Firm Owning 'IPHONE' Trademark in Brazil Open to Selling Mark to Apple

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You're so wrong - but so self righteous about it - it's hilarious.

I'm so right - just quoting facts - it's hilarious.

[winston1236]

Originally Posted by Risco

It's a done deal, you don't mess with Apple or it's lawyers.

After all, that is their only innovative department at this point.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

The button-free all-glass interface.

You know, like the original 2007 iPhone. Remember the impact that phone had?
Yeah, it's still the phone everyone else is ripping off.

Oh, and speaking of rip-offs, here's the original Android rip-off of Palm / BlackBerry:

Image

And here's that photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An...rly_device.jpg

Android (even before they were bought by Google) simply copied the best currently-available
smartphones. And that meant copying Palm / BlackBerry. Chiclet keyboard and all.

Of course, the first iPhone obsoleted all that legacy 20th century design-think. So, naturally,
Google immediately began copying iOS' UI and their hardware partners immediately began copying
iPhone's hardware design. Still are.

Android/Google write the OS not manufacture the HW..I have a G1 the first production Android phone, it looks nothing like an iToy.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by saotomefirst

Man, I don't know in the rest of the world, but this is illegal here in Brazil. You can't register an image or other odd symbol as part of a trademark's name - though it's ok to do it for the trademark itself.The name must be readable, and although you do recognize as "Apple", the technology company, it could also be interpreted as "apple", fruits, for instance.

Apple wouldn't have to register anything (maybe wise to register "Apple Phone"). Just print the Apple symbol instead of the i in iPhone.

[eneris]

This Gradiente iPhone launched in 2012 (Android) is not the first iPhone launched by Gradiente.

Just to remind!

Gradiente iPhone with WAP
Launched: early 2000

More information with pics: Gizmodo

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Android/Google write the OS not manufacture the HW..I have a G1 the first production Android phone, it looks nothing like an iToy.

But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'être, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'être, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)

None of what you talking about has anything to do with Android..thats the problem with your premise..the equivalent of what your saying is Linux copied Mac..

You ought not comment on things you know little about

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

None of what you talking about has anything to do with Android..thats the problem with your premise..the equivalent of what your saying is Linux copied Mac..

You ought not comment on things you know little about

Illogical and specious response. Sophistry.

You're ignoring the basic facts: Android's sole purpose is to generate ad revenue for Google.
96% of Google's revenue comes from ads, and they can't afford to miss out on the post-PC revolution (like Microsoft is.)

And how do you get mobile users' eyeballs on ads? By getting as many devices on the market as possible running Android.

And how do you get as many Android devices on the market as possible? By dumping the OS for free to any vendor who wants to build a device.

And what two things happen to your OS when all you care about is ad revenue above all else? Can you guess?

You're right! #1 is fragmentation. First: OS fragmentation. The most widely used flavor of Android is Gingerbread 2.3, from 2010, with a 45.4% slice of the Android pie. Followed by Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0.x from 2011, with 29.0%, then Jelly Bean 4.1.x with a paltry 12.2% share after 8 long months of availability.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androi...te_of_adoption

And that's just the software side of the forking problem. There are several Android hardware manufacturers (of which only Samsung is profitably selling Android handsets), each of whom have their own oddball screen size(s). A nightmare for would-be developers to code to. One-size-fits-all is a poor and rather ugly choice. Handling each different screen geometry as a special case is a nightmare but it would look much better. Flip a coin.

But the real killer is the app store fragmentation issue. In China there are over 70 Android app stores. All competing against Google Play. Yes, Google has always had a "China Problem." But with respect to Android, it's fatal.

Source: http://paidcontent.org/2011/12/08/41...in-his-market/

#2 is forking.

Amazon created their own closed, proprietary version of Android with great success. (And it is very likely contributing, single-handedly, to Gingerbread 2.3's massive slice of the Android version adoption pie.) Open Handset Alliance? Who needs it?

Amazon just wanted a cheap iPad clone that could act as an at-home sales terminal for Amazon media and goods. No need to continually re-code their apps to handle anything after Gingerbread. No need for that Google profit layer. Ripped out and replaced by an Amazon profit layer.

Who knows? Maybe Samsung will agree that forking Android is the best solution. Open Handset Alliance? They need Samsung more than Samsung needs them.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

Illogical and specious response. Sophistry.

You're ignoring the basic facts: Android's sole purpose is to generate ad revenue for Google.
96% of Google's revenue comes from ads, and they can't afford to miss out on the post-PC revolution (like Microsoft is.)

And how do you get mobile users' eyeballs on ads? By getting as many devices on the market as possible running Android.

And how do you get as many Android devices on the market as possible? By dumping the OS for free to any vendor who wants to build a device.

And what two things happen to your OS when all you care about is ad revenue above all else? Can you guess?

