Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

388 comments

Free Apples! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314244)

Eve enjoyed it...

They did what now? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314248)

You can't prevent someone from giving your product away. If they bought one, you can't keep them from giving that product to someone else.

captcha: astound

As in, I am astounded that they think this can possibly work.

Re:They did what now? (2, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314276)

Your "first sale" is powerless before my RDF. Go use a dell or something.

Re:They did what now? (3, Insightful)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314440)

You can't prevent someone from giving your product away.

No, but Apple could chose not to ship you anymore iP[a/o]ds. This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).

Apple is probably doing this as a proactive maneuver to protect their brand name from being cheapened.

Re:They did what now? (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314684)

Gotta take that a step further...
iP[[ad/od]/hone]s

Re:They did what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314706)

How inelegant. it should be: iP[[a/o]d]/hone]s

Re:They did what now? (1)

guard952 (768434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314900)

At least next the brackets properly. iP[[a/o]d/hone]s

Re:They did what now? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314756)

This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).

Did you even RTFA? It's about a TV station running afoul of Apple's "guidelines" - which I suspect wouldn't be enforceable, except for the use of their proprietary Myriad Set font being copyright 'n' all.

Re:They did what now? (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314908)

Did you even RTFA?

You're right, I hadn't.

My bad.

Re:They did what now? (4, Insightful)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314924)

No, but Apple could chose not to ship you anymore iP[a/o]ds. This is targeted at retailers trying to use the products in a promotion to get customers, not at a normal user who wants to give their device away to a friend (although I'm sure that they've already developed DRM to do just that).

A small bank decides to run a "win one of 5 iPads" competition to new customers. How is Apple going to stop them from sending someone down to the local department store to buy them? (Or five staff to different stores if they want to be sneaky!) Heck, is Apple going to start interrogating every shopper in an Apple Store? "Admit it! You're going to give this way in some filthy raffle aren't you, Miss Whatever-your-name-is! And I bet that's not even a real beard!"

Re:They did what now? (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314846)

It's not about stopping giving products away. It's about marketing using the promise of giving products away.

They can stop you using their trademarks in advertising the giveaway. All of Apple's products have trademarked names. So in running a promotion to benefit your company, you could say you're going to give away a tablet from a fruit company. But you can't put on your marketing materials that you're giving away an Apple iPad. Otherwise Apple does indeed have grounds to sue you.

They think it can possibly work because they have IP expertise on the staff. You don't think it can work because you don't.

Re:They did what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314876)

I don't think Trademark law is designed to be (ab)used that way. You're not naming a different product deceivingly, it is what it is, wtf are you supposed to refer to it as?

Re:They did what now? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314950)

I don't think Trademark law is designed to be (ab)used that way. You're not naming a different product deceivingly, it is what it is, wtf are you supposed to refer to it as?

"a tablet from a fruit company"?

Re:They did what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314980)

a tablet from a fruit company run by a fruity guy

Ok? (2)

TheCount22 (952106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314252)

Ok so they don't want organizations to buy iPads for people!? Why?

Re:Ok? (5, Insightful)

Sniper98G (1078397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314626)

You have to understand. Who wants to buy an Apple product only to turn around and see some poor person with one. How are you supposed to feel superior to them if they have one too.

Re:Ok? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314936)

You have to understand. Who wants to buy an Apple product only to turn around and see some fanboi with one. How are you supposed to feel superior to them if they have one too.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:Ok? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314954)

I know, right. Next thing you know, they'll be filling up my Starbucks and hogging all the bandwidth on the free wifi...

Re:Ok? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314628)

No, that is not at all what they are trying to do. The fact that doing so makes absolutely no sense should have been a hint that you were mistaken.

Re:Ok? (4, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314882)

Have you not seen "FREE iPad" and FREE iPhone" spam? Real spam in emails and forums, but also just endlessly repeated web-adverts. It pisses people off. Apple don't want that bad-will to reflect on their products. The reputation of the products and the company are worth far more than the piddling amounts of product that promoters would buy from Apple to run these promotions. Especially as most of them are scams.

Re:Ok? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314942)

What makes you think that scammers and spammers care what Apple says about promotions? These groups are already operating on the fringe at best.

what's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314262)

If the pads were paid for, who cares?

