Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Acquired 'Lightning' Trademark from Harley-Davidson

J

JAT

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2001
6,473
124
Mpls, MN
MacDav said:
Thanks so much for your helpful reply...Although I must take exception to the idea that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark". This would imply that I had read or studied up on trademark law and then came away with a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark. This is of course false.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic.

----------
Bezetos said:
:confused:

How is this remotely related to what I've said? I'm arguing that it is not weird for a motorcycle company to own the "Lightning" trademark.
Click to expand...

That isn't what you said. You said something about "fast motorcycles". You may not be familiar with Harley Davidson.
 
vastoholic

vastoholic

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2009
1,957
1
Tulsa, OK
Bezetos said:
:confused:

How is this remotely related to what I've said? I'm arguing that it is not weird for a motorcycle company to own the "Lightning" trademark.
Click to expand...

As JAT said, I was just taking a jab at Harley being slow motorcycles. Nothing against you at all. It's just my personal disliking for Harley Davidson. Lol
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Tech198 said:
So apple didn't trademark all of the Lightning connector ?

oh rats.
Click to expand...

Uh ? How can you "trademark" a "connector" exactly ? Do you mean patent ?

Some of you guys really need to read up about IP protection schemes and what they cover. Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights do not protect the same kind of IP nor can they be used interchangeably in a conversation.
 
MacDav

MacDav

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
KnightWRX said:
I wasn't putting you down and don't know why you think so. You obviously misunderstood trademarks and trademark rules, and that is where the "weirdness" you thought came from. I simply explained it to you why it is quite normal and plausible to be able to trademark normal, everyday dictionary words. I did not imply that you had studied trademarks intensively and actually didn't quite grasp it.

I don't get why you got so defensive. You chose to comment on a trademark story by pointing out some "weirdness" you perceived, I simply dispelled the weirdness for you.

The only thing I got from your post is not that I need soul searching, it's that you need to drop ad hominems. This is a civil discussion and I was trying to be helpful.
Click to expand...

I believe that you sincerely believe what you are saying. Since this is the case, any judgements made will be wasted and overlooked by one who feels righteous. This is fine. I am not at all upset, despite the emotional projection others are reading into my post. I was only trying to be helpful. I think you are a good person and are positively motivated. This however does not lessen any salient points that were made in my post. Again, this is a matter of awareness and personal judgment. It is not up for approval/disapproval by democratic majority. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom