Sorry, but I really can’t let this one go. And unlike the usual articles where the nature of the intellectual property is unclear, or if the writer uses “patent” when he\/she actually meant “trademark,” this one is even worse.<\/p>\n
The article in question<\/a> is entitled “Apple Accused of Patent Infringement.” Unfortunately, it’s about the Proview trademark dispute. The thing is, I wouldn’t have been surprised if that headline was simply attached to an article about trademark or copyright. That kind of thing happens all the time — the journalist understood the issue and explained it properly, but the doofus editor who came up with the headline not only didn’t bother to read the actual article, but never bothered to check if the IP reference in the headline was even relevant.<\/p>\n But that’s relatively excusable compared to what we’ve got here. Both the editor and the journalist who wrote the article should be flogged 50 times with a wet noodle for this lede:<\/p>\n A Shenzhen-based enterprise has accused technology giant Apple of patent<\/strong> infringement on the iPad \u2013 a trademark<\/strong> both companies claim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the same sentence! Seriously, how does that happen? And you can’t explain it with the usual not-familiar-with-English excuse, unless the person thought that “patent” and “trademark” are synonyms, which is hard to believe. To screw up like that, you almost had to mean it.<\/p>\n Glad to get that off my chest.<\/p>\n \u00a9 Stan for China Hearsay<\/a>, 2012. |\nPermalink<\/a> |\nNo comment<\/a> |\nAdd to\ndel.icio.us<\/a>\n Sorry, but I really can't let this one go. And unlike the usual articles where the nature of the intellectual property is unclear, or if the writer uses \"patent\" when he\/she actually meant \"trademark,\" this one is even worse. The article in question is entitled \"Apple Accused of Patent Infringement.\" Unfortunately, it's about the Proview […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[225,194],"tags":[3542],"class_list":["post-18739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-news-chinese-law","tag-short-takes"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18739","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n