Interestingly, Apple is getting help from a rather odd and unexpected source in it’s new fight against TigerDirect. Robert F. Young, a founder of Red Hat and owner of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats (Canadian football team), has offered to license the name ‘Tiger’ to Apple for free. A quick escape for Apple in the works?
For those who don’t know, last Thursday (April 28th), TigerDirect filed suit against Apple Computers and requested an injunction against the computer manufacturer because of its use of the name ‘Tiger’. TigerDirect holds trademarks on the names TigerDirect and Tiger. They claimed that Apple was, to paraphrase, “diluting their brand name and causing confusion in the marketplace.”
Now, I don’t know about you, but if anyone should be able to claim ‘dilution and confusion’, it should be Apple. I’ve purchased things from TigerDirect, and not only is their customer service horiffic, but just try getting those mail-in rebates!
But, the law is the law, and if TigerDirect actually does own the name ‘Tiger’ (ridiculous as it sounds that anyone can trademark a single word), then Apple is potentially in trouble.
I’m no fan of Apple. Or rather, I’ve been convinced they do have a lot to offer, and I’m on the verge of getting a Mac Mini for myself, but I’m no Fanboy. But I’m even less of a fan of pointless, frivolous lawsuits. Our society is so gods-damned litigious that you practically can’t take a piss anymore without getting sued for missing the bowl.
So when I read the following article, all I could say was, “Wow. Cool!”
Originally via HardOCP.
Um, you don’t think that Apple has a trademark on their name? Or that they’d file suit to protect it? Just look what they did to the fansites…
And what they do to fansites is ridiculous. I’m against all frivolous litigation.
I just happen to be on Apple’s side this time. But earlier int he week I was calling Jobs a turd for suing a fansite. Such is the world…. of JUSTICE!
Apple’s litigation wasn’t frivilous. They believed, or at least they claimed to believe, that the sites in question improperly acquired their trade secrets — and they sued to obtain the names of the people who improperly provided those trade secrets to the sites. Even if you write for the New York Times, you don’t get to steal trade secrets from companies under the guise of “reporting” on a story.
Trade secrets are bullshit corporate propaganda!
Information wants to be free!
Hack teh Pl@n37!
Actually, what Apple is doing to fansites is in direct contradiction to what they didn’t do to major media outlets, and that is the basis of the defense for these fansites.
The New York Times does not have to disclose its sources. This is, in fact, the subject of current Supreme Court litigation in a far more important case between the U.S. Goverment and a couple of newspapers. Freedom of the press protects (via precedent more than establishment) that the press does not have to disclose its sources. Apple would never bring suit against the New York Times, because the Times has the resources to fight. And win.
Such protections, Apple believes, does not apply equally to fansites like ThinkSecret. It will be interesting to see whether Apple succeeds in this round.
Similar suits alleging theft of trade secrets can be found in the Kyle Bennett vs. Infinium Labs case, in which Infinium Labs had threatened suit because of an article posted on HardOCP. It took over a quarter million dollars, but Bennett stuck to his guns, sued first to get a declaratory judgement, and got Infinium to shut their pie holes.
Ok, (1), the NYT case has nothing to do with trade secret law, so your bringing it up is a total red herring. Major media outlets don’t print rumors about potential Apple products, perhaps because they know better than to improperly acquire information about those product. John Gruber pretty much demolishes the “Think Secret didn’t do anything wrong” argument, so I won’t bother rearguing that here.
(2) You can’t even quote the relevant statues when you stump on about “freedom of the press”, can you? I could, however, quote the relevant sections of the California Civil Code, if you’d like.
(3) HardOCP won on the merits, and the case never involved trade secrets, in any case. Infinium Labs sued on the basis of defamation of character, which was followed by a declaratory judgement counter-suit on the part of HardOCP. So, that case has basically nothing to do with the Apple case.
Is that pretty much the best you’ve got? “Apple bad! Press good!” Yeesh. I was expecting you to at least try.
I know it was probably half in jest, but I sort of agree with Dave’s comment. Trade secrets are dumb. That doesn’t change California Law, unfortunately. And, in this particular case, the law seems to be on Apple’s side.
Oh, and in this case… in my opinion… Apple Bad, Press Good.