This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Your footnotes aren't working, and I can now see why. When you split this article from Apple Computer you didn't move the footnotes over. I've not fixed it myself as I'm not familiar with the referencing scheme you use (I prefer <ref> [1]).
Not sure if you've used it or not, but this is a nice article: [2] -- kingboyk 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed merge of Butt-Head Astronomer into this article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Contains the sentence "Many consider this to be a specious argument, however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely stole the MacOS GUI design from the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer". As far as I know this is not correct, Apple paid for that usage, did it not? Mikkel 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This case is of interest not only to Apple Computer enthusiasts but also to Beatles fans. Currently Apple Corps sends them here for a full analysis of the dispute. Also, I believe the earlier agreement may have some legal significance too? Therefore, if anyone here is able to flesh the story out into a full, seperate article it would be an idea I'd support. -- kingboyk 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"*Some say* that Apple was at fault... *Many* consider this to be a specious argument..."
Can someone please clean the article up from these statements and/or add some references? Rm999
Should the sections be ordered chronologically or based on notability? Regardless the order of the cases needs to be looked at and organized better. I think it would work nicely if they were ordered chronologically based on when the case was first brought to court. This would result in this order:
Additional sections would need to be created for the eMachines lawsuit and the GEM lawsuit out of the GUI section currently at the top. Paul C/ T + 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to do this, but Ars just did a nice report of the Apple v. Does lawsuit and the latest decision that was handed down. If someone could incorporate it into the article it would be very helpful. [3] Paul C/ T + 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've seperated out the "Apple vs. Does" case from Apple's law suit against Think Secret over its alledged trade secrets violation. There's no connection between the two cases, other than they happened at roughly the same time. The article on Apple vs Think Secret is a stub - I'll expand if/when I have time. Ianbetteridge 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there's gonna be lawsuit from Cisco because they trademarked "iPhone" first. So we need to add that soon. 168.254.226.175 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (or Awesimo)
I added addational informaiotn and cleared up the lawsuit article, which appeared to have the stance that Apple and Cisco were almost settled, which was not the case accordint to Cnet.-- Zeeboid 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this be renamed to "Notable litigation of Apple Inc."? Shawnc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was appropriate to have entries reguarding Apple "borrowing" Lugz's ads and "remaking" the Postal Service's music video? Immortal Time Keeper 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This article and iMac each direct the reader to the other article with regard to the eOne lawsuit. Romperomperompe 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a current patent dispute with Nokia. The article should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.228.72 ( talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the Carl Sagan link, at the top of the lawsuit concerning him, should be changed to the part in his article regarding Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningstripe ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any merit of the lawsuit Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. Samsung over Android phones and tablets ..? or is it just Apple trying to own ubiquitous ways of doing things ? Electron9 ( talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is nothing in here regarding the attempt by Motorola to invalidate 11 Apple patents on October 18th 2010 and the following patent infringement lawsuit placed by Motorola against Apple followed by Apple counter suing using the patents Motorola was attempting to have invalidated. It seems incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doombug5000 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The U.S. International Trade Commission on Monday ordered HTC by April to stop importing handsets that infringe the patent. The Taiwanese company said it would remove the feature found to violate Apple's patent, a move that should avoid disruption to its U.S. business. Apple is tangling over intellectual property with multiple competitors around the world, in large part seeking to hobble rivals using Android-powered smartphones from taking a larger share of the business. The long-awaited ruling by the ITC is one of the first high-profile decisions in Apple's home market.
