Beta
×

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!

Apple Loses Claim For False Advertising Regarding Amazon "App Store"

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the apps-for-everyone dept.

The Courts 138

An anonymous reader writes a court has dismissed Apple's allegations that Amazon's use of the "app store" phrase constituted false advertising. "Apple's efforts to protect its intellectual property sometimes result in lawsuits that leave even the most ardent of Apple fans scratching their heads. One such suit was Apple's March 2011 lawsuit against Amazon over the retailer's use of the phrase 'app store' as used in its Amazon Appstore for Android. "

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

i is for idiot. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473003)

Intel still takes the cake on this kind of bullshit from when they tried to patent the letter i.

Re:i is for idiot. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473029)

Apple is for Asshole

Re:i is for idiot. (3, Interesting)

rgbrenner (317308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473357)

You're thinking of Apple:
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mp3s/apples-future-wont-be-brought-to-you-by-the-letter-i-20100312-q27r.html [smh.com.au]

Hey have you ever seen a "leaf"? Apple just trademarked it:
http://www.webpronews.com/apples-trademark-applications-are-getting-kind-of-ridiculous-2012-12 [webpronews.com]

I would have never thought of that. Guess that's why Apple's #1

Re:i is for idiot. (2)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473585)

You're thinking of Apple:

No, he *sn't [theinquirer.net]

Re:i is for idiot. (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473643)

Right.. because "inside" is the same as the letter i (as the op said).

Those extra letters don't count?

Re:i is for idiot. (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473725)

Right.. because "inside" is the same as the letter i (as the op said).

Those extra letters don't count?

So you can't read - is there something else you want us to know?

"Intel tried and failed some years ago to trademark the letter "i" and the numbers "486" and "586"

Re:i is for idiot. (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42477259)

Difference is Intel asked whereas Apple just starts suing. It also says Intel offered to pay for a new fancy sign. Article even calls it a "no bully" move. Perhaps read your link more carefully next time?

Consequences (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473031)

Why are there no severe consequences for bringing these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits? Shouldn't Amazon at least get all their legal fees paid?

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473237)

The we-patented-one-click-to-buy amazon? If you had justice in mind, they should be hit with whatever frivolous lawsuit one can think of.

Re:Consequences (2, Insightful)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473493)

Why are there no severe consequences for bringing these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits? Shouldn't Amazon at least get all their legal fees paid?

IF it were actually Frivolous, that might be possible.

However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else. The name was "catchy" enough to resonate with Consumers. IANAL, and I haven't read the decision, but I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able, as it was not being used by anyone before Apple.

Re:Consequences (5, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473561)

I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs? I most certainly would. Maybe for Amazon the multi-million dollar cost of this suit is a minor amount. But for many people, even just a ten thousand dollar lawsuit can be most of what they have.

This is one reason lots of people don't even show up in court when sued. This is one reason the courts end up with so many bad judgments because they always favor the party that showed up.

This is just wrong because it is very unfair.

But even having the losing party pay doesn't always work, and it doesn't do a very good job of making things fair.

I propose the following. Create a litigation finance pool that is covered through corporate taxes (without any loopholes). Every corporation or other business pays into this pool. When they are involved in litigation, it gets covered by this pool. Yes, I know this is so open for abuses, so it most certainly needs to be very strictly monitored. The winner gets their legal costs covered from the pool. The loser does not.

The above applies to all cases involving a business on either side. A separate pool funded through a wider tax base is for people to people cases. This is not a perfect solution. But what we have now is certainly not perfect, either, and is actually worse.

Frivolous lawsuits need to result in jail time.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473807)

"without any loopholes" - good luck with that.

I'd also want the loser if they also initiated the lawsuit to not only cover their own costs, but pay double the other parties cost into the pool.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473959)

Here in the rest of the world the loser usually has to pay legal costs to the winner and there are various costs scales set by the law society/bar council. So the more frivolousness a law suit the worse the costs. Even withdrawing a lawsuit too close to the court date can see an order for costs.

Its a long way from perfect but it cuts down on most of the worst of the troll law suites which I think is why the US lawyers seems to lobby against it.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42476303)

Unfortunately, this system still doesn't even slightly touch upon the 'big' problem with the legal system... whoever has the most money wins.

So therefore, if you're some random schlub against a company, you're not only absolutely guaranteed to lose, but you have to pay for all of the legal costs of a dozen high-priced lawyers.

Honestly, if I found myself in that situation, even if I was absolutely 100% correct, I still wouldn't show up in court, just to have my life trashed for several months before becoming poor and having 98% of my wages garnished for the rest of my natural life. I'd send a letter to the courts, preferably showing up several days before I'm due to show up, explaining exactly the above, and then just live on the run from the law. Given the choice between running from the law and the absolute certainty that my life is ruined immediatly if I show up, I'll go with the one where I might actually get a bit more time before my life is ruined.

