Very Bad Apple ... - Page 2

Waxing_Gibbous (Peter) · #21 08-10-2009, 12:19 AM

Cr*p products. All style and no substance. Never had one work properly.
Customer service non-existant. Would anyone here consider a screen with 134 hot and 118 dead pixels "fit for purpose"? I didn't and complained Apple disagreed and said is was within "manufacturing parameters". Fortunately I was buying for work and the company I worked for could have bought Crapple with its Christmas party fund. When they found out, the thought of loosing our business sent them so far up my a**e I could taste Job's hair lotion!

But that's beside the point. Crapple's logo is a long way from being unique (one of the mainstays of copywright infringment). Virtually every Apple (real) I've ever bought in the last 35 years had some kind of stylised apple as its logo. Wooly's logo looks to me as much a pumpkin or a melon as it does an apple. People are hardly likely to walk into Woolworths expecting to find a computer mega-store based on a logo rather than a name (another mainstay of copywrite law).
I largely support most IP and copywright legislation as the product of someone's mind and the right to be recognised and paid for it is pretty important to a free society.
Apple's just being ridiculous and petty. I'd love them to go toe-to-toe with the Scientologists over something. Now lawyers could retire on that one!

MrB (Simon) · #22 08-10-2009, 01:14 AM

I get a lot of customers wanting to buy 3rd party accessories for their iWhateveritis.... pods, FM transmitters, cables etc etc, they rarely work.
An imessage pops up on the iscreen saying something like... "this is not a genuine Apple accessory"

Enchilada · #23 08-10-2009, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Cr*p products. All style and no substance. Never had one work properly.
Customer service non-existant. Would anyone here consider a screen with 134 hot and 118 dead pixels "fit for purpose"? I didn't and complained Apple disagreed and said is was within "manufacturing parameters". Fortunately I was buying for work and the company I worked for could have bought Crapple with its Christmas party fund. When they found out, the thought of loosing our business sent them so far up my a**e I could taste Job's hair lotion!

But that's beside the point. Crapple's logo is a long way from being unique (one of the mainstays of copywright infringment). Virtually every Apple (real) I've ever bought in the last 35 years had some kind of stylised apple as its logo. Wooly's logo looks to me as much a pumpkin or a melon as it does an apple. People are hardly likely to walk into Woolworths expecting to find a computer mega-store based on a logo rather than a name (another mainstay of copywrite law).
I largely support most IP and copywright legislation as the product of someone's mind and the right to be recognised and paid for it is pretty important to a free society.
Apple's just being ridiculous and petty. I'd love them to go toe-to-toe with the Scientologists over something. Now lawyers could retire on that one!

My iMac here works absolutely perfectly, day in day out, and so does the other older eMac 2003 model too.

The service I've had is excellent, the operating system is stable, and better still easily does the work I need to do without fuss.

As for the gripe about the screen missing pixels, it is certainly not the norm. Since I bought the Mac I've never worried about the screen at all. How old was this machine? Was it a G3 Mac or even older? As to "Never had one work properly." Well how many Macs have you had? I know of about a dozen - no one had any gripes at all - and mostly sang their praises,

As for the Apple logo, well I suppose you could say the same for the Apple logo used by records by The Beatles too? How about Isaac Newton and the apple that fell on his head?

Sorry, the wishy-washy arguments here (and said by a few others) seem a little twisted. Apple have the right to legally challenge anything they wish, especially when you consider the billions of dollars in investment they place in their brand. I can think of many others who have done the exactly same. I.e. McDonald an their paranoia with anything "Mc" in front of it (perhaps McIceInSpace might frighten them into action!

)

Apple could also say the same for the use of "i" in front of hardware or software associated with Mac's I.e. iSight or iWork (as eluded by MrB); Also have also never seen on the screen on any Apple computer that says; "this is not a genuine Apple accessory" — though it is very rarely written on the packaging of some hardware you can buy.

I do admit "I Love My Mac" (rabid apple fanboy, if you must) but I also love a computer that works, and works well. For what I use it for, well nothing else really matters.

Rating my experience with my Mac(s), I give Apple ★★★★☆

iceman (Mike) · #24 08-10-2009, 05:01 AM

There's no doubt Apple polarises a lot of people. They either love them or hate them.

But please keep personal insults out of this thread and off IceInSpace.

Enchilada · #25 08-10-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

There's no doubt Apple polarises a lot of people. They either love them or hate them.

