Slashdot Mirror
Brazilians Can Now Buy an "iPhone" Loaded With Android
Andy Prough writes "If you happen to be in Brazil and have 599 reals jingling in your pocket ($304 US dollars or £196), you can buy an iPhone — that runs Android. Gradiente Electronica, which registered the 'iPhone' name in Brazil in 2000, has won the right to sell its iPhone Neo One, an Android phone running version 2.3, Gingerbread. Gradiente won the ruling from the Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), despite Apple's argument that Gradiente should lose the right to 'iPhone' because it had not used the name between 2008-2012. Apple retains the right to appeal the case, and Gradiente now has the right to sue Apple for exclusivity in Brazil. If Gradiente wins, the only iPhones sold in Brazil would have a picture of a cute green robot on the box cover."
When are the Americans going to invade Brazil?
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
The company registered the trademark before Apple even thought about launching the iPhone, and produced the physical product to go with it. Good on them. If Apple really cared about the Brazilian market, they would have checked up on trademarks as part of due diligence before branding - it's not like Apple hasn't had bad experiences with trademark issues before.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Every now and then, an event occurs that should not [but does] fill one's heart with joy — mainly because of a universal form of justice being executed. This is one of those moments.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Why add the "Neo One" to the name? You just won a case for a very valuable name in the electronics industry, why go adding extra crap to to let people know that it isn't really an iPhone? If you have no intention of trying to "trick" people into thinking it is an iPhone, why not just sell the name to Apple for what ever you can get? Just go all in and claim it is an iPhone period. Or get some balls release 4 models really quick and claim it is the iPhone 5.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
No, this ruling is just what the trademark is about. They were first to claim the name. So they get to use it. The amount of money an infringer on such trademark spends to get people to think they come up with the brand doesn't matter at all.
First, why not sell the name to Apple?
Because Apple most likely isn't willing to pay what Gradiente wants. Apple has a track record for engaging in long and useless "negotiations" in Brazil. Years ago they wanted the right to set the pace within the App Store (defining age ratings for apps), and the Brazilian government didn't want that. Here the government decides that kind of stuff and Apple thought it wasn't an option, so the end result was that the App Store in Brazil was really shitty for years. Only a few games (those made by Brazilian developers) were available, many other apps were missing. Which even led to people coming up with ways to register their accounts in other countries' stores just to have access to apps they couldn't get here.
Apple also exploits the market here. Brazilians have this retarded idea that more expensive = better. An unlocked iPhone 5 starts at U$U$650 in the US (today that would be ~R$1300 in Brazil). The Brazilian government imposes the highest and most nonsensical volume of taxes in the world, but Apple starts the iPhone 4S (iPhone 5 isn't even selling here officially yet) at R$2000. Carriers have been offering pre-orders for the iPhone 5 starting at around R$2600 with an expensive plan, or around R$3100 without one. It is believed that Apple itself will sell them in the R$2400-3000 range once it's officially released here.
With those things in mind, the result is very likely that Apple wouldn't settle for a value Gradiente wanted.
The second point is about the name.. They (Gradiente) very likely went with something slightly different for the case Apple eventually does decide on paying for the trademark. In that case, Gradiente's trouble with getting around "iPhone Neo One" should be slightly less complicated than simply "iPhone".
Or Apple could just buy the trademark instead of citing the other guy in court like usual.
Trademark is a privatisation of vocabulary. To be morally justified, it must have a purpose for all, not just for the trademark holder. ...
What is the common justification is as a proxy for characteristics and quality of the trademarked goods.
But when the trademark holder decrease the quality, or change the country of origin, and keep using the mark to use the goodwill it represent, he should lose his trademark, because the trademark is now used only for his benefit, as a mean to lie to consumers. Of course, morality and business are distinct worlds
Now, iphone means apple for you. It meant something else before (from wikipedia : The first iPhone model, released by Infogear in 1998, combined the features of a regular phone and a web terminal).