A federal agency ruled on Monday that a set of important features commonly found in smartphones are protected by an Apple patent, a decision that could force changes in how Google’s Android phones function.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've sourced the Sagan assertion, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to competently cite it. Here is the header, from Lexis:
CARL SAGAN, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 874 F. Supp. 1072; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154 June 27, 1994, Decided June 27, 1994, FILED
12.208.150.136 ( talk) 19:02, March 17, 2007 (UTC)
"nominet responded by publishing facts" Perhaps a link to the facts or quoteing them would help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.135.133 ( talk • contribs) . 217.155.135.133 ( talk) 14:38, April 7, 2006 (UTC)
I think that this page should be merged with the main Apple inc. page on Wikipedia. It should be done. 74.57.32.16 ( talk) 18:50, August 15, 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason Apple's spat with Proview over the iPad trademark in China isn't included? Not my editing genre, so not being WP:BOLD myself. J Clear ( talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've finished expanding and cleaning up this article and forked a couple of sections to new articles. The article is now nominated for Good Article ( WP:GA) status. Please participate in the review noted in the banner, above.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Canadian Paul ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take on this review. It may take me several days, however, given its size. Per the "external links" report on the side, there are 10-11 dead URLs in the article and resolving them would make my task here easier. Canadian Paul 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
One question as well, although it has nothing to do with GA Criteria, but why all the "leave extra lines" comments? Just curious. Anyways, I went through and did a copyedit, hopefully nothing too controversial, but otherwise the article is very nice considering its length and depth. I will need to check references as well, but I will do that once the above concerns have been addressed. Finally, as this nomination has been sitting here since April, I will be checking for completeness by going through the unresolved cases to see if any developments have occurred. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 05:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Editor: Sctechlaw ( talk · contribs)
Thank you Canadian Paul for your substantial effort and time commitment in reviewing this lengthy and rather technical article. I believe I have now addressed your concerns, hopefully in a way that satisfies. I have used edit summaries that reference the above-enumerated concerns in most cases. The lead is now two paragraphs, and could be longer, but I think it complies with WP:LEAD. The material I removed from the lead I pasted into a new section just after the lead, "Background", where it does indeed fit better. The comments I left on your talk page regarding the extra lines being needed for visual rest and accessibility in a long article may have been better made here, but they are at least preserved. Won't you please review the changes I've made? Thank you so much, Sctechlaw ( talk) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Finally, and this is NOT a GA requirement, but the referencing style is pretty haphazard at times (for example, sometimes accessdates are included, other times not) - if you're thinking of bringing this beyond GA, that will be something of concern to higher level reviews but, as far as I can tell, the references all make it clear where one would find the information should they need to look it up (except for the one noted above), which is sufficient for GA. Anyhow, once these concerns are address, the article should be ready for promotion to Good Article status. Canadian Paul 17:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Apple refers to a drive on its campus as Infinite Loop in reference to programing terminology. There is no point to bring this up and it adds nothing to one's knowledge of the subject at had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 ( talk) 08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Lost in the mists of night, there is the "famous" 'Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.0, 734 F. Supp. 1542 (N.D. Cal. 1990)... [4]. All the thing is quite funny, 'cause Xerox sues Apple and basically (wrongly) lost. And for the same reason instead (yet probabily wrongly!) Apple lost vs Microsoft ... Some details in Apple vs M$ war here. 88.149.240.100 ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Apple has never had an exclusive right to use the letter "i" in trade marks. Contrary to the article "Apple Cannot Monopolize the Letter 'i' – iGood!", cited as a reference under Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. DOPi: lower-case i use, it is factually incorrect to say that Apple "no longer has a monopoly on the letter 'i' as part of the name for its products" as a result of that case. The cited article uses hyperbole to suggest that Apple's perchant for using a lowercase "i" in product names such as iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., amounts to some kind of exclusivity, but this should not be cited to support a "monopoly" as being fact. It's hyperbole, not fact. The article itself refers to two competing trade marks, iSkin and iSoft, which would contradict any such claim that Apple formerly had a "monopoly". At most, we might say that:
However, I do not think there is any value even making this mention. As discussed above, it is factually incorrect to say Apple ever had "monopoly" in the "i" prefix, much less the letter "i" as a whole, and there is little (if any) value making a spurious reference to it. It is simply unencyclopedic. — sroc ( talk) 13:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone with expertise please check the accuracy of this section, as I did my best, but it became confusing due to the amount of information I was dealing with. I am most concerned about the timeline and the veracity of the content.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted "antitrust" to "antitrust claims" because that's the technically correct term and it chimes with the content of the section, particularly the subheaders. "Antitrust" on its own is ambiguous and the reader should not have to peruse the section to find out what the section header means.
Ditto "unfair trade practice" - that's what people call it and removing the word "unfair" makes it unclear - not all trade practices that are capable of bearing law suits are necessarily unfair.
Andyjsmith ( talk) 18:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that saying "Defamation Claim", "Trade Practice Claim", and "Antitrust Claims" is not necessary, if anyone disagrees. feel free to say why you want to put Claim in every title. ( or only some things and forget about consistency ) Bryce Carmony ( talk) 18:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Per the MOS "headings can be assumed to be about the subject[article title] unless otherwise indicated." So the title Apple Inc. Litigation gives every section the attribution "litigation" so our subsections are organized what is being litigated. in the section Defamation the thing being litigated is in fact Defamation (technically libel but close enough), in the section Antitrust that is what is being litigated. in the section "Trade practice" what is being litigated "trade practices." We could write "Fair Defamation" since the court ruled that apple was ok to call Carl Sagan a butt head. but that's not what the litigation is about. Trade Practice and Defamation = what the litigation is about in each section. Fair Defamation and Unfair trade practice set a precedent that mixing what is claimed and what is ruled ( which will be confusing) best for NPOV is simple to title the sections what is the litigation about. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article conveys, in my opinion, no significant information, as any multinational corporation is constantly involved in some kind of litigation. Amchamp ( talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has been tagged for a Good Article reassessment and currently has a tag on it asking for an update (since 2014). This probably needs to occur if it wishes to retain its Good Article status. AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree I am nominating this article for reassessment (criterion 5. stable). I’m not sure whether or not to remove this tag Template:update after 5 years, so I’m erring on the side of caution. — Nemoschool ( talk) 08:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this a significant case? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable)
15:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC).
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
This dispute is before an administrative office, rather than being in the courts (so far), thus it is not litigation, yet. Moving the text here for later use should the matter progress to litigation. The media reporting the matter using the words "sues" and "is suing" are confusing an administrative hearing with a lawsuit. The Polish news telepolis.pl actually says:
The proceedings before the Patent Office may result in cancellation of the right of protection for a commodity or dismissal of an application made by Apple. In both cases, the parties are entitled to appeal to the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw. Judgment and the WSA may be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The dispute may take up to two or three years.
______
A.pl logo
In September 2012, Apple sought to prevent the Polish online grocery store fresh24.pl owned by A.pl from registering its trademark, claiming a likelihood of confusion in the store's logo as "trying to deliberately confuse customers by using Apple's well-known likeness and reputation." [1] The dispute began when Apple objected to the store's registration of its logo with Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (the Polish patent office). [2] [3]
— Sctechlaw ( talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Sctechlaw ( talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
just added new section Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application but the links are out of order and I don't know how to fix them. Contribute14 ( talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Your footnotes aren't working, and I can now see why. When you split this article from Apple Computer you didn't move the footnotes over. I've not fixed it myself as I'm not familiar with the referencing scheme you use (I prefer <ref> [1]).
Not sure if you've used it or not, but this is a nice article: [2] -- kingboyk 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed merge of Butt-Head Astronomer into this article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Contains the sentence "Many consider this to be a specious argument, however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely stole the MacOS GUI design from the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer". As far as I know this is not correct, Apple paid for that usage, did it not? Mikkel 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This case is of interest not only to Apple Computer enthusiasts but also to Beatles fans. Currently Apple Corps sends them here for a full analysis of the dispute. Also, I believe the earlier agreement may have some legal significance too? Therefore, if anyone here is able to flesh the story out into a full, seperate article it would be an idea I'd support. -- kingboyk 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"*Some say* that Apple was at fault... *Many* consider this to be a specious argument..."
