Using Karma As A Deterrent

Wouldn't it be fun if there was a karma element to court decisions? Based on the principle of "do unto others what you will have others do unto you". Apple announced a new feature the other day called Launchpad. Launchpad is a registered trademark of Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu Linux.

As I understand it; being a trademark, they don't have any choice but to defend it if they want to keep it. So how would the karma element come into play?

Apple have a track record of just naming their products or services whatever they like, regardless if the name is already in use, or by whom. If it gets down to a court case, it's always settled and Apple just buy off the complaints. Many of the iNames weren't Apple's before Apple decided to use them. They also viciously attack any names even remotely resembling one of their own. A portable scoop for campers to bury their shit while camping was sued for the name iPood, because the name was too similar.

The point of trademarks is not about similarity in name or logo, it's about customer confusion, which in turn affects the brand image. Would any customer realistically be confused about what they're buying? If a knock off iPod styled device with the name iPood was released Apple would have a case, but would anyone get confused between a portable MP3 player and a camping spade? Apple didn't care, they still went for the jugular over "similar" sounding names.

Apple also have the name iTV lined up for their latest venture into the land of streaming TV boxes. There's a TV broadcaster in the UK called ITV, which has been in business since the 1950's and is still in business today. As a broadcaster who also have an internet presence including streaming TV content, you would imagine there's a valid "customer confusion" case to be made. Granted it's not that likely, but it's far more likely than people thinking a human popper scooper is an MP3 player, and Apple seem perfectly happy to stand on the head of that particular logic pin. This is only a couple of examples of Apple doing this, there are plenty more.

Now we come back to Launchpad. Not only are both Apple and Canonical in the same business, the OS and software business, but Apple, like everyone else, will have been keeping an eye on what the competition are doing and how well or otherwise it's doing. Ubuntu Linux has been the poster child for Linux for the last few years and has been the name that's broken into the mainstream news from time to time.

This is an area where traditionally there has only been Windows (the OS that everyone is forced to use, and many detest) and OSX (Apple's expensive escape route from the hell known as Windows). Now there's another escape route peculating into peoples conciousness; Linux, and Ubuntu Linux in particular. Before Ubuntu, as far as regular Joe's knew from the mainstream media, the only way to escape Windows was to buy Apple with Apple's restrictions and 40%+ premium price tag. Launchpad is a very prominent part of Ubuntu and it's development; so Apple can't have been unaware of it. So they name a piece of software Launchpad, despite knowing one of their competitors created a piece of software several years before called Launchpad and trademarked it.

Apple went after a name used by a company with no connection to the OS, software or gadget business, but will no doubt claim that their Launchpad is software to launch applications, where Canonical's Launchpad is software to track bugs and updates; therefore totally different.

This is where karma could kick in, where a lawsuit brought by Canonical would result in Apple being told "well, you were happy to threaten, bully and sue for a totally bogus connection, so you've lost this one, have to change the name of your software and pay damages to Canonical. If you hadn't done that, the outcome would have been a much less severe loss." You could have some sort of sliding scale, on the scale of the hypocrisy carried out by the company in question means the stronger the sentence, where the history of false claims, bullying, threats against others they know can't defend themselves etc is all laid bare; "and you claim to be a victim?"

Instead of a fine or compensation the punishment could be actually something companies would fear, such as the dismissal of all court cases in which they are the alleging party, and a ban from taking offensive court action anywhere in the country for a period of time, or that they have to pay their defendants legal fees in every current court case filed or underway. The point is to use karma as a deterrent.