backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by abu723.. on Feb 4 at 2:07 AM

Judge may rule that the term "iPhone" is too generic for one company to own

A day after Apple announced the iPhone, Cisco Systems quickly filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the computer company infringed on its trademark. True enough, Cisco's consumer arm Linksys had released a product called the iPhone earlier than Apple, and the trademark name "iPhone" had been owned by Cisco for several years already. Despite all this, Apple decided to launch its mobile communications device under the iPhone name anyway -- a move declared as extremely bold by many analysts.

In a report, Cisco mentioned that Apple had repeatedly approached it for permission to use the iPhone name, but no solid agreement had ever come to realization. Now, however, it could be possible that both companies will be allowed to use the iPhone name -- and so would everyone else, says a trademark expert.

According to Brian Banner, a seasoned attorney dealing with intellectual property and trademarks at Rothwell Figg, the "iPhone" name may actually be generic enough that a judge will rule it usable by both Apple and Cisco. The ruling will be under condition however, that a company name be attached to the term "iPhone," like "Apple iPhone" or "Cisco iPhone." Banner mentioned that the term may also be deemed generic enough to use by any company.

"They must have figured the reward would be greater than the risk. They probably did a lot of homework before calling it the iPhone and figured that the registration Cisco has is not a serious impediment," says Banner. But this is definitely not what Cisco thinks. Cisco representatives indicated that it will vigorously defend what it owns. Apple on the other hand disagrees with Cisco. "We believe that Cisco's U.S. trademark is tenuous at best," said Apple representative Katie Cotton. "We are the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone and we're confident we will prevail."




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: If that's the case...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/12/2007 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "For example, Canadians who think homosexuality is immoral better not discuss this personal belief or they will definitely risk persecution...."

Canada's infamous hate speech legislation is clearly over the line, and numerous examples of "persecuting people for their personal beliefs" abound. If anyone doubts it, try denying the Holocaust in Canada, or distributing pamphlets claiming one race is inferior to another.


RE: If that's the case...
By cochy on 1/13/2007 1:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
As a Canadian I am not aware that Holocaust denial is against the law, as it is in Germany. However I have no problem if it were illegal to spread hateful racist propaganda through speech or any other medium. There's no room for such things. Freedom of speech however vital towards our inalienable rights is not God.


RE: If that's the case...
By typo101 on 1/14/2007 9:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
Some of what you say seems tongue-in-cheek to me, but it scares me that it probably isn't. As a Canadian, I sleep perfectly well knowing that we persecute those who spread hate.

Is there no harm in denying the Holocaust? I wonder what would happen if say a FOX type network in some other country made "documentary" like they did about the mission to the moon, only about 9/11? Ask anybody affected by that attack how that would make them feel?


RE: If that's the case...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2007 7:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "As a Canadian, I sleep perfectly well knowing that we persecute those who spread hate. "

I rest my case. Unpopular speech is the only type of speech that needs protecting. One day you may want to say something the majority disagrees with. Then you may change your mind about such anti-civil rights legislation.


RE: If that's the case...
By typo101 on 1/14/2007 10:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I said nothing about the majority or popularity.

Its like sexual harassment. Its wrong even though it can be only words and only harms one person. Keyword there harm. It is not wrong because one person (or even everybody) disagrees.


RE: If that's the case...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 7:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "I said nothing about the majority or popularity..."

You didn't have to. If the majority of people believe something to be true, then that majority certainly won't pass a law against stating it, now will they? Popular speech is always protected by the mob itself...it doesn't need special legal protection. Only unpopular speech does.

If you don't defend speech that you personally do not agree with, then you don't believe in free speech. Period.

> "Keyword there harm..."

Exactly. And the touchstone for judging speech is in how a "reasonable person" would react to it. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre, a reasonable person would attempt to flee to an exit. This causes the potential for harm.

However, if you say to a reasonable person that Québécoise are less intelligent than other Canadians, a reasonable person merely laughs. The fact that some unreasonable person might agree, then be further motivated to go on a killing spree in Montreal, is irrelevent. An opinion by itself causes no harm...and unpopular opinions must be protected, else free speech itself is meaningless.


RE: If that's the case...
By devbreak on 1/19/2007 6:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An opinion by itself causes no harm...and unpopular opinions must be protected, else free speech itself is meaningless.


But free speech itself IS meaningless. Freedom is by definition neither good nor evil - it is the ability do either. Thus it is a form of power just the same as other rather abstract forms of power, such as money or respect. It is a tool, and whether it is good or bad (or indeed even meaningful) is in the hands of the wielder. This must sound rather provocative to a citizen of a country that was founded with liberty as its highest ideal, but bear with me. (I'm guessing that you're American considering how well-versed you are in American trademark law)

My point is that freedom of speech is not a silver bullet. It is not a goal in itself, but rather a means to an end - and that end is a "reasonable" society (I do realize how arbitrary this term is). The primary function of free speech is to allow the people (or journalists) to criticize the government. This works as a safeguard against our society becoming a totalitarian, censoring system like North Korea or China. That safeguard makes sense and should be protected - but that is all it is, a safeguard.

The same holds for democracy - for example Hitler was democratically elected (feel free to invoke Godwin's Law here, but Holocaust was already brought up as an example). The primary strength of democracy is it's usual inefficiency - it helps maintain a relative status quo until the next election, so we don't "screw up" too much at a time.

Clearly our "ideals" such as free speech or democracy are not failsafe - they do not guarantee a reasonable society by themselves. If we hold these "ideals" above reproach (e.g. "then you don't believe in free speech") then we close our eyes to their shortcomings, and eventually they WILL fail. Holding any ideology above reproach, whether it is liberty, communism, religion or anything else, is the hallmark of a true fanatic, and fanatics are the kinds of people that make concentration camps or fly planes into buildings.

With freedom comes responsibility, and it up to us as a society to decide whether to intervene when people do not live up to that responsibility. The issue is not black and white - it is an oversimplification to believe it is.


RE: If that's the case...
By AdmQuixote on 1/15/2007 10:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
As a Canadian, I sleep perfectly well knowing that we persecute those who spread hate.

I can understand this philosophy, even if I completely disagree with it. For your sake, I just hope that you are always on the side of your leaders who get to define what hate speech is. Wait until they forbid making "hateful" speech about the government...

Having had several homosexual friends, I think those organizations who help homosexuals become straight are truly kind while those who attack them are the ones doing harm. For more details see (http://exodus.to/ and http://www.narth.com/)

Anyway, thank you for yet another nail in the coffin of the original naive Candian post (Flunk's post) than prompted me to comment. (And Masher2, thanks for your words that saved me from making a few other comments...)


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki