For you lawyers and wannabe lawyers

[Mort]

being directed and paid to do something is no excuse for doing the wrong thing. having no morals of your own, and relying on those of your superiors is no excuse for any action

I agree 100% with this. I was just comenting that it may not be "the wrong thing."

BTW, forcing the other party to foot the bill is a very difficult process to pull off even when you have cause. Add to that the simple fact that any large corporation could drag things out for nearly an unlimited amount of time and you realize that if your lawyer tries to tell you that you could win for legal costs then that lawyer is lying to you.

Actually it's as simple as asking for it. You're right that getting fees is another matter entirely but it does happen.

You're also right that there is no shortage of shady practice out there, but unfortunately greedy people are not in short supply in this country.

Well that's my OT quota for the day (not that I'll probably be able to restrain myself)

 

[Marius Delphus]

To elaborate just a bit, my (non-lawyer's) opinion is based on a different standard than the "passing off" standard; specifically, the "likelihood of reasonable confusion as to source" standard which can result, IIRC, in a judgment of unintentional trademark infringement. If that standard wouldn't in fact apply, then gosh, I guess I just may be wrong. Oh well. It *has* been a few years since law school, after all.

As regards "scum-sucking lawyers" (DocM's words), I feel the need to interject that the adjective in question is at the same time an unfortunate stereotype and a bit of an over-generalization. Yes, the help of an attorney is depressingly expensive. Yes, many attorneys seem primarily motivated by their own financial well-being. It's even fair to say that defending an infringement action brought by Apple Computer would probably be hideously, and even prohibitively, expensive. But can we please refrain from smearing all the members of a certain profession? Thanks.

And Doc, my condolences for your bad experiences with the legal system. My own experience was thoroughly disappointing and disheartening; just so you know I do sympathize.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Of course I have never had a lawyer be honest when telling me the chances of getting legal fees paid for by the other side.

Actually it's as simple as asking for it. You're right that getting fees is another matter entirely but it does happen.

You're also right that there is no shortage of shady practice out there, but unfortunately greedy people are not in short supply in this country.

Well that's my OT quota for the day (not that I'll probably be able to restrain myself)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Lawyer fees in general have grown at a rate at LEAST 10 times the rate of inflation. My mother went through a nasty divorce 25 years ago and it cost her less than $1000 for all fees.

That same divorce today could and would cost you over $50,000. You tell me one other industry that is so horribly fleecing the public.

Trust I am not going to stop smearing lawyers any time soon. They plain and simple deserve every ounce of it.

To elaborate just a bit, my (non-lawyer's) opinion is based on a different standard than the "passing off" standard; specifically, the "likelihood of reasonable confusion as to source" standard which can result in a judgment of unintentional trademark infringement. If that standard wouldn't in fact apply, then gosh, I guess I just may be wrong. Oh well. It *has* been a few years since law school, after all.

As regards "scum-sucking lawyers" (DocM's words), I feel the need to interject that the adjective in question is at the same time an unfortunate stereotype and a bit of an over-generalization. Yes, the help of an attorney is depressingly expensive. Yes, many attorneys seem primarily motivated by their own financial well-being. It's even fair to say that defending an infringement action brought by Apple Computer would probably be hideously, and even prohibitively, expensive. But can we please refrain from smearing all the members of a certain profession? Thanks.

And Doc, my condolences for your bad experiences with the legal system. My own experience has been thoroughly disappointing and disheartening too.

 

[Ranes]

Good point, Marius, well argued. Oh well. It has been a while since the terms 'trademark infringement', 'court' and 'anything I've ever been involved with' could be mentioned in the same sentence, after all.

 

[med stud]

Cant you call Apple and ask them? They must have some official that can answer a question like this (or maybe Im just naive)?

 

[Marius Delphus]

Cant you call Apple and ask them? They must have some official that can answer a question like this (or maybe Im just naive)?

I am not a corporate lawyer (nor any kind of lawyer, as I've said) myself, but my impression is that Apple's lawyers would choose to avoid offering their opinion like this, as it might be construed as binding Apple Computer to a sue/no-sue decision.

 

[caudor]

Yes, I heard Iuz tried to call the Legal Department...but was left on hold for 20 minutes.

Instead of waiting, he flew into a rage and started the Greyhawk Wars.

 

[JPL]

Hi. I'm a lawyer, but unfortunately I don't know anything about intellectual property law.

I decided to take a break from my scum-sucking to interject before Mistwell comes in and starts suing people for intentional infliction of emotional distress...

I spent my morning on two cases.

I'm fighting an insurance company on behalf of a client who lost his leg when an uninsured motorist plowed into him. My client was on his way home from work and stopped to assist a stranded motorist.

I'm also trying to keep the State from pulling an Albanian kid's driver's license for getting two tickets within two years [eight days later and he'd be fine]. He loses that license and he loses his job.

So tell me: what have you done this morning?

 

[Sir Edgar]

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, just personal opinion.

If you were to label it "iMag", you may get into some trouble (that's if they ever find out about your product). But in my opinion, there should be no real problem with IMAG. That is unless Apple or any other company wants to make it a problem. If they do, you will most likely receive a "cease and desist" letter. Failure to comply would probably lead to legal proceedings, which would be so costly that you would lose just based on financial capabilities. Even if Apple or any other company was wrong and you were right, you probably wouldn't be able to endure all of the legal costs involved. They would outgun you in the lawyers department even if you tried.

For example, McDonald's tried to stop a store owner in Scotland (I think, but definitely somewhere in the U.K.) from running a business called "McSnacks". In fact, they have tried to stop any food business that has the "Mc" phrase in it. This is preposterous in a place like Scotland where every other person's last name is "Mc" something. But McDonald's claims it owns the "Mc" and it can go to court. So, even if they are wrong, a company can try to sue you if they want. I don't know if they won or not or if it was settled, but it's pretty scary when a big company like that goes after you.

Anyhow, in all likelihood, IMAG is already taken. I would guess it belongs to someone like an graphic imaging company ("image") or an Internet magazine company ("I-mag").