Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Use of iCloud Name
tekgoblin writes "iCloud Communications is suing Apple for the use of the iCloud name which they have the rights to. According to the lawsuit: 'The goods and services with which Apple intends to use the “iCloud” mark are identical to or closely related to the goods and services that have been offered by iCloud Communications under the iCloud Marks since its formation in 2005. However, due to the worldwide media coverage given to and generated by Apple’s announcement of its “iCloud” services and the ensuing saturation advertising campaign pursued by Apple, the media and the general public have quickly come to associate the mark “iCloud” with Apple, rather than iCloud Communications.'"
Do they not realise that Apple own the letter 'i'?
Then why didn't they apply for a trademark? Why didn't they complain when that Swedish company Apple bought iCloud.com from registered the iCloud trademark in the US?
I could swear I've read this story before...
I'm not an especially strong Apple hater, but haven't there been other stories on slashdot about Apple blatantly rolling over other companies copyrights or trademarks for names and concepts that sound similar to potential Apple products?
please also consider what you would have said if Apple had been selling a product for the last 5-6 years, and somebody now came along and bought a website, and claimed that it now owned that trademark.
The analogue is in somebody buying ipad.com (which AFAIK Apple doesn't own). Just because Apple bought icloud.com doesn't give them a trademark, otherwise the trademark system should just be shut down in favor of the domain name system.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Preach on, brother beavis! How dare Apple buy the name iCloud from the people that owned the name iCloud. If that's not asshole behavior, I don't know what is.
I hope Apple gets spanked for this. It was their lack of due diligence, and even if Apple was aware of this other company, it chose to engage this "Imma show you whose boss" mentality. Apple decided to play the game, so too damn bad if they lose.
Reading fortune's coverage, it seems there was no record of cloud communications having a trademark. Is this another instance of suing someone just because they have cash, I wonder...
And maybe it's just my innate cynicism showing through, but when anyone introduces criticism of anything by saying "I can honestly say...", it leads me to believe they are inherently biased against the thing they're complaining about, and whatever they say ought to be treated appropriately. What they're really saying is "even though I in fact loath the thought of (insert XXX), I would still be criticizing them if I were neutral on the matter". Bias, like truth, will out.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Just checked out iCloud Communications' website (http://geticloud.com/)... From the looks of the front page, at least, they're in the VoIP market. How is that related to Apple's iCloud? (I would actually be happy if Apple had to ditch the iCloud name, but it won't happen. It would be nice to see them move away from iWhatever; it was annoying when they introduced the first iMac, and it's annoying now.)
If you can't convince them, convict them.
I mean they may have thought they had the name after they bought the icloud.com domain from a swedish company, who had also run a cloud service they called icloud, not long ago.
Apple trademarks /^i[A-Z]([A-Z]+|[a-z]+)$/.
Seriously, how did Apple not know about it? Doing a trademark search is simple - it's almost as easy as Googling it, once you find the search site. Half an hour's work could have thoroughly checked for anyone using that name - did nobody at Apple think to do so?
Whereas the name iCloud was meant to sound like an Apple product? Anything named in that way is being named to make people connect it with Apple.
I think Apple should be more careful but this is obviously a case where both sides contributed to the problem.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
What?
from that complaint:
Apple intends to use the “iCloud” mark are identical to or closely related to the goods and services that have been offered by iCloud Communications under the iCloud Marks since its formation in 2005
but Apple paid for iCloud.com, and this iCloud communications website ( http://geticloud.com ) shows that the company is a VOIP provider.
That means it has didly squat in common with apples use of iCloud.
No one is going to be confused, a small business isn;t going to say - hey lets switch to a cheap VOIP solution
and then go "What? why do we have some kind of syncing solution with apple devices?"
besides, there is no independent signup with apples iCloud - they aren't looking for random customer signup,
it is just an additional service provided when you by you iPod/iPhone/iPad/iMac/Mac
or has my blind fanboi reverence gotten me Stoned?
Has it ever occurred to you that Apple, like the rest of us, have never heard of this company and had no idea the name was in use? It's not even the same name. It's different. This lawsuit is ridiculous and hopefully it gets thrown out.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Lighten up, Francis.
