[markokocic]

Yes, lawyers are salaried, but having this ridiculous court battles just increases the number of lawyers needed, thus increasing their average salary.

Look, I would like the judge ordered them to do some custom phone application development instead of citing legal documents. That way, they will need to hire more developers to do that, or allocate some developers from other departments, thus creating more developer jobs. Instead, the lawyers got to fight that battle and get paid for that, thus, they won.

[jlgreco]

I think this is a great insight.

A lawyer's action can benefit or harm himself; it is fairly trivial to determine which in any particular case. However a lawyers actions can also benefit or harm lawyers as a group.

A single lawyer initiating and losing lots of lawsuits is not really going to benefit himself, but he is doing his part to drive demand for lawyers even higher. If lawyers were microbes, we could expect to see this sort of behavior become more prevalent so long as it provided a benefit to lawyers with similar traits greater than the damage done to the individual lawyer.

[rayiner]

> Yes, lawyers are salaried, but having this ridiculous court battles just increases the number of lawyers needed, thus increasing their average salary.

How is this an example of a "ridiculous court battle?"

We have trade-marks so businesses can build a brand and keep people from free-riding on their good-will. Trademarks are fairly arbitrary and not intrinsically valuable, so the only real consideration at play is that people use different ones, to minimize confusion.

"iFone" and "iPhone" are confusingly similar. Somehow, you have to decide who gets to use the mark in Mexico.

[markokocic]

IMHO, this _is_ an example of ridiculous court battle. AFAIU Apple is trying for years to destroy iFone trademark in Mexico, although any non-salaried lawyer would just say it's a lost battle.

And battling lost battles over and over with 0.1% of a chance to win for years just out of hope that, by same miracle or mistake, they could win the case is ridiculous. I'd rather them spend their money on innovation, but that's just my opinion, and the money they spend on lawyers is just their money :)

[biturd]

Do you feel they are confusingly similar when used in context?

"I have my cellular service with ifone" "I love my new iPhone" "ifones service sucks" "The iPhone sucks"

Even in the last two comparisons, conversationally, I don't see anyone being confused. Apples product is large enough it is a household name now. That helps disrupt that confusion. Conversely, were Apples product not well known, this would just go under the radar and no one would be confused either.

I understand legally you must protect you trademark, though in this case I'm seeing it as falling into the clause of "if those marks offer identical or similar offerings".

IANAL but doesn't one being a product and one being a service pretty much nullify the need to protect or defend the trademark on either side? That's how I'm seeing this one.

Now, were Apple to purchase a telco, that would change everything for me, even if they kept their new shiny telcos name as it previously existed.

I did read Apple started a new wireless research division. Perhaps one day we won't all be tethered to mandatory text messaging fees and bandwidth rates that are truly extortion in my opinion.