Or Apple could pick another name, since someone else trademarked iPhone first.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
What? No, that's not what trademarks are about. From Wikipedia:
Trademarks are for identification purposes. When people buy an iPhone, the trademark is there so that they know when it says "iPhone" on the box, it's the iPhone they are thinking of and not some other product.
Trademarks have never been land grabs where the first person to claim the name wins. Consider examples like "Escalator". That was originally a trademark, but became generic. Now anybody can make an escalator and call it such.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
There are almost 200 countries in the world. Good luck coming up with a short, pronounceable product name that is original in all of them.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Which is why companies name products differently in markets where they were not able to secure the trademark. Sorry, the only travesty here is that Apple can continue to sell products in Brasil under the name iPhone.
Really Android 2.3? Epic fail.
The only thing newsworthy is the fact that he can use the name iPhone for what looks like is a completely mediocre china phone.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
People are going to be buying these iPhones under the impression they are the product Apple produces. This is exactly what trademarks are intended to prevent
You're right - Apple should never have been able to market the iPhone in Brazil when there was an application pending on that trademark (on a side note - eight years to process a trademark application? Yikes!). The thing is, there was probably nothing to be done about it. The government wouldn't have taken issue with it, and any complaints Gradiente might have made would probably have been laughed away as trolling if they'd made them before their product was ready.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
They've have gone to extraordinary lengths to make them resemble the iPhone
No they haven't. I personally find the iPhone design somewhat dated now, but it is distinctive. These phones look like mid-priced Huawei Android phones, It even has Android buttons on the front. The interface looks more like stock android...including widget layer...the iPhone needs to update their UI too....its not 2007 anymore.
Its an attractive phone...and personally love the striking [and decidedly not Apple like] two tone casing, at this price; a fraction of the Apple iphone...its a steal. Its a phone I could see myself owning.
This [...] does little to rehabilitate the world view of Brazil as a haven for the theft of intellectual property either.
Apparently, Gradiente Electronica made a product with the name iPhone in 2000. If Apple could stop them from using that name simply because Apple started making a phone by the same name later, THAT would have shown that Brazil was a have for intellectual property "theft", or, more correctly, trade mark infringement.
Nah, just release it as iPhone 6, and claim the iPhone 1-5 were internal prototypes if asked.
I think the point is so unlike Apples market-share losing strategy of producing only one iphone at a time. I suspect they will create a product line...like every other company on the planet.
The only thing newsworthy is the fact that he can use the name iPhone for what looks like is a completely mediocre china phone.
The irony of this post hurts my brain.
That might have worked in the past, but now that the world is so connected, that's no longer a decent solution. Suppose Apple were to call their product "Apple Phone" in Brazil. If somebody buys a product labelled "iPhone" and gets it home to find that it's a cheap Android clone instead of an Apple Phone, do you think that's what they were expecting?
The travesty is that people will be buying products labelled "iPhone" under the belief that they are buying the Apple product. This is exactly the scenario trademarks are intended to address, and the fact that they have not done so is an utter failure.
Now, by all means argue that Apple should not be able to just come in and usurp a pre-existing product - that's certainly a reasonable position to take - but you can't say that this isn't a failure of trademark law to protect consumers.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
If a consumer buys a Brazilian iPhone expecting an Apple one, they ought to be able to sue Apple for a refund.
Since you're already there, how's Columbia this time of year?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Most people aren't as knowledgable about technology as the average Slashdotter. They aren't stupid just because they confuse a phone called "iPhone" that has a full-size touchscreen, rounded corners, camera, and the ability to run apps with a phone called "iPhone" that has a full-size touchscreen, rounded corners, camera, and the ability to run apps. Your analogy with the fruit is ridiculous.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Trademarked have to be USED for trade. This company hasn't sold anything called "iPhone" since 2000...if EVER... And didn't bother to contest the first 5 YEARS Apple was selling iPhones around the world.
Trademarks aren't patents that you keep in a drawer for 10 years... They are about IDENTIFICATION... So you have to use them... And if you don't DEFEND them, LOSE them.
The law suit was against Apple iTunes.
There was never a problem until Apple decided to get into the music business.
