BlackBerry Forums Support Community               

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-15-2006, 06:59 PM   #41 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Please Login to Remove!

I didn't expect you to agree with me, and I emphasize again I'm not arguing with your expert opinion on the merits according to our legal system. But my opinion stands that its a bit ridiculous and symptomatic of what I and a LOT of other people think is wrong with our legal system today.

You said "By choosing the name blackjack, Samsung is, arguably, taking advantage of a name and goodwill associated with the Blackberry name." My response to that is that yes, that's definitely "arguable" as I don't believe the name "BlackJack" has EVER been associated with the BlackBerry name, prior to Samsung's intro of this phone. Before Samsung came out with this phone, I doubt you could have found a single individual who would have associated that name with BlackBerry. If "BlackJack" was a nickname associated with BlackBerry prior to Samsung's intro, then I'd think there should be a case - just like if someone came out with a phone called "CrackBerry" because that is a name that HAS been associated with BlackBerry.

I'd be willing to wager that if you polled a large group of people at random, that probably not more than 1 in 100 of them would associate "BlackJack" with "BlackBerry". The people polled would separate primarily into two groups - those who would have NO idea what either name was referring to, and those familiar with BlackBerry - and the huge majority of THOSE would know that RIM has never had anything called or labelled "BlackJack." The fact that a very FEW *dumb* consumers would mistakenly associate the two (this includes the single *dumb* online reseller) shouldn't be enough to force Samsung to quit using the name. And taking the same poll I mentioned earlier I'm sure you could also find, for instance, a few *dumb* consumers out there who would claim that *any* QWERTY phone/PDA that's black is a "BlackBerry", so does that mean that based on our legal system no other company should be allowed to build and sell a black QWERTY PDA/phone device? Should RIM be allowed to take legal ownership of anything and everything "black" associated with phones or PDA's? Hardly, I think!
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!
Offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 04:03 AM   #42 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
BMWLotAttendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Model: none
Carrier: Verizon
Posts: 125
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
I'd be willing to wager that if you polled a large group of people at random, that probably not more than 1 in 100 of them would associate "BlackJack" with "BlackBerry". The people polled would separate primarily into two groups - those who would have NO idea what either name was referring to, and those familiar with BlackBerry - and the huge majority of THOSE would know that RIM has never had anything called or labelled "BlackJack." The fact that a very FEW *dumb* consumers would mistakenly associate the two (this includes the single *dumb* online reseller) shouldn't be enough to force Samsung to quit using the name. And taking the same poll I mentioned earlier I'm sure you could also find, for instance, a few *dumb* consumers out there who would claim that *any* QWERTY phone/PDA that's black is a "BlackBerry", so does that mean that based on our legal system no other company should be allowed to build and sell a black QWERTY PDA/phone device? Should RIM be allowed to take legal ownership of anything and everything "black" associated with phones or PDA's? Hardly, I think!
I think it is a combination of a 2 things.

First, the name, yes, the name "Black" is the main issue. Why didn't Samsung call it "Yellow, Red, Green, or Blue" Jack? Huh? Is it because the color is Black? Probably, but how many BlackBerries are Black? Or are they Berry colored? And, how many times do companies change the color of the phone to increase sales by different marketing strategies.

For example: Look at Apple. They made the iPod, then the made the iPod in LOTS of different colors, because that increased the popularity depending upon what each person likes. It's a HUGE marketing project that WORKS!

Now, after thinking of all that....it makes me wonder why Samsung didn't name the phone "Jack"? Why did they have to add the adjective Black to the name? To make things difficult with BlackBerry? Or just to confuse people in thinking they are buying something comparable to Blackberry and steal their potential customers. It's all a marketing deal for the company.

2nd concern is regarding the look. Yes, they do have similarities to me. If you took off all the lettering, could the public determine which is a Blackberry and which is a Samsung? I don't think so. Only your up-to-date phone geeks (including myself) could look at a phone and know who made it, what company provides it, and what it is capable of doing with our EYES CLOSED!

