51–60 of 96 posts
Maybe we could change the filetype from .js to .bho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc...
The other two original Power Mac models had the code names “Piltdown Man” and “Cold Fusion”—not exactly the sort of thing someone like Sagan would want to be implicitly associated with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just learned about this case today. Based purely on the Wikipedia description, Sagan's request seems reasonable, from a moral perspective at least. I have no idea why Apple (or its engineers) would be so butthurt about it.
Because it was just a silly internal code name for an unreleased product and Carl Sagon was just being a killjoy to his own fans. That he continued to escalate with lawsuits makes him look ridiculous frankly...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His reason was "concerned that it would become a product endorsement," and it was after the name was "publicized," which sounds reasonable to me. The joy can only go so far, IMHO. If the namesake person asked for it, you comply—pretty simple. I can totally see why people aren’t comfortable with their name being used without permission, even without the endorsement concern.
Personally, I think the subsequent libel lawsuits demonstrates it was all just ego
Maybe we could change the filetype from .js to .bho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc...
One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head'."
JavaScript is dead. Long live YavaScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I think the subsequent libel lawsuits demonstrates it was all just ego
So he was supposed to just accept being called "Butt-Head Astronomer"? Sure, I’d respect him more if he did, but I’m not going to call him pompous or having a big ego just because he didn’t.
Usually if you file a patently frivolous lawsuit, you get sanctioned.
IP lawyers in the comments, what does this mean? It just says "NOTICE OF APPERANCE (sic) OF COUNSEL". Is it just a bureaucratic step where Oracle says "we're not ignoring this"?
It would be silly not to, since in this case (before the TTAB) it would lead to a default judgement that would be very hard to get out of.
Even if you later choose to release the trademark, you'd still want to see all the court documents, etc.
They didn't catch their misspelling of "appearance" on page 2 of this filing? It's only 2 pages long and they missed this, really?
I can easily find a bunch of nearly identically worried ones.
See, e.g, https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91291646-OPP-4.pdf