I don't mean to correct you, wikipedia has a nice history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer the short version of it, as part of the original *settlement* they agreed not to get into to music...and then they did.
Kodak did pretty well.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Actually, we just want iPhones like everybody else.
Actually we want Android phones...its why Apple only have 0.4% of the Brazilian Market. http://www.statista.com/statistics/245189/market-share-of-mobile-operating-systems-for-smartphone-sales-in-brazil/ compared to Androids 56%
Why pay for what the other company did not LEGALLY MAINTAIN? Legally, this's company did not maintain ANY Products with the "iPhone" name since 2000, they did not DEFEND the trademark for the first 5 years Apple sold "iPhone" all over the world, and they waited till last fall to use the name for a knock-off of what Apple was selling. In most countries they would have lost fair and square...
Maybe you're a bit quick in lumping this phone in with "these Android iPhones"? looking at it, I think it looks a lot more like an Android phone than an iPhone.
It has bottom buttons, app drawer, and a little green waving Android robot...
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Most people aren't as knowledgable about technology as the average Slashdotter. They aren't stupid just because they confuse a phone called "iPhone" that has a full-size touchscreen, rounded corners, camera, and the ability to run apps with a phone called "iPhone" that has a full-size touchscreen, rounded corners, camera, and the ability to run apps. Your analogy with the fruit is ridiculous.
If those are the only features that an iPhone sells on, then it deserves its shrinking maketshare[and value], and their is nothing to differentiate it as a product...it is simply a brand. Suddenly Apple fanatics, and Google fanatics are on the same page; holding hands; singing "we are the world".
Although brazilians laws can be compared to most developed countries in world the execution is rarely satisfactory.
Suing a company such as Apple could take up to 10 years, and the value will be not much higher then the cost of the fake iPhone.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
eyePhone
No, you have it backwards. These guys registered the iPhone name first. People are going to buy Apple iPhones under the impression they are real Android iPhones, unwittingly being fooling into buying something they don't want.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If Apple buys Grandiente it will be a win-win situation.
Gradiente was a recognizable brand in Brazil until early 2000's. It has licensed products from Sony, Pioneer, Alpine, JVC, Nokia, Atari, Nintendo in Brazil, including Nokia 7110 (The Matrix Cellphone). This caused a very good impression on the quality of their products
On middle 2000's Gradiente went into bankrupt. The brand was sold and the new owner has put it on hold until now.
IMO Grandiente don't have a bright future ahead. Their only chance is to sell the company, or only the brand iPhone, to Apple, and hope to license other brands again.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
As I have re-iterated several times in this thread: the consumer.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
My suspicion here is that this whole fight is about getting Apple to buy out their trademark. Odds are this phone being released with this name is more about forcing them to the negotiating table than a serious attempt to use the name. In the article the head of the Brazilian company pretty much says he wants settlement talks. All of this appears to be about setting the stage to see who has the best bargaining position when it comes time to talk money. Which is really what this is about.
they did not DEFEND the trademark for the first 5 years
Are you a Brazilian lawyer? If not, how do you know Brazilian trade mark law requires that?
The decision to deny Apple the use of the iPhone trade mark was made by the Brazilian federal agency for intellectual property, one must assume they know what they are doing.
People are going to be buying these iPhones under the impression they are the product Apple produces.
Of course they aren't. The "Apple" name and logo still belong to Apple in Brazil. And like TFA says, the Brazilian iPhone will have a green Android logo. So, no "fake Apple iPhones" just "Brazilian iPhones". No one who wants an Apple iPhone will be buying these by mistake.
That's the risk you take when you use such a very simple almost generic name for your product.
I'm not really sure how much Apple sells in Brazil.
Companies like this tend to ignore "smaller" markets, disregarding them as "too small", or, sell their product as a very expensive niche product.
In Argentina this is the situation with Apple (they only sell through "importers", with no support from Apple directly). XBOX/PS are in the same idea. Microsoft has been in Argentina for over 25 years, they export services, etc. But they don't officially sell XBOX360 or games. These are sold through importers, and with a credit card from Argentina, you can't access XBOX Live (not even to install the Netflix app).
