That said, I can't help but wonder if this sudden attention paid to security will be bad in the long run.
Have you been through airport security in the US lately? The last time a security issue was 'pointed out' by 'hackers' it was used by the government to create a middle-east shitstorm.
I understand perfectly, yes it would have helped for the company to have registered their trademark but the fact remains that they legally have a claim to it and the mark is contestable because it falls within the specified timeframe. Had they waited the 5 years from registration there would be no problem, however they bought a mark that falls within that timeframe.
Moreover it's impractical - especially for a smaller company operating globally - to register their trademark in every single country particularly since registration doesn't even mean you own it.
It is not Apple's job to do make sure other companies have their trademarks in order.
Your idea of 'in order' however is not consistent with their legal rights.
This is no different than domain name registration. If I register abcrentals.com com before the other company, I get to keep the domain name as I have a legitimate right to the name. Even if they were in business longer, they had full opportunity to get the name before I did.
No, this is different, because registering a trademark does *NOT* mean you own the trademark, it's basic trademark law.
I'm not sure what your argument here is, legally iCloud Comms did the right thing (perhaps they should have registered it but that is NOT a legal requirement) and if Apple's lawyers had done any research beyond a USPTO search they would have uncovered this issue since they well know about the statute of limitations on trademark registration. iCloud Comms have to live with the fact that they now need to fight for the trademark, Apple need to live with the fact that they bought a contestable trademark from a company that may not have legally owned it.
You do understand the concept of "statute of limitations" right? It gives an individual or company 5 years to contest the mark. Again, how could Apple know what is in the mind of every company that may have a similar mark?
They don't have to, the fact is they bought a contestable mark and a company that they could have effortlessly identified has a legal claim to it. Do you really think they are that stupid to have not known this? Do you think they didn't do a simple web search to find this out?
Did you read anything I wrote above? My point is not about whether iCloud Comm has a trademark; it's that they didn't due their due diligence to protect it.
You can just as easily claim apple didn't do their due diligence in identifying this as a contestable mark and identifying the company with a legal claim to it, it's only a simple web search away.
If you decide that's not important, then you have to live with that decision; iCloud has to live with their decisions.
They quite clearly are, they are asserting their legal rights.
Some of them even had to change the business name or product name because there was a similar mark.
And that goes both ways, if you register a business name you check business names and trademarks, if you register a trademark you check trademarks and business names. Why do you do this? Because basic trademark law tells you that doing just one is not sufficient.
That just shows the stupidity in this action, who buys a contestable trademark without the slightest attempt (basic web search) to identify the position of those who could potentially contest it?
In any case you can list the benefits all you want but you're missing the point, registering a trademark is not necessary for you to legally own it. Perhaps it should be but the *fact* is that it is not the case.
Yes but how valuable can protecting a trademark be if the company didn't bother to do the due diligence to register it?
Who knows, the point is it doesn't matter, since you don't have to register it and the only reason you would register it is because it makes it easier in court if someone comes along to try and steal it. They registered their company under that name and operated their products and services under that name, they probably figured that was enough, and legally it is.
How can they even show Apple acted in bad faith since upon searching for a trademark, Apple didn't find one that wasn't registered?
FTFY, and Apple's lawyers clearly know a trademark doesn't have to be registered to be valid, a simple web search would have identified this company (or a search of registered companies), don't try and pass Apple off as ignorant of those basic details.
Even in the case that an application is tied to a specific run time version (and I blame the developer for that), you can distribute the VM with the app, dump it onto the filesystem, and run it.
So you're going to distribute the VM for every single platform with the app then are you? Or are you going to have a VM+app package for every single platform?
"I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share."
No, he doesn't. Not only is it not just market share, but it's not just the smartphone market. Apple has a dominant position in digital music distribution.
Firstly, I never mentioned market share at all. I'm not sure how you can expect to have a reply taken seriously when it is a reply to something you have so obviously not even read.
And secondly even if they do have a dominant market position in digital music distribution they are in no way leveraging that in this case, the music you get from their service is DRM-free, you are not in any way tied to Apple products.
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Based on his sales through Cydia that 'tiny portion' seems to have paid off.
I wondered why - with their other wifi services (AirPlay, AirPort, etc...) prefixed with 'Air' - they had broken from tradition with this, that probably explains it.
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share.
I don't think you're fully capable of comprehending what is clearly written, I never once even made any mention of market share.
That's hardly an adequate explanation. I'll bet that iPhone SDK does not specify a bird throwing API... so surely Angry Birds is in violation for doing "things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit" too:)
well obviously they are alluding to it using undocumented APIs.
The precise name in question is "Wi-Fi Sync". For an application that syncs your phone over wireless. Gee, that's one obscure name for this kind of app - no way Apple could have stumbled onto that by chance!
I agree with you but FWIW I would have thought they would have used a name like AirSync or something.
I mean if all the Apple Haters out there think that Apple's use of the term "App Store" is too generic because it describes what it is and therefore not trademarkable, then doesn't that also apply to an app that does wi-fi sync which is called "Wi-Fi Sync?"