Come on iCloud Communications. They are totally different. Steve took your old iCloud name and made it new. He made a new shiny aluminium logo. It's new...stop kidding yourself. If it's got Apple on it it's new even if it was old. Brilliant! ;-)
I guess iCloud Communications should be introduced to the USPTO. I did a quick search on the trademark iCloud and came up with 12 filed by Apple and one owned by Xcerion AB CORPORATION SWEDEN (registered in 2010). If you want to protect a trademark then register it.
uspto.gov says there are 13 icloud registration marks, 11 of which are owned by Apple. The remaining two marks are owned by a Swedish company "Xcerion" and a person "Douglas Dane Baker". No queries returned ANY owned marks by iCloud Communications. Can anyone else confirm this?
It's the cloud, dude. You can call whatever number you want and reach them.
Haida Manga
Poor poor Apple, it sure is expensive to hire trademark lawyers to check if something's already taken. How ridiculous, a company going to court to enforce their trademark according to the law. And yes I totally agree with you, "iCloud" is a very different name than "iCloud". Ummm, but just so everybody else is on the same page as us, how exactly is it totally different?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
iCloud communications sells VOIP. apple sells iphones that sync in the icloud. Are these different market segments? If apple makes that argument, like they did initially with apple records then perhaps apple will not be allowed to sell VOIP down the road, or will have to remove all voip or skype apps from the app store.
As far as subsidiary confusion goes that does not work against icloud.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Rainbow Cloud (RCloud) Jessy Jackson will sue them. Singing Cloud (SCloud ) Music Cloud (MCloud . ) McLoud public schools will sue them FCloud (FriendCloud) GCloud No Cloud (NCloud) I hereby copyright all permutations on non used [a-zA-Z0-9]*Cloud.
Actually from what I read these guys never actually registered the trademark.
Apple searched and bought the trademark from Xcerion, who actually did register it.
One is iCloud Communicaitons and is an Arizona company selling Voip. The other is Apple iCloud and sells a data service, not phones.
How could anyone confuse them?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Apple did the same thing with Cisco over the name "iPhone". Look how that turned out.
Apple could just make up a name and make is stick - how about synchole - marketing would be a snap "just toss all of your digital data in our synchole!"
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
And yet, Apple suing Amazon over the use of "App store" is not ridiculous? Karma's a bitch, ain't it?
using the letter "i" before any name or trademark, too late now...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
After iCloud comes iRain.
So let's claim that name!
This has nothing to do with apple buying the trademark. They are infringing on someone else's trademark, most likely intentionally, to stomp out competition. There are now TWO different iCloud services... one run by Apple (the new one) and one run by iCloud Communications (the old one) but all anyone will hear about is the apple iCloud, effectively putting iCloud Communications out of business.
So I guess you're typing your message using Lynx browser running in a terminal? I guess not, so you're guilty of using a dumbed down computer interface. Real men use the command line, using a mouse you're avoiding learning a zillion keyboard shortcuts which requires skill.
Computers used to be reliable, simple to use and required very little technical skills. Microsoft and Intel ruined this with their lousy inferior designs (Amigas, Atari STs and Acorn Archimedes computers were much nicer to use).
So far from dumbing down computers, Apple and others are trying to get us back to where we were before Microsoft and the junk that is the PC architecture ruined computing. The fact that everyone seems to be investigating the use of ARM is a good thing as the ARM series of processors can be traced back to Acorn in the 80s so it is at least a decade newer in concept than x86.
Apple bought the trademarks from the actual company that owned them. iCloud Communications *never* registered a trademark for either "iCloud" or "iCloud Communuications"
because the previous owner didn't do business "identical to or closely related to the goods and services that have been offered by iCloud Communications under the iCloud Marks since its formation in 2005", maybe?
Currently that domain redirects to apple. If this company was serious about their name I don't know why they didn't spend the extra $100 (or less depending on registrar) to register the .com domain.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
According to business insider, there is no record of iCloud Communications having filed for the trademark for either "iCloud" or "iCloud Communications" trademarks. There are two applications of "iCloud". One belongs to an individual and the other Xcerion for "iCloud.com". Apple has purchased the domain and the trademark from Xcerion. So I would think that, yes, Apple's lawyers did a search.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Get off of iCloud!
Because Apple owns the registered trademark for App Store, they are entitled to the exclusive use of the name. Amazon does not so they are entitled to go fuck themselves. That how the law works.
If not for Apple's iCloud, I wouldn't have heard of "iCloud Communications." I guess your point (if there was one) backfired.
That is what this whole gulf war was really about.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Exhibit A - a hard drive
Exhibit B - a computer case
They are so different, how could anyone confuse them?
Legality aside, you would think that if they had been using a name legally for 6 years, they have a right to keep using it.
Something is broken if a larger company can buy a trademark of a smaller company and claim ownership and prevent the smaller company from using it.
Of course the legal system is not designed for common courtesy or justice, it's for rent seeking legal professionals.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Con artists. There is work that makes us richer as a society, and work that makes us poorer. Ben Lindquist
Ok... so... what, you want the word Insightful next to your post or something?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this marked "offtopic"?
I personally found it hilarious. A VOIP company telling you to "call our technical support number" if your VOIP phone isn't working.
Poor poor Apple, it sure is expensive to hire trademark lawyers to check if something's already taken. How ridiculous, a company going to court to enforce their trademark according to the law. And yes I totally agree with you, "iCloud" is a very different name than "iCloud". Ummm, but just so everybody else is on the same page as us, how exactly is it totally different?
But Apple wasn't sued over a trademark, they were sued over the name - how much does a "name lawyer" cost?
IANAL (trademark or name), but if you don't bother to trademark the name of your company, you could probably complain if another company takes on a similar name, but not if a product by a company gets one.
Fandroids hate facts.
So far from dumbing down computers, Apple and others are trying to get us back to where we were before Microsoft and the junk that is the PC architecture ruined computing. The fact that everyone seems to be investigating the use of ARM is a good thing as the ARM series of processors can be traced back to Acorn in the 80s so it is at least a decade newer in concept than x86.
Which is the chip that Apple is using at the moment because despite their lies it is a better chip than the PowerPC chips that they were using.
Apple dumped SCSI for usable interface. Yes crapples about turns are nothing of the sort to fanbois.
What you are calling "dumb[ing] down the population", is Apple making technology better suited for actual humans. That's why Apple has been so successful. They take something out of the reach of 90+% of humanity, and make it as easy as driving a car or using a TV.
It's not "dumb" to not know how to interact with a computer via a command line, or navigate complex settings. I know this is incomprehensible to some nerds, but although there are some people who are mostly incapable of ever really understanding computers, most people out there just really aren't that interested or motivated. And there's no good reason to require they should be, nor should they be left out of the modern world.
Trademarks are owned by the people that use them in commerce. Registering for something you aren't using and don't intend to use doesn't grant you the trademark. Additionally, if Coke (tm) hadn't registered the trademark and 100 years later someone else registered the trademark and sued them, the new company would have lost against the original user of the term and the court would likely find that the 100 year old company did, in fact, own the trademark for Coke without ever having registered it.
In fact, most states essentially consider registering a company name as a trademark claim, and enforce distinct naming in corporations for this reason (most may be all, and may be less than most - I've formed a corporation in all of two states and the process was nearly identical, both requiring that I sign something that indicated I have manually searched the list of used names and that mine was unique and not substantially similar to another, and that I also paid some small fee for a bureaucrat to also check). And yes, I realize that states don't really have any say in trademarks, but that doesn't stop them from helping prevent brand confusion. Perhaps the solution is that iCloud will have to be aCloud in Arizona, much like Gmail isn't Gmail in Germany (it was Germany, right?)
Learn to love Alaska
Lynx? Real men telnet to port 80 and read the raw HTML...
Learn to love Alaska
And the fact that the number is listed as "(insert number)" in the FAQ, rather than actually giving a number to call...
Learn to love Alaska
Below are some useful phrases that I have learnt on Slashdot over the past year or so that will help you translate Fanboi-speak to English, and vice-versa:
English: iCloud sues Apple over iCloud name usage.
Fanboi-speak: It's iCloud's fault for not registering the name properly.
English: Apple sues iCloud over iCloud name usage.
Fanboi-speak: It's iCloud's fault for not registering the name properly.
English: Steve Jobs kills puppies.
Fanboi-speak: Steve Jobs takes positive steps on problems of dog littering and potential spread of rabies.
English: Steve Ballmer kills puppies.
Fanboi-speak: Steve Ballmer kills puppies due to anger at number of viruses in Windows.
English: iPhone 4 has antenna problems.
Fanboi-speak: iPhone 4 has enhanced "Do Not Call" and privacy features and less viruses than Windows.
