Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple lawyers with too much spare time...
- Thread starter Celf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
in your country maybe. Not all of them are that way.
Also the bar is set pretty high and I already counter that argument any how pointing out that Apple could keep it tied up in court with appeal after appeal to the point company they are suing is bankrupt making the results of the case irrelevant since the one being sued is no more so can not fight. Apple wins.
It is in Germany.
Under Civil Procedure in Germany the losing party to litigation will normally be ordered to pay the "total costs of its opponent", including attorneys' fees and court fees.
Volker, G. Heinz, Germany, in EC LEGAL SYSTEMS, AN INTRODUCTORY GUIDE 34 (1992.)
Supplemental damages in private international law: attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages and damages in foreign currency examined in the comparative and international context, By John Yukio Gotanda. The Hague / Boston 1998, p. 149 (notes.)
10. Cost Recovery:
"Under German procedure law the party who lost the case therefore has to pay all the legal fees, the court fees and the lawyer costs."
(There also exists an option for legal costs insurance.)
Basic Civil Court Procedures in Germany: a practical guide
From Rechtsanwalt Dr. Götz-Sebastian Hök
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...zay2BA&usg=AFQjCNGntgHseJ12z6FdHtUuM2lp7qrweQ
Last edited:
That's trademark law for you. Apple _must_ act in a case like this, or they risk losing their trademark. The problem is that if Apple left this unchallenged, then anyone could use this as a precedent. That's why Apple didn't manage to get a trademark for "Multitouch".
I think the fact alone that a cease and desist letter was sent is enough to prevent any precedent; Apple doesn't have to and most likely won't do anything else (whether that cafe takes the sign down or not).
As far as the thread title is concerned: Absolutely wrong.
With a slightly different definition of losing: The court would first determine the value of the court case (how much money are they arguing about), and cost depends on that. Then when damages are determined, the cost is shared according to the portion of requested damages actually awarded. If I sue you for €10,000 and win €10,000, you pay all the cost. If I win €5,000, we each pay half. If I win €1,000, I pay 90% of the cost, even though I "won" the case.
Is this based on your extensive knowledge of German copyright law, or just your completely unfounded opinion?
The term isn't generic, Apple allowed it to become generic by not complaining to anyone using the term.
Last edited:
No, this was not necessary, as there is no way the trademark would apply in this case.
Apple didn't get "multitouch" because the term is generic (hence Blu-ray and not Blue-ray) and they weren't the first one to use the term.
Lethal
Which still does not get around the fact that the case can drag out for years and during that time the smaller company is bankrupt.
Thank you for failing to read and yet to get around the key point.
It was because it was a descriptive name, and so any other product that describing a similar process would be infringing on the trademark.
Both of you are correct. It was both generic and descriptive:
"...we find that "multi-touch" not only identifies the technology, but also describes how a user of the goods operates the device.. - US Examiner"
Therefore Apple had to prove that the term had become equated with their products through length and exclusivity of use, and because they had spent a lot of effort on it through ads etc. Apple failed to provide that proof.
The most amazing (and unpublicized - I seem to be the only person who noticed this) thing to me is, Apple would've almost certainly gotten the "Multi-Touch" trademark, if not for the years-long reexamination prompted by a 60 page protest letter submitted from the very same Jeff Han who had demonstrated multi-touch at TED a few years before the iPhone came out.
The last thing he wanted was for any company to get sole ownership of a term that had been used for years, both by himself and others.
i find trademark laws funny really ,
best example was Mercedes , when Mercedes introduced the E- class and after they started to build the cars and after they done all the advertising , some bloke from Germany came and he apparently had a couple years earlier registered in France the name Class -E among some other dozens of product names as worldwide trademark (was easier and cheaper in France then anywhere else ) , Mercedes made a offer of 1 Mark per car in total 200000 Mark, but he refused that offer and did want from Mercedes 1000 Mark per produced Car or they need to change the name , Mercedes Lawyers tried to find a loophole , but no loophole there then they did pay him the money as that was still cheaper for them then changing the name , the advertisements .......
best example was Mercedes , when Mercedes introduced the E- class and after they started to build the cars and after they done all the advertising , some bloke from Germany came and he apparently had a couple years earlier registered in France the name Class -E among some other dozens of product names as worldwide trademark (was easier and cheaper in France then anywhere else ) , Mercedes made a offer of 1 Mark per car in total 200000 Mark, but he refused that offer and did want from Mercedes 1000 Mark per produced Car or they need to change the name , Mercedes Lawyers tried to find a loophole , but no loophole there then they did pay him the money as that was still cheaper for them then changing the name , the advertisements .......
In your opinion. The court (if it goes that far) may well have a different opinion.
What's say we leave it to the experts, instead of arm-chair experts with zero legal grounding in trademark law.
