Time to dip into the warchest and pay these fools to get over it.
Where is the downvote button when you need it?
Time to dip into the warchest and pay these fools to get over it.
buy them, then close them for ever!
Lol ****ing Mexico. Anyone ever go there ? It's the least of their problmes
Reading this reminds me of a Steve Martin line in one of his songs: "Criticize things you don't know about."
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.
Someone tried to explain this, but apparently most of you didn't understand it.
Apple has trademarks that are literally worth billions of dollars. There are reams of case law regarding what someone has to do to protect a trademark. For example, let's say I own trademark XYZ and a company creates a product called XYZ. After 10 years, XYZ product becomes hugely successful. I now sue for infringement. The courts will ask, "why didn't you sue when you first became aware of the infringement? It appears that it is only the fact that this trademark has become valuable that is motivating you. If you weren't concerned before, why are you concerned now?"
I would have to demonstrate all kinds of things including that I was being damaged by the infringement. But, the key fact here is that I didn't try to proactively protect my trademark. I hate all the suits, but you have to understand that if Apple lets even one of these go, it opens the door for someone to take control of an asset that they have spent billions creating. Now, you may say it's only a name, but trademarks can be extremely valuable.
This is not a case as many of you suggest that Apple is a bully or conceited, or whatever. Apple is a business that needs to protect its assets, and the way to protect a trademark is to actively pursue anyone who infringes. Yeah, it might seem crappy to go after a grocery store, but it's not because they are jerks, it's because they a cautious about a billion dollar asset.
The Mexican court made the right call, but so did Apple in bringing the suit. No one will be able to claim that Apple has not proactively protected the iPhone trademark. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple knew they would lose. But rather than paying off the iFone, sued first to establish that they are actively protecting this trademark. There are times when bringing a lawsuit isn't cost effective (at least in the short run), but gives you many other benefits.
You're right, that's the only way Apple knows how to compete: buy shutting down the competition.
You're right, that's the only way Apple knows how to compete: buy shutting down the competition.
Get ready for the Aye-yi-yi-phone
Get ready for the Aye-yi-yi-phone
Don't know about anyone else but companies sticking and "i" in front of their product/company name leaching off Apples success deserves everything they get.
I have been to Mexico. I accidentally consumed a fountain soft drink at a fast food restaurant and put ice in it. I spent the next week at home sitting on the toilet.Apparently you haven't... Mexico is amazing.
It's hilarious how bad apple is making themselves look. God what a bunch of tools....
If I were Tim Cook I would just stop selling the iPhone in Mexico. iFone and iPhone are two different trademarks, even if they do sound the same. Since iFone is a telecommunications company, just stop allowing them to carry the iPhone. If there is no other telecommunication company in Mexico, well too bad for Mexican citizens, no iPhone for you.
I have been to Mexico. I accidentally consumed a fountain soft drink at a fast food restaurant and put ice in it. I spent the next week at home sitting on the toilet.
Apple is not protecting their innovation, they're eliminating anyone who tries to compete in the same market as them. They are trying to create a monopoly so that they can fill their pockets with the consumers' money.I hate all the suits, but you have to understand that if Apple lets even one of these go, it opens the door for someone to take control of an asset that they have spent billions creating.
So you're saying that a grocery store, to which an apple is much more relevant, should not be able to advertise that they sell apples?Apple is a business that needs to protect its assets, and the way to protect a trademark is to actively pursue anyone who infringes. Yeah, it might seem crappy to go after a grocery store, but it's not because they are jerks, it's because they a cautious about a billion dollar asset.
You might even say they overactively protected it.No one will be able to claim that Apple has not proactively protected the iPhone trademark.
So they should sue everyone they can just to make sure noone is "copying" their "innovation"?I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple knew they would lose.
Like stealing money from a company who is only interested in honest competition? I seriously wonder if Apple fanboys read what they write before they post it.but brings you many other benefits
Apple did this with IOS and Cisco. Cisco had IOS for their router operating system for a long time, and then Apple licensed the name or bought it. They should have attempted the same thing here instead of trying to sue them to stop being a company...
but.. I would guess iFone picked their name because using "i" in the name was already "in" because of iPod?
The company filed the patent in 2003. Try again.
Linksys (then InfoGear) iPhone - released in 1998
Apple iMac - first released in 1998
NTT DoCoMo's i-mode - released in 1999
You were saying?
Another anti-Apple newbie... do you actually know anything about the company at all? Or did you just come here to stick a spoon in and stir the mix?
but.. I would guess iFone picked their name because using "i" in the name was already "in" because of iPod?