Pugwash Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 If this is true, then Apple has some explaining to do. Why would it repeatedly ask for permission to use something if it doesn't believe it needs permission? Because they were hoping to get it cheaper than the inevitable legal fees will now cost them and Cisco. I bet the negotiation went something like this: Apple: "Look, we can pay this much for it, and we'd rather you got it than our lawyers and your lawyers. Sure, you can sue us, and you might think you'll win. You won't, but ... like we say, we'd rather you got it than lawyers." Cisco "Sue? Ooh, we get to defend a tenuous trademark! Hee, hee! We'll sue, cos what you offered us isn't worth the jackpot we'll get if we win. Ha ha ha! My Brother is a lawyer and he needs a new Maserati." Basically, they're not suing, they're negotiating, in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoman Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 ok, First, let me say that my best grade in law school i got in Intellectual Property. Second, they are negotiating in court, but ALL matters are negotiated with the loom of court. third - its not just in the US, wherever Cisco sold this product their iphone, they had trademark rights. (under US law and would assume similiar in many countries) Registration of a trademark as in the US only provides the rebuttable presumption of trademark rights. i.e. it shifts the burden of proof the accuser that they had trademark rights before the registrant Fourth - Yes, Everystatement made by high level officials of public companies is cleared by company lawyers. I think this was a bold move to try to get the public on their side. Fifth - Dubius/ it doesn't apply to us because theirs is an IP phone and ours is a Cell phone is just Rediculous. - its like saying, i'm going to make a beverage and call it coke - but mine is different because its a juice and not a carbonated soda. Sixth - here is a great comment on the subject, - the term Iphone was trademarked in 1996 by a small company that was bought in 2000 by cisco (still before the ipod came out) and it appears cisco has been releasign products under this name for a long time. http://www.gizmag.com/go/6718/ it also appears that the hold up in the negotiations was apple not wanting to integrate ciscos iphone into appple products. This is the same sort of [censored] i don'[t give a [censored] move that Steve Jobs has pulled his whole career - he stole the mouse idea from zerox - and young apple was not Google to work at. - he has done some great things, but he is a real [censored] but - that is what it takes. If you wnat to be on top you have to stomp on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchpot Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Because they were hoping to get it cheaper than the inevitable legal fees will now cost them and Cisco. This argument makes no sense if you think Apple will win the court case. This is because a court makes an award for costs in favour of the winner. I still don't understand how a company with extensive resources would ask for permission to use something which it doesn't believe it needs permission to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 This is the same sort of [censored] i don'[t give a [censored] move that Steve Jobs has pulled his whole career - he stole the mouse idea from zerox No, he didn't. This is sheer fiction. Check your history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 This argument makes no sense if you think Apple will win the court case. This is because a court makes an award for costs in favour of the winner. I still don't understand how a company with extensive resources would ask for permission to use something which it doesn't believe it needs permission to use. We'll see. I still think Cisco are posturing. It's all a negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoman Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 No, he didn't. This is sheer fiction. Check your history. Dude, Zerox totally invented the mouse - did you notice in his presentation Apple was the first to "bring it to market" not Invent according to wikipedia Bill English invented the so-called ball mouse in 1972 while working for Xerox PARC[6]. The ball-mouse replaced the external wheels with a single ball that could rotate in any direction and came as part of the hardware package of the Xerox Alto computer. Perpendicular chopper wheels housed inside the mouse's body chopped beams of light on the way to light sensors, thus detecting in their turn the motion of the ball. This variant of the mouse resembled an inverted trackball and was the predominant form used with personal computers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Xerox PARC group also settled on the modern technique of using both hands to type on a full-size keyboard and grabbing the mouse as needed. Modern computer mice took form at the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) under the inspiration of Professor Jean-Daniel Nicoud and at the hands of engineer and watchmaker André Guignard.[7] This new design incorporated a single ball and two buttons and remained a common design until the mainstream adoption of the scroll-wheel mouse during the 1990s.[8] Honeywell produced another short-lived type of mechanical mouse. Instead of a ball, it had two plastic "feet" on the bottom which sensed movement. Another type of mechanical mouse is the trackball mouse, which operates like an inverted mouse. Users rotate a large ball in the mouse with their fingertips instead of moving the mouse itself. The trackball is usually located where a centre mouse button would be, with the buttons on either side. The first trackball mouse was invented in 1991 by Logitech, and was launched with the Apple Powerbook.