Slashdot Mirror
Cobalt Networks Could Sue Apple Over Cube Design
mcwop writes "\
Looks like Cobalt Networks is suing Apple over their cube, according to ZDNet UK This is interesting because Cobalt Networks settled a lawsuit over their cube with Cube Computer Corp back in January. While they are both cubes one is specifically a server though the other could be used/marketed as one in the future. Technology and lawsuits seem to go hand in hand these days.
" Basically, Cobalt has alleged that Apple has infringed on their trademarks. Oh, BTW, I've patented the shape "block". I'm going to be suing for past due royalties from humanity. My ownership of the block means that unlicensed use - like buildings are money to be made! Why didn't I think of this earlier?!
I really hope Cobalt doesn't win (actually, I hope it doesn't even get to trial), but I'm glad they're filing the suit. If only to demonstrate to Apple how stupid the idea is.
Do you see DaimlerChrysler suing Ford for stealing styling ideas on pickup trucks? Or Kenworth, International, et. al. suing DaimlerChrysler for borrowing styling from big rig trucks? Actually, the auto industry in general - there's a LOT of "stealing" of features and styling cues. But no one suing. Because that industry has matured past that point.
I think that's what's causing all these lawsuits - the immaturity (I don't mean "childish") of this new consumer industry. It will pass once it's demonstrated how foolish these lawsuits really are.
Here's a cube computer that predates NeXT. The Thinking Machines CM2 is from 1986. Want to see a picture?
That is the most disgusting, vile thing I have ever seen.
--
_|_
The above is not worth reading.
I thought the same thing. Especially since Apple is well known for sueing the shit out of everybody. Remember the GUI patent wars with MS or the lawsuits against all the iMac look-a-likes?
-- bmp System Support - Vienna, Austria
MS... lambasts? NDA? I don't remember it that way at all; can you give more details?
The way I remember it: Apple and MS use PARC ideas. Apple gets a nice head start by designing new hardware. MS agrees to port Word and Excel to the Mac, as long as Apple agrees never to sue over Windows. Nearly all business Mac users buy both Excel and Word, and MS makes piles of money on the Mac. When Windows begins to look less like a joke, Apple sues MS over Windows.
(Cute lawyer tricks department: Apple lawyers take HP New Wave, based on Windows, and change all the desktop settings to look more like a Mac; then they create screenshots showing how much Windows and New Wave resemble the Mac.)
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Oops. I suppose this means NeXT abandoned their TM when they stopped making Cubes? Either way, the prior art still exists as physical evidence.
Lowmag.net
The interface [which seems to count for everything in the world of Apple] is completely different.
* A G4 Cube is a fully functional computer, with all the flexibility / difficulty that that entails. The Qube is a more simplistic way of operating a server, where its very easy to perform a small specific set of functions.
* The Cube is designed to have a monitor plugged into it, the Qube is administered primarily through a web based system, and occasioanlly through some buttons and a backlit screen on the unit.
Not quite the same thing.
1) Apple spent a lot of money marketing their imac and eMachines tried to leech of of it.
2) Cobalt is a virtually unknown company who probably spent less money on marketing their cube since it started selling than Apple spent attending Macworld to annouce their cube.
3) Cobalt is making a publicity stunt to leech of the already bigger mindshare of the G4 Cube.
4) Apple Entreprise (NeXT), made the NeXT Cube in 1989.
As far as I know, a company CANNOT allow their trademarks/logos to be used without permission otherwise they lose the trademark.
The whole emachines debacle happened because emachines INTENTIONALLY tried to confuse customers with an extremely similar looking machine. That sort of thing is generally frowned upon by the courts, whether or not the plaintiff is Apple.
Hate apple all you want, but at least get the facts straight.
I've never even heard of Cube Computer so I have no idea how long they've been around, but I was using '030 NeXTcubes as far back as 1990 (first one was, IIRC, mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu...unlimited time on the system was a wonderful thing to have when the main public-access system there (uxa?) limited you to seven hours a week). I have a hunch that that predates Cube Computer by some amount. It also predates Cobalt, and since Apple bought NeXT, Apple ought to tell Cobalt what it can go do with itself.
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Cube computers aren't as rare as Cobalt (or Apple) would have us believe.
m (tenth picture, the box in the center, and I have the monitor on the right)
Everex had their StepCube systems out in the early '90s. Spectacular boxes, those were. Tried looking for some info about them and couldn't find squat. Pity, it's my favorite case design so far.
Then there's the Intergraph InterPro series of workstations, one of which is sitting behind me as a monitor stand. Anyone know if Linux has been ported to those things? CLIX, the OS they used, isn't Y2K compliant. (Though I haven't actually turned this one on since 1998.)
And I found a picture of this one. http://www.intergraph.com/about/history/wshist.ht
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Exactly! Didn't the first Next Cube come in the late-80's. Cobalt needs a history lesson.
Please don't use the word "innovation" in your replies.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
"Qube" is not the same word as "Cube".
Don't have too much sympathy for Apple. Apple will be the first in line to sue the next manufacturer to produce a computer with the word "Cube" in it.. just wait and see.
Someone Mentioned the Micro Server by Gateway:
g ory.shtml
http://www.gatewayatwork.com/prod/sb_apsrv_Cate
Unless Gateway is selling a black&white version of the Qube, perhaps Cobalt is sueing the wrong person.
Go here for a comparison of all three Cubes:
http://homepage.mac.com/hikahi/PhotoAlbum.html
Seems mighty suspicious to me. Anyone know if Gateway and Cobolt have some sort of an agreement together?
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
Cube Qube pube who fucking cares. I mean come one its a geometrical shape not a marketing scheme. Look at the Cobalt and than look at SGI's systems. If you ask me I would say that Mac and Cobalt copied them. hmmm... but really who cares its just a case. you know a thing that holds the motherboard and keeps bad elements from frying the guts of your machine. Why all this bullshit over some stupid cover when the only thing that really matters is the stuff on the inside.
For a picture of the Thinking Machines cube, see http://forest.bigw.org/cmu_presentation/sld007.htm (yeah, I know it came from PowerPoint, but...)
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
(nt)
--
Dude, I don't know what that website is doing, but it's fscking up my Netscrape (running on NT at work here) ROYALLY! If I have a single Netscape window running, the text & hypertext get written over whatever window I was last in (imagine a page of text superimposed over top of explorer). It's not pretty! Even worse, when I scroll down the page it repeats the text like an effect from Photoshop (er the Gimp). Anyone elso out there experience this effect? Too bad too, it looks like an interesting site but the only thing I could really see on it was the direct link to the picture of the NeXT cube.
----
----
Slán leat agus go n'eirí an bóthar leat
However, I must realize that I'm posting this on slashdot, where many readers think stealing is better than paying, and IP means nothing /. reader I havn't seen anyone express interest in stealing anyone elses product or IP. /. is run on Linux servers and its general readership are supporters of the GPL. /. ( /.'s readership) has generally denounced napster for infringing copywrite. thus it shows an interest in protecting copywrite.
A bit of a heavy handed statement!
as a (relatively new)
Point 1 -
2 -
As a statement this is unfair and IMHO incorrect. Most of us work in the whole IT sector and benifit from IP laws. This is how we make a living.
Why would we support product stealing and IP ripoff when it feeds us?
getting involved, just to generate some fees.
I wonder if these guys are the same ones doing the the brain dead patent filings.
no wonder the courts are backed up..
:-(
I didn't want to see that picture. How did this get a score of 2?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Anyone see the Irony in this and the lawsuit Apple had against E-Machines for thier e-One a few months back?
Anyone see the Irony in this post?
You say you want a revolution....
Don't look much alike to me...
Winton
This issue is ironic because Apple tried to sue Microsoft over look and feel for a PARC design.
As for the iMac:
Color? Integraph had some pretty colors for their cases. I seem to recall a Dvorak article a very long time ago(read: pre-iMac) where he talked about a South American computer expo where they were showing a variety of styles and color in case design.
