[Update: Official Opposition Papers added] Whatcha Got There? A Smoothie - Apple legally opposes Meal Prep Companies' Fruit Logo

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Why should fair treatment under the law be dictated by how a person wants to make their product?  Last i checked none of those things are illegal or anti consumer. you are not forced to use it.

 

 

Ah, but should they be?  

[Roswell]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why should fair treatment under the law be dictated by how a person wants to make their product?  Last i checked none of those things are illegal or anti consumer. you are not forced to use it.

 

 

Yeah, never mentioned any of what you’re on about. I simply said if people saw their business model, they may end up a bit less sympathetic.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Yeah, never mentioned any of what you’re on about. I simply said if people saw their business model, they may end up a bit less sympathetic.

why would people be less sympathetic if not for your insinuation they deserve it?

 

It seems completely unfair to assume anyone deserves to be unfairly sued simply because you don't like their product.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why would people be less sympathetic if not for your insinuation they deserve it?

 

It seems completely unfair to assume anyone deserves to be unfairly sued simply because you don't like their product.

 

 

This argument can be pointed at you as well though.  An argument you made earlier was that the primary issue is that there is a hole in the fairness of the legal system regarding corporate staff legal departments, and while legal, they shouldn’t be.  A should.  Doesn’t mean they’re equally dirty. It does force weighing of the potential damage each can do though.  One corporate legal department, or one abusive app?  Neither will be destroyed by a win or a loss.  One will have to lose its logo, the other loses one case amongst many.  Neither is likely fatal. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

This argument can be pointed at you as well though.  An argument you made earlier was that the primary issue is that there is a hole in the fairness of the legal system regarding corporate staff legal departments, and while legal, they shouldn’t be.  A should.

not even remotely close to the same argument. 

 

Viramic is arguing people shouldn't feel sorry for them being sued because they make a shit product in his eyes. He is literally saying they deserved to get sued for no other reason than their product is subjectively bad.

 

All my arguments rest on objective issues. It is not really debatable that apple has the financial and legal advantage, their legal team isn't fighting for their livelihood/business and aren't under personal stress over the whole thing.  They don't need to find money to fight a legal battle.

 

To be honest I can't believe people are even debating half of what they are. 

[Roswell]

46 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why would people be less sympathetic if not for your insinuation they deserve it?

 

It seems completely unfair to assume anyone deserves to be unfairly sued simply because you don't like their product.

 

 

Again putting words in my mouth. Never did I say they deserve anything. Your entire reply is completely irrelevant to anything I’ve said.

[Bombastinator]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

not even remotely close to the same argument. 

 

Viramic is arguing people shouldn't feel sorry for them being sued because they make a shit product in his eyes. He is literally saying they deserved to get sued for no other reason than their product is subjectively bad.

 

All my arguments rest on objective issues. It is not really debatable that apple has the financial and legal advantage, their legal team isn't fighting for their livelihood/business and aren't under personal stress over the whole thing.  They don't need to find money to fight a legal battle.

 

To be honest I can't believe people are even debating half of what they are. 

Depends on the point that is attempting to be made.  If that is the argument s/he is making you have a point. It may have value outside that though. Less perhaps, but not zero. As to the not really debatable thing, It makes three statements:

1.  That they have a what I would call massive financial advantage this I would say is beyond debatable.

2. That they are not fighting for the continuation of their company.  Harder.  They might be.  They might also be fighting for the prevention of damage to their company.  You only might be correct on this one.

3. They aren’t under personal stress over the whole thing.  Unknown but probable.  The point becomes wishy washy though because there is some question as to when first contact was made about this (after 5 years or is this just the point Apple gave up and sued?) and whether the error the company owner made was one of being stupid about picking an app logo in the first place.  I personally consider this probable though I don’t know the details.  Options include real tears because of a sudden onslaught? Crocodile tears? Real tears but the fault of the owner?  A wishy washy point.  There are facts perhaps but they are not on the ground.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Again putting words in my mouth. Never did I say they deserve anything. Your entire reply is completely irrelevant to anything I’ve said.

really?

