Apple loses trademark in China 36 replies

Please wait...

Mikey Über Admin

Caffiene Fuelled Ravings of an undiagnosed Sociopath.

45,289 XP

13th June 2008

1 Uploads

3,845 Posts

213 Threads

#1 2 years ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36200481

Seems crazy that there was an "IPHONE" brand before the "iPhone" we know today..


Mikey - GameFront.com - Lead Developer



Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,136 XP

17th June 2002

6 Uploads

33,633 Posts

778 Threads

#2 2 years ago

Mr. Mikey http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36200481

Seems crazy that there was an "IPHONE" brand before the "iPhone" we konw today..

They haven't lost it, they just have to share it.

Nor did this leather case company come "before" the Apple iPhone - the registration date of the trademark says 29/09/2007. The first iPhone was released on 29/06/2007. Seems to me that this IPHONE® company is just maintaining a proud Chinese tradition of stealing other people's ideas, and it seems to me that the Chinese government is just maintaining a proud Chinese tradition of favouring their own companies in all trademark and copyright disputes, in the face of all evidence and common sense. Why we continue to play fair with China, when they actively work against us in all things, is beyond me.




FileTrekker Über Admin

I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.

267,182 XP

15th December 2002

36 Uploads

22,453 Posts

1,698 Threads

#3 2 years ago

I can't say I feel sorry for Apple here, this isn't going to affect them in the slightest.

http://pennystocks.la/battle-of-internet-giants/

Here's an interesting page I saw the other day, where you can see how much profit Apple makes per second, and it's pretty fascinating.

In the time it took me to write this post, they made $177,000 in profit.  Not revenue, profit.

It just puts into perspective how a tiny little case manufacturer in China has nothing of value to them; what's more fascinating though is the amount Twitter pisses away every second, but that's another matter.


Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com



Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,136 XP

17th June 2002

6 Uploads

33,633 Posts

778 Threads

#4 2 years ago
FileTrekkerIt just puts into perspective how a tiny little case manufacturer in China has nothing of value to them; what's more fascinating though is the amount Twitter pisses away every second, but that's another matter.

These trademark disputes aren't about 'value' really. Of course Apple doesn't care about some piddly leather peddler in China. But companies have to be seen to be protecting their trademarks, else they will be opened up to a free-for-all and end up genericised, which puts their legal protections at risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark 




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#5 2 years ago
Mr. Matt Why we continue to play fair with China, when they actively work against us in all things, is beyond me.

What choice do we have? Impose trade embargoes? Our national governments continue to play by the most incredibly wimpy rule-book imaginable. If we'd been working from a position of considered national interest to begin with, we'd have formed a compact with other advanced nations not to trade unapproved technologies with less developed cultures. Anything to do with manufacturing, military technologies, certainly the cores of basic science. But, as things stand, China produces most of our stuff. Like a heroin addict afraid of withdrawal we're not prepared to take the steps necessary to redress that balance.

If a hundred years ago we'd not traded technologies with them, not allowed them access to the learning that we had at the time and which they quite rightly purchased, we'd not now be in a position of such relative weakness. They'd have had to change their culture to better reflect our own in order to produce the technologies for themselves and they'd have taken far longer to do it. Perhaps the motivation for any one country to defect was too great, perhaps it wasn't thought of, or perhaps the concerns of the moment always outweighed what would happen 80-100 years down the line. But whatever the cause we didn't, and now China is among the most powerful nations on earth.

One must admit to wondering what's going to happen when automated production really starts to get off the ground and the relative price of local production nose-dives. But for the moment we appear to be stuck with whatever terms they care to dictate with respect to events inside their own borders.




Aeia

Live with honor, die for justice!

90 XP

3rd May 2016

0 Uploads

181 Posts

1 Threads

#6 2 years ago

NemmerleWhat choice do we have? Impose trade embargoes? Our national governments continue to play by the most incredibly wimpy rule-book imaginable. If we'd been working from a position of considered national interest to begin with, we'd have formed a compact with other advanced nations not to trade unapproved technologies with less developed cultures. Anything to do with manufacturing, military technologies, certainly the cores of basic science. But, as things stand, China produces most of our stuff. Like a heroin addict afraid of withdrawal we're not prepared to take the steps necessary to redress that balance.

