Another day, another lawsuit for Apple. This time Jobs & Company are being taken to task for naming the iPhone's new mobile-advertising platform "iAds" when that service mark is already owned by a Southern California media company. Online ad firm Innovate Media Group of Costa Mesa, California, has filed suit in the US District …
One has to wonder how much trouble and bad media Apple could avoid if they would just respond to letters or eamails such as those in this lawsuit. It would probalby cost them far less to be open and negotiate some sort of licenseing agreement in stead of going through the courts, paying unknown legal fees and ultimately losing and having to pay damages as well as licensing fees. But then again, their coffers are full of cash from all their mindless minions who rush out to buy the latest shiny toy offered by the puppet masters of Cupertino.
As a wise man once said:
"Change your app's name. Not that big of a deal."
I think someone should trademark...
Apple cult leader emailed by outside world
Change your platforms name. Not that big of a deal.
Sent from my iPhone^wAttorney
Er.. Isn't there an even larger company that has been using "ios" as an "operating system" for decades now? Is Apple 'ard enough to take on Cisco. Could be interesting.
Apple licensed the iOS name from Cisco. So I doubt you will find that particularly interesting.
poster prolly wont read this either
since he didn't read the article and read the bit about Apple having already negotiated the rights from Cisco on using the iOS name.
Apple is worse than...
People say that Microsoft is the nazi outfit, the big steamroller (I like to dub them the big gay steamroller due to their multicolored emblem, much like the gay pride rainbow), but apple is far worse than microsoft ever dreamed of. If bill and steve went to the same evil dictator school, bill must have dropped out his junior year where steve graduated valedictorian of his class.
Just to clarify, i dont own nor will i ever own an apple product*, period, and I openly taunt the people i know who do own apple products.
* I was given an ipod once by a customer of mine who received it as a gift and didnt want to insult the generosity of the gift giver by refusing it, i in turn gave it to the daughter of a business associate that i find really annoying (the associate not the daughter) as a gift. He expresses his dismay to me regularly, complaining about the downstream cost of my "gift" and about the restrictive nature of the device and its software. go figure...
Oh come on...
Yes iTunes is required(ish) to load the device but beyond that there is no tie to Apple or the iTunes store. Get a life. And some perspective.
Do come on
It is the guy who it gave it to that is complaining, not the poster. Learn how to read.
... this: "Just to clarify, i dont own nor will i ever own an apple product, period, and I openly taunt the people i know who do own apple products" just goes to show what an open mind you have, not to mention a gifted one, judging by your command of the language.
Here, I've fixed it for you:
"Just to clarify, I don't own nor will I ever own an Apple product, menstruation, and I openly taunt the people I know who do own Apple products."
It's a little confusing, but I've had to interpret a bit as you couldn't want to put a comma after a word meaning 'full stop', could you?
Personally, I do own some Apple products and some Windows products, I may or may not own more or less of either in the future (depending on how much I like them), and don't taunt anyone on the basis of their choice of technology, because I'm not a tit.
video flash overlay technology ?
If it has "Flash" in its title, then it must be ignored, right ?
Job's products - They are all just the progeny of iCrap
I feel the title says it all.
Apple should buy they, pay off all of their contract's penalty clauses and shutter their operations.
That would make the lawsuit's title iFuckedMyself.
Yes, so hard.
Not really. He's have been bought out, probably for an amount that's well above valuation, and would either be looking forwards to starting a new company with a nice amount in the bank, or being paid by Apple to integrate their advertising department/Quattro Mobile.
Handing over piles more cash than licensing the name costs would sure show them who's boss!
Three Strikes and You're Out
With Apple's "blatant and willful infringment"s occuring regularly there should be some kind of a "3 strikes and you're out" policy - so they are no longer allowed to file for new service marks. That would sort them out once and for all ...
Or maybe it nulls and voids all of their existing service marks, so others can use them willy-nilly - they obviously have no respect for the rules so that should work both ways.
"Apple licensed the iOS name from Cisco"
So Apple DOES check up on and licence names it uses.
But only if they are already owned by a globally reconised large name.
If you're small/unknown your names will be stolen.
Anyone know copyright law?
Just curious - is this a strategy that they get the product released with the infringing name, gain awareness in the market so everyone knows the product name actually is more aligned with Apple's product, so then Apple has better standing in a suit. They can claim, more people know of our product with this name than yours? Could it be something like that? Just curious. Seems like a strategy they might employ.
It's beena a while since Law School, but here goes. In Copyright cases (usually international ones) if 2 brands have the same name and both are pretty well known, then what usually happens is neither party can licence the name but both can keep using it (Budweiser is a good example of this).
However, if a brand name is more likely to be associated with a particular company, such that you hear that brand name you automatically think of that company, they usually win the day (unless it's a word in common usage). Apple will argue (almost certainly successfully, debate the rights and wrongs of that elsewhere) that having a small "i" in front of any random word is enough to automatically associate with apple, and the addition of the "i" means it's not a "word in everyday usage", meaning apple could in theory copyright every word in the English language, as long as it had an "i" in front of it
So in answer to your original question, yes. They probably are doing this just to create more brand recognition so that when the inevitable court case starts they've already created enough that the judge rules that iAd's is automatically associated with apple, even if it was all through apple's doing.
i iFor iOne iWelcome iOur iNew iFacist iCorporate iOverlords
(all the above Copyright 2010, to me)
not the best example
because the Budweiser trademark IS licenced, but to different companies depends on what country you're in. In North and South America and most of Asia it belongs to Anheuser-Busch, In most of Europe it belongs to Budejovicky Budvar. In both cases the other company is not allowed to use the name Budweiser.
As you said, in the UK it's a little different, both companies can use it.
Pint of the Czech one, for obvious tasy reasons
iSticking an "i" iBefore an iWord.
Not *very* iNtellectual, that iProperty.
..Apple and Steve are GOD, so they can do as they please.............
iAds, Aids ... typo?
Is apple doing anything wrong
The patents talk about add on websites, and adds using flash. Seeing as iAd's doesn't do any of the above, then they're not infringing on the patents?
What makes you think iAds are not Flash ?
Just because it doesn't say "flash" on the outside ?
You meant 'moniker', Shirley?