I thought that was Microsoft, not Apple???

GrahamL · #26 08-10-2009, 06:42 AM

Lawyers have got to eat to !!

And aside whos right or wrong , both companies look to be picking up some dirt cheap national advertiseing.. ...seems to be working we are talking about there products

DJDD · #27 08-10-2009, 08:05 AM

I thought it looked liek an apple.
And Woolworths is reported to have not denied that they may get into the "computer" market, and if so, I can see why Apple may be unhappy about it.

i wonder if I trademark and copyright my body would it extend down to my genes?

for the trademark: my product would be the effort of my body in creating goods and services...
for the copyright: all of my works are originals (there is no one like me!) and could only have come through innovation.

DJDD's grasp of all things IP is a bit weak...

Ric · #28 08-10-2009, 09:10 AM

I was just having a look at the two logo's side by side and fail to see any similarity whatever.

Tell em their dreaming.

erick (Eric) · #29 08-10-2009, 09:21 AM

Worth reading:-

Apple Corps versus Apple Computer 1978-2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer

Paul Haese · #30 08-10-2009, 09:41 AM

I see no passing off here. The logo does not even remotely look like to the other one. Not the same colour, same shape and as mentioned not in the same industry. More than likely this will be rejected by the court.

Intellectual property is a bit of a problem now. I can foresee in maybe 10-15 years time when copyright will be abandoned. The same for trademarking. China is the emerging market and they care little for either of the concepts.

BTW Woolies are no angels either. Their practices are questionable too with regard to smaller sellers in the malls they occupy. Perhaps this is part of Karma.

starlooker (Duc) · #31 08-10-2009, 09:42 AM

I can understand Apple's concern.

The similarity is that both logos are of a single apple, and the Apple brand is visually defined by the picture of an apple(their namesake). Woolies isn't visually defined by an apple. They could have chosen any fruit or product.

If people associate an apple with the Woolies brand, that dilutes the Apple brand. And if Woolies can use an apple, what's to stop other companies?

I think it might have been lack of forsight on Woolies' part.

matt · #32 08-10-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Perhaps this is part of Karma.

Indeed

Octane (Humayun) · #33 08-10-2009, 09:45 AM

DJDD,

Much like how words are not copyright-able individully, neither are genes/germospores.

Regards,
Humayun

Peter Ward · #34 08-10-2009, 10:03 AM

Apple and their lawyers really should take a hard look at a case that went before the UK courts some years ago.

A small company wanted to used McChina for their asian food stores....and predictably a large USA hamburger joint objected.

The Judge thought differently, and rightly pointed out they didn't have a monopoly on all things "Mc" particularly in Scotland where the American hamburger guys were very latecomers indeed! McChina won.

I personally thought the new woolies logo looked like stylised bannanas....

TrevorW · #35 08-10-2009, 10:10 AM

[QUOTE=nightstalker;503870]Lawyers have got to eat to !!

Since when

TrevorW · #36 08-10-2009, 10:15 AM

I pose a question if I put a picture of an actual apple in my logo does this mean that Apple has the rights to this and I can't use it !!!!

or I open a shop and call it Apple Pie (because thats what I'm selling) they have the right to the word Apple

I don't think so, in context their is nothing unique about the word apple or a logo depciting an apple, unless I was selling computers or Ipods

Outbackmanyep · #37 08-10-2009, 10:19 AM

I sometimes shop at Woolworths, i don't own an Apple computer.......not that i'd want one anyway....

FredSnerd (Claude) · #38 08-10-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

DJDD,

Much like how words are not copyright-able individully, neither are genes/germospores.

Regards,
Humayun

For the moment

Octane (Humayun) · #39 08-10-2009, 10:21 AM

Trevor,

This is exactly what I said. Woolworths has filed for registration under all 43 goods and services categories, which includes IT. Why? Woolworths has a relatively large internal IT section, perhaps they were thinking of outsourcing their own services to other organisations? I don't know, maybe they already do.

Anyway, Apple will be going after them for the registration in the categories which applies to them.

Regards,
Humayun

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrevorW

I don't think so, in context their is nothing unique about the word apple or a logo depciting an apple, unless I was selling computers or Ipods

TrevorW · #40 08-10-2009, 10:24 AM

Fair enough too but Apples for Apples is not Woolworths regardless if woolworths sells computers or outsources IT, if you get my drift