply there is more to this than just this one case, has been very active at pursuing all kinds of people for less obvious violations than this.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/05/apple-woolworths-in-australian-trademark-dispute-media-in-hys/


WOOLWORTHS insists its new logo is a stylised ''W'' or a piece of fresh produce. Apple thinks it is an apple, and the California-based technology company wants to stop Australia's largest retailer from using it.
Apple has mounted a legal challenge to prevent Woolworths from using the logo, arguing it is too close to its own.
Apple will have to convince IP Australia, the Federal Government agency that governs trademarks, to knock back Woolworths' application - filed in August last year - to trademark its logo.
Apple is spooked by the fact Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product.
Woolworths' application includes a wide class for electrical goods and technology, putting it in direct competition with Apple should the retailer choose to brand computers, music players or other devices.
Woolworths has gone into credit cards and mobile phones, so the likelihood of it going into computers is not too remote.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6024b99b11678e12.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19392)

[fullflavormenthol]

Companies will try to protect a trademark even if they know it will fail, because it helps later on when they try to protect against someone who really is infringing. It is just a cost of doing business. Like if someone offers a "ten piece bucket" for 10.99 KFC will try to protect against it, not because they have something against "Bush's Chicken" but because they don't want McDonald's to offer it.

It was why in college (as a manger of Burger King) I had to yell at employees that called our "tenders" "mcnuggets" because that could mean a lawsuit if a McDonalds employee was there. It is all about protection.

[tyr_13]

Companies will try to protect a trademark even if they know it will fail, because it helps later on when they try to protect against someone who really is infringing. It is just a cost of doing business. Like if someone offers a "ten piece bucket" for 10.99 KFC will try to protect against it, not because they have something against "Bush's Chicken" but because they don't want McDonald's to offer it.

It was why in college (as a manger of Burger King) I had to yell at employees that called our "tenders" "mcnuggets" because that could mean a lawsuit if a McDonalds employee was there. It is all about protection.

This is true.

However, Apple as a company really are dicks. I like the build on a lot of their computers for their reliability, even if I make fun of them. As a company they still pull a lot of stupid **** that drives me nuts mostly because of their good image.

[GStan]

Apple is obviously just looking after the interests of all the dyslexics destined to be disappointed with their new "iPOD"s.

[fullflavormenthol]

This is true.

However, Apple as a company really are dicks. I like the build on a lot of their computers for their reliability, even if I make fun of them. As a company they still pull a lot of stupid **** that drives me nuts mostly because of their good image.
I am not saying I believe it is right. I am just pointing it out that it is something that companies do, and in this case it is stupid. I think it really is a failure in trademark law.

[Piggy]

A quick google search for DOPi leads to two different products (not the one in question) made to work with iPODs. An ipod karaoke machine, and an application designed to streamline uploading to an iPOD.

So, it isn't much of a stretch to say that the name evokes Apple's product.

Yeah, it's an incredible stretch.

The question is, would someone seeing the name "DOPi" be led to assume, by that very fact, that they're dealing with an Apple product?

Apple has never produced anything with a name even remotely like DOPi.

There are lots of people producing things like iPod carriers and such, which can be used with Apple products, which aren't produced by Apple. It's much like those little attachments that went with Crocs, which were not produced by Crocs.

The manufacturers of the DOPi would have to go out of their way to get anyone to think that theirs is an Apple product -- e.g. they'd have to use some sort of bitten-apple logo, that kind of thing.

I just can see any basis for the confusion argument.

Contrast that with the case of an American convenience store chain that marketed baked snacks with a Tony the Tiger look-alike on the packaging. The courts ruled, rightly, that the mascot would likely lead buyers to believe they were purchasing a Kellogg product.

Unless the DOPi folks were doing something like that, I can't see any case here.

[Piggy]

The article seems to imply there is more to this than just this one case, has been very active at pursuing all kinds of people for less obvious violations than this.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/05/apple-woolworths-in-australian-trademark-dispute-media-in-hys/

I predict they will lose.

