Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Mobile Devices & Gadgets

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-02-2012, 04:28 PM   #26
zaydq
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 778
Default

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp

Are you all really that surprised that Apple is suing them?
zaydq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 04:33 PM   #27
TuxDave
Lifer
 
TuxDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,447
Default

In case anyone wants to get off the "die die Apple" bandwagon and learn what's really going on.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/35...s-really-going

Quote:
The confusion appears to come from what Gallastegui told El Universal, which details iFone's trademark infringement countersuit and demands against Apple. Garbled through Google Translate, it sounds like the court ordered Apple to pay substantial fines and perhaps even pull the iPhone from market — a big deal since the iPhone 5 just launched with Mexican carrier partners. But those are just the demands, and iFone's case doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. We'll obviously update if we learn otherwise, but I would guess Apple and iFone will eventually settle this one and we'll never hear about it again.
It looks like nothing has happened yet and all the "banning iPhone in Mexico" is just sensational news reporting. Typical...
__________________
post count = post count + 0.999.....
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
TuxDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 09:51 PM   #28
akugami
Diamond Member
 
akugami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 費城, 賓夕法尼亞州
Posts: 4,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by preslove View Post
IFONE PREDATES THE IPHONE!

I know all about trademarks. The fact that you can't wrap your brain around the above fact tells us all we need to know about your dumb agenda.
No. Technically, it does not.

Cisco, the prior owner of the iPhone trademark had a product with the iPhone name before iFone. It doesn't matter that Apple bought the trademark or that Apple's iPhone is vastly different from Cisco's iPhone.

As for my "agenda" the OP has a known bias against Apple. I'm proving his comments wrong. Now, others like yourself are saying Apple is wrong and that's ok. Hell, I'm wrong on many occasions. But I provided valid business reasons why Apple must defend their trademark. Instead of refuting my arguments and providing reasons why I'm wrong, you resort to personal insults. Classy my friend. Classy.
__________________
Canon 50D
Canon 16-35mm L MK1
_______________________
That was insensitive of me. I asked you to stop being stupid without considering how extremely difficult that must be for you.
akugami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 09:56 PM   #29
Rayb
Member
 
Rayb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuxDave View Post
In case anyone wants to get off the "die die Apple" bandwagon and learn what's really going on.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/35...s-really-going



It looks like nothing has happened yet and all the "banning iPhone in Mexico" is just sensational news reporting. Typical...

Not yet, the little iFone guys just filed a counter-suit in response... with the rights of first use.

Quote:
the decision does not, in fact, prohibit Apple from selling iPhone-branded products in Mexico. The decision, instead, reaffirmed iFone's right to continue using its brand name. iFone's countersuit is reportedly still pending, iFone's demands -- a portion of iPhone sales and a potential sales ban -- have not yet been enforced.
All this stems from the two trademark classes (9, 28) that apple filed and already own but wanted the third from iFone (38) invalidated.

Talk about biting more than you can chew.
Rayb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 12:04 AM   #30
TuxDave
Lifer
 
TuxDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayb View Post
Not yet, the little iFone guys just filed a counter-suit in response... with the rights of first use.

All this stems from the two trademark classes (9, 28) that apple filed and already own but wanted the third from iFone (38) invalidated.

Talk about biting more than you can chew.
Filing a counter-suit is a far cry from the first "They are suing Apple and they are winning." listed way back on top as well as from the article:

Quote:
The predictable response was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFone’s favor ever since.
I don't think I saw any mention that they won the counter-suit yet.
__________________
post count = post count + 0.999.....
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
TuxDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 12:06 AM   #31
brian0831
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 18
Default

I wonder if apple tried to obtain the class 38 trademark with ifone communications (or A licensing agreement for the right to use the trademark like the deal they had for ios with cisco) before suing them for it. I'm guessing not since nowhere have mentioned about apple trying to settle with them in order to obtain or use the trademark before bringing the lawsuit against them, but I could be wrong

There's no denying that public perception regarding many apple lawsuits with patents and trademarks have not been positive, which is why many people including some of the media love to jump on apple when they lose a case like this, especially if apple's actions can easily be perceived as being dbagish and bullyish in the public's eyes


Either way it looks like apple will now have to spend much more than they initially hoped for the trademark, and probably could've been avoided if apple just negotiated with them nicely in the first place.
brian0831 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 12:16 AM   #32
Zaap
Diamond Member
 
Zaap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akugami View Post
No. Technically, it does not.

