Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:20 UTC
Legal This make me a sad little facepalming unicorn. Apple has just slapped the open source home server project Amahi with a cease and desist letter about the project's use of the term 'app store' - stop using the term, or face Cupertino's army of lawyers. Note: Please help me find out what 'Mac App' is, a supposed Apple product from 1985 - the first citation of the term 'app' in the Oxford English Dictionary. Another note: Okay I should've guessed that publications from that time could still correct company's horrid camel case spelling without unleashing the wrath of fanboys - it's MacApp, not Mac App. Gra├žias, guys!
Thread beginning with comment 478305
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: MacApp
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MacApp"
Member since:

If I'm interpreting your statements correctly, you seem to think I'm all for Apple and that I've sold my soul to the devil, that I can't have fun making fun of large corporations like in the past. Well, no, that's not how it is. Do I own Apple hardware? Yes. Do I own only Apple hardware? No. Do I only use Apple OS'es? No. Am I against the little guys, like the Haiku project, or this one? No. Am I against unfair competition? Yes, and there's actually zero conflict with my stance on this issue, despite what you want to paint it as. For formal employment, before you were online and present in any meaningful way, I worked for a subsidiary of Sony, in the CD-ROM premastering department, from 92-96. You likely wouldn't recognize their name, but wholly owned by Sony they are. What can I say? It was gainful employment. They certainly didn't do everything in an "ideal" way, but I felt at the time, at least they tried.

I've had some other employers you've never heard of, and likely never will. <shrug>. I've worked for other large, well-known employers, as some combination of full-time and contract you certainly have heard of, in this order, with me completing the contract for the latest one on Monday of this week: Yahoo!,, and Microsoft. They all have their issues. As long as they do things the legal and moral way, I don't have a problem working for them. I'm not overly concerned with the possible prestige involved with working at any of them: I'm interested in the work I do, as to whether I find it interesting for me to do, and that it pays my bills, and I learn something valuable from it, because let's remember, employment should be mutually beneficial for everyone: the employer, the employee, the customers, and society at large. If a company isn't all of those, I'm not interested in working there, and the money involved isn't relevant, because I can always go elsewhere, even if it pays very little, as long as I make ends meet.

But this whole silly thread you blogged about is all about making fun of a huge corporation (Apple) putting the legal screws on some small OSS project. Therefore, because Apple is some huge company, you think that them doing this is somehow unfair and wrong, because of who/what they're going after legally, and you act as though Apple is all out of line, and is the big evil corp for doing this. It seems you think this isn't fair for competition. But, I argue that you don't see the big perspective about trademarks, defending them, and their reason for being: they were created a very long time ago precisely to protect businesses from unfair competition by their rivals that deceive customers as to what they're really getting, and protect customers from those deceptive businesses, too, and the law is setup such (with good reason) that to maintain trademarks (the identity of a product/service (well, there's also service marks, which are the same thing for services) and their creators/owners) that to maintain their identity, they are legally required to fight for them, and the size of their opponent is 100% irrelevant. A large part of why it is irrelevant (and logically it must remain that way) is because those that ride on the coattails of others (infringing on marks) often grow unfairly at the expense of those that have the marks: they're parasites in a business sense. This is the heart of the matter, that trademarks exist and must be vigorously protected for the good of all, however ugly it gets. There's no such thing as a free ride for infringers, or at least there shouldn't be.

Believe it or not, I'd just as vigorously defend Samsung or some other Android-promoting company, or whatever, when it comes to defending of trademarks, or whatever, or the smaller companies suing the big ones, too, for that matter: it's not a matter of size, it's not a matter of what's profitable to me from the POV of (WHATEVER) but a matter of what's right and fair and just. But you seem to want to steal the IP rights, and the right to choose to make a living via developing IP, away from whomever you want via fiat, and I'm opposed to that asinine line of thought you keep on promoting, because you would steal the rights of people to work on what they want, on the terms they want, just to give it to others that want it: it seems you'd like to make of yourself a Robin Hood of IP, as it were, and you think everyone that creates IP of any kind should be forced to work in ways you proscribe as being legal, moral, ethical, convenient to you, because you refuse to see that everyone has the right to work towards their own welfare in their own way, on their own terms with the world. In other words: you claim the way things are done when it comes to creators and sellers of IP is generally evil and wrong, for them to set terms that they want to go by. Well, if you don't want to deal on the terms of the creators and owners, just don't partake of their works, and go and create your own, but you have zero moral, legal or ethical standing to dictate how others must earn their living. THIS is what I'm so vehemently pissed at you and your "ideals" about. Trademarks actually fit perfectly into this whole discussion, and are part of this whole IP thing. A name and identity is a very important and powerful part of any entity, and always has been.

