Sunday, May 15, 2005

Tiger Direct Told Directly: You Are Fools!


As reported by Engadget

The Tiger suit is off

It took them 56 pages to say “TigerDirect, you’re craaaaaazy,” but a U.S. District Court for the District of Florida has denied TigerDirect’s request for injunction against Apple over the use of the “Tiger” nickname. They were asking that Apple be enjoined from using the “Tiger” moniker to promote its new operating system (Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, natch) anywhere on its web site or in any new advertising, packaging or signage. We’re pretty sure the key witness in this case was Senior VP of Marketing Phil Schiller, who testified that Apple “had engaged in a practice of naming updates to Mac OS X after large predator cats in order to convey the strength and speed of the operating system” — the man speaks truth. They also presented evidence from a survey that revealed only 6 percent of consumers associated the name “Tiger” with TigerDirect. We’ll take it upon ourselves to summarize the 56-page ruling by Judge Joan Lenard in colloquial terms: “Any fool who shops at both Apple and TigerDirect will be able to distinguish between the two outlets.”


I have to be honest and say that I just broke my own protest of TigerDirect this past weekend to buy some Mac compatible USB 802.11 adapters ... they were at an insane price (possibly even a misprint)

My only problem was, they offered me PC spyware removal software at the end of the conversation for a free 30 day trial... I wonder if they offer all Mac Users a marketing spiel like that? I also noticed that after my PHONE order I started to get marketing email from TigerDirect and got a catalog in the mail (before my order has arrived). I don't remember TigerDirect asking my permission or giving me an opt out for either!


Here is a post I made at MacRumors on this topic:

Quote: Originally Posted by dr_lha

"A high five for bringing this up. Its annoying how everyone uses this as an example of a frivolous lawsuit without knowing the facts behind the case. I'm sure that everyone's perception of this case being frivolous has everything to do with McDonald's PR trying to make the victim look like the bad person."

Law is applicable to a "given responsibilty" - meaning that the majority of the people are going to obey the law, a minority are going to break the law, and fewer still are going to exploit the law.

Tiger Direct exploited the law.

The person you quoted said this:

Quote: Originally Posted by snkTab

"I hope your not refering to the McDonalds case. Sure it's easy to think that if a lady spills hot coffee on her self its her fault. But that's not what the lawsuit was over. The lawsuit was over the fact that McDonalds served coffee at 185 degree average, while other places served coffee at 140 degrees"

Now let me requote it to you:

"Sure it's easy to think that if a lady spills hot coffee on her self its her fault."

It's not just easy - it's the facts. She spilled it on herself because she was DOING something that could be considered HAZARDOUS driving!!!


She shouldn't be drinking hot coffee while driving. She didn't spill it immediately at the drive through, she drove out of the parking lot, hit a bump and the coffee spilled on her cooter! Where was the cup holder? Why was she holding the coffee between her legs?

I believe the case also pointed out that McDonald's had done of survey and customers WANTED their coffee at the temperature it was served at in this case.

Your logic says, that if a person buys a pack of paper from Walmart, the pack is just slightly opened, and one sheet is slightly out of line with the rest and the buyer receives a papercut, that Walmart is liable for not monitoring their inventory.

It's frivolous lawsuits that raise our prices as consumers - it was estimated that average prices went up 1.2% after this case at McDonald's. Don't think that the Tiger Direct defense and the equally ridiculous Think Secret and Reseller lawsuits don't have an effect on Apple's prices!

People with understanding like the two of you make lawyers necessary - we hate you!


No comments: