Errr... to be honest a much more likely answer to that is just that the USPTO is really, really slow at updating registrations and ITV probably have already renewed it.
Phazer
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
Errr... to be honest a much more likely answer to that is just that the USPTO is really, really slow at updating registrations and ITV probably have already renewed it.
Phazer
That link is dead, but its probably not relevant at all, especially as the info on that site says its still live (see last line). ITV Global is ITV's global arm.
I guess Apple could just buy the name if they wanted it.
Could ITV stand in their way..? Or will Apple's Billions just trump them.
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.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Hmm what if the Apple Tv wasn't what they were going to morph into the television, but instead the Apple Cinema
display? It's already a television pretty much. it could have the best of both worlds, thunderbolt ports, hdmi, optical
Audio, etc? It would have Apple tv built in and then for people who want their own experiance the current Apple TV
Hmm what if the Apple Tv wasn't what they were going to morph into the television, but instead the Apple Cinema
display? It's already a television pretty much. it could have the best of both worlds, thunderbolt ports, hdmi, optical
Audio, etc? It would have Apple tv built in and then for people who want their own experiance the current Apple TV
What ? Her most famous song is on sale for $.69. you call that taking advantage ?
You were asking if Apple wanted the name Comcast (in American a cable company) could they get it. The answer in America would be yes if they can get the cash to back the play. I did not say they could do the same to ITV. Please don't make assumptions on my behalf.
Now I WILL say that it's great leap to assume that ITV would never sell or license iTV to Apple or anyone else for that matter. The question is what is their selling point. If Apple walked up to their front door and said £16 billion for the ITV name, you don't think they'd sell in heart beat? Granted Apple wouldn't see the name iTV as being worth that much (last years profit), but that's the kind of MONEY we are taking about Apple being able to leverage if it could collect it all in one place.
What would a device name of iTV be worth to Apple, and how much would ITV demand? At this point ITV would likely demand at least that £16 billion figure (representing nearly 8 years worth of revenune) and Apple certainly wouldn't pay anywhere close to even £1 billion for it.
As to the regulatory issue, it's not like Apple would hypothetically be buying the whole of the ITV company and thus causing all manner of monopoly style conflicts. It would be just the name or more actually the three letter abbreviation that currently stands for Independent Television.
Apple needs to build an alternative to the established content production & delivery model.
...including something like a creative development marketplace, where writers & directors & producers can post their projects, actually get their work seen, avoid getting ripped off, & anyone can buy or sell their services to get content made quicker and easier. That'll be key in attracting more talent to offer more and better programming than the established model.
There's a TON of talented people out there desperate to work that could be generating a TON of content. The studios & networks have their own ideas of what people want to see, and often ignore the best of it. Perhaps expanding "video podcasts" into an on-demand internet-fed tv channel is up next. Maybe Apple can grab George Lucas and Kevin Smith and all the other people fed up and leaving the entertainment establishment, and build a better system from top to bottom.
...including something like a creative development marketplace, where writers & directors & producers can post their projects, actually get their work seen, avoid getting ripped off, & anyone can buy or sell their services to get content made quicker and easier. That'll be key in attracting more talent to offer more and better programming than the established model.
There's a TON of talented people out there desperate to work that could be generating a TON of content. The studios & networks have their own ideas of what people want to see, and often ignore the best of it. Perhaps expanding "video podcasts" into an on-demand internet-fed tv channel is up next. Maybe Apple can grab George Lucas and Kevin Smith and all the other people fed up and leaving the entertainment establishment, and build a better system from top to bottom.
Last edited:
So, they see an Apple ad might think what? That ITV sells TV sets or set top boxes? Really? YOu really think that is will not be clear it is actually an Apple product? So, when there is a Microsoft Windows commercial, people call Microsoft because their house windows need replcacement? In your world the less tech savy people also order an iMac at McDonnalds, right? Now, I have a cookie for you: itv is there as well! These confused people, running around headless: "Wait! Is it a TV station, some piece of hardware or a streaming service?"
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.
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.
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.
Being Apple doesn't grant a free pass to simply abuse every other company in the world
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.
Last edited:
Being Apple doesn't grant a free pass to simply abuse every other company in the world
Why? It's a TV.... iTV.
