Apple Threatens Bistro Over "AppleADay" Name

Lol, another geographically challenged yank! :D

The mighty international Apple Inc. fears consumers worldwide will be confused by a tiny restaurant in Luxembourg named AppleADay.
Yes, Apple Inc. feels threatened by a 20-seat restaurant in Belgium that sells only drinks, sandwiches, and desserts.
Click to expand...
 
Seriously, Apple needs to reign in it's legal department. Of course the more frivolous the lawsuits become the more likely there will be reform.
ocleroux said:
fck I hate this company. I actually have no words. This really is a disgusting company. I hope somehow they meet their downfall one day.
Click to expand...
Can I have your new iPod? Or have you already sold it? :)
 
bwana said:
Seriously, Apple needs to reign in it's legal department. Of course the more frivolous the lawsuits become the more likely there will be reform.
Click to expand...

Oh reform is coming... more and more people getting "die moer in" with the legal crap. There is even a petition up on the Official White house site. Will be interesting to watch this window.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...ffice-cease-issuing-software-patents/vvNslSTq

Direct the Patent Office to Cease Issuing Software Patents

The patent office's original interpretation of software as language and therefor patentable is much closer to reality and more productive for innovation than it's current practice of issuing software patents with no understanding of the patents being issued.

Under the patent office's current activity, patents have been come a way to stifle innovation and prevent competition rather than supporting innovation and competitive markets. They've become a tool of antitrust employed by large companies against small ones.

To return sanity to the software industry - one of the few industries still going strong in America - direct the patent office to cease issuing software patents and to void all previously issued software patents.
Click to expand...
 
So we can't name anything after fruits? I mean orange is taken. 'Berry also out of reach.

/rushes home to prepare a copyright for 'pumpkin'.

You lot are screwed
 
This must be a joke :wtf: . It's just too bizarre!!

Hmmm, I want to start a company called 'Pear'... The catch phrase will be "You ain't a man till you got a Pear"... :D
 
Idiots hate companies.

Smart people buy performing stocks.

Apple is protecting its name. Apart from being a Technology giant, it also runs retail chains under the brand "Apple Store" which can be confused with "AppleaDay".

Imagine a store with the name "Clicks-A-day" which sells alcohol, just because "Clicks" does not sell alcohol does not mean that they should not protect their brand name.
 
news24 said:
Idiots hate companies.

Smart people buy performing stocks.

Apple is protecting its name. Apart from being a Technology giant, it also runs retail chains under the brand "Apple Store" which can be confused with "AppleaDay".

Imagine a store with the name "Clicks-A-day" which sells alcohol, just because "Clicks" does not sell alcohol does not mean that they should not protect their brand name.
Click to expand...

I for one have never been to or heard of "AppleaDay", nor has practically 99% of the population... until now :p.

You literally, in every way, have to be retarded to confuse Apple Store with AppleaDay... I mean, the one is a fusking coffee shop, the other one is a big shot pc company... very distinguishable... In fact, by your logic, because it's confusing to people... Then Apple should ask to change the name of the apple fruit because people might get confused with the fruit and the iphone, and might attempt to eat the iphone :confused:

Actually, New 24 should sue you for using their name... People might get confused with the mindless drivel and terrible writing, and the other being a retarded man posting on myBB :p
 
Elimentals said:
Maybe they should stop suing people for crap and just maybe send there layers back to Germany where they just got an injunction against them purely because no one showed to defend the case.

See http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/11/motorola-mobility-apparently-won.html
Click to expand...

The case really is not a thread to Apple. Motorola Mobility won a case based on FRAND patents, the European Commission does not allow pulling of products based FRAND violations so long as the offending party is willing to pay a reasonable license fee, and that's what Apple has been asking from Motorola.

As a matter of fact the EC has instituted an investigation into Samsung on using FRAND patents to bully other companies.
 
news24 said:
The case really is not a thread to Apple. Motorola Mobility won a case based on FRAND patents, the European Commission does not allow pulling of products based FRAND violations so long as the offending party is willing to pay a reasonable license fee, and that's what Apple has been asking from Motorola.

As a matter of fact the EC has instituted an investigation into Samsung on using FRAND patents to bully other companies.
Click to expand...

WOW, I guess you didnt read the link as that was mentioned as well :)

as in: Did Apple just sacrifice a pawn on a larger chessboard that also involves the EU FRAND antitrust matter?

Tim Nash, a reader of my blog who writes for other sites (such as lowendmac.com), contacted me with some theory for Apple's strategy that is very interesting. I'm not saying that this necessarily is indeed Apple's strategy, but what Tim suggests is plausible per se.

Tim thinks that this is about timing. Apple knew that the European Commission was considering an investigation into the use of FRAND patents by Samsung. And indeed, on Thursday I discovered a reference to an EU investigation in a court filing, and the European Commission has meanwhile confirmed what amounts to a preliminary antitrust investigation.

Tim's theory is that Apple didn't want a court ruling in Mannheim to adversely affect the probability of such an investigation being started. He says that if the court in Mannheim had adjudicated this matter on its merits and had dismissed Apple's FRAND defense, this would have meant that courts in different EU member states rule differently on these FRAND issues. Previously, a Dutch court agreed with Apple and dismissed a Samsung request for an injunction based on a FRAND licensing obligation. In Tim's opinion, Apple didn't want to take any risk of inconsistent rulings.

Tim thinks inconsistent rulings could have discouraged the Commission (and ETSI, the relevant standard-setting organization) from looking into the broader issue. Now that there's at least a preliminary investigation going on, Apple has made some headway.

Apple can't avoid that the Mannheim court decides on the merits of the case at some point. Maybe that will happen within a few months anyway. But the Mannheim hearing was on October 21, and maybe that was a critical juncture in the decision-making process at the Commission.

How likely is Tim to be right? It's impossible to know without more information on the EU process. I agree with Tim that an unFRANDly ruling by the Mannheim court, on or shortly after October 21, might have been disadvantageous for Apple in Brussels, and playing for time (by accepting a default judgment for the time being) could have made sense. I also think that a favorable resolution of the EU antitrust case involving Samsung would help Apple against Motorola.

Timing can be key when interdependent processes take place in parallel. In this case, Apple may actually have a better chance of prevailing on a FRAND defense in Mannheim now that it can show the German court that the European Commission is concerned about the enforcement of standards-essential patents. That's also part of what Tim thought. And this part is also plausible.

That said, Apple has enabled Motorola Mobility to win, in formal terms, a favorable ruling. Whatever its reason(s) might have been, it doesn't make things easier.
Click to expand...
 
news24 said:
Idiots hate companies.

Smart people buy performing stocks.

Apple is protecting its name. Apart from being a Technology giant, it also runs retail chains under the brand "Apple Store" which can be confused with "AppleaDay".

Imagine a store with the name "Clicks-A-day" which sells alcohol, just because "Clicks" does not sell alcohol does not mean that they should not protect their brand name.
Click to expand...

Buying stocks has nothing to do with whether you like a company or not. You mean I can't name my company Appleton for example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X