For the same reason that making WebM BSD licensed after spending $300m to acquire it made sense: they can't make money from selling it, but they can make money from the surrounding ecosystem, and that ecosystem is enlarged if it's free.
WebM was freely licensed because that was the only way it could compete with h.264, it had to offer something substantially advantageous, being 'just as good' isn't good enough to justify a switch otherwise they would just continue using h.264.
Still not as good as a CD. But that's the trend... Americans are willing to settle for crap more easily these days (Wal-Mart).
Of course it technically isn't, but as you say, that's the trend, most people can't tell the difference so most people don't care about the technicalities of CD quality.
It seems he isn't concerned with the quality of those apps but that for some reason he needs more than a few good apps that do the same thing. I mean he's stated it is an issue that it has only a few good twitter apps, how is that a problem? How many good twitter apps does he need? Ditto for news readers. What's next? Not enough fart apps for him?
Just think. With the death of paper books and the move to only digital copies (most of which will be slathered in DRM) you can eliminate the concept of resale, ensure that old editions of books become unusable, and revise history on the fly. Region lockouts, EULAs, acitvations and time limits.
Of course that would be ignoring the fact that the same thing has happened with music and the largest distributors - Amazon and iTunes - provide most of it DRM-free.
Also, he keeps going on and on about apps, but doesn't give a single example of what is wrong with even one of those apps, or what critical apps are missing. Who let this guy on the internet?
Well he does say there are very few good twitter clients (why the hell do you need lots of twitter clients?) and very few newsreaders (again, why do you need lots of newsreaders?).
Guys, this guy is more mainstream than 95% of Slashdot readers will ever be, Get over it. You don't need to know how to design a car engine to know when a car is under powered. Reviews for the general population should be written by people who are from the general population, not by techies with an axe to grind.
But it's comments like these that show that he has no clue: For instance, there are very few good Twitter clients, and very few news readers. Want to browse headlines? You'll be hard pressed here.
Why does he want lots of good twitter clients? Or lots of news readers? How many different twitter clients do need? His core example of the platform failing is that there aren't lots of duplicate apps, that's just moronic and pointless.
FWIW I have an ipad (first one) and outside of the web browser i don't really use many apps so the platform isn't really relevant to me.
And you know why? Because legally they do NOT have to.
Sigh. The point is if you go national, you should. By not registering, iCloud Comm cannot legally sue in federal court.
So you're a lawyer? Show me exactly how they cannot legally sue in federal court, show me where this is stated. Of course the should have registered it, but they don't have to.
You keep claiming ad nauseum that Apple should have done "more" but you are unwilling to explain what is "more" and what decision or guideline or ruling spells out what that "more" is.
If they had've done the most basic and fundamental of research beyond the USPTO search they would not be in this situation at all, that is what 'more' is. Are you the sort of person content with doing the bare minimum even knowing the bare minimum isn't enough to cover you?
You also keep asserting what Apple has or has not done in the background. Unless you work for Apple legal, you cannot know what they did or did not do.
So you're suggesting that they did know this situation could arise but decided to ignore it?
Again, Xcerion had a registered national mark for 3 years without challenge. They legitimately own the mark at the national level.
Rubbish, show exactly where it states that they legitimately own it, because registration is not ownership and the statute of limitations is 5 years. Your only argument seems to be laches (which it seems you discovered just recently as you didn't mention it until very late in the discussion), which is based on many other factors.
The main reason they didn't is that the USPTO would consider iCloud Comm and Xcerion to be in different industries thus both marks can coexist even if both registered.
So you claim to know the inner workings of iCloud Comm now.
If iCloud Comm challenged it, it would be on record that the USPTO ruled against them. That's my point.
All your point seems to be is that they should have registered it, something i never at any point disputed.
I don't know how that could possibly work in court. By buying a device, opening the box, and using it, I've at no point agreed to a license agreement. This isn't even a EULA thing: there's no way I've agreed to anything.
So what you're saying is that no matter what you do with a device it should be covered by warranty. I think the idiocy in that is pretty obvious.
Not only does Apple have to do an unreasonable search that no one has to do; they have to buy an excessive amount of property just in case.