Cisco, the prior owner of the iPhone trademark had a product with the iPhone name before iFone. It doesn't matter that Apple bought the trademark or that Apple's iPhone is vastly different from Cisco's iPhone.
Sorry, but this argument is ridiculous. What really matters is that it's highly doubtful that the Mexican company copied some obscure Cisco product in 2003 before the term iPhone meant anything. "Hey, let's call our company iFone after this virtually unknown iPhone product from Cisco!" Yeah right. 10 to 1 no one at iFone ever even saw or heard of a Cisco 'iPhone' like 99% of everyone else in the world.

That should be the main consideration in a case like this. Suing a company over a name (that isn't even exact) for a product you introduced in 2007 vs. their company name from 2003 that in no way was trying to unfairly capitalize on another product, is just a stupid, silly lawsuit, and thank goodness Apple lost. I hope they're made to pay all sorts of damages for wasting people's time and once again trying to push their weight around.

It's this kind of uncalled for action by Apple that's making people despise this company.

You can dismiss it as Apple-hatred if you want to, but it's hatred they are currently bringing on themselves, not for their products, but for their bullying business tactics and dick-move legal crap. Litigation in place of innovation isn't going to cut it.
__________________
Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 2600K | 16GB 1600 | HD6870 1GB | OSX 10.9.2 + Win 7 x64
Zaap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 02:05 AM   #33
Rayb
Member
 
Rayb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuxDave View Post
Filing a counter-suit is a far cry from the first "They are suing Apple and they are winning." listed way back on top as well as from the article:



I don't think I saw any mention that they won the counter-suit yet.
No, the counter-suit hasn't been decided.

iFone won the injunction that Apple filed against them for trademark infringement. Therefore affirming iFone rights of first use in Mexico. (They get to keep using the name iFone and tradermark class 38 rights). Instead of Apple negotiating in good faith, Apple wanted an invalidation of the trademark for non-use outright.

Now that Apple lost the lawsuit and is infringing, iFone is counter-suing for damages (still pending).
Quote:
iFone's demands -- a portion of iPhone sales and a potential sales ban -- have not yet been enforced.
Rayb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 04:55 AM   #34
golem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayb View Post
No, the counter-suit hasn't been decided.

iFone won the injunction that Apple filed against them for trademark infringement. Therefore affirming iFone rights of first use in Mexico. (They get to keep using the name iFone and tradermark class 38 rights). Instead of Apple negotiating in good faith, Apple wanted an invalidation of the trademark for non-use outright.

Now that Apple lost the lawsuit and is infringing, iFone is counter-suing for damages (still pending).
How do you know if the negotiated in good faith or not? Maybe they did and couldn't come to an agreement and then decided to invalidate it?

Was ifone in active use? I browsed their website and it says at the bottom that it's copyrighted from 2003 to 2006. Not sure of the difference between copyrighted and trademarked.

Is what your saying backed on an understanding of the case and it's history or just your personal opinion?

Edit: Actually, I looked around and it looks like copyright dates normally don't lead up to the current year. So, no idea if iFone was in use or not when Apple filed to invalidate it. Anyone know for sure?

Last edited by golem; 11-03-2012 at 05:44 AM.
golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 05:03 AM   #35
golem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaap View Post

You can dismiss it as Apple-hatred if you want to, but it's hatred they are currently bringing on themselves, not for their products, but for their bullying business tactics and dick-move legal crap. Litigation in place of innovation isn't going to cut it.
Didn't Microsoft recently have to change the name of interface from Metro to something else because of possible litigation? It's entirely possible this is just a dick move, on the other hand it could be a pre emptive move to make sure they aren't sued later on like they were in China.
golem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 08:57 AM   #36
waggy
No Lifer
 
waggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 64,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaydq View Post
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp

Are you all really that surprised that Apple is suing them?
WTF!?

/facepalm
waggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 09:24 AM   #37
Anubis
No Lifer
 
Anubis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Anger is a gift!
Posts: 74,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waggy View Post
WTF!?

/facepalm
yea its pretty moronic, they also sued a coffee shop in germany or spain about a similar issue, they lost
Anubis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 09:25 AM   #38
akugami
Diamond Member
 
akugami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 費城, 賓夕法尼亞州
Posts: 4,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaap View Post
Sorry, but this argument is ridiculous. What really matters is that it's highly doubtful that the Mexican company copied some obscure Cisco product in 2003 before the term iPhone meant anything. "Hey, let's call our company iFone after this virtually unknown iPhone product from Cisco!" Yeah right. 10 to 1 no one at iFone ever even saw or heard of a Cisco 'iPhone' like 99% of everyone else in the world.
It doesn't matter if you heard of the Cisco product before. A valid trademark is a valid trademark as long as you are using it and when you discover someone is infringing that you enforce it.

So it doesn't even matter if the Mexican company never heard of Cisco's iPhone (which Cisco obtained by purchasing another company). It doesn't matter if the Mexican company was not copying Cisco. What matters is, is the iPhone a legitimate trademark and who had it first. Is it a unique name or something generic like Apple?