Re:Consequences (1)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42478201)

Unfortunately, this system still doesn't even slightly touch upon the 'big' problem with the legal system... whoever has the most money wins.

So therefore, if you're some random schlub against a company, you're not only absolutely guaranteed to lose, but you have to pay for all of the legal costs of a dozen high-priced lawyers.

Honestly, if I found myself in that situation, even if I was absolutely 100% correct, I still wouldn't show up in court, just to have my life trashed for several months before becoming poor and having 98% of my wages garnished for the rest of my natural life. I'd send a letter to the courts, preferably showing up several days before I'm due to show up, explaining exactly the above, and then just live on the run from the law. Given the choice between running from the law and the absolute certainty that my life is ruined immediatly if I show up, I'll go with the one where I might actually get a bit more time before my life is ruined.

Exactly. So-called "Loser Pays" (known in legal circles as "The Englsh Rule"), as distinguished from "Pay Your Own Costs" (a/k/a "The American Rule"), pretty much has all the disadvantages of the American Rule, with the added "benefit" (that is, to the well-heeled litigant) that if they simply wear down the less well-endowed party, they not only win a Judgment, but also AUTOMATICALLY win their costs.

At least with the American Rule, the litigant who is "worn down" by the other side can simply call it quits, and not be DOUBLY "punished" for simply trying.

Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, it is VERY important to keep in mind that there are always exceptions made for litigants who file COMPLETELY frivolous litigation. In those cases, judges can (and do) charge the costs to the frivolous litigant, and can even impose Sanctions on the Party (and/or their counsel), as well. But always remember: Just because a lawsuit is basically "hopeless", doesn't mean it is frivolous and vexatious litigation.

Re:Consequences (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473921)

Just simply adopting the loser pays all costs scenario the rest of the world uses would do just fine too.

Also abolishing summary judgements for no shows would be a start too. Just because someone doesn't show up doesn't mean automatically that the opposing argument isn't complete bullshit.

So you want to double++ the number of law suits? (2)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474035)

Let's start with the assumption that when a corporation files a law suit they have about 50% chance of winning. So with your "litigation finance pool" they would have half of their litigation costs for free. This would mean that they could file 2x as many law suits for the same amount of money.

Now let's add to this the fact that most things can be argued either way, so whoever has the better argument, as in whoever can afford the better attorney, wins more often. That would make litigation even more affordable for companies with lots of $$ to burn.

You sure you thought this one through?

"Frivolous lawsuits need to result in jail time."

We already have something even better for this in the US. The burden is on the lawyers, and they can be penalized big time for not doing their due diligence. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.

Re:Consequences (2)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474151)

I propose the following. Create a litigation finance pool that is covered through corporate taxes ... When they are involved in litigation, it gets covered by this pool

Wow, a million lawyers just sprung erections and drooled all over themselves.

This really won't work well, as it creates an immediate moral hazard ... lawyers will conintually be trying to dip in and keep themselves busy earning a living off someone else's dime. The costs of the administration of such a fund would be huge and the true costs of litigation would be rendered opaque due to the complexity, actual costs will no longer even be clear.

I'm not sure what to offer as an alternative solution but I think we could come up with better/smarter solutions if we tried.

Lawyers LOVE you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474165)

With your subsidized legal fees, lawyers could double their rate!

First I didn't know where you were coming from. But then I figured it out: you are a mole! Dude, you're a lawyer!

Re:Consequences (1)

Mathness (145187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474221)

It can be made a whole lot simpler. If you sue, you pay for the defence as well (at a similar rate) if the defendant can not afford it.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474597)

So I take your patented stuff, copy it and sell it on for more or less cost, so I can't afford a defence...

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42475575)

Then you will be found guilty and get the usual punishment in such cases which also includes the cost of the trial. You don't suddenly get off free for doing that. Europe have a system almost like it, where the state will pay for the lawyer, but if you loose the judge can decide to have you pay for the defence or for both sides.

doesn't work (2)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474523)

Germany has this system ("loser pays"). It means that the risk when getting sued is even higher than in the US, because if you defend yourself against an accusation and fail, you have to cover the opponent's costs and court costs (up to some statutory limits) as well. The statutory fees themselves become a means of blackmailing people legally. There is a "pool" to cover this: legal insurance. Both businesses and private individuals have it, but it's expensive, and it may still not cover the costs. In different words: your ideas have been tried and they just don't work.

