I buy a dilapidated house from a couple and sign on the dotted line, give the couple the money and, after tearing the house down, build a fabulous new home on the property. A year or so later the wife comes back and says that they want a slice of that house and that she wasn't at the negotiations, the veiled lady was only the maid, and that I had not told them I had the money to rebuild on the property and now it is worth oodles more than before and they want their share?
Puts a whole new perspective to the act of buying and selling.
Apple doesn't have to change the iPad name world-wide if they lose the case. For example in France they couldn't use the name AirPort for wifi, so they called it something else (AirMac or something).
Just call it the ApplePad and tell this trademark troll to pound sand
Your comment can sum up and lay this issue to rest!
Its pretty sad when the only value your company tries to deliver is blatantly LYING to the world hoping a miracle allows you to reverse contractually obligated agreements by praying you can convince a judge either thru legal methods or bribes to let you "UNSELL" a trademark...
And I CANNOT beleive they are suing in the US...
Its like this...
(Apple = Front Company)
Apple: Hello, we would like to pay you to purchase the trademark for "iPAD"
Proview: Ok we will sell it for $55,000.
Apple: Great. Here is the money.
Proview: Thank you for doing business with us, enjoy your overpriced trademark
2-3 years, 55 million Apple iPads sold, $Billions of dollars, and on broke proview later...
Proview: Hey Apple you have to pay us billions of dollars
Apple: Why is that?
Proview: Because we are broke, almost bankrupt and owe money to people
Apple: yeah but why do we owe you money
Proview: because you sold $billions worth of ipads using the name iPad
Apple: Yes but we paid you for that, we bought the trademark
Proview: well we kinda sorta changed our minds about what we meant by "sell"
Apple: We have a legal contract as evidence of the sale
Proview: well this is our only chance for revenue so we will lie steal cheat and scratch to get some money.
Apple: we will stick to the agreements we already made.
Proview: but that wont get us paid the $billion we need! Okay- Lets settle out of court!
Apple doesn't have to change the iPad name world-wide if they lose the case. For example in France they couldn't use the name AirPort for wifi, so they called it something else (AirMac or something).
Just call it the ApplePad and tell this trademark troll to pound sand
Whoever owns the trademark to ApplePad will probably sell it to them for $3b. Any word you can think of and put an "i" or "Apple" in front of has probably been trademarked to death (perhaps by trolls). There are tons of companies that have iProducts and will buy those TMs. Apple is the only company out there that will have an AppleProduct, and therefore be likely to buy those TMs. If you know you are selling a really desirable piece to a company who has $100b in cash, the price is automatically higher. That's why Apple can use the small start-up companies to purchase the iTMs for a reasonable sum. Any start-up looking to buy an AppleTM would easily be recognized.
Has never happened before, unlikely to happen now (or ever).
To add to the list of counterexamples, AppleTV was originally marketed as iTV. Granted, there weren't any AppleTV units sold as iTV, but they did have to change their marketing.
To add to the list of counterexamples, AppleTV was originally marketed as iTV. Granted, there weren't any AppleTV units sold as iTV, but they did have to change their marketing.
With that example I think they clearly started it was a codename and would not be the name of the shipping product.
But that opens up another unique situation for Apple where they demoed the device that was incomplete to the point that they didn't even have a name for. I think they used that 2006 iTV demo to try to gain favour with content distributors... which we know didn't go as planned.
To add to the list of counterexamples, AppleTV was originally marketed as iTV. Granted, there weren't any AppleTV units sold as iTV, but they did have to change their marketing.
Was that the case, or did they just change it on purpose prior to its launch?
I remember Steve explicitly mentioning that "If you're going to name a product, you want to have your code name be the name or have the real name be as far away from the code name as possible. iTV was the code name, so I'll probably mess up call it iTV a dozen times, but it's Apple TV", but not a reason for the change.
Was that the case, or did they just change it on purpose prior to its launch?
I remember Steve explicitly mentioning that "If you're going to name a product, you want to have your code name be the name or have the real name be as far away from the code name as possible. iTV was the code name, so I'll probably mess up call it iTV a dozen times, but it's Apple TV", but not a reason for the change.
I think that was for the 2007 Apple TV demo that came just before the iPhone unveiling and demo. I don't recall Apple TV being mentioned once in the 2006 unveiling and demo.
I think that was for the 2007 Apple TV demo that came just before the iPhone unveiling and demo. I don't recall Apple TV being mentioned once in the 2006 unveiling and demo.
I'll have to go back and watch these keynotes. Can't reliably remember anything from earlier today, much less back then.