I call bullshit on the "rights" thing fanboys use to justify that (blah blah they could get in trouble for selling stuff through live if other company has distribution rights). Netflix has had NO issues in LATAM since they released their service here.
It is a genuine iPhone.
Apple's iPhone would, in Brazil, be the fake iPhone.
Linksys' iPhone makes the Apple iPhone the fake iPhone.
And this iPhone is not pretending to be the Apple iPhone, therefore is not a fake Apple iPhone.
The travesty is that people will be buying products labelled "iPhone" under the belief that they are buying the Apple product
Then they are stupid.
You can't expect that all countries to bow to the requirements of the biggest player. This situation is very, very simple. There was not nefarious trademark squatting, there was a company that registered a trademark in good faith, years later a US company created a product using this trademark, and the US company never undertook the required trademark investigation. This is the fault of, and the responsibility of Apple.
you can't say that this isn't a failure of trademark law to protect consumers
Yes, I can say exactly that. Look at it like this: A local company creates a successful product and a huge american company with massive lawyers come in and sell an inferior product under the same name. Does the US company deserve to peddle its inferior product to consumers pretending it is the locally produced quality product? No matter how successful the Apple marketing machine is world wide, many (me included) would argue that an Android phone is of superior quality to the Apple offering. Why should Apples inferior product be allowed to lure buyers away from the domestic, higher quality product?
There are almost 200 countries in the world. Good luck coming up with a short, pronounceable product name that is original in all of them.
Slartibartfast
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Brazil imposes duties on imported electronics totaling over 100 percent of the retail price.
I have precisely zero interest in software updates for a phone, as long as it keeps working the same as when I bought it.
Except it won't "keep[] working the same as when [you] bought it." Security vulnerabilities might be discovered in the operating system. Web sites might start relying on features that the phone's browser doesn't support, such as new JavaScript APIs in the HTML5 stable, and showing you an error message when they fail to detect it. Or they might start relying on features that the operating system's SSL stack doesn't support, such as Server Name Indication (SNI), which is required for name-based virtual hosting of multiple customers' SSL sites, and showing you a certificate error when your browser asks for "first certificate on this IP address" rather than "certificate for pineight.com". SNI is becoming increasingly important in the era of Firesheep and IPv4 address exhaustion, and Android didn't get support for it until Honeycomb (3.0) on tablets and Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0) on phones.
Yes, what idiots they are for confusing a phone called "iPhone", with a full-size touch screen, rounded corners, a camera, and the ability to run apps... with a phone called "iPhone", with a full-size touch screen, rounded corners, a camera, and the ability to run apps.
Just because they don't have in-depth knowledge of the smart phone market, it doesn't make them idiots.
As I have repeatedly pointed out again and again, my point is not about what either company deserves. It's about what consumers deserve. That's why trademarks exist - not to give companies benefits, but to protect consumers, to ensure that they can be confident enough to spend a lot of money on something and know that they will get the genuine article. Whether it's convenient or not, people purchasing something called an "iPhone" will be expecting the Apple product, and trademarks are there to make sure they get the product they are expecting.
Yes, it's a mess - I said as much in my first comment. And yes, simply giving Apple the trademark is a bad solution as well. But the current solution completely undermines the purpose of trademarks in the first place. If the trademarks don't protect consumers in this way, there's no point in having them, that's their whole purpose.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
"There was not nefarious trademark squatting"
That is exactly what is being alleged. If it were like the Cisco case where an actual product was developed and sold, then one can quite objectively expect Apple to address the issue and rectify the situation (i.e. pay up). In the Brazilian case, like the Chinese case, it appears to be a mugging of opportunity. They saw their opportunity for a payday and made the requisite minimal moves so a home court judge could put his compromised seal on the tawdry affair.
"Yes, I can say exactly that. Look at it like this: A local company creates a successful product and a huge american company with massive lawyers come in and sell an inferior product under the same name. Does the US company deserve to peddle its inferior product to consumers pretending it is the locally produced quality product?"