Re:doesn't work (1)

Kartu (1490911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474925)

I wouldn't call 100-200 Euro annually expensive.

Re:doesn't work (1)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475977)

I would. $200 annually over 40 years at 5% is about $25000. That is in addition to home owner's insurance (which would cover or avoid many of these costs in other countries). And what is actually covered is complex to figure out. For example, if you get sued for something that required intent, your costs are generally not covered by legal insurance even if you are eventually found innocent.

Re:Consequences (2)

JosKarith (757063) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474797)

A simpler solution - shoot all the lawyers.

Re:Consequences (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475285)

I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs?

Actually, I would think it should be a cause for a mistrial since the rich person is using unfair tactics against you. For example, lets say I was to be taken to court by one of the AA's. There is no way I could get a fair trial because I do NOT have the money they do. They can keep throwing money at the trial, delaying it, appealing it, etc way beyond what I, or any normal person could do. That isn't right. That is using money to buy the outcome you want.

Re:Consequences (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475649)

I don't know WHY our legal system is so faulty, but it is. NO ONE (and ONE includes any business) should be subjected to costs because someone else just happens to disagree. If someone sues YOU and in order to defend yourself, you need to hire attorney(s) at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars (which for some people can wipe them out, financially), wouldn't you want the other party to cover your costs?

Actually, I would think it should be a cause for a mistrial since the rich person is using unfair tactics against you. For example, lets say I was to be taken to court by one of the AA's. There is no way I could get a fair trial because I do NOT have the money they do. They can keep throwing money at the trial, delaying it, appealing it, etc way beyond what I, or any normal person could do. That isn't right. That is using money to buy the outcome you want.

Ahh, so you're saying that you should be allowed to do anything to anyone richer than you without legal consequences, because any legal action would be unfair against you. Unless your action made you richer than the other of course.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42476469)

Not sure if you're trolling or not.

If you've been living under a rock for the past decade or so, it's understandable, but y'see... there's currently this big, MASSIVE problem with the legal system, where the winner is dictated by whoever has the highest-priced lawyers that can use loopholes and legal-speak to make the jury do whatever the hell they want.

You might recall the judgement a while back for the RIAA where downloading... I think it was 24 songs... could have ended with the downloader paying more money than the GDP of earth to the RIAA. It was eventually dropped down to a more "reasonable" number... by reasonable, I mean "an amount that actually physically exists". It was still at least 3 orders of magnitude, possibly more, since if I recall it ended up being over a million dollars. For downloading a CD worth of songs. For personal, non-profit use.

So y'see, THAT'S where the problem kinda lies. The law doesn't apply to the rich. The RIAA are selling and litigating over songs they don't even legally have the license for. With million dollar lawyers. Which in case you forgot, the lower caste doesn't have access to in the real world.

But I'm tired of replying to a (from your other posts in this topic, I assume 12 year old) troll. If anyone else wants a swing, go for it.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42475799)

If they have jail time or heavy fines for the lawyers, then these law suits would disappear. Seeing that most politicians making laws are themselves lawyers, chances of that happening are nil.

Re:Consequences (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473931)

I don't think they can win this because ____ store has a special place in the English language (and likely trademark law) as a generic entity. Market (formerly used by Android) does as well, by the way. General store, camera store, cell phone store, shoe store, 99 cent store, clothing store, grocery store, the list goes on. App is a generic term for application that did not originate with Apple. Any generic term with "store" placed in front of it is also generic.

Now, Sony Store, Microsoft Store, Apple App Store, Amazon Appstore, Android Market, etc are all trademarkable because the non-generic company names have been affixed to the label.

Re:Consequences (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474425)

I don't think they can win this because ____ store has a special place in the English language (and likely trademark law) as a generic entity.

And yet there are hundreds of active trademarks containing the word "store" (and all of them also the disclaimer 'NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "STORE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN').

Re:Consequences (1, Troll)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474859)

I guess tl;dr applies to posts that are longer than one sentence.

Re:Consequences (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475713)

Not troll. I addressed this person's point in the rest of my post. I even said stuff like "Sony Store", "Apple App Store" (in full), etc was trademarkable. But you can't trademark something like "celery store" against someone else who only sells celery. Hell, someone could sell only apples and call it an "Apple Store", though Apple would surely make their life a living hell with lawsuits. (they'd lose if it drew to a conclusion, but Apple would most likely successfully scare the apple vendor)

Re:Consequences (1)

Jaktar (975138) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474097)

http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=340 [michaelrobertson.com]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but from the tone of your other posts in this tread I'm thinking you're not. Apple attempted to rewrite computer history with this lawsuit and they were correctly dismissed. They should be hit with frivolous lawsuit fees.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474381)

However, Apple did have an "App Store" (by that name) before anyone else.

