13485

DAalseth said:

https://gizmodo.com/apples-stock-price-falls-after-exec-says-it-is-considering-injecting-safari-with-ai-2000599351

The markets seem unimpressed. 
Not that it’s any skin off my nose. This was the last straw for me. After dealing with Safari crashes and freezes, and having to restart my system every few days because it just decided to not open any pages (on my phone, iPad, and Mac as well as others I support) and now them looking at putting AI **** in it, I’m done. Safari is a POS and I just moved to a DuckDuckGo. Apple seems to be mostly interested in the hype and not producing a quality browser by fixing the numerous issues that have been around for ages.

I acknowledge in advance that I may be a simpleton with simple needs, but I haven't restarted my iMac in two years. Safari has never crashed or frozen for me, no matter what OS version. I don't have specialty apps, just the mainstream ones. I know they shouldn't affect the browser in any event, but who knows. I don't know anyone else who has your problem, but maybe I need a wider group of acquaintances.

There are, if I remember correctly, 45 classes for trademarks, divided between goods and services. That means you have to pick a class to assign your trademark to one or more of those classes. Let's say Apple Inc. (AAPL) has trademark protection in a variety of classes including Class 42 Education and Entertainment (I am not going to look it up, but I would assume they have had that for a while).

And no, one can't get a trademark on apple pie as it's descriptive and commonly used already.

That means Apple Cinemas, being apparently in the entertainment business, is also likely infringing Apple's class 42 trademark, and would likely cause confusion to consumers. That probably was the reason they got a trademark rejected. 

As far as Apple defending every single incidence of infringement, that is not required. Many times an infringement is inconsequential, and would not have to be defended against. Apple would not be expected to defend a potential trademark infringement against a tiny Apple Video store in Peotone, Illinois.  It's more a pattern of failing to defend trademark infringement that a court would consider in judging a trademark to have become generic or not defendable in a particular case.

As we have read on this site for many years, Apple goes after a myriad of what they view as infringers (I would even say they are over-zealous in that activity, failing to separate the wheat from the chaff).

blastdoor said:

I did not ask for evidence that people say negative thighs about Apple. I asked for evidence that   Webusch predicted a bad quarter (this most recent quarter, not a quarter two years from now) due to AI issues, because that’s what the person I was replying to asserted. Do any of your links support that specific claim? If the claim cannot be supported then I hope the author corrects the article.

It's "Wedbush" and not "Wedbusch". Once is a typo, twice is not caring.

phoenix1386 said:

If hitting SF means trouble for Apple Cinemas, would hitting the market where Apple Cinemas operates mean trouble for Apple? Genuinely asking; can nobody in the U.S. now use the word Apple for any sort of business? Apple Fruit Mart/ Apple Cosmetics/ Apple Technologies opening in SF, would that ruffle Apple? Back to the question, can nobody in the U.S. use the word Apple for their business? If that is the case, then it is simply laughable.

You are incorrect. You are allowed to use the language in a trade or service mark. What's laughable is that you think International Business Machines and General Electric, for instance, should be banned, as those are words in common usage.  Apple owns the trademark in the classes in which they claim its use. This is not complicated. Go ahead and open your fruit stand.

As for Apple Technologies, if Class 42 is for Technology and Scientific services, then I assume Apple has a ™ in that class, so you can't use it. Appleicious  or Appellate might be available though as long as you can show it doesn't lead to public confusion.

You know, it's not like all the known words and images and combinations thereof are used up for trademarks, so I'm not sure why you're upset. There are currently 6450 marks with  the USPTO with the word "apple", and 12,330 apple marks no longer used. Plenty of room in the pool.

If I described the plots as a traumatized mother with a doll that becomes a real baby, with a mysterious nanny, and ("total coincidence, vaguely similar") underwater scenes, I think most people would think one plagiarized the other, even if they don't have a scene-by-scene duplication. You can't think "Oh there's been dozens of films that have a doll becoming a real baby for a traumatized mother who hires a weird nanny, and there's this underwater scene, yeah, happens all the time."

I usually don't buy plagiarism lawsuits, especially in the music biz, but this seems a little too coincidental to me. Pay the man a reasonable sum.