All-in-one? Not even the original Macs can lay claim to that one. I never owned a Kaypro or an Osborne but I do remember the "stylish" gray/black/light-blue casing of the all-in-one Commodore SX-64. I seem to recall the Commodore Pet as being an all-in-one desktop design as well--beige as I recall.
As for the G4 cubes not being marketed at Qube customers, where do you get that? Apple has already said they'll be dropping OS 9 in favor of OS X. They're trying to push OS X onto the open source community and it is Unix. Do you think Apple won't target this thing at the anti-Intel open source Unix crowd with an emphasis on ease-of-use Unix? Of course, we won't be duped into going with a non-free(as in speech) hardware design, but Apple never quite got how that whole free speech in engineering movement worked out.
I am so looking forward to seeing the response from all those Apple zealot sites. You know, the ones that responded with such righteous indignation when eMachines began selling something that looked like an Apple product.
Are you implying that it is okay for Apple to "leech" off the Qube trademark because Cobalt is not spending enough on marketing?
2) Cobalt is a virtually unknown company who probably spent less money on marketing their cube since it started selling than Apple spent attending Macworld to annouce their cube.
According to the article on cnet.com, Cobalt paid $4.1 million dollars to Cube Computer to use the Qube name! Apple didn't even misspell "Cube"...
3) Cobalt is making a publicity stunt to leech of the already bigger mindshare of the G4 Cube.
This makes it okay for Apple to dilute Cobalt's trademark?
4) Apple Entreprise (NeXT), made the NeXT Cube in 1989.
And the Qube is a current, shipping product with a current trademark.
What goes around, comes around, indeed. Apple is either going to need to pay up, as Cobalt did, or change the name to "The G4 Right Rectangular Prism" or something.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
First, Apple owns NeXT, which introduced the original Cube shaped server.
Secondly, Apple's suits against Emachines and other imac knockoffs was based on trade dress. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any violation of trade dress when comparing the G4 cube to Cobalt's.
Third, the G4 Cube and Cobalt's were not created for the same market. While the G4 Cube may be used as a server, that's not its intended niche. This sounds like a "trial balloon" on the part of Cobalt. My bet is that papers never get filed on this one.
Methinks Hemos got a little carried away when he went off on his patent tirade. He says it himslef just prior to this, that it is about trademarks. Not patents. And now we're back to the retarded "I'm gonna patent X, and you'll all owe me money" crap. Trademarks go by different rules and Cobalt is claiming here that Apple's Cube will cause confusion with people getting the Cobalt Qube and Apple's Cube mixed up. Read first please!
Now that's no way to speak to your mother young man!
He who knows not what his nose knows......
If memory serves me, the first NeXTCubes came out around 1987, and Steve Jobs formed NeXT Computer a year or two before that.
Well now it's clear, they don't look alike at all: the Mac cube resembles a washing machine, while the Cobalt Qube may pass for a table top refrigerator. Case closed.
The next manufacturer will probably be Nintendo then who I believe have announced that "Dolphin" will be called "Star Cube".
give me a break. another fucking gratuitous lawsuit.
Thank you for clearing that point. The best replies I get are the corrections.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Update: It looks like they have reached an out-of-court settlement. From my European point of view, I'm beginning to think that American companies look at court more as a usual line of business and profit than as a protection for their rights.
Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!
Here we go again. Why can't these companies just get on with developing useful stuff instead launching these petty, bickering lawsuits over such trivilaities. I'm still waiting for Apple to sue other PDA manufacturers over the fact that most machines are more or less identical to their Newton. (handheld, has a screen, and can be written on with a stylus.) Or have they already done that? I propose a boycott of any companies that do this sort of thing. Sell your shares!
What the hell is so revolutionary about making a cubic case that it deserves a patent.
Even people who do approve of IP might well question whether advances in the color and shape of a computer case is of sufficient importance to the people to warrant protecting by law. From that point of view, the imac case and the qube case are identical.
However, I must realize that I'm posting this on slashdot, where many readers think stealing is better than paying, and IP means nothing.
Many here indeed do not recognize the validity of IP. That does not mean they approve of stealing, since stealing involves taking the property of others; you're pretty obviously begging the question. I'm not sure why you chose to say this, unless you think that the best way to deal with those who disagree with you is to insult them. I hope not; that'd be lower than being a thief.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
But you have a very interesting point. Did the component of Lucasfilms that Jobs bought have a cube back in 1986? I always thought that the cube was solely a Pixar product but it could have been a Lucasfilms design. If so, then Jobs "stole" another idea.
That's right it isn't a patent dispute. Yep, and neither is it a "trade dress" dispute. It is, if you'll read the article, a trademark dispute. Colbalt allowed its trademark to lapse back in good ole' 1998. End of story, Schithead McWhine.
Apple has no one to blame but themselves.
IANAL, but Apple could probably sue Cobalt citing the fact that NeXT made computers with a cube form factor and Apple now owns NeXT.
Heck, Atair (If it's still around) should go around suing everyone for selling "Boxes with CPUs, that are intended to sit on a desk or table" They'd make millions!
Cube cases (or almost cube) cases aren't really anything new -- many server cases that are cubes have been around for years.
Sometimes you by Force overwhelmed are.
It was dismissed. I don't remember why exactly but could it be because they were different markets and thus there was no trademark dilution? Anyone know exactly why it was dismissed?
Well, Rubik can sue Cobalt. Go ahead Cobalt. Your move.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Does anyone else remember when Apple sued eMachines over eMachines' "iMac lookalike"? This is just hilarious! They deserve it!
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Cobalt reaches a new low. Poor Apple. Poor Steve. that's just so uncool.
How can you patent something like that? What, now there can be no computer cube-shaped? If that's so, then I take this opportunity to patent round-shaped computers, oh, what the hell, throw in the disk-shaped, and flat computers as well. Oh, and also glow-in-the-dark computers are patented now. I'll be rich.
http://dtum.livejournal.com
Wait a second, didn't NeXT come out with a cube in the 80s? Why does Cobalt think they can claim a patent on something that is in common use?
Now, if Apple were marketing the cube in the same market as the Cobalt Cube, the same advertising as the Cube, and the same color scheme as the cube, their case would probably hold as much water as Jimmy Hoffa's bladder.
t's not a "little known product." Cobalt has always had a nice booth at Linux World, I've seen many reviews of their products, the Raq* products are in ISPs everywhere... definately not a "little known product."
Yeah, sure. I know what a Cobalt Qube is. You know what a Cobalt Qube is. Joe "MBA" Purchasing Executive doesn't know what it is. Trust me, I watched Joe furrow his brow in puzzlement and ask, "So this Cobalt thing can serve web pages? Is it something we could use?" on Friday, after noticing it because of the ZDNet article, which he saw because he was reading up on the G4 Cube, wanting one for his wood-and-crystal decor desk.
Just because you're clueful, doesn't mean everyone is. I'd call any Linux-only box little known outside of our circles, except where massively promoted by us geeks to our pursestring holders (IE VA Research)...
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
This weekend I heard about this: http://www.sancube.com/
Oh my gosh! Another cube? Quick, sue them! And make some irrelevant references to the iMac while you're at it.
Actually, the SanCube seems to have a more similar market to the Cobalt Qube than does the G4 Cube. But, all three target different consumers.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
hope that moron comment was not in reference to my post..
He who knows not what his nose knows......
You bring up some good points, and some of these I do agree with. However, there are a couple of things that still bother me. I am either not expressing myself clearly, or you are using these points to express your own views on the way business should work.
protecting the superficial, form over function
I'm glad that you feel function is more important than form, but of course that has nothing to do with these lawsuits. I agree that form has nothing (well, let's say "little") to do with getting the computer to do what you want it to do. However, Apple is protecting their brand. This has nothing to do with computers and everything to do with Marketing. It's about a company protecting their "brand", just like any other company in the world. You may not like Apple's "attitude" (and who does, honestly) but don't single them out - name me one company that is not vicious (and sometimes silly) about protecting its own brand image. Of course there aren't many people buying iMacs only for their looks - but that "cute look" attracts the consumer. I'm glad you are smart enough to make your own decisions and not be forced into slavery by these corporations, but no matter what you say, most people are affected by advertising in some way.