Since when is a basic web search 'unreasonable'? They have to buy it from the owner, not someone who may or may not be the owner. All Apple bought was the registration of the trademark, not the ownership, they know this, they aren't idiots.
Google is not the authority on registered marks.
I never said they were.
The problem for iCloud Comm is they claim to be national but never registered their mark like they should have. Most companies register their mark when they form; iCloud Comm didn't do this.
And you know why? Because legally they do NOT have to.
You never answered the question. Name what exactly is required. Why would a court require more than the minimum.
There is no 'requirement', which is precisely why they are in this situation. You can't plead ignorance, Apple's lawyers aren't idiots, they knew the mark was contestable and didn't make the slightest effort to identify who the owner might be given it was only a basic web search away.
If you're missing the simple point about laches, it will take a lifetime to explain to you why you don't get it.
I understand them perfectly, what i still can't work out is what your point is, you've ignored that this whole time and it seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You'll post again, but still not even say what your point is, seemingly because you don't have one.
Also you keep saying "ownership != registration" without barely understanding what I'm clearly saying to you.
You're all over the place, you've failed to even state what your point or be consistent in your argument. You keep saying they should have registered it, but the fact is that doesn't matter because the context of the discussion is about who owns it, RTFA.
My facts are, that a lot less people buy Symbian than in the past, and almost nobody buys WP7.
Symbian is declining rapidly, WP7 is growing very slowly.
Yes I did, they're the bare minimum to call an OS "smartphone" in 2011. HTM5? Multitasking? Threaded messages? Podcasts? I would be surprised if they sold "smart" phones in 2010/2011 without them.
So what are the features missing that make it so far from feature-parity with Android and iOS?
And in fact, they didn't sell many.
Yet they sold an absolute boatload more in 8 months than Maemo in its 5 year life.
The fact is that today, after almost five years of decline, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. I'll repeat it, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. So whatever they had done wrong in the past, they still had margins to fix it.
Nokia's margin on phones is *FAR* less than Apples, they make *FAR* less profit on the phones they sell.
That's because Nokia relegated it in that position with their stupid internal competition. This was going to change when Maemo became Nokia's flagship platform. We'll see what the potential results could have been when the N950 is out.
That's absolutely nothing but baseless speculation. The product was there, basically no-one wanted it.
Go to ovi.com and see what's remaining - only music, store (soon to become only a "channel" in WP7 store or something like that) and maps (soon to become the mapping provider for WP7).
So like i said the haven't killed all their services.
A migration path was still possible. I'm not talking about binary compatibility.
Like what? The OS paradigms are completely different.
Then it would be too late for WP7 too, since on the market it's almost non-existent now, and Mango won't be here before autumn.
Maemo had been on the market for 5 years before WP7 came out and yet it still has gotten nowhere.
Why not? Care to elaborate? We are talking about a shared memory form of parallelism that automatically assesses system resources and allocated threads to appropriate cores, right?
GCD is simply an implementation of the thread pool pattern. AMP takes parallel tasks and can seamlessly switch through utilising different computing resources to complete them rather than having to specify those resources and write resource-specific code for them. So no, it isn't like GCD.
decline != death. If you put things this way, the commercial failure (in the same time span) of WP7 is even more obvious.
No, get your facts right, WP7 has not had a decline like Symbian.
Subjective. So far very few users found that interface worth of being bought.
A hell of a lot less users found Maemo to be worth using, so by your logic WP7 is miles in front of Maemo.
I don't know about iOS, but certainly it's not even remotely on feature parity with Android. If we look at features, WP7 is the most disadvantaged OS, missing some features which can be found on Nokia's S40 featurephones.
You clearly haven't looked through the Mango update changes. The fact is the features in nokia's smartphones clearly aren't enough to attract users away from platforms like Android and iOS even though Nokia had over a decade headstart in the market.
There were plans to fix that using Qt, which is perfectly competitive in terms of development experience.
And they took far too long and got left behind with a MASSIVE decline in marketshare.
Nokia failed
Damn right, they needed a drastic change of plans.
