Sounds like someone from management needs to head down to legal and tell them that maybe now might not be the best time in the world to make themselves look like a bunch of courtroom bullies as billions (with a b) of dollars are riding on their pending cases. (Public opinion notwithstanding)
The job of management is to tell legal that sometimes even though you can do something, you probably shouldn't. I'm sure in this case some sharp legal tack will start in with something about defending trademarks to keep them in force etc. This is where a manager takes some responsibility and decides that that's a acceptable risk in order to keep the company from looking like a cosmic dick.
Its far from automatic. In any case, all they'd have to do is send a polite letter to the little store granting them the perpetual right to be similar in the way that the currently are. As SJ said, "not that big a deal".
Compared to patents, trademarks do not really generate that much abuse of the law. On top of that everybody seems to agree that their benefits (i.e. prevent businesses from confusing consumers) totally outweigh downsides, which is not the case with patents. The rare cases of abuse actually generate quite a lot of bad publicity.
Does the general public really care about a company bullying other companies legally? Are consumers really not going to buy a specific product because the company is suing an insignificant company? And if so, how much is impacting sales? I realize there probably is not enough substantial evidence to support a rational conclusion to this question. However, considering EVERY large company does this, I don't see how this is going to harm the bottom line.
Is it unethical? That's another question.
ps- I do agree with most people here that these legal arguments are getting quite asinine.
Apple's phenomenal dickery is making me seriously consider divesting myself of their products, so yes. Then again, I'm not the typical consumer. Their rectalitude certainly doesn't seem to have hurt their sales any.
There is certainly the fans that will buy anything Apple because it's Apple regardless of what Apple does. That being said, like you, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to support undoubtedly one of the most unethical companies in the world. They haven't have a big product release since the Samsung case but any sales lost were certainly more than made up for with their patent winnings.
> undoubtedly one of the most unethical companies
> in the world
Oh please. I now people are irrational, but we can be wiser as to delude ourselves that some company is ethical and other is not based on cherry-picked tidbits.
Thanks, this is exactly what I was intending to convey. Never did I say the Apple lawsuits were my justification for thinking Apple is unethical. I simply alluded that recent patent bullying is one of the bigger public outcries against the company and we are yet to see how consumers will react to it. We are all in agreement that it won't noticeably hurt their sales, but it is also further swaying those without brand loyalty to the company.
I realize if I kept tabs on all large corporation's ethics, in all likelihood I would find myself unable to purchase anything from someone respectable. That being said, despite becoming a large company being synonymous with it losing it's innocence, it doesn't mean that they all have to become porn stars.
Anyone who thinks my opinion is cheery picked or hyperbole doesn't follow the sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, discrimination against customers, etc in Apple's last few years alone. Using other unethical companies (none of whom were tech might I add) to justify their atrocious actions is borderline retarded. We might as well just let murders off the hook because those serial killers are so much worse in comparison, right?
As a consumer, all I'm trying to do is support companies that act the best, even if that means picking whomever is the least undesirable.
> I'm not sure if I can bring myself to support undoubtedly one of the most unethical companies in the world.
Really? I wish Apple was one of the most unethical companies in the world, because if suing some companies over patents was grounds for that, then the world would seriously be a much better place.
In the real world, I probably wouldn't rate Apple in the top thousand unethical companies... Real unethical companies are ones like James Hardie [1], which manufactured building materials from asbestos that gave thousands of people mesothelioma, despite knowing the health effects for about 10 years.
Being unethical or not is based on moral values and Apple did breach the moral code of conduct in their recent lawsuits by acting vigorously bullish but they did nothing wrong(at least not legally). But what James Hardie did was borderline illegal so they are two different things.
I find it hilarious that this question can even be asked in regard to Apple.
Apple benefits enormously from the public perception of "the Apple brand", and that translates directly into massive profits for Apple's bottom line. If the public became more Apple skeptical it would put a dent in their business to the tune of billions. Look at Microsoft and the difficulties they are still having due to being saddled as an uncool company.
