James Liddell

Georgia

Retired Career Journalist

Here, I am not at all certain about trademark registration but I strongly suspect that Apple, again, does not have a legal ground to stand on because of a parallelism in American law stating that trademark's sister, copyright, is effectively achieved simply by publically announcing one.

In other words, although a copy "right" becomes more fully known to the world through the formal process, it remains--again, under American law--that simply taking ANY action that has a public nature, no matter how slight, to establish a copyright is just as effective and secure as the formal process can generate should a court wrangle erupt.

That "slight... with a public nature" action can be nothing more than attaching a statement to a written document reading: "Copyright, 2005, Joseph F. Schmo". That statement is as good as any formal copyright filing by the most "prestious" law firm in the world.

I do not see "trademark" operating any differently from "copyright" in these regards, you see.

It seems as I read the news report that Apple is attempting to act as if a two-part process to register their property rights is required and that the process was interrupted by premature disclosure. If that is their thinking, then I believe that it is wrong. It is my position that their first act actually constituted the entire process as far as the law is concerned. They already had their right at the time of the premature disclosure, and it achieved with a "public nature" and there was no theft because they, themselves, had already taken a public action.

I believe that Apple has suffered no injury or loss in the affairs leading to this lawsuit.

Somehow, I gain the impression that in this tangle of law, code and evidence, Apple's lawyers gained access to the court calendar of a friendly judge and got thereby a friendly ruling, but that they either really don't know the laws they are trying to stand on--or else, they are doing the best they can in a case they privately know aforehand that they cannot win.

There is one other possibility as I see it and that involves their possibly seeking to blaze a path to the creation of a new precedent. But, I really don't see the grounds for their having any legal strategy here to attempt to create new law through precedent. Instead, I think they are just hacking at the undergrowth in hopes the other side makes a mistake or that the gods will smile down on them and somehow let them win in the end.

Higher courts will decide against Apple. You can bank on it, as I told some others in an earlier version of this story in these very informative newsletters.

In either case, Apple's lawyers will get paid for their time and effort and in the final resort that is what most lawyers are interested in and the law "be d*mned" in all other regards.

All this is eventually going to be embarrassing to the Apple executives who initiated this lawsuit. Some careers could suffer.

Very obviously, I don't like modern lawyers very much as all. I subscribe to Shakespeare's attitude toward them in one of his "history" plays.