Re:what's the point? (2)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314478)

Apparently, they think it devalues their products... might wanna do something about the fanboys first!

Enforceability? (2, Insightful)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314266)

Is there any legal weight behind this, or is this just gesturing on Apple's part? It certainly seems like Apple shouldn't have any control over what I do with my iPad once I've bought it; no matter if I give it away for free, stick it in a blender, or install my own bootloader. It's certainly their prerogative if they want to say that any of those things void my warranty, but I don't think they can enforce any of their demands on me.

Re:Enforceability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314328)

They can refuse to sell you any more units.

Re:Enforceability? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314356)

They can't stop you from giving away your iPad, but they can stop you from using the word "iPad", the Myriad Set font, and any other Apple trademarks when advertising the give-away.

Re:Enforceability? (5, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314462)

but they can stop you from using the word "iPad", the Myriad Set font, and any other Apple trademarks when advertising the give-away.

No, they can't. They can only assert their trademarks to prevent market confusion - specifically, against a competing product with a similar name or similar branding. If you are giving away a genuine Apple-made iPad, there is nothing they can do to prevent you from saying that you are giving away an Apple iPad.

Re:Enforceability? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314610)

Are you a lawyer? Can you cite the case law to backup your claim? If not, I wouldn't be so confident. Apple may well be looking to set a precedent, and if it goes to the supreme court which is currently tilted heavily in favor of "corporate rights" they would likely win quite easily.

Re:Enforceability? (2)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314642)

Are you a lawyer? Can you cite the case law to backup your claim?

He's not, and he can't. Look up, e.g., trademark dilution, tarnishment, etc.

Re:Enforceability? (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314704)

Apple has to have an actual legal basis to file a lawsuit. I'm saying they have none. It's rather hard to provide a citation to something that doesn't exist.

Trademark law protects against trademark infringement (which is using a competitor's trademark on your own product) or trademark dillution (which is using someone else's trademark on your own product in a different market that doesn't compete with the original). Both of these are illegal under numerous laws, starting with the 1946 Lanham act (15 U.S.C. 1051-1141) However, mentioning the name of someone else's product is not illegal - it happens on TV anytime any advertisement mentions any product except the one being advertised.

Re:Enforceability? (2)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314620)

They can only assert their trademarks to prevent market confusion - specifically, against a competing product with a similar name or similar branding.

A fact of which they are acutely aware, given that they used this argument to claim distinction from Apple Corps [wikipedia.org] (the Beatles' music label), on the grounds that they sold computers, not music. (Which, predictably, led to another lawsuit when they produced the iPod, iTunes music store, etc.)

Re:Enforceability? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314768)

They only "won" the first suit on contingency that they made the distinction clear and never got into the music business. So the second suit was for breaching the result of the first as well as for stepping on the music company's trademark.

Re:Enforceability? (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36315002)

You are confusing the details of being granted a trademark with the details of what rights you have once it's been assigned.

Re:Enforceability? (1, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314976)

They can only assert their trademarks to prevent market confusion - specifically, against a competing product with a similar name or similar branding.

That's not true. What you mention is part of the restrictions on what you can trademark, and over what region and industry/product category. But it has nothing to do with what rights you have once you have been assigned that trademark.

If you want to profit from using Apple's trademarks on promotional material, then you can only do it if they give you permission. Otherwise they can sue you. Apple's trademarks include the names of their products. There are fair use exceptions on using other peoples trademarks without permission. But if you are profiting from doing it, then that's not fair use.

Re:Enforceability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314504)

The Myriad font belongs to Adobe, not Apple, and is used by many big companies. Apple is just one of them.

Re:Enforceability? (1)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314710)

Silly Fonts aren't even copyrightable let alone trademarkable. But a product name in a specific font is... that's called a logo. So yes they can prevent you from using "iPad" in Myriad. And they can enforce it on anything under the reasoning that official trademarks would indicate Apple's involvement when there isn't any.

Re:Enforceability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314388)

Bad article. I took a look at the original source, and they don't say you're prevented from giving them away just from using the word "FREE" to describe the promotion.