If a hundred years ago we'd not traded technologies with them, not allowed them access to the learning that we had at the time and which they quite rightly purchased, we'd not now be in a position of such relative weakness. They'd have had to change their culture to better reflect our own in order to produce the technologies for themselves and they'd have taken far longer to do it. Perhaps the motivation for any one country to defect was too great, perhaps it wasn't thought of, or perhaps the concerns of the moment always outweighed what would happen 80-100 years down the line. But whatever the cause we didn't, and now China is among the most powerful nations on earth.

One must admit to wondering what's going to happen when automated production really starts to get off the ground and the relative price of local production nose-dives. But for the moment we appear to be stuck with whatever terms they care to dictate with respect to events inside their own borders.

That is rather unfair and biased, I would say. Take, for example, the case of british taking the technology of ground canons and rocketry from India back in mid-to-late 1700s. The battles of Mysore ended up with the defeat of Tipu Sultan, thanks to that little treacherous swine aka mir sa-dick, the British not only captured a lot of exquisite artillery and rocketry pieces, but also imprisoned the weaponsmiths and engineers who designed them and created highly refined steel for the making of that technology. That technology was later utilized in the weapon factories in UK.

Now I am not going to cry about all that colonialism, but yes, I think imprisoning weaponsmiths and metallurgists was unjustified and rather against the ethics of war (if there are any ethics of war at all, that is). Also talk about U.S. high command capturing Japanese war criminals after WW2 (Shiro Ishii and others) and offering to remove all charges against them if they agreed to transfer their biochemical weapons recipes to U.S. which was the groundwork of U.S.' biochemical weapons program.

The point of my long post being that when it comes to national interests and monopoly in technology/politics/trade, there are no ethics. There are no rules. When it was West's time, they did their thing, rampaging and raping nations over nations. Now it is Orientals' time. They are doing their sort of mischief and breaking international laws and ethics of trade as they please. When you probe into the matter deeply, there are no rules, there are no ethics. And we are all living in a world running on the law of the jungle.




random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

411 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,038 Posts

4 Threads

#7 2 years ago

@Nem,

I myself am taken a bit by surprise that you'd say that and I have to agree somewhat with what has been said above by Aeia.

I don't know why you are saying it or if you meant something else but if it is what I think it is, let me put into a different perspective. Would you let ME die or worse because I couldn't obtain clean food or water afforded by 'your' advanced tech? I belong to and am currently residing in my home nation which is more or less a third world shit hole and would be worse if we did not have all that.

For example, on top of that, if you were to keep all that tech, blame for global warming would go on you and you alone. But since fuck all has been done by any nation on the planet to curb it, we primitive nations would suffer for it, unheard and uncared for obviously because we wouldn't have 'modern tech' to tell everybody and maybe send them a pretty .jpeg or .mp4 to show them the scope of the situation. And because we wouldn't have ACs or cars or any form of instant communication we would have a lot more trouble surviving the heat that only industrialized nations had a hand in worsening.

Not to mention if I was about to be burned in a fire I wouldn't be able to get help and even then help would have a harder time helping.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#8 2 years ago

Aeia That is rather unfair and biased, I would say. Take, for example, the case of british taking the technology of ground canons and rocketry from India back in mid-to-late 1700s. The battles of Mysore ended up with the defeat of Tipu Sultan, thanks to that little treacherous swine aka mir sa-dick, the British not only captured a lot of exquisite artillery and rocketry pieces, but also imprisoned the weaponsmiths and engineers who designed them and created highly refined steel for the making of that technology. That technology was later utilized in the weapon factories in UK.

Now I am not going to cry about all that colonialism, but yes, I think imprisoning weaponsmiths and metallurgists was unjustified and rather against the ethics of war (if there are any ethics of war at all, that is). Also talk about U.S. high command capturing Japanese war criminals after WW2 (Shiro Ishii and others) and offering to remove all charges against them if they agreed to transfer their biochemical weapons recipes to U.S. which was the groundwork of U.S.' biochemical weapons program.

