What is Digg?59 Comments
- zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56Not to mention the Apple name itself.
- Suits, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Apple battled Kraft to the death for Mac, leaving that cheese dinosaur to die.
- Geckomind, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25"Anti-Mac sentiment around here"
Where do you live? This is Digg - No. 1 hiding place of Apple fanboys on the planet! - Lownin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Except that so far, for better or for worse, it's worked for him.
- brickguy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Steve Jobs is bigger than Chuck Norris. Steve Jobs can do anything.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+28I don't think Steve Jobs gets it that you can't just violate other company's trademarks.
- brickguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12... anything.
- catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15yeah... false analogies here... Apple was a record company, not a computer company.
Back then, there was no forsight that there would be conflict in product (and even today, its questionable... Apple Inc. will serve only to make Apple Corp. richer by selling the products of its chief and only profitable division, Apple Records, for them). McIntosh Labs makes audio equipment... again, no real conflict in products. And did you notice? The words are spelled differently.
Both iPhones are, you guessed it, PHONES.Two very similar products, same name, big conflict. But for all those Cisco fans, its really hard to deny that Cisco is merely trying to hang on to the name NOT because they've spent years creating a brand, but because Apple did just that for them, so they hope to cash in on the "i" thing that Apple has spent years bringing to the market in several products (iMac, iPod, iSight, iLife, etc). Cisco's motivations are incredibly transparent: cash in on someone elses hard work. A more valid analogy on what's occuring between Cisco & Apple would be kind of like the guy who changed his name to Andy Griffith just to win a Sherriff's election (he lost). Shame on you Cisco... I really used to respect you. Now... you're like Oracle to me, a body without a head. - Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16At least his products are better than the one's whos trademark he is stealing....
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5totally different market. No confusion. You never say i'm going to go to macys and pick up some mac lipgloss and somebody is like, hey, is that core 2 duo?
- adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3yes, but I believe Raskin lost control of the project to Steve before it was released.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I concur, Jobs is a *****.
- cakulbet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Yes but the company that owned Mac is not as prominent as Cisco. Stick to your guns Cisco!
- mattcampbell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6and they go bitc*** about companies using ipodder
tsk..tsk
Well, My mom always told me...
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The point is, if they want to use the iPhone name, they're not going to get it for free.
That means they lose. - chillis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3According to the Trademark Electronic Search System, the trademark for the iphone was filed in March 1996, and has Cisco as the current owner. Isn't that 5 years before the ipod was released?
Correct me if I am reading this wrong.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=fbcbee.2.14 - davehendrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually this is a good analogy, because legal confrontation for the "Apple" name resurfaced as Apple moved into the music business with iTunes. Apple Corps, the record company, .holds the rights to the Beatles collection, and has so far refused to sell Beatles' songs on iTunes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Except that Apple never referred to the Macintosh as the "Mac" in 1984. Took them a couple of years to get on that.
That being said, stop trying to make excuses for what Apple is doing. Regardless of whether or not you think Cisco is guilty of "trademark squatting," Apple is trying to hijack their trademark, plain and simple. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nothing says you can't have the same name as long as there is no product confusion.
"...situations do arise where two separate owners may have legitimate claims to the same trademark. This is actually quite common and is in line with trademark law, as long as customers do not get confused. A common example is companies working in separate industries, as they can use similar trademarks for completely separate things (a 'leaf' on a computer monitor and a the same 'leaf' on construction equipment)."
http://cnx.org/content/m13020/latest/ - fuxjoey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thats because he believed the true value of the name is way much better than 2m settlement fee.
- firemillen2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Steve thinks he's above the law. SEC's investigation of the options scandal will prove that.
- beatlenuttt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1APPLE CORP had several companies. Record and Films made money, Clothing/stores and Electronic lost money. The 'Hunter Davis bio of The Beatles stated that the Electronic division was to develope audio equipment and computers. The Beatles lost faith in the person that ran it and kicked him out. The guy and Steve Jobs look like they're related, lol.
- EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the Newton.
-Pie - Suits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1crap.
- doank, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Gates stole ideas, Jobs stole trademarks.
- wintermute0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Those companies are in the same industry and thus violating Apples trademark."
That was the ironic point.
Mac sends a cease&desist order for someone using a similar name, then decides that launching a product with an identical name to a competitors (albeit trademark squatting) device will be a great idea. - seabreezemm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It seems that Steve Jobs has learned a few things from M$ after all...now they both think they can do whatever the heck they want when it comes to ethics... Stealing is wrong..wake up Steve.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...situations do arise where two separate owners may have legitimate claims to the same trademark. This is actually quite common and is in line with trademark law, as long as customers do not get confused. A common example is companies working in separate industries, as they can use similar trademarks for completely separate things (a 'leaf' on a computer monitor and a the same 'leaf' on construction equipment)."
http://cnx.org/content/m13020/latest/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i heard he was eating a big mac and the special sauce dripped on the wrapper covering the word big. then he had a vision, took another bite of his big mac and said ahhh i will just steal it from someone. burp
- minsucks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Chuck Norris rules with the kind of iron fist that steve jobs wishes he could beat gates with ;)
And to make a serious point this was all documented in the Steve Jobs biography which has been in most large bookstores for years. McIntosh (the correct spelling, Rankin just couldn't spell hence the Macintosh) couldn't compete with Apples legal muscle and also were probably aware that if Steve Jobs could launch the personal computer he could probably do quite well in front of any trademark court.
Digg (independent, innovative and creative) -> Large Apple ratio. Tells you something. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Reposted here for Gardnmi's benefit.
"...situations do arise where two separate owners may have legitimate claims to the same trademark. This is actually quite common and is in line with trademark law, as long as customers do not get confused. A common example is companies working in separate industries, as they can use similar trademarks for completely separate things (a 'leaf' on a computer monitor and a the same 'leaf' on construction equipment)."
http://cnx.org/content/m13020/latest/ - surfing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://tess2.uspto.gov/ImageAgent/ImageAgentProxy?getImage=78685897
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Except that the iPhone trademark that Cisco does not mention or cover mobile or land phones. Many people seem to think that once your register a trademark, no other company, especially one in a totally unrelated field, can use that trademark. You have to register the trademark for general or specific wares or services.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2imagine if MACS hadnt taken the settlement and went ahead and won the court battle. We'd all be playing around on our 128k's or whatever crappy number they wanted to call it now and MACS would be a non exsistent company by now
- srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6He is going to lose or pay a buttload of money for it.
Steve Jobs is NOT God. - Kragnerac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hi, I'm an Al. And I'm a PC.
- kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Jobs is a *****.
- dimitrisokolov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2
Apple is stupid for calling it iPhone. They will never get to use that name. Just call it Apple Phone and be done with it. - srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Steve prevailed, but it ultimately cost us nearly $2 million in out-of-court settlements."
This one gonna cost a LOT more than $2 million. If I was Cisco, I'd say Billion. - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1How about Mac the makeup?
- brickguy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Call it the iKickass after Chuck Norris.
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5digg has a lot of pro linux super gnu kids too.
that can't support anything with a price
you know, any life sustaining work.
but I would have to agree it has a much larger mac base than most sites. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Those companies are in the same industry and thus violating Apples trademark.
- broeks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"Jef Raskin, a computer scientist, is credited with naming the Apple Macintosh, a computer system, after the fruit, adopting a very common misspelling often seen in grocery stores. It is possible that this spelling was used to avoid confusion with the high end audio manufacturer McIntosh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntosh - mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2i'm going to agree with you only because 'iPhone' is a stupid name. iTalk sounds cooler. Or just drop the whole 'i' thing and leave it only for iMacs and Pods.
- mulletman1234, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Jobs had nothing to do with creating the mac, he was kept in the dark about the project. His pet project was the failed Lisa system.
- brickguy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Both stole everything.
- TheSaladMan, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11Think the iPhone proves that.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is