Re:Enforceability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314452)

Remember that time the had to seize throwing stars from Steve as he was passing through an airport. I don't think I have much time; but as for enforcement, tell the world...

iNinjas. Seamless aluminum unibody shells, inhuman, glossy, oleophobic iSight ports, and blades sharper than a macbook Air...

Re:Enforceability? (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314544)

Can they enforce what you do with an iPad? Not legally. They can do some PRACTICAL things, and they aren't necessarily doing criminal things to stop you... but the things they can do to keep you from using, selling, breaking, or whatever with your iPad after you buy it are pretty short.

Now, there IS some authority that attaches to advertising that uses their trademarks... but, AFAIK (IANAL - don't trust legal advice you get from the internet) as long as you're not claiming to be Apple, claiming to be associated with Apple, or spreading misinformation about their products, they don't really have much legs to stand on.

To wit: the same laws that say you CAN buy five iPads and tell everyone around that you are giving away five free iPads are also the ones that say you can buy an iPad, review it, and then tell everyone your opinion about it.

Oh, and also:

It's certainly their prerogative if they want to say that any of those things void my warranty, but I don't think they can enforce any of their demands on me.

Warranties come in two parts. What's legally required in the jurisdiction of sale, and what the company does above and beyond that. While they can add special conditions to that part of the warranty that goes beyond your local legal mandates, said mandates themselves are applied based on your local law and not the arbitrary dictates of the manufacturer.

(What kind of warranties are forced? Well, for starters there's the warranty that the iPad won't burn down your house due to a flaw in design or manufacturing. So, that's something.)

Re:Enforceability? (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314946)

Now, there IS some authority that attaches to advertising that uses their trademarks... but, AFAIK (IANAL - don't trust legal advice you get from the internet) as long as you're not claiming to be Apple, claiming to be associated with Apple, or spreading misinformation about their products, they don't really have much legs to stand on.

No. Apple have control over their trademarks. There are fair use exceptions, such as if you want to use the name of a product to identify it in a review. But if you are promoting your own business by running a promotion, and use Apple's trademarks as part of that promotion, that is straightforward trademark infringement - profiting from someone else's trademark without permission.

Re:Enforceability? (2)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314708)

They don't care what you do with your iPad. They care what Best Buy, Target, etc., do, and how it's marketed to the masses. Their enforcement, I suspect, is via allocation of additional supply.

Sweet zombie jesus (0)

Gohtar (1829140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314274)

nuf said.

Free Ipod 1st gen just for having a pulse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314280)

Get them while they last.

The CD Companies tried to do this (5, Informative)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314288)

In 2001 they were sued by the US DOJ for restraint-of-trade, price fixing, and forming an illegal cartel.

So go ahead Apple. I look forward to seeing you get the same treatment the record companies received. Especially now that the US Congress is investigating you. Not a smart move.

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314682)

(Score:-1, Informative)

Well that's a first. I've never seen that appended to a message before. "Informative" and yet "-1" score at the same time.
Hmmm. I guess I offended some Apple fan because I dared to say Apple should be prosecuted just like every other corporation which gets prosecuted for breaking Antitrust and/or Consumer Protection Laws. Ooops. I'm so sorry. (Psych.)

The truth is that I don't love Apple. Or Microsoft. Or Warner Records. Or any other company. Loving an inanimate building or corporate logo is just silly (and possibly mental). In my opinion the more times the government steps-in and WHAPS these companies with legal prosecution, the better it is for everybody. I laughed when the CD Companies were sued, and laughed again when Paypal had their corporate ass...ets reemed by the justice department. We need more of that, not less.

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314978)

Stop acting like Doc Ruby. Every time you pull that martyr bullshit, you retroactively justify the downmod you are reacting to and invite further ones in the future.

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314982)

Hmmm. I guess I offended some Apple fan

I repeat, you are of course aware that your precious "free market" includes the freedom to, for example, let Walmart but not Target sell your product, right? It has nothing to do with you badmouthing Apple (I dislike them doing this too, but seriously, "illegal cartel"? Do you even read the gibberish you post?).

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314990)

In my opinion the more times the government steps-in and WHAPS these companies with legal prosecution, the better it is for everybody. I laughed when the CD Companies were sued, and laughed again when Paypal had their corporate ass...ets reemed by the justice department. We need more of that, not less.