I'm glad you have a utopian view of how corporate ethics should work, but if you would be perfectly honest with yourself for a second, don't you think that most coporations would jump at the chance to actually be able to force consumers to buy things? You really overstimate the ethics of almost every corporation on the planet. Well, they can't do that, because, as you say, it is unconstitutional (not to mention unethical, and horrible to contemplate, but that's not the point) and, because, as you say, people are smart. Great. In the meantime, Companies are going to try every trick in the book to get people to at least look at their products, and to make sure people don't confuse their product with any other product.
so that apple may own something that they do not
Well, the way IP law works these days, Apple actually does own the "look-and-feel" of the iMac. The tricky part comes when you need to decide how to define that "look-and-feel", but I get the feeling that's the part you have a problem with, and I would have to agree with you there. Or maybe you have a problem with that whole concept of patenting a "cute look". OK, I agree, kinda silly. But that's the way the law works these days, so we have to work within those constraints.
I find what you say ironic, above we are argueing over the superficial, now we are arguing over ability
Once again, my point is either not being expressed clearly enough, or you are intentionally missing the point. Purpose is not the same thing as Ability. As I stated before, any savvy computer user can get pretty much any computer to do pretty much any task. That means the abilities of those machines are similar. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about the intended purpose of the machines. The Cobalt Qube is a stripped-down linux box meant for standalone web server (or other "server") use. The Apple Cube is a MacOS computer, meant to be used with a monitor, keyboard and mouse as someone's primary use computer. OK, great, so you can make the Apple Cube serve up web pages. So you can share files with it. So maybe you can install a PPC flavor of Linux on the Cube and have it do exactly the same thing as a Qube. Whoop-de-doo. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if someone knows what a Qube is and wants to buy one, he is not going to spare one single glance at the Apple Cube unless he also wants a normal desktop computer. Once again, this is more about marketing than anything else. Cobalt's complaint about Apple seems silly in this situation because the two products are marketed with different purposes in mind. That has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the two machines. Ability is not the same as purpose.
You could also do that about a race of people.
I guess what you are saying here is that generalizations lead to prejudice and prejudice leads to racism. Hmmm. "All generalizations are false" Some guy on slashdot has this as his sig, I don't know the original source.
Just because a generalization is false doesn't mean you can't use it to sell products! Since when has truth had anything to do with advertising and marketing? If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said "the n% of people". If a company surveys PC buyers and finds out that 99% of all prospective buyers want a web browser on their computer, well then, I think they should feel free to generalize about those consumers. It doesn't really matter to these companies what each person "wants" in their computer - that's their own business. What computer companies do is try to meet as many of those wants as possible in as few different machines as possible. You can't do that without making a few "false generalizations" and just living with the fact that you haven't created a computer that meets the needs of whole segments of your market. I agree with you; companies need to respond to their consumers. But don't complain when they do what a majority of their consumers want, and not what every single individual consumer wants.
p.s. - I know that we're not really going anywhere with this discussion mostly because I get the feeling you are trying to show me the consumer's view (which I agree with, for the most part) and I am trying to show you the corporate view (or my cynical take of the corporate view), but it's so rare to find a response that isn't just "you suck" or "open source rulez" or some natalie portman related thing on slashdot that I got a little carried away.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
This is the wheel of karma coming back to kick Apple in the ass for suing eMachines for being too much like the iMac.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
And what does that make you?
Just because someone moderated them down to a spam troll dosent mean they didn't have something valid to say.
An opinion is an opinion, I felt the need to argue with someone's because I have a differing point of view. You however felt the need to slam on me for attempting to discuss something I happen to find interesting. Somehow I think you slide into the 'shithead' catagory a little better than danheskett and I.
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
I don't think that something being grossly overpriced gives me the right to steel it, I just think it explains the popularity of napster.
And besides, no matter how much good a boycott of the music industry would do, it would never happen. There are too many sheep out there who don't even look at the high prices and consider what actualy went into the process, they just want to get the latest hit teeny bopper song.
It's sad really.
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
From the article:
"[...]the argument is over similarities in size, shape and name"
Size: ooooh, they made a small computer. Like that's a novel idea. The Hot Wheels PC (and the corresponding Barbie PC) is similar in size.
Shape: a right-angled box. Even more original. Every computer I've ever owned came in a right-angled box. The NeXT Cube, released 10 years earlier, was just as cubist as either of these. The vents, casing, colour scheme, and connectors are all different. How can Cobalt even begin to argue that the two computers look the same?
Name: Cobalt Qube vs. Apple Cube. No more confusing than Cobalt Qube vs. NeXT Cube. Who should be suing who in that case?
Apple's is a desktop machine; Cobalt's is a server. Apple's runs MacOS; Cobalt's runs Linux. Apple's connects to a monitor, speakers, keyboard, etc. like a normal computer; Cobalt's is meant to be administered through a web interface. The list goes on. How can anyone even take this seriously?
---
Cube cases (or almost cube) cases aren't really anything new -- many server cases that are cubes have been around for years.
Yes. But...
Cobalt built a cute little cube. Then they trademarked the name "Qube" and had a big advertising campaign.
Apple's box is somewhat similar in appearance. So far no big deal. But...
They mad a big publicity splash, calling it the "Cube". That dilutes Cobalt's trademark.
And of course they did it AFTER they'd (successfully) sued other manufacturers, who had ONLY used colored translucient cases, for trademark infringement against the Imac.
Oops!
I've been wondering why Cobalt hadn't hauled them into court ever since I first heard of Apple's name for their box. Now it looks like it was just a duck-alignment delay.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apple will probably win this one:
They have the NeXT cube, which is over 10 years old now, as precedent.
So Cobalt has not case here.
Bye!
GPL Deconstructed
On the other hand, you just try and convince me that you came up with an iMac shaped computer by accident. . . and translucent blue just happens to be the cheapest plastic we could find on the market (but we're planning 5 other translucent colors)..
  No I don't buy bridges from strangers.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I got you all beat. I'm copyrighting 'the, and, but, a, an'. I'll be richer than Master Bill himslf God bless our greedy home!
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
When will people learn, that not the design of the case, but the design of the system is what counts?
I rather have a Quad-Athlon in a plain beige box than a 386SX in a colorful case.
The computercase will be sitting hidden under the table, so what good will that design be anyway?
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
There is the BlockStackers Intergalatic patent on blocks of course (as Hemos mentioned).
:)
Now MeowPawjects happends to hold the patent on cats. But find that it's not being infringed. The current use of cats as pets is well within the global liccens agreement.. However cats as food or slaves is outside the liccensed agreement...
Rinkworks has a patent on Technology Stupidity. (They should sue Microsoft any day now).
But the biggest patent infrengment of all time...
BSI again... they own the rights to "Everything".
Hay BSI can e-mail me we at MP would like to talk about a massive liccensing agreement...
Thanks
I don't actually exist.
Actually the cube was developed much earlier than this, at a place called parc plato and was extensively studied there. Unfortunately due to the shortsightedness of upper management, which didn't see far enough into the future to see the value of packaging this powerful design as a computer case, the opportunity was lost. PARC yielded an astonishing volume of groundbreaking polyhedron innovations, and was decades and decades and decades before the the importance innovations was fully realized.
Sphere-web.
uhmmm excuse me?
It is illegal to give software away if lets say you buy a game and then give the CD to someone else who can play it while you are still using it.
If you steal an idea and then give it away, then not only do you take away from the expected profit from the product, but giving it away also lowers the market value for the product.
Being a consumer you may not understand the larger # of man hours that might have gone behind making the product.
If you want to give away something that is yours feel free, just dont give something which belongs to me away without my consent.
Back to the topic at hand, Cobalt suing apple over the Cube design is completely pointless. I think I will go to the patent office tomorrow and patent the sphere, tocahedron, cuboid and the smell of flatulence so I can sue soccer ball manufacturers, and basically people who smell like shit.
Strange how changes in the situation can occur. Usually it's Apple suing other companies for ripping off their designs (most notably ther iMac's in recent years).
But they were never this bad. At least an iMac has a distinctive design. But a cube?! Cobalt's insane if they think they can win this.
Besides which, if anyone does have a trademark on a cube-shaped case, it's NeXT. And Apple bought NeXT, so the trademark would be theirs now, I would think. Apple could countersue if they wanted to get really stupid about it. I hope they don't, but they might be able to.
Dickhead. I have to reread what I write before I post. Note: When I say Pixar I mean the company, not the original component of Lucasfilm (not films) that was called Pixar.
NeXT made those weird, overpriced computers at my college 10 years ago, that's all. Next people will be screaming about the Apple //e or the Coleco Adam.
Get over it, the NeXT is dead. And so is Elvis, and yes, Amigas do actually suck.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Also... cobalt will realize, after looking at it, that a 'server without monitor or keyboard' is not new, that 'the cube shape' is not new, and that the color really has very little to do with purchasing of servers.
Back off cobalt.. sell your products based on their actual functions...
Didn't anyone remember that Apple is just as bad, suing people for trademark infringement for making Themes similar to their new OS look? They sued for trademark infringement for "simple" machines similar to their iMac. Suddenly, Cobalt is suing Apple for a similar design, and people are saying that Cobalt is wrong?
Did people forget that it's just Apple getting a piece of their own medicine? I'm not saying that Cobalt is right, but Apple does this to others, why's it so bad that they're getting it right back?
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
That's right, Ford Motor Company is sueing the rest of the automobile industry over the rights to it's concept of wheels on cars. Although there is some question over wether previous car manufacturers actually used the wheel before Ford existed, the lawyers representing Ford are attempting to sweep that under the table, and besides, they didn't have a patent on it. If the suit is sucessful, Ford might go on to sue airplane, bike, roller scate, and skateboard manufacturers as well.
Other pending stories:
Intellegent plants sue over concept of solar power.
US goverment sues itself, just for fun.
Bick sues over concept of fire.
Whamo Frisbee company suing CD companies over the concept of the disc.
I think cobalt is both too soon and too late to claim ownership of the notion of "cube" for a geometric shape.
While they may be ok for Qube, spelled with a Q, they have a long way to go to complain about likelihood of confusion over the use of "Cube" to describe a cube.
Remember, Sting just lost a domain name claim for the word Sting.
You're being more than a tad ignorant, and you're wrong.
It's common for people who holler 'huzzah! viva la revolution!' to be wrong. Often simply because they're ignorant.
Any time someone starts blathering about 'the masses' I just want to teleport the cretin into the middle of a crowd of people trying to get out of a football stadium to their cars. Go ahead and try to convince them to take your fricking leaflet, dude.
Obviously Sun will have to jump in here now, aledging that customers will think that the G4 Cube is a direct replacement for the E450. (Come to think of it that wouldn't be a bad upgrade for an E450...)
g:wq
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
This is just what Apple had coming for sueing eMachines over the eOne. Apparantly it's ok to make computers in other shapes and colors if your're Apple but not for anyone else.
Frankly I'd love to see Apple's previous ruling come back to smack them on this one.
I'd love to see Cobalt loose because I don't think any company should be able to hold a trademark on something like the shape of a computer, but at the same time I really want to see Apple get a taste of their own medicine.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
The issue in a trademark case boils down to whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Apple's cube and Cobalt's cube. This further boils down to whether a member of the purchasing public, when seeing a computer in a cube, thinks, "Ah! Cobalt!" I don't known if the purchasing public thinks that or not. That will be established by surveys, etc. used at trial. This case seems a little weak, given that 95% of tech people upon seeing a cube think NExT or Borg, but it's not frivolous.
Okay, at this rate, I'm guessing that Cobalt is going to sue Paramount and Microsoft. Paramount owns Star Trek, which has cube-shaped servers (Borg). Microsoft, of course, is commonly referred to as being Borg, and so, by virtue of their association, they are guilty of contributory patent infringement.
....but the are just a little quick to call in the lawyers for my taste.
That Apple is being sued over design similarites. eMachines must be packing their bongs and laughing their asses off right now. Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Fight crime, shoot back.
shit they trademarked the cube? the borg are gonna be pissed!
Well I think Cobalt Networks should first sue all the blockhead lawyers who work for them that said this lawsuit would fly. Then they should sue the estate of Gene Roddenberry for Gene Roddenberry's shameless use of their trademarked "block" design in creating the Borg cube. Clearly the Borg cube contains "computer chips" in the form of assimilated species with computer implants. And every Trekie knows the borg are a "collective" that communicate with each other. Now this is an unabashed ripoff of the network capabilities of Cobalt Networks' Qube computer. In fact I would like to draw your attention to the name "Qube" and how the Borg ship being referred to as a "cube" is a blatent ripoff of a trademarked name. People of slashdot unite! We must take a stand! Write your representative in Washington D.C. Where will this end? I mean pretty soon we might even see companies making cheap knockoffs based on the i-mac design!
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html
To protect a design that is not functional, but is purely aesthetic, one can take out a 'design patent.'
This could protect certain floral-shaped wrought-iron gates, for example. The floral pattern is not a functional element of the design, and wrought-iron gates are nothing new.
The shapes of shampoo bottles can be patented similarly.
The key element is that there needs to be nothing functional in the choice of that design.
[
We'd all be driving 3-wheeled, 3-doored tricycle-mobiles.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
While everyone is getting indignant and pointing fingers, rallying for/against Apple as it gets its own come-uppance of sorts, they seem to have lost sight of the issue at hand: the shape shouldn't matter (lame-o iMac lawsuits aside) becuase, last I checked (and IANAL), look and feel were not protectable. (That's why, not considering karmic forces, M$ isn't suing every window manager that looks like Win9x.)
The issue at hand is the name. Is the consumer likely to be confused? The better or more appropriate product for the consumer is an irrelevant issue with trademarks: the first product of that name gets all the protection. That doesn't prevent products in substantially different product areas from having the same trademark; indeed, one need only look for the story about how Apple had to settle with some music company regarding the use of the already-trademarked Macintosh name (or something along those lines).
A decent example: could I create a car company called "Dell Automobiles." Almost certainly, as one is not likely to mistake a car for a computer. Could I create a computer peripherals company, that only sold mice and keyboards, called "Dell Peripherals"? Heh. I'm likely to get sued just for suggesting it. 8^)
Point is, because both Cobalt and Apple sell computers, they both can't lay claim to the same trademark, even if those computers are marketed to mutually exclusive segments of the population; in the end, they're both selling computers. I believe the parent to this post clearly describes Cobalt's claim on the name, and thus the trademark. Variations on spelling of a trademark still dilute the trademark. Case closed.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Oh, come on. If people who make durable goods purchases of hundreds or thousands of dollars are so completely gullible that they would mistake a product not from Apple for an iMac then they deserve to get rooked like that. Give me a truckload of LS ADM-3As and I can retire early.
Apple makes colored computers solely to attract people who think computer aesthetics matter and to differentiate themselves from the herd of other off-white boxes. Apple's iMac suits were SOLELY about preserving this differentiation.
If you remove this differentiation, what's so cool about a G3/4 or an iMac? You can make technical arguments about the G3 processor being superior to wintel and its compact size, but beyond that its a non-upgradable, non-expandable machine with a small display. Add color to it, and its somehow groundbreaking. Add in to this mix that a large number of Mac purchasers have a built-in orientation towards "hip" and "cool" design to begin with, and Apple's marketing strategy is clearly threatened by a wintel case that looks like an iMac.
Given all this, I think it's extremely hypocritical to support Apple's suit, which was about protecting image, not consumers, but accuse Cobalt of acting anything unlike Apple.
Did I mention that I patented Beige?
All pc manufacturers, be prepared to be served!
I don't think so much ignorant, or wrong. I can see where the guy's coming from. It's just extremely infuriating that these companies waste time and money in doing this, why not give their developers a pay rise instead? I am just as irritated at the puerility of this issue. That aside, the Qube(TM) is a great little machine.