English: Android outsells iOS.
Fanboi-speak: Did you count the iPod Touch?
English: The iPad is too expensive.
Fanboi-speak: The iPad is no more expensive than a reasonable laptop computer.
English: The iPad is too locked down.
Fanboi-speak: The iPad is not designed to replace a reasonable laptop computer.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Uhm.. No, your own comment is exactly the reason WHY Apple is being sued... Now you associate iCloud with Apple instead of iCloud Communications, even if you hadn't hear of iCloud Communications before..
I don't know about the GP, but myself, I am using elinks + console-mode. I doubt I'm the only one... albeit there are few.
I do it for more a choice than b/c I don't have GUIs available.
Real men encrypt that in their head to use HTTPS. Unencrypted HTTP is for pussies.
If only I had enough money for this prank, I would open an eyeCenter. Right next to ...
Privacy is terrorism.
I associate iCloud Communications with iCloud Communications. If they wanted to call themselves iCloud, they should have called themselves iCloud.
Are you going to complain if someone registers the slashdot username SuperDr or SuperD?
You mean there are, like, no public phones in your country?
Apple dealt with the registered owners of the trademark. If "iCloud Communications" didn't register then obviously Apple did their due diligence. iCloud Communications were either lazy, cheap, or incompetent.
Naivete about trademarks [check] (A trademark need not be registered to be enforceable, just clearly marked)
Apple fanbois saying that apple can do no wrong [check]
Apple anti-fanbois saying apple can do no right [check]
GNUtards expressing blanket anti-IP sentiments [check]
My take:
Apple is clearly not a historical good player, where it comes to the blatant co-opting of trademarks, case in point: OS9 vice MacOS9 (OS9 is a trademark of microware for a TRS-80C operating system, built for the 6809 chipset), the iphone/ios thing (the only reason any settlement at all was proposed was IOS was so entrenched that Apple was guaranteed a court loss), and many other trademarks Apple just steamrolled without checking. I suspect they didn't do due diligence at all, just because it seems that they never have before. I submit that the first "look and feel" lawsuits that Apple started were naught but an extension of this, given that the look and feel that apple was litigating was actually developed by Xerox at PARC, which both Microsoft and Apple liberally ripped off. While I doubt iCloud was much more than a shell company built as a IP landmine, Apple has yet to prove that their due diligence is much more than asking around the offices at Cupertino if anyone's ever heard of a given name. I predict that unless iCloud finds some deep pockets (I heard that there's a few deep pockets around that don't like Apple, some in Redmond), Apple will just keep raising the ante until iCloud's basically forced to settle.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Doing a search for an iCloud trademark turns up 13 hits, 11 of which are from Apple, none of which are from iCloud Communications. It's a bit harder to claim trademark infringement when you don't have a registered trademark (harder, not impossible). What makes it even harder is Apple bought the icloud.com domain, which existed and did business prior to the announcement and iCloud Communications didn't sue the previous owners for trademark infringement. Failing to defend your trademarks weakens your ownership of it (*), which is a big difference between trademarks and copyrights (a difference many people aren't aware of).
Sorry, but not having a registered trademark and failing to defend the mark as it was previously used for a near-identical business endeavour dramatically weakens their case.
* This is why, regardless of what you may think of the validity of the claim, companies sometimes sue for trademark infringement - they either have to defend their trademark or risk losing it entirely.
Yeah, we get it. You hated Apple before it was cool to hate Apple. How original and prophetic of you.
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right? The plaintiff here doesn't even own the iCloud mark, never did, and let someone else trademark it, and let them keep that trademark without a peep for over two years.
Only now that one of the most profitable companies in existence is involved, do they speak up. What a coincidence.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
awesome example. the number of times i hear someone call their tower a hard drive is more than is worth keeping track of anymore.
to summarize the summary of that summary: people are a problem.
I'd never heard of iCloud before this article (Apple or the actual owners).
Only thing I can think of, is when Apple did their search for existing names, when they came across iCloud comms, the figured they figured iCloud comms would respekt dair Authoretair.
Good on iCloud comms.
Except they didn't buy a name from the company who owned it. The company who registered the mark in 2008 should not have been issued the mark, because it was previously used in commerce and in the same field the registering company was registering it for. They purchased a name based on a flawed application, one which is currently being contested.