The few ones who knew about Maemo, could afford it, and bought the N900, were satisfied with the product (not so much with the support that Nokia gave to the platform...).
The only people that bought them were geeks, it has never been a consumer-level platform. I had an N900 and as a handheld linux computer it was great, as a phone it was not, the problem is the general populace does not want a handheld linux computer, they prefer something like android where linux is invisible to them. It is bulky, heavy, the touchscreen isn't great, it lacked the responsiveness of modern smartphones (unless you overclocked the crap out of it), the built in applications are slow (the mail client is particularly awful).
They are ditching Symbian in one year, with no future plans for it.
They aren't killing all their current products though, all their low-end phones will still exist.
They're dropping the Ovi services (while Apple announces similar services for the iPhone as the "big new feature" of iOS 5).
Show me where they've said that, AFAIK they are integrating features from their Ovi services (particularly maps) into MS's offerings.
They provide no migration path from Qt to Windows Phone 7 after they had been telling all of their developers to invest in Qt training.
Of course not, they aren't compatible platforms.
If Nokia had focussed on Maemo in the early days of the project it could have been a viable competitor by now, but it never progressed enough to appeal to the general consumers and it's too late now.
The USPTO is the authority on registered trademarks. As for unregistered marks, no one is the authority.
And since registration doesn't constitute ownership it doesn't matter.
A mark is not a deed to a property in that there can be only one owner. Different marks can coexist as long as the marks apply to different industries.
And in this case they still didn't buy it from the owner in the applicable industry.
Again what is the alternative? There are 50 states and hundreds of localities. Not all of them are web searchable. The law does not require that a company visit and search every one of them. And how do you know that is all they did?
This company shows up in a simple google search, they would have found it straight away if they had've bothered to do a web search.
How do you know they didn't do and what is required? My argument is the minimum is the USPTO search. Again show me anywhere it is clearly defined what is required beyond the USPTO search: A court case, a ruling, guidelines from the USPTO, anything that says I'm wrong about this.
The minimum is a USPTO search but the *FACT* is a USPTO registration isn't ownership, so unless you're an idiot you wouldn't limit yourself to a USPTO search.
So? How is that a problem with the statement? The statement is correct.
There is a legal concept called laches. Delays in pursuing legal claims may hinder a parties right to pursue.
That still doesn't affect the correctness of the statement. They have within the 5 years to pursue legal claims.
Again, what is your point? Unless you're a fool you know that a USPTO registration doesn't constitute ownership and that if all you're going to do is a USPTO search finding a contestable then it's likely you'll end up in this situation.
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying.
But I question the factual consistence of both of these statements: what theoretical suppositions support WP's hope of growth, and what pratical facts confirm them?
I don't see how you can question the factual consistence of the rapid decline of Symbian, it's all blindingly obvious.
Given that WP has a good user experience and rapidly growing app store coupled with an announced update bringing it to general feature-parity with iOS and Android means it certainly is a viable competitor and thus has potential for growth in the market.
What made it impractical to keep the declining Symbian alive, while the switch to Maemo was being completed?
Probably the fact that it was completely uncompetitive in terms of user experience. Maemo just wasn't successful (great for hackers, not so much for the general populace), so they merged with Moblin for Meego, but even then the versions that were available and progress being made were painful, who knows how long it would take to get it working much less have a competitive user experience.
On the other hand, if I was to kill all of my current products, destroy my development and services ecosystem, irreversibly burn all bridges toward any "plan b"
They aren't killing all of their current projects, not sure where you got that from. They aren't destroying their services ecosystem, again not sure where you got that from. Irreversibly burn all bridges? I don't see any evidence to support that either.
They do not have to register in every country, only their own. Since both iCloud Comm and Apple are both in this country, the USPTO, again, is the authority.
The USPTO is *NOT* the authority, as demonstrated by the *FACT* that a USPTO registration does *NOT* constitute ownership.
This is not a case of Apple telling iCloud Comm they can't use the name iCloud. It is the other way around in that Apple bought a registered trademark from another company and thus they believe they have the right to use it but iCloud Comm is saying that they don't.
And it seems they likely bought it from a company that didn't rightfully own it in the first place.
Apple did theirs.
