Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#131

Post by denton-scratch »

survirtual wrote: post #93
myshpa wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, just abolish patents and trademarks.

Patents and trademarks are a relic from the past that drastically suppresses innovation and puts technological advancement into slow motion, turning corporate moats into islands flying in the sky with forcefields of lawyers and bureaucracy, and enables a whole market of bad-faith parasites. There is no good-faith argument for their existence. They hurt the general populace for the benefit of some tiny minority of meg…

Registered trademarks are to prevent "passing off", which is simply fraud. But to register a trademark, you have to list the product classes in which you intend to trade.

You should not be allowed to register your marque for a class in which you are not already trading. Apple doesn't trade in apples, so their registration application fails (or their lawsuit falls at the first hurdle).

Rebecca Vardy successfully registered the trademark "Wagatha Christie" against scores of classes of products that she doesn't produce. She didn't even coin the phrase; it was coined by a journalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagatha_Christie

If there isn't a risk of customer confusion, then there should be no grounds for action. There ought to be something similar to anti-SLAPP laws to stop companies bringing frivolous actions for TM violation.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#132

Post by denton-scratch »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #128
survirtual wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents and trademarks are a relic from the past that drastically suppresses innovation and puts technological advancement into slow motion, turning corporate moats into islands flying in the sky with forcefields of lawyers and bureaucracy, and enables a whole market of bad-faith parasites. There is no good-faith argument for their existence. They hurt the general populace for the benefit of some tiny minority of meg…

Agree parents are too often harmful but trademarks seem necessary for trust. If I’m buying a can of Coca Cola with the logo I want it to be the real drink and not some fake import.

Imagine a world without parents!

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#133

Post by krono »

tpmoney wrote: post #108
krono wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is manoeuvring itself into a position where it could Without any other reasonable explanation for why it should Except for the one of which Fruit Union is afraid it would

No other explanation except that they’re registering a very specific logo which they are now the owners of but has been used in trade since the 60s within the domain of trade relating to the historical use of that trademark (that is music and related media). You know, exactly the sort of thing you might expect the owner of a trademark to do in all the relevant legal jurisdictions where it might be using that mark in…

That's precisely the point I was trying to make in response to my parent; Fruit Union's fears are fully justified as there'd be no reason for Apple to pursue this trademark if they weren't intending to exploit the perks of its ownership in the future.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#135

Post by imchillyb »

BowBun wrote: post #115
hourago wrote: post #71

> Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods—like apples—to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal. And the worst part is that Apple is wasting tax-payer money around the…

Agreed. The only mandate for a corporation is growth and revenue. These goals are at odds with the good of people and our planet, as we've seen countless times. Corporations consume most of our resources, produce the most waste, and damage _everything_ more compared to any individual. This won't change, because those with the power to do something benefit from the status quo and don't feel the damage they cause. Capi…

> ...Corporations consume...

Humans are to blame, not some mythical piece of paper granting limited liability.

Greed is the root of every evil on Earth.

What is greed?

Greed, is self over all else. Self over others. Self over environment. Self over all other considerations.

Greed is what is killing, has killed, and will continue to kill this planet and its populace.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#136

Post by zilti »

BowBun wrote: post #115
hourago wrote: post #71

> Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods—like apples—to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal. And the worst part is that Apple is wasting tax-payer money around the…

Agreed. The only mandate for a corporation is growth and revenue. These goals are at odds with the good of people and our planet, as we've seen countless times. Corporations consume most of our resources, produce the most waste, and damage _everything_ more compared to any individual. This won't change, because those with the power to do something benefit from the status quo and don't feel the damage they cause. Capi…

[flagged]

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#138

Post by denton-scratch »

tpmoney wrote: post #108
krono wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is manoeuvring itself into a position where it could Without any other reasonable explanation for why it should Except for the one of which Fruit Union is afraid it would

No other explanation except that they’re registering a very specific logo which they are now the owners of but has been used in trade since the 60s within the domain of trade relating to the historical use of that trademark (that is music and related media). You know, exactly the sort of thing you might expect the owner of a trademark to do in all the relevant legal jurisdictions where it might be using that mark in…

I can't understand your punctuation-free prose. Could it be that you're an IP lawyer?

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#139

Post by bluepod4 »

zilti wrote: post #136
BowBun wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The only mandate for a corporation is growth and revenue. These goals are at odds with the good of people and our planet, as we've seen countless times. Corporations consume most of our resources, produce the most waste, and damage _everything_ more compared to any individual. This won't change, because those with the power to do something benefit from the status quo and don't feel the damage they cause. Capi…

[flagged]

If you hear this “idiotic” take so often, then you should have had something more logical or thoughtful to say instead of not knowing where to begin.

For starters, your last clause “rather than to pay 10 cents more for something less wasteful” reeks of unintelligence.

Think about it. You were replying to a consumer. You, yourself, admit that you hear this “idiotic” take often. That means that you’ve heard many consumers say this a lot. So how can you say “gasp consumers don’t want that” when you literally admitted that you’ve heard many consumers say the opposite.

OP could also say that they’ve heard your “idiotic” take often. You don’t think “maybe consumers want it that way” is a cliche too?

LMAO.

(Sorry for being mean. I’m limiting myself to replying to one dumb person day. I was at 10 before.)

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#140

Post by Engineering-MD »

dmurray wrote: post #48
Varqu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a penalty for such bogus trademark claims, best as % of the global revenue. Then, maybe, they would learn that a corporation cannot bully others only because it has unlimited legal resources.

An elegant way to do it would seem to be to require the court to consider both directions of possible trademark infringement. If it was even remotely possible the court would rule "yes, we agree with the plaintiff's arguments that these are similar trademarks, and there is the possibility for consumer confusion, therefore we must check whose trademark has priority... turns out it's the grocers who have used the symbo…

A nice vindication, but only protects old companies, not new ones which are more likely to be victims
Post reply on HN