The New York Times posted an article written by Hiroko Tabuchi called "IPad? That's So 2002, Fujitsu Says." Mr. Tabuchi talks about after the much anticipated release of Apple's IPad, the company may potentially be in a trademark dispute with Fujitsu, a Japan based company claiming the naming rights of “IPad” several years ago. The technology from Fujitsu, is a mobile, touchscreen device which allows shopping clerks to check prices, the status of current inventory information and closing sales. In addition, there are features similar to Apple's IPad such as wi-fi and telephone usage over the Internet.
However, Apple will have until next month before it decides to go against Fujitsu in the naming rights of "IPad." Basically, Apple would need to prove that their IPad won't be confused with Fujitsu's IPad. If so, they would have to get rid of the IPad name or have to "buy out the rights of the IPad name." It is said that other international companies used the same name for their own products, such as one Canadian lingerie company which markets ipadded bras.
So where does John Locke stand according to this article? I believe this argument can go both ways. According to Locke, his idea of Natural Law of Property is, "an individual owns their own body, we therefore own our own labor. Therefore whoever instills their labor into this property has rightful ownership." Since, Fujitsu claimed to have naming rights of the name "IPad" since 2003, it would make sense that they're are entitle to it. In this case, it goes to show that any corporation, such as Apple can just steal a registered trademark from another company and then buy out the rights of the name from them. But let's say, Apple actually didn't TRY to steal someone else's name, couldn't they have every right to claim it as their own "IPad" in Locke's perspective? Once again, Locke does say, "whoever instills their labor into this property has rightful ownership." Apple did not replicate the device Fujitsu has.They made their own unique computer-tablet with more unique and different features from that of Fujitsu's. Could this just be a way for Fujitsu to make some money off of this? It's just a thought. But if so, I think this raises another concern, which is anyone can just go about registering trademark names and then selling them to someone in order to make a profit.
If Fujitsu got a trademark on the name of the ipad, then apple would have no right to the name unless they paid fujitsu. It is Lockes belief that if somebody instills their labor into something, it is theirs. This japanese company instilled their mental labor into naming the ipad, therefore it belongs to them.
ReplyDelete