OPTi Initiates Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple
January 18, 2007 5:58 PM
comment(s) - last by
Apple gets taken to court over infringements again
OPTi Inc. today announced that it has
filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. for patent infringement
. According to OPTi, Apple infringed on not just one but three patents. All three patents are part of what OPTi refers to as "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses." Apple appears to have infringed on three patents in that family: U.S. Patent No.
, Patent No.
and Patent No.
According to OPTi, Apple infringed on the above patents by utilizing Predictive Snooping technology in its line of Mac servers, desktops and laptop computers. OPTi is currently waiting on a jury trial with Apple and is pursing patent infringement lawsuits with other unnamed companies as well.
So far in 2007, Apple has been met with more than one lawsuit.
Cisco recently filed a lawsuit against Apple
for trademark infringement of the "iPhone" trade name. Having trademarked "iPhone" many years before the
actual Apple iPhone
was conceived, Cisco said it is protecting its intellectual property rights. Cisco's consumer arm
Linksys released its own iPhone several weeks prior
Apple defended itself by claiming that Cisco's lawsuit was "tenuous at best," and it believes it will come out of the case with a victory. Despite Apple's optimistic outlook, analysts and legal experts believe that Cisco will win a straight forward case.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: What next..?
1/19/2007 9:58:14 AM
> "I would be really interesting to know what's Apple's argument here?"
This has already been covered in painstaking detail in other threads here. There are several arguments against Cisco's use of the trademark. First of all, they failed to use it for many years. The law does not allow "warehousing" of trademarks...if you don't use it, you lose it. In fact, nonuse for three consecutive years is
evidence of abandonment....yet Cisco waited nearly a full decade before bringing out a product.
Another, even more telling argument, is generality. You cannot trademark the word "apple" to sell apples. The strongest trademarks are so-called "fanciful" terms, which bear no relation whatsoever to the product to which they are attached. For instance, the word "Nike" or a swoop logo in no way describes a shoe in general. Thus that trademark is fanciful, and considered strong.
Now, consider the term "iPhone". It automatically makes me think of "Internet Phone", just as "eMail" means electronic mail. And what has Cisco attached to that trademark? An internet phone! The mark is far too general to receive protection.
The third argument is that a cell phone and an Internet VoIP phone are two different products, in two different markets. Trademarks ARE allowed to be used simultaneously by different companies, as long as there is no opportunity for consumer confusion. This argument is the weakest, obviously, as the two markets are indeed quite similar. Still, it may be ruled favorably...and even if not, either of the other two claims are sufficient in of themselves.
RE: What next..?
1/19/2007 6:15:07 PM
I like the second argument. Has anyone told Microsoft that they can name their service iTunes?
RE: What next..?
1/20/2007 3:22:52 PM
Microsoft might well have had a chance to do so, when iTunes was first introduced. Given its name recognition now, however, the mark is likely close to a designation of "famous trademark" status, which gives it additional protection under the law. That's one way marks can grow stronger over time...people associate the mark indelibly with the product.
The flip side of that is genericide..where people associate the mark not with that specific product, but all
. Trademarks such as "nylon", "aspirin", "zipper", "fridge", etc, are all cases of mark genericide...and marks today such as "xerox" and "google" are at risk of going the same route.
"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher
Apple Sued for Trademark Infringement Over iPhone
January 10, 2007, 7:46 PM
Apple Launches its Much Anticipated iPhone
January 9, 2007, 2:19 PM
iPhone Officially Announced
December 18, 2006, 3:19 AM
Report: AT&T Eyeing $40B DirecTV Purchase
May 1, 2014, 8:00 AM
WebOS Class Action Settlement Costs HP $57 Million
April 1, 2014, 10:22 AM
IBM Workers Strike Over Terms of Deal That Will Have Them Working for Lenovo
March 6, 2014, 9:29 AM
Google Picking Up Artificial Intelligence Company "DeepMind" for $400 Million
January 27, 2014, 9:25 AM
Quick Note: Qualcomm Grabs up Palm, IPAQ, and Bitfone Patent Portfolio from HP
January 24, 2014, 9:18 AM
Verizon Buys Intel Media OnCue Cloud TV assets
January 21, 2014, 10:26 AM
Most Popular Articles
JJ Abrams Unveils X-Wing Starfighter for New "Star Wars" Movie
July 21, 2014, 12:24 PM
Ford Details ’15 F-150’s 325hp, 2.7L EcoBoost V6; Demonstrates 732-lb Weight Loss
July 22, 2014, 6:55 PM
Comcast Memo: Harassing Customers During Retention Calls Actually IS Our Policy
July 22, 2014, 5:19 PM
Kindle Fire Phone Review Roundup -- A Solid "Meh"
July 23, 2014, 2:09 PM
Motorola Moto G Successor Reportedly Uncovered, Moto X Discounted by up to $75
July 21, 2014, 1:11 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information