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.
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!
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.
What the hell is so revolutionary about making a cubic case that it deserves a patent.
Well, Rubik can sue Cobalt. Go ahead Cobalt. Your move.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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
There was a demo program that ran on it. It was the one with the bumblebee.
Did anybody out there see this cube?
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
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
(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
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.
[