Can someone please clean the article up from these statements and/or add some references? Rm999
Should the sections be ordered chronologically or based on notability? Regardless the order of the cases needs to be looked at and organized better. I think it would work nicely if they were ordered chronologically based on when the case was first brought to court. This would result in this order:
Additional sections would need to be created for the eMachines lawsuit and the GEM lawsuit out of the GUI section currently at the top. Paul C/ T + 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to do this, but Ars just did a nice report of the Apple v. Does lawsuit and the latest decision that was handed down. If someone could incorporate it into the article it would be very helpful. [3] Paul C/ T + 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've seperated out the "Apple vs. Does" case from Apple's law suit against Think Secret over its alledged trade secrets violation. There's no connection between the two cases, other than they happened at roughly the same time. The article on Apple vs Think Secret is a stub - I'll expand if/when I have time. Ianbetteridge 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there's gonna be lawsuit from Cisco because they trademarked "iPhone" first. So we need to add that soon. 168.254.226.175 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (or Awesimo)
I added addational informaiotn and cleared up the lawsuit article, which appeared to have the stance that Apple and Cisco were almost settled, which was not the case accordint to Cnet.-- Zeeboid 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this be renamed to "Notable litigation of Apple Inc."? Shawnc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was appropriate to have entries reguarding Apple "borrowing" Lugz's ads and "remaking" the Postal Service's music video? Immortal Time Keeper 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This article and iMac each direct the reader to the other article with regard to the eOne lawsuit. Romperomperompe 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a current patent dispute with Nokia. The article should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.228.72 ( talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the Carl Sagan link, at the top of the lawsuit concerning him, should be changed to the part in his article regarding Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningstripe ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any merit of the lawsuit Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. Samsung over Android phones and tablets ..? or is it just Apple trying to own ubiquitous ways of doing things ? Electron9 ( talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is nothing in here regarding the attempt by Motorola to invalidate 11 Apple patents on October 18th 2010 and the following patent infringement lawsuit placed by Motorola against Apple followed by Apple counter suing using the patents Motorola was attempting to have invalidated. It seems incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doombug5000 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The U.S. International Trade Commission on Monday ordered HTC by April to stop importing handsets that infringe the patent. The Taiwanese company said it would remove the feature found to violate Apple's patent, a move that should avoid disruption to its U.S. business. Apple is tangling over intellectual property with multiple competitors around the world, in large part seeking to hobble rivals using Android-powered smartphones from taking a larger share of the business. The long-awaited ruling by the ITC is one of the first high-profile decisions in Apple's home market.
A federal agency ruled on Monday that a set of important features commonly found in smartphones are protected by an Apple patent, a decision that could force changes in how Google’s Android phones function.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've sourced the Sagan assertion, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to competently cite it. Here is the header, from Lexis:
CARL SAGAN, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 874 F. Supp. 1072; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154 June 27, 1994, Decided June 27, 1994, FILED
12.208.150.136 ( talk) 19:02, March 17, 2007 (UTC)
"nominet responded by publishing facts" Perhaps a link to the facts or quoteing them would help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.135.133 ( talk • contribs) . 217.155.135.133 ( talk) 14:38, April 7, 2006 (UTC)
I think that this page should be merged with the main Apple inc. page on Wikipedia. It should be done. 74.57.32.16 ( talk) 18:50, August 15, 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason Apple's spat with Proview over the iPad trademark in China isn't included? Not my editing genre, so not being WP:BOLD myself. J Clear ( talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've finished expanding and cleaning up this article and forked a couple of sections to new articles. The article is now nominated for Good Article ( WP:GA) status. Please participate in the review noted in the banner, above.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Canadian Paul ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take on this review. It may take me several days, however, given its size. Per the "external links" report on the side, there are 10-11 dead URLs in the article and resolving them would make my task here easier. Canadian Paul 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
One question as well, although it has nothing to do with GA Criteria, but why all the "leave extra lines" comments? Just curious. Anyways, I went through and did a copyedit, hopefully nothing too controversial, but otherwise the article is very nice considering its length and depth. I will need to check references as well, but I will do that once the above concerns have been addressed. Finally, as this nomination has been sitting here since April, I will be checking for completeness by going through the unresolved cases to see if any developments have occurred. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 05:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Editor: Sctechlaw ( talk · contribs)