No, not even close. The domain theappstore.com was registered by an Australian company fully a year before Apple's App Store opened, and it's safe to say that at least a couple of companies had used the term prior to that. The iOS App Store resonated with consumers because it provided additional functionality for a really popular piece of hardware, not because the name was somehow special.

I personally believe that the phrase "App Store" should have been Trade Mark-able

Even if you were correct about Apple being the first user of the mark, it should not have been possible to trademark it. The words "App Store" are descriptive. It would be like trademarking the word "Book Store" because you were the first store that sold only books. A store that sells apps is an app store. Period.

If you allow a trademark to exist on what is basically the only term (other than the longer-form synonym, "application store") that adequately describes a whole category of stores, you would effectively be preventing other stores that sell apps (on any platform) from existing usefully, because no one would be able to describe them without violating that trademark.

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474913)

Cool, I wander who holds the trademarks on Grocery Store, Clothing Store, and Shoe Store. Oh wait, nobody cause that is ridiculous.

Re:Consequences (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475005)

App Store should not be trademarkable, unless you also believe that "Shoe Store", "Grocery Store", "Hardware Store", etc. also should be. It's a store where you buy apps. Of course it's going to be called an app store.

Re:Consequences (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475539)

Now if they wanted to trademark the full phrase "Apple App Store" or "The Apple App Store", more power to them. Otherwise too bad.

Re:Consequences (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475767)

shoestore.com (logo) - live

THE SHOE STORE - ABANDONED

GROCERY STORES - ABANDONED

THE HARDWARE STORE (logo) - live

All of them have at least been tried to be trademarked. As logos at least they worked.

Re:Consequences (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42476649)

You'll pardon me as I use your name to discount your entire post.

C is for consumer (-1, Flamebait)

Stonefish (210962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473097)

C is for consumers that support this behaviour. Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions. Apple is at the apogee of their corporate life and they are using the legal system to stay there as long as possible because they are no longer capable of innovation. Here's a bet apple's share price will plummet over the next three years as they completely fail to innovate and vainly try to use the legal system as a club against competitors.

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473101)

Does anyone know how to use derivatives or other financial products to use this intel?

Re:C is for consumer (3, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473119)

Yes. Buy Amazon. It's called "going long".

Re:C is for consumer (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42478077)

I would suggest looking at their P/E ratio first, however.

Re:C is for consumer (-1, Flamebait)

mangu (126918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473377)

Start by reading this book [google.com] .

This one [pdfbook.co.ke] is somewhat simpler and easier to read, but it still is a very good and useful introduction to the market.

There's no big deal in making money in the market, the simple fact is that, like in any other profession, you must learn the trade before you get in.

People like those "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters preaching about the market are like the pope preaching about sex. You must try to learn about things before you can have an opinion on them.

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473583)

Using money to abuse the system, and abuse consumers, is what is wrong. And the OWS movement did focus on that, despite so many members being so completely ignorant about it. But in a way that shows the problem. Most people ARE ignorant about these things. Most people are ignorant about computers, so many of those who are not so ignorant end up trying to make computers easier to use. We don't seem to get that out of the legal system (legislative and judicial). This unfairness is just out of place in modern society and so it need to be outlawed.

Re:C is for consumer (4, Insightful)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473613)

People like those "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters preaching about the market are like the pope preaching about sex. You must try to learn about things before you can have an opinion on them.

Uhh. Considering the boneheaded mistakes "Wall Street" has made in the last decade, maybe its them who should finally learn their trade.

Remember it wasn't the "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters that caused the global economy to collapse.

But then, maybe everything went as planned, and at least some of the Wall Street people successfully played "the market" with this.

Re:C is for consumer (1, Offtopic)

mangu (126918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475057)

it wasn't the "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters that caused the global economy to collapse.

It was the regulations that created a bubble in the housing market that caused it, which amounts to the same thing. People who know nothing about financial markets trying to manipulate things. It's not "Wall Street" that makes mistakes, it's the politicians who try to regulate it who cause shit to happen.

But then, maybe everything went as planned, and at least some of the Wall Street people successfully played "the market" with this.

Of course they did. When you apply the principles mentioned in the books I posted above, which a couple of dimwit moderators termed "flamebait", it doesn't matter if the market plunges, you are out by then.

You only lose in the market if you ignore the signs it gives. A good investor knows how to detect early signs that the market is going down and cuts his losses in time to avoid the worst of it. By correctly applying the technical analysis of the market you may not win every time, but when you lose it will be a small loss, when you win it's a big win, in the end it averages in your favor.

