AC Question

[elwoodblues]

[ 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?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Couches likely wouldn't bother Apple too much because the likelihood to confuse is relatively low. Try this one:
John Sears wants to open a corner hardward store called "Sears Hardware." No intention to deceive, John is just using his name on his store. The problem is that when people jump to the yellow pages or look up hardware stores, they will sometimes go to John Sears store (intending to go to Sears Roebuck) and end up purchasing there because they would have to otherwise travel across town to go to the other "sears" store and, well, John Sears happens to sell the screwdriver that they needed anyway.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


First of all, you should be suspended for calling someone an idiot and a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have agreed to abide by the arbitrators decision (iron).

[ QUOTE ]


Second, listen to yourself. You're seriously arguing that there's no money to be made by selling knockoff products.

[/ QUOTE ]

No i am not arguing that, i am arguing that if a person refuses to use a fair arbitrator then they will not be able to run a business. Knock off artists still have to buy the materials to make their knock offs (and still have disagreements with the time, place and quantities of shipments with suppliers), they still need capital to start and run their business, they still need employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who currently sell knockoffs in the U.S. are forced to submit to the criminal justice system whether they like it or not. Yet I see no shortage of knockoff goods being sold. Under your little theory, no one would be doing business with them.

[Poofler]

Couches will still bother Apple because of brand association. The couch maker is both benefiting from the brand, and has the potential to harm it through his own independent actions.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Couches will still bother Apple because of brand association. The couch maker is both benefiting from the brand, and has the potential to harm it through his own independent actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but to a MUCH lesser extent than a product that falls within the range of products that Apple currently produces.

[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.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Usually, fraud implies a business relationship. In the case of trademark infringment, the infringers customers would be able to sue for fraud, but the company that owned the trademark would not because the infringer and the infringee haven't signed anything.

I'm not aware of any logical recourse for a company to enforce its trademark other than coersive trademark law or a company paying protection to stop the infringers. Would customers looking out for a company's trademark be enough?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Usually, fraud implies a business relationship. In the case of trademark infringment, the infringers customers would be able to sue for fraud, but the company that owned the trademark would not because the infringer and the infringee haven't signed anything.

I'm not aware of any logical recourse for a company to enforce its trademark other than coersive trademark law or a company paying protection to stop the infringers. Would customers looking out for a company's trademark be enough?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump

[/ QUOTE ]

Enough for what?

If I'm not in the market for a car or a game console, why should I care if someone wants to sell a Honduh Accord or a Somy Playstation?

Are you for corporate welfare?

[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)