Apple can't claim turf on anything that remotely resembles an apple, or even logos which are indeed renditions of apples.

If that worked, then Mott's could sue Apple and get them to stop using their logo, since Mott's was using an apple with a stem and leaf on its products long before Apple existed.

[rjh01]

The implications are vast.

McDonalds would not be able to successfully sue me if I go into the fast food business and have a M as a sign to my business. The reason is the same as in the OP.

[a_unique_person]

The implications are vast.

McDonalds would not be able to successfully sue me if I go into the fast food business and have a M as a sign to my business. The reason is the same as in the OP.

How about M and C?


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mcsuppiahs-uttapam/567767/0

Meet the man who took on McDonald’s and won. P Suppiah, a Malaysian born in Tamil Nadu, runs McCurry in Kuala Lumpur. McDonald’s sued him for trademark violation. What followed was a remarkable story of big MNC vs small entreprenuer. Now he gets fan mail from India all the time You can’t have fries with that and no, you can’t supersize it either. But yes, it is called McCurry. In the heart of Malaysia’s capital Kuala Lumpur, within spotting distance of the landmark twin Petronas Towers, stands Restoran McCurry.
The restaurant serves Tosai Masala (masala dosa, as we know it) for 2.50 Malaysian ringgit, Roti Canai (an adapted Chennai parotta) for RM 1.00, Ghee Uttapam (RM 1.70), and even Chicken Tikka (RM 6.00) and Aloo Paratha (RM 2.50).
It is Indian fast food, unmistakably, but the menu is not its claim to fame.
McCurry hit headlines around the globe last year-end for delivering a legal thrashing to the global fast food giant McDonald’s in a trademark infringement case in Malaysia’s highest Federal Court. The one-outlet McCurry thus retained the right to use the ‘Mc’ identifier in its name.

[TragicMonkey]

The hypocrisy of corporations is funny. Apple fought the same fight on the other side against Apple Corps music not too long ago. If, as we're supposed to believe, corporations are legally individuals in some ways, they should be put on the witness stand in these cases and cross-examined about their past behavior doing the very thing they're suing others for now.

Still, nothing beats the whole King Kong/Donkey Kong fight. That was hilarious. One company took the positions first that King Kong was public domain (when they wanted to use the idea), then later that King Kong was their exclusive intellectual property (when someone else did).

[ThatSoundAgain]

Companies will try to protect a trademark even if they know it will fail, because it helps later on when they try to protect against someone who really is infringing. It is just a cost of doing business. Like if someone offers a "ten piece bucket" for 10.99 KFC will try to protect against it, not because they have something against "Bush's Chicken" but because they don't want McDonald's to offer it. .

Exactly right. It has bizarre results sometimes, but companies need to do stuff like this to retain their trademarks.

See also these guidelines from Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#section-4):


Trademarks are not verbs.

Correct: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.

Trademarks are not nouns.

Correct: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
Incorrect: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.

Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.

Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.
Incorrect: The image was Photoshopped.
Incorrect: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.


It's to prevent their valuable trademark from slipping into common use. If that happens, other companies will be able to legally start producing Photoshops. It could be argued that it already has. I guess their legal team (and the amount of money they could throw at this) are too intimidating. For now.

In any case, good luck with getting people to comply with that, Adobe.

[PhantomWolf]

In any case, good luck with getting people to comply with that, Adobe.

Xerox had the same issues when photocopying started out, as did Electrolux for vaccum cleaners, and more resently Google. The issue behind it is that common phases and vocab can not be trademarked and so if a company's trademark becomes common vocab, they could lose it. As such I can see why companies like Adobe, Google, and Xerox all do their best to point out that using their trademarks as common speech should be avoided.

[LTC8K6]

Intel has been using it for a while.

[Mojo]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

[Drudgewire]

Thank goodness. The ramifications could have been devastating for one of TV's brightest spots:

http://www.icarly.com/

:boxedin:

[NoZed Avenger]

Personally, I cannot wait until the Asimov estate and Apple mix it up over the upcoming iRobot.