*I don't know if I'm allowed to do this but, here they are side by side*






Last edited by BMWLotAttendant : 12-16-2006 at 04:07 AM.
Offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 08:21 AM   #43 (permalink)
CrackBerry Addict
 
infernox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Southern CA
Model: 9000
Carrier: at&t
Posts: 640
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I love my Blackberry but at the same time...I hate stupid and frivilous lawsuits. I hate to say...I hope RIM loses.
__________________
Bold 9700 / v5.0.0.296 / at&t
Offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 11:43 AM   #44 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWLotAttendant
I think it is a combination of a 2 things.

First, the name, yes, the name "Black" is the main issue. Why didn't Samsung call it "Yellow, Red, Green, or Blue" Jack? Huh? Is it because the color is Black? Probably, but how many BlackBerries are Black? Or are they Berry colored? And, how many times do companies change the color of the phone to increase sales by different marketing strategies.
Uhh, yeah, I'd say because the phone is black! And, this is not a debate about whether Samsung should be marketing the phone in other colors. The lion's share of all phones/PDA's out there - particularly the PDAs - are either black or silver - BlackBerry or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWLotAttendant
2nd concern is regarding the look. Yes, they do have similarities to me. If you took off all the lettering, could the public determine which is a Blackberry and which is a Samsung? I don't think so. Only your up-to-date phone geeks (including myself) could look at a phone and know who made it, what company provides it, and what it is capable of doing with our EYES CLOSED!
Well yeah, they do have similarities. They both have QWERTY keyboards, red/green phone buttons, a central nav keygroup, and a screen. Surprise surprise! So I maintain the only part of the public that would think they were made by the same company are those that would say that about ANY two QWERTY PDA's - and there are certainly other black ones out there that have as many similarities as the BlackJack - so I'd say that argument is a bit of a red herring, but that's just my opinion.

To summarize, I have a pretty strong philosophical opinion that RIM should not be allowed to, in essence, trademark the word "Black" with respect to any phones or PDA's. That's what a victory for RIM would amount to here. I simply don't believe that's right and I agree with the previous poster - I hope RIM loses!
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!

Last edited by DallasFlier : 12-16-2006 at 12:04 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-17-2006, 08:20 AM   #45 (permalink)
GMK
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
GMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Model: 8100
Carrier: TMO
Posts: 353
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
To summarize, I have a pretty strong philosophical opinion that RIM should not be allowed to, in essence, trademark the word "Black" with respect to any phones or PDA's. That's what a victory for RIM would amount to here. I simply don't believe that's right and I agree with the previous poster - I hope RIM loses!
A lot of people share your view and I think that makes my prior comment valid that there are no winners in this action. Even if they prevail, RIM is perceived as the bully, right or wrong. Its hard to keep moral indignation out of public bloodletting and rightly so. There are always two courts to consider, one is the court of public opinion, and reading this thread, it would appear that RIM is losing in that one. In the NTP vs RIM affair, it was just the opposite, NTP was viewed as the bad guy and RIM was being innocently persecuted. RIM got spanked pretty good but won in the sympathy vote.

We have to have laws for protection of intellectual property and in order to enjoy the benefits of holding a trademark you are required to aggressivly defend it from encroachment, no matter how tenuous the thread. If Blackjack slides by why not Blue berry and then on and on until the Black Pearl, or the "Crackberry?" What happens next is the XYZ Inc. Blackberry. Where is the line drawn? I'm not sure that in any case anyone really knows. We do know that each side as an opinion on it. I do and I think Samsung is liable.

As I put it earlier in this thead, Samsung didn't come up with the name in a vacuum. They knew what they were doing and what the consequences may be. There big, not stupid and a pretty sophisticated marketing company. They must have felt the risk was worth the reward.

If the details of what are to transpire come out I think you'll see many of the points you posted come out as arguments. Stay tuned. I believe I read that RIM has sought injunctive relief so maybe this will heat up quickly and fast track in the system. I hope so. I get a kick out of watching these kind of things play out.

