British network allegedly warns Apple again not to use 'iTV' name [u]

13567

Comments

  • gustavgustav Posts: 803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?



    How can that be fair?



    So to you, "fair" would be a large multinational corporation just stealing the name from a tv station that they have been using for more than half a century?
  • fecklesstechguyfecklesstechguy Posts: 501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by techno View Post


    Well Apple does have a track record of disregarding trademarks and dealing with the monetary consequences later. A bit of a bully. They didn't really show much respect for Apple records. Who thinks of them now when you hear "Apple"? Sitting on top the biggest pile of cash does give one a sense of power.



    Given that the timeline and disputes adjudicated and the results of said adjudication are all freely accessible, there is no evidence of bullying, and in fact the final resolution was for Apple Corps to transfer all rights to Apple, Inc., and license the use of those back from Apple, Inc, for an undisclosed amount of money. In doing so (following the settlement of the EMI suit) both Apple Corps and the Beatles' existing and legacy estates gained substantial monetary gain by the digital reissuance of the Beatles' catalog on iTunes, resulting in more than 1.4 million songs and over 119,000 albums sold in the U.S. iTunes store in the first week alone.



    I would LOVE if Apple came and bullied me like that! Maybe I need to start up a Company as a tax shelter that would be of interest to Apple, and negotiate some of that bullying!
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?



    How can that be fair?



    This is ridiculous. Apple hasn't even announced a product, much less a name, and people are already up in arms over the fact that someone else uses the name that Apple might or might not use if the ever do release a rumored product?



    I'd suggest joining the real world rather than letting your fantasy world get the best of you.
  • gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    So call it iTV everywhere except GB, which is the only place anyone has ever heard of ITV.
  • blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,244member
    Why involve the term "TV" at all? I would hope that anything Apple would come up with in this space would be different enough from what's gone before that "TV" might no longer be a relevant term.



    For example, it's "iPad" not "iPC" or even "iMac".
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    So to you, "fair" would be a large multinational corporation just stealing the name from a tv station that they have been using for more than half a century?



    To the whole world, iTV would mean an Apple product. IMO, Apple should own the "i" prefix. It has always meant "Apple". Back when everybody was using "e", Apple innovated to use "i".
  • rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    IF it must be labeled anything then call it...



    STD...



    Siri-ous

    Television

    Domination





    Tag Line: “It won’t ‘infect’ you but it will ‘Affect’ you!”





    OR





    STFU...



    Siri-ous

    Television

    For

    U





    Tag Line: “All other TVs will be left speechless!”





    But why does a television set have to be "named" anyway?



    Just put the appropriately sized "Apple" logo front and center and be done with it like the other TV manufacturers have done. When browsing the TV aisle at my local store I see 'Sharp', 'RCA', 'Samsung', 'LG', 'VIZIO' etc. so why not 'Apple' or the Apple logo and let the branding speak for itself.



    iTV sound "meh" anyway... and no love lost if it were not called iTV. I don't see other TV's naming their product other than who its from and nothing is wrong with Apple doing the same.



    Save your money Apple, you don't need to buy ITV so you can call your TV the iTV. Just call your TV "Apple".

    /

    /

    /
  • maciekskontaktmaciekskontakt Posts: 258member
    I think this name issue comes from casual corporate management attitude: "I name it because i like this name".



    I have seen this too many times. That fact is: no you do not name it the way you like it, but you name it: a) so it makes sense to everybody and it is easy to sell; b) the name is free from legal obligations.



    There are things that corporate management does not seem to get.
  • cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,508member
    The market value of itv is about $3.7b



    I think iView would be more likely than a silly bun fight with itv they couldn't win, so probably wouldn't start in the first place.
  • monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    Why involve the term "TV" at all? I would hope that anything Apple would come up with in this space would be different enough from what's gone before that "TV" might no longer be a relevant term.



    For example, it's "iPad" not "iPC" or even "iMac".



    That mirrors my thoughts on the matter. TV should go the way of the Wireless !
  • herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,173member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?



    How can that be fair?



    BTW itv own the itv.com domain. Not saying the TV station cant change is name but it had it first so Apple will need to pay to get it. They just said they dont want to change it may be a message to Apple to get ready to pay a truck load of cash if they want it.
  • monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    The market value of itv is about $3.7b



    I think iView would be more likely than a silly bun fight with itv they couldn't win, so probably wouldn't start in the first place.



    The reality is though, I bet ITV are secretly hoping Apple DOES want their name. If Apple really wanted it, ITV could make an easy fortune I'm sure.



    I would say the iVision/iView route is more likely though.
  • christophbchristophb Posts: 1,369member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tyrnight View Post


    found to be false..





    http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/13/27...-apple-warning



    It sounded dubious that a real company would be responding to just rumor blogs by going directly to Apple. IF they approached Apple, I'd think it'd be a response to an Apple Inquiry. Apple reached agreement with Cisco on iOS vs the IOS trademark that applied only to software on networking gear.
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,236member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post


    I think this name issue comes from casual corporate management attitude: "I name it because i like this name".



    I have seen this too many times. That fact is: no you do not name it the way you like it, but you name it: a) so it makes sense to everybody and it is easy to sell; b) the name is free from legal obligations.



    There are things that corporate management does not seem to get.



    Is that the same "casual corporate management" that generated $100B cash and one of the world's most valuable companies?
  • ezduzitezduzit Posts: 158member
    i love animals so pls excuse the expression. "there are lots of ways to skin a cat"



    iTEEVEE
  • dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,481member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gkroeger View Post


    In the first week of an Apple iTV, more people in the world would know the name than all those "decades" have produced. If ITV were smart, they would license the name to Apple and reap the huge rewards of search engines sending people to their web site. As for sales, who is going to confuse a consumer product with a television network?



    Like the fools that mistook a record label for a computer company.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,069member
    Apple is not stupid enough to try to use the name even before the 2010 "don't you bloody dare" messages. Nothing has changed since then. Which is why Apple hasn't bothered trying to talk to iTV. There's nothing to talk about since they aren't going to use that name just like they didn't before. And probably were never thinking about it.
  • applezillaapplezilla Posts: 941member
    No problem. Apple will be changing television. Call it something else all together.



    'TV' is so 20th Century.
  • wigginwiggin Posts: 2,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?



    How can that be fair?



    As far as I know the UK station is the only known use of the ITV brand name (other than bloggers). Who else is it you are suggesting is a "known" user of that brand name other than them? (If you answer Apple, can you please point us to evidence of it's use by Apple?)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    One would think that the Telegraph would have learned by now that building vaporous rumorware doesn't work well, and that rehashing an old issue in order to drive new interest is a crap-shoot at best, and makes you look extremely silly.



    What the Telegraph has learned is that if they put useless crap about some made-up Apple-related controversy on their web site, then a lot of Apple and tech blogs will link to their story and their ad revenue will go up from all the people clicking on those links.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,069member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    How can some little pipsqueak local company prevent the worldwide use of a known brand name by a multinational company like Apple?



    How can that be fair?



    I do hope that that is meant to be sarcastic. Because iTV is not a little local company and IP laws shouldn't give automatic preference to the big boys. in fact I would say that the existence of "big boys" is exactly why such laws are needed. It keeps them from bullying their way around doing what they want because they want it.
Sign In or Register to comment.