AC Question

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call fraud, I consider doing business. Too bad there's no codified laws to settle this...

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad assumption

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can just find an arbitrator who feels the way I do about the issue and demand we use him. I don't have to associate with the arbitrator you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you get tired of being the same idiot troll day in, day out?

If you are an unreasonable person who will only use an arbiter who agrees with you then
1. No one will sell you parts to build your fake ipods
2. No one will work for you because you have no reason to pay them (after all you wil just take the decision to an arbiter that favors you right?)
3. No one will loan you money for your business (for the same reason as above, why would you repay the loan?)
4. No one will let you in their store to sell you food so you'll starve todeath.

So uhh, yeah, if you can make your ipods out of berries and sticks and [censored] you find in the woods then your fine.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I am genuinely curious.

How would Trademark/Tradenames be handled? Just for simplicity sake, could I create and brand a new gadget that plays digital music and call it an "Apple IPod" (not being affiliated with the existing Apple IPod product at all, though that product exists in the market.) What would the remedies be for such a move in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at least part of the solution would come from civil actions. If you market your "ipod" in such a way that makes me think its associated with apple when its not that would (could) be considered fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fraud requires intent. Many infringements aren't an attempt to confuse the customers, or profit from an existing brand.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I am genuinely curious.

How would Trademark/Tradenames be handled? Just for simplicity sake, could I create and brand a new gadget that plays digital music and call it an "Apple IPod" (not being affiliated with the existing Apple IPod product at all, though that product exists in the market.) What would the remedies be for such a move in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at least part of the solution would come from civil actions. If you market your "ipod" in such a way that makes me think its associated with apple when its not that would (could) be considered fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fraud requires intent. Many infringements aren't an attempt to confuse the customers, or profit from an existing brand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whats the problem here then? If i make a new line of couches and call them Ipodes is anyone going to give much of a crap? Should they?

[Poofler]

Apple will. And that's probably not the best example of lack of intent.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Apple will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let me ask it this way, what is the overall negative effect of me making couches and naming them Ipodes (or any example where there is no fraud or attempts to deceive the customer?).

[Korch]

The issue is that the original inventor/company (OC) of the idea losses in two ways. First, the company making the replica (RC) "free-rides" off the advertising money the the OC spends for name recognition and to create the demand. Second, the RC may sell their product cutting down on the sales of the OC.

You can deal with the first issue by only advertizing with outlets that adhere to some standard of copyright protection. Big companies may demand this, and withold advertising revenue unless these conditions are met.

The second, you can refuse to sell your equipemnt at outlets that don't recognize copyright protection.

An independent arbiter of copyright protection would be created, the best one would be the gold-standard. Big companies would require adherence to the rules of this arbiter or withold business. Obvoiusly any retailer would dump the little guy to keep the whale (AAPL).

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
An independent arbiter of copyright protection would be created, the best one would be the gold-standard. Big companies would require adherence to the rules of this arbiter or withold business. Obvoiusly any retailer would dump the little guy to keep the whale (AAPL).

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the big company has monopoly or other Market Power, withdrawing its product from unfriendly stores only creates a bigger opening for the knockoff to gain market share.

[Korch]

In the case of AAPL, they'd threaten to remove all their products (computers, electronics, software, etc.) from the shelves of the store. Same if I tried to sell Coke. They have so many products, I would think most stores would comply with the larger, more established company.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
You can deal with the first issue by only advertizing with outlets that adhere to some standard of copyright protection. Big companies may demand this, and withold advertising revenue unless these conditions are met.

The second, you can refuse to sell your equipemnt at outlets that don't recognize copyright protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Korch brings up two good points, and i would like to make a third about name and brand loyalty. It may be that name and brand loyalty are mostly byproducts of copyright law protecting them and that in a free market less money and attention would be spent on marketing names without that law.

[valenzuela]

without having read the other replies.

If society wants trademark protection there will be trademark protection.
Suppose you launch your new product called Apple Ipod, obviously the ones who came up with Apple Ipod wont be pleased. But I have the feeling that the rest of society wont be pleased either because they will recognize youre simply stealing an idea. So Im guessing that in AC copying ideas like that wont be allowed.( just like stabbing ppl wont be allowed)
I dont know where the line will be cut,but if I had to make a guess I would probably say that the trademark laws will be lighter than what they are today. However outright copying wont be allowed.( and in case it is allowed, then whatever thats what society wants)