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with something that Apple does is branded an 'Apple Hater'? I think App Store and Wi-Fi Sync are both too generic to be trademarked, but I also have an iPad and quite like it. Just because you disagree with Apple's position on something doesn't mean you hate the whole company.
Both Logos are a combination of the universal wifi symbol, and the universal sync symbol.
Not to mention they are both called 'WiFi Sync'...so they've taken a bunch of obvious features and packaged them together, I agree there's nothing wrong with that but I do seem to remember them suing a company for doing exactly that.
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
It seems his app violated the developer agreement from TFA: that it did things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit.
It's not news that Apple devs aren't constrained by the same agreement as other developers. If you use private/undocumented APIs then it's common knowledge that you'll probably get rejected so why even bother?
Split each byte of data up and store parts on 10-15 different clouds. That way you have redundancy (if several clouds go down you still have enough data from the others to reconstruct your data) and security (if an attacker compromises any cloud they won't be able to get your data).
oh please, for the love of god don't suggest this, i don't think i can handle the next marketing wave of CloudRAID or RAIDCloud.
What they really need to do for the ARM platform is to let go of some of the backwards compatibility (restrict it to.Net).
What would you expect to gain from restricting things to.NET only?
By the way, have a look at this video, and count all the mentions of "HTML5" and "JavaScript". ~
I mean in terms of those applications that would traditionally be written natively, avoiding native development on ARM means that we end up with cross-architecture binaries, you don't have to worry about whether the new apps on your tablet are going to work on your desktop/laptop. Of course HTML5 and JavaScript fit into this mold too.
and the second one is a distant 2nd place, with less than 2% bigger worldwide marketshare than the PS3.
So they are behind Nintendo - that has been in the industry 3 times as long - and have a larger marketshare than their other competitor that has been in the game twice as long. And they've pretty much eliminated their major issue with the 'S' refresh. That doesn't seem like such a bad position at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I can't help but wonder if this sudden attention paid to security will be bad in the long run.
Have you been through airport security in the US lately? The last time a security issue was 'pointed out' by 'hackers' it was used by the government to create a middle-east shitstorm.
Let me break this down so that you understand.
I understand perfectly, yes it would have helped for the company to have registered their trademark but the fact remains that they legally have a claim to it and the mark is contestable because it falls within the specified timeframe. Had they waited the 5 years from registration there would be no problem, however they bought a mark that falls within that timeframe.
Moreover it's impractical - especially for a smaller company operating globally - to register their trademark in every single country particularly since registration doesn't even mean you own it.
It is not Apple's job to do make sure other companies have their trademarks in order.
Your idea of 'in order' however is not consistent with their legal rights.
This is no different than domain name registration. If I register abcrentals.com com before the other company, I get to keep the domain name as I have a legitimate right to the name. Even if they were in business longer, they had full opportunity to get the name before I did.
No, this is different, because registering a trademark does *NOT* mean you own the trademark, it's basic trademark law.
I'm not sure what your argument here is, legally iCloud Comms did the right thing (perhaps they should have registered it but that is NOT a legal requirement) and if Apple's lawyers had done any research beyond a USPTO search they would have uncovered this issue since they well know about the statute of limitations on trademark registration. iCloud Comms have to live with the fact that they now need to fight for the trademark, Apple need to live with the fact that they bought a contestable trademark from a company that may not have legally owned it.
You do understand the concept of "statute of limitations" right? It gives an individual or company 5 years to contest the mark. Again, how could Apple know what is in the mind of every company that may have a similar mark?
They don't have to, the fact is they bought a contestable mark and a company that they could have effortlessly identified has a legal claim to it. Do you really think they are that stupid to have not known this? Do you think they didn't do a simple web search to find this out?
Did you read anything I wrote above? My point is not about whether iCloud Comm has a trademark; it's that they didn't due their due diligence to protect it.
You can just as easily claim apple didn't do their due diligence in identifying this as a contestable mark and identifying the company with a legal claim to it, it's only a simple web search away.
If you decide that's not important, then you have to live with that decision; iCloud has to live with their decisions.
They quite clearly are, they are asserting their legal rights.
Some of them even had to change the business name or product name because there was a similar mark.
And that goes both ways, if you register a business name you check business names and trademarks, if you register a trademark you check trademarks and business names. Why do you do this? Because basic trademark law tells you that doing just one is not sufficient.
after 5 years, the mark is "uncontestable"
That just shows the stupidity in this action, who buys a contestable trademark without the slightest attempt (basic web search) to identify the position of those who could potentially contest it?
In any case you can list the benefits all you want but you're missing the point, registering a trademark is not necessary for you to legally own it. Perhaps it should be but the *fact* is that it is not the case.
I don't understand.
because not everyone is stupid enough to see executing the browser instead of the shell as a great new feature
Yes but how valuable can protecting a trademark be if the company didn't bother to do the due diligence to register it?