>Steal from others is now the Open Source Way.
>Then justify your actions on Slashdot with dubious rationales like "they don't get it".
It's 'Open source', which means they are freely giving it away. It cant be stolen...
>Lets just take the music from musicians and not pay them anything.
>Lets just take from others and pay them nothing.
Maybe things like napster would not be so popular if music was not so grossly overpriced. I'm sorry, but I don't believe someone who can play a tune and write a song should live like a millionaire while it costs me 20 dollars to pay for a piece of plastic that should cost 5 or 10. 20 dollars earned at a job I had to spend years in college to get. I agree that musicions should get money for what they do, but this is absurd.
>Those arguing for its continuation are arguing for continued lawbreaking and illegal activities.
Opensource is not lawbreaking, and it's not Illegal. It's completly voluntary. It has allowed many breakthroughs. Information shared is information bettered through the input of those it is shared with.
-Hikahi
'If I have a penny, and you have a penny, and we exchange pennys, you still have one and I still have one.
But if you have an idea, and I have an idea, and we exchange ideas, now you have two ideas and I have two ideas...'
-Unknown
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This isn't a patent dispute.
The NeXTCube is from a completely different era of marketing.
This is a 'trade dress' dispute, and in the current marketplace, Apple is trying to muscle in on the 'cube' computer image that Cobalt presently promotes.
It's very similar to Apple trying to spank anybody grabbing the iMac image.
And let's face it. Apple has always mainly been about image.
I just want to give notice that I intend to file a patent for all man-made objects in the form of a "sphere". I'm watching you Cobalt...make my day.
//m
You have to first take a look at the PowerMacCube and the Cobalt Qube. This is a totally different situation than the iMac clones.
It's a similar shape and size, but a different color with other different factors of asthetics.
Consider:
- the iMac and the eOne:
+ similar naming notion
+ very similar shape involving a complex shape (ie. not a basic block)
+ very similar coloring
+ same market
- the Mac Cube and the Cobalt Qube:
+ different markets
+ a simple shape
+ very different overall appearance
Also consider that Apple might be able to cite "prior work" given the NeXT cube.
Interestingly enough, the NeXT cube was far closer in appearance to the Cobalt than the new G4 cube. You could argue that the new G4 cube isn't even a cube given it's cool plexiglass shell.
Clearly there is no case on the grounds of infringement of a particular design. But there is a reasonable case for confusion of trademark in a similar market. Apple could probably settle very easily by simply giving the box a better name and avoiding the use of the word "cube". Maybe they should do like Cobalt and call their box the "Que-oob".
I think that the some of the iMac knock-offs were ridiculous, but some other machines were lumped in the fray unfairly (the Gateway dead-end).
Yeah, and my friend has your prior work riiight heeeha (points to shelf with magnesium cube full of books and junk) ..
Cobalt would only prove they are not only obtuse for going against a much larger company that makes a PROFIT (something about "operations" in the article causing problems with Cobalt) and is obviously over-litigious and in a position to counter-sue them.
I mean, come ON, Apple would sue their own fans for crying out loud! Does Cobalt really believe they can win this one?
And last I checked, a LOT of things out there are cubic in shape. It would be like Intel patenting that absurd pyramid. Not to mention the Apple Cube is prettier, appears to float, has all connections on the bottom, and all drives in the top, has a vent on top, and isn't that painful neon-purple. Yeah, they look the same, I'm so confused.
Pardon me while I vomit.
Sorry, but suing over the eOne makes sense, but Cobalt is just looking for some publicity to suck off of Apple Enterprise's industrial design.
Perhaps Cobalt should be moderated (-1, Flamebait)
Lowmag.net
In related news, Cobalt has filed lawsuits against Nestle for their Maggi beef and chicken flavored bouillon cubes, a lawsuit against Las Vegas casinos for their cube-shaped dice, lawsuits against manufacturers of children's alphabet blocks, and a class-action lawsuit against the sugar industry for sugar cubes.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Steve Jobs had the cube-shaped computer *FIRST*. It was called the NeXTCube. The rights to that design now belong to Apple Computer. Sorry, Cobalt, but you lost this one before it started.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Bullshit.
This is not the same as the iMac vs. the eMachines box. The eMachines box was trying to ride the same personal computer wave of fame that the iMac had created.
The Apple Cube is:
1) For a completely different market - desktop not server
2) A full fledged computer, not an internet applicance.
3) of a totally different industrial design : colors, utilization of space, etc. The eMachines boxes copied the iMac in almost everyway (remember the faux iMac translucent racing stripes)
Not really. The iMac has a distinctive shape and color scheme. Cubes (nor any regular polyhedra) cannot be considered unique designs. The E-machines knock-off was a blatant copy.
All consumer electronics will tend towards book-sized consoles (e.g Sony, Bose speakers)
Business machines will remain boring and beige :-).
why? you 'canna break the laws of physics and economics. What are the physical limitations of chips? Heat dissipation which means for a given level of technology (process shrink) they generate a certain thermal volume (aside it's rather interesting that the C-bricks modules SGI designed for their O3000 are deliberately oversized to handling the heat given off by the coming IA-64 processors .. rather interesting engineering commentary on the efficiency of the instruction set/design ... you might save on the chip but negative externalities are realised elsewhere). Given high-end machines tend to occupy datacentres where costs are measured in $$/square metre (or 19"Us), high-end vendors aim to cram things into basic 19" units for easy comparison plus add optional fancy skins for the branding exercise de jure.
Deskside cubes are usually aimed to a) fit under a desk or b) migrate to a within an internal rack space so the physical dimensions are constrained, especially when you consider physical access to cables and the reset button.
Laws of economics dictate that for low-priced consumer items a larger fraction of cost is contained in the distribution system (think return/repair/replacement/etc). Hence a tendency is to reduce to form-factors which existing packaging/mailing tends to fit (e.g A3 sized padded envelops). Hence convenience is key so form factors will tend to standardise around a few common shapes (e.g. CD-case size).
One can point out to parallels with the rail industry where tracks were designed to handle carriages adapted from trolleys which had axis build from cart hoists/rigs which had width dependent on navigating the ruts on the original British roads. Hence width of modern railway tracks have their ancestry derived from Roman times! In a similar regard, you will see many shapes constrained by 19" rack form factor and CD-cases. The supporting infrastructure is so prevalent that it will have to be a really radical advance to justify a physical change.
Oh, as for boring and beige do you expect that an average penny-pinching company wants to waste money on something like aesthetics that's going to be obsolete in 2-3 years time? Of course Mac fans like to "think different" :-).
LL
Uh, yeah. Ever see a NeXT cube?
Amazingly, it's square design predated the Cobalt Qube by several years.
Apple bought NeXT. They "own" that design.
Beyond that we have the iMac case.
G4 Cubes are not marketed nor targeted at customers who are buying Colbalt Qubes. Nor, aside from the shape (which they didn't "innovate," to use Microsoft-speak), does it even look REMOTELY like the Qube.
Therefore a "regular person" is extremely unlikely to confuse the two.
Therefore Colbalt is simply wasting money, as they have no chance of lost sales, which is what both the iMac and Colbalt lawsuits are about.
Moof!
I've seen both of them, and I don't know how anyone could confuse the two. They're completely different.
Typed Drawing
---
Word Mark QUBE
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: servers
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75311972
Filing Date June 2, 1997
Files ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) Cobalt Microserver, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 411 Clyde Avenue Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date August 4, 1998
Apple has sued other companies for using the All-In-One design, the translucent design, and the graphical interface. Now they go with a cube and get sued by Cobalt. I am not sure what to think of this except that it was bound to come around sometime.
There was a demo program that ran on it. It was the one with the bumblebee.
Did anybody out there see this cube?
Hmm. But if we look at actual product names...
'Qube' (pronounced 'cube') is the name of cobalt's machine.
'Cube' is also the name of apple's machine. There *IS* reason for consumer confusion here.. if I say I'm buying a 'cube'.. which one is it?