Meanwhile, you want to go and compare others that have viewpoints violently opposed (and yes, your viewpoint that creators must work on YOUR terms instead of theirs is nothing less than slavery of a class of people) to yours as to those of a dog licking their balls in public. Well, pull your head out of the sand and see it from the POV of people that do what they do because they love to, need to, want to, and don't want to be subjected to the tyranny of Thom Holwerda and his ilk, just because he wants something that he (you) has not earned himself.

Now, does that mean I'm all on the side of RIAA, etc.? No. There's such a thing as going too far. I can agree, copyright terms should be shorter, nobody should be able to pass on the ability to make money from a single work long after the creator is dead. Copyright is still a very valuable thing to all involved, including society, but too long of terms dilutes that. I can agree (at least partially), a lot of the software patents are patently ridiculous, and are rather obvious (LODSYS comes to mind immediately). I'd say if you don't implement or cause something to be implemented within a finite, reasonable amount of time from an idea you patent (either via licensing or directly doing it yourself), well, tough luck, you should get nothing, because an unimplemented idea is just another random thought, be it software or other type. I'm all for fairness, based on the balance of the creator's rights, versus the contribution to society at large: you perhaps see yourself as also being for fairness, but it seems a bit more selfishly oriented towards yourself and society at large, at the price of the creators first. The US grew out of their horrible period of enacting legal slavery: seems it's taken a different form, and a different class, one that's not so easily pointed out on the street "Hey, there goes our slave!" but it hasn't changed in some conceptual ways, there are people out there like you that want a form of slavery, just with a different class of slaves doing a different, specialized form of work. And that's why I've turned against you and your ideals: you've gone off the deep end, and seek to overthrow the rights of creators everywhere to your whims of legal, moral and ethical expectations. Well, as I've said earlier: the name and identity is vitally important to all entities, and I, for one, am identified by my work as much as anyone, and I'm a creator. For the most part, you want to be a user, and it seems, on your terms only. I'm having none of it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: MacApp
by Alfman on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:33 in reply to "RE[5]: MacApp"
Alfman Member since:


"But this whole silly thread you blogged about is all about making fun of a huge corporation (Apple) putting the legal screws on some small OSS project. Therefore, because Apple is some huge company, you think that them doing this is somehow unfair and wrong, because of who/what they're going after legally...."


Maybe there's a point somewhere in there, however you are wrong that the criticism weighed against apple is due only to it's size. We are in fact judging apple by it's actions. This is but one incident for which apple is incurring a reputation as a corporate bully.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: MacApp
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 04:08 in reply to "RE[6]: MacApp"
JonathanBThompson Member since:

I'm sad to see you didn't read and comprehend what was stated in there in regards to the history and reason trademarks are what they are: they're that way for good reason, and like it or not, Apple is doing what they legally need to do, it's nothing personal, and if the tables were turned, the small entity/person would do the same thing, and needs to do the same thing. It's not being a "bully" to do what you are legally required to do: that's merely considered "business" and is a required action for protecting your business and rights. Whether or not the trademark for "App Store" is something you agree with as being valid means nothing: it's been granted to Apple, legally, as they filed for it and got it. It's been used in the past for a trademark, a couple times, by previous entities: they let it lapse. Thus, the government powers-that-be clearly decided it was suitable to trademark: once something is trademarked and registered, it's legally required for the owner to vigorously defend it, or they lose it. There is nothing related to size of entity on either end of the situation, either the one vigorously defending their mark, or the one that would use it when it's not theirs, in the same/too close line of business/services. Once again... this is business, and that's all it is, and this is how business has been legislated over a period exceeding our lifetimes that it must happen.

Reply Parent Score: 3