If "iCloud Communications" didn't register then obviously Apple did their due diligence.
This is flawed logic. Failure to register a trademark does not invalidate protection under trademark law. Apple may or may not have done due diligence, but that has little to do with the actions of iCloud Comm. Even if Apple was not aware of iCloud Comm's claim to the mark, they still don't have the right to use it under the law. Trademark law can be a nasty business, simply because registration of works is not required for protection.
Anyway, Apple has a long and storied history of actively ignoring trademark claims they absolutely knew they were in violation of, so I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of any doubt.
But Apple wasn't sued over a trademark, they were sued over the name
Most trademarks are nothing more than names. Just because something is not a design mark does not make it ineligible for protection as a word mark.
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right?
I think you are somewhat mistaken. As I recall Apple bought the icloud.com domain from Xcerion for $4.5 million. No one had filed a trademark. Apple did register for a trademark. You are correct, however, in saying that it seems more than a little fishy to file against Apple for buying a domain that had been in active use for a cloud computing service for years. I mean if this company really was offering cloud computing services and considered iCloud to be their trademark, why did they never file suit against Xcerion? Did they seriously never look at the domain? This seems a lot more like some VOIP reseller deciding they might be able to get some cash in a settlement by claiming a trademark, even though they picked the name years after Xcerion started a service with that exact name.
Then they are lazy, cheap, and incompetent. They are, however, likely the "owner" of the trademark, despite never having registered it.
Learn to love Alaska
Awaken from your dreamy state fanboy,
Computers back then required a degree in CS to operate and a small fortune to buy.
IBM and MS with the x86 and DOS bought computing power not only to the understanding of mere mortals, but made computers affordable by mere mortals.
What you forget is how expensive and limited computers were before the DOS days, DOS bought a simple to learn OS to the masses. As much as I hate and deride MS for it's monopolistic behaviour after this, you have to give them credit where credit is due, if not for the x86 architecture, computers would 10 times as expensive and do half as much. DOS and Windows really did put PC's onto every desk.
Expensive proprietary HW with equally expensive and proprietary OS's. Locked down features that you have to pay extra for despite the feature being installed by default, you need to pay extra for them to flick a switch and activate it. Because that's what PC's were like before x86. Without the IBM PC, everyone would still be using separate processor architectures, no one would be looking at ARM as a single architecture, you owe x86 for demonstrating that uniform hardware across manufacturers leads to greater innovation.
You need a serious reality check... and some history lessons.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Seriously - it's what? $300? If you can't scrape up say, 1-2K$ to protect your name, logo etc, you've got a hobby, not a business.
Cool, I must have had an honorary CS degree when I was using my Apple ][ and Amiga 1000.
Then you give MS credit for x86 architecture, which is hardware. Interesting.
Far as I know, OS X is way cheaper than Windows.
Don't know what the 'locked down features' are that you are talking about.
And then you go back to IBM.
Might want to streamline your arguments a little better, next time. You run all over the place with little direction, mixing your arguments into each other.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Windows laptop A$600.
Apple Laptop A$1200.
Unless you are suggesting I use the hardware I've already got, my AMD Phenom II based desktop where Windows is A$200 and OSX is A$WILL NOT RUN.
What I said was:
IBM chose to make an x86 PC using off the shelf parts. I'm sorry I thought you'd be able to understand examples were respective.
I'm sorry you have trouble keeping up, but that's your problem. Perhaps /. is a bit too complicated for you.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Does no one remember that Cisco owned the trademark for iPhone and Apple stole it without paying for it first?
Apple you probably knew iCloud was a company. You just didn't think you would get caught lol. Just because most of your products have "i" 's in front of them for example "imac,ipod,ibook," Doesn't mean you have copy rights over "i" XD. Check out My website @ http://elitetechforce.net/ I am putting up more linux and open source articles in the future.
Only part of yrademark law is that you aren't allowed to trademark something that is the generic term for that item. For instance, you cannot make a cola flavoured softdrink, and trademark the name "Cola". You can't trademark the word "Windows" in the field of glass panes that fill holes in your walls. THAT'S what the contention is with "App Store" - that it is the generic term for a place to buy "Apps", and that "App" is a generic term that describes the collection of products sold. Amazon would never argue "We were using it first, therefore it is ours to use."