By limiting their search to a database containing registrations that do not constitute legal ownership.
Show me anywhere in trademark infringement law where Apple has to do more than a USPTO search when it comes to looking for trademarks. Where does that say that a Google search is required?
I didn't suggest that it did, they don't have to search beyond the USPTO database, but since registration with the USPTO does not constitute ownership purchasing a contestable trademark warrants searches beyond that database.
Apple need to live with the fact that they bought a contestable trademark from a company that may not have legally owned it.
The problem with that statement is that iCloud Comm never contested it until Apple owned it. Meaning they either never searched themselves or they had no problem with Xcerion registering the mark.
So? How is that a problem with the statement? The statement is correct.
Nokia had to do a hell of a lot wrong to be in this position, because they were doing a hell of a lot right with Maemo/Linux.
As a satisfied N900 user I'm quite happy to see Nokia dying after such a betrayal of it's active community.
Great phone for hackers, but not so much for end-users.
In Q1 2011, even after Elop killed it at the beginning of the year, Symbian's worldwide marketshare was 24%.
To which had plummeted around 40% in past couple of years.
The sales of Windows Phone, the supposed saviour of Nokia, sum up to 2.5%, ten times lower than the dead Symbian.
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying. The question is would you rather jump on board an existing established OS (Android) where you bring little to the market or be responsible for bringing marketshare to a fledgling operating system?
The real Anonymous of yore wouldn't point their cannons in such arbitrary manners.
You mean the Anonymous that trolled gays, 12 year old girls, dating site members, etc...? Certainly sounds like the 'Anonymous of yore' would do that sort of arbitrary trolling and attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason that making WebM BSD licensed after spending $300m to acquire it made sense: they can't make money from selling it, but they can make money from the surrounding ecosystem, and that ecosystem is enlarged if it's free.
WebM was freely licensed because that was the only way it could compete with h.264, it had to offer something substantially advantageous, being 'just as good' isn't good enough to justify a switch otherwise they would just continue using h.264.
There is no 'XCode update'.
What I am saying is that soon Xcode updates will be real updates and not full installs.
I saw that for iOS, but where did you see they were doing it for XCode?
Still not as good as a CD. But that's the trend... Americans are willing to settle for crap more easily these days (Wal-Mart).
Of course it technically isn't, but as you say, that's the trend, most people can't tell the difference so most people don't care about the technicalities of CD quality.
Music, and music only.
Yeah that's what I said.
Video and ebooks however continue to be wrapped in layers of DRM and little forward motion to push DRM out of those fields seems to be underway.
And that used to be the case with music too, and look how things have changed.
You can buy crap copies DRM free. It's pretty tough to find lossless, DRM-free music these days (ie: CD's).
For the vast majority 256kbps is not 'crap'.
It seems he isn't concerned with the quality of those apps but that for some reason he needs more than a few good apps that do the same thing. I mean he's stated it is an issue that it has only a few good twitter apps, how is that a problem? How many good twitter apps does he need? Ditto for news readers. What's next? Not enough fart apps for him?
Just think. With the death of paper books and the move to only digital copies (most of which will be slathered in DRM) you can eliminate the concept of resale, ensure that old editions of books become unusable, and revise history on the fly. Region lockouts, EULAs, acitvations and time limits.
Of course that would be ignoring the fact that the same thing has happened with music and the largest distributors - Amazon and iTunes - provide most of it DRM-free.
Also, he keeps going on and on about apps, but doesn't give a single example of what is wrong with even one of those apps, or what critical apps are missing. Who let this guy on the internet?
Well he does say there are very few good twitter clients (why the hell do you need lots of twitter clients?) and very few newsreaders (again, why do you need lots of newsreaders?).
what use is Flash on a device without a permanent keyboard and, more crucially, a mouse?
Why do you need a keyboard for flash? And why do you need a mouse for flash?
Guys, this guy is more mainstream than 95% of Slashdot readers will ever be, Get over it. You don't need to know how to design a car engine to know when a car is under powered. Reviews for the general population should be written by people who are from the general population, not by techies with an axe to grind.
