AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple sued over "Tiger," requested injunction could prevent launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sued over "Tiger," requested injunction could prevent launch - Page 3

post #81 of 98
4/29/05 at 9:38am
If only mammals had more legal rights... Beware of the animal injunctions!

No one should be able to sue over the use of dictionary words...
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 98
4/29/05 at 10:50am
This is pathetic.

I know several doctors who have quit, being discouraged by clients who come in and ask "How much is this worth?" in regards to their injuries. Must make them very comfortable in treating these parasites.

I'm sure Apple has had it's share of less then ethical practices in the past, but in this case, I like Apple, and I want their product. I believe in never negotiating with terrorists, and also giving no one free shots. I hope Apple comes back at them with ever trick, legitimate or not, in the book, and owns TigerDirect by the end of the year.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 98
4/29/05 at 10:53am
  • Kickaha
  • Really Fast Typing Member
Oh god no. Why would they want a boat anchor like TigerDirect?

Sell it, dismantle it, *something*, but own it? Never.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #84 of 98
4/29/05 at 12:20pm
Wow, talk about a voice of reason in this forum.

Lets assume for a minute that the posting that has to do with the font size of the word Tiger is correct. If there was an agreement previously about this issue, and Apple has breached the agreement, then Tiger Direct is completely correct in this lawsuit. Trademarks and Copyrights are a funny thing. You also have the fact that Tiger Direct is a computer sales and software company as well. This isn't like Puma or Jaguar. You would be hard pressed to confuse a car or a shoe with an operating system, but with a computer sales company there is a greater chance of customer confusion. If Apple did breach the previous agreement, I hope they lose. It is their own fault, and they should of abided by the original contract.

Further more, this isn't the first lawsuit Apple has over breaching previous agreements. Apple Records are suing Apple right now, over the iTunes music store, which potentially I'd have to side with Apple records, since Apple agreed not to move into the music industry. With iTunes, the new Jam Box, their Music Production Software, and the iPod, Apple is adding up the evidence again them, however the majority is against iTunes, I am on the fence with this one however, not sure if Apple Records or Apple should take this win.

But as to the Tiger Direct, if they breached the agreement, then Apple should lose, plain and simple.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 98
4/29/05 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Yohe
Not sure how this will do anything.. and not sure you can reach anyone that would know anything about this anyway.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah but it's funny as hell and quite frankly they deserve to have their phones ringing off the hook with annoying phone calls because this is pure extortion. This is by far the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. When Apple got sued by the Apple music label it was legit, but this is just assanine.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 98
4/29/05 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by scavanger
Wow, talk about a voice of reason in this forum.

Lets assume for a minute that the posting that has to do with the font size of the word Tiger is correct. If there was an agreement previously about this issue, and Apple has breached the agreement, then Tiger Direct is completely correct in this lawsuit. Trademarks and Copyrights are a funny thing. You also have the fact that Tiger Direct is a computer sales and software company as well. This isn't like Puma or Jaguar. You would be hard pressed to confuse a car or a shoe with an operating system, but with a computer sales company there is a greater chance of customer confusion. If Apple did breach the previous agreement, I hope they lose. It is their own fault, and they should of abided by the original contract.

Further more, this isn't the first lawsuit Apple has over breaching previous agreements. Apple Records are suing Apple right now, over the iTunes music store, which potentially I'd have to side with Apple records, since Apple agreed not to move into the music industry. With iTunes, the new Jam Box, their Music Production Software, and the iPod, Apple is adding up the evidence again them, however the majority is against iTunes, I am on the fence with this one however, not sure if Apple Records or Apple should take this win.

But as to the Tiger Direct, if they breached the agreement, then Apple should lose, plain and simple.

ok now you're just reaching\
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 98
4/29/05 at 12:24pm
Darn, I'm going to sue my local zoo.
They said the have Tiger,
but they only have a big fat cat!
Why do so many Sys Admins hate the Mac? . A q u a M a c .
Reply
Why do so many Sys Admins hate the Mac? . A q u a M a c .
Reply
post #88 of 98
4/29/05 at 12:32pm
I am not reaching. If Apple Computer specificly breaks an agreement that stated the font size back when this first came out in 2004, then they will probably lose.