The first methodical studies of market dynamics were done by Charles Dow [wikipedia.org] in the late nineteenth century. Since then there have been many people who studied the behavior of te market with mathematical tools. The only people who lose money in the market are those who try to play it without knowing the tools.

As in every other human activity, ignorance is a hindrance.

However, what is different in financial markets, is that so many people pretend to know something about it without going to the trouble of learning the basics. Why is it that OWS and other people think they have the right to point out the supposed shortcomings of the market if they don't know shit about it?

We all need money to live, knowledge about finances and the way markets work should be a basic requirement for everyone.

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475879)

it wasn't the "Occupy Wall Street" hipsters that caused the global economy to collapse.

It was the regulations that created a bubble in the housing market that caused it, which amounts to the same thing.

Even if the regulation allowed it, it was greed, ruthlessness and carelessness that made the people responsible give out loads risky loans in the hope their scheme would work out by putting the risk into bundles, completely ignoring the (all too obvious in hindsight) risk of a domino effect.

Re:C is for consumer (1)

mangu (126918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42476189)

it was greed, ruthlessness and carelessness

You sound like the pope talking about masturbation. Yes, it's a sin, according to your opinion.

It was the policies enacted during the Clinton government that created the situation that led to the bubble in real estate.

by putting the risk into bundles, completely ignoring the (all too obvious in hindsight) risk of a domino effect.

What "puts the risk into bundles" is a Government-Sponsored Enterprise [wikipedia.org] . It's not the "greedy, ruthless, careless" bankers that do it. It's the democratically elected federal government of the United States who is responsible for that.

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42477047)

All of the mortgage backed securities that were full of subprime loans but got rated triple-A instead of triple-B had nothing to do with the government sponsored enterprises or Clinton's regulations. Try reading "The Big Short"... it goes into a lot of detail about how the ratings agencies had no idea what was in these bonds they were rating with a "score" that then got invested into by pensions and other groups.

And unfortunately so much of America things that Wall Street's performance matters that we then supported these investments houses rather than just letting them collapse and the DOW plummet. Who cares about the stock market? Yet we hear every day on the news about the performance that day of the DOW and S&P as if that matters on a daily basis.

Paul

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42477253)

When the DOW drops, I smile to myself thinking of all the scum-of-the-earth bankers crying their eyes out, and I hope for suicides.

Macabre, sure, but fuck 'em. Like, really, fuck 'em all.

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42477179)

Actually, the markets were stable for 30 years after WWII. It was after Reagan and presidents after him started DEREGULATING because of Wall Street lobbying, the markets went to shit.

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42477809)

Hey, I think I saw this ad on the Glenn Beck show! Right between commercials for buying gold and for buying seed banks to survive the apocalypse.

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473115)

Apple's way or the highway

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473179)

It's already started, for the past year they've done nothing but ride the high of their earlier success. Resorting to this kind of tactics instead of better marketing and improving relationships with other companies, tells us one more thing. They have nothing in the works.

Re:C is for consumer (-1, Flamebait)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473639)

It's already started, for the past year they've done nothing but ride the high of their earlier success. Resorting to this kind of tactics instead of better marketing and improving relationships with other companies, tells us one more thing. They have nothing in the works.

No. Nothing at all...

Just:

New [apple.com] Desktops [apple.com] and [apple.com] Laptops [apple.com] with the highest-resolution displays on the planet.

New "Fusion" hybrid SSD/Spinning-Platter Drives for these new computers, with innovative support baked into OS X [apple.com] . TWO new generations of 10" iPad [apple.com] .

iPad mini [apple.com] .

iPhone 5 [apple.com] .

New iPod Touch [apple.com]

Completely New iPod Nano [apple.com]

Entirely new (and innovative) position-agnostic connector system for all their mobile devices. along with several adapters for VGA output, etc.

New, improved Earbuds [apple.com] .

New version of OS X [apple.com] (Mountain Lion), with over 200 New Features.

New version of iOS [apple.com] (6), with over 200 New Features (and, yes, unfortuately, Apple Maps...). Unlike Android, iOS 6 is immediately available for several generations of devices, all the way back to iPhone 3GS, and the iPad 2.

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff...

And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".

Re:C is for consumer (2, Informative)

gmack (197796) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473943)

Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.

The "fusion" drives are standard hybrid drives that use flash as the cache for the spinning media. Support is not baked into OS X and everything they described in the link you listed are functions provided by the drive firmware. The fact that they make it seem like OS X is doing anything for this at all is just laughable since I could throw the drive into a windows 2000 system and still have everything in that paragraph still apply.

