Why would that surprise you? However silly we might think trademark law, Cisco owns that trademark under the current law. If Apple wants to use it, they'll have to make a deal with Cisco. Or did you mean that you were surprised that they were still talking so late in the game?
It surprised me because it would be easier for Cisco to sue and make more money out of a settlement than to just give in. If they do this while iPhone is still on people's minds, Apple would offer a bigger settlement.
Hence my surprise.
I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.
Mind you -- Apple was conducting negotiations when this was happening. If Apple did not trust Cisco, they would have signed the agreement before the final announcement. Obviously, Apple announcing this before the agreement signifies one of two things:
Apple trying to be nasty (like you said).
Or Apple believing in Cisco's good faith.
Since Apple was indeed having negotiations, and given Cisco's legal history before, I am inclined to go with the latter.
It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.
As the folks who made the i prefix popular (iMac, iPod, iTunes etc.), it would be logical for Apple to use iPhone for their phone. Brand names create an impression of the company in the minds of people and hence they are valuable.
Of course this was going to happen -- I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name. Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over? Gee, color me surprised.
And Apple was obviously stupid to use the name before the final documents were signed, and Cisco would probably agree to settle for a really large sum of money (or alternatively, would probably take a really large sum of money from certain other companies to *not* give the rights).
True, but that becomes a double-edged sword -- you get some benefits being a part of a bigger organization that a smaller organization can't afford (good health insurance, stock options and 401k plans, long term security (well, depends on the company) etc). Of course, on the flip side, like you said, you are still subject to blanket company policies and the like.
Once again, it would boil down to the group/company in question, rather than any one place.
Or find a small group within a company where you fit well, and you will feel much the same.
Companies are not all the same on the inside, and some groups are better than the others within a company.
I work in the R&D division of a telecom services company - and our group is very small but is great to work with. For the most part, we are encouraged to think up cool things with technology that we think are worth exploring and are given the opportunity to work with them.
Alternatively, you could start your own company and work with a company that you already know (i.e. consultant and consultancy services etc).
Not every group in a big "good" company is necessarily good, and not all departments in a "not-so-good" are necessarily not-so-good.
You need to feel comfortable with the group and the people you work for, else there is no point, no matter how amazing a company maybe rated.
Oh I have no idea. It was a lame attempt at humour.:-\
But I think it could probably mean that some countries are either exempt (which seems unlikely), or some countries are always flagged, or perhaps the US means it to be reciprocatory.
If you notice my this comment, you would realize that my mention of religion is about the right-wing talk show hosts, not about me or other people (nor my morality or that of others).
I was merely commenting on the irony at the diligent followers of what is supposedly a peaceful religion advocating such extreme (and obviously non-peaceful) measures.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have a good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Oh I'm not a Christian and nor do I support religion in any form (am an agnost) -- I was just talking about the right-wing show hosts.
If you are right-wing Christian, doesn't that involve _following_ your religion? The one that supposedly had a man called Jesus who talked about doing good, being good to everyone etc?
You know, a lot of folks have commented on attacking the other side by torture, murder etc. These folks are forgetting a fundamental fact - the moment you start doing these things, you become like them. There is no difference between us and them if we resorted to the same methods that they do. And that is why it is wrong.
It is sad that there are media outlets out there that not only supporot but also advocate these things.
I mean, racism, advocating torture, describing how they want to get rid of folks they do not like etc. Coudln't all that be construed as inciting hatred and violence?
Disgusting would be another way to put it, especially when you are totally ignorant of the other side and blindly seek to murder, mutilate, insult and say nasty things.
Don't these people have a conscience? And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another? I wonder where all that was lost.
Wanker can also have other meanings, depending on the context. It is also a slang term for penis used by American college students. This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation.
Quite obviously, you've not had the "benefit" of an American college education.:-D
Sure, I mean it was pretty suggestive - but you don't really see anything (well, other than what probably is the guy's wanker).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing explicit being shown, and so why go through all the trouble, especially when it's all being done out in public?
Thanks, and yup. I do not know where Wired gets its definition of "tech" - but the last time I checked, real technology was taking place in some material sciences lab or in a rocket science test centre. Wonder where technology got limited to stereotypical CS-geek-types. Bah.