Yes, certainly Cobalt did not invent the cube... and most of us techies would call it the 'cobalt qube' or the 'apple cube' or the 'next cube'... so..
Normally, I'm against lawsuits w.r.t. similarity in look & feel. There should be limits to these types of actions. However, in the case of Apple, who has successfully sued so many companies in this area, it serves them right.
If they think nobody should be allowed to make transparent desktop computers that look like iMacs, then they can bite the bullet and pay out for using the Qube design.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I think the iMac look is somewhat noval and neet but a bit byond patentable.
Transparnet hardware is hardly new.. transparent telephones, hard disks and one company dared make transparent VCRs.. this in the mid 1980s.
Computers were ugly and as much as people comented about it, pritty wasn't a selling point. People wanted cheap ugly boxes that contained computers. They wanted to pay for technology not pritty.
And the shape... an iMac looks like a pritty DEC VT100 terminal. Yes the terminal even has vents in the same location. The diffrence is the terminal has an ugly bage plastic case.
Ok so the idea of using a terminal case for a computer? No again done before.. This time Radio Shacks Modle 3 and 4 computers uses classic 1970s video terminal cases (normal case for many terminals produced at the same time).
The only diffrence between my Helthkit terminal and the RS M3 case is the build in disk drives off to the side where a blank space exists on the terminal (posably to make design easyer).
Anyway... the iMac is neat but taken from a colection of existing technologys and novle but not novle enough...
I don't actually exist.
can you spell NDA?
Guess I should take my own advice about thoroughly reading the article...
Small or not, this is a stupid case. No one in their right mind would think the Apple machine was a Cobalt Cube. Apple is not stomping on anyone here (I'm not saying they never do). More than one car company can make a hatchback or a coupe without each sueing the others.
Finally, I would say that not only is the machine obviously not a cube, it is obviously an Apple machine. The fact that it's not iMac-shaped does not prevent it being Apple-styled.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If Cobolt does somehow manage to win or at least get a settlement, it could provide a reason for Be to sue Microsoft over the X "Box"
Good point!
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
Jobs is just making Apple come out with an updated version of the old Next Cube. The Next machines were out long before Cobalt was even a company. If I were Cobalt I would sit down and shut up. What's next the patent on the line?
NeXT (also run by Jobs) had a cube, a grey looking thing if I recall. Hmm, maybe Jobs should sue Cobalt.
I've decided to patent the concept of a three dimensional universe. If anyone wants to perceive their surroundings in three dimensions, I will be offering liscenses for just $250. Of course, older versions of 'reality' such as v2.1, which allows up to two dimensions of perception, will be availible for evaluation purposes here.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Or just a simple collage of cliches and an opinion that he's wrong?
I don't see any argument here.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The Qube and the Mac Cube, however, are both being sold. So the possibility exists that customers would confuse the two.
Nobody in their right mind would confuse either with a NeXT cube, except to get karma points on slashdot.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
stick their cube up their ass as slow and painful as it might be ..
I have an old NeXT cube sitting on my desk right now, with a 21in b/w monitor, the machine has a hard drive, (nope not the early ones with the optical drive).
If Cobalt can sue Apple then apple can sue back since they bought NeXT they own the NeXT cube 'trademark' ?
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
oh crap - i made a cheese sandwich earlier and I left the block of cheese in a roughly cube-like shape. Please nobody tell Cobalt.
Oh, BTW, I've patented the shape "block". I'm going to be suing for past due royalties from humanity.
I believe he meant to say that he's trademarked "blockhead", and is going to be suing all who question his lawful right to the title.
Challenges will be non-existent, methinks. ;-)
Suing over how a computer LOOKS is about as dumb and not eating brocolli because it is ugly. Who cares!
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
By the way, the NeXTCube was the first cube-shaped computer, so Cobalt doesn't have a case.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Maybe they're just looking for the press coverage -- it's their way of saying "Hey, we have a cube too!". In not too long we might see Cobalt suddenly decide to drop the suit once they've milked it for as much press coverage as they can get.
Whatever their motives, they're certainly not encouraging me to buy their products with frivolous lawsuits.
Intellectual property is an incongrous, non-sequitorial term....I agree with you.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
My conspiracy theory:
1) Cobalt knows they can't win.
2) They don't care
3) The poetic justice of the situation has already given them a buttload of free publicity.
Um, the NeXT Cube, anyone?
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Cobalt is begging for a serious countersuit here... haven't they ever heard of a little computer about ten years ago called a NeXT? Which is now part of the very company Cobalt is accusing of ripping off the "idea" of a cubical computer?
Simpletoneity, n. -- The phenomenon of many people all doing the same stupid thing at the same time.
Is it just me, or do a lot of post seem (-1, Redundant) to you?
In fact, you could automate a moderator for this story.
IF "ya I'll just patent xxx and sue everyone" THEN +1, insightful
IF "but this isn't a patent - it's a trademark. Give them some credit" THEN +1, informative
IF "but NeXT had a cube in the late 80's. Apple bought NeXT" THEN +1, informative
IF "but trademarks cover names, not designs" THEN +1, insightful
IF "but trademarks are only if consumers may be confused - and Cobalt and Apple are targetting different markets" +1, informative
A number of things
1. I *wish* mods would read other posts first. Bring out interesting viewpoints that are being ignored.
2. Don't always be so hostile to trademark laws. If they didn't exist, there would be nothing from stopping MS from releasing a product called "MS Linux" and spending billions on advertising it when the Halloween Document was just a document and not a call-to-arms.
Cobalt is a *small* company, and it's good that there is some way of preventing a multibillion dollar multinational (where is Katz when you need him?) from stomping all over the little guy - Cobalt in this case.
Part of their marketing campaign - the way you recognize them - was their name and the unique shape of their boxes. All the millions they spent on building that name could be lost because Steve Jobs was having a bad hair day.
If apple can sue E-machines over the iMac design, then why can't Cobalt sue over a cube design?
Seriously, though, this is even more silly than the E-machines/iMac lawsuit. I think I'll go form Teal Computer Corp, patent the color teal, then sue a few office chair manufacturers.
And didn't the NeXT cube pre-date Cobalt by a few years? And Apple bought out NeXT. So maybe Apple should try a counter-suit for Cobalt stealing THEIR design!
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
True, they'll soon both run UNIX-like OS's, but the similarity stops there. Qubes are cheap, headless servers which you access and configure via a web interface (on a another machine, obviously). Yes, you could possibly do they same thing with a G4 Cube running OSX, but you could also get a Yeong-Yang cube case, set up a GNU/Linux system, and save a few thousand bucks. ;) And the Qube's hardware can't compare to the G4's. I'll have to agree with MonkeyBoy that these two machines have *very* different markets; Qubes are for people who want a Linux server but don't have the skills to set one up, and G4 cubes are tiny workstations, which, because OS X is based on a Unix system, have the capability of a small server.
But, I also agree with MonkeyBoy that regardless of the market argument, NeXT was doing this long before Cobalt, so there are issues of "prior use". Cobalt is just trying to get some easy, cheap publicity, which will just as easily backfire in their face.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Gateway's cube shaped computer is just a rebranded cobalt Qube.
from a cobalt press release in 2000:
"During the December quarter 1999, Cobalt established several strategic relationships including NTT DoCoMo, France Telecom and Gateway. The company began shipments of products to Gateway, which Gateway is marketing under the name Gateway Microserver. "
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
Apple, the ones who sued M$ for "look and feel" over similarities between Windows and MacOS, is now being sued 'cause their cube looks and feels sort of like someone else's cube. How's it feel to be on the receiving end, Steve?
Apple has this coming after that stunt they pulled with e-machines.
The only person who can really claim intellectual property over the definition of a cube is Euclid. The mac Cube isn't even a cube. It's longer on one side with the transparent stuff...I wonder if cobalt just figured "lets fart some money on a lawsuit." I've worked with the cobalt cube, and it's a totally different box than the mac cube, designed for different things and markets. besides, I think if you put linux on a mac cube, it would handily SMOKE a cobalt cube (gee, 128bit vector units), which is what this pissing contest is all about.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
This one's easy and cheap! Just sue Apple, get free publicity, then drop the suit before it comes to trial!