Edit: People are still proud to show their support for Apple. How would that change if people changed their perception of Apple? Apple is one of the largest and most profitable companies in the history of Earth. And they are guilty of no small number of abuses and crimes, against their workers, against their competitors, against their users. How would Apple's business fare if people began perceiving Apple in the same way they perceived Exxon?
I find it hard to believe that people will go to a grocery store and expect to find brushed-metal fruit with a shiny touchscreen. These are wildly different industries.
Nope. A barrel of oil from Exxon is undistinguishable from any other barrel of oil traded at the exchanges. This is not the case with say, Thinkpads vs Macbooks.
Quote wikipedia: "A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats it as equivalent or nearly so no matter who produces it." So nope, definitely not (yet) the case with computers.
I am hopeful that openstack will give me a large range of
providers I can use with the same Apis - and that
my app design will be sufficient that even the remaining
non fungible parts of a hosted computer (OS, connectivity, size of data stored) will be mitigated
I am not sure if it's a good or a bad thing but pretty soon every computer other than the ones I carry will be commodities
The only reason I'm using an android device now is because I don't want to fund Apples patent crusade. I think the iPhone is light years better and more usable and more polished than Android, but I don't support their policies, so I vote with my wallet. I realize I'm an outlier in this, but that's just the way it is.
Linux has way too little market share on the desktop anyway. Especially when considering that it does all the things the average consumer wants, ever since hardware compatibility problems have virtually gone away. I think the main reason is actually, that "the computer" with its OS and everything is one product to the average consumer. They buy a PC, it runs Windows. They buy a Mac, it runs OSX. And it usually stays that way. Pre-installed Linux was never really given a proper chance.
No, consumers don't care at all. That is why Apple is still in business after the all the stories about exploitation in manufacturing. If customers cared at all, that would put them off for sure. But no. So clearly, customers don't care as long as they get their pretty toys at prices they are willing to pay.
Not an Apple thing either. Don't know why Apple get the flack when almost every one else is at it in one way or another, and "we" happily lap up their product.
If people actually cared enough not to give Apple money, the likes of Apple would change. They would have to.
All similar manufacturers have the same exploitation in manufacturing. Apple copped a beating over it essentially because they market to expections of quality and high ethics.
If it's impacting sales, it's positively impacting them, since sales have been growing year after year together with the legal attacks. People may still be seeing Apple as the Underdog? :)
Upvote to counter the downvote. I see no reason for downvoting here. People do like to see Apple as the underdog, even though some part of them realizes that headlines like "Apple Now Biggest-Ever U.S. Company" (WSJ) kind of contradict with the underdogginess.
Actually, they're quite a phenomenon. It's rare to witness an actual fanbase with a company. With this one, the fanbase is extraordinarily big and extremly devoted. This goes far beyond the usual fanboy-ism. People actually love their Apple products [1].
This is a trademark dispute - and there is one simple rule in International trademarks. If you stop defending your trademark every time, then you lose it.
No-one at apple seriously thinks a polish supermarket is going to trade on the apple brand. But because it's close enough, they must sue. Otherwise the polish laptop maker who releases pomme d'terre range will be able to get in.
If you don't beleve me, paint a red triangle outside your stall in Dar es salaam and see how fast the nabisco lawyers hit you.
It's life.
What is bad is there is not a word of damage control from Apple - with Jobs gone they no longer get the benefit of the doubt - and so IMO should explain every piece of evil / seeming evil they do very clearly. Just not in their DNA though.
"If you stop defending your trademark every time, then you lose it.."
But is suing really the only way to defend a trademark? If what you say is true, why don't we see a lot more of these? It can't be that hard to come up with similar "trade mark infringements" that nobody cares about? Or??
Yes. After a trademark has been granted, suing is the way you defend your trademark. Also, there have been more of these...a lot more. Perhaps you remember Apple suing NYC over their NYC Green apple logo or the Victoria School of Business and Technology over their apple-shaped logo or Woolworths Limited over their logo? ...and those are just the ones conveniently listed on the list of trademark litigation from this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademark...
