Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Rendezvous Trademark
bdsesq writes "The Register is reporting that Tibco is suing Apple over the name 'Rendezvous'. Tibco has owned the name since 1994. It seems that Apple doesn't want to pay what Tibco wants."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
depends on what their rendezvous was.
it's not like you can start making apple computers and except apple to stay out of your biz.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The USPTO website shows 22 hits for the word 'RENDEZVOUS'
The oldest being Mother's Cake & Cookies Co. (1966)
Apple isn't even selling Rendezvous as a product! It costs nothing to implement and its specifications and quite a bit of example code for it are open to the public to use. I don't see how Apple is capitalizing on anything when there is no capital involved, except perhaps that which was used to develop the technology.
That's wrong. Microsoft lost the case because the phrase windows was already a common term in user interfaces BEFORE Microsoft received their trademark. It is similar to prior art with patents. You are very much allowed to trademark ordinary words. By it's very definition - "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others (source: USPTO.
You really don't understand how trademarks work do you? You can trademark anything as it pertains to a particular specific business. Apple has a trademark and I think Apple is a pretty common word. So are Ford, Dodge, Gulf, Sears, Target, etc. Trademarks exist to help protect both the consumer and the company from confusion. The company doesn't have to worry about its rebutation being soiled by somebody selling a inferior product under their name and a consumer can be secure in knowing that if it has the name of the company then it belongs to that company.
Tibco has owned the name since 1994. It seems that Apple doesn't want to pay what Tibco wants."
Actually, that should read Tibico claims to have been using the name since 1994. Not owns. It is not a registered trademark, they merely applied for it. The process is not complete. In fact, they only filed for it May 21, 2003.
Tibico's Rendezvous
Apple filed for the name Rendezvous on May 6, 2002.
Apple's Rendezvous
Do I think this will really be a problem for Apple? No more than OS-9 and Mac OS 9.... at least those were both Operating Systems, in some sense.
Also, both Rendezvous's use UDP multicast on the network. In fact, you can write Rendezvous (Tibco) apps and run them on disparate platforms on the same network with 'Zero Configuration'. There is enough gray area that this will go to court unless Apple settles.
I have a feeling that
a) the Judge will be telling Apple to pay a lot of money
b) Apple will pony up some cash.
I'm a die-hard Jobsian fan, but I have to side with Tibco on this one. They've had the name since 94, they are now owned by Reuters, and they've got their niche and a solid product. Apple should quietly settle, change the name, and hope that their investors won't look too deeply into this. Sorry, but they could've resolved this years ago, why the arrogance?
Here's some good info on the company, and what this is all about.
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
The commonality of the word is not the issue. If you're unsure, try creating a piece of software and call it "Windows".
The issue is whether the two similarily-named products can be confused with one another; for my money (IANAL), the answer is no. This reminds me a lot of the whole Microware OS-9 lawsuit from three years ago. I hardly think Apple has anything to worry about.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Actually, in French, "rendezvous" doesn't mean anything.
The correct way to write it is "rendez-vous".
I'm pretty sure Apple did that on purpose.
Music is the language of the heart, the sound of the soul. -Joe Satriani
iChat is for human-to-human messaging; TIBCO's Rendezvous product is for program-to-program messaging as a behind the scenes multicast transport for all kinds of applications. Think "broadcasting real-time stock prices to trader's workstations."
Trademarks exist to help protect both the consumer and the company from confusion.
Exactly, but that's why you can open a Macintosh Restaurant or sell Apple Jeans. When you operate in a completely different business, there can be no confusion and hence no trademark infringement. Now, it's up to the jury to decide whether "business messaging" and "zero-configuration networking" are completely different - or not. Methinks they are.
"...but it does possess messaging components via iChat..."
Actually, this is a little inaccurate. Rendezvous does not have messaging components. Nor does Rendezvous use iChat for messaging.
Rather, it is iChat that uses Rendezvous services to discover who is on the network, and then lists those people accordingly. In a very basic summation, all Rendezvous does is check out a network and see what is available for networking, and then makes that information available for other programs to use.
If Rendezvous does have user-to-user messaging capabilities built into it, then I would agree that Tibco has a case. Nonetheless, even if Tibco didn't want to, they would still be required to sue Apple based on current copyright/trademark laws. They must defend their trademark and demonstrate efforts of having done so. Not doing so invalidates their trademark and makes it available for everyone to use. (This is why you see McDonald's suing some small restaurant now and then over the "McDonald's name. They aren't trying to be mean, they have to do this or they lose their trademark.) Let's face it, if you're going to sue, you might as well ask for money. At the very least, it covers your legal fees if you win.
It will probably go to court, unless Tibco is doing this to get free money. Should it go to court, the finding will most likely be that Tibco's product is a messaging system like iChat, and not a network discovery service like Apple's product, and therefore there is no market overlap between the two products. Thereby, there is no trademark infringement.
At the very least, this is free press for Tibco -- this is the first time I ever heard of them.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
Actually, I recall that earlier this year there was a little flap with Apple Records over the iTunes Store.
http://www.macnn.com/news/19643&startNumber=33
Seems that in 1981 Apple (Computer) had promised Apple (Records) that they wouldn't go into the music business so that they wouldn't drag the young Apple (Computer) to court.