But it's comments like these that show that he has no clue:
For instance, there are very few good Twitter clients, and very few news readers. Want to browse headlines? You'll be hard pressed here.
Why does he want lots of good twitter clients? Or lots of news readers? How many different twitter clients do need? His core example of the platform failing is that there aren't lots of duplicate apps, that's just moronic and pointless.
FWIW I have an ipad (first one) and outside of the web browser i don't really use many apps so the platform isn't really relevant to me.
And you know why? Because legally they do NOT have to.
Sigh. The point is if you go national, you should. By not registering, iCloud Comm cannot legally sue in federal court.
So you're a lawyer? Show me exactly how they cannot legally sue in federal court, show me where this is stated. Of course the should have registered it, but they don't have to.
You keep claiming ad nauseum that Apple should have done "more" but you are unwilling to explain what is "more" and what decision or guideline or ruling spells out what that "more" is.
If they had've done the most basic and fundamental of research beyond the USPTO search they would not be in this situation at all, that is what 'more' is. Are you the sort of person content with doing the bare minimum even knowing the bare minimum isn't enough to cover you?
You also keep asserting what Apple has or has not done in the background. Unless you work for Apple legal, you cannot know what they did or did not do.
So you're suggesting that they did know this situation could arise but decided to ignore it?
Again, Xcerion had a registered national mark for 3 years without challenge. They legitimately own the mark at the national level.
Rubbish, show exactly where it states that they legitimately own it, because registration is not ownership and the statute of limitations is 5 years. Your only argument seems to be laches (which it seems you discovered just recently as you didn't mention it until very late in the discussion), which is based on many other factors.
The main reason they didn't is that the USPTO would consider iCloud Comm and Xcerion to be in different industries thus both marks can coexist even if both registered.
So you claim to know the inner workings of iCloud Comm now.
If iCloud Comm challenged it, it would be on record that the USPTO ruled against them. That's my point.
All your point seems to be is that they should have registered it, something i never at any point disputed.
/golfclap
I don't know how that could possibly work in court. By buying a device, opening the box, and using it, I've at no point agreed to a license agreement. This isn't even a EULA thing: there's no way I've agreed to anything.
So what you're saying is that no matter what you do with a device it should be covered by warranty. I think the idiocy in that is pretty obvious.
Not only does Apple have to do an unreasonable search that no one has to do; they have to buy an excessive amount of property just in case.
Since when is a basic web search 'unreasonable'? They have to buy it from the owner, not someone who may or may not be the owner. All Apple bought was the registration of the trademark, not the ownership, they know this, they aren't idiots.
Google is not the authority on registered marks.
I never said they were.
The problem for iCloud Comm is they claim to be national but never registered their mark like they should have. Most companies register their mark when they form; iCloud Comm didn't do this.
And you know why? Because legally they do NOT have to.
You never answered the question. Name what exactly is required. Why would a court require more than the minimum.
There is no 'requirement', which is precisely why they are in this situation. You can't plead ignorance, Apple's lawyers aren't idiots, they knew the mark was contestable and didn't make the slightest effort to identify who the owner might be given it was only a basic web search away.
If you're missing the simple point about laches, it will take a lifetime to explain to you why you don't get it.
I understand them perfectly, what i still can't work out is what your point is, you've ignored that this whole time and it seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You'll post again, but still not even say what your point is, seemingly because you don't have one.
Also you keep saying "ownership != registration" without barely understanding what I'm clearly saying to you.
You're all over the place, you've failed to even state what your point or be consistent in your argument. You keep saying they should have registered it, but the fact is that doesn't matter because the context of the discussion is about who owns it, RTFA.
My facts are, that a lot less people buy Symbian than in the past, and almost nobody buys WP7.
Symbian is declining rapidly, WP7 is growing very slowly.
Yes I did, they're the bare minimum to call an OS "smartphone" in 2011. HTM5? Multitasking? Threaded messages? Podcasts? I would be surprised if they sold "smart" phones in 2010/2011 without them.
So what are the features missing that make it so far from feature-parity with Android and iOS?
And in fact, they didn't sell many.
Yet they sold an absolute boatload more in 8 months than Maemo in its 5 year life.
