[petercooper]

That depends on what their app did. From what I can make out with Google cache, it was a timer app.

The two trademarks Facetime Corp held (and which Apple has supposedly bought) orient around "computer software used for communicating over global computer networks using voice, text, fax, or e-mail."

A timer app called Facetime doesn't on the face of it appear to violate either of these other Facetime trademarks but.. trademarks are a wishy-washy world of legal wrangling, so it seems Apple's prepared to just push their weight around since they own the store and have the right to do so.

[falien]

They're both software. Its easily conceivable that a non-moron could search for one and mistake it for the other. This case seems like an actual violation whose enforcement would be much more reasonable than most other disputes that have made the news the last few years.

[ErrantX]

The only "not great" thing is that it is Apple that have introduced this as a problem, not this app developer. Which is a bit brutish.

[glhaynes]

It would be "less brutish" if the app developer were to have done it?

[ErrantX]

Well I was trying to choose a relatively non-negative word. Apple made an app, then "bought" a name - and then enforced it.

Kosher, yep I guess. A little forceful; yes definitely.

It's not something most people would make a habit of doing.

[Luc]

Whether they own the store or not has nothing to do with it. It's a straightforward legal claim. They have sent the same kinds of notices to app developers for other trademark owners. It's especially straightforward because they have published their own app with that name, so it's not just a matter of over-zealous trademark protection.

[joe_the_user]

As the gp said. A trademark dispute is not necessarily a straightforward legal at all. Buying the claim of one side and using your power to enforce an otherwise tenuous sounds like ... uh bullying.

[Luc]

No, bullying would be to involve lawyers.

Apple has enforced the (unregistered) trademark of a fellow indie game developer the same way. Documentation was provided, the other party changed the name of their app, and everyone continued on their way without tears or lawyers. All quite civil if you ask me.

[_delirium]

Would they enforce the indie-game developer's trademark if it were against an app that was: 1) not a game at all; and 2) came out a year before the indie game of the same name? That seems to be the case here--- Apple is claiming a trademark case against an app in a different genre than its own "Facetime" application, and which came out a year earlier.

[joe_the_user]

Sometimes trademarks don't matter much and everyone can happily and informally settle the question. But it quite possible for a given trademark to be the main asset of a small business and thus when a larger business can happily use "informal" methods to take possession of that trademark, it would qualify as bullying - if you can get away without lawyers, it's actually worse bullying in this cases since you don't need any legal standing.

I don't know the exact story here - I'm just reacting to a claim that Apple informally deciding everything is inherently fair.

[dalore]

So Apple records should get Apple to cease selling music.

[ahoyhere]

All you'd have to do is Google to avoid making a very, very silly comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

[dalore]

Not silly as that is the very case I was alluding to.

[ahoyhere]

Given the general level of discourse (and lack of historical knowledge) around here these days, you'd probably be better served by adding some kind of sarcasm indicator. :)

[vsync]

whoosh