Apple sued over 'Snow Leopard' moniker in China for $80K - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 


Looks like you have some editing to do over there, then.

I've been to Cuba several times, they definitely are not communist. There's plenty of free enterprise going on there. 

I have a Canadian friend who owns several businesses in China too, that's hardly a hallmark of Communism either.

Cuba and China are both State Capitalist, but neither has been communist for quite some time. It's debatable whether Cuba ever was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Grain of Salt 

Fair go all, what's with the Chinese bashing!? Apple is the first company to jump on anyone that that uses a similar symbol to its own, or even similar wording. All companies must defend their trademarks or risk having them diluted or losing them. Jiangsu is asking a pittance which shows it is not really interested in the money, just in defending its trademark. Now, Apple will probably fight it as they too want to defend the Snow Leopard name but some sort of small settle will probably be made, maybe allowing both companies to use the name.
Food for thought (pun intended)
http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2009/10/06/Apple-Of-Their-i-Apple-Sues-Aussie-Woolworths-Over-Trademark.aspx

Ahh yes I forgot about that! That Woolworths logo looks nothing like Apple's logo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 


Looks like you have some editing to do over there, then.

I seldom have reason to call BS on you but to suggest that China is communist just because Wikipedia says so highlights some pretty serious flaws in your understanding of Communism. By definition it implies that all members are willing participants. Thus there has never been a true communist state, nor is it likely that there will ever be one. There have been states that adopted some of the Marxist principles but in reality they have ended up as state capitalists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

I seldom have reason to call BS on you but to suggest that China is communist just because Wikipedia says so highlights some pretty serious flaws in your understanding of Communism. By definition it implies that all members are willing participants. Thus there has never been a true communist state, nor is it likely that there will ever be one. There have been states that adopted some of the Marxist principles but in reality they have ended up as state capitalists.

Ah, this gave me a good laugh!

So, any country can't be defined as anything, if every single member of that country doesn't agree at the time. Is that correct?

I think you're getting confused between governments and people.

What's next? Are you going to claim that people aren't 'communist' or 'democratic' whenever they go to sleep because they're unconscious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredaroony 

Ahh yes I forgot about that! That Woolworths logo looks nothing like Apple's logo.

http://gadgetcrave.com/apple-not-cool-with-woolworths-logo-not-suing/3680/

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR 

So, any country can't be defined as anything, if every single member of that country doesn't agree at the time. Is that correct?

That actually is correct. No country is 100% one ideology or another, and it's cartoonish to insist that they might be. Almost everyone is living some sort of mixed market economy with plenty of socialism and capitalism to go around too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR 

 

http://gadgetcrave.com/apple-not-cool-with-woolworths-logo-not-suing/3680/

What's your point? Apple still tried to stop Woolworths using that logo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsenka 

 

That actually is correct. No country is 100% one ideology or another, and it's cartoonish to insist that they might be. Almost everyone is living some sort of mixed market economy with plenty of socialism and capitalism to go around too.

Then, by that definition, technically there are no countries at all, just collections of individuals with various different opinions, thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

Is that correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredaroony 

What's your point? Apple still tried to stop Woolworths using that logo.

You replied to a post with the headline 'Apple Sues Aussie Woolworths Over Trademark' with the quote 'Ahh yes I forgot about that!'

You probably forgot because it didn't happen.

Apple didn't sue anybody, and that this is a normal part of trademark process for all companies. If Woolworths were to go into the computer business in the future (something a spokesman for them has confirmed they can't rule out) then the average consumer, when presented with computer boxes with an Apple logo on it, may mistake them as an Apple product.

That's great to hear that you think that the two logos looks nothing alike, but doesn't necessarily means others won't think so.

The following Engadget quote is also educational:

"We'd also like to note that all these stories today have but a single source, and that Apple actually filed their notice of opposition in March but no one noticed until Woolworths talked to The Age. If we had to bet we'd say this is a tactical move by Woolworth's PR team to churn public opinion before a decision is issued -- and if it is, well, congratulations to them, because it certainly looks to us like the reality of this story has been totally overshadowed by the second, slightly more fictional story the tech media would like to tell."

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/05/apple-woolworths-in-australian-trademark-dispute-media-in-hys/

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR 

 

Then, by that definition, technically there are no countries at all, just collections of individuals with various different opinions, thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

 

Is that correct?

No. Countries have legally defined area with distinct borders. The opinions, thoughts, etc, of the residents of that area aren't a factor in the definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsenka 

 

No. Countries have legally defined area with distinct borders. The opinions, thoughts, etc, of the residents of that area aren't a factor in the definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsenka 

 

No. Countries have legally defined area with distinct borders. The opinions, thoughts, etc, of the residents of that area aren't a factor in the definition.

Gotcha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTR 

 

Ah, this gave me a good laugh!

 

So, any country can't be defined as anything, if every single member of that country doesn't agree at the time. Is that correct?

 

I think you're getting confused between governments and people.

 

What's next? Are you going to claim that people aren't 'communist' or 'democratic' whenever they go to sleep because they're unconscious?

 I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that the fact that a country might proclaim itself to be communist does not mean that that country is communist.

Communism is at the extreme of the political spectrum. It is an absolute term not a relative one. True communism requires that all members are willing participants. Thus by definition there has never been a communist state proper. There have been states that apply Marxist principles and take ownership of the means of production (thereby making them state capitalists), that they decide to call themselves communist is irrelevant..

The fact that the Nazi party called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party did not mean that they were socialists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

 I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that the fact that a country might proclaim itself to be communist does not mean that that country is communist.

 

Communism is at the extreme of the political spectrum. It is an absolute term not a relative one. True communism requires that all members are willing participants. Thus by definition there has never been a communist state proper. There have been states that apply Marxist principles and take ownership of the means of production (thereby making them state capitalists), that they decide to call themselves communist is irrelevant..

Absolutely. A totalitarian state, by definition, is not communist. Neither is one that engages in international commerce, nor one that has private ownership of businesses or property.

Excellent point on what people choose to call their party/movement/nation not being the de facto definition too. It's generally the least democratic states in the world who choose to use the word Democratic in their name. Example: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsenka 

 

Absolutely. A totalitarian state, by definition, is not communist. Neither is one that engages in international commerce, nor one that has private ownership of businesses or property.

 

Excellent point on what people choose to call their party/movement/nation not being the de facto definition too. It's generally the least democratic states in the world who choose to use the word Democratic in their name. Example: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

Then is it true what they say?

That Communists have no class?

So can someone tell me why everyone believes they're not guilty? Infringing a trademark is illegal..regardless of the product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bb321 

So can someone tell me why everyone believes they're not guilty? Infringing a trademark is illegal..regardless of the product.

 Good point, I suspect that if the Xuebao (snow leopard) touchscreen ad display and a mobile EPR software suite were released after Apple selected the name for the latest incarnation of OSx, then Apple would be the ones prompting legal action.

chinese snow leopard? :D is it trol? :lol:

but 60$mm is very serious

yes it is quite illegal. but chinese don'w know it :D