A bit off topic but for many years RIM enjoyed their niche position in the market, virtually no competition. They are now incorporating a consumer slant in their business model, they're successful, growing and given the fact that the Blackberry is the king of mobile email, this Blackjack thing is only the first of many to come. Hell, even Bill Gates is going to put a shot across their bow with MS push email services. Do we think that Jack Bauer will have a BB on his hip 2 years from now? I dunno, but whatever Jack totes, I gotta take a serious look at. If I don't, he'll kill me.
Offline  
Old 12-17-2006, 06:27 PM   #46 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
SanFrancisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
Model: 9700
OS: XP, 7
PIN: HEAD
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 2,345
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

For those of you who think that such a suit would be frivolous, just look at history. There are thousands of products that have names protected from competitors ripping off others hard work. Many items we identify by an established brand name even we are using an alternative product. Look around you for examples:

Kleenex, while others have to be called "tissues."

Band-Aid, while others have to be called "bandage."

Reynold's Wrap, while others have to be called "aluminum foil."

Tupperware while others have to be called "plastic container."

Vice-Grips while others have to be called "locking pliers."

Teflon while others have to be called "non-stick coating."

Vaseline while others have to be called "petroleum jelly."

Vicks while others have to be called "menthol rub."

Post-It Notes while others have to be called "adhesive or sticky notes."

Q-Tips while others have to be called "cotton swab."

In all of the above examples, manufacturers have policed competitor products to make sure that the name of the competing product does not imply or confuse the public into thinking that they are buying the already established, usually better quality, item or product.

I can assure you that lawsuits related to protecting any of the above have not been deemed frivolous by the courts. Rip-off artists have not gotten away with even the slightest attempts to confuse the public [e.g. "R-Tip swabs," "Post-Em Notes," etc.].

The law protects manufacturers via patent, trademark and copyright laws in recognition of their hard work in research and development, marketing and other efforts in bringing a product to market.

The law recognizes that there will always be those who attempt to compete unfairly by ripping off one's ideas and successes. The thieves range from individual low lifes to countries [former USSR and China, for example].

Have you seen the degree of "ripping off" of U. S. products that occurs in China, because U. S. laws and courts have no jurisdiction in China [obviously]. It's almost comical the names of the products that the Chinese place on products so to confuse people. Of course, I am not even taking into account the huge number of counterfeit products the Chinese make [many of which make their way to the U.S. via eBay, brick and mortar retail, and on line stores].

The 195 million people to whom the newer BlackBerries are marketed to [non-professionals] can get confused by the device names. I know many educated "non-geek" people who would not know squat about the differences between the BlackBerry, 8800, 8100 or Black Jack. Many would go into a store and say something like "I saw this phone on TV. Do you have it? It's black and shiny. It was called 'black' something or other."

Those of you who have said that a RIM suit would be frivolous don't understand any of the above nor do I suspect you have created anything of value that you have had to protect others from ripping off.

The closest to that concept you might have experienced is a college paper. How would you have felt if a fellow student's final exam essay had a catchy title very close to the title you thought up? What if the paper's content clearly indicated the student simply reworded your paper's theme and research. Would you have thought it was frivolous to complain to the professor about the student ripping off your paper?

And to anyone who posted on this BlackBerry related website that they hope RIM loses the lawsuit, that's ridiculous.

Last edited by SanFrancisco : 12-17-2006 at 07:06 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-17-2006, 06:36 PM   #47 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
SanFrancisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
Model: 9700
OS: XP, 7
PIN: HEAD
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 2,345
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
To summarize, I have a pretty strong philosophical opinion that RIM should not be allowed to, in essence, trademark the word "Black" with respect to any phones or PDA's. That's what a victory for RIM would amount to here. I simply don't believe that's right and I agree with the previous poster - I hope RIM loses!
RIM is not trying to trademark the name "black." They are trying to protect the name "BlackBerry" as used in the cell phone, PDA and smart phone market.

These lawsuits are complex and deal with volumes of law that is on the books. I suggest you look up the files before being so quick to say that you hope RIM loses. The claims are more complex than can be decided from one's armchair and viewing a few "sound bites."

Your profile says you are in software sales and consulting. With the amount of ripping off that goes on in such an industry, I am surprised that you want RIM to lose the case.

Last edited by SanFrancisco : 12-17-2006 at 06:39 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 07:26 AM   #48 (permalink)
GMK
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
GMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Model: 8100
Carrier: TMO
Posts: 353
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

SanFrancisco, excellent product list but you missed the information age classic: Xerox.

