 |
| 7. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Dec 22, 2011, 14:00 |
Quboid |
|
|
Bodolza wrote on Dec 22, 2011, 13:42:
a) They're suing for trademark infringement, not copyright. Copyright has nothing to do with this.
b) They called their new tablet Transformer Prime, so they are no longer just using the generic term "transformer".
That's a good point, I'd missed the significance of the Optimus Prime connection. I'm probably the only Bluesnews regular who has never seen any Transformers stuff: TV shows, comic books, games nor films.
Krovven wrote on Dec 22, 2011, 13:56:
Anyone read the article beyond the headline? Didn't think so.
If they only used 'Transformer" this lawsuit probably wouldnt have happened. Problem is they used "Transformer Prime", which is a blatant use of word association.
I only skimmed it and missed the point. This is the second Transformer tablet, the first was just called the Transformer and as you say, there was no lawsuit.
This comment was edited on Dec 22, 2011, 14:36. |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Dec 22, 11:26 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
gsilver |
| |
2. |
Dec 22, 12:10 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Tumbler |
| |
3. |
Dec 22, 12:22 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Quboid |
| |
4. |
Dec 22, 13:19 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
ASeven |
| |
5. |
Dec 22, 13:42 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Bodolza |
| |
6. |
Dec 22, 13:56 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Krovven |
| >> |
7. |
Dec 22, 14:00 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Quboid |
| |
8. |
Dec 22, 15:16 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
yuastnav |
| |
9. |
Dec 22, 15:26 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
ASeven |
| |
10. |
Dec 22, 17:11 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Suddenly_Dead |
| |
11. |
Dec 23, 04:50 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Veterator |
| |
12. |
Dec 24, 07:11 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
TurdFergasun |
|
|
Twitter 