[Personal Grudge]

I have a hard time believing that the suit comes just over the use of the lower-case "i". After all, several other companies use this currently:

IBM has the various iSeries machines, including the i5.
Intel produces the i series processors, such as the i7.
Ingenico (a producer of signature capture devices for the retail industry) has an iSeries line, such as the "i6550" and "i6700" models.

If Apple were to pursue a copyright violation over just the letter "i", I would think they would be looking to also restrict these other companies in the same manner. It does seem more likely that the backward spelling of iPod is the main argument.

[One Eyed Jack]

Why can't a company own a letter, there are plenty of others left over.

Sesame Street beat them to it a long time ago.

[Denver]

Intel already tried (and failed) to trademark the letter 'i'. But that was in the US, not in Australia (as in the OP case).

But yeah, this doesn't sound just about trademarking the letter, but trademarking it and the way it is used (as a lower case prefix or suffix). I don't think they'd win in the US either, but they may still go after a company with a similar-sounding product name there. Apple showing they are willing to throw their legal might at a company who tries would probably scare many in the US from daring it, even while Apple lost the lower-case down-under case.

[Ferguson]

Xerox had the same issues when photocopying started out, as did Electrolux for vaccum cleaners, and more resently Google. The issue behind it is that common phases and vocab can not be trademarked and so if a company's trademark becomes common vocab, they could lose it. As such I can see why companies like Adobe, Google, and Xerox all do their best to point out that using their trademarks as common speech should be avoided.

It also happened to Cellophane brand transparent paper, Kerosene brand paraffin, Escalator brand moving stairways, and Thermos brand vacuum flasks. :'(

[quarky]

The square root of negative one will be pissed.


(Add shredded wheat to the above list.)

[NoZed Avenger]

The square root of negative one will be pissed.


(Add shredded wheat to the above list.)

Aspirin. Jell-O is worried enough to insist on "Jello-O brand gelatin" and likewise Kleenex tissues.

[Ashles]

In any case, good luck with getting people to comply with that, Adobe.

That's really stupid of Adobe.

Don't try and fight a position you cannot possibly win. People will use 'photoshop' as a verb, end of story.
And Adobe should be amazingly happy about that.

The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form or as a slang term.

Dear Adobe,

Tough crap.

Love,

The world.

[Drudgewire]

It also happened to Cellophane brand transparent paper, Kerosene brand paraffin, Escalator brand moving stairways, and Thermos brand vacuum flasks. :'(


I seem to remember Nestle going through years of litigation trying to copyright the term "Tollhouse cookie" and eventually losing.

[quarky]

Heroin.

Bayer Brand.

[dudalb]

Not a good sign for Lindsey Lohan's lawsuit.

[AvalonXQ]

Personally, I cannot wait until the Asimov estate and Apple mix it up over the upcoming iRobot.

That boat has sailed. (http://www.irobot.com/)

[Dorian Gray]

I predict they will lose.

Apple can't claim turf on anything that remotely resembles an apple, or even logos which are indeed renditions of apples.

If that worked, then Mott's could sue Apple and get them to stop using their logo, since Mott's was using an apple with a stem and leaf on its products long before Apple existed.
Not to mention, Apple Records existed long before Apple computers.
"
Main article: Apple Corps v. Apple Computer

In 1978, Apple Records filed suit against Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with the payment of $80,000 to Apple Corps. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. A dispute subsequently arose in 1989 when Apple Corps sued, alleging that Apple Computer's machines' ability to play back MIDI music was a violation of the 1981 settlement agreement. In 1991 another settlement, of around $26.5 million, was reached.[18][19] In September 2003 Apple Computer was again sued by Apple Corps, this time for introducing the iTunes Music Store and the iPod, which Apple Corps asserted was a violation of Apple's agreement not to distribute music.[20] The trial opened on March 29, 2006 in the UK[21] and, in a judgment issued on May 8, 2006, Apple Corps lost the case.[22][23][24]

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” (including all designs of the famed 'Granny Smith' Apple Corps Ltd. logos)[25] and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential.[26][27]

The website for Harmonix's The Beatles: Rock Band is notable as the first tangible evidence of the Apple, Inc./Apple Corps Ltd. settlement: 'Apple Corps' is prominently referred to throughout, and the 'Granny Smith' Apple logo appears but the text beneath the logo now reads 'Apple Corps' rather than the previous 'Apple'. The website's acknowledgements specifically state that, "'Apple’ and the ‘Apple logo’ are exclusively licensed to Apple Corps Ltd.".