I think I preferred Apple when they were a little bit smaller and a little bit saner...
Now.. they are turning into jack cun%s who deserve to loose some of their Chinese made profit to bring them down to Earth..
Now.. they are turning into jack cun%s who deserve to loose some of their Chinese made profit to bring them down to Earth..
nope an apple looks like the logo of Apple . so its their trademark so every farmer producing apples might get sued by Apple ,if the farmer paints on a sign an Apple so people know what he's selling ....
and Apple has to make sure ... absolute sure you dont go to that farmer and expect to buy a Mac .. simple or? thats called common sense today
Dont know but i get the impression Apple thinks his customers must have IQ's far below 10 . as i cant find any other logical explanation for suing a small cafe or other business not even remotely related to the products Apple is selling for trademark infringement , just because their logo looks remotely like an apple of some sort
so lets face it Apple must think their customers cant see a difference between these two premises and might not even notice the difference after entering
Last edited:
Again, Apple wasn't even the first to use it so they didn't 'allow' anything to slip away because the term was never in their 'possession' in the first place.
^^^ This. Thank you.
Lethal
There are millions of people watching, that _aren't_ posting here.
All the lawsuits and other negative actions Apple is initiating, is not reflecting well on them.
As someone who is a long time Apple customer, I'd be thrilled to see them stop this and get back to the positive.
Anyone that understands basic math knows Apples already on top.
Why not do what Apple does best? Just keep building terrific products!
The rest will take care of itself.
All the lawsuits and other negative actions Apple is initiating, is not reflecting well on them.
As someone who is a long time Apple customer, I'd be thrilled to see them stop this and get back to the positive.
Anyone that understands basic math knows Apples already on top.
Why not do what Apple does best? Just keep building terrific products!
The rest will take care of itself.
The bulk of the market pays little to no attention to these lawsuits.
From Apple's numbers, it seems the exact opposite is going on. Angry and upset consumers bought 4 million iPhone 4Ses in a single weekend. And this holiday quarter they're *really* going to show their displeasure by handing them another record quarter.
The average consumer doesn't give a sweet damn who Apple is suing, as long as it's not them, their mom, or innocent puppies. The rest is business, most of which they have neither the time nor the inclination to care about. They're in it for the Apple gear, nothing more.
What's not positive about developing great products? They never left the positive.
That's sorta what they've been doing. Or have you been away for the last couple of months? Regardless of any legal activities Apple is involved in, development continues. Product development is not contingent upon lawsuits. The engineers and designers aren't the ones involved. lawyers are. That's their job.
Last edited:
Apple was granted the patent for "Slide to Unlock." 
That's pretty much every smartphone, tablet and Win 8.
That's pretty much every smartphone, tablet and Win 8.
No, it's not. The reason they didn't get "Multi-touch" as a trademark was because they applied for it too quickly, before it had achieved secondary meaning. The rejection is clear on that, the term was too descriptive of the technology and Apple failed to show they had marketed the term to tie it to their products at all.
It wasn't that they failed to defend it.
As for this case, no one could use this as a precedent, it's not a precedent. Apple is a computer/electronics firm, this is a Cafe. Different industries. Like R.J.S. says, this fails the most basic tests. Apple doesn't have to defend this, they choose to.
What does that have to do with it ?
When it applies to organic produce that grow in a orchard, yes. When it applies to a firm that sells electronic gadgets ?
The proper way to say it is "Descriptive". Argue with the judge at the USPTO if you don't agree Multi-touch was descriptive and that Apple had failed to achieve secondary meaning.
Apple was granted the patent for "Slide to Unlock."
That's pretty much every smartphone, tablet and Win 8.
That's quite a score.
Apple was granted the patent for "Slide to Unlock."
That's pretty much every smartphone, tablet and Win 8.
No it's not. Read the patent carefully. Apple's patent is for sliding a graphical object on a pre-defined and displayed path.
My TouchPad uses no such pre-defined or displayed path, I just need to drag something to somewhere, nothing precise for example.
Exactly. I can't think of any other OS that fits that specification. WP7 and Windows 8 both slide the whole page up, Android now has the circle that you drag around to where ever you want, the WebOS does it as you explained above... can anyone think of one?
Apple was granted the patent for "Slide to Unlock."
That's pretty much every smartphone, tablet and Win 8.
not really. Apple tried in a few countries already where that patent was granted and it was tossed out and declared invalided. It was even worse. The just refused to even consider it after Samsung present this lovely little video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=youtu.be#t=4m00s
ftw that phone is 2 years before the first iPhone.
That video will be used as an example in defense to get it declared invalid when Apple tries to sue for it.
Why would it be prior art ? There's no graphical object nor a path displayed to slide the graphical object along. It's has non-prior art as most devices are non-infringing.