Of interest is that all of the brands you have mentioned have managed to keep their identity by diligent, hard and often costly work. Many of the brands are firmly entrenched in the lexicon yet they still survive. We don't ask for adhesive bandages, we ask for Band-aids. We Xerox copies. We ask the druggist for Q-Tips but buy generic cotton swabs. In my dotage, I fail to remember the specific details but I do recall that there have been lost trademarks due to the common use of the name. You can tell me if I'm wrong but didn't IBM lose the name "IBM PC?" Not the IBM but the PC part.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 11:39 AM   #49 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
RIM is not trying to trademark the name "black." They are trying to protect the name "BlackBerry" as used in the cell phone, PDA and smart phone market.
Counselor, I'm disappointed, I'd have expected in your profession that you would be a little better at reading for comprehension. I guess you missed where I said that they would be *IN ESSENCE* trademarking the word "black" as pertains to the cell phone, PDA and smart phone market, and where I said "that's what a victory for RIM would amount to here." So, since you're trying to make the argument that they're NOT trying to trademark the name "black" as pertains to the cell phone, PDA and smart phone market - your assignment is to report back on what name(s) incorporating "black" in any way would be acceptable on a competitor's phone, should they win? (Hint: If your answer is "none", then they will have *IN ESSENCE* trademarked the word "black.")

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
Those of you who have said that a RIM suit would be frivolous don't understand any of the above.

These lawsuits are complex and deal with volumes of law that is on the books. I suggest you look up the files before being so quick to say that you hope RIM loses. The claims are more complex than can be decided from one's armchair and viewing a few "sound bites."

And to anyone who posted on this BlackBerry related website that they hope RIM loses the lawsuit, that's ridiculous.
Thanks SO much for all the "I'm-smarter-than-you" condescending drivel. You have no idea what I do or do not understand. I never said I was in a position to "decide the claim." I stated my opinion, and I'm entitled to that opinion, even *IF* I dare to disagree with the all-knowing attorneys. I VERY pointedly did NOT try to argue with the legal opinions stated by you or other attorneys. I'm certainly not the only one around with this opinion, and as GMK already stated, its quite possible that RIM could be significantly damaged in the court of public opinion even if they win this case.

I *DO* understand that in today's legal system RIM does have a chance of winning this. I also understand that of the entire product list you stated, there's one KEY difference - not ONE of those product names incorporates the commonly used, every day name of one of the basic colors, to which the company is trying to establish de-facto trademark ownership within an entire industry segment. And finally, I understand that the one who stoops to name-calling by calling his debating opponent (or the opponent's views) "ridiculous" and other demeaning statements - usually is the one with the weaker argument.
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 03:44 PM   #50 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
SanFrancisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
Model: 9700
OS: XP, 7
PIN: HEAD
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 2,345
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
Counselor, I'm disappointed, I'd have expected in your profession that you would be a little better at reading for comprehension...
Well, you said RIM is in essence trying to trademark the work 'black' ..... I tried to get the Complaint through my Pacer account, but it has not been posted yet. I think a reading of it will help in understanding the nature of the claims.

You won't find any statements in their papers that implies RIM is in essence trying to trademark the word "black" as such relates to cell phones. I suspect the claims mostly deal with infringing conduct, trade dress, and unfair competition as such relates to all of Samsung's conduct, not just use of the term BlackJack.

As to my comment about it being ridiculous to hope RIM loses, such is my opinion. I think it's absurd for someone who uses RIM products to hope that the Company fails in its efforts to protect the Company and its assets, including the devices you are using. Kinda like a police officer watching the COPS TV show and rooting for the bad guys.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 04:18 PM   #51 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
Well, you said RIM is in essence trying to trademark the work 'black' ..... I tried to get the Complaint through my Pacer account, but it has not been posted yet. I think a reading of it will help in understanding the nature of the claims.

You won't find any statements in their papers that implies RIM is in essence trying to trademark the word "black" as such relates to cell phones.
I don't doubt that in all the legalese of the Complaint that it doesn't use such plain and easy to understand language as to say that they wish to trademark the word "black" with respect to the cell phone/PDA industry. But let me rephrase the question and direct the witness to please answer the question that is asked.