Successful product? Successful product? Are you blind? Apple's iPhone, whatever else could be said about it, is arguably the most successful product in the history of the world! (No, I don't own or intend to buy an Apple iPhone. I vastly prefer the iPod touch, especially in its most recent version). There is simply no way in the world that Apple intends "to peddle its inferior product" using the reputation of the local product.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
The plural of "real" is "reais", not "reals".
Cya.
Apple produces the previous generations of its existing product line, such as the iPhone 4 and 4S for Virgin Mobile, at the same time as the current generation for full-price carriers.
Thats not a product line :), and all it is did was cannibalise the iphone5 sales in the *US* adding to Apples woes on the stock market. It clearly didn't help is sell more phones in Brazil or China...you know those massive markets experiencing all the smatphone growth right now; Where your expected to pay outright for a phones; where Android already is not just the leader its over 100X market share in Brazil...and last time I looked 21x in China. The iPhone is simply too cheap a product with too high a mark-up [A mark up so high *nobody* will buy one], to be successful in those markets. Apple had a chance, but it squandered it chasing profits, engaging in frivolous lawsuits, rather than cementing its [Mindshare at least] lead with a affordable range of products...and innovating, a new UI every so often wouldn't hurt.
That chart is pretty interesting. Android is winning market share by stealing it from Symbian...No noticeable uptick in windows devices.
Users do not want windows phone, and increasingly I'm finding little compelling about the current Nokia hardware. I used to say put Android on Nokia Hardware, but I'm not sure if Android will make a difference any more.
I don't know if bananas grow in the ME, or not. But, we ain't over there to steal bananas.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Rather than trying to trick people into thinking that they are selling an Apple iPhone?
Apple's success in cell phones wasn't because they were so good at naming them.
The company did legally maintain the trademark. They were within the expiration period when they decided to use it, which is completely within their rights, as written in the law and as decided by the justice.
FYI, here's the original original
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
tawdry affair
Yeah, right, someone registers a trademark long before Apple thinks about developing a product, and the other guy is tawdry? Seriously? To me you sound like a huge Apple apologist.
Apple's iPhone, whatever else could be said about it, is arguably the most successful product in the history of the world
Considering the iPhone has a fairly small, and shrinking market share, that appears to be wrong.
It's about what consumers deserve. That's why trademarks exist
Trademarks exists for both reasons. Since you're wrong on this part, which is the basis of your argument, your argument falls apart.
If you look into the story of the Brazilian iPhone, you'll see that the original one was nothing more than an unlicensed knockoff of a Nokia, including a ripped-off Nokia ROM.
You really haven't bothered to look at any numbers, have you? Apple makes more money based just on the iPhone than Microsoft does on everything. Soon it is projected to be more than Microsoft and Google combined. We can differ on what we consider a good or better product but successful is rather easily numerically determined and Apple's iPhone is a monster. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Will their next phone be called Iphone Sosumi?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
You really haven't bothered to look at any numbers, have you?
Yes I have. Have you? Apple's market share is small, and it is selling, comparatively, fewer and fewer iPhones. Yes, they are still making money, but with the way Samsung is eating their market share, it is not going to last without some drastic changes at Apple. I have not stated any made up facts, if you didn't know that Samsung alone (not to speak of Android as such) is crushing Apple in market share, you've been living under a rock for the past 18 months.
Does market share matter? Yes, even though current earnings is interesting, market share says something about your potential future earnings. If your market share is dropping, what it is saying about your future earnings is not nice.
How is a potential copyright dispute with Nokia relevant to a trademark dispute with Apple 12 years later?
This sort of disagreement is not one that can be settled by words. It will be settled by results which will take years to play out. The song you sing of Apple's doom has been sung many times for many decades. If one worships at the temple of market share, predictions are simple and often wrong. Please note how many Commodore computers are relevant today. On a day to day basis we see the drama of Dell and HP, marketshare champions, both dealing with 'interesting times'.
But enough of prognostication. What I was objecting to strenuously was the absurdity of how you characterized that Apple was trying to sneak their failed product, the iPhone, into Brazil using the good name and technical excellence of the locally produced legitimate 'iPhone'. The absurdity of the statement is beyond redemption. It's just absurd.