[Dorian Gray]

Xerox had the same issues when photocopying started out, as did Electrolux for vaccum cleaners, and more resently Google. The issue behind it is that common phases and vocab can not be trademarked and so if a company's trademark becomes common vocab, they could lose it. As such I can see why companies like Adobe, Google, and Xerox all do their best to point out that using their trademarks as common speech should be avoided.
I think Google is in a unique position here, unlike nearly every other such incident (Aspirin for example), because they make money off ads and web hits, and no one could start another company and use Google, yet the more people verbify Google the more their name gets out and is used.

[Dorian Gray]

The square root of negative one will be pissed.


(Add shredded wheat to the above list.)Shredded Wheat has always been preceded by a brand such as Post or Kellogg, so no.

[Dorian Gray]

What if all the 'i's became 'e's and vice versa? iHarmony, iBay, ePod, ePhone?

[quarky]

Shredded Wheat has always been preceded by a brand such as Post or Kellogg, so no.

It began as a unique product and became a generic term with time, so, yes.

[PhantomWolf]

That's really stupid of Adobe.

Don't try and fight a position you cannot possibly win. People will use 'photoshop' as a verb, end of story.
And Adobe should be amazingly happy about that.



Dear Adobe,

Tough crap.

Love,

The world.

No, it's not stupid of Adobe. When you have invested a huge amount of money into a brand name and brand recognition, to lose it because people refuse to respect it is not a good thing. Trademarks are protected under law for a reason, and businesses are right to attempt to continue to protect them.

[jayh]

Apple is obviously just looking after the interests of all the dyslexics destined to be disappointed with their new "iPOD"s.

that is, the typical Apple user.




Mr Nissan fights to keep his name

http://www.digest.com/

[gumboot]

My favourite was when McDonalds attempted to shut down a local burger place (that had been in NZ longer than McDonalds) because the place was called "McDonald's" (because that was the owner's surname). The NZ courts rightly told McDonalds to get lost.

I think some of the trademark claims are utterly ridiculous. Apple attempting to claim they have sole right to use an apple image, for example. This is particularly ridiculous because of the pre-existing Apple Corp. logo. The hypocrisy of these companies is probably what annoys me the most.

[EvilSmurf]

It also happened to Cellophane brand transparent paper, Kerosene brand paraffin, Escalator brand moving stairways, and Thermos brand vacuum flasks. :'(

The Coca-Cola company has gone to long lengths to protect the trademark Coke. For example they have employees go to establishments which serve pepsi products and will order "Coke" and if they don't say "We have pepsi, will that do?" they have sued.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The Coca-Cola company has gone to long lengths to protect the trademark Coke. For example they have employees go to establishments which serve pepsi products and will order "Coke" and if they don't say "We have pepsi, will that do?" they have sued.Do you have any evidence for that? It sounds a bit hokey and I can find any lawsuits or articles about such a case.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The issue behind it is that common phases and vocab can not be trademarked and so if a company's trademark becomes common vocab, they could lose it.Could they? Has that ever happened?

It does not appear to have happened even with brand names that most people probably don’t even realize are brand names like band-aid and taser.

[PhantomWolf]

Could they? Has that ever happened?

It does not appear to have happened even with brand names that most people probably don’t even realize are brand names like band-aid and taser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks

[DevilsAdvocate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarksThank you. That certainly explains Adobe's position on Photoshop.

[EvilSmurf]

Do you have any evidence for that? It sounds a bit hokey and I can find any lawsuits or articles about such a case.