Comments
Puts a whole new perspective to the act of buying and selling.
Just call it the ApplePad and tell this trademark troll to pound sand
i'm sure that i'm not first:
eyePad
No. A mark is in conflict if it caused confusion. If it's ruled they can't use "iPad", then they won't be able to use "eyePad".
For example in France they couldn't use the name AirPort for wifi, so they called it something else (AirMac or something).
Japan.
Just call it the ApplePad and tell this trademark troll to pound sand
Or just continue to use the same name that they legally bought and tell them to pound sand.
Man these guys are desperate!
Your comment can sum up and lay this issue to rest!
Its pretty sad when the only value your company tries to deliver is blatantly LYING to the world hoping a miracle allows you to reverse contractually obligated agreements by praying you can convince a judge either thru legal methods or bribes to let you "UNSELL" a trademark...
And I CANNOT beleive they are suing in the US...
Its like this...
(Apple = Front Company)
Apple: Hello, we would like to pay you to purchase the trademark for "iPAD"
Proview: Ok we will sell it for $55,000.
Apple: Great. Here is the money.
Proview: Thank you for doing business with us, enjoy your overpriced trademark
2-3 years, 55 million Apple iPads sold, $Billions of dollars, and on broke proview later...
Proview: Hey Apple you have to pay us billions of dollars
Apple: Why is that?
Proview: Because we are broke, almost bankrupt and owe money to people
Apple: yeah but why do we owe you money
Proview: because you sold $billions worth of ipads using the name iPad
Apple: Yes but we paid you for that, we bought the trademark
Proview: well we kinda sorta changed our minds about what we meant by "sell"
Apple: We have a legal contract as evidence of the sale
Proview: well this is our only chance for revenue so we will lie steal cheat and scratch to get some money.
Apple: we will stick to the agreements we already made.
Proview: but that wont get us paid the $billion we need! Okay- Lets settle out of court!
Apple: no comment!
Apple doesn't have to change the iPad name world-wide if they lose the case. For example in France they couldn't use the name AirPort for wifi, so they called it something else (AirMac or something).
Just call it the ApplePad and tell this trademark troll to pound sand
Whoever owns the trademark to ApplePad will probably sell it to them for $3b. Any word you can think of and put an "i" or "Apple" in front of has probably been trademarked to death (perhaps by trolls). There are tons of companies that have iProducts and will buy those TMs. Apple is the only company out there that will have an AppleProduct, and therefore be likely to buy those TMs. If you know you are selling a really desirable piece to a company who has $100b in cash, the price is automatically higher. That's why Apple can use the small start-up companies to purchase the iTMs for a reasonable sum. Any start-up looking to buy an AppleTM would easily be recognized.
Has never happened before, unlikely to happen now (or ever).
To add to the list of counterexamples, AppleTV was originally marketed as iTV. Granted, there weren't any AppleTV units sold as iTV, but they did have to change their marketing.
To add to the list of counterexamples, AppleTV was originally marketed as iTV. Granted, there weren't any AppleTV units sold as iTV, but they did have to change their marketing.
With that example I think they clearly started it was a codename and would not be the name of the shipping product.
But that opens up another unique situation for Apple where they demoed the device that was incomplete to the point that they didn't even have a name for. I think they used that 2006 iTV demo to try to gain favour with content distributors... which we know didn't go as planned.
To add to the list of counterexamples, AppleTV was originally marketed as iTV. Granted, there weren't any AppleTV units sold as iTV, but they did have to change their marketing.
Was that the case, or did they just change it on purpose prior to its launch?
I remember Steve explicitly mentioning that "If you're going to name a product, you want to have your code name be the name or have the real name be as far away from the code name as possible. iTV was the code name, so I'll probably mess up call it iTV a dozen times, but it's Apple TV", but not a reason for the change.
Was that the case, or did they just change it on purpose prior to its launch?
I remember Steve explicitly mentioning that "If you're going to name a product, you want to have your code name be the name or have the real name be as far away from the code name as possible. iTV was the code name, so I'll probably mess up call it iTV a dozen times, but it's Apple TV", but not a reason for the change.
I think that was for the 2007 Apple TV demo that came just before the iPhone unveiling and demo. I don't recall Apple TV being mentioned once in the 2006 unveiling and demo.
I think that was for the 2007 Apple TV demo that came just before the iPhone unveiling and demo. I don't recall Apple TV being mentioned once in the 2006 unveiling and demo.
I'll have to go back and watch these keynotes. Can't reliably remember anything from earlier today, much less back then.