Quote:
That should be the main consideration in a case like this. Suing a company over a name (that isn't even exact) for a product you introduced in 2007 vs. their company name from 2003 that in no way was trying to unfairly capitalize on another product, is just a stupid, silly lawsuit, and thank goodness Apple lost. I hope they're made to pay all sorts of damages for wasting people's time and once again trying to push their weight around.
I already covered this exact issue in a previous post in this thread.

Quote:
It's this kind of uncalled for action by Apple that's making people despise this company.

You can dismiss it as Apple-hatred if you want to, but it's hatred they are currently bringing on themselves, not for their products, but for their bullying business tactics and dick-move legal crap. Litigation in place of innovation isn't going to cut it.
I'm not saying you can't hate Apple. That's your prerogative. If you want to expend the energy into hatred of a global corporation that doesn't affect me. What is stupid is a lot of people can't separate their disdain for Apple and criticizes Apple for everything Apple does. It doesn't matter whether what Apple is doing is legally sound or not. It doesn't matter if this is something every company including Google would do or not. If Apple did it, then Apple made a douche move.

You're also bringing in separate issues here since this case has nothing to do about litigation over innovation. This is about protecting one's brand.

From a business perspective this iFone vs iPhone case is exactly something Apple should legally be engaged in to protect their trademark. The officers in a publicly traded company has a legal obligation to ensure the company stays healthy or to protect profits. Within the bounds of the law of course.

I provide reasons why Apple should or might be doing this. You provide a lot of opinions on why you hate Apple and call my arguments stupid. You also say that it's a "dick move" by Apple to sue over the iFone trade name yet you conveniently neglect the little fact that if you don't enforce your trademark, you risk losing it.

From a legal standpoint, Apple is obligated to try to invalidate/obtain the iFone trademark. It would strengthen their existing iPhone trademark. It would also protect their trademark from becoming genericized. This is the biggest reason Apple should be suing and this point is something no one who is criticizing Apple in this thread has even attempted to argue against. Instead, it's comments about how much of a douchebag Apple is and how stupid my comments are.

Now the "a.pl" case on the other hand...that's retarded on Apple's part. No defending Apple on that one.
__________________
Canon 50D
Canon 16-35mm L MK1
_______________________
That was insensitive of me. I asked you to stop being stupid without considering how extremely difficult that must be for you.
akugami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 10:14 AM   #39
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
 
AyashiKaibutsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,099
Default

Needing to defend their trademarks doesn't give apple the right to throw all sense and sensibility out the window. Trying to paint it otherwise just makes you look like a desperate apologist.
__________________
The large print giveths and the small print taketh away.
AyashiKaibutsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 10:36 AM   #40
Zaap
Diamond Member
 
Zaap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akugami View Post
It doesn't matter if you heard of the Cisco product before. A valid trademark is a valid trademark as long as you are using it and when you discover someone is infringing that you enforce it.
You're just wrong on every level.

First off: no one infringed on Cisco's product. The product name is iFONE, not iPhone.

Cisco didn't even have a product called iPhone. Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone

"The Linksys iPhone was a line of internet appliances from Cisco Systems. The first iPhone model, released by Infogear in 1998, combined the features of a regular phone and a web terminal. The company was later purchased by Cisco and no new products were marketed under the name between 2001 and 2006. At the end of 2006, Cisco rebranded its Linksys VoIP-based phones under the name, shortly before Apple released an iPhone of its own. This led to a trademark dispute between the two companies, which was resolved on February 20, 2007."

So when iFone registered its name in 2003, there was no product on the market called iPhone (and certainly not iFone) so they weren't infringing on anyone, they weren't copying anyone, they weren't trying to ride the coattails of any successful product called an "iPhone".

Your 'argument' (and yes, it's completely ridiculous) is that Cisco by merely owning the name iPhone, with no well-known product with that name for anyone to be capitalizing on by "copying" it as iFone, was infringed upon, therefore Apple is somehow RETROACTIVELY being infringed upon by a company that had 'iFone' 4 years before they made an 'iPhone'.

You just flat out believe that because Apple is bigger and has more money, they can lay claim to iAnything, even against different product names registered years before theirs, and on top of the even bigger irony that the only ones to ever infringe on the name 'iPhone'... was Apple!

