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

141–150 of 191 posts

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

#141

Post by zakki »

anigbrowl wrote: post #107

Wired knows better. Apple is required by US trademark law to file pro forma objections to other similar logos because if they don't, they can be accused of constructive abandonment' of their own mark which will drastically limit their ability to seek recourse against genuine infringement. The problem here is not Apple, but the perverse incentives in US trademark jurisprudence.

Apple is part of the problem here. This case is in Swiss which is not using US trademark law. The logo is clearly different, the products of both companies/org are different. But still Apple wants the other apples. I wish all Apples fanboys all over the world create an online petition to oppose this action.

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

#142

Post by yakireev »

anigbrowl wrote: post #104
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…

So what happens when yo invent/create a thing, attempt to commercialize it, and an established corporation just rips you off because there's no barrier to doing so? You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't deflect to some other issue (notwithstanding its validity) you don't have an answer for the question.

> So what happens when yo invent/create a thing, attempt to commercialize it, and an established corporation just rips you off because there's no barrier to doing so?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. As of right now, the answer is: nothing happens. The established corporation profits, and you suck it up, because what else are you going to do? Sue Apple?

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

#143

Post by malfist »

azinman2 wrote: post #130
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…

Do other forms of government not rape the land, build industry, dump chemicals and pollutants, etc? Not sure the history of North Korea, China, Soviet Union, etc is an environmentalist paradise.

This is a form of "whataboutism" Just because some countries' governments are as bad as some corporations, does not mean either should get a free pass, or that corporations are not at fault for what they do.

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

#144

Post by malfist »

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…

I think there is merit to patents too, just not in there current form.

Patents were envisioned as a way to share innovation and progress while still protecting the inventor for enough time to make a profit. I think when they first were created it was 8 or 12 years. Not the 70+ it is now.

It was also required be be a non-obvious, specific invention. Slide to unlock which was a patent war apple won against google clearly goes against this "non-obvious" intent. Specific has also went to the wayside in software. When dyson applies for a patent for a new vacuum cleaner they specify exactly how the new suction is generated. Software patents are much more like "a device that sucks" is the patent. Woe be it to you if you create something else that sucks.

Bring back short terms, specificity and non-obvious requirements. Then patents help by protecting innovation instead of stifling it.

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

#145

Post by nomad_monad »

bluepod4 wrote: post #139
zilti wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 consum…

[flagged]

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

#146

Post by andybak »

imchillyb wrote: post #135
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…

> ...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.

This comment is both true and utterly useless.

You aren't in traffic, you are traffic.

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

#147

Post by survirtual »

ben_w wrote: post #122
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…

Patents fit your rhetoric, but trademarks protect customers from rip-off merchants who, to create a relevant example, will take the insides of an Android phone, build an iPhone-shaped form around it, re-skin the OS to be like iOS, and then sell it as "an iPhone". This is still the case even though Apple is obviously wrong here.

Except rip offs happen regularly still with little intervention, and giant corps use trademarks frivolously even when they know it's wrong, because they have deeper pockets and can litigate small companies out of business regardless of the merit of claims.

How anyone can own the likeness of a fruit that has existed for millions of years is beyond my understanding.

"Google" -- an invented word that did not exist prior to its conception forma company -- makes sense to protect. "Apple" does not. When you make a company name after a FRUIT, you should take on the risk associated with a public domain likeness and an inability to own it. Anything else is absurd.

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

#149

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by hakfoo »

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.

Why not some sort of "certificate of origin" instead. Maybe it's a ugly looking government label or even a QR code, and misuse of it would be under deceptive-trading laws.

The point is for it to be functional, rather than letting rich firms land-rush anything (colours, shapes, fonts) that might be marketing assets.

In the end, you'd have 35 red cans with white text on the shelf, but the boring square label on the box tells you which firm actually made it.

Post reply on HN