To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
JonathanBThompson,
"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."
I (we) understand trademarks more than you give us credit. This is an illegitimate generic trademark we're talking about here, not something referring specifically to apple products. Apple should not be entitled to generic english terms any more than anyone else is.
Apple has a history of trademark abuse - they really don't care about trademark law, they act as though they are above it. It's time someone put them in their place and judge them by the same rules as everyone else.
Edited 2011-06-23 04:27 UTC
I think the point was that Apple doesn't really need the trademark in the first place, and other people using it is not going to make a difference to their sales. So if they chose not to defend it, even if it meant losing it, what would be the big deal?




Member since:
2011-01-28
JonathanBThompson,
"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...."
tl/dr
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.