Active Topics
-
Phone Camera Competition April 2021: "Funny & Foolish" (25)
to General by robthebold - 38 mins ago -
Maemo-Leste pre-alpha announcement (512)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by nonsuch - 19 hrs, 41 mins ago -
The Intel RealSense Smartphone prototype (0)
to Competitors by n950 - 22 hrs, 15 mins ago -
Maemo Leste Playground (57)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by clort - 1 day, 19 hrs ago -
A Palm OS thread ... and a thank you to the community (23)
to Alternatives by bradvesp - 2 days, 18 hrs ago -
What's the best Handheld gnu/linux machine for 20XX? (77)
to Competitors by biketool - 3 days, 8 hrs ago -
Unofficial Storage for camera phone competition... (61)
to General by Maemish - 5 days, 10 hrs ago -
SailfishOS on Sony Z3 Compact Tablet (180)
to SailfishOS by ogustbiller - 5 days, 22 hrs ago - more...
 |
Karel Jansens |
2006-10-02
, 18:25
|
|
Posts: 3,220 |
Thanked: 326 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
|
#51
|
Originally Posted by Mike Cane
If they were trying to protect the word "iPodcast", I'd be in half a mind to support them. They are, however, trying to bully people out of using the term "podcast', one letter but a huge difference.
|
|
2006-10-02
, 18:27
|
|
Posts: 3,220 |
Thanked: 326 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
|
#52
|
Originally Posted by Milhouse
Neither. I have no problems however with IBM, who have grokked Open Source perfectly.
And even if they were, we don't know what Apple intend to do with the patents - they can either sue OSS practitioners over infringement (and lose serious amounts of kudos) or grant the OSS community immunity from prosecution.
We're pre-judging Apple here - IBM have been granted thousands of fundamental software patents, yet they have handed over several hundred patents to the OSS community. Who is to say Apple won't do the same? Maybe Apple are claiming the patent before Microsoft do - who would you rather held the patent, Apple or M$?
 |
|
2006-10-02
, 19:06
|
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 81 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ UK
|
#53
|
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens
Not that it's my job to defend them, but I thought they were going after two specific companies who are, themselves, trying to trademark the term "podcast"; and used "made for iPod" or somesuch on their marketing material.If they were trying to protect the word "iPodcast", I'd be in half a mind to support them. They are, however, trying to bully people out of using the term "podcast', one letter but a huge difference.
Cheers,
Andrew
|
|
2006-10-02
, 19:10
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#54
|
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens
Considering significant parts of Mac OS X are based on OSS derivatives, I hold out the hope that Apple are more on board when it comes to OSS than Microsoft.Neither. I have no problems however with IBM, who have grokked Open Source perfectly.
If Apple want to start picking fights with the OSS community, I wonder if OSS software can be licensed for "free use by anyone but Apple Corp."?
|
|
2006-10-02
, 19:16
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#55
|
Originally Posted by aflegg
Not to mention that Trademarks and Patents are very different things.Not that it's my job to defend them, but I thought they were going after two specific companies who are, themselves, trying to trademark the term "podcast"; and used "made for iPod" or somesuch on their marketing material.
Cheers,
Andrew
Trademarks are about brand ownership, which should not be exploited by others unchallenged otherwise Apple risk losing all claims of ownership; Patents are about intelectual property and here Apple have the option to enforce their ownership or not, and if they decide not to enforce they do not lose ownership.
|
|
2006-10-02
, 20:53
|
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 81 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ UK
|
#56
|
Milhouse,
Indeed, and having worked at IBM and having got a couple of software patents to my name I'm aware of both the good and bad that software patents bring.
Nevertheless, they do exist and for big tech companies it's often a case of patenting practically anything they can to form a MAD-like "patent shield".
As has been said, it's what a company does with its patents, rather than the patents they apply for.
Cheers,
Andrew
Indeed, and having worked at IBM and having got a couple of software patents to my name I'm aware of both the good and bad that software patents bring.
Nevertheless, they do exist and for big tech companies it's often a case of patenting practically anything they can to form a MAD-like "patent shield".
As has been said, it's what a company does with its patents, rather than the patents they apply for.
Cheers,
Andrew
|
|
2006-10-02
, 21:16
|
|
Posts: 3,220 |
Thanked: 326 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
|
#57
|
Originally Posted by aflegg
Both Engadget and SlashDot have reported cases where Apple's lawyers sent C&D letters to people/companies who named their product (which, I hasten to add, had absolutely nada to do with "portabe", "music", "playing" and/or "downloading") something with "pod" in it.Not that it's my job to defend them, but I thought they were going after two specific companies who are, themselves, trying to trademark the term "podcast"; and used "made for iPod" or somesuch on their marketing material.
Cheers,
Andrew
I think someone should remind Jobs -- preferrably with a 2-by-4 -- that, if your product name is turning into a generic denominator, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.
|
|
2006-10-02
, 23:22
|
|
Posts: 949 |
Thanked: 14 times |
Joined on Jul 2005
|
#58
|
Wow, so far afield of my initial post!
No matter...
No matter...
|
|
2006-10-03
, 00:56
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#59
|
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens
Well there is - by enforcing your trademark you reduce the risk of genericide, which is precisely what Apple Computer Inc. appear to be doing.I think someone should remind Jobs -- preferrably with a 2-by-4 -- that, if your product name is turning into a generic denominator, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens
If Apple Computer Inc are going after people/companies who use the term "pod" for non-portable, non-music playing and non-downloading musical devices then it is actually quite ironic - even hypocritical, and possibly without merit - when you consider the recent legal verdict handed down in the recent Apple Corps Ltd. vs. Apple Computer Inc. courtroom drama. The court found in Apple Computers favour, focusing mainly on the following clause from the original Apple vs. Apple agreement:Both Engadget and SlashDot have reported cases where Apple's lawyers sent C&D letters to people/companies who named their product (which, I hasten to add, had absolutely nada to do with "portabe", "music", "playing" and/or "downloading") something with "pod" in it.
4.3 The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) [the Apple Corps catalog and any future music], Apple Computers shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 [Apple Computer Field of Use] (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).
On the other hand, if these devices do fall into the "Apple Computer Field of Use" then yes, Apple Computer has every right to enforce it's trademark in whatever way it sees fit.
Last edited by Milhouse; 2006-10-03 at 01:03.
|
|
2006-10-03
, 10:17
|
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 81 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ UK
|
#60
|
Originally Posted by Karel
...two bastions of journalistic integrity and accuracy.Both Engadget and SlashDot...
Cheers,
Andrew
PS. I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the news reports in question (though do remember seeing the Slashdot article and the subsequent clarifications of the restrictions based on the field of use in the comments), but I largely agree with Milhouse's assessment.