1 hour ago, Vitamanic said:

I think if people actually checked this app out they would feel a lot less sympathetic towards them. They basically turned meal recipes and shopping lists into a F2P game riddled with micro transactions.

 

Want to access your shopping list or recipes? $60 for a year please! Want to view a recipe and ingredients AFTER YOU HAVE PAID $60?! That will be another $15 please!

 

Apparently if you want to view their “free” content, you need to go through endless scroller ad pages (wtf, why is this still a thing?) for minutes on end. They also block you from accessing ingredient lists for a recipe more than 3 times unless you cough up more money... This app is crazy predatory.

maybe you could rephrase the bit in bold so it doesn't read the way it does. 

 

You then go on to shit can the entire app as if that means something,  tell me,  how does your appraisal on the app have any bearing ton the legalities? 

 

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Depends on the point that is attempting to be made.  If that is the argument he is making you have a point. It may have value outside that though. Less perhaps, but not zero. As to the not really debatable thing, It makes three statements:

1.  That they have a what I would call massive financial advantage this I would say is beyond debatable.

2. That they are not fighting for the continuation of their company.  Harder.  They might be.  They might also be fighting for the prevention of damage to their company.  You only might be correct on this one.

3. They aren’t under personal stress over the whole thing.  Unknown but probable.  The point becomes wishy washy though because there is some question as to when first contact was made about this (after 5 years or is this just the point Apple gave up and sued?) and whether the error the company owner made was one of being stupid about picking an app logo in the first place.  I personally consider this probable though I don’t know the details.  Options include real tears because of a sudden onslaught? Crocodile tears? Real tears but the fault of the owner?  A wishy washy point.  There are facts perhaps but they are not on the ground.

apple haven't sued yet, they are trying to oppose the trademark first.

 

suffice to say, I still fail to see what relevance vitamic hating their app has to do with any of my comments.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

apple haven't sued yet, they are trying to oppose the trademark first.

 

suffice to say, I still fail to see what relevance vitamic hating their app has to do with any of my comments.

 

 

 

 

 

Goes to moral worth.  There was a point made earlier that the issue is one of moral worth.  Apple is the big bully beating on the helpless innocent victim.  An argument can be made that the victim is not so innocent.  Throws it from black and white into shades of grey.  Which grey is darker becomes the question.  I personally view Apple as being darker.  You seem to view Apple as being darker, but it’s also being presented as black and white. It seems it’s not. 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 An argument can be made that the victim is not so innocent.

The only argument being leveled against the victim here is that their product is overpriced shit. That does not justify the lack of concern we should have for nuisance lawsuits.   They are nuisance lawsuits by virtue of the company being able to afford to use them as a tool, not to use them for justice.  That distinction should not be forgotten. 

[Jet_ski]

Someone else said it better!

[kirashi]

On 8/8/2020 at 11:58 PM, lewdicrous said:

Who tf is in charge of this? They need toddlers to teach them how to differentiate between apples and pears.

Yes, US Trademark law does indeed need the assistance of toddlers. Without getting too political, I feel that various countries do certain things decently while doing other things the most back asswards way possible. Then you've got things that NO country can get right, like copyright law in the digital age, international trademark & patent laws, and providing a minimum standard of living for all humans on the earth.

[Bombastinator]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The only argument being leveled against the victim here is that their product is overpriced shit. That does not justify the lack of concern we should have for nuisance lawsuits.   They are nuisance lawsuits by virtue of the company being able to afford to use them as a tool, not to use them for justice.  That distinction should not be forgotten. 

Overpriced shit was not what I saw.  I saw repeated misinformation and hidden charging and bait-and-switch and micro transactions.  It might also be overpriced shit of course.   Maybe that means the same thing.  Definition of terms and all that.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Overpriced shit was not what I saw.  I saw repeated misinformation and hidden charging and bait-and-switch and micro transactions.  It might also be overpriced shit of course.   Maybe that means the same thing.  Definition of terms and all that.

