I'm no lawyer, but from what I've read about trademark law the important thing in cases like these is not to actually win the case or get the other guys to change their name/logo, but simply to have your objection on the record. If you don't do that, then when someone comes along who actually is infringing your trademark they'll point to the Woolworths and Apfelkinds and say "Look, those companies were also infringing and Apple had no problem with them, why should they have a problem with us?" And the real problem is that there is precedent for that argument to win the day in court.
So are these claims absurd? Of course.
Are Apple's lawyers being overly cautious in defending their trademark? Maybe.
But this (and similar ridiculous claims) is more likely the result of deeply flawed trademark case law, rather than anything unique to Apple.
From Wikipedia: "A person is guilty of obstructing government administration if the person intentionally interferes by force, violence or intimidation or by any physical act with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function."
"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm."
Standing in one's front lawn and holding a video camera are clearly physical acts. The recorded visual evidence clearly threatens to expose illegal police activity, putting the officer's job in jeopardy and leading to financial harm. Case closed. And should the officer actually be fired, I know a lawyer willing to sue her for committing tortious interference by publicizing the video.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by gmarcotte.
Don't hate the player....
I'm no lawyer, but from what I've read about trademark law the important thing in cases like these is not to actually win the case or get the other guys to change their name/logo, but simply to have your objection on the record. If you don't do that, then when someone comes along who actually is infringing your trademark they'll point to the Woolworths and Apfelkinds and say "Look, those companies were also infringing and Apple had no problem with them, why should they have a problem with us?" And the real problem is that there is precedent for that argument to win the day in court.
So are these claims absurd? Of course.
Are Apple's lawyers being overly cautious in defending their trademark? Maybe.
But this (and similar ridiculous claims) is more likely the result of deeply flawed trademark case law, rather than anything unique to Apple.
simple logic
From Wikipedia: "A person is guilty of obstructing government administration if the person intentionally interferes by force, violence or intimidation or by any physical act with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function."
"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm."
Standing in one's front lawn and holding a video camera are clearly physical acts. The recorded visual evidence clearly threatens to expose illegal police activity, putting the officer's job in jeopardy and leading to financial harm. Case closed. And should the officer actually be fired, I know a lawyer willing to sue her for committing tortious interference by publicizing the video.