You guys can sit here and worship Apple till the cows come home, but Tiger Direct has excellent legal standing if this is the primary basis for the lawsuit. Apple agreed to something before, and now they are breaking their agreement.

Furthermore the reason this coming out today, is you cannot sue based on a preview image of a product say from Amazon. You can only sue once that product is offically released and on sale, which is why this lawsuit comes out today the release of 10.4 (coincidentally, the release of Windows XP 64 bit as well)

If Apple broke the agreement, then they are in the wrong, this isn't a fishing lawsuit, it's a breach of agreement, and I personally think Tiger Direct will win.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 98
4/29/05 at 1:32pm
Looks like, now that Apple has ripened everyone wants a piece.
For Bobs Sake, Tiger will be her for what, all of two years, and these jerks make a bulk of their sales from Apple users... or used to. What ever happened to friendly business practices. These (in my opinion) stupid, greedy lawyers just found a way to make a cash cow on a company that has started making money. they blame their poor business practices on the use of a neme. These Idiotic Lawsuits need to stop. The name "Tiger" is also used in zoos around the globe and Gosh there is even a species of Larg Cat named Tiger, I expect they will file suit aginst these uses of the name next.

STUPID BASTARDS GO MAKE YOUR OWN MONEY AND STOP TRYING TO GET RICH OF SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor business, tisk tisk.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 98
4/29/05 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence Francell
Looks like, now that Apple has ripened everyone wants a piece.
For Bobs Sake, Tiger will be her for what, all of two years, and these jerks make a bulk of their sales from Apple users... or used to. What ever happened to friendly business practices. These (in my opinion) stupid, greedy lawyers just found a way to make a cash cow on a company that has started making money. they blame their poor business practices on the use of a neme. These Idiotic Lawsuits need to stop. The name "Tiger" is also used in zoos around the globe and Gosh there is even a species of Larg Cat named Tiger, I expect they will file suit aginst these uses of the name next.

STUPID BASTARDS GO MAKE YOUR OWN MONEY AND STOP TRYING TO GET RICH OF SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor business, tisk tisk.

The difference is TigerDirect is a computer reseller and therefore there is potential for confusion. I agree that this is probably to make money and no damages have been incurred but some of these companies with similar names could cause confusion for the consumer. Although TigerDirect will benefit due to the publicity.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 98
4/29/05 at 3:35pm
If the agreement stipulated that the word "Tiger" be no more than 1/3rd the size of the "X"... Well, the front of the box has a pretty big X on it, and the text is much smaller than a 1/3rd of the size of that!

Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 98
4/29/05 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnel
If the agreement stipulated that the word "Tiger" be no more than 1/3rd the size of the "X"... Well, the front of the box has a pretty big X on it, and the text is much smaller than a 1/3rd of the size of that!

Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel

I saw an article about this a year ago in MacUser - it mentioned trademarks and the problem of calling them their code-names. When 10.3 came out it was called Mac OS X v10.3 Panther. However this release is called Mac OS X Tiger v10.4. This is a big difference as before it was referred to as Panther - this IS Tiger.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 98
4/29/05 at 6:33pm
This is just too ironic. I've received 2 email responses from Steve Jobs over the years, and one in particular relates quite well to this topic. In December of 2002, Apple sued a small Australian Telco named Apple something-or-other (don't remember the name.) Jobs used the same logic as Tiger Computer. In fact, here is the actual email exchange:


Sorry, but you're wrong here. If we don't defend our name, it not only becomes diluted but we could risk losing it ourselves.

Best,
Steve

On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 08:21 AM, XXXXXXX wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E15306,00.html

This is just ridiculous! _Quit being such ass holes!


Looks like I got the last laugh!
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 98
4/29/05 at 9:28pm
Quote:
Originally posted by scavanger
I am not reaching. If Apple Computer specificly breaks an agreement that stated the font size back when this first came out in 2004, then they will probably lose.

Except that the lawsuit filed says NOTHING about any previous agreement. Have you read the lawsuit? It's only 16 pages. I have... of course, I get paid to read these things.