What bait and switch/hidden charges?  all we have is an allegation that the the pricing is not up front. The rest of that post is just subjective hate.  maybe its warranted, but even if it is that still does not justify unrelated nuisance lawsuits.  Confusing what apple are doing with some sort of universal karma or justice being served for something unrelated does not justify nor make it o.k.

 

A lawsuit for trademark infringement needs to stand on its own merits, not same unrelated objection people have with a product.

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What bait and switch/hidden charges?  all we have is an allegation that the the pricing is not up front. The rest of that post is just subjective hate.  maybe its warranted, but even if it is that still does not justify unrelated nuisance lawsuits.  Confusing what apple are doing with some sort of universal karma or justice being served for something unrelated does not justify nor make it o.k.

 

A lawsuit for trademark infringement needs to stand on its own merits, not same unrelated objection people have with a product.

There is a difference between bait-and-switch and hidden charges and not being up front about actual price?   I was merely describing the how as well as the what.  The rest of the post seems to be being annoyed by the actions in the first part of the post and their option based on them.  I felt it was perhaps a bit overblown but subjective to level of irritation. 
The second part of that paragraph is a complicated way of saying “two wrongs do not make a right” which I have repetitively agreed with, so used as a basis for disagreement is silly.

 

Second paragraph is perhaps true, but in disagreement with what you said earlier. 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There is a difference between bait-and-switch and hidden charges and not being up front about actual price?   I was merely describing the how as well as the what.  The rest of the post seems to be being annoyed by the actions in the first part of the post and their option based on them.  I felt it was perhaps a bit overblown but subjective to level of irritation. 
The second part of that paragraph is a complicated way of saying “two wrongs do not make a right” which I have repetitively agreed with, so used as a basis for disagreement is silly.

 

Second paragraph is perhaps true, but in disagreement with what you said earlier. 

how is it in disagreement with what I said earlier?

[Kisai]

On 8/9/2020 at 1:23 AM, Arika S said:

to add onto this 

 

says the $1trillion company to a small start up.

 

 

 

there you go, Apple do actually think people are stupid. I don't think there's a soul on earth that would look at PrePear's logo and think "oh, is that Apple's logo? i didn't know they were doing food stuff now"

I can see maybe if you invert the mark, but all that takes to fix it is to flip it.

[AndreiArgeanu]

Apple sued some random small company for having a similar logo, despite the fact that the company is completely unrelated to tech, but they're not suing Nickelodeon for literally making iphone, macbook and MacOS copies in iCarly, with a very similar logo of a pear. Like literally, what's the logic behind Apple at this point?

[Bombastinator]

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

how is it in disagreement with what I said earlier?

You made the “should” argument regarding corporate law stuff.  I don’t disagree with it.  I think it’s a “should” too.  The thing regarding the nature of the app is also a “should” but in the opposite direction.  Takes the black and white out of things as I said earlier.  Means they must be weighed.  Weighing the “should”s I think the corporate law problem causes more systemic problems, possibly including some of the ones in the opposing “should” section, and as such, it’s removal trumps the removal of the other issues.  This particular suit will remove neither though.  I’m sort of surprised the concept of victim blaming hasn’t come up.  

[Bombastinator]

23 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Apple sued some random small company for having a similar logo, despite the fact that the company is completely unrelated to tech, but they're not suing Nickelodeon for literally making iphone, macbook and MacOS copies in iCarly, with a very similar logo of a pear. Like literally, what's the logic behind Apple at this point?

Turns out in this case the small company is not unrelated to tech at all.  That claim in the title was false. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

You made the “should” argument regarding corporate law stuff.

Whilst I agree too, that wasn't exactly my point.  When I talked about corporate lawyers being at an unfair advantage, it wasn't me trying to argue they shouldn't be taking them to court because of said advantage, I was adding that that advantage is the only reason we have nuisance lawsuits.  Companies can be assured of a win because mum and dad business will run out of money ling before their case budget has been exhausted.  Which mean justice in these cases is handed to the person with most money, not the person with legitimate claim to their work.

