CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
candyswipe.com
CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#2Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#3I hope this post brings about enough social pressure to ensure that the right thing, whatever that means, happens.
Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#4Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#5Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#6There is a constant struggle between doing what's right for your business and doing the right thing. Until you are placed in that position, you really have no idea what you'll do. I hope this post brings about enough social pressure to ensure that the right thing, whatever that means, happens.
Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#7Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#8The best formula for making it in the appstore is to copy other peoples work. This has been apparent for quite some time now.
Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#9Seriously, why isn't this guy able to win this and gain monetary damages?
Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark
#10"Here's a model that we've had trouble with. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out better. Many markets get down to two or three big competitors—or five or six. And in some of those markets, nobody makes any money to speak of. But in others, everybody does very well.
Over the years, we've tried to figure out why the competition in some markets gets sort of rational from the investor's point of view so that the shareholders do well, and in other markets, there's destructive competition that destroys shareholder wealth.
If it's a pure commodity like airline seats, you can understand why no one makes any money. As we sit here, just think of what airlines have given to the world—safe travel, greater experience, time with your loved ones, you name it. Yet, the net amount of money that's been made by the shareholders of airlines since Kitty Hawk, is now a negative figure—a substantial negative figure. Competition was so intense that, once it was unleashed by deregulation, it ravaged shareholder wealth in the airline business.
Yet, in other fields—like cereals, for example—almost all the big boys make out. If you're some kind of a medium grade cereal maker, you might make 15% on your capital. And if you're really good, you might make 40%. But why are cereals so profitable—despite the fact that it looks to me like they're competing like crazy with promotions, coupons and everything else? I don't fully understand it.
Obviously, there's a brand identity factor in cereals that doesn't exist in airlines. That must be the main factor that accounts for it.
And maybe the cereal makers by and large have learned to be less crazy about fighting for market share—because if you get even one person who's hell-bent on gaining market share.... For example, if I were Kellogg and I decided that I had to have 60% of the market, I think I could take most of the profit out of cereals. I'd ruin Kellogg in the process. But I think I could do it.
In some businesses, the participants behave like a demented Kellogg. In other businesses, they don't. Unfortunately, I do not have a perfect model for predicting how that's going to happen.
For example, if you look around at bottler markets, you'll find many markets where bottlers of Pepsi and Coke both make a lot of money and many others where they destroy most of the profitability of the two franchises. That must get down to the peculiarities of individual adjustment to market capitalism. I think you'd have to know the people involved to fully understand what was happening."
-Charlie Munger http://ycombinator.com/munger.html