I guess they finally realized their earbuds were terrible but the replacement doesn't look like it would be anywhere near as good as my Sennheiser ear canal set.

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474103)

Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade.

There is nothing worse than being the kid whose Mom couldn't afford real Kool-Aid.

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474467)

Apple has some good products but you have gone much too far drinking the coolade. Apple did nothing to contribute to the invention those displays they simply bought the highest res LCD panels and added them to their systems.

Apple's Retina Display Patent Comes to Light [patentlyapple.com]

On June 28, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals a system and method to improve image edge discoloration. Yet at the heart of the patent, Apple states that "some embodiments of the LCD panel may be a model of the Retina display, available from Apple Inc."

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42475611)

At least do a little research before you make a fool of yourself. Fusion drive is absolutely not an off-the-shelf hybrid drive, and the support is baked into the OS.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/apple-fusion-drive-wait-what-how-does-this-work/

Re:C is for consumer (1)

PoopMonkey (932637) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475607)

And who knows what they "have in the works"; because Apple doesn't announce anything until it is a "done deal".

You have a more liberal definition of "done deal" than the rest of the world, methinks. One word: maps. Unless in that case you think a done deal is "sub-part mapping software circa 2001"

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473187)

Have to agree. Apple seems to be making some really careless mistakes / decisions of late. Antenna, Camera, Maps, Adaptor/Port woes etc. These have been big enough problems to make non-technical users complain about the phones. Their public relations team are not really helping them out either, telling people to hold their phones differently, to retake photos at different angles, etc. The advice might be accurate but it's an obvious cop out and users are only going to put up with so much before they switch to a product without the faults.

Re:C is for consumer (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473403)

Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions.

And anyone who uses ReiserFS is an accessory to murder!

Re:C is for consumer (0)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473505)

C is for consumers that support this behaviour. Anyone with an apple device is complicit in these actions. Apple is at the apogee of their corporate life and they are using the legal system to stay there as long as possible because they are no longer capable of innovation

Wait. I thought that the /, meme was that Apple never innovated anything.

So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.

Idiots.

Re:C is for consumer (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473591)

He meant to say "Apple is the apothesis of utter corporate filth"

Re:C is for consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42476245)

So which is it? They used to innovate, or they never innovated? Can't be both.

Did he say it was both?

Re:C is for consumer (1)

node 3 (115640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473517)

If people are complicit in the actions of the corporations they buy from, then most people are guilty of far worse offenses than losing a lawsuit.

But I do need to question your logic to begin with. If you buy something from me, then I go commit a crime, you are guilty? Doesn't it make more sense to lay the blame at the people who are actually in charge of the entity involved, and the actual actors in the "offense" under discussion?

Re:C is for consumer (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42476733)

I have full suite of Apple gear(mac mini, ipad 2, iphone 4S, ATV2) on the maxim "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer"

So is 'App Store' safe to use now? (1)

detain (687995) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473169)

So with this ruling does it mean its safe for the rest of us to use App Store or will we still have to worry about going up against Apple in court?

Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473191)

So with this ruling does it mean its safe for the rest of us to use App Store or will we still have to worry about going up against Apple in court?

Situation unchanged. They still won't have a leg to stand on but they'll still be able to sure anyway and it'll still cost you a fortune.

Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473225)

Should be good...

Unless you're outside of the US; or
Unless case matters... "app store" != "App Store"

And remember (as per the article) the ruling only applied to the false advertising claims; the trademark infringement issue case continues :)

Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473513)

So with this ruling does it mean its safe for the rest of us to use App Store or will we still have to worry about going up against Apple in court?

Not yet.

So far only the claim that Amazon was doing false advertisment was thrown out of court.
The claim that Amazon infringes the trademark is still to be decided.

Re:So is 'App Store' safe to use now? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473593)

Nothing has changed with regard to them being able to sue you. What has changed is that you now have a better body of case law to draw on. You better have that attorney ready.

Are they even allowed to sell iPads (0)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473177)

in Shenzhen, China yet? Maybe they should deal with the trademark litigation required to get their own products on the shelves before trying to shut everyone else down?

Re:Are they even allowed to sell iPads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473331)

You know, Mac OS have been able to truly multitask for quite a while now...

Apple has a problem and they know it (0, Troll)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473397)

I would just like to say, with the amount of patents Apple are filing and the lawsuit with Samsung; Apple have been quite devious and covert in their operations. As a company they know they are losing a large customer base and everything they do at the moment just compounds the fact that they cannot be trusted!

Other companies are getting a bigger bite of the Cherry....Not Apple! (No Pun Intended) and Apple have generated ph33r for themselves losing market share.

