The mind boggles ...
In addition to ignoring support for Adobe Flash, multitasking, and a few other niceties in its new iPad, Apple seems to have ignored one other important detail: it doesn't own the name "iPad." Fujitsu says it does. "It's our understanding that the name is ours," Fujitsu's PR director Masahiro Yamane told The New York Times on …
It's a PC, it's not a device in-between a smartphone and a computer, it is a computer in tablet form.
Complex, slow to start up and a UI designed for a mouse and keyboard.
I've seen a Windows tablet PC at a customer's site, he was trying to take notes with it, but had to restart it. Hardly convenient when everyone is waiting to begin the meeting.
Is PoS equipment the same sector as consumer electronics? IIRC, for a Trademark to be violated, the use has to cause confusion. As much as I am loathe to stick up for Apple, this time I would suggest that they're not the same markets.
As usual, the only people who will get rich from this are the land sharks.
.. also the device. I just read some article in a newspaper that there have been a few iPad-alike devices already on sale in Asia - for years. Of course, they don't have the "blessing of God(tm)" and will probably look less fancy, but the iPad is to me not as revolutionary as the iPhone.
That's not to say I can't see a use for it (reference document storage, or even presentation device), but it's not a game changer like the iPhone was.
Perhaps Apple should give up trying to own all the words that begin with i, or making up new ones by adding an i on the front. (WTF does the i stand for anyway?)
Apple's marketting department need to do some work and actually think of some new product names, rather than just stick to the one they came up with eons ago...
Well, Apple started this "i" craze (iMac, iBook, iPod,etc) then a load of less imaginative marketing people at other companies started trying to associate themselves with Apple's success by using the same naming approach.
Agreed that Apple shouldn't own all words starting with "i", but I do have sympathy for them (and easyJet as another example) in this sort of position.
Can't find the canadian coconut grove bras? I searched..it wasn't easy, but I found: http://www.aboutus.org/CoconutGroveIntimates.com which seems to host the site (or did before it was abandoned), but they do have an image of one of the websites pages and you can see some bras in the image. In case even aboutus.org stops showing the image, perhaps http://imagebin.ca/view/AgMsQQ.html will preserve a bit longer.
First there was the iPod - total ripoff of Creative Labs MP3 player and in fact Apple have to pay Creative a royalty for every single iPod ever manufactured. Not sold, manufactured. Its somewhere around $10USD for each iPod if memory serves.
Then there's the iPhone - litigation ongoing with Nokia which Apple will lose badly.
IPad - not their trademark. Also as there's little difference between that and the IPhone regarding the Nokia patents then expect that to be included in the legal case very soon.
Seems to me that all Apple are good at is ripping off other companies patents/trademarks and sticking them in a pretty white shell. Even the OS kernel is a rip of other people's work.
"The iPAD™ is a true kitset [dwelling] designed to covers a range of options; it could be a one bedroom holiday home, secondary dwelling, granny flat, office, studio or resort unit to name but a few. ..."
Looks like it's actually a registered trademark, too
It is a wonder that Apple didn't make a trademark search before choosing the name. Or maybe they did and decided that the publicity gained from a trademark battle would be more free advertisement? They certainly got a lot of that in the last few days.
In any case, Apple could just use "iBook". They already own the trademark for that, and it would be a logical name for a device that can function as an e-book reader. That would also save them all the jokes about shoulder pads, trouser pads and so on.
Since when has a trademark mattered to them except when someone else is infringing on one of theirs? Let's not forget that even the name Apple has gotten them in a lot of legal hotwater with Apple Records (The Beatles label) especially after they started their foray into online music downloads.
"Like the Apple iPad, the Fujitsu iPad (PDF) - which has been around since 2002 - is a mobile device with a touchscreen display. Fujisu's model, however, is part of that company's point-of-sale retail offerings."
They are also the POS handheld devices that are used by Apple at their Regent Street store..
Trademark disputes are just a way of lawyers making money. Even if you've registered a trade mark that means nothing in law if somebody used it before you. So the arguments rumble on and on and the lawyers fees stack up.
Think about all those unforceable enforcement notices BMW sent out regarding the name MINI.
I guess Apple and Microsoft just figure that they have more lawyers than anyone else so trademarks are simply something they can buy from other companies. And I suppose that is true.
Microsoft paid Lindows about $30 million in order to get Lindows to change the name of their product. But, Microsoft brought the law suit. Rare it is when the company that brings the law suit pays the defendant $30 large in order to let them drop it.
Of course the so called windows trademark was on the verge of being disquailified. And Microsoft lawyers knew that.
So if you want to raise $30 million or so, fire up a version of Linux and call it Windows. It worked once. And it will work again and again. Vista was little more than an attempt to avoid sticking with the fake windows trademark. And MS blew that using a horrible product. Just think of the damage that could have been down if they called it Windows 6.
The best trademarks are those words coined to be unique. Unless you really want to pay someone else a pile of money to get theirs. But, in the case of windows, that still does not work. I would love to see SUSE Windows or Ubuntu Windows. Microsoft would just have to pay millions to make it go away. And it is not even a valid trademark.
There's something very wrong with the concept of an interactive padded bra;
ie: the prduct (the rack) is being advertised as something it is not.
Is not a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act?
or just sheer bloody-minded fraud?
Either way, its just not cricket.
"Biphasic defibirllation design..."
Would you buy emergency lifesaving equipment from a company that can't be bothered to spell defibrillation correctly?
And would you trust them that it had a "Saef and relaible design...", and have any confidence that when the terrible moment came it would fire up and save the day?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021