 

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

 I don’t disagree with it.  I think it’s a “should” too.  The thing regarding the nature of the app is also a “should” but in the opposite direction.  Takes the black and white out of things as I said earlier.  Means they must be weighed.  Weighing the “should”s I think the corporate law problem causes more systemic problems, possibly including some of the ones in the opposing “should” section, and as such, it’s removal trumps the removal of the other issues.  This particular suit will remove neither though.  I’m sort of surprised the concept of victim blaming hasn’t come up.  

I don't consider it a should though, it is an app for organizing meals and recipes etc.  Apple has nothing like this as any of their products that I am aware of,  therefore how does the claim prepear is performing an "identical" or "highly relative" service to apple stand up?  it does not seem to be a should thing to me.

 

I don't know why apple is suing,  what I do know is they don't have to sue to protect their trademarks and it seems a really weak target if they think prepear is a threat to their market or brand value.   In a way vitamanic has tried the victim blame card already by saying no body should feel sorry for them because they're bad.  There have also been a few posts saying they should be grateful for the PR. 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, mr moose said:

Whilst I agree too, that wasn't exactly my point.  When I talked about corporate lawyers being at an unfair advantage, it wasn't me trying to argue they shouldn't be taking them to court because of said advantage, I was adding that that advantage is the only reason we have nuisance lawsuits.  Companies can be assured of a win because mum and dad business will run out of money ling before their case budget has been exhausted.  Which mean justice in these cases is handed to the person with most money, not the person with legitimate claim to their work.

 

I don't consider it a should though, it is an app for organizing meals and recipes etc.  Apple has nothing like this as any of their products that I am aware of,  therefore how does the claim prepear is performing an "identical" or "highly relative" service to apple stand up?  it does not seem to be a should thing to me.

 

I don't know why apple is suing,  what I do know is they don't have to sue to protect their trademarks and it seems a really weak target if they think prepear is a threat to their market or brand value.   In a way vitamanic has tried the victim blame card already by saying no body should feel sorry for them because they're bad.  There have also been a few posts saying they should be grateful for the PR. 

 

 

it looked pretty “shouldy” to me.   Just because you don’t believe it’s a “should” thing doesn’t mean it isn’t one.  I can’t remember if you actually used the word “should” or not. Synonyms perhaps. 
 

You’re going for that Apple Watch link. I don’t know anything about Apple Watch software or what constitutes a similarity requirement.  If I was the prePear lawyer it’s one of the things I would want to know.  It smells to me like a weak link.  Doesn’t mean Apple didn’t have to at least try to bring the suit though.  Pear computing thing again. 

[mr moose]

Here's a question, would apple be doing this to prepear if prepear were an amazon subsidiary?  If prepear could fight apple to the highest court and still keep, going how much effort do you think apple would put into it?  We know they tried to fight for the rectangle with round corners and various other phone traits, however all of that could well have landed them exclusive rights to the only form factor suitable for a mobile phone.  In this case they don;t stand to gain anything other than the business change it's name and logo.  They won't even be able to ask for damages as they don't have the same market products.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Here's a question, would apple be doing this to prepear if prepear were an amazon subsidiary?  If prepear could fight apple to the highest court and still keep, going how much effort do you think apple would put into it?  We know they tried to fight for the rectangle with round corners and various other phone traits, however all of that could well have landed them exclusive rights to the only form factor suitable for a mobile phone.  In this case they don;t stand to gain anything other than the business change it's name and logo.  They won't even be able to ask for damages as they don't have the same market products.

Given apples history on such? They’d possibly  go to the wall. Apple legal has gotten in some big fights with some big companies.  Their battles with microsoft are legendary.  Even Apple records was pretty well funded.  A lot rides on the quality of that Apple Watch thing though and I don’t know how good it is.  Another important tidbit would be details of the pear computing lawsuit.  Apple probably has them.  Something I would want in discovery.