Actually, I rather like Texas (my girlfriend's family is from Oklahoma, which I guess, depending on where you are from is either called Northern Texas or alternatively they call Texas Southern Oklahoma - but I digress).
The thing is, Texas has some of nicest people I've seen, but if you heard the news media they would portray Texas as the home of the hicks. Which I suppose is funny in its own way.
And having worked at Los Alamos, it's one of the nicest places to be at.
Seriously, while I do like the midwest, I really like that entire region (NM/CO/TX/OK) - kinda nice, and would love to settle down there later in life. Middle of nowhere kinda takes on a whole new meaning.
Re:A measure of who reads /. might be better...
on
Top U.S. Tech Cities
·
· Score: 1
A geek is an individual who is fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure or very specific areas of knowledge and imagination, usually electronic or virtual in nature. Geek may not always have the same meaning as the term nerd. The Merriam-Webster definitions are "1: a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake 2: a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked 3: an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity."
So, you'd think that if someone has gotten a PhD in particle physics dealing with neutrino deep elastic scattering or material science dealing with hypersonic photonic crystals, they are definitely fascinated and interested in something obscure and have specific knowledge of that domain.
And if someone plays the violin with a great deal of interest or is an audiophile, they are enthusiasts with a lot of interest in their activity.
So, why would you not consider them geeky? They may also be nerdy, but that does not make them non-geeky.
Re:A measure of who reads /. might be better...
on
Top U.S. Tech Cities
·
· Score: 1
Not necessarily.
You can be a geek of biology, a geek of music, a geek of astronomy or a geek of computer science.
Being geeky is not the sole dominion of slashdotter CS geeks.;)
Slashdot Mirror
It surprised me because it would be easier for Cisco to sue and make more money out of a settlement than to just give in. If they do this while iPhone is still on people's minds, Apple would offer a bigger settlement.
Hence my surprise.
I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.
Mind you -- Apple was conducting negotiations when this was happening. If Apple did not trust Cisco, they would have signed the agreement before the final announcement. Obviously, Apple announcing this before the agreement signifies one of two things:
Apple trying to be nasty (like you said).
Or Apple believing in Cisco's good faith.
Since Apple was indeed having negotiations, and given Cisco's legal history before, I am inclined to go with the latter.
It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.
As the folks who made the i prefix popular (iMac, iPod, iTunes etc.), it would be logical for Apple to use iPhone for their phone. Brand names create an impression of the company in the minds of people and hence they are valuable.
My two cents.
The key phrase being, "willing to negotiate" -- for what? Large sums of money would be my guess.
Don't for a moment believe that a company like Cisco would give in without enormous sums of money changing hands.
Or maybe they want a percentage of profits? Apple stock? Who knows.
Of course this was going to happen -- I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name. Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over? Gee, color me surprised.
And Apple was obviously stupid to use the name before the final documents were signed, and Cisco would probably agree to settle for a really large sum of money (or alternatively, would probably take a really large sum of money from certain other companies to *not* give the rights).
And to quote Carl Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Pico! Well, sorry.
Nano!
True, but that becomes a double-edged sword -- you get some benefits being a part of a bigger organization that a smaller organization can't afford (good health insurance, stock options and 401k plans, long term security (well, depends on the company) etc). Of course, on the flip side, like you said, you are still subject to blanket company policies and the like.
Once again, it would boil down to the group/company in question, rather than any one place.
Editors? On Slashdot, that word does not mean what you think it does.
Or find a small group within a company where you fit well, and you will feel much the same.
Companies are not all the same on the inside, and some groups are better than the others within a company.
I work in the R&D division of a telecom services company - and our group is very small but is great to work with. For the most part, we are encouraged to think up cool things with technology that we think are worth exploring and are given the opportunity to work with them.
Alternatively, you could start your own company and work with a company that you already know (i.e. consultant and consultancy services etc).
Not every group in a big "good" company is necessarily good, and not all departments in a "not-so-good" are necessarily not-so-good.
You need to feel comfortable with the group and the people you work for, else there is no point, no matter how amazing a company maybe rated.
Oh I have no idea. It was a lame attempt at humour. :-\
But I think it could probably mean that some countries are either exempt (which seems unlikely), or some countries are always flagged, or perhaps the US means it to be reciprocatory.