It'd be nice to see our government going after shady businesses on behalf of the people for a change, instead of the other way around.

I'd also be looking for goatees everywhere, because surely I would have somehow ended up in the mirror universe if that ever came to pass...

Re:The CD Companies tried to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314786)

You are of course aware that your precious "free market" includes the freedom to, for example, let Walmart but not Target sell your product, right? Not to mention that this is Apple and only Apple doing this (seriously, "illegal cartel"? Do you even read the gibberish you post?).

Oh well, (1)

Jrono (470199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314290)

Plenty of alternatives to Apple products to give away: Android-based devices, Blackberry Playbook, etc. etc.

Re:Oh well, (3, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36315022)

And if you do so, and want to mention the products names in the promotional materials, then you'll need permission from Google or Blackberry. Or else they can sue you, just as Apple can.

lolwut? (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314292)

I'm not sure what they are going for here. If there is a give-away do they think it will water down the brand?

Re:lolwut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314362)

yup. free and apple are opposing forces

Re:lolwut? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314424)

Yes. Apple products have prestige value included in their price, like an expensive watch. If someone can get them for free, it doesn't matter that someone paid for the promotion. What matters is that the "Apple user = rich guy" implication is violated, so actual rich guys can no longer use Apple products to show off.

Re:lolwut? (3, Insightful)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314536)

I'm not sure what they are going for here. If there is a give-away do they think it will water down the brand?

Not "water down"; but "devalue".

Personally, I was trying to figure this seemingly wrongheaded policy out myself. And I think I might have figured it out.

It's called "Perceived Value". Successful marketing in a "technology-driven" company is a curious combination of understanding current (and future) "technology", plus MBA skills, Communication skills, with a dash of Psychology. And the "Psychology" part of that equation tells the Marketeer that when people get things for free, they don't "value" them (or not as much). This, curiously enough, extends even to the people who don't actually receive the item; but even just could have received it.

Think about it: "Everybody" knows that, when when anybody, especially a business (who is, afterall, "in it for the money"), gives something away, that it is very rarely something they could have easily "made money on" (even if they don't actually sell that item themselves).

We are all somewhat "conditioned" to the fact that, only "worthless" items are given away as "Promotion". Often it is basically true. Sometimes not (like, for example, a car); but, in all cases, the "Perceived Value" effect remains in the back of everyone's mind. And Apple is smart enough to pay attention to those nuances of human behavior. it doesn't make them evil, or "dickish"; just perceptive.

only applies to special contract purchases (5, Informative)

rritterson (588983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314298)

I looked at the terms linked in the article. It appears these terms are attached to special purchases from Apple solely for promotional purposes. (i.e., you contact Apple beforehand about buying some for a promotion and they give you a discount). In that case, you are accepting the contract. And it's not like they'd sell you 249 iPods then get pissy because you had fewer than 250.

But, I believe that if I buy an iPad at retail, I can use it in whatever promotional capacity I see fit as long as I do not violate Apple's IP.

In short: nothing to see here, move along

Re:only applies to special contract purchases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314378)

I'd bump this up if I had some points.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314404)

Thank you for doing the due diligence that the article author and the slashdot editors will not.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314410)

But, I believe that if I buy an iPad at retail, I can use it in whatever promotional capacity I see fit as long as I do not violate Apple's IP.

Hmm isn't mentioning Apple, iPad or somesuch in your promotional material already a violation of Apple's IP? Unless they grant you permission for it, that is.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314464)

Hmm isn't mentioning Apple, iPad or somesuch in your promotional material already a violation of Apple's IP? Unless they grant you permission for it, that is.

No, if you attribute the trademarks appropriately.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases (5, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314600)

This comment needed to appear in the summary. It would have prevented a lot of wasted armchair lawyer time.

errm _no_ (1)

mufflon (634922) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314728)

I looked at the terms linked in the article. It appears these terms are attached to special purchases from Apple solely for promotional purposes. (i.e., you contact Apple beforehand about buying some for a promotion and they give you a discount). In that case, you are accepting the contract. And it's not like they'd sell you 249 iPods then get pissy because you had fewer than 250.

