WE often criticise intellectual monopolies for impeding knowledge, but what about language? Apple is going far too far with its brand-bullying campaigns. What brand does Apple claim to own anyway? Just the name of a fruit. And it goes after small shops that actually serve fruit because Apple is all about branding and if the brand gets 'diluted', then Apple can be finished as a brand. The problem is, apple is a common English word. Had the small businesses been able to take this the court, they would have won easily. Cost of litigation is high though. Perhaps this is why Apple tends to crush small businesses, this time a "tiny restaurant in Luxembourg" based on a report which says: [via Walt]
The mighty international Apple Inc. fears consumers worldwide will be confused by a tiny restaurant in Luxembourg named AppleADay. Their slogan? "Balanced Fast Food." Apple's response? Threaten to sue.
Can you get a better David vs Goliath story? Three young people in Luxembourg worked with a dietician to create a bistro menu of fast food that's healthy. "We wanted to return to the original taste of the food," said one of the owners. Local authorities gave the name their approval of the name suggested by the bistro's communications company. The logo looks much more like a Georgia Peach logo than the Apple computer logo, but that's before the lawyers got involved.
Comments
girts
2011-11-04 22:08:06
Needs Sunlight
2011-11-04 11:50:40
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-04 14:50:16
"Kodak turns into a patent troll because its traditional business is dying," claims the FFII's president. And there's also this about Apple:
mcinsand
2011-11-04 12:44:15
This is also why so many of the current patent activities do fall into the extortion realm, and why companies like MS may actually be providing FOSS companies with a defense. When protecting a patent (or trademark or copyright), it is important to be public and clear about any infringement. To do so gives the 'infringer' time and opportunity to address any issues, and it also makes clear what rights the holder is asserting. Where this should or could work against the current intimidation strategies is that MS, in particular, has made vague threats without identifying any relevant patent numbers and claims. In other words, they are claiming that they know of infringement but are not taking positive, clear action to address it; this can become a constructive license, and it is actually a means where a property owner, real or intellectual, can take another's property. A property owner, real or intellectual, can lose that property if others are publicly using that property, and the owner does not assert his rights with clarity and specificity. Vague threats with the purpose of intimidation is market suppression, and it should be subject to racketeering charges.
Honestly, though, after working with patent examiners and patent attorneys for decades, I am simply baffled at the software industry. What planet do these guys come from? In my field, neither examiner or attorney would tolerate what seems to be routinely issued in the software world. In our work, we only put our very best examples forward with all of the detail and clarity we can muster. And, then claims have clear delineations for the boundaries of what we see as new territory. I am not trying to get into the debate of patents overall, even though I would like to provide my thoughts on driving/impeding innovation in a moment. However, patents on entering whitespaces and rounded corners leave me dumbfounded. Touch-screen displays predate the slide-to-lock patent filing date, and they predate with GUI's and slide motion input (scroll bars). So, the patent is clearly not novel based on previously commercialized prior art. Entering a routine command (and lock is routine) by input devices common to the market before 2005 should never have been regarded as remotely patentable.
As for innovation, in my industry, I do believe that it would come to a halt without patents. For my company, developing and introducing a new product costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. With analytical techniques, a competitor can see many changes with only minor laboratory testing. So, why would my company fund such an effort if the competition could use the new product as soon as samples come into the market? Granted, your perspective is different, and I look forward to reading it. However, I also know that, without the clarity and specificity that I am used to, innovation would grind to a halt. We don't practice without a review to make sure that we have the right to practice, and nebulous language would definitely muddy those waters.
Regards, mc
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-04 12:56:25
Needs Sunlight
2011-11-04 14:19:36
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-04 14:28:56
Michael
2011-11-04 13:05:34
As far as patenting trivial or obvious things - without knowing the laws but just seeing what things are patented, I assume it is much harder to patent the overall look and feel of a product. And that is what Samsung and others have been working to copy with Apple - so Apple has to use the system as it exists to defend their work.
Right now Apple is under pretty heavy attack from Samsung and *maybe* Google itself with Android (Jobs seemed to think so... I have not seen enough evidence one way or the other to come to my own view). The laws they can use to defend themselves are absurd so they end up acting in ways that seem absurd.
Seems most people agree the current system is a mess - but I have yet to read anything that would be a good solution. The idea of just making it legal for Samsung and the like to out and out copy Apple as much as they want is clearly not the right answer... but I have seen many naive people claim that would just be fine.
Anyone who denies Samsung is not copying Apple should look at the overwhelming evidence:
http://goo.gl/4mQI9 http://goo.gl/S2AJR http://goo.gl/bWDs6 http://goo.gl/NjrfV
If there is anything to counter that I have not seen it.
Mikko
2011-11-09 09:28:51
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-09 09:43:03
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-09 09:43:27
Michael
2011-11-09 15:34:36
As far as the accusation that Apple copied LG Prada and others - please show this.
Mikko
2011-11-09 15:42:10
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-09 15:45:02
Michael
2011-11-09 17:15:45
Mikko
2011-11-09 18:24:55
Michael
2011-11-09 18:35:03
Wow... you just took each of my arguments and ripped them apart. Wait. No you ran away from any content and called me a name.
Yeah, that is about the level of discourse I expect from Roy and those who back him. Just as Roy will not talk about why he was so wrong about PCLOS (past and present), you and he will run from all topics and just call people names.
A shame. But not surprising - the facts are not on your side.
Michael
2011-11-04 12:55:29
Could be coincidence... but not likely.
In any case, my comments from COLA:
walterbyrd
2011-11-04 14:31:27
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-11-04 14:47:50
Mikko
2011-11-10 18:33:24
Michael
2011-11-10 18:47:44
No, I do not claim what you attributed to me. Period. You flat out made that up. Heck, I have been very open with my views that Apple would not exist without their use of BSD, WebKit (which is based on KHTML) and other technologies they did not invent. Your claim is simply an out and out lie.
So now can we get back to discussing issues and not your clearly false attacks against me?