We are only getting second- and third-hand reports, but the typical opener is to send a letter to the offender telling them to stop. Saying hello with a lawsuit gets expensive.
I can see why they don't - because it would likely make no difference at all.
As you say, the rules on trademark protection are crystal clear and understood by anyone who takes 30 seconds to read up on them.
Any journalists running this sort of story are either unprofessional enough not to do the necessary research (and would likely not bother connecting the story to a press release) or, more likely, understand exactly what's happening but are just click whoring (in which case they'll just ignore it).
In either case though I don't see a press release from Apple would do anything - a lazy journalist won't care and nor will one just looking for the sensationalist story.
Because news outlets are not peoples only source if news.
Timcook.blog.apple.com would have been quoted thirty seconds after the OP got put up - but it does not exist.
I can only surmise that apple does not reply directly because that sort of thing is not how apple works. Perhaps they should change.
Why didn't they dispute the trademark during the opposition period. Unless Polish law doesn't have opposiTion procedure, this doesn't sound like a defensive move.
No, that's correct. Apple obviously invented everything round, be it rounded icons or apples. And everything starting with a and having "pl" somewhere in it's name.
Actually, i think Apple should sue everyone selling real apples or eating apples and every company that uses the words application, apprentice, appointment but also everything containing jobs, steve and silverish designs.
But also they should be able to sue everyone for this but use LTE technology for free. Or the shitload of stuff others invented, like the smartphone or GSM.
Apple just given much more publicity to A.pl, than it could ever buy with its marketing budget :)
Also the case will take 5 years and nothing will come out of it. That's how Polish courts work, and that's why nobody sues over stupid details like this in Poland.
Well. Me, at least. Probably half my office and half of any other IT office around. It's not like an average Joe is lazy enough to buy groceries through the internet, so the overlap between potential customers of a.pl and people who are interested in this case is not insignificant.
This reminds me of a few years ago when Apple tried to get Woolworths (a supermarket chain in Australia) to stop using their new logo (a "W" styled in the shape of an apple)[1].
Apple lost that one, and I suspect that they'll probably lose this one, too.
The update, that isn't in the title: It may actually be the logo. The logo has the leaf in exactly the same place, and the h is similar to the missing bite of the apple. The h being there looks fairly ugly, it does seem intentional to me.
Does that really looks like Apple logo... ofcourse not!!! I feel this is ridiculous. In future we won't be able teach our children "A" for "Apple" because of this trademarks and patents
I don't think intentional really matters, I just said it because of the feelings around Apple. That logo should be illegal, but it shouldn't be used because it's too obvious.
Reminded me that Apple had a trademark suit against Woolworths (Woolies) in Australia a few years ago for using a 'fresh fruit' logo that looked a bit like an Apple.
My takeaway from this is that trademark lawyers do their thing because they have to be seen to be protecting their trademarks, and I'm patently sick of the whole Apple legal patent/copyright stories that I'm just going to filter them from now on.
The Polish website Telepolis is reporting that Apple demanded that the
Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Poland’s Patent Office)
cancel the trademark belonging to A.PL Internet SA. The first meeting
actually took place on August 29, but it was adjourned and deferred to
a later date.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does the Polish patent office really deal with the award of trademarks?
What I find amusing is that Apple has almost certainly just raised the profile of a.pl and given them a boost.
In the UK online food delivery is very competitive and businesses like this come and go fairly frequently. As soon as supermarkets get involved in home delivery these companies all start struggling.
I think it is fairly obvious a.pl has nothing to do with Apple or their brand. If Apple had waiting there was a less than insignificant chance the company would run out steam anyway..
Personally, I think this is a storm in a teacup; Apple have to enforce their trademark, and be shown to be doing so in order to maintain their trademark rights.
That's the problem with a company heavily based on the charisma, creativity and the aura of a single person, no matter how great he or her was. When that person passes away the company loses confidence, and poor decisions ensue.