If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment - i.e., no phone or PDA vendor will ever be able to use the word "black" in any way in any device name whatsoever?

Your answer, please?

(By the way, there are MANY things involving the legal field and lawyers that, in my opinion, may be both ridiculous and absurd. The difference is, I've taken the high road here and refrained from the name-calling.)
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!

Last edited by DallasFlier : 12-18-2006 at 04:24 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 04:34 PM   #52 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
SanFrancisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
Model: 9700
OS: XP, 7
PIN: HEAD
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 2,345
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
(By the way, there are MANY things involving the legal field and lawyers that, in my opinion, may be both ridiculous and absurd. The difference is, I've taken the high road here and refrained from the name-calling.)
I did not call you names, I called your statement/position/opinion names. There is a difference. In Court the distinction is enforced.

While physically in Court we can call one's argument /statements absurd or ridiculous, but most Judges and State Bars prohibit direct verbal attacks on opposing counsel or the Judge [albeit unprofessionally many lawyers still call each other names in their pleadings and letters].

Last edited by SanFrancisco : 12-18-2006 at 04:56 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 04:54 PM   #53 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
SanFrancisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
Model: 9700
OS: XP, 7
PIN: HEAD
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 2,345
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
I don't doubt that in all the legalese of the Complaint that it doesn't use such plain and easy to understand language as to say that they wish to trademark the word "black" with respect to the cell phone/PDA industry. But let me rephrase the question and direct the witness to please answer the question that is asked.

If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment - i.e., no phone or PDA vendor will ever be able to use the word "black" in any way in any device name whatsoever?

Your answer, please?
Well, repeat: the suit most likely alleges that Samsungxxx8217;s use of the name BlackJack, amongst other acts, amounts to unfair competition and trademark dilution. Unfair competition looks at all of Samsung's acts, not just use of the term Blackjack. Trademark dilution alleges that Samsung's acts, again not just use of the word "black," lessens the value of the BlackBerry name, not just use of the word "black."

And repeat [but I have not seen the Complaint]: RIM is not suing Samsung for using the word "black" but for the unfair act of naming a product that could be confused with the BlackBerry.

The Court will not decide the case on use of the term "black" but rather the issue is whether Samsung's acts [which includes use of the name BlackJack for a smartphone] may create confusion between the two devices.

I suspect that the Complaint includes attachment Declarations that provide statements of consumers that they were confused. I suspect that even that one Website's pages advertising the Blackjack Pearl will be attached.

I do NOT think Samsung will attempt to justify its acts or defend against the lawsuit by saying "RIM is in effect attempting to trademark the word 'black.'" That argument fails even before it's printed on paper.

Last edited by SanFrancisco : 12-19-2006 at 03:42 AM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 04:54 PM   #54 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
I did not call you names, I called your statement/position/opinion names. There is a difference. In Court the distinction is enforced.
I understand the distinction, and referred to it prior: "calling his debating opponent (or the opponent's views) "ridiculous" and other demeaning statements..." I note that we're NOT in court, we're on an internet forum, and doing EITHER debases your argument, IMHO. As my debating professor would have put it, "by the time you're reduced to calling the opponent OR his positions "stupid", you've obviously run out of logical arguments." It would get you an "F" in debate class.

More significantly, I note that you've danced all around my question but refuse to address or answer it directly, which leads me to believe you know I'm correct and would rather not acknowledge it. So one more time, Counselor:

If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment - i.e., no phone or PDA vendor will ever be able to use the word "black" in any way in any device name whatsoever?

Your answer, please? I'm not asking you what will be in the legalese of the Complaint and Response, nor for your legal arguments about the merits and arguments on which the case will be decided in court (all of which you addressed), but rather for the plain-English, non-legalese RESULT. A simple yes or no answer is all that's required. (And if you answer in the negative, please cite examples where you believe it would be permissible for a phone/PDA vendor to use "black" without fear of further legal action on the part of RIM).
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!

Last edited by DallasFlier : 12-18-2006 at 05:33 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 05:38 PM   #55 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
SanFrancisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
Model: 9700
OS: XP, 7
PIN: HEAD
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 2,345
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

The law and lawsuits are complex. Things are far more complicated than what you are talking about.

