Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ITV Warns Apple (Again) Not to Use Their Name [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see the usual comments on this story. I can't tell if people are crazy, sarcastic, trying to be funny, or just stupid when they state Apple should just BUY ITV to use it's name!
And another thing, it's a UK company, that means British and European laws which I doubt would favour Apple in a case like this, plus the public would not support it especially in the UK. But why am I typing this? I know full well Apple will NOT use iTV as the name as it full well knows it'll get sued of the planet and have bad press in Europe/ UK markets.
Apple TV will be the name I think, or Apple Television.
And another thing, it's a UK company, that means British and European laws which I doubt would favour Apple in a case like this, plus the public would not support it especially in the UK. But why am I typing this? I know full well Apple will NOT use iTV as the name as it full well knows it'll get sued of the planet and have bad press in Europe/ UK markets.
Apple TV will be the name I think, or Apple Television.
Hmm. Probably not, although I imagine they could buy all the tea in China.Do you think they will buy China?
Damn... cant get gnashers' responses in line with the original quotes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Ortega
Apple's arrogance and greed become more of a problem each day.
They just hiked the price of Whitney Houston music on iTunes to milk more profit from her sudden death.
If the price went up, it was either because of Whitney Houston, because of Apple, or because of the record company. Well, we can rule out Whitney Houston. She doesn't need any money for drugs anymore. Between the other two, I'd bet on the record company, because they are setting the price. Apple takes 30% of whatever the price is, but they don't set the price.
And the arrogance of Apple, receiving a letter from ITV that the company never actually sent. That's true arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlugBlanket
Many here are quick to criticise Apple's competitors for copying or "stealing" intellectual property, but then come out with statements like "ITV doesn't have the financial clout to compete with Apple in a court case".
That's obviously nonsense. First, lawyers are expensive, but not _that_ expensive that ITV can't afford them. Second, they wouldn't need expensive lawyers, just one who is barely knowledgeable enough to dig out the papers where ITV has registered its trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev
Being Apple doesn't grant a free pass to simply abuse every other company in the world They have enough resources to come up with a name that doesn't infringe upon others.
They also have enough money to pay for rights if they want them. But that only makes sense if the name is worth more to Apple than to the other company. In this case probably not.
----------
Of course it's nonsense; thats why I pointed it out. By you quoting me out of context however, some might think that you either have an issue with my own stance or perhaps even worse that I agree with yours. If you have an issue with people that like to employ double standards then please quote them, not me for pointing it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Ortega
Apple's arrogance and greed become more of a problem each day.
They just hiked the price of Whitney Houston music on iTunes to milk more profit from her sudden death.
If the price went up, it was either because of Whitney Houston, because of Apple, or because of the record company. Well, we can rule out Whitney Houston. She doesn't need any money for drugs anymore. Between the other two, I'd bet on the record company, because they are setting the price. Apple takes 30% of whatever the price is, but they don't set the price.
And the arrogance of Apple, receiving a letter from ITV that the company never actually sent. That's true arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlugBlanket
Many here are quick to criticise Apple's competitors for copying or "stealing" intellectual property, but then come out with statements like "ITV doesn't have the financial clout to compete with Apple in a court case".
That's obviously nonsense. First, lawyers are expensive, but not _that_ expensive that ITV can't afford them. Second, they wouldn't need expensive lawyers, just one who is barely knowledgeable enough to dig out the papers where ITV has registered its trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev
Being Apple doesn't grant a free pass to simply abuse every other company in the world They have enough resources to come up with a name that doesn't infringe upon others.
They also have enough money to pay for rights if they want them. But that only makes sense if the name is worth more to Apple than to the other company. In this case probably not.
----------
Of course it's nonsense; thats why I pointed it out. By you quoting me out of context however, some might think that you either have an issue with my own stance or perhaps even worse that I agree with yours. If you have an issue with people that like to employ double standards then please quote them, not me for pointing it out.
Last edited:
lol @ this story again, and lol @ The Telegraph.
I think they should call it iVT (No, not a typo! i_V_T_ ... for internet Video / Television). This would reflect that the TV of the future is a melding of traditional over-the-air programming and modern on-demand video streaming.
It'd also be a twist on VT as in Video Tape of course.
I think they should call it iVT (No, not a typo! i_V_T_ ... for internet Video / Television). This would reflect that the TV of the future is a melding of traditional over-the-air programming and modern on-demand video streaming.
It'd also be a twist on VT as in Video Tape of course.
Your just north of special right?
I mean there is a whole 11+ page thread discussing this very topic, and you decide that you are the only one to think of that line. Not to mention the utter ignorance of the statement itself.