You're right! #1 is fragmentation. First: OS fragmentation. The most widely used flavor of Android is Gingerbread 2.3, from 2010, with a 45.4% slice of the Android pie. Followed by Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0.x from 2011, with 29.0%, then Jelly Bean 4.1.x with a paltry 12.2% share after 8 long months of availability.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androi...te_of_adoption

And that's just the software side of the forking problem. There are several Android hardware manufacturers (of which only Samsung is profitably selling Android handsets), each of whom have their own oddball screen size(s). A nightmare for would-be developers to code to. One-size-fits-all is a poor and rather ugly choice. Handling each different screen geometry as a special case is a nightmare but it would look much better. Flip a coin.

But the real killer is the app store fragmentation issue. In China there are over 70 Android app stores. All competing against Google Play. Yes, Google has always had a "China Problem." But with respect to Android, it's fatal.

Source: http://paidcontent.org/2011/12/08/41...in-his-market/

#2 is forking.

Amazon created their own closed, proprietary version of Android with great success. (And it is very likely contributing, single-handedly, to Gingerbread 2.3's massive slice of the Android version adoption pie.) Open Handset Alliance? Who needs it?

Amazon just wanted a cheap iPad clone that could act as an at-home sales terminal for Amazon media and goods. No need to continually re-code their apps to handle anything after Gingerbread. No need for that Google profit layer. Ripped out and replaced by an Amazon profit layer.

Who knows? Maybe Samsung will agree that forking Android is the best solution. Open Handset Alliance? They need Samsung more than Samsung needs them.

And none of this has anything to do with what you originally posted..

Which is:

"The button-free all-glass interface.

You know, like the original 2007 iPhone. Remember the impact that phone had?
Yeah, it's still the phone everyone else is ripping off.

Oh, and speaking of rip-offs, here's the original Android rip-off of Palm / BlackBerry:

Image

And here's that photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An...rly_device.jpg

Android (even before they were bought by Google) simply copied the best currently-available
smartphones. And that meant copying Palm / BlackBerry. Chiclet keyboard and all.

Of course, the first iPhone obsoleted all that legacy 20th century design-think. So, naturally,
Google immediately began copying iOS' UI and their hardware partners immediately began copying
iPhone's hardware design. Still are."

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

And none of this has anything to do with what you originally posted..

Which is:

"The button-free all-glass interface.

You know, like the original 2007 iPhone. Remember the impact that phone had?
Yeah, it's still the phone everyone else is ripping off.

Oh, and speaking of rip-offs, here's the original Android rip-off of Palm / BlackBerry:

Image

And here's that photo on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An...rly_device.jpg

Android (even before they were bought by Google) simply copied the best currently-available
smartphones. And that meant copying Palm / BlackBerry. Chiclet keyboard and all.

Of course, the first iPhone obsoleted all that legacy 20th century design-think. So, naturally,
Google immediately began copying iOS' UI and their hardware partners immediately began copying
iPhone's hardware design. Still are."

And nothing you have said contradicts my original statement.

I apologize for bringing up Android's many serious flaws, but you mentioned Android first.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

And nothing you have said contradicts my original statement.

I apologize for bringing up Android's many serious flaws, but you mentioned Android first.

Actually you did..in the android ripped off of BB..

android is SW and SW only google make no HW at all..

Therefore Android doesn't rip off a phone design, Sammy, HTC, Sony et.al. might but not Android.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Actually you did..in the android rip off of BB..

android is SW and SW only google make now HW at all..

Therefore android doesn't rip off a phone design, Sammy, HTC, Sony et.al. might but not Android.

Indeed.

And Android was designed to be device independent. It's an OS that's meant to be executed on a variety of devices.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'être, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)

Good story, not real, but good

[igorleandro]

I lived in Brazil until 2009. No, there was NEVER EVER an iPhone from Gradiente. They are by the way a dying company, struggling with changes in markets, and they are just trying to make as much money from this as possible.

They should sell it for a reasonable price and try to get into the supply chain for Apple. That would be the smart move.

Erm... never mind... their products were never that great to start with, and I don't think Apple would want Gradiente to work for them.

I hope they loose on the appeal.

[entatlrg]

Originally Posted by SockRolid

But when iPhone became popular, instantly, everyone started copying Apple.

Google was forced to give up Android support for the Chiclet keyboard their hardware partners copied from Palm / RIM. Even Palm and RIM were forced to go all-glass.

But that's all Google and their hardware partners needed to do. Dump something, anything, out there that looked kind of like an iPhone. Because Android's sole purpose, it's raison d'être, is to prevent Google from being shut out of the mobile market. To make sure that Google can make money from ads on post-PC devices. Mission accomplished.

96% of Google's revenue comes from ads. They simply can't afford to be locked out of the fastest-growing computing market in history: mobile. And that's why Android is free. Not because of altruism. Because free is almost as good as, well, good. And "almost good enough" was enough to prevent Microsoft / Palm / RIM, any one of them, from taking over the mobile market and shutting Google out.

I imagine Larry Page and his staff laughed out loud when Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple. Because what else could Samsung do? What else can any Android handset maker do? They can either copy Apple well, and get sued, or copy Apple badly and ship a lousy product.

You're either a leader (Apple), or you're a follower (Samsung), or you're lost (Microsoft.)

Well written and well said.

[AppleInTheMud]

Originally Posted by Risco

Brazil is not one of those countries.

And so isnt the US