Who knows, the point is it doesn't matter, since you don't have to register it and the only reason you would register it is because it makes it easier in court if someone comes along to try and steal it. They registered their company under that name and operated their products and services under that name, they probably figured that was enough, and legally it is.
How can they even show Apple acted in bad faith since upon searching for a trademark, Apple didn't find one that wasn't registered?
FTFY, and Apple's lawyers clearly know a trademark doesn't have to be registered to be valid, a simple web search would have identified this company (or a search of registered companies), don't try and pass Apple off as ignorant of those basic details.
Even in the case that an application is tied to a specific run time version (and I blame the developer for that), you can distribute the VM with the app, dump it onto the filesystem, and run it.
So you're going to distribute the VM for every single platform with the app then are you? Or are you going to have a VM+app package for every single platform?
"I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share." No, he doesn't. Not only is it not just market share, but it's not just the smartphone market. Apple has a dominant position in digital music distribution.
Firstly, I never mentioned market share at all. I'm not sure how you can expect to have a reply taken seriously when it is a reply to something you have so obviously not even read.
And secondly even if they do have a dominant market position in digital music distribution they are in no way leveraging that in this case, the music you get from their service is DRM-free, you are not in any way tied to Apple products.
But if he had been able to use the official app store? Probably have sold ten times as many. At least.
Obviously, but given his sales through Cydia the idea that you 'don't get any money at all' if you don't use the App Store doesn't appear accurate.
Then you don't get any money at all. There are only two ways to get software on an iPhone - the market, and jailbreaking. The jailbreakers are a tiny portion of the market.
Based on his sales through Cydia that 'tiny portion' seems to have paid off.
Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on the operating system market. The had a monopoly on the very narrowly defined consumer desktop OS market.
Yes, obviously.
By the same token, Apple has a monopoly on the iOS market.
The iOS market? You mean devices that ship with iOS on them?
I wondered why - with their other wifi services (AirPlay, AirPort, etc...) prefixed with 'Air' - they had broken from tradition with this, that probably explains it.
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share.
I don't think you're fully capable of comprehending what is clearly written, I never once even made any mention of market share.
That's hardly an adequate explanation. I'll bet that iPhone SDK does not specify a bird throwing API... so surely Angry Birds is in violation for doing "things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit" too :)
well obviously they are alluding to it using undocumented APIs.
... except iCloud is way more then that.
...except this is about WiFi Sync, not iCloud.
The precise name in question is "Wi-Fi Sync". For an application that syncs your phone over wireless. Gee, that's one obscure name for this kind of app - no way Apple could have stumbled onto that by chance!
I agree with you but FWIW I would have thought they would have used a name like AirSync or something.
I mean if all the Apple Haters out there think that Apple's use of the term "App Store" is too generic because it describes what it is and therefore not trademarkable, then doesn't that also apply to an app that does wi-fi sync which is called "Wi-Fi Sync?"
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with something that Apple does is branded an 'Apple Hater'? I think App Store and Wi-Fi Sync are both too generic to be trademarked, but I also have an iPad and quite like it. Just because you disagree with Apple's position on something doesn't mean you hate the whole company.
Both Logos are a combination of the universal wifi symbol, and the universal sync symbol.
Not to mention they are both called 'WiFi Sync'...so they've taken a bunch of obvious features and packaged them together, I agree there's nothing wrong with that but I do seem to remember them suing a company for doing exactly that.
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
For the love of God, the name of the app is "WiFi Sync". What the fuck else are they going to call an app that syncs over WiFi?
For the love of God, the name of the store is "Amazon Appstore". What the fuck else are Amazon going to call their store that sells apps?
It seems his app violated the developer agreement from TFA:
that it did things not specified in the official iPhone software developers' kit.
It's not news that Apple devs aren't constrained by the same agreement as other developers. If you use private/undocumented APIs then it's common knowledge that you'll probably get rejected so why even bother?
Split each byte of data up and store parts on 10-15 different clouds. That way you have redundancy (if several clouds go down you still have enough data from the others to reconstruct your data) and security (if an attacker compromises any cloud they won't be able to get your data).
oh please, for the love of god don't suggest this, i don't think i can handle the next marketing wave of CloudRAID or RAIDCloud.
Especially given the As a member of the Google Wave team in the article.
What they really need to do for the ARM platform is to let go of some of the backwards compatibility (restrict it to .Net).
What would you expect to gain from restricting things to .NET only?
By the way, have a look at this video, and count all the mentions of "HTML5" and "JavaScript". ~
I mean in terms of those applications that would traditionally be written natively, avoiding native development on ARM means that we end up with cross-architecture binaries, you don't have to worry about whether the new apps on your tablet are going to work on your desktop/laptop. Of course HTML5 and JavaScript fit into this mold too.
and the second one is a distant 2nd place, with less than 2% bigger worldwide marketshare than the PS3.
So they are behind Nintendo - that has been in the industry 3 times as long - and have a larger marketshare than their other competitor that has been in the game twice as long. And they've pretty much eliminated their major issue with the 'S' refresh. That doesn't seem like such a bad position at all.