Last edited:
Sorry, but both iTV and Apple are in the entertainment industry, so your mustard example is ridiculous, and secondly the point your trying to make shows a complete lack of understanding of how IP law works. Protecting your brand in the marketplace is absolutely crucial. It's not just about trying to prevent competitors with similar devices piggybacking on your success. It's also about preventing brand dilution, even if the alleged infringer isn't directly competing with you. APple knows this all too well. Have a look at this link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055869/German-cafe-Apfelkind-logo-dispute-Apple.html
If by chaos ensues, you mean iTV takes Apple to court and gets very large damages and international injunctions against the sale of the 'iTV' device, and consequently millions of iTV branded TV sets sit gathering dust in Apple's warehouses, then yes you are right, chaos would ensue. There is no way Apple will be able to release an iTV branded set against iTV's wishes. Apple may have deep pockets, but so do iTV, and they've been a major name in television for about 50 years, so the law is on their side in this issue.
It's just not even worth it for Apple to try and call it an iTV. The risks are huge and stacked against them. They have enough legal battles without starting a pointless and expensive battle with iTV. The device will be called an Apple TV or something else.
Last edited:
Patent ("i"+name)
Actually, "iTV" sounds bad. You only put "i" before something with one syllable. iLife, iWork, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iBook.... iOS is a bad name too.
----------
Apple doesn't buy stuff unless it's manufacturing companies... But your reply is overly harsh.
Actually, "iTV" sounds bad. You only put "i" before something with one syllable. iLife, iWork, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iBook.... iOS is a bad name too.
----------
Apple doesn't buy stuff unless it's manufacturing companies... But your reply is overly harsh.
Eye is not a new character. It would be more along the lines of ∞TV, where the ∞ is pronounced rather like i. (∞ is used in lieu of the new character, which obviously doesn't exist yet).
More riots in the UK where consumers are desperate for a more expensive voice activated television? I wouldn't bet on it.
Why would they rebrand now just to cut out their UK sales?
Patent ("i"+name)
Actually, "iTV" sounds bad. You only put "i" before something with one syllable. iLife, iWork, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iBook.... iOS is a bad name too.
----------
Apple doesn't buy stuff unless it's manufacturing companies... But your reply is overly harsh.
It might have been harsh. BUT I took the time to read 11 pages of posts becase I was interested in the topic and the arguments on both sides. So when I got to the last post, and it was a post with no thought, and written by someone who didn't even bother to look one page back to see if anyone posted anything similar I got annoyed.
Most good boards have a saying: "Read more, Post less". Meaning if you read for a minute you will most likely see your comment, question, or statement posted already and it has already most likely been answered or responded to.
Only ones i can see being realistic are iView and iDisplay with iDisplay being the front runner. "Display" for some reason just sounds so high end and that's what apple always goes for
...and millions of people who tune in to watch The X Factor or Coronation Street would wonder why the station wasn't called "ITV" any more. Even if Apple could hypothetically swing it they'd annoy half the population of the UK. They'd have to really believe that there was no such thing as bad publicity to do that. Plus, if punters thought the Apple product was something to do with ITV (the broadcaster) that could backfire on Apple.
NB: last time ITV licensed the name "ITV Digital" to a digital terrestrial TV provider to use on set top boxes, it didn't go too well: not only did ITV Digital go titsup, they nearly took the Football Association with them (the big problem was a disastrous deal for live soccer rights - but the confusing name, implying that you could only get ITV shows on the device, probably didn't help).
Plus, for anybody who thinks there would be no confusion, ITV already has a streaming TV-on-demand service called "iTV Player" which treads firmly into IPTV territory. There's even an iOS client app for it (maybe only in the UK store).
SO even if Apple announce tomorrow that they've bought the ITV trademark, the idea will still have "stupid" written on it in 10' high letters.
My suggestion: produce two versions: a black one called "iVHS" and a white one called "iBeta". Those trademarks must be ripe for purchase by now, and you could make a great ad campaign about it... "Which one will you buy this time!?" (PS: Joke!)
But if you had iBeta, people would think that it's a testing/pre-release device (haha)
the 'i" in front of everything Apple is good branding. But at the same time derived (based on a keynote given by Steve re: iMac) from:
internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire
All of those fit a TV concept except individual.
TV - as they want to introduce it - sounds like more a social experience.
Perhaps it's time to brand something "different" for this type of product.
internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire
All of those fit a TV concept except individual.
TV - as they want to introduce it - sounds like more a social experience.
Perhaps it's time to brand something "different" for this type of product.
Oh, that brings back memories! "and now, from Norwich, it's the quiz of the week."