The point of my long post being that when it comes to national interests and monopoly in technology/politics/trade, there are no ethics. There are no rules. When it was West's time, they did their thing, rampaging and raping nations over nations. Now it is Orientals' time. They are doing their sort of mischief and breaking international laws and ethics of trade as they please. When you probe into the matter deeply, there are no rules, there are no ethics. And we are all living in a world running on the law of the jungle.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Aeia. Writing from a position of national interest, everything's going to be biased in favour of that interest. I'm not making an argument as to right and wrong here, nor am I making an argument for Western exceptionalism. My points are, more or less:

1) We are not strong enough to tell them what to do inside their own borders at the moment 2) We once were 3) Insofar as we desire to be able to have a relationship where we can dictate the events within China's borders it was not smart of us to give up such a position. 4) If we were prepared to suffer some short term damage we could redress that imbalance - being weaker is not the same as having no cards to play.

China did indeed long enjoy a position of strength of its own. For various reasons, despite its rich history, by the time of the Opium Wars it was a cultural wreck largely incapable of advancement. The Civil Service exam was wasting generations of thinkers on vapid helotism, and the lack of viable routes for advancement was crippling both its basic industries and encouraging internal dissent. It had, in short, stagnated as all powerful empires are in danger of doing when deprived of viable selection pressures.

From that position, it was not in our long-term interests to simply give them, nor to sell them, the artefacts physical and otherwise of a more advanced culture. If they had been required to develop the technologies themselves, their culture would have had to change in certain ways to facilitate that. As it is their culture changed in certain other ways, which don't necessarily favour our current interests.

That's not right or wrong, it's just a Thing - law of the jungle, as you say.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,291 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,141 Posts

5 Threads

#9 2 years ago

random_soldier1337 @Nem,

I myself am taken a bit by surprise that you'd say that and I have to agree somewhat with what has been said above by Aeia.

I don't know why you are saying it or if you meant something else but if it is what I think it is, let me put into a different perspective. Would you let ME die or worse because I couldn't obtain clean food or water afforded by 'your' advanced tech? I belong to and am currently residing in my home nation which is more or less a third world shit hole and would be worse if we did not have all that.

For example, on top of that, if you were to keep all that tech, blame for global warming would go on you and you alone. But since fuck all has been done by any nation on the planet to curb it, we primitive nations would suffer for it, unheard and uncared for obviously because we wouldn't have 'modern tech' to tell everybody and maybe send them a pretty .jpeg or .mp4 to show them the scope of the situation. And because we wouldn't have ACs or cars or any form of instant communication we would have a lot more trouble surviving the heat that only industrialized nations had a hand in worsening.

Not to mention if I was about to be burned in a fire I wouldn't be able to get help and even then help would have a harder time helping.

I was writing from the perspective of national interest. If I am to explore the moral angle it would go something like this:

The present is dictated by the past for all nations. Democracy, and the bodies that allow us the standard of living that we have in the UK - however imperfect those may be - are the result of a compromise between various factions in our history. They're the result of struggles involving, among other things, what sort of thinkers we needed to develop certain technologies, what sort of standard bodies we needed to develop certain technologies, and what those technologies implied about the balance of power between and within the state and the people.

When we give less developed nations the artefacts of relatively advanced societies, then those compromises are different for them. They do not develop the education system that they need to compete. They do not develop the civic infrastructure to support the administrative bodies needed. They do not develop certain standards around government. They do not need to develop the banks and financial systems that allow this all to take place. They'll have those institutions to some level, the level necessary to interact with the more advanced nations, but it will not have any cohesive form because the intervening steps of social development have not existed to support it.

I am not saying that we should never share advanced technology with less developed nations. But if we do, we need either to be selective about it, choosing technologies that we have thought carefully about and which should not alter the path of their social development in undesirable ways, or to manage the transition with them.