The CEO of Yahoo Marissa is sooner or later going to have to admit she made a mistake "sharing a bed with Apple and iphones for all Yahoo staff".

This will probably come out in the news over the next two weeks. There is something seriously wrong with Yahoo including siding with law enforcement agencies now and a privacy policy almost worst than Microsoft, Google, Paypal, Facebook.

Well at least I have got that off my chest.

P.S Happy New Year to all the honest people out there,
Love
NSN

Let's face it ... (5, Insightful)

thomst (1640045) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473555)

Under Steve Jobs, Apple always was litigious. Tim Cook is just continuing the same strategy - and, long-term, that's pretty much the problem Apple faces.

What I mean by that is that Jobs, whatever you might think of him as a person, was clearly a visionary. He envisioned products for needs that people didn't even know they had, until Apple produced them - and thereby created markets that hadn't previously existed. The problem Apple faces is that Cook is not Jobs. Not even, not by a long stretch. Jobs was a conceptual thinker and a design maven. Cook is a bean counter. His vision is strictly limited to cost control and supply-line dynamics.

So Apple now faces the same problem it had when its Board of Directors kicked Jobs to the curb in the late 1980's, and handed control of the company over to a series of bean-counting "business leaders", instead: a complete lack of product vision on the part of management led to technological stagnation and chronic laurel-resting on the part of the company. Sure, they retained their profit margins ... but their market share and total sales first stagnated, then started dwindling away. By the time the Board hired egomaniac Gilbert Amelio to run the company and HE hired Ellen Hancock (the woman who previously had single-handedly destroyed IBM's PC software division) as Apple's CTO, the best minds at Apple were diving overboard in lemming-like droves.

And it sure looks like that same cycle of stagnation and decline is facing the latter-day Apple Corp. Sure, the i-Stuff is selling really well now - but there are NO new breakthrough products on Apple's horizon, and my bet is that there aren't going to be. Steve Jobs was pretty much the avatar of the modern Key Man Problem, and, in order to replace him, Apple's Board first would have to FIND the next Jobs, and then would have to push Tim Cook aside and entrust the company to Jobs II. My bet is that that just ain't gonna happen. Ever.

So Apple's riding high on a mountain of cash right now, and the i-Stuff is deluging its coffers with more money every quarter - but the end of that ride is in sight, and it won't be much more than a decade before litigation is ALL the company has left - because Steve Jobs, the technological Elvis, has left the buidling for good.

Re:Let's face it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473777)

(..) Jobs, whatever you might think of him as a person, was clearly a visionary. He envisioned products for needs that people didn't even know they had, until Apple produced them - and thereby created markets that hadn't previously existed.

Really? That may be right for the Apple II or the first Macintosh, but apart from those I can hardly see other examples... Can you give us some?

Re:Let's face it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474107)

Tend to agree with this... I don't see anything with an Apple logo on it that wasn't the next logical step. Sure, they did a good job with the design. Sure they, got there first in terms of bringing their products to market and making them THE product to have (for the time-being). But there is nothing REVOLUTIONARY in any of it.

Mostly, the consumer went - its about fucking time!

now, where's my flying car damnit!?

Re:Let's face it ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42473783)

Nowadays I think of Apple as a jewelry store. People are still buying their higher-priced products because they shine really well but don't offer much innovation anymore.

Re:Let's face it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474351)

Jewelry at least retains its usefulness (but probably only a fraction of its value, i.e. the value of the raw gold, note that there's practically no market for 2nd hand diamonds). The Apple iStuff is practically worthless after 3-5 Years, since they fall victim to the planned obsolescence and the lack of software updates that goes along with that.

Re:Let's face it ... (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473829)

Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.

In other words, STFU.

Re:Let's face it ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473925)

Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.

The difference is that a performer's death increases the value of their works in many cases, whereas Jobs' death decreased confidence in Apple because they had built a cult of personality directly around him. Since Jobs wouldn't hire anyone potentially capable of upstaging him, Apple has no other charismatic face.

Re:Let's face it ... (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473979)

Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.

In other words, STFU.

Compare the Drugs Elvis took, he is dead... get over it or try pimping your arse in Las Vegas as Elvis. Lisa Marie-Prestley has also made a hash of things, from Danny Keogh, to Scientology and another husband etc etc......

End of file

Re:Let's face it ... (1)

thomst (1640045) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474703)

Swampash blathered:

Compare the revenues received by the estate of Elvis Presley in 2012 with those of any year while he was alive.

In other words, STFU.

Compare the revenues Apple received on the Mac II with the revenues it's receiving ON THE MAC II now, Mr. Pathetic.