Quote:
You guys can sit here and worship Apple till the cows come home, but Tiger Direct has excellent legal standing if this is the primary basis for the lawsuit. Apple agreed to something before, and now they are breaking their agreement.

Well, since it is not mentioned anywhere in the lawsuit, let us assume that it would be fair to say that it is not the basis for their lawsuit.

Quote:
Furthermore the reason this coming out today, is you cannot sue based on a preview image of a product say from Amazon. You can only sue once that product is offically released and on sale, which is why this lawsuit comes out today the release of 10.4 (coincidentally, the release of Windows XP 64 bit as well)

I hate cleaning up after people who don't know what they are talking about. The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in Florida yesterday. Not today. Furthermore, since the complaint is with the marketing strategy (which you would know if you had read the complaint) it should have been filed long ago if they really have any other intention than extortion.


Quote:
If Apple broke the agreement, then they are in the wrong, this isn't a fishing lawsuit, it's a breach of agreement, and I personally think Tiger Direct will win.

*************
While I disagree with your perspective of the facts, you are entitled to personally think whatever you wish. I would suggest though, that you are in fact incorrect, and that Apple will win.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 98
4/30/05 at 12:31am
If you actually read my post, where it says, "Lets assume for a minute that the posting that has to do with the font size of the word Tiger is correct." Then you would realize I was basing my argument on the basis of what someone else said, which if you would of read my post you'd realize this, instead of insulting me.

I do apologize about the date mix up, I figured since it's in today's news on the original site I saw it on (hardocp.com) I presumed it was today.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 98
4/30/05 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally posted by scavanger
Then you would realize I was basing my argument on the basis of what someone else said, which if you would of read my post you'd realize this, instead of insulting me.


Which was my entire point. Instead of basing your judgement on what someone else said, you should have taken the time to read it. I'm sorry I insulted you.

Quote:
I do apologize about the date mix up, I figured since it's in today's news on the original site I saw it on (hardocp.com) I presumed it was today.

Again, this was my point.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 98
5/10/05 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally posted by 9secondko
I could almost see a legitmate lawsuit if Apple renamed the company "Tiger", but they did not. They named a peice of software. There is no merit here. This is just ridiculous. Tiger is the name of a big cat. If you company is named that, then fine, others should not be allowed to distract. However, a company PRODUCT is something different entirely.

I am going to patent "Lion" so that I will make the bucks when it comes out and sue Apple too.

Ok.. You say because the company is apple and the product is tiger.. this is ok. so if tigerdirect produced a product called, lets say "apple" this will be ok also..??

A copyright is a copyright.. both companies deal in the IT world.. If you open a garage called "big macs" you will not be confused with "McDonalds" but if you opened a burger bar or any food establishment called "big macs" you are gonna get sued arent you??

Well not the way you think because remember.. Quote: "However, a company PRODUCT is something different entirely."

I wish you owned macdonalds coz i would be on the way to the bank right now for a loan for my first "Big Macs" burger bar..
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 98
5/10/05 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by daftdog
Ok.. You say because the company is apple and the product is tiger.. this is ok. so if tigerdirect produced a product called, lets say "apple" this will be ok also..??

A copyright is a copyright.. both companies deal in the IT world.. If you open a garage called "big macs" you will not be confused with "McDonalds" but if you opened a burger bar or any food establishment called "big macs" you are gonna get sued arent you??

Well not the way you think because remember.. Quote: "However, a company PRODUCT is something different entirely."

I wish you owned macdonalds coz i would be on the way to the bank right now for a loan for my first "Big Macs" burger bar..


First, it isn't a copyright. A copyright only applies to a creative work in a fixed medium, not the right to use a word associated with any industry. That would be a trademark.

Second, you have to file a trademark. TigerDirect has done so on several words, however none of them relate to products, but rather to mail-order retail. This matters because they cannot sue Apple for naming a product Tiger. They do perhaps have a case over the "Tiger Center."

These may seem like subtle differences, but they are matters of law, which usually depends on the specifics.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple sued over "Tiger," requested injunction could prevent launch