You cannot hand the government of a people who could not produce a telegraph network for themselves modern weaponry and telecommunications, for instance, and expect that to have no consequence for how their society develops. You have dramatically altered the practical forms of military engagement and with them the balance of power between people and state by doing so. You cannot hand people a printing press even without altering the balance of power between people and state - since it allows certain ideas to spread much more readily than others.

Advanced technology has saved many lives, it has also taken many and altered the shape that other societies will take on. From a moral angle, I would claim that we are far too cavalier about that.

-sighs-

I don't want you to die. But at the same time I cannot shake the feeling that part of the reason you live in a third world shit-hole is because the advanced nations kinda enable the bad behaviour of your government and institutions by the manner in which we interact with them. That perhaps things would be better for you if we'd exercised a bit more care in quite what terms we offered things on.




Aeia

Live with honor, die for justice!

90 XP

3rd May 2016

0 Uploads

181 Posts

1 Threads

#10 2 years ago

There are three sides of the matter here, two of which you (Nemmerle) have already correctly stated: moral and patriotic.

Since morality has been raped, murdered and buried eons upon eons ago when kingdom-sized nations first appeared on the face of Earth (talk about Babylonians, Dravidians and Chinese, followed by Egyptians, Incas, Aztecs and later Romans and Persians). Every nation did and does only act on what is beneficial to them. The very nations (Western) who are the loudest advocates of human and individual rights are those who shamelessly violate all conducts of dignity and morality at national level, while dealing with other countries. So yes, morality is no standard here. And no, I am not crying sky high about West's rampaging and plundering of Eastern nations. When Persians, Saracens, Turks, Mughals, Japanese and Chinese dynasties were in their prime, they did exactly the same thing as West is doing today (albeit they did not go on preaching the merits of democracy or pose as human rights advocates). Now that it is West's prime, they are behaving the same way. So there is no blame gaming on moral grounds.

The patriotic side is more practical here, considering that we have a clear difference morality standards here. Yes, you would naturally speak out for what would be beneficial for you. (Not that China's mischief and trickery wrt trademarks has any advantageous consequences for me in any manner). You have an opinion here and I have an opinion here (Not that either of our opinions matters in this case as none of us belongs to the country of origin of Apple or would be directly affected by the violation/trickery regarding the trademarks tussle).

The third side of the matter (and probably the most important and relevant here) is the case study of the consequences which led to the transfer of technology from West to East. Whenever you colonize a country, you have to set up industries there. For example, ammunition manufacture is a must. You cannot keep on importing all the ammunition from your home country all the time. It is too impractical, risky and expensive. And then you have to train some of those wildings how to read, write and communicate with you. In other words, you have to train middle-men to be a bridge between you and the natives. These folk would also get to be in touch with at least some of your advanced technology. Then you have to set up industries for manufacturing consumer products with local raw material. For example, in India, you had to set up ginning, threading and other textile related industries in order to utilize the mass production of cotton in the country. Just like importing all the ammunition from home country, it would be very costly and risky to send all the raw cotton back to UK on ships and then install all the textile industries there. In your colonies, you get to get cheap labor too, besides being able to treat the locals like cattle and making work regulations as they suit your objectives.

So yes, you have to set up industries in your colonized countries. And yes, you have to train the folk there to be able to understand how the technology works. It is no wonder than once you have milked the country for all it has to offer and leave, the techy locals would be able to operate the leftover machinery and even repair or produce parts of it. And then once a country is in the free market, it is impossible to stop them from acquiring any technology, unless all the production units are state-owned. That is, you cannot stop Chinese from obtaining cellphone production technology (it is not state-owned). Also you cannot stop them from starting their space and warplanes programs once you have sold them your decommissioned, WW2 era fighter planes. And then talk about the thousands of their students enrolling in your universities for higher studies. Even if you get to make your country absolutely xenophobic, those countries can still import your teachers and engineers in their countries and pay them higher than you to teach them the latest in all fields.

What all this means is, that no matter how hard you try, there will occur a transfer of technology from the developed countries to the undeveloped ones and you cannot stop this process. Not unless you are ready to massacre some thousands of people annually and bomb down any and all production units in your rival countries.