You are getting too agitated. Far be it for me to fan your flames.

See you.

P.s. If you want to think my ignoring you from here forward constitutes an admission that you are right, whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
I understand the distinction, and referred to it prior: "calling his debating opponent (or the opponent's views) "ridiculous" and other demeaning statements..." I note that we're NOT in court, we're on an internet forum, and doing EITHER debases your argument, IMHO. As my debating professor would have put it, "by the time you're reduced to calling the opponent OR his positions "stupid", you've obviously run out of logical arguments." It would get you an "F" in debate class.

More significantly, I note that you've danced all around my question but refuse to address or answer it directly, which leads me to believe you know I'm correct and would rather not acknowledge it. So one more time, Counselor:

If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment - i.e., no phone or PDA vendor will ever be able to use the word "black" in any way in any device name whatsoever?

Your answer, please? I'm not asking you what will be in the legalese of the Complaint and Response (which you addressed), but rather for the plain-English, non-legalese RESULT. A simple yes or no answer is all that's required. (And if you answer in the negative, please cite examples where you believe it would be permissible for a phone/PDA vendor to use "black" without fear of further legal action on the part of RIM).
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 06:31 PM   #56 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
The law and lawsuits are complex. Things are far more complicated than what you are talking about.

You are getting too agitated. Far be it for me to fan your flames.

See you.

P.s. If you want to think my ignoring you from here forward constitutes an admission that you are right, whatever.
Ah, what a wonderful excuse for avoiding the question. I'm not agitated, I'm actually quite amused at your refusal to answer the direct question. Its really a rather simple question, you know.

And if my arguments and reasoning are "ridiculous" and "absurd" then I guess so was the opinion of the Judge in the Microsoft vs. Lindows case that you yourself cited earlier. Because the argument is identical - I'll refer to your earlier posting about the Judge's opinion on that one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
Microsoft sued an alternative OS called Lindows for trademark infringement saying among other things that Lindows confused the public into thinking that it was Windows related or a product sold by MS.

End result, MS settled for over $100 million because the Judge had indicated that he was inclined to rule that Windows was NOT a protectible name, nor was it a trademark. Rather than risk a judicial ruling or precedent that Windows could not be a trademark [too common a word], MS settled by paying money to the people it sued.
That's EXACTLY my argument in a nutshell, so I guess you feel the Judge in that one used "absurd" and "ridiculous" arguments and positions too. So maybe I should rephrase my opinion to say that I hope the Judge in this case is every bit as absurd and ridiculous as that Judge was, because I feel both the word "windows" and the word "black" are "too common a word" to be protectible or able to be trademarked. I certainly hope RIM has familiarized themselves with this case, as it would certainly not be in their best interests to file a case and end up paying tens of millions of dollars to the defendent, huh?

So I'm not claiming that "I'm right" or "you're wrong", but yes, I'll take your very pointed refusal to answer the simple question that I've asked multiple times as an indication that you didn't like the answer you'd have to give and would rather duck the question - so thanks. In court, we could just have the Judge direct you to answer the question, but in the forums we'll just have to draw the conclusion from the refusal to address/answer. The prosecution rests.
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!

Last edited by DallasFlier : 12-18-2006 at 07:02 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 07:47 PM   #57 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
BMWLotAttendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Model: none
Carrier: Verizon
Posts: 125
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Personally, I'm enjoying this rather amusing legal debate within the forums. I believe that SanFran is being very professional in his arguments and his negative comments.

But, I believe that, you sir, Mr. Dallas, failed to recognize his answer. I believe that in my opinon, that SanFran has answered your question and that you can not comprehend his answer. He keeps repeating himself trying to get you to understand his point of view in understanding the case at hand.

I would continue on with my thoughts and personal views about this "legal debate" but I have an appointment that I need to get to.

My suggestion: re-read his replies. He's answered your question.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 08:21 PM   #58 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
DallasFlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Model: 9800
OS: 6.0.0.666
PIN: OT NOIR
Carrier: AT&T/Cingular/AT&T
Posts: 1,741
Post Thanks: 30
Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWLotAttendant
My suggestion: re-read his replies. He's answered your question.
Well, BMW, I think he's completely avoided the question, but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if so. Remember, what I asked was NOT the legalese arguments or pleadings, or his lawyerly thoughts on why it might be decided this way or that way, but simply if the RESULT in the real-world marketplace of a RIM win would be the "de-facto" ownership by RIM of a trademark preventing any other phone/PDA firm from using the word "black" in any way in the name of a product.

