Apple Acquired 'Lightning' Trademark from Harley-Davidson

[JAT]

Originally Posted by MacDav

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.

I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic.

----------

Originally Posted by Bezetos

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.

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

[vastoholic]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

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.

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

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by JAT

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

But I wasn't referencing Harley Davidson, was I?

[vastoholic]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

But I wasn't referencing Harley Davidson, was I?

I don't remember now if you did, but apple purchased the rights from HD so I assumed you were referencing them when you say motorcycle company.

And you know what assuming does right?

[Tech198]

So apple didn't trademark all of the Lightning connector ?

oh rats.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Tech198

So apple didn't trademark all of the Lightning connector ?

oh rats.

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]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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.

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.

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by JAT

I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic.[COLOR="#808080"]

Please see my last and final reply to "KnightWRX". I think it applies to you also.
Have a great day...

[JAT]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Please see my last and final reply to "KnightWRX". I think it applies to you also.
Have a great day...

Try not to think of Knight as a "majority".