Notice how the Amazon rep just flat out lied about what happened? Apple dropped the case, not the court.
It's sad that Apple can't get protection in the courts for its intellectual property.
This kind of criminality is just one of the reasons I don't do business with amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
Read the article. Both Apple and Amazon asked the court to dismiss the case and the court granted their requests. Courts dismiss cases. All Amazon and Apple could do is ask for it to be done. Amazon did not lie about how the case was dismissed, they just gave all the credit to the court. I don't see Apple thanking Amazon either though.
"Asking" the court to dismiss a case is just a matter of one party filing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, or whatever they call that particular document in that venue. As long as the stip is signed by all parties to the law suit, the court automatically dismisses the case. There is no chance that the court will deny the parties the discontinuance, as settlements happen every day between parties. A very low percentage of cases actually go to trial. So by Amazon giving credit to the court, it is misleading. This was an agreement between the parties; not a decision by the court. If one party filed a motion for summary judgment to get the case dismissed and won, that would be another story (but appeals would follow). I've been handling liability claims in many states for the past 21 years. That is how it works.
"Asking" the court to dismiss a case is just a matter of one party filing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, or whatever they call that particular document in that venue. As long as the stip is signed by all parties to the law suit, the court automatically dismisses the case. There is no chance that the court will deny the parties the discontinuance, as settlements happen every day between parties. A very low percentage of cases actually go to trial. So by Amazon giving credit to the court, it is misleading. This was an agreement between the parties; not a decision by the court. If one party filed a motion for summary judgment to get the case dismissed and won, that would be another story (but appeals would follow). I've been handling liability claims in many states for the past 21 years. That is how it works.
I appreciate your perspective because you are obviously more experienced with these issues than me, without question. That said, I feel what I said was still correct based on your detailed description of how it all works. I assumed the court would always dismiss if both parties requested it, but I wasn't sure on that so left that intentionally vague.
I get what you are saying though. The dismissal was a technicality so thanking the court is disingenuous. My only issue is there is a difference between "misleading" and "lying". Neither are good, but "lying" involves saying something completely untrue. So I feel calling it a "lie" is a bit misleading.
That said, it would have been better for both sides to have kept quiet. It was a de facto victory for Amazon and I guess they felt that had to gloat somehow.
The difference being that 'The Room Store' doesn't sell rooms and 'The Running Store' doesn't sell runnings. The problem is not that the name is generic but too descriptive. You would probably not be able to trademark 'The Shoe Store'.
You're wrong. Chain of bottle shops in Australia called 'The Bottle-o'. This is a generic (slang) term in Australia for 'bottle shop.' You can trademark whatever you like.
If I say 'I'm going to the bottle-o' I don't mean that store. They came along after the term had been around for years, slapped a trademark on it and use it all over Australia. It is not only generic, but also descriptive.
You're wrong. Chain of bottle shops in Australia called 'The Bottle-o'. This is a generic (slang) term in Australia for 'bottle shop.' You can trademark whatever you like.
If I say 'I'm going to the bottle-o' I don't mean that store. They came along after the term had been around for years, slapped a trademark on it and use it all over Australia. It is not only generic, but also descriptive.
I have to ask, what exactly is a 'bottle shop'? A store that sells bottles obviously but of what? Empty, water, soda, liquor, etc?
I have to ask, what exactly is a 'bottle shop'? A store that sells bottles obviously but of what? Empty, water, soda, liquor, etc?
From multiple dictionaries:
bottle shop
noun
(Australian & New Zealand & South Africa) a shop or part of a hotel where alcohol is sold in unopened containers for consumption elsewhere. Also called: bottle store
bottle shop
noun
(Australian & New Zealand & South Africa) a shop or part of a hotel where alcohol is sold in unopened containers for consumption elsewhere. Also called: bottle store
I gonna take a wild guess that you don't mean a bottle of rubbing alcohol. We call those 'liquor stores' and I'm guessing that you don't have to look it up in a dictionary to know what is sold there. I absolutely cannot trademark 'liquor store' and while everyone in your country and several others know what 'bottle-o' is the rest of the world does not and I'm guessing that's why it was allowed to be trademarked.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The frick is THIS nonsense?! They stole the effing name.
What, Samsung can release an i-Pad now and Apple will be fine with it?!
I'd bet there was a back door agreement/trade-off between Apple & Amazon in relation to Samsung and/or Google.
Reasonable, mature people understand the difference between insulting posters (which is what you do), and calling out nonsensical posts.
Sigh. You'll get it some day.
LOL. Thanks for a laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
This kind of criminality is just one of the reasons I don't do business with amazon.
Even if Amazon was guilty of trademark infringement, it's a civil law matter rather than a criminal offence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
Notice how the Amazon rep just flat out lied about what happened? Apple dropped the case, not the court.
It's sad that Apple can't get protection in the courts for its intellectual property.
This kind of criminality is just one of the reasons I don't do business with amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
Read the article. Both Apple and Amazon asked the court to dismiss the case and the court granted their requests. Courts dismiss cases. All Amazon and Apple could do is ask for it to be done. Amazon did not lie about how the case was dismissed, they just gave all the credit to the court. I don't see Apple thanking Amazon either though.
"Asking" the court to dismiss a case is just a matter of one party filing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, or whatever they call that particular document in that venue. As long as the stip is signed by all parties to the law suit, the court automatically dismisses the case. There is no chance that the court will deny the parties the discontinuance, as settlements happen every day between parties. A very low percentage of cases actually go to trial. So by Amazon giving credit to the court, it is misleading. This was an agreement between the parties; not a decision by the court. If one party filed a motion for summary judgment to get the case dismissed and won, that would be another story (but appeals would follow). I've been handling liability claims in many states for the past 21 years. That is how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yragsapo
"Asking" the court to dismiss a case is just a matter of one party filing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, or whatever they call that particular document in that venue. As long as the stip is signed by all parties to the law suit, the court automatically dismisses the case. There is no chance that the court will deny the parties the discontinuance, as settlements happen every day between parties. A very low percentage of cases actually go to trial. So by Amazon giving credit to the court, it is misleading. This was an agreement between the parties; not a decision by the court. If one party filed a motion for summary judgment to get the case dismissed and won, that would be another story (but appeals would follow). I've been handling liability claims in many states for the past 21 years. That is how it works.
I appreciate your perspective because you are obviously more experienced with these issues than me, without question. That said, I feel what I said was still correct based on your detailed description of how it all works. I assumed the court would always dismiss if both parties requested it, but I wasn't sure on that so left that intentionally vague.
I get what you are saying though. The dismissal was a technicality so thanking the court is disingenuous. My only issue is there is a difference between "misleading" and "lying". Neither are good, but "lying" involves saying something completely untrue. So I feel calling it a "lie" is a bit misleading.
That said, it would have been better for both sides to have kept quiet. It was a de facto victory for Amazon and I guess they felt that had to gloat somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Fair enough: app is short for application.
It's also short for apple.
App(le)store makes far more sense to my eyes and it's happy coincidence that app is also application.
You're wrong. Chain of bottle shops in Australia called 'The Bottle-o'. This is a generic (slang) term in Australia for 'bottle shop.' You can trademark whatever you like.
If I say 'I'm going to the bottle-o' I don't mean that store. They came along after the term had been around for years, slapped a trademark on it and use it all over Australia. It is not only generic, but also descriptive.
I have to ask, what exactly is a 'bottle shop'? A store that sells bottles obviously but of what? Empty, water, soda, liquor, etc?
From multiple dictionaries:
bottle shop
noun
(Australian & New Zealand & South Africa) a shop or part of a hotel where alcohol is sold in unopened containers for consumption elsewhere. Also called: bottle store
I gonna take a wild guess that you don't mean a bottle of rubbing alcohol. We call those 'liquor stores' and I'm guessing that you don't have to look it up in a dictionary to know what is sold there. I absolutely cannot trademark 'liquor store' and while everyone in your country and several others know what 'bottle-o' is the rest of the world does not and I'm guessing that's why it was allowed to be trademarked.