

Apple Says That You Can't Give Away A 'Free' iPad Or iPhone In A Contest - vabole
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110602/03515714519/apple-says-that-you-cant-give-away-free-ipad-iphone-contest.shtml

======
Retric
Sorry, but no.

If you buy an iPad etc at full price at store then you can do whatever you
want. However, Apple has a discount on promotions and if you want that
discount you need to sign a contract that specifies what constitutes a
promotion. (AKA they only give the discount if it's useful promotion of their
brand.)

~~~
delinka
Doing that is senseless. Does it really matter _what_ I do with it after I buy
it? Why does it matter if I bought it as a reseller or not? Is it just a money
grab? If I'm not going to take the thin retail margin, Apple wants to keep it
for themselves.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing the policy. I just don't get it.

~~~
Retric
It's the same basic concept as product placement in movies. The whole point of
the program is advertizing. So, if you place the product in a negative light
then the whole idea is wasted. (AKA, coke is not going to pay for a spot where
someone says this soda is terrible bring me a Pepsi, even if the coke get's
airtime and people see the bottle etc.)

PS: I don't know the details but the discount could easily drop the price well
below apples production costs. And apparently you also get the right to use
some of their IP (advertizing copy etc?).

------
trotsky
I was thinking something snarky about how unenforceable this might be, but
then I considered the document:

 _official "Guidelines for Third Party Promotions,"_

It seems unlikely that the word choice of "guidelines" and not something like
"terms" is accidental. I couldn't find a particularly appropriate dictionary
definition, but wikipedia says "By definition, following a guideline is never
mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure)" which
more or less fits with my understanding.

Indeed, in the document it says:

 _Strict adherence is essential because you and/or your company may be held
responsible if your use of Apple products for promotional purposes do not
conform with the following guidelines. In any event, we reserve the right to
revoke our consent to your use of Apple products in your promotion at any time
and for any reason._

Which makes the whole thing sound like it only applies to situations where
Apple was giving their consent in the first place.

------
jlind
I have a friend who recently tried to purchase an iPad for a contest her work
was going to put on during an event this summer. Apparently the Apple store
rep had to deny the sale, giving pretty much the same reasons in this article.
She pushed back a bit and pretty much found out that if they really wanted to
get an iPad, it would still be possible; it basically ended up being a "just
don't mention what you're using it for" and they couldn't really block the
purchase.

------
hboon
I can only find relevant documents for Australia[1] and Canada[2] on Apple's
site. There are interesting differences:

Canada

* You can't give out free iPad.

* Creative review is required - "Apple Canada requests that you forward an electronic layout of your final artwork for review and comment before you proceed with your promotional campaign."

* No mentioned of approved imagery.

* Required disclaimer - "Apple is not a sponsor of, nor a participant in this promotion."

Australia

* You can't give out free iPad and iPhone.

* No mention of creative review.

* Approved imagery provided.

* Required disclaimer - "Apple is not a participant in or sponsor of this promotion."

I wonder why these only exist for these countries and why they are different.

[1] <http://www.apple.com/au/promotions/>

[2] <http://www.apple.com/ca/go/promotionuse/>

------
GHFigs
The PDF that seems to be the source of this story doesn't appear to be on
Apple's site, nor does it seem to be complete (it references "this Agreement"
but bears no such title). I'm not really seeing the story here. It sounds more
like something taken out of context and twisted into a scandal. (Oh wait, _I'm
on the Internet_.)

------
cleverjake
Not to come off as a fanboy, but im guessing this is largely so they can more
easily litigate the free iDevice scam sites.

------
skimbrel
As much as Apple is prone to doing silly legal maneuvers, I really can't see
this as anything other than massively out of context.

I can't find the original document that Techdirt is claiming to quote.

I would not be surprised if this is from an agreement between Apple and a
retail partner, e.g. Best Buy. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple wanted to
discourage Best Buy from offering up a free iPad with purchase of your new
Shiny Gadget of the Week. In that context, this seems entirely reasonable.
It's Apple's product, and they can tell third-party retailers of it how to
sell it.

------
nerd_in_rage
Actually, they don't say that. They just say it can't be marked free in a
PROMINENT manner.

------
RyanKearney
More importantly, since when does Apple have governing authority over the use
of Myriad type font?

> You may NOT use the Myriad Set font on or in connection with web sites,
> products, packaging, manuals, or promotional/advertising materials.

What did they patent the use of a font in a specific way or something?

~~~
bstx
"Myriad _Set_" is a proprietary Apple font.

~~~
RyanKearney
Ah, I didn't realize Set was part of the font name. My mistake. Still seems a
bit ridiculous though.

------
delinka
Can't use Apple's trademarks for a giveaway promotion? OK, I see the legal
basis there. "We have iPads. And we're giving them away for free." Looks like
that avoids their concerns.

I don't get the point behind this move by Apple. First-sale doctrine. That is
all.

