A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 8th 11, 04:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said:

What will this company do next, ........


All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #2  
Old July 8th 11, 05:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said:

What will this company do next, ........


All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.

However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
widely adopted by others.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #3  
Old July 8th 11, 05:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Keith[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011070808163270933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said:

What will this company do next, ........


All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


--
Regards,

Savageduck


We could go surreal here. If the "app" of Appstore referred to Apple, the
company, maybe some confusion, but the diminutive "app" is for "application"
so what's the problem?
Stelios created his "easy" group - easyJet, easyCar, easyHotel, easyBus,
easyVan, easyOffice, easyCinemay, easyHolidays, easyAir, easyFlights,
easyBags, easyGym - to protect his business. Apple came along after the
Beatles set up Apple records and got themselves an expensive law suit by
claiming "ownership" of the word "Apple".
Here in the UK, the word "Hoover" (amongst words) has become generic and
also a verb. No one here (including Hoover, the company) believes the phrase
"hoovering" or "hoovering-up" means anything other than using a vacuum
cleaner; manufacturer-independent/unspecified. Urban myth is that Hoover
were delighted to become synonymous with vacuum cleaners - got their name
out there.


  #4  
Old July 8th 11, 05:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 2011-07-08 09:01:50 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said:

What will this company do next, ........


All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.

However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
widely adopted by others.


Apple's issue was Amazon (not exactly an example of the most benign
business operator, but one I have no problem using) creating an outlet
for Android Marketplace and calling it "Appstore", when Apple had been
using "App Store" for over three years before Jeff Bezos created his.
At the time Apple started using "App Store" it was unique to them.

Apple has had its share of stepping on other developers and businesses,
but not to the extent that it has been copied and followed as it
continues to be an innovative force. All they are trying to do is
protect some of that innovation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #5  
Old July 8th 11, 05:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 7/8/2011 12:01 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, said:

What will this company do next, ........


All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.

However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
widely adopted by others.


True. But, attempted claims of a exclusive right to use as a service
mark, a term that's in the public domain are not unique to any business
entity. e.g. Levi Strauss has a claim of exclusivity to use of an upside
down chevron in connection with bluejeans.
Even the term "Apple" is not unique, except in connection with computers.
I think the Duck's point was directed at RichA's rants.

--
Peter
  #6  
Old July 8th 11, 05:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
widely adopted by others.


what others had an 'app store' prior to 2008?
  #7  
Old July 8th 11, 06:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 2011-07-08 09:21:04 -0700, "Keith" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011070808163270933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said:

What will this company do next, ........


All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


--
Regards,

Savageduck


We could go surreal here. If the "app" of Appstore referred to Apple, the
company, maybe some confusion, but the diminutive "app" is for "application"
so what's the problem?
Stelios created his "easy" group - easyJet, easyCar, easyHotel, easyBus,
easyVan, easyOffice, easyCinemay, easyHolidays, easyAir, easyFlights,
easyBags, easyGym - to protect his business. Apple came along after the
Beatles set up Apple records and got themselves an expensive law suit by
claiming "ownership" of the word "Apple".
Here in the UK, the word "Hoover" (amongst words) has become generic and
also a verb. No one here (including Hoover, the company) believes the phrase
"hoovering" or "hoovering-up" means anything other than using a vacuum
cleaner; manufacturer-independent/unspecified. Urban myth is that Hoover
were delighted to become synonymous with vacuum cleaners - got their name
out there.


To quote Robert Ardrey; "Territorial imperative is everything."

The same applies to business "territories" however they might be represented.

He also adds this;
"If life is to go on, then there must be those moments in the history
of animate beings when nature will brush aside the most perfect of
conditionings, as it will brush aside the most imperfect of
philosophies, to put older, more trusted mechanisms to work. Towers of
reason, of impeccable design, will topple in a dusty instant. The
waters of our most genuine idealism and of our highest moral purposes,
which have made green our fields of longing and made seemingly real our
gentlest hopes, will be dimly recollected tomorrow as a mirage upon the
desert. The intruder will have knocked.
The territorial imperative is as blind as a cave fish, as consuming as
a furnace, and it commands beyond logic, opposes all reason, suborns
all moralities, strives for no goal more sublime than survival."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #8  
Old July 8th 11, 06:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 2011-07-08 09:46:26 -0700, PeterN said:

On 7/8/2011 12:01 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, said:

What will this company do next, ........

All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
their lead.

Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.

However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
widely adopted by others.


True. But, attempted claims of a exclusive right to use as a service
mark, a term that's in the public domain are not unique to any business
entity. e.g. Levi Strauss has a claim of exclusivity to use of an
upside down chevron in connection with bluejeans.
Even the term "Apple" is not unique, except in connection with computers.
I think the Duck's point was directed at RichA's rants.


Yup!
Make that RichA's OT ant-apple rants.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HDR. The horror continues Chris Malcolm[_2_] Digital Photography 1 January 8th 10 10:38 AM
Anti-digital backlash continues ... Bill Hilton Medium Format Photography Equipment 284 July 5th 04 05:40 PM
Digital rants - got to end. ColdCanuck Medium Format Photography Equipment 1 January 30th 04 06:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.