But, I believe that if I buy an iPad at retail, I can use it in whatever promotional capacity I see fit as long as I do not violate Apple's IP.

In short: nothing to see here, move along

If you mean the guidelines then no. There is no mentioning of rebates. The following is a excerpt from apple's third party promotion guidelines as of the date my posting.

Purchasing Apple products. You may purchase products for your promotion direct from Apple (via an Apple Retail, Online Store, or Telesales representative) or from your Apple Authorized Reseller. Visit http://www.apple.com/buy [apple.com] for more information.

It simply says that you may buy your promotional material from any authorized source. A cursory glance of http://www.apple.com/buy [apple.com] reveals nothing. There is rebates mentioned on this site however, which might have been what you presumed was related to this, however they are for mail in rebates and so forth offered by apple themselves.

Re:only applies to special contract purchases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314838)

Yeah this is a real Gilda Radner one. Everyone is upset with Apple, when isn't the Slashdot community upset with Apple? Turns out it's a total non-issue. They can choose not to give bulk discounts if they want and there's nothing the slightest bit unreasonable about it.

It's official now. (0, Flamebait)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314306)

Apple is worse than Microsoft.

Re:It's official now. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314458)

Microsoft was but the learner at the hand of a TRUE master...

Anyone paying attention would have noticed. They have acted this way for years. Since at least the IIgs days.

Re:It's official now. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314518)

!news

Re:It's official now. (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314542)

! see what you did there...

Re:It's official now. (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314562)

Apple is worse than Microsoft.

No, no. That day is when Steve Jobs throws chairs and people refer to them as $pple. Sheesh.

Re:It's official now. (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314692)

I'm sure Steve Jobs throws chairs all the time. The difference is, he hits what he is aiming at, but then very large tattooed "Apple PR reps" secretly buries the bodies under the Infinite Loop late at night. And no one ever hears about it...

Re:It's official now. (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314652)

You know, I don't agree, but I think we are getting there.

Bill Gates may be coming back to Microsoft, now that investors are calling for Ballmer to go away.

Imagine the hardcore tech geek drama if he makes some dramatic return and restores the company to the glory of it's previous hegemony based on vendor relationships and partner dealings. Just like Steve did...

Re:It's official now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314790)

Except this is just Slashdot lying to you as usual, and you're eating it up because you want it to be true.

Legal basis (1, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314318)

I wonder what legal basis they're using to "enforce" their policy towards giveaways. With software you can bind people with EULAs as part of the opening packaging/installing of software, but I wasn't aware that Apple was forcing people to sign contracts before purchasing their hardware. The best they could get away with would be trademark enforcement for promotional material but there's nothing I'm aware of that could restrict transfer of ownership of purchased goods absent a contract.

Re:Legal basis (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314896)

These terms don't apply to normal users since normal users don't do promotions with advertising. If you're an organization doing a promotion with free Apple products and advertising however, then you're profiting by associating with Apple-branded products, so they have some say in that, just like celebrities have a say in how their likenesses are used. They want it to be clear that the promotions are not endorsed by them and that they won't continue selling to you if you choose to cheapen their brand by plastering "FREE" all over it. All of that is pretty reasonable.

That's okay. (2)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314324)

I don't know what I would do with 250 iPod Touches anyway.

Re:That's okay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314638)

Create a TV Show. This week on "Touched by an iPod"...

Re:That's okay. (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314698)

Give them away?

Re:That's okay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314724)

Beowolf, Duh.

Re:That's okay. (4, Funny)

hawk (1151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314860)

Is this a straight line?

You buy six more, and put 8 cubes at each corner of your beowulf cube.

This is still slashdot, isn't it?

Easy workaround. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314332)

A middleman party buys the iPads. This person then sells the entire lot for one cent to the giveaway party. The third party is not encumbered by the agreement, and can do whatever the hell they want.

Right of first sale anyone ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314348)

Seems to me that I can give away whatever the hell I want as long as I own it and it's not against the law to distribute it (i.e. drugs, plutonium, etc.). I'm quite certain i'm able to own an iDevice, and i'm pretty certain it's not against the law to resell one for 0$.