So again to review: 1) Trademarks are only valid within a given limited field. 2) Whoever uses the trademark first, is the person who owns it. They do NOT have to register a trademark. Many trademarks are not registered. These are designated "TM" as opposed to (R). 3) Generic terms cannot be trademarked.
(Of course IANAL, and everything I learned about trademark law was from some highschool classes years ago, and the internet.)
It doesn't matter if Apple is the first to file for the trademark. Trade marks are granted in two ways, first to file or first to use. By making use of it for years they have a pretty good precedent, now how it stands up to the geographic conditions is something the courts may need to sort out.
[url]http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm[/url] (harvard law)
[quote]
4. How do you acquire rights in a trademark?
Assuming that a trademark qualifies for protection, rights to a trademark can be acquired in one of two ways: (1) by being the first to use the mark in commerce; or (2) by being the first to register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). 15 U.S.C. 1127(a). Remember, however, that descriptive marks qualify for protection (and can be registered) only after they have acquired secondary meaning. Thus, for descriptive marks, there may be a period after the initial use of the mark in commerce and before it acquires secondary meaning, during which it is not entitled to trademark protection. Once it has achieved secondary meaning, trademark protection kicks in.
The use of a mark generally means the actual sale of a product to the public with the mark attached. Thus, if I am the first to sell "Lucky" brand bubble-gum to the public, I have acquired priority to use that mark in connection with the sale of bubble-gum (assuming that the mark otherwise qualifies for trademark protection). This priority is limited, however, to the geographic area in which I sell the bubble gum, along with any areas I would be expected to expand into or any areas where the reputation of the mark has been established. So, for example, if I sell pizza in Boston under the name "Broadway Pizza," I will probably be able to prevent late-comers from opening up a "Broadway Pizza" within my geographic market. But I will not be able to prevent someone else from opening a "Broadway Pizza" in Los Angeles.
The other way to acquire priority is to register the mark with the PTO with a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. Unlike use of a mark in commerce, registration of a mark with the PTO gives a party the right to use the mark nationwide, even if actual sales are limited to only a limited area. This right is limited, however, to the extent that the mark is already being used by others within a specific geographic area. If that is the case, then the prior user of the mark retains the right to use that mark within that geographic area; the party registering the mark gets the right to use it everywhere else. So, for example, if I register the mark "Broadway" in connection with the sale of pizza, the existing "Broadway Pizza" in Boston retains the right to use the name in Boston, but I get the right to use it everywhere else.[/quote]
Apple Music
iPhone
iCloud
I think Apple's marketing crew in charge of branding needs to do some more up front research.
After 6 years, of not registering their name..now they think they can get a bit out of the big juicy Apple, eh? What I don't like about this is that it makes Apple look bad, and then after a bit of digging (no more than reading /. comments here, actually)..you find out it's another 'cry wolf' case.
There are real incidences of Apple overstepping their bounds.. but all the ones I read here are sensationalist cases of the other parties being in the wrong .. such as developers 'getting ripped off' and then you find out Apple only rejected their app because they violated the app guidelines, and anyways Apple were already developing it.. etc etc.. ..If it ever comes to a case where Apple is clearly in the wrong.. /. readers will miss it, and not even bother to dig deep.
Cry Wolf, anyone?
Wow, that was prophetic of me, wasn't it? Cool.
I saw their shitty attitude towards programmers and freedom back in the Apple ][ days. It's only getting worse as the days go by. Stevie has some kind of anti-christ complex going on in his head. Probably the anger that he isn't long for this world. Only time I ever thought he was cool was in the NeXT days. These days, he's just a smug skeleton.
One of the most profitable companies in existence... First off, nothing compared to Standard Oil back in the day, not a chance. Also, the day Steve kicks the bucket begins the stock slide to zero. It won't happen right away, but it will slowly begin to dwindle until it gets delisted from the stock exchange. Apple definitely gets the dumb consumer perspective, but they don't get the business world. I was just in a meeting this week discussing which mobile platforms we will port our (true business, not consumer-oriented at all) applications to, and it was decided early on in the meeting that we will not support the iPhone/Pad because of the rights-assuming language in Apple's business contracts for the app store. Android, Windows Phone 7 are definites, Blackberry is a possible, and iPhone/Pad is a definite hell no. Apple didn't get it in the XServe days, and they are too arrogant to ever get it.