Apple is taking the.........pear!?

[Unique]

Google 'Apple slap suit'
Plenty shows up. Apple have a reputation for frivilous law suits.
I don't beleive these tax dodgers are protecting their own IP at all.
And, if it really was about protecting thier own rights. Then law suits would appear in every nation where the app is available. But, they're not. So, presuming the company can survive this slap suit. Then, they can still carry on in every other nation as 'pear' Why didn't apple lodge objections to the brand/logo in the UK?

reputation for something and doing something are two different things, and what some consider frivilous, others may think otherwise. when it comes to legal stuff most people wouldn't fully understand it, so many people thinking something they don't understand is frivilous is understandable. i'm not a lawyer or copyright expert - i perhaps know a little bit more than most as i've had time with lawyers who specialise in the subject who were helping my organisation in regards with a number of issues over rights we have, and i asked them all sorts of questions to find out how to get around things, as finding out how to do something is often the best way to find out how to protect yourself - so i don't know why suits would appear in only one place. perhaps the idea is to win a case in the home location of US and that helps set an example they can use elsewhere, or the ruling covers elsewhere

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

reputation for something and doing something are two different things, and what some consider frivilous, others may think otherwise. when it comes to legal stuff most people wouldn't fully understand it, so many people thinking something they don't understand is frivilous is understandable. i'm not a lawyer or copyright expert - i perhaps know a little bit more than most as i've had time with lawyers who specialise in the subject who were helping my organisation in regards with a number of issues over rights we have, and i asked them all sorts of questions to find out how to get around things, as finding out how to do something is often the best way to find out how to protect yourself - so i don't know why suits would appear in only one place. perhaps the idea is to win a case in the home location of US and that helps set an example they can use elsewhere, or the ruling covers elsewhere

The whole US patent system is full of holes,and they can patent stuff which in Europe is not patentable. This suit is just typical bullying tactics,ie,just to try and extort money from any and every company they can get away with. Its done in computing quite a bit,where small companies are forced to pay licensing for stuff they don't use for. Even if companies show they are not infringing on anything,there have been replies that the companies know,but "can find something" they might infringe on,so its better they pay up "just to be safe".

To put in context,Apple tried this rubbish before in the 1980s,until the US government revoked some of their own patents,to stop nonsense like this. Another company which tried it was Rambus,who again had some important patents invalidated as it was starting to cause problems.

Edit!!

Also what you have ignored,is the small company passed their insignia past the US,UK and various other patent offices,who concluded it was not infringing on anything.

[BobF64]

Not disagreeing, but "similar" is one of those words that is tricky, legally, like "reasonable" in "reasonable force".

Very much so.

To double up, I would argue that in order for "similar" to be sufficiently similar, a "reasonable person" would have to be reasonably likely to mistake the one for the other. Which I find dubious, to say the least.

Agree. I was attempting to show that, given enough vagueness and lawyer lies, anyone can try and claim something is similar, you just have to frame it right.

That said, the likes of Lidl get away with an awful lot of "similar" packaging that, to even to me, seem to look a lot like other brands if you you grab on and don't look at the wording.

But as has already been established, there's two ways to win a legal case. One, by convincing a judge (or perhaps jury in some cases), but second, and far more pernicious, is legal bullying of someone that can't afford it by someone that can.

I'd think Apple was aiming for the 2nd there, its easy for them to do after all.

[Unique]

The whole US patent system is full of holes,and they can patent stuff which in Europe is not patentable. This suit is just typical bullying tactics,ie,just to try and extort money from any and every company they can get away with. Its done in computing quite a bit,where small companies are forced to pay licensing for stuff they don't use for. Even if companies show they are not infringing on anything,there have been replies that the companies know,but "can find something" they might infringe on,so its better they pay up "just to be safe".

To put in context,Apple tried this rubbish before in the 1980s,until the US government revoked some of their own patents,to stop nonsense like this. Another company which tried it was Rambus,who again had some important patents invalidated as it was starting to cause problems.

Edit!!

Also what you have ignored,is the small company passed their insignia past the US,UK and various other patent offices,who concluded it was not infringing on anything.

i don't think it's bullying tactics at all. i think it's apple doing this on purpose to protect their logo. not specifically for this case, but as i mentioned before, so someone else can't use that logo or case as an example why they could use another logo that may be more similar to apples. a bit like mcdonalds suing people for mc or mac names on tiny local takeaways that wouldn't realistically affect their trade much. if they let things slip too much they could see problems further down the line