The fact is that today, after almost five years of decline, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. I'll repeat it, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. So whatever they had done wrong in the past, they still had margins to fix it.
Nokia's margin on phones is *FAR* less than Apples, they make *FAR* less profit on the phones they sell.
That's because Nokia relegated it in that position with their stupid internal competition. This was going to change when Maemo became Nokia's flagship platform. We'll see what the potential results could have been when the N950 is out.
That's absolutely nothing but baseless speculation. The product was there, basically no-one wanted it.
Go to ovi.com and see what's remaining - only music, store (soon to become only a "channel" in WP7 store or something like that) and maps (soon to become the mapping provider for WP7).
So like i said the haven't killed all their services.
A migration path was still possible. I'm not talking about binary compatibility.
Like what? The OS paradigms are completely different.
Then it would be too late for WP7 too, since on the market it's almost non-existent now, and Mango won't be here before autumn.
Maemo had been on the market for 5 years before WP7 came out and yet it still has gotten nowhere.
Why not? Care to elaborate? We are talking about a shared memory form of parallelism that automatically assesses system resources and allocated threads to appropriate cores, right?
GCD is simply an implementation of the thread pool pattern. AMP takes parallel tasks and can seamlessly switch through utilising different computing resources to complete them rather than having to specify those resources and write resource-specific code for them. So no, it isn't like GCD.
Oh, like Grand Central Dispatch from Apple?
No, not really like that at all.
Oh but haven't you heard? They're dropping everything else for HTML5/JavaScript ;)
decline != death. If you put things this way, the commercial failure (in the same time span) of WP7 is even more obvious.
No, get your facts right, WP7 has not had a decline like Symbian.
Subjective. So far very few users found that interface worth of being bought.
A hell of a lot less users found Maemo to be worth using, so by your logic WP7 is miles in front of Maemo.
I don't know about iOS, but certainly it's not even remotely on feature parity with Android. If we look at features, WP7 is the most disadvantaged OS, missing some features which can be found on Nokia's S40 featurephones.
You clearly haven't looked through the Mango update changes. The fact is the features in nokia's smartphones clearly aren't enough to attract users away from platforms like Android and iOS even though Nokia had over a decade headstart in the market.
There were plans to fix that using Qt, which is perfectly competitive in terms of development experience.
And they took far too long and got left behind with a MASSIVE decline in marketshare.
Nokia failed
Damn right, they needed a drastic change of plans.
The few ones who knew about Maemo, could afford it, and bought the N900, were satisfied with the product (not so much with the support that Nokia gave to the platform...).
The only people that bought them were geeks, it has never been a consumer-level platform. I had an N900 and as a handheld linux computer it was great, as a phone it was not, the problem is the general populace does not want a handheld linux computer, they prefer something like android where linux is invisible to them. It is bulky, heavy, the touchscreen isn't great, it lacked the responsiveness of modern smartphones (unless you overclocked the crap out of it), the built in applications are slow (the mail client is particularly awful).
They are ditching Symbian in one year, with no future plans for it.
They aren't killing all their current products though, all their low-end phones will still exist.
They're dropping the Ovi services (while Apple announces similar services for the iPhone as the "big new feature" of iOS 5).
Show me where they've said that, AFAIK they are integrating features from their Ovi services (particularly maps) into MS's offerings.
They provide no migration path from Qt to Windows Phone 7 after they had been telling all of their developers to invest in Qt training.
Of course not, they aren't compatible platforms.
If Nokia had focussed on Maemo in the early days of the project it could have been a viable competitor by now, but it never progressed enough to appeal to the general consumers and it's too late now.
The USPTO is the authority on registered trademarks. As for unregistered marks, no one is the authority.
And since registration doesn't constitute ownership it doesn't matter.
A mark is not a deed to a property in that there can be only one owner. Different marks can coexist as long as the marks apply to different industries.
And in this case they still didn't buy it from the owner in the applicable industry.
Again what is the alternative? There are 50 states and hundreds of localities. Not all of them are web searchable. The law does not require that a company visit and search every one of them. And how do you know that is all they did?
