p0110 - 12 Ianuarie 2007 06:51 PM
YO! O_mores, tu, se pare ca tii cu ursu’ bag sama,du-te brother la forumuri de VISTA si ZUNE!
Whoa, doar usor, ca te pictezi ca un Apple fanboi si nu ie de bine bre! Oricum ai pune-o, trademark-ul apartine de CISCO, care nu are nici o legatura cu Microsoft, Vista, Zune, PlaysForSure si altele. Ba chiar sunt baietii buni ai domeniului IT si taticii comunicatiilor. Ar fi fost la fel de pe langa sa-l fi trimis pe un forum cu si despre acvarii marine. Ca fapt divers am si eu un minim habar de sistemul legal de aici si da, ma plimb SI pe forumuri Windows, Vista, XP, Linux. You name it, I’m there. So what?
o_mores spune bine ce spune si daca am intoarce nitel roata nu cred ca ai mai zice de ursi. Daca apare maine o companie si decide sa vanda bulbi de trandafir sub numele de iPods si Apple inainteaza un proces ma indoiesc ca o sa apari cu trandafiri in mana in semn de protest la usa biroului lui Jobs. iPhone exista ca trademark inca din 1996 cand nu exista nici macar umbra de iPod de pe urma carora a prins avant cu adevarat moda cu iShit. Dar le-a intrat apa in gura baietilor de la firma cu mar, pentru ca stiu ca competitia este pe punctul de a lansa produse similare [chiar exista deja unul, vezi LG] si tocmai de aceea s-au grabit repejor sa-l lanseze. Ca e cale lunga pan’ la vara si trebuiau finalizate conversatiile cu CISCO.
CISCO VP vorbeste despre detaliile acestei certi:
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
And you know what? He’s right on the money! Eu am presimtirea ca la vara vom vedea lansarea “Apple Phone”.
Comentariul lui Alaren de pe Slashdot are multa dreptate
You know, I can see how language like “fisher price type naming” and the rhetorical question at the end could be seen as flamebait, but only for zealots. This post concisely (if somewhat cruelly) makes many excellent points.
The fact is, “iPhone” is not nearly as original as even “iPod.” It’s not just that putting “i” in front of things is only creative to a point, “iPod” is clearly more original and creative than “iMusicPlayer” or “iMP3” or “iSong” because “Pod” doesn’t immediately inspire music.
Which is not to say that “iPhone” isn’t a valuable name, but Apple is an artistic company, and until recently they were largely a “we don’t play dirty like Redmond” company. Sure, corporate tactics are rarely what you’d call “kind,” and Apple has had their fair share of lawsuits, but their use of iPhone after literally years of failed negotiations with Cisco is flat-out brazen disregard. It is the sort of petulant “but we’re so much cooler than Cisco” that I might expect from Microsoft, but never from Apple. Even their teflon veneer and Jobs’ reality-distortion field aren’t enough to make them look like the good guys on this one.
Apple could, I believe, easily have come up with an alternative name. I believe it well within their creative capacity. They came up with “iPod,” after all, and their use of the word “pod” has proven an extremely strong trademark in the audio realm, for many legal reasons I won’t go into here. They could do the same with their new phone, but they’ve chosen instead to select the predictable and arguably generic name “iPhone” despite obvious legal issues.
The only question I have is whether Apple’s legal department is doing shoddy work, or Jobs just disregarded the legal advice they provided to him?
Anyhow, if I still had mod points I would mod parent up, despite the tone. Apple screwed up, and went against much of the good precedent they’ve been setting for themselves. They can do better.
Subliniez o propozitie, in caz ca ai ratat-o
but Apple is an artistic company, and until recently they were largely a “we don’t play dirty like Redmond” company
Were. Cuvantul cheie este “were”. Adica la trecut.
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/01/12/1611233.shtml
Bottom line, I like Apple and I like to bitch about Windows etc. as much as the next guy, but YOU, my friend, aren’t thinking this shit through!
A da, apropos, CISCO nu este in pericol sa-si piarda trademark-ul in Europa. Nu pierzi automat un trademark daca nu-l folosesti 5 ani. 5 ani este MINIMUL NECESAR intainte ca tu ca curte de justitie sa poti sa iei o decizie si sa-l anulezi. Asadar, judecatorul se va uita la aplicatie, va vedea ca CISCO foloseste trademark-ul [adica nu e un caz de trademark parking] si va sustine cazul. Adica Apple FTL.
Pentru ca eu nu inteleg o chestie. Elgato detine trademark-ul eyeTV si Apple au decis sa renunte la numele iTV si l-au redenumit Apple TV. Elgato este o firma care o puteau baga in buzunar cu profitul dintr-un singur week-end facut prin iTMS. In schimb au decis sa se lanseze impotriva CISCO, o companie MULT mai bogata, mai mare si cel putin la fel de agresiva ca Apple cand vine vorba de proprietate intelectuala.
Poate ca curand vom vedea o redenumire a noilor produse. aphone, aPod, aTV si in final vom sfatui fanboii Apple sa-si ia aLife?
) si o vrea el… WTF? 
