Coffeehouse Thread

11 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Should big software corporations be able to act under fictional names?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    l000000l

    http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE81M0NY20120224

    Proview accuses Apple of creating a "special purpose" entity - IP Application Development Ltd, or IPAD - to buy the iPad name from it, concealing Apple's role in the matter.

    What about companies that try to catch copyright pirates by ordering DVDs and materials through eBay to fake, clandestine US addresses with fake names?

    Any really good business person can see right through a corporate veil or legal documentation meant to abstract your view, but internationally?

    I am fairly certain that Microsoft engages in this as well. What are your thoughts on this?

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    @l000000l: Absolutely. Microsoft used a similar stunt in the '80s, founding the "Washington Industry Never Designing Or Writing Software Inc.". Please notice the subtle deception.

    Years later they tried that again for "Microsoft® WinFX™ Software Development Kit for Microsoft® Pre-Release Windows Operating System Code-Named "Longhorn", Beta 1 Web Setup", but they are still mulling over a suitable accronym.

  • User profile image
    l000000l

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/1117.aspx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Microsoft_subsidiaries

    I am specifically referring to those not publicly listed. I know a couple, but I won't reveal them here.

    The question is, should a company have the right to mis-represent themselves to another group of people for financial or legal advantage, domestically or internationally?

    Should a lawyer working full time for a company as an employee have their right to represent their actions on behalf of that software company outside of that context?

    Many of these big companies do.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    I know that Google does.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Trademark != Text. If it is very hard to understand, head over to trademark registry and look at all the companies with same name, but, they all have different tradeMARK (aka LOGO).

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    davewill

    I am fairly certain that Microsoft engages in this as well. What are your thoughts on this?

    Bears

    Eat

    Weeds

    In

    Lazy

    Daisy

    Eating

    Routines

    Mostly

    Evenings

    Never

    Tuesdays

     

    Atomic

    Titmice

     

    Borrow

    Eagerly

    Eventually

    Returning

     

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    Same thing goes with product names. Intel comes out with a 1.8GHz processor...AMD came out with a processor named 1800+. Made people think they were similar although the AMD 1800+ only ran at 1.5GHz. Up to the individual to think if this is "crooked" or not.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , Harlequin wrote

    Same thing goes with product names. Intel comes out with a 1.8GHz processor...AMD came out with a processor named 1800+. Made people think they were similar although the AMD 1800+ only ran at 1.5GHz. Up to the individual to think if this is "crooked" or not.

    If people aren't smart enough to read the specs, chances are they wouldn't understand them anyway.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    I don't think the answer to your question is black and white. There are legitimate reasons to conceal a company's identity. Corporate espionage is very real and very common, for just one reason why it can be prudent to conceal the identity. Related to this is maintaining a competitive advantage. If a corporations plans are leaked too early competitors can take advantage of the knowledge to udnercut, or worse, the release of new products. If it's done legally, for the most part I don't have an issue with it.

    That said...

    "In its filing, Proview alleged lawyers for IPAD repeatedly said it would not be competing with the Chinese firm, and refused to say why they needed the trademark."

    Even if this behavior doesn't violate any existing laws, I can't condone that.

  • User profile image
    l000000l

    For the record I don't like this either:

    http://googleventures.com

    Or similar programs by Microsoft because they are essentially launching new companies largely or even wholly financed by them which aren't subject to the same agreements and in MSFT's case, DOJ rulings, as they are.

    But ultimately they control the boards of these start-up companies indirectly, and those backed companies are acting as arms of the parent, even if they are separate legal entities because they have so much controlling interest.

    http://www.googleventures.com/portfolio

    That's a lot of people reporting back to their biggest investor, Google, at status meetings and taking advisory "advice" from the parent.

    Microsoft does the same, but I am listing Google here to not appear to be slanted as I more dislike the practice rather than the practitioner.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    I don't like the practice, and personally find it unethical, but if the law allows it then companies are going to do it.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.