It's so absurd it defies belief that Apple could be so stupid to think their case would fly.
Quote:
So it doesn't even matter if the Mexican company never heard of Cisco's iPhone (which Cisco obtained by purchasing another company). It doesn't matter if the Mexican company was not copying Cisco. What matters is, is the iPhone a legitimate trademark and who had it first. Is it a unique name or something generic like Apple?
Once again, Cisco acquired a NAME: iPhone. They had no product with that name, and certainly not a well known one anyone was trying to capitalize on. Another company registered the name iFONE, and clearly DIDN'T in any fashion copy Cisco. They sure as hell didn't copy a product that didn't exist yet.


Quote:
I'm not saying you can't hate Apple. That's your prerogative. If you want to expend the energy into hatred of a global corporation that doesn't affect me. What is stupid is a lot of people can't separate their disdain for Apple and criticizes Apple for everything Apple does.
What you don't seem able to grasp, is that Apple is bringing the hatred on themselves.

It's your preogative to make up lame excuses for a company, defying all logic and common sense, simply because you're dazzled by the fact that they throw a lot of money around like a bully and make shiny plastic gizmos you like. Doesn't change the fact that they use courtrooms like an out of control bully against companies that have done NOTHING against them. This was a classic case, you're just too far in the tank for them to admit it, and admit the complete logic fail. You simply believe Apple should always win because they throw more money around and should be able to get away with anything they want to "protect thier brand" as if no one else has any rights to protect theirs.

In this case, clearly iFone has the right to protect THEIR brand against Apple's bullying. I hope this leads to Apple not being able to sell the iPhone in Mexico and losing boatloads of money there. Would serve them right for thinking they can strongarm some other business out in the name of "protecting their brand" when an iFone dating from 2003 is NOT their brand, all yours and their wishful thinking aside.
__________________
Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 2600K | 16GB 1600 | HD6870 1GB | OSX 10.9.2 + Win 7 x64

Last edited by Zaap; 11-03-2012 at 10:44 AM.
Zaap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 10:41 AM   #41
TuxDave
Lifer
 
TuxDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayb View Post
No, the counter-suit hasn't been decided.

iFone won the injunction that Apple filed against them for trademark infringement. Therefore affirming iFone rights of first use in Mexico. (They get to keep using the name iFone and tradermark class 38 rights). Instead of Apple negotiating in good faith, Apple wanted an invalidation of the trademark for non-use outright.

Now that Apple lost the lawsuit and is infringing, iFone is counter-suing for damages (still pending).
Infringing on what. Class 9 (which Apple owns) covers mobile phones. Damaged you can always sue for but Apple still holds its relevant trademark.
__________________
post count = post count + 0.999.....
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
TuxDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 10:48 AM   #42
Zaap
Diamond Member
 
Zaap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golem View Post
Didn't Microsoft recently have to change the name of interface from Metro to something else because of possible litigation? It's entirely possible this is just a dick move, on the other hand it could be a pre emptive move to make sure they aren't sued later on like they were in China.
The proper analogy here would be if Microsoft were suing a company called "Meetro" that registered its name four years before 'Metro', because they bought the name 'Metro' from a company that sued them and won, had no product called Metro, and WASN'T being infringed upon by a company called Meetro.
__________________
Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 2600K | 16GB 1600 | HD6870 1GB | OSX 10.9.2 + Win 7 x64
Zaap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 12:44 PM   #43
brian0831
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akugami View Post
From a legal standpoint, Apple is obligated to try to invalidate/obtain the iFone trademark.
I agree that from a legal standpoint, Apple is obligated to obtain the iFone trademark to strengthen their intellectual property holding and to protect themselves. This can be achieved by negotiating with iFone Communications to obtain the rights to the iFone trademark. They are not obligated to invalidate someone's existing trademark. Invalidating an existing company's trademark through lawsuit without negotiation is just another mean of achieving the goal of obtaining the necessary iphone trademark, and one that can easily be perceived as being bully-ish and d-bag-ish by the public, especially ones who already dislikes Apple based on their other legal practices
brian0831 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 01:34 PM   #44
Kenmitch
Diamond Member
 
Kenmitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 92557
Posts: 5,491
Default

You can't always get what you want I'd think. Not sure why Apple has the pinky and the brain mentality and why people feel obligated to defend them.

Example: www.nissan.com
__________________
HeatWare
Email
Kenmitch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 01:41 PM   #45
Rayb
Member
 
Rayb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuxDave View Post
Infringing on what. Class 9 (which Apple owns) covers mobile phones. Damaged you can always sue for but Apple still holds its relevant trademark.
Each trademark class covers a wide range of categories that describe what a trademark is for. The Class 38 as described by Apple, is broader in the description than the other classes. (It basically covers all wired and wireless telecommunication services). You do the math...

Class 9 ---> Apple
Class 28 ---> Apple
Class 38
---> iFone

The other trademark classes aren't in question. iFone only wants to keep what is theirs (38) and Apple happens to infringe on it in Mexico.
Rayb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.