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
--
Come on, Apple has a better case against Cobalt than Cobalt has against Apple..
the NeXT cube, while it was called a 'workstation', had comparable hardware and a comparable OS to the server-platforms of the day.
and what about the 'Rocket City' black magnesium cube case for standard x86 PCs..
I hape Cobalt loses this one bigtime. I'm no big fan of Apple's but this is just pathetic of Cobalt.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
--
Great post!
:)
I browse at 3 and very seldom burrow down. I laughed out loud when I read it and decided to read the replies. It looks like it was moderated back up. I hope it makes it to 5.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
When slashdot posted links (or links to links) of sites that had received letters from "for dummies" lawyers, they explained that it was diluting something they payed lots of money for. Such as Kleenex, or Levi's, etc. Well, I though that was unnecessarily mean. But this I understand. They look quike a bit alike (They do!), at least enough to completely dilute whatever special LOOK that the designers of the Qube had tried to instill on thier product. The next box may have looked similar, but they dont make those anymore. If Qube knew that apple were going to do this, they surely would have designed a different look for product individuality. As for the rediculous comment that the 'cube' name is not the same as 'Qube', well shit, why dont you just join a flame war on IRC, because your logic is freakin shot!
Where are the keys to my whore?
Look, Cobalt has a little-known product that they've been marketting with little luck for two years, and suddenly the most noticed computer company in the world produces something that remotely resembles it. Some exec at Cobalt thinks, "How can I get some of the spillover publicity?"
Even if he did get slapped with a frivolous lawsuit fine (as if) he'd still make out like a bandit over all the attention this generated. Sort of like a troll-for-profit.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
Ala Napster!
Let's be a bit more rational when comparing this suit to the iMac and MS suits.
iMac: Apple pays money for a uniquely designed computer that puts aesthetics on a par with function for the first time since the NeXT Cube. While initially laughed at by the media and PC bigots, sales of the iMac boom, and PC folks experience aesthetic envy. e-Machines licenses a machine from a company that is producing clones that are amazingly similar to the iMac's design (which was a trademarked design, unique to the iMac). Apple sues.
Look & Feel: Apple uses PARC ideas to build a graphical OS. MS lambasts the products, then uses knowledge obtained under NDA to produce their own GUI-based products.
It's a bit different than basing something on a style or a feel, it's much more like theft. It's very much like having someone cheat off your physics final. You studied, you worked hard, they're getting a free ride and endangering your academic career by risking having you both thrown out.
However, I must realize that I'm posting this on slashdot, where many readers think stealing is better than paying, and IP means nothing.
Reagen
There used to be ads for the 'Brick' computer in mags I read a few years back. Wouldn't ya know it, it was shaped like a brick...
The thing I don't get is this: Cobalt got sued by Cube Computer Corp and settled, this would imply that Cube Computer Corp has some kind of trademark rights to cube shaped computers... so how come Cube Computer Corp is not now also suing Apple? Unless of course the NeXT cube predates the founding of Cube Comp. Corp. I say throw the lawyers for all three corporations into a wrestling ring and have a 'cage match' style down-and-out last person standing lawyers brawl. Whomever wins gets to sue the other two for $50M.
----
----
Slán leat agus go n'eirí an bóthar leat
(IANAL)
The iMac suits seemed to depend on whether or not the consumer might confuse the two products. That is, the eOne did look an awful lot like the iMac, and mistaken identity alone could take away from Apple's sales.
As for the Cube, I think you'd need to be both blind and stupid to mistake the two. The colors are totally different, the Cube is considerably taller, the Qube indicator light is in no way reproduced, the only resemblance is the basic shape (which is a common shape, unlike the iMac) and size. I don't think you could confuse these two...
Apple might also be able to argue the Cube is a derivative of the NeXT Cube which Apple should still hold the rights to. The only difference there is the size...
We must boycott Slashdot until they cease their abuse of the U.S. Patent Office and drop their suit against the author of DeBlockS. In the mean time, let's forget overrated corporate architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and support independent architects instead; you can find their building plans on popular blueprint-sharing services like Bluetella and Planster.
Down with architecture patents! Free the block!
They aren't targeted at the same group of people.
They aren't the same size.
Their aesthetic is different.
"Qube" is not the same word as "Cube".
Honestly, this is *pathetic* on the part of Cobalt. I hope they lose and lose badly.
(Incidentally, I hate Apple Computer. But this is just insane.)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
TRADEMARK, not PATENT
The "BigMaq would be a trademark violation" argument is inherently flawed because "Cube" is a noun that factually describes what the product is. To say that "Cube" is a trademark infringement of "Qube" is like saying that IBM should own the trademark on computer, or something crazy like that. If they called it "Little Gray Cube" and someone had a trademark on "Gray Cube" there might be an argument that the name was confusingly similar, but you can't own a single noun like that. They call it the G4 Cube, or the Power Mac Cube. If someone else has something similar to that, Apple would be suing them, not the other way around.
Heaven help us if IBM tried to enforce a trademark on beige boxes.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I think when they mean the same market, they are talking about Joe Consumer who goes into a computer store thinking of the "cute" iMac he saw on TV and sees one of the PC-compat. rip-offs for a cheaper price (or is steered towards one by a salesperson) and goes with that.
Now, you could argue that Joe Consumer is simply going with the better value, but he went into the store influenced by Apple's marketing, and ended up with a different product. Of course Apple should be upset about that.
The Cube and the Qube won't even be sold in the same store! At least not next to each other. I hardly think anyone going in with the intent to buy a Qube would in any way be confused and think about buying an Apple Cube instead. They really are quite different markets, but more importantly, different types of consumers. Whereas the iMacs and the ePCs or whatever they want to call them are selling to the same types of consumers - home users who are looking for a "cute", simple home computer.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
In court they can reference their past losses in court over like-designed machines. Or did they win the iMac case against eMachines? If they did, then it is too bad for them.
Probably just settle out of court - Apple will never let the sales of the cube be stopped.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
When are these frivalous law suites going to be regulated? I mean people wait years to sue their doctor who was doped on morphine while cutting up grandma's heart, and it's because of shit like this that creates a huge backlog in justice systems.
It'd be a great idea if Apple was found innocent of infringement, and Cobalt had to pay for their court time.
You know, our justice system was intended to serve the people, but now it just serves corporations. Capitalism sucks.
Is this going to be like the domain names race?
Everyone claims shapes that are of value and then sells them later for a huge profit?
In that case, I want the rights to spheres, half-spheres, dodecahedrons and pyramids.
Maybe if I get the rights to the torus, I can then take bids from Shipleys, Crispy Creme, and Duncan's.
If you steal an idea and then give it away, then not only do you take away from the expected profit from the product, but giving it away also lowers the market value for the product.
The exact same thing happens if I make a better, competing product and sell it for less money--I take away from your expected product, and lower the market value (by creating a substitute good). Shall we ban competition?
As legal counsel for the Pythagoras estate, I am obliged to advise all of the Slashdotters participating in this discussion that the use of the word Cube(tm) is a violation of Pythagorean intellectual property rights, along with the the use of Tetrahedron(tm), Octahedron(tm), Dodecahedron(tm), and Icosahedron(tm), all of which are inseparable components of the Platonic Solids(tm) suite. Moreover, the use of two- or three-dimensional derivatives of our intellectual property (commonly known as "square", "rectangle", and the general class of "rectilinear solids") without payment of royalties is an actionable offense.
To avoid the expense of a prolonged legal battle (such as that endured by the RPG community, which had been making unauthorized use of the Platonic Solids(tm) suite in the form of "dice"), please remit US$2.50 for each HTML table cell you have used, and US$1.00 per pixel in applicable video modes (we will be happy to advise you which VGA modes have square pixels).
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
If you sold a hamburger, and on the menu you called your hamburger a BigMaq, you can be assured that the trademark lawyers would slam you into so much e.coli-tainted floorstain.
