Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

Now Apple Inc. is literally com-pear-ing Apples to Pears.

Maybe the offending characteristic of this is the leaf. But really is Apple Inc. seriously complaining that a Pear is similar to an Apple?

Unfortunately, they will still win this legal fight anyway.

View on HN

Now Apple Inc. is literally com-pear-ing Apples to Pears.

...

Going to need you to get your things and come with me.

But also as another commenter said I think/hope Deadmau5 v Disney comes up in arguments because I agree: this is seriously petty of Apple’s legal team but I’d love to read their actual complaint if anyone finds it (personal pet peeve of mine when outlets report on “someone is taking legal action against someone else” with nothing but a few quotes and statements from someone party to the action. Could we at least see the demand letter?)

There is no lawsuit, this is a trademark opposition. It's an administrative process through USPTO. It works through an administrative court that has some resemblance to a civil suit but the whole thing has a much more standardized procedure. Instead of a complaint letter, there is a notice of opposition that's usually pretty brief.

You can search the USPTO database https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Apple%20Inc.%20%20

Edit: found the prosecution history here https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87315348&caseType=SERIAL_...

You're in luck -- the article embeds a copy of the entire (352-page) opposition filing. (Maybe it was added since you read it, as it appears to be an update.)

How, why doesn't a judge throw out apple's case in the first hearing itself. What legal blackmagic can make such a one sided case drag out

It depends whether or not they are sued in a state where SLAPP suits are legal. If Apple isn't forced to provide compelling evidence that they have an actual case up front, they can tie up their opposition in expensive legal battles long enough that it won't matter whether or not they win the case. Their opposition may be victorious legally, but made bankrupt in the process.

Of all the things the U.S. legal system got wrong, I think not following the English rule of attorneys' fees was one of the biggest mistakes. If plaintiffs had to pay for the defendant's legal fees, and vice versa, should the opposing party win their case, large corporations might think twice about making spurious legal claims.

I like the English rules, but how does it work in practice? How do things like in house lawyers work? If I sue a big corp and lose, how do I pay for all their in house lawyers and experts? How do they keep me from backing out simply through the threat of running up the tab with a ton of experts and such?

How much of a chilling effect is there on people suing big corps? Is that less necessary because of better consumer protection?

There is reasonable limits on how much in fees can be recouped.

I don’t know how it works in the UK but there must be some kind of caveat there right? Otherwise it would seem to me that large corporations would pay for expensive lawyers, forcing small people to settle lest they risk having to pay a hefty legal bill.

Yes, correct.

Great question. A competent judge would jettison this with summary judgement on day one.

Well, if deadmau5 can win against Disney, I don't think it's impossible.

It was weird that Disney settled that one, since deadmau5’s branding certainly would make branded products appear to be from Microsoft given that it looks like a cross between Mickey Mouse and the Xbox logo.

Now they just have to go after Orange in the UK ;)

Yes, this is bananas!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com