Only applies to special purchases. (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314368)

As someone else mentioned, this only applies -- CAN only apply -- to special purchases made under this agreement. If I go buy an iPad at the store, Apple store or otherwise, good luck trying to enforce something like this. I doubt Apple would be stupid enough to try.

Such sheninigans (4, Insightful)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314370)

encheapin our over priced product. We must put a stop to it!

Re:Such sheninigans (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314506)

You make a cromulent point, sir.

Re:Such sheninigans (1, Informative)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314660)

encheapin our over priced product. We must put a stop to it!

Aren't most competing tablets more expensive? iPads are the cheap ones.

Wow! (1)

Mullen (14656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314382)

What a dick move by Apple!

PS> I love my Mac's but they are mine to do I as see fit.

What? (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314398)

I'm usually ambivalent toward Apple, but if the people giving the items away legally purchased them, then they can dispose of them as they see fit. Fuck Apple.

Right of First Sale? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314406)

So these organizations just have to acquire the ones they give away second-hand?

penny bidding (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314418)

Why don't they go after the Penny Bidding scams instead?

It's so sad that Apple has moved towards the Microsoft school of customer abuse...

Re:penny bidding (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314498)

Not that I'm any particular supporter of Microsoft, but that's a bit unfair. This is an entirely new class of pissing on the customer that MS wouldn't even dare.

any body else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314426)

any body else have an ad, about giving away an Ipad on here....aw i love the smell of irony in the afternoon!

Sign up for two years of iCloud service... (1)

Neptunes_Trident (1452997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314448)

and receive a free 16g iPad.

Apple, I know what you are up to, along with the rest of you who have your head in the clouds.

Just remember, when your fluffy white cloud is gone, there is nothing left but clear blue sky.

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314488)

More patent nazi-ism from Apple. Quelle suprise.

I wouldn't dream of it -- it's inconceivable! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314496)

"... using the word 'free' to describe any Apple products in a prominent manner."

Why would anyone do such a thing? Apple's seems to have put extreme effort into their proprietary products and services with the express purpose of keeping the idea of freedom furthest from my mind. Why anyone would attribute to them the honorable designation of "free" is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I encourage all in my home to be brave, and teach them all how to live under the full freedom afforded them in this land of free. Truly, to sign away any freedoms via Apple's EULA for a bit of entertainment or convenience is not the American way.

I live by the words, "Live free or die," It's clear to me that Apple does not -- otherwise the choice they have made is obvious and grim.

Great for Android users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314696)

Does this mean that I'll no longer get ads for "Win an iPad" on downloaded Android apps? Because NOT getting those ads would be AWESOME and would vastly improve my Android user experience! Go Apple!

I'll protest by throwing out my iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314700)

But wait! That would be a free giveaway to the homeless guy who goes through my garbage!

Damn you Apple! You've thought this one through...

nothing to see here (4, Informative)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314758)

Don't get so excited this is only for Apple sanctioned promotions where the advertiser wants permission to use Apple trademarks in their ads. Every company has guidelines for this. This really only applies to Apple dealers and sellers. Your free to do whatever you want if your not using Apple's IP or under contract with Apple already.

Its not a EULA it's an advertising contract. it has nothing to do with consumers.

So one should say ... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314810)

... "We can't even give these things away".

Not the sort of PR Apple would want IMO.

Doctrine of First Sale (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314836)

IANAL, but isn't there a Doctrine of First Sale that comes into effect here? As long as you're not promoting yourself to be in any way associated with Apple itself, you can pretty much do anything you want (except mod your game console) with your purchase once you own it. This seems like just another Apple power grab, enforced not by the law, but instead by their threat of legions of lawyers who will descent on to you the moment you offend King Jobs.

Apple truly is becoming The Evil Empire.

WTF? (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314842)

Do they even have any legal standing to enforce using of a trademark to identify their own product? I mean, if they don't want it called an iPod, maybe they should have called it something else to begin with? If I want to promote my company be giving away free iPods, good luck with convincing anyone that I can't state it as a fact.

Too late (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314844)

Pharmaceutical companies are already giving away iPads to doctors.

Sorry, scratch that. Pharmaceutical companies are distributing their product literature on iPads.

-ted

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...