[9] Trackballs required less wrist movement than traditional mice, and thus decrease the risk of strain injuries. The micro track mouse is a small handheld mouse that is marketed for for use with a laptop computer. I suppose Microsoft didn't steal the windows concept from Apple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoman Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ok let me throw this out there............... I can get the knock off, but not just another cheap [censored] knock off this was described to me as........wait for it.........Mirror image. This iphone will come with all the features of the gen and be totally identical to the original item and the best part is it will come with a 6 Month guarantee for any malfunction. If there is any interest in getting it now instead of 3,6 or even 12 Months (Australia) I will need to get twenty buyers and the phone will be between $300 and $320 delivered. Ken Ken i'd pay that in a heartbeat - in fact, i could probably sell 2 dozen of them to people here. But i really have a hard time believing its real. Are you solid on this guy? and or, can you get a sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Dude, Zerox totally invented the mouse - did you notice in his presentation Apple was the first to "bring it to market" not Invent Yes, it was invented at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre. This is basic computer history 101 stuff. The point you made was that Apple stole it: They didn't. Xerox sold them the concept in a complicated share trade thing. Xerox made about $18,000,000 from the deal, so if that's theft, place come round my house and burgle me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 My take on it is Apple lost patience trying to do a deal with Cisco, and took a '[censored] 'em' stance . Cisco are just posturing for the sake of it. Partly because they think there's a principle at stake 'how dare they' but also because they're probably jealous and want a slice of money pie. They owned this TM and didn't really leverage it (aside from using it on some of their quite frankly mediocre and obscure products). Apple however have come up with a product that in 24 hours the whole (technical, civilized) world is talking about. I mean surely they saw this coming? iMac since what '98? iPod since 2000, iLife, iWork....etc etc. Plus the iPhone has been rumoured for what must be at least 3 years at least?! I have no doubt Jobs is aggressive in these matters (look at the Apple record label suit - they backtracked on an agreement with the Beatles record label to never to enter the music industry...oops) and probably has an ego the size of a large planet, but as a company they are pushing the envelope much more than anything the 'evil empire' has ever/will ever come up with - you can only look on in admiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoman Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 My take on it is Apple lost patience trying to do a deal with Cisco, and took a '[censored] 'em' stance . Cisco are just posturing for the sake of it. Partly because they think there's a principle at stake 'how dare they' but also because they're probably jealous and want a slice of money pie. They owned this TM and didn't really leverage it (aside from using it on some of their quite frankly mediocre and obscure products). Apple however have come up with a product that in 24 hours the whole (technical, civilized) world is talking about. I mean surely they saw this coming? iMac since what '98? iPod since 2000, iLife, iWork....etc etc. Plus the iPhone has been rumoured for what must be at least 3 years at least?! I have no doubt Jobs is aggressive in these matters (look at the Apple record label suit - they backtracked on an agreement with the Beatles record label to never to enter the music industry...oops) and probably has an ego the size of a large planet, but as a company they are pushing the envelope much more than anything the 'evil empire' has ever/will ever come up with - you can only look on in admiration. Cmon - do you think that I should be able to use the term New Coke, just cause the drink sucked? - what does it matter if their prodcuts were mediocre - they had the rights to the name before anyone concieved an ipod or the new iLifestyle. and they have been using it ever since Lets do the typical moral dillema turn around change the players to microsoft and mozilla. - Microsoft came in with this new technology - a web browser - THey are calling it Firefox but- Mozilla has a web browser called firefox, but its a crappy browser anyway and microsoft rocked the world with their announcment I think that mozilla is just posturing and wants a piece of microsofts action. They are both phones they have the same name one company has been using it since 1996 the other said - screw you exlax its ours now - what are you gonna do huh? go cry to your mommy? - PUgs - ok, ok ok, Steve jobs is only an ass and not a criminal - it is well established that he was an ass right? isn't that why he got kicked out in the first place. not that there is anything wrong with asses - it takes alot of asses running over people to do great things in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 PUgs - ok, ok ok, Steve jobs is only an ass and not a criminal - it is well established that he was an ass right? isn't that why he got kicked out in the first place. Sure, he's not a thief. He's smart and not a nice person to work for, but he's not stupid or criminal - he doesn't need to be. Seeing as branding him and the company Apple thieves (as opposed to the pirates they saw themselves as) was part of your argument, it makes the rest of it look as equally badly researched. I don't think the iPhone vs Iphone case is over by a long shot, but it's definitely not as cut-and-dried as it at first appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollux1 Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I wonder how many of the i-phone's features will be network dependent? The new Nokia n73 x series (3 uk ) is pretty much jam packed with features, including it's own browser which actually works surprisingly well, and they're about to release the SE w950i with, wait for it.... 4gb internal memory and a touch screen http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/mobiles/w950i/index.omp Project x from 3 uk also comes with free skype calls worldwide, free yahoo and msn messenger and a whole host of other things, including slingbox if someone needs it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchpot Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 I noticed that Jobs conveniently did not include SonyEricsson's P990 series of phones among the iPhone's smartphone competitors. If he had, then his team would have to rewrite some of the key arguments (because, for example, the P990 can be used without its detachable qwerty keypad, and many commercial applications can be installed on it, e.g. Opera webbrowser, TomTom GPS sofware etc). That said, the iPhone is very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craytonic Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ken, Any updates on that i-phone? You might start a separate thread just on that, this one is looks like it is turning into a beast of a different head. Cray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoman Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Sure, he's