Apple Orders Technicians to Feign Ignorance About Mac Malware

[BigTyla]

:NotSureIfTrolling:

Then I am done speaking to you on the matter.

[stealthify]

Then I am done speaking to you on the matter.

Didn't mean to offend you, just wanted to see if you were really serious before I went down this road.

[IPD]

Didn't mean to offend you, just wanted to see if you were really serious before I went down this road.

i don't have a problem with defending IP. i do have a problem with lawsuits filed under the pretense of defending IP...but in reality are simply attempts to prevent justified competition. apple's track record does NOT speak to being original. it's done a wonderful job of popularizing new technologies--but it hasn't invented them. everthing from the GUI onward has been apple taking something that someone else has done--and making it popular. i'm ok with that--and if it generates sales for them, great.

what i have a problem with is apple trying to paint itself as though it invented something--therefore it has the only right to it. apple doesn't invent. not the mouse, not the smartphone, not the tablet pc, not capacative touchscreens. apple laying claim to these (as it has, as it is doing, and as it has filed numerous lawsuits over) is as inane as claiming that social-networking websites are propritary, and only apple can create them.

[stealthify]

but in reality are simply attempts to prevent justified competition.

Speculative, and perhaps even warranted. But only Apple could say for sure, but of course they likely won't. No company would.

In the corporate setting it goes without saying, it's a dog-eat-dog world. This is why Nokia sued Apple, and won, and now Apple pays Nokia to license their patents. And Tyler, related to what you were mentioning, these patents are also considerably and ridiculously generic: ability to run on GSM/3G and Wi-Fi networks, wireless data, speech coding, security, etc.

Company A goes through the proper process to gain a valid patent, Company B swipes it and makes a bunch of money on it, and then Company A defends it if it's defendable. I'm just flabbergasted that this angers you guys. This is, like it or hate it, the way the system works.

[BigTyla]

Speculative, and perhaps even warranted. But only Apple could say for sure, but of course they likely won't. No company would.

In the corporate setting it goes without saying, it's a dog-eat-dog world. This is why Nokia sued Apple, and won, and now Apple pays Nokia to license their patents. And Tyler, related to what you were mentioning, these patents are also considerably and ridiculously generic: ability to run on GSM/3G and Wi-Fi networks, wireless data, speech coding, security, etc.

Company A goes through the proper process to gain a valid patent, Company B swipes it and makes a bunch of money on it, and then Company A defends it if it's defendable. I'm just flabbergasted that this angers you guys. This is, like it or hate it, the way the system works.

I will explain this to you and then I am done.

1-click purchase - Feature.
Page up/down - Feature.
"Doodles" - Feature.
Facebook News Feed - Feature
Appstore - Term.

"One of these things is not like the other..."

Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here?

The term "app" is a generic term used throughout the software world as shorthand for "application." For Apple to attempt to sue another company for describing an interface as an "App store" is idiotic.

This does not mean other companies aren't patent drunk. Apple is just the worst of all the offenders, bringing VERY liberal interpretations to the table to file patent infringements, throwing all of them on the wall and praying one of them sticks.

[stealthify]

I will explain this to you and then I am done.

1-click purchase - Feature.
Page up/down - Feature.
"Doodles" - Feature.
Facebook News Feed - Feature
Appstore - Term.

"One of these things is not like the other..."

Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here?

Tyler, you don't need to get so fussy. I'd love to discuss this with you if you'd hear me out, even if you don't agree.

I can tell you which one doesn't belong: App Store. Want to know why? Because that is a trademark infringement, not a patent infringement.

And on that note, do you want to hear another ridiculous trademark? The word 'face' in websites. And guess who owns it and has sued others for using it? Facebook. Now that's a wild one.

While the term 'app' and 'store' and very generic and commonplace words, 'App Store' together, while being the first to trademark it and make it a household name, is a different story. And on that note, even words like 'Apple' and 'Amazon' are fairly generic terms as well - but they have essentially become brands. Brands will association, brands that each company has spent millions to market and to keep associated with their company.

Before mid-2008, did you ever refer to anything as "The App Store"? I doubt you did. Hardly anyone did:

Google Trends: app store

Apple, while they didn't invent 'apps' or 'stores', was the first to really publicize and push the term 'App Store' into households and have it catch. Before long, when I said to someone: "you can find that in the App Store", they automatically knew I was talking about the store belonging to Apple.

And THAT is why Apple is defending it. They're not saying Amazon can't have their own store to sell applications, and even put a slogan under it saying that they specialize in selling apps, but that they essentially want to create their own sub-brand called the 'App Store' (or rather, 'Appstore') as well. And that might lead to confusion, and leeches off the marketing that Apple has already done to push the 'App Store' trademark.

In the end, Apple might lose this battle. They might have gone too far and mainstreamed a term that was too general. I suppose we'll see.

[IPD]

disney tried to trademark the term "seal team six" after bin laden was taken out. i didn't know disney was merging with apple.

p.s.
if apple was making cars, they'd be trademarking "air conditioning", "power windows", and antilock braking system".

[stealthify]

I will admit that the lawsuits get old after awhile, among all the companies. No doubt it's really making the lawyers fat and happy.

Samsung probably feels the same way. It seems everyone is out to get them these days:

Microsoft wants Samsung to pay smartphone license: report | Reuters

[GTO Assassin]

It shits me to get involved in another apple debate, but if you want to talk lawsuits, your country in fucking vented them! Do we really need to go there?

Here in Australia, lifeguards have apparently patented the term "lifeguard". Beach warfare as Surf Life Saving Australia trademarks the term 'lifeguard' | Courier Mail

It's called life kids. You need to get over it.

Inp - again, you really have a hate for apple yet you wont stop going on and fucking on about the company. Like I said before, did they hurt you as a child or do you really not have better things to do with your time?

Scotty

[stealthify]

You know, that's rather funny. I was once sent a cease and desist letter for using the name 'Stealthify' on my websites. The guy claimed to own the word 'Stealth,' and just about everyone that owned a domain or brand with the word 'stealth' in it was named as a defendant.

Is Famed Trademark Troll Leo Stoller Trying To Stealthily Reclaim Bogus Stealth Trademarks? | Techdirt

Fortunately it fell through, but it sucks that this stuff happens.