The song you sing of Apple's doom has been sung many times for many decades
I wasn't singing that song. I was way back when, before Bill Gates stepped in and save Apple from going under.
My point is that Brazil is the place where IP theft occurs. Not specifically anything regarding Apple or Nokia per se. They are also notorious for ripping off drug patents.
Gosh, I didn't think I would have any more to add but this just begs. Bill Gates quite rationally propped up what he considered a harmless adversary to try to satisfy those who objected to his use of monopoly power to subvert the market elsewhere. But Apple was saved by Steve Jobs and built to make Microsoft relatively irrelevant to the future of computing. They (MS) still matter and probably 'always' will but this isn't the future Mr Gates had in mind when he made his very profitable investment in Apple (but they sold those shares many years ago).
Steve Jobs and built to make Microsoft relatively irrelevant to the future of computing
Well, then he failed quite spectacularly when he asked Microsoft to build the entire infrastructure for the iCloud (content striped on Amazon S3). Given the connected future Apple has helped usher, what runs the cloud is more critical than what runs the gadgets. As the iCloud feature set grows it will be harder and harder to switch Cloud provider, which makes MS more important than the gadget maker.
It's great to see the balls Gradiente has to stand up to a controversial company, but I still think Apple deserves the right to the name iPhone. Hopefully this will only be a fluke.
I don't know enough about the details of cloud computing infrastructure to have a strong opinion one way or the other but it seems like a dull but useful market with many competitors but not much potential for a meteoric success like an iPhone or iPad. If Microsoft proves unsatisfactory for some reason, then like in the case of Samsung, I would expect Apple to move to a competitor or start their own (cf Apple Store vs big box disasters like Best Buy). Regardless of the details you can rest assured that there will be an Apple for which you can predict decline and disaster.
Lol. You really don't know business at all, do you? In the gadget market, customer loyalty is non-existent. Even Apple will discover this. Ericsson was once t he biggest player by a significant margin, then they lost to Nokia, then Nokia lost to Apple, and Apple will eventually lose to some other guys. That's the nature of the beast when you operate in a market with close to zero brand loyalty. Apple has loyalty within the Mac market, but that is not enough to keep them where they are now.
What is the story on the other side, the Enterprise side (which is where Azure is). Brand loyalty is extreme. Moving large enterprise infrastructure from one provider to another is not only difficult, it is extremely expensive. At the moment the iCloud infrastructure is probably relatively small and would be easy enough to move to a competitor, but a few years down the line that will not be the case any more. It will be prohibitively costly to move, and Apple will probably be stuck with their supplier. This is why Enterprise is loyal. This is why a significant portion of critical business software is still written in COBOL.
Why is enterprise loyalty this strong? Because, when I invest in an iPhone, it costs me a tiny fraction of a monthly salary. If my supplier goes under it doesn't matter to me, moving to a new one is cheap and easy. Enterprise invests millions and millions of dollars in a single application. They write them specially from ground up using some software as base. Enterprise has SAP or CICS or other solutions where hundreds of developers have worked for decades adding special one-off stuff. The idea of moving away from it strikes them perhaps as necessary, but it is an impossibility, most of them would not even begin to know what consequences it would have if they altered these business systems. Hence COBOL. That is why IBM is still one of the largest companies in the world.
Enterprise brand loyalty is basically as close to absolute as you can come. Otherwise there would be no SAP and no IBM (and no COBOL code anywhere). Gadget brand loyalty is as close to non-existent as you can get. Go back a decade or three, look at who were the top players in consumer gadgetry, and figure out where they are now. Atari? Nintendo? Ericsson mobile phones? Commodore. Compare that to the biggest players in the Enterprise at the same time, IBM, HP, SAP. Sure, DEC is gone, but there are thousands of companies around today that specializes in maintaining old DEC gear and software. It is just a little over ten years ago since i helped change a faulty hard drive in a PDP-11 from the 1970s. I don't see many that specializes in fixing Ericsson mobile phones.