Apple are the evil empire

[chrisvenus]

Just imagine for a second that you are a big company witha globally known brand. You are releasing a new product and you want to keep it in line with your naming of outher products so you decide that iPhone would be a good name. You discover (and have known for some significant number of years) that this name is trademarked by somebody else.

Do you:

a) hold off on an announcement of the product until after the trade mark discussions are complete
b) announce the product but build the lack of name into your PR campaign or something clever like that until you have resolved the trade mark issue.
c) rename the product to something else - you've had several years and a huge marketing department to come up with a new one
d) ignore trade mark law and hope that because you're iPod and iMac and iWhatever were so globally recognised that you can steamroller the trademark holder into giving it up because you're an arrogant [censored] and announce the product with illegal name to a global audience.


I'd personally have put d as my last choice but apparently apple thought it was the best choice out there. Cisco are sueing them. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

Ahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm sorry, I just find this very funny. If anybody can find an apple press release on the issue I'd be interested to hear it since I've not really heard an explanation from apple except some quotes of them saying that Cisco's trademark was tenuous at best and people with no clue on trademark law saying that because random people were referring to the iPhone (ie apple fanboys) that Cisco had failed to protect its trademark.

Comments

[innokenti.livejournal.com]

Well indeed. I hate anybody who predominantly sells their name. Because that is essentially duping the customer (except that the customer is in on this, but is stupid enough that they can't help it). It's not that I'm against iPod users, because everyone loves different stuff, but Apple could produce a far more functional, technically superior piece of tech with an excellent price-quality ratio because everyone else on the market is doing it. But no, they are selling name and looks which has nothing to do with listening to MP3s. They've made people think that it does though. Which is a heinous crime in my books.

[chrisvenus]

Ah, iPods are not for listening to mp3s, they are a fashion item. They just happen to play mp3s as well. I realised this when I was watching TV and found some celebrity not A list but not Z-list either. Around the B-list area. They were saying that they'd bought an iPod but hadn't actually bothered to take it out of its packaging yet. ARGH! Kill! Maim!

[innokenti.livejournal.com]

Well exactly. I share your sentiment.

[cultureofdoubt.livejournal.com]

I had a first generation iPod, and have also had a third, and currently have two fifth generations (because one broke down, I replaced it, and then the broken one spontaneously resurrected).

I got the first one because it had a lot of capacity (for the time) and worked nicely with my Mac. I also found it had a nice interface.

I've bought the later ones for the same reason. I buy them because they integrate nicely with the computers I like, have good capacity and have a good interface.

It almost bugs me that everyone else buys them for the name or the look.

[innokenti.livejournal.com]

Huzzah!

Have a sticker. :D