It's a phone... iPhone.
iTV & iTV STB.... Do it. What's the worst that can happen? ITV viewers boycott the network because Apple won't ship units to the UK until ITV releases the trademark? That's what I'd do.
It's Cisco all over again.. You have a product that is far inferior to the infringing product.. Sometimes you have to move out of the way and allow progress to happen.
Not a problem, Apple can just buy Elgato.Elgato owns that one.
After all, that seems to be most people's answer these days whenever Apple get into a bit of a dispute with anyone.
I bet Apple calls it iTV anyway and just pays out a ridiculous settlement. The ITV network should be happy. Either way, they win. Free promotion of their network name and a settlement if Apple goes with iTV, and being the network that changed the name of a major Apple product before it was made if they don't.
What are they so furious about?
What are they so furious about?
Well, this in itself is anti-competitive. If *Sky* has a stake in ITV then I can't see what justification there would be to prevent anyone else taking one.
Ah, the British Press
Sure, they have some of the best news sources in the world, and also some of the worst. Their yellow press is worse than the US, until the appearance of the Murdoch Empire here. Apparently, this reporter learned his methods from the less-honest (than MacRumors) apple rumors sites. Make up a story, invent quotes, and then put it out there. So what if ITV denies it ever happened?
Sure, they have some of the best news sources in the world, and also some of the worst. Their yellow press is worse than the US, until the appearance of the Murdoch Empire here. Apparently, this reporter learned his methods from the less-honest (than MacRumors) apple rumors sites. Make up a story, invent quotes, and then put it out there. So what if ITV denies it ever happened?
In the same way that Apple does not have a single owner, I am really not sure what that is supposed to prove.
While ITV Network Ltd does not have a single owner, it is increasingly becoming nothing more than a mechanism to determine how much STV and UTV pay for networked programming provided by ITV plc. And of the fifteen companies that co-own the network, thirteen of them are ITV plc subsidiaries.
ITV plc own outright the stations ITV2, 3, and 4, CITV, the ITV Studios production company and international subsidiaries, and the ITV1 branding. The majority of ITV produced content belongs to ITV plc, not the network.
With STV and UTV distancing themselves as much as possible from this, and choosing to use their own independent identities where possible, I doubt any claim they would have to the ITV name through the network is anything they would have any interesting in protecting.
And since the 1990s the legal name for the service is Channel 3 anyway. ITV is not a service, it is a brand, and one controlled by ITV plc. While there is no doubt they would sell it it Apple, the idea that they would not be able to is a misnomer. Were they, ITV plc, so minded they could easily do a deal with STV and UTV if necessary to allow them to sell the name.
By Virgin Media. And following that a legal ruling said they could not own more than 7.5% of the company resulting in them selling a large number of their shares. If Apple wanted to take over ITV, which they do not, there is nothing Sky could do. Apple would only need 50.1% of shareholders to be willing to share to take control.
Only if Apple takeover ITV plc with the intent of heavily investing in content rather just to buy the brand name, an absurd notation anyway. Sky's business model is content, hence the extension into web subscriptions and iOS apps, while Apple's is providing access to content. And with an Apple television set being dependent on internet access then it will still depend on companies like Sky to provide that.
An Apple television set will give Sky access to households through apps without the need for satellite dishes and subsidized set-top boxes. Far from being a disaster for Sky it would open them up to more households than ever before. The two companies offerings actually complement each other. The only way they would compete in this hypothetical scenario is if Apple were to bid on something like Premier League rights for ITV1, but that would be a loss making business model with no benefit to Apple.
IF TRUE, serves right the drones who rush to buy an album just because the artist died. Happens every time...
Silly troll
. Did you actually read the story on Cisco? Superior or inferior doesn't matter. What you're claiming is that it's Apple so therefore superior with a free license to do anything. It doesn't work this way. Note how Apple has previously negotiated on other trademarks. If Apple has a good product in mind, it'll be fine no matter what they name it.That's always possible. I only had an issue with the comments that Apple can take whatever trademark, IP, etc. they want unconditionally. If this wasn't a concern, the current Apple TV might have been called iTV. Also note that the troll suggested that being from Apple automatically equates to better product, therefore they should own it. Looking at the UK based responses, this is not a tarnished brand or unknown product.