This company shows up in a simple google search, they would have found it straight away if they had've bothered to do a web search.
How do you know they didn't do and what is required? My argument is the minimum is the USPTO search. Again show me anywhere it is clearly defined what is required beyond the USPTO search: A court case, a ruling, guidelines from the USPTO, anything that says I'm wrong about this.
The minimum is a USPTO search but the *FACT* is a USPTO registration isn't ownership, so unless you're an idiot you wouldn't limit yourself to a USPTO search.
So? How is that a problem with the statement? The statement is correct.
There is a legal concept called laches. Delays in pursuing legal claims may hinder a parties right to pursue.
That still doesn't affect the correctness of the statement. They have within the 5 years to pursue legal claims.
Again, what is your point? Unless you're a fool you know that a USPTO registration doesn't constitute ownership and that if all you're going to do is a USPTO search finding a contestable then it's likely you'll end up in this situation.
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying.
But I question the factual consistence of both of these statements: what theoretical suppositions support WP's hope of growth, and what pratical facts confirm them?
I don't see how you can question the factual consistence of the rapid decline of Symbian, it's all blindingly obvious.
Given that WP has a good user experience and rapidly growing app store coupled with an announced update bringing it to general feature-parity with iOS and Android means it certainly is a viable competitor and thus has potential for growth in the market.
What made it impractical to keep the declining Symbian alive, while the switch to Maemo was being completed?
Probably the fact that it was completely uncompetitive in terms of user experience. Maemo just wasn't successful (great for hackers, not so much for the general populace), so they merged with Moblin for Meego, but even then the versions that were available and progress being made were painful, who knows how long it would take to get it working much less have a competitive user experience.
On the other hand, if I was to kill all of my current products, destroy my development and services ecosystem, irreversibly burn all bridges toward any "plan b"
They aren't killing all of their current projects, not sure where you got that from. They aren't destroying their services ecosystem, again not sure where you got that from. Irreversibly burn all bridges? I don't see any evidence to support that either.
They do not have to register in every country, only their own. Since both iCloud Comm and Apple are both in this country, the USPTO, again, is the authority.
The USPTO is *NOT* the authority, as demonstrated by the *FACT* that a USPTO registration does *NOT* constitute ownership.
This is not a case of Apple telling iCloud Comm they can't use the name iCloud. It is the other way around in that Apple bought a registered trademark from another company and thus they believe they have the right to use it but iCloud Comm is saying that they don't.
And it seems they likely bought it from a company that didn't rightfully own it in the first place.
Apple did theirs.
By limiting their search to a database containing registrations that do not constitute legal ownership.
Show me anywhere in trademark infringement law where Apple has to do more than a USPTO search when it comes to looking for trademarks. Where does that say that a Google search is required?
I didn't suggest that it did, they don't have to search beyond the USPTO database, but since registration with the USPTO does not constitute ownership purchasing a contestable trademark warrants searches beyond that database.
Apple need to live with the fact that they bought a contestable trademark from a company that may not have legally owned it.
The problem with that statement is that iCloud Comm never contested it until Apple owned it. Meaning they either never searched themselves or they had no problem with Xcerion registering the mark.
So? How is that a problem with the statement? The statement is correct.
Nokia had to do a hell of a lot wrong to be in this position, because they were doing a hell of a lot right with Maemo/Linux. As a satisfied N900 user I'm quite happy to see Nokia dying after such a betrayal of it's active community.
Great phone for hackers, but not so much for end-users.
In Q1 2011, even after Elop killed it at the beginning of the year, Symbian's worldwide marketshare was 24%.
To which had plummeted around 40% in past couple of years.
The sales of Windows Phone, the supposed saviour of Nokia, sum up to 2.5%, ten times lower than the dead Symbian.
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying. The question is would you rather jump on board an existing established OS (Android) where you bring little to the market or be responsible for bringing marketshare to a fledgling operating system?
The real Anonymous of yore wouldn't point their cannons in such arbitrary manners.
You mean the Anonymous that trolled gays, 12 year old girls, dating site members, etc...? Certainly sounds like the 'Anonymous of yore' would do that sort of arbitrary trolling and attacks.