Here (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1464/is-there-a-term-for-trade-names-that-become-generic) is where I remember reading it.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Here (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1464/is-there-a-term-for-trade-names-that-become-generic) is where I remember reading it.Well, how about that. It is true. Appears to have happened mostly in the early 1980s.

http://openjurist.org/692/f2d/1250/coca-cola-company-v-overland-inc-rh

Coca-Cola dispatches employees to uncover retailers substituting, without oral notice, another cola beverage in response to orders for "Coca-Cola" or "Coke." Coca-Cola then brings trademark-infringement suits against these retailers seeking permanent injunctions prohibiting such substitutions unless the customer is given oral notice of, and assents to, the substitution.

Overland does not contend that the trademark-infringement suits brought by Coca-Cola lack merit. In fact, Overland acknowledges Coca-Cola's overwhelming success in these suits, citing numerous cases in its brief in which Coca-Cola was the prevailing party. Overland's theory is that even though Coca-Cola's suits have merit, they are still sham suits subject to antitrust regulation because they are brought not for the purpose of trademark protection, but for the purpose of coercing retailers into switching to Coca-Cola's product.

Coca-Cola rebutted Overland's allegations and satisfied its burden by producing evidence that its present and past trademark-infringement suits were legitimate actions necessary to protect against infringement of its trademarks. The record not only shows that Coca-Cola has been eminently successful in its past trademark-infringement suits, but that its present suit, on the basis of the evidence compiled, was fully warranted.

Moreover, since the injunction binds not only Overland but its agents, servants, and employees, the employees themselves will be subject to contempt proceedings if they fail to give customers the required oral notice.

"Is Pepsi OK?" Not just customer service--it's the law! :eek:

[Piggy]

Do you have any evidence for that? It sounds a bit hokey and I can find any lawsuits or articles about such a case.

Back in the early 80's I worked for a place that served Pepsi and we were absolutely required to tell people ordering Cokes that we served Pepsi, precisely because of this.

Not only do they have people checking the major chains, but they actually take samples to be sure that what's coming out of the fountain is Coca-Cola.

I wish I still had it, but years ago I had a copy of the protocol instructing "shoppers" how to take the samples, which included inserting a funnel in the sleeve connected to a collection bag which would be tagged once they left the establishment.

ETA: Oops, looks like this has already been addressed.

[Cobalt]

Is Pepsi OK?" Not just customer service--it's the law! :eek:

And yet, I only get that question every so often.

[Lolly]

And yet, I only get that question every so often.
I get it all the time. I've always found it rather irritating but now I know why they are doing it. I thought I was being clever one day by just asking for cola (I didn't know if it was a Coke shop or a Pepsi shop) and the assistant just looked at me blankly as if she had no idea what I was talking about. Sigh.

[Ferguson]

I'm very glad when they do ask, not to be a brand-whore but the few times I've expected a Coke and got a Pepsi, I choke on it. It's a bit like when I think I'm holding a glass of milk but then it's orange juice - even if it's not terrible it still shocks my mouth :D.
When I'm asked "Is Pepsi OK?" I just switch to beer ;). I can't stand the citrusy Pepsi taste.

[fullflavormenthol]

It's to prevent their valuable trademark from slipping into common use. If that happens, other companies will be able to legally start producing Photoshops. It could be argued that it already has. I guess their legal team (and the amount of money they could throw at this) are too intimidating. For now.

In any case, good luck with getting people to comply with that, Adobe.

Very true. I don't like it, but if you don't than the "elevator" becomes a common thing, or "Jell'o" becomes something everyone uses. It is sucky when companies have to fight stupid lawsuits which I honestly think they don't want to fight; but if they don't they lose the right to protect it.

It is true though, that many terms liked "photoshoped" are already in the common usage, but they still have to fight. Even though any manipulated image is called that even if it were Gimped. (The good thing is Gimp'd will never be a trademark; so I just call it that even if I made it with Photoshop. I suppose it costs them future business even though I support their product.)

[TragicMonkey]

The only real winners appear to be the lawyers.

[gumboot]

Back in the early 80's I worked for a place that served Pepsi and we were absolutely required to tell people ordering Cokes that we served Pepsi, precisely because of this.