Thank you Canadian Paul for your substantial effort and time commitment in reviewing this lengthy and rather technical article. I believe I have now addressed your concerns, hopefully in a way that satisfies. I have used edit summaries that reference the above-enumerated concerns in most cases. The lead is now two paragraphs, and could be longer, but I think it complies with WP:LEAD. The material I removed from the lead I pasted into a new section just after the lead, "Background", where it does indeed fit better. The comments I left on your talk page regarding the extra lines being needed for visual rest and accessibility in a long article may have been better made here, but they are at least preserved. Won't you please review the changes I've made? Thank you so much, Sctechlaw ( talk) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Finally, and this is NOT a GA requirement, but the referencing style is pretty haphazard at times (for example, sometimes accessdates are included, other times not) - if you're thinking of bringing this beyond GA, that will be something of concern to higher level reviews but, as far as I can tell, the references all make it clear where one would find the information should they need to look it up (except for the one noted above), which is sufficient for GA. Anyhow, once these concerns are address, the article should be ready for promotion to Good Article status. Canadian Paul 17:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Apple refers to a drive on its campus as Infinite Loop in reference to programing terminology. There is no point to bring this up and it adds nothing to one's knowledge of the subject at had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 ( talk) 08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Lost in the mists of night, there is the "famous" 'Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.0, 734 F. Supp. 1542 (N.D. Cal. 1990)... [4]. All the thing is quite funny, 'cause Xerox sues Apple and basically (wrongly) lost. And for the same reason instead (yet probabily wrongly!) Apple lost vs Microsoft ... Some details in Apple vs M$ war here. 88.149.240.100 ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Apple has never had an exclusive right to use the letter "i" in trade marks. Contrary to the article "Apple Cannot Monopolize the Letter 'i' – iGood!", cited as a reference under Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. DOPi: lower-case i use, it is factually incorrect to say that Apple "no longer has a monopoly on the letter 'i' as part of the name for its products" as a result of that case. The cited article uses hyperbole to suggest that Apple's perchant for using a lowercase "i" in product names such as iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., amounts to some kind of exclusivity, but this should not be cited to support a "monopoly" as being fact. It's hyperbole, not fact. The article itself refers to two competing trade marks, iSkin and iSoft, which would contradict any such claim that Apple formerly had a "monopoly". At most, we might say that:
However, I do not think there is any value even making this mention. As discussed above, it is factually incorrect to say Apple ever had "monopoly" in the "i" prefix, much less the letter "i" as a whole, and there is little (if any) value making a spurious reference to it. It is simply unencyclopedic. — sroc ( talk) 13:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone with expertise please check the accuracy of this section, as I did my best, but it became confusing due to the amount of information I was dealing with. I am most concerned about the timeline and the veracity of the content.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted "antitrust" to "antitrust claims" because that's the technically correct term and it chimes with the content of the section, particularly the subheaders. "Antitrust" on its own is ambiguous and the reader should not have to peruse the section to find out what the section header means.
Ditto "unfair trade practice" - that's what people call it and removing the word "unfair" makes it unclear - not all trade practices that are capable of bearing law suits are necessarily unfair.
Andyjsmith ( talk) 18:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that saying "Defamation Claim", "Trade Practice Claim", and "Antitrust Claims" is not necessary, if anyone disagrees. feel free to say why you want to put Claim in every title. ( or only some things and forget about consistency ) Bryce Carmony ( talk) 18:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Per the MOS "headings can be assumed to be about the subject[article title] unless otherwise indicated." So the title Apple Inc. Litigation gives every section the attribution "litigation" so our subsections are organized what is being litigated. in the section Defamation the thing being litigated is in fact Defamation (technically libel but close enough), in the section Antitrust that is what is being litigated. in the section "Trade practice" what is being litigated "trade practices." We could write "Fair Defamation" since the court ruled that apple was ok to call Carl Sagan a butt head. but that's not what the litigation is about. Trade Practice and Defamation = what the litigation is about in each section. Fair Defamation and Unfair trade practice set a precedent that mixing what is claimed and what is ruled ( which will be confusing) best for NPOV is simple to title the sections what is the litigation about. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article conveys, in my opinion, no significant information, as any multinational corporation is constantly involved in some kind of litigation. Amchamp ( talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has been tagged for a Good Article reassessment and currently has a tag on it asking for an update (since 2014). This probably needs to occur if it wishes to retain its Good Article status. AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree I am nominating this article for reassessment (criterion 5. stable). I’m not sure whether or not to remove this tag Template:update after 5 years, so I’m erring on the side of caution. — Nemoschool ( talk) 08:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this a significant case? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable)
15:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC).
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
This dispute is before an administrative office, rather than being in the courts (so far), thus it is not litigation, yet. Moving the text here for later use should the matter progress to litigation. The media reporting the matter using the words "sues" and "is suing" are confusing an administrative hearing with a lawsuit. The Polish news telepolis.pl actually says:
The proceedings before the Patent Office may result in cancellation of the right of protection for a commodity or dismissal of an application made by Apple. In both cases, the parties are entitled to appeal to the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw. Judgment and the WSA may be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The dispute may take up to two or three years.
______
A.pl logo
In September 2012, Apple sought to prevent the Polish online grocery store fresh24.pl owned by A.pl from registering its trademark, claiming a likelihood of confusion in the store's logo as "trying to deliberately confuse customers by using Apple's well-known likeness and reputation." [1] The dispute began when Apple objected to the store's registration of its logo with Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (the Polish patent office). [2] [3]
— Sctechlaw ( talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Sctechlaw ( talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
just added new section Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application but the links are out of order and I don't know how to fix them. Contribute14 ( talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)