not a thief. He's smart and not a nice person to work for, but he's not stupid or criminal - he doesn't need to be. Seeing as branding him and the company Apple thieves (as opposed to the pirates they saw themselves as) was part of your argument, it makes the rest of it look as equally badly researched. I don't think the iPhone vs Iphone case is over by a long shot, but it's definitely not as cut-and-dried as it at first appears. yeah yeah - most of it comes from the movie - the pirates of silicon valley - i highly recomend it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/ from wikipedia * Steve Wozniak, on his personal website, woz.org [2] has commented on the film through a series of replies to emails from fans [3]. On the issue of accuracy, Wozniak states: The personalities and incidents are accurate in the sense that they all occurred but they are often with the wrong parties (Bill Fernandez, Apple employee #4, was with me and the computer that burned up in 1970) and at the wrong dates (when John Sculley joined, he had to redirect attention from the Apple III, not the Mac, to the Apple II ) and places (Homebrew Computer Club was at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) ... the personalities were very accurately portrayed [4]. iphone is cut and dry - its ciscos, what is not clear is the negotiation and what will end up happening. but, there is no reasonable argument that can be made to say that apple has any rights to the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ken, Any updates on that i-phone? You might start a separate thread just on that, this one is looks like it is turning into a beast of a different head. Cray Cray I think I will do that but not just yet as I am waiting for a report from the technical guy I have asked to look this phone over, also it's not 100% that these guy's are in fact going to sell it to me (big risk) and finally the price is not yet set in stone. Basically I am just getting the feelers out there to judge the reaction because if it does go ahead I need at least 20 buyers. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Steve Jobs said they want 1% Marketshare by the end of 2007 and then he said "which is about 10 Million units". If you dont believe me, watch the Keynote, I just watched it Ok, your turn to give me a watch. He said 1% (10 million) in 2008. I think I've told you before that if you're going to be pedantic, you have to at least be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I will admit that I haven't read every word of every post on this thread, but my overall reaction is that a lot of you are drinking serious Apple kool aid. This phone offers some significant advances in UI, but will also have serious limitations as a phone and as an MP3 player. Many people will buy it for the "cool" factor, but people who need superior performance in any one of its primary functions will probably pass it by. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they introduced their iphone because it will force other phone-mp3 manufacturers, cell providers, and Microsoft to expand their thinking and accelerate the pace of innovation. Aside from the phone, for me it is actually more significant that Apple changed its name by dropping the "Computer." My guess is that they think they can do better by competing against the Motorolas, Samsungs, Creatives, and Sonys than simply taking on MS, Dell, IBM, etc. In the end, they cannot continue to expand their profitability in the computer arena as much as they can by sprinkling their "fairy dust" on other sectors of the market. And only if they can follow through in other segments of the electronics market will they become more than a trendy boutique-class manufacturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I will admit that I haven't read every word of every post on this thread, but my overall reaction is that a lot of you are drinking serious Apple kool aid. This phone offers some significant advances in UI, but will also have serious limitations as a phone and as an MP3 player. Many people will buy it for the "cool" factor, but people who need superior performance in any one of its primary functions will probably pass it by. ... and I disagree, along with most of the tech world. Like we've said, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slay Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 *THUNK* You know what that noise was? It was you missing the point by a country mile. I say it again, the iPhone DOES NOT REPLACE A GOOD BLACKBERRY ORGANZIER. Period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I say it again, the iPhone DOES NOT REPLACE A GOOD BLACKBERRY ORGANZIER. Period That's nice. I have a Blackberry Pearl and would love to replace it with an iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slay Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 They don't have the rights to use the term iPhone? This is not true, yet. If Cisco wins the court case, then it'll be true. However, I bet you one of two things will happen. Cisco loses the case or it's settled out of court quickly and quietly. ps. Cisco only holds the trademark in the US. pps. Here's Apple's stance on the whole thing: Apple spokesman Alan Hely said "We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," and that Cisco's trademark registration was "tenuous at best". "We are the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cell phone, and if Cisco wants to challenge us on it we are very confident we will prevail. Yes, I'm a Wikipediant. So? I could be the first one to sell dildos called iMac's, I'd still get sued by apple! The iPhone trademark was requested LONG before apple startet putting an "i" infront of their computer names, and the first iPhone was relelased about a year before the first apple computer with an "i" infront of it (iMac). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slay Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 That's nice. I have a Blackberry Pearl and would love to replace it with an iPhone. you are not a real business man who needs his blackberry...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 you are not a real business man who needs his blackberry...! I didn't realise you need a lot of MS Exchange Enterprise features to work behind a bar. (I, however, spend a lot of time in bars and run a MS Exchange Enterprise server or three) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Ok guy's knock it off lets keep this as an intellectual discussion please! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now