And thank God too. If I ask for Coke, it's because I want Coke, and I'd be pissed if I was served some other cola instead. I don't know about what Coke has done re: trademark in NZ, but under consumer rights laws and other various laws it would be illegal anyway - just as it'd be illegal for a restaurant to serve me beef when I ordered lamb.

[Worm]

The Coke/Pepsi thing is a standard part of service training in the UK (in my experience)

It's far from strictly adhered to though (again - in my experience)

[NoZed Avenger]

The only real winners appear to be the lawyers.

So, happy ending.

[LTC8K6]

I think it's been a very long time since a waiter said anything about Coke or Pepsi to me.

I know they are contracted for one or the other and I can never remember who serves what.

I always say "Coke or Pepsi, whichever you've got."

[ZeeZero]

That onion article is hilarious.

"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."

[quadraginta]

That onion article is hilarious.

"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."


If they did they'd market it as "New", "Revolutionary", and "Groundbreaking", over-charge for it, and Apple fans would line up around the block in the middle of the night with their wallets out, waiting for the privilege to buy it.

Apple has no problem pedal ... er, peddling things.

[HarryHenderson]

That onion article is hilarious...
:D They often are. Another quote from the article - whose hilarity really isn't so absurd given the OP.

"...According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized. Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything. Lattimore said that the only mathematical constructs of which Microsoft may not be able to claim ownership are infinity and transcendental numbers like pi. Microsoft lawyers are expected to file liens on infinity and pi this week..."

[DevilsAdvocate]

No cheeburger, cheeburger jokes yet? I was trying to set things up...:cool:

[ZirconBlue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks

:eye-poppi


Freeware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware) Trademarked in the early 1980s by Andrew Fluegelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Fluegelman), but the trademark status was abandoned following Fluegelman's disappearance and presumed death.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#cite_no te-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#cite_no te-9)
Interesting that (presumed) death can lead to loss of trademark status. If you're thinking of faking your own death for some reason -- if you're, say, a soap-opera character, for example -- please be advised that you may lose your trademarks.

So, happy ending.

Was that an offer or a request?

[NoZed Avenger]

Was that an offer or a request?

Are you a cop?

[ZirconBlue]

Are you a cop?


No. Nor do I play one on TV.

[NoZed Avenger]

No. Nor do I play one on TV.

In that case, happy ending is $300. Cash, no credit.

[ZirconBlue]

In that case, happy ending is $300. Cash, no credit.

Cash?! Who carries cash these days?








How about a debit card?

[Almo]

I was with them when they got mad about the iPaq. :)

[Almo]

"Is Pepsi OK?" Not just customer service--it's the law! :eek:

I hate Pepsi. If someone gives me Pepsi when I ask for Coke, I get mad. But I understand what you mean about the difference between law and customer service. :)

[Careyp74]

I think Google is in a unique position here, unlike nearly every other such incident (Aspirin for example), because they make money off ads and web hits, and no one could start another company and use Google, yet the more people verbify Google the more their name gets out and is used.

Actually, I think in this case it would be like MSN or Yahoo search telling people to google the answer using their own search engine. If the term was used frequently enough to mean 'look up on a search engine' then Google will likely lose their copyright.

[rjh01]

Actually, I think in this case it would be like MSN or Yahoo search telling people to google the answer using their own search engine. If the term was used frequently enough to mean 'look up on a search engine' then Google will likely lose their copyright.

The company may lose the Google trademark, but not copyright. However if this does happen what do you call the page to distinguish it fro mother similar search engines?

[ZeeGerman]

Apple is obviously just looking after the interests of all the dyslexics destined to be disappointed with their new "iPOD"s.

But what about these guys, they read from right to left ...:D

Zee

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050825/050825_IraqArabs_hmed_1130a.h2.jpg

[ZirconBlue]

But what about these guys, they read from right to left ...:D

Zee

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050825/050825_IraqArabs_hmed_1130a.h2.jpg


They're already used to their DOPi's and won't be confused by the iPOD accessories.