From the c|net article,
Given Cobalt's history, a suit likely would take issue with the name, rather than the shape, of the computers. Cube Computer filed a suit against Cobalt in December 1998, alleging that Cobalt's Qube infringed on the trademark of Cube Computer. Cobalt settled the suit in December 1999, the company said in an SEC filing. "We acquired certain trademark rights for a one-time payment of $4.1 million, not including related legal costs," the filing said.
Thus, the trademark of officially calling a computer a "cube"(tm) has already been established, and Cobalt has purchased rights from the establishing party. Apple has not. NeXT never called their computer a "Cube", "Qube", or "Kyoob."
This has nothing to do with the markets served, the device characteristics, or even the shape.
[
"Do unto others what you would have them do unto you."
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."
"As you sow, so you shall reap."
"What goes around, comes around."
etc, etc, etc...
I have been granted a patent on the concept of 'shape'. Therefore, you owe me licensing fees for each individually 'shaped' product you produce. You will be hearing from my pack of lawyers once I'm through feeding them.
No, but Ford could sue Chevy if Chevy build a truck to the exact same dimensions, so that someone looking at the two side by side with all logos trimmed off could not tell the difference between. Now I personaly cannot tell the difference between any two trucks, being a vehicle-oblivious person that i am, but I know several 8 to 10 year olds who can see a truck pass by at 60 miles per hour and name the year, make and modle without thinking about it.
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
EOM
FishPC is an Australian company that market a computer called the FishPC to first computer buyers. They were sued by apple. The machine:
* Does use semitransparent plastic. So does the imac.
* Comes in 2 units, for processor and monitor. The imac doesn't, and this is a large part of it's aesthetic.
* Is shaped like a bloody great big fish, and this is easily its most distinguising feature.
* Uses different colors than the imac
* Doesn't have some sad imac derivative name - such as Compaqs ipaq units
They've been sued by Apple nevertheless. Judge for yourself at www.fishpc.com.au
This is one of two reasons why computers aren't shaped like wheels.
... or Apple could sue Cobalt for plaguarizing the NeXTCube.
-- Rolf Lindgren, cand.psychol
Hmmm, interesting counter-arguments.
When I say Joe Consumer, I mean one consumer. I mean an "example" of a consumer, not every consumer ("Joe Consumer" can indicate all consumers or one "average" consumer depending on the context - and I apologize for not making clear exactly what I meant). That's what Apple is concerned about. A consumer that saw an ad for an iMac, liked it and went down to the store to look for one. He goes in and sees a bunch of PCs that look "kinda" like an iMac, and maybe after looking at the specs, the consumer actually wants to buy one instead of the iMac. That guy might not have even looked at them unless they had an iMac "cuteness" factor. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this; or anything wrong with PC companies wanting to do this. However, you have to recognize why Apple might be concerned about other companies trying to capitalize on the PR success (note, I did not say sales success) of the iMac. That's why they get so uptight about it.
apple is bringing people to the store? Does advertisement have that much of an effect?
Yes and Yes! That's my point. If advertisments didn't have that much of an effect, companies wouldn't keep on pouring money down those ad budget drains. You might think you are smarter than the average consumer and that ads don't affect you, but they do. They might not make you buy anything, but they can certainly influence you into looking into a product that you may not have had much interest in before. Why do you think so many people keep going to crappy movies? Advertising. And that's all this is about, really. Apple gets pissed because they feel their ad campaign is being used to sell products by other manufacturers. Do you not understand why they might be upset about it? I didn't say it was "fair" or that I agree with Apple. Just that from a marketing viewpoint, it's bad business for Apple NOT to sue the iMac ripoffs.
You can easily see though that while Qube is a more narrow market, iMac and x86s do overlap it. Someone going to buy an Qube has a higher chance of seeing Apples and x86 computers near it that do the same thing then you pretend to know. Its impossible to stereo type and generalize what people want in a computer as you and apple tend to do.
I disagree with your logic. Apple gets upset because the iMac/ePC markets DO overlap, and Cobalt has an absurd argument because the Qube and Cube markets DO NOT overlap. What I mean is this: someone who wants an iMac could easily choose an ePC instead and vice/versa - both machines will basically do what most want (surf the net, use e-mail). There is no way that someone shopping for a Qube (which is primarily designed for standalone server use) is going to change his mind and buy an Apple Cube - they just aren't designed (or marketed) for the same functions. Of course, anyone that knows enough about computers can buy pretty much whatever they want and get it to do whatever they want with it, but I'm not "generalizing" about those types of users.
You complain about my "generalization" of consumers, but there is a large segment of the "computer user" population that just wants a home computer to surf the net and read e-mail. I can feel free to generalize about those consumers, because they generally all want the same thing. If companies couldn't generalize about their consumers, they wouldn't be able to sell the same thing to millions of people! You can't generalize about all consumers, but you can certainly generalize about the n% of them that want the same things in a computer!
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Maybe they should sue PepsiCo also, after all they are using a "Cube" to package their 24 packs. Heck why not sue star treck for giving the Borg a Cube shaped starship. If you ask me I say the concept of a 6 sided cube is PUBLIC DOMAIN yes? -------------- jhaimerl@esnale.com
Steve Magruder, Technopolist
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
How can a company be so blatantly stupid? If greed wasn't the dominant motivator for development, I would be opposed to the whole P and T Office in general. Unfortunately, so little work gets done for free. Scientists and Engineers rarely devote their lives to something, just so they can be screwed by the world.
The Open Source movement is the antithesis to greed and hipocrisy. Maybe enough of a root can grow, that more modern inventors will work for the world's good. If we merged the technology of today and the ethos of the past we could accomplish much.
Pax Digitalia
The G4 Cube uses one, not two processors.
I've run an iMac DVSE, which is also fanless for about 4 months straight uptime. (It crunches SETI when I'm not at my work desk. ) The only problem I ever saw with heating was when a user left a DVSE in direct sunlight for an extended period of time. No damage to the machinej, it just froze a lot until the shade was closed.
The new versions of YellowDog Linux, LinuxPPC, and quite probably PPC SUSE, make it possible to start a PPC Linux box without ever going into Mac OS.
There was nothing particurlarly different about the immediate pre-Jobs era. The Mac cloners were using the same logic board designs as Apple. They were as "Mac OS dependent" as anything coming out of Apple itself at the same time. IBM has released a Power PC reference set of specs, but as far as I know, no one's used them yet.
The machines you use at work are generally a lot louder in a home environment which doesn't have all that background noise, although things are getting a bit better in that regard, My Blue and White G3 is considerably more quiet than my 9500 or my Amiga 4000.
Mmmm.... NeXT computers... :)
:( )
I spent three summers full time, and two academic years part time programming edu apps on NeXTs as an undergrad. They were sweet.
I so enjoy seeing PC magazines rave about computer innovations that I was using 10 years ago.
(I still have the first release of NeXTStep 3.0 for Intel hardware in my closet. Unfortunately, I never got around to installing
ShoutingMan.com
How I wish I was the inventor of the BRICK.
No, not that brick with the techical thing inside, but the BRICK that becomes the BUILDING BLOCK of all building.
See? If I were the inventor of the BRICK, I can sue not only Apple, but also Cobalt, and all other people who do "blocks" on everything - and that includes LOTS of builders, architects, engineers worldwide !
Shooooot !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Hmm.. It's interesting.
If t's off-the-topic, but cube of Cobalts looks
like that Apple should build.
You know, introducing Linux to Windows network
can be hard, because the administrator or any
one who are responsible for the network may doesn't like other OSes than the Windows.
The Cobalt's solution make it transparent to put Linux box into existing Windows network.
It's administrated by the Web browser, so people don't recognize that it's Linux based machine.
And the Qube and the RaQ are looks good, and
I personally think that they look better than Apple's own.
If small market share is the origin of threat on
Apple's existence, Apple will need machines like the Cobalt's for go into enterprise market.
It's interesting.
I'll doubtless be amused to watch Steve's Loyal Army explain why Apple should be able to sue alleged rip-offs of the iMac, but the cube is an original and innovative design that Cobalt have no right to complain about.