I've seen it more than once - not on TV, but in REAL courtrooms where I've been involved on the periphery of product liability suits, and a couple times where I've been a juror - where the witness is asked a question, and rather than answer the question, takes off on a long-winded tangent instead. Generally it ends up that the Judge interrupts the witness (often after the questioning lawyer asks) and directs him to simply answer the question which was asked. That's all I'm asking here.

Seems to me to be a very simple yes/no question - if RIM wins, are there ANY circumstances under which ANY phone/PDA manufacturer could EVER use the word "black" in a name, and if he answered it, I sure missed the answer. So, if you saw the answer you say I failed to recognize, by all means, please enlighten me - was it yes, or no?
__________________
Top 50 Year Win%: Nebraska-.785 tOSU-.768 Penn St-.740
Oklahoma-.740 Texas-.733 Alabama-.729 Michigan-.724 USC-.723
Dominance! The HUSKER Tradition!

Last edited by DallasFlier : 12-18-2006 at 08:28 PM.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 08:36 PM   #59 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: :noitacoL
Model: 8100
Carrier: T-Mobile
Posts: 107
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasFlier
If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment - i.e., no phone or PDA vendor will ever be able to use the word "black" in any way in any device name whatsoever?
Answer? No.

RIM has a trademark on BlackBerry. Capital B-l-a-c-k-Capital-B-e-r-r-y. one word. Not Black Berry, not black berry, not Motorola Q Black.

They also have a trademark on BlackBerry Pearl, but they aren't suing the makers of the black pearl phone. Because it isn't a smartphone. it isn't competing directly against their existing product.

Meanwhile, the BlackJack is also Capital-B-l-a-c-k-Capital-J-a-c-k, one word. And it does compete directly against the RIM devices, and is clearly trying to leverage RIM's existing brand identity. Considering the near infinite possible trade-mark-able brand names that Samsung could have selected, to choose one that is phonetically similar to as existing product to which they are competing, cannot be accidental.

If RIM wins (which they should), they will have defended their existing trademark, which is what their shareholders expect of them. And which means that no competitor will be able to call device a Capital-B-l-a-c-k-Capital-Something-Something, one word, as well as likely Capital-Something-Something-Capital-B-e-r-ry. Like RedBerry, for instance.
Offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 09:15 PM   #60 (permalink)
GMK
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
GMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Model: 8100
Carrier: TMO
Posts: 353
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I also feel SanFrancisco answered the question. However, into the fray.

DallasFlier said, "If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment -"

One word answer: Will!! If RIM prevails, who in their right mind would name a similar looking smartphone black anything or anything berry, etc, etc. Not by order of the court or anything so dramatic, just common sense.

We're on opposite sides of the opinion table on this issue but I'd go you one step further or earlier as the case may be. I think Samsung falls into the "who in their right mind" category even before the suit was filed. When I first saw the device my first reaction was, nice device, I need to look into this puppy, then WOW, this ain't gonna fly for long. Lo, my unerring knack for prophecy came true.

DallasFlier said, "i.e., no phone or PDA vendor will ever be able to use the word "black" in any way in any device name whatsoever?"

RIM can't prevent some doughnut hole from trying to market a similar type phone and call it Dingleberry, all they can do is deal with it when it happens.

Some interesting things: I read somewhere yesterday that as part of their complaint RIM was asking that ALL Blackjack devices be delivered to RIM for destruction. Cool, what. I wonder how negotiable that point will be.

Most, if not all other forums and blogs are pretty much outraged at RIMs outrageous claim. Man, am I in the minority. What scares me is that so many people can be so totally wrong. Nyuk, nyuk.
__________________
"And malt does more than Milton can To justify God's ways to man." A.E. Housman
Offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





Copyright 2004-2014 BlackBerryForums.com.
The names RIM and BlackBerry are registered Trademarks of BlackBerry Inc.