Jon Katz and michael were the reason I got a Slashdot account in the first place.
Gee.
In this post-Columbine world, is it anything like finding porn and listening to music on a Commodre from Afghanistan?
(Sorry, could not resist - the old timers would know what I'm talking about)
Maybe s/he meant "Bye" as it is meant in Cricket - it's when you score a run even when you don't hit the ball, similar to passed ball in baseball.
Oh come on, I'm just grasping at straws here.
If you notice my this comment, you would realize that my mention of religion is about the right-wing talk show hosts, not about me or other people (nor my morality or that of others).
I was merely commenting on the irony at the diligent followers of what is supposedly a peaceful religion advocating such extreme (and obviously non-peaceful) measures.
Cheers.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have a good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg, Physicist and Nobel Laureate.
Oh I'm not a Christian and nor do I support religion in any form (am an agnost) -- I was just talking about the right-wing show hosts.
If you are right-wing Christian, doesn't that involve _following_ your religion? The one that supposedly had a man called Jesus who talked about doing good, being good to everyone etc?
That is the part that I do not understand.
You know, a lot of folks have commented on attacking the other side by torture, murder etc. These folks are forgetting a fundamental fact - the moment you start doing these things, you become like them. There is no difference between us and them if we resorted to the same methods that they do. And that is why it is wrong.
It is sad that there are media outlets out there that not only supporot but also advocate these things.
I mean, racism, advocating torture, describing how they want to get rid of folks they do not like etc. Coudln't all that be construed as inciting hatred and violence?
Disgusting would be another way to put it, especially when you are totally ignorant of the other side and blindly seek to murder, mutilate, insult and say nasty things.
Don't these people have a conscience? And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another? I wonder where all that was lost.
Quite obviously, you've not had the "benefit" of an American college education.
Sure, I mean it was pretty suggestive - but you don't really see anything (well, other than what probably is the guy's wanker).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing explicit being shown, and so why go through all the trouble, especially when it's all being done out in public?
Bah, it doesn't even have anything explicit (other than a very blurry image of a couple making out in skimpy clothes).
And almost all of it seems to have taken place at public places (i.e. beaches, parties etc.)
Isn't there a law (at least in the US) which states that you can't dispute against something that's been videotaped or photographed in a public place?
I mean, if you are going to do things out in public and a video of it appeared somewhere, is it necessarily wrong?
If you're that particular, get a damn room. Gee.
They had no desire to take over the globe, kill off all the Brits, or make everyone Protestant. There's a big difference.
Yet.
Size and scale.
Thanks, and yup. I do not know where Wired gets its definition of "tech" - but the last time I checked, real technology was taking place in some material sciences lab or in a rocket science test centre. Wonder where technology got limited to stereotypical CS-geek-types. Bah.
Actually, I rather like Texas (my girlfriend's family is from Oklahoma, which I guess, depending on where you are from is either called Northern Texas or alternatively they call Texas Southern Oklahoma - but I digress).
The thing is, Texas has some of nicest people I've seen, but if you heard the news media they would portray Texas as the home of the hicks. Which I suppose is funny in its own way.
And having worked at Los Alamos, it's one of the nicest places to be at.
Seriously, while I do like the midwest, I really like that entire region (NM/CO/TX/OK) - kinda nice, and would love to settle down there later in life. Middle of nowhere kinda takes on a whole new meaning.
Wikipedia defines geek as:
So, you'd think that if someone has gotten a PhD in particle physics dealing with neutrino deep elastic scattering or material science dealing with hypersonic photonic crystals, they are definitely fascinated and interested in something obscure and have specific knowledge of that domain.
And if someone plays the violin with a great deal of interest or is an audiophile, they are enthusiasts with a lot of interest in their activity.
So, why would you not consider them geeky? They may also be nerdy, but that does not make them non-geeky.
Not necessarily.
;)
You can be a geek of biology, a geek of music, a geek of astronomy or a geek of computer science.
Being geeky is not the sole dominion of slashdotter CS geeks.
GT is great tech. school, but Atlanta is sucky.
Lousy city (not to mention conservative icky south) and a very unfriendly place.
Georgia Tech was wonderful, although UGA and GSU had all the chicks.