Bonus link, what you're experiencing is an example of cognitive bias because of priming. With the Samsung case fresh in your memory, you see Apple as launching a whole new wave of litigation, when their lawyers have been being lawyers all along: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Priming
"A simple example is the familiar "red car" phenomenon where a person who buys a red car suddenly starts seeing red cars everywhere. The familiarity of the red car primes them to spot other red cars faster."
This demonstrates that you are educated and have a special love for teaching, an adorable trait that, honestly, I very much appreciate. I would like for you to consider though that priming might not apply here unless Apple legal team has been doing this stuff more than once before Steve Jobs passed away, and I just didn't notice or remember a single article about it.
Not to mention that the case you pointed me to (and more on http://www.engadget.com/search/?q=apple+trademark) look way more legitimate, because there is some kind of a visual resemblance with the Apple logo, the grocery store on the other hand is totally different visually and I think it is extremely unlikely that a consumer may be confused by it.
I'm not sure I'm as altruistic in wanting to teach as opposed to the xkcd 'someone is wrong on the internet' thing, but I should point out the Woolworths trademark dispute that I linked to is a grocery store (but perhaps I'm not parsing the meaning of your comment?).
The thing about trademark disputes by Apple with grocery stores, and Microsoft recently with the European company with the 'Metro' trademark dispute is because the 'post-pc' era isn't fundamentally 'technology gadgets', it's new storefronts and marketplaces.
Amazon and their Kindles are about strengthening their digital storefront/marketplace.
Apple's iPad is arguably the most successful new model storefront/marketplace. It's like the high-end mall of virtual marketplaces.
This is a very real contested battleground. It's not about the apps, it's about the retail storefronts, both physical and virtual.
No. The problem is that apple hate is some kind of fashionable thing to do lately, so every piece and bit will be dragged out for display. I bet hundreds of companies are doing the same, but they are just not interesting.
Foxconn story was a good example of that.
I thought trademark issues were only relevant in the same sector.
I mean apple cannot forbid you to put the word "apple" or an apple logo if you are selling the fruit no ?
It is not about letter "a", but letters "A'pl", witch is different.
I could be as angry as the next guy from Apple patenting geometric shapes and natural gestures and tech that was already invented 20 years ago, but this is a typical case of trademark dispute, and Apple could be right here. A pl could sound like Apple and so Apple needs to protect their trademark, or they could loose it, as someone already stated.
I think Apple is very thuggish, but can we lose the link-baity and dramatic titles ("Apple sues Polish grocery store over the letter A")?
I'm skeptical that even "A.pl" around a giant "a" with leaves coming out of it is enough to infringe on Apple's trade mark, but it's a much closer call than merely the letter a.
Agreed. And it's not a "grocery store" it's an "online service" (dealing with the food industry). Granted, not Apple's core business, but a heck of a lot closer to their realm than a brick-and-mortar retail outfit.
Apple suffers here because their trademark is an English word. (Though A.pl probably isn't intended to be a homonym for "apple" in Polish.)
It's a trademark dispute. Apple doesn't have a choice, they have to defend their trademark or they will lose it. And they aren't disputing use of the letter 'A'. The article's been updated to show the Polish companies logo is an Apple, similar to Apple's own logo.
Can't wait for this to bubble up to Polish mainstream media. (And it will, it's the perfect link bait / eyeball magnet.)
Hasn't Apple heard what Poland did to ACTA? We love it when some big American entity comes pushing around and stepping on the little guy. We've got our pitchforks and torches always ready. Come, Apple, come.
It's a supermarket; they're an electronics company. There is no possibility of confusion. They wouldn't have a case even against a supermarket chain just opened in the States named 'Apple'. (That's not to say they wouldn't win, because money makes people nod their heads.)
The job of management is to tell legal that sometimes even though you can do something, you probably shouldn't. I'm sure in this case some sharp legal tack will start in with something about defending trademarks to keep them in force etc. This is where a manager takes some responsibility and decides that that's a acceptable risk in order to keep the company from looking like a cosmic dick.