Re:Let's face it ... (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473957)

I really do like your comment when you said;

So Apple's riding high on a mountain of cash right now, and the i-Stuff is deluging its coffers with more money every quarter - but the end of that ride is in sight, and it won't be much more than a decade before litigation is ALL the company has left - because Steve Jobs, the technological Elvis, has left the buidling for good.

Thank you for a bit of sanity

Re:Let's face it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474183)

Funny, I wrote the same thing in another thread a few weeks ago and got modded down. That's Slashdot moderation for you.

Re:Let's face it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42474959)

Jobs was never an innovator, he had two main strengths:

1) He knew how to market to people and get them to believe they need Apple's products.

2) He was an asshole and a perfectionist, and wasn't afraid to use the first one to make sure the second one was satisfied.

Everything Apple did was done previously by other companies. Apple just got rid of some of the shitty parts and marketed the hell out of the results.

Not Scratching My Head At All (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474735)

I'm an Apple fanboy and I wasn't left scratching my head at all. And anyone with even a basic understanding of trademark law wouldn't be either. Apple has a registered trademark for "App Store" ( http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:2zpo7n.2.5 [uspto.gov] ). If they failed to defend that trademark in court, they are assumed to accept unauthorized usage of the trademark. Even if defending it is a longshot (which this was), they must defend it or they lose it.

There are many examples from about 20 or 30 years ago but they are rare now because most legal departments have learned that if you want to keep your trademark protected, you are required to defend it.

This is different from copyrights and patents. Trademarks must be defended or they become harder and harder to defend.

So, no, I wasn't left scratching my head. I thought this lawsuit was a longshot but they were required to file it to defend their "App Store" trademark.

Re:Not Scratching My Head At All (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474799)

Since I know someone will demand a citation of my assertion that trademarks must be defended, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights [wikipedia.org]

(Relevant section bolded for emphasis)

Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use".

Re:Not Scratching My Head At All (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475669)

So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to due to defend their trademark later on.

That's the stupidest thing I have heard of.

They should have never registered a trademark for a generic phrase like "App Store" in the first place.

Re:Not Scratching My Head At All (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42475677)

So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to due to defend their trademark later on.

Meant to write "So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to sue to defend their trademark later on."

Re:Not Scratching My Head At All (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42476123)

So your logic is that they have to sue to defend their trademark because otherwise they won't be able to due to defend their trademark later on.

That's the stupidest thing I have heard of.

That's not his logic. That's the legal system's logic. Really. You could argue that the law is set up as some sort of grand conspiracy to force everyone to litigate, but that's really, truly the way it works with trademarks. Use it or lose it.

Contrast that with, say, patents, where you can apply for them, sit on them and then go trolling years later. It has its advantages.

They should have never registered a trademark for a generic phrase like "App Store" in the first place.

Probably not, but that's a totally different issue.

Re:Not Scratching My Head At All (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42476371)

That's not his logic. That's the legal system's logic.

No it's not. You don't apply the trademark unless want to prevent others from using. You can't apply for it and then say that the only reason you are suing now is so that you can sue later.

Why would you apply for the trademark other than wanting to prevent others from using it by suing them?

Re:Not Scratching My Head At All (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42476713)

The issue with the App Store trademark is not legal defense, but the fact that Apple ever thought it could own such a generic term. It would be like attempting to trademark "Computer Store" or "Furniture Store." One of the basic criteria for trademarks is that they cannot be generic terms; this is what the court recognized. Trademarks that were once valid can become so generic that they lose their protection. Aspirin, Yo-Yo, and Escalator are all examples of trademarks that lost their legal protection because they became used so widely as generic terms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Examples [wikipedia.org] .

The head-scratching is not about the fact that Apple would try to defend its trademarks, but that it would think it could own "App Store" in the first place.

2013, the year the world wakes up (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474829)

I seriously think the world's love affair with Apple is coming nigh. This downward trend in love for Apple is starting to reflect in the way judges are ruling cases. No judge wanted to be seen as that asshole that told Apple NO when they were the most highly valued company in the world. Now their stock is slumping and Apple has shown significant signs of weakness it has become perfectly acceptable for judges to slap Apple back a few pegs and tell them their stupid trivial patents and whiny legal complaints are no longer going to be tolerated. And its about time too.

Apple is going to be around for a long time yet but I seriously hope that a year or two of constant setbacks might help to change them from some overly competitive, highly litigious, massive asshole of a company into something a little more sane and human in the near future. A company that actually respects its customers rather then rolling out trivial product updates and whipping up their customers into a frenzy of purge and purchase of essentially the same old shit every 6 months.

Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42476777)

Just call it an Application Store. I think most users today get that an 'app' is an 'application'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>