Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That's what I'm guessing it will be. I'd be willing to be that's its name is the Apple Slate. Which I really like. It sound modern, fresh, and sophisticated.

If their trademark lawyers have anything to say about it, it won't be "Apple Slate." "Slate" is almost certainly not entitled to a trademark when used to mark slate-shaped computers, so you'd end up with every competitor making eSlates and xSlates and plain ol' Dell Slates.
 
This just seems like pretty wild speculation

Do we not think that they would have come up with a huge number of "i" domain names by now? This seems like a really big stretch...

The name isn't catchy, is somewhat unnatural for most people, and just doesn't sit right (I'm with you on the "is-late" reading of it).

But, regardless of the name, I just want to see this thing!
 
Does anybody feel like sleeping for the next several weeks till Jan 26th, just to skip all the hourly news of the tablet?

On the contrary. This feels like before the iPhone keynote. I'm excited like a kid which only Apple & Jobs can do. You can call me an Apple fan since the first Mac I used was an Apple IIe in Catholic school.
 
Apple can't own every "i*" name, and doesn't automatically have rights to all i* names.

arn

Actually they can (though it's not automatic.) For example, McDonalds sues every variation (McDavids, McWhatever) and wins.

In computers/portable computing devices the i* name is generally identified with Apple products, and thus entitled to be protected against unfair competition by others using the marks. Portions of names are just as protectable as entire names.

P.S.: here's a link to some info on the mcdonalds example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases#Cases_brought_by_McDonald.27s
 
Actually they can (though it's not automatic.) For example, McDonalds sues every variation (McDavids, McWhatever) and wins.

But it still makes little sense. If that's their motivation, why haven't they bought up iTablet.com, iComputer.com, etc...

iSlate.com was very specifically bought, and was not a competing or emerging product that would have easily drawn the attention of Apple.

arn
 
But it still makes little sense. If that's their motivation, why haven't they bought up iTablet.com, iComputer.com, etc...

iSlate.com was very specifically bought, and was not a competing or emerging product that would have easily drawn the attention of Apple.

arn

Are those owned by anyone? To protect your trademarks you only have to prevent everyone else from using them. (You have to use them, too, but you don't have to use every variation). If no one is using those other marks in commerce as marks on computers, then apple doesn't need to go after the marks to protect itself.
 
Yet another name grabbed "just in case.”

I expect the tablet will simply be called an iPod Something. It will sound weird at first, like Nano or Air (or iPod itself) and then we’ll be used to it.
 
I note itablet and icomputer are owned by someone in taiwan, which would be irrelevant to U.S. trademark protection so long as they aren't participating in U.S. commerce. Of course, may be an issue for i____ in Taiwan, but I don't know Taiwanese law.
 
If no one is using those other marks in commerce as marks on computers, then apple doesn't need to go after the marks to protect itself.

So by following your logic, iSlate must have been used in commerce on Computers.

arn
 
this makes no sense considering that none of the other stuff they sell has it's own website. Macbook.com macbookpro.com ect nothing.
 
Just a notion...

I find this article to be a relatively good pointer towards the possibility of the introduction of a tablet, but not necessarily defining of an imminent release. Not that it purports to be, but a healthy sense of realism helps one sift better through this mounting evidence.

The registration more likely points to the fact that they have been working on something. And I'm sure we can all agree upon that. If, in 2007, Apple decided that they were moving forward with a releasable, tablet-like device, and not a R&D toy, then the effort behind the domain acquisition would certainly make sense. However, it does not mean the project was continued. With it obscured now, we can't tell.

That said, with all of the other evidence that seems to be circulating, I think the chances are good for a release in the coming year.

As to the actual name, well, AppleTV was called iTV in-house. As I'm sure other products have had a different development name. IOW, iSlate could very well be a development name, and Apple picked up the name with the idea that it could be called iSlate in production, lest a better name arise.
 
So by following your logic, iSlate must have been used in commerce on Computers.

arn

Sort of. Under trademark law it would have been enough if there were ads for computers on it. Arguably reviews of computers, etc.

The test is whether a consumer would be confused about the origin of the commercial activity and think it had something to do with Apple. Unfortunately, common sense has little to do with it - there is a test that takes into account 15 or 16 factors depending on what part of the country you're in, and it's all very counterintuitive.
 
Stop please!

Is anyone else getting tired about all the whining heard here for products not yet delivered or even announced? I mean really just whatfeature do you imagine would be missing based on a name?

By the way they can't call it a Mac if it is running ARM hardware. That would just confuse the market place



Dave

I'm conflicted on this name. I am hoping that the tablet, if/when released, would be available without contract lock-in. This diminishes my hopes a little bit. I would think that if this was designed as a more fully featured device, it would carry the "Mac" prefix carried by Apple's computing products (with the exception of the iMac, but that's been around for a decade). With this name, my impression is that the tablet might not be as fully featured as I had hoped; it could possibly be sold under a contract plan, as with the iPhone and AT&T. Hopefully this isn't very bad news. Of course, this is all ramblings based off of a domain name registration. Regardless, I'm crossing my fingers.
 
this makes no sense considering that none of the other stuff they sell has it's own website. Macbook.com macbookpro.com ect nothing.

It will likely redirect to apple.com/islate where the tablet's main product page will be. Go type iphone.com into your browser. You'll end up on the same page as if you'd hit the "iPhone" on the Apple.com homepage. Apple has a lot of urls that redirect like that. They use it for older products too. For example, apple.com/powermac redirects you to apple.com/macpro. Although oddly enough, apple.com/powerbook goes to apple.com/macbook, not apple.com/macbookpro.
 
Better than anything with "tablet" in it, since that also makes me think of pills. I wouldn't be opposed to "iBook" despite the fact that it's been slightly used before by Apple.

For those sick of everything beginning with i, you might as well get used to it. When McDonald's stops Mc'ing everything, then Apple might drop the i prefix.
 
From the wayback machine it looks like the previous occupant of islate.com had nothing to do with computers, so probably apple had no obligation to buy the name. however, if the lawyers were being extra cautious, they might have felt that there was some reason to do so (and, as well, the wayback machine is pretty sparse on this domain - many recent years with nothing).
 
Don't they just grab up many of the variations to the label concept enabling them to have some leeway in any final designation?

Doesn't seem like this bit of news is anything but more fuel.

Also, since they have been working on a tablet for years this doesn't suggest anything new
 
Is anyone else getting tired about all the whining heard here for products not yet delivered or even announced? I mean really just whatfeature do you imagine would be missing based on a name?

By the way they can't call it a Mac if it is running ARM hardware. That would just confuse the market place



Dave


Always respect your comments but I don't think this has anything to do with the company who makes the processor but rather what kind of "platform" this is. If this had the same capabilities as the Mac it would carry that name. However I do agree that that no one knows what this thing can do.
 
Always respect your comments but I don't think this has anything to do with the company who makes the processor but rather what kind of "platform" this is. If this had the same capabilities as the Mac it would carry that name.

I agree with him, actually. Calling an ARM machine a Mac would result in chaos because it couldn't run Mac software.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.