Actually iOS, not iPhone. I think if it were iPhone itself, an actually marketed product from either Apple or Cisco, it would have ended a bit differently. But in both cases, it was just iOS, the operating system of the marketed products.
In both cases, iOS was a selling point of the product, but not the product itself.
Apple and Cisco settled their dispute on February 20, 2007. Both companies will be allowed to use the “iPhone” name in exchange for “exploring interoperability” between Apple’s products and Cisco’s services and other unspecified terms
Seriously, they let it go for nothing. When did Apple and Cisco ever integrate products?..
Edit: Also it says they’re both allowed to use it. I would love to see Cisco come out with an “iPhone” in 2023 lol
Honestly, there would probably be far more backlash against them than benefit. But it would be hilarious.
I wonder if they got some help with early app development, or something. I’ve always avoided Cisco, so I don’t know if they offered any mobile management or monitoring tools early on.
Market capitalization means that every share of MSFT combined at the current price is worth $2.6T. The company has $100B cash on hand. That’s actual cash and investments that could be easily converted to cash. Substantially less than $2 trillion.
Musk owns stock worth billions. Stock is a liquid asset, meaning he has billions in liquid assets. The $2.6T market cap is what the public shares of MSFT are “worth.” They are owned mostly by people and orgs other than Microsoft, meaning that value is not an asset to Microsoft.
Twitter’s got so little money that they can’t even pay all their bills, lol.
Honestly I think they rolled out the new branding without finishing it because they can’t afford proper designers or project managers. The site still says “Twitter” all over the place and they can’t even trademark the new logo.
@pruwybn@storksforlegs In the future, everytime you use the letter X, even to text, you will be charged a fee of x amount of cents based on your income.
You can’t trademark a letter. Trademarks are extremely narrow and are only meant to apply in circumstances where one organization’s symbol could be confused for another. In general I am very anti-intellectual-property, but trademarks are okay in my book. They are basically for consumer protection.
I can understand a company like Google (Alphabet) and Facebook (Meta) re-branding their wider business infrastructure. Twitter is just Twitter. X is just nostalgia, and Musk is being totally irresponsible with these announcments. He is a petulant little child, looking for attention and the likes. Damn childish - his entire Twitter venture.
X.com was Musk's site after he worked at Scotiabank. They merged with another site that had a product called Paypal that was getting some traction. Musk tried to tie the other services X.com was offering at the hip with Paypal, and if you're old enough you probably remember a "Paypal by X.com" (or similar) branding back when you needed to buy a used 56k modem from eBay.
Musk wanted to rebrand everything to x.com, was a huge baby about it, and got pushed out as an executive and replaced by Peter Thiel. A few years ago, Musk purchased the X.com domain name from Paypal like it was a treasured childhood sled, and he's finally found something (very stupid) to do with it.
Maybe he shoulda just stuck with the bird, or thought of a name that is even a tad more creative. I’m pretty sure a hamster or a piece of paper could do a better job at managing Twitter than Muskrat is right now.
That’s… not how that works.
The brand isn’t "x.com" either, it’s "X". They don’t even use x.com as a domain.
Even if it was x.com, a video game being called Xcom wouldn’t be close enough to the website x.com to be able to be confused. It would be different if they both were websites.
for: providing on-line chat rooms for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games; providing on-line electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games, in class 38
for: entertainment services, namely, providing interactive multiplayer game services for games played over computer networks and global communications networks; providing computer games and video games downloadable over computer global communications networks; providing information on the video game and computer game industries via the internet; and providing information on computer games, video games, video game consoles and accessories therefor via the internet, in class 41
in short: basically what they did in the ensuing years with Xbox and Games for Windows - Live
the amount of times I’ve read an internet article about this topic only to be met with a shockingly trivial mistake present front and center is staggering. the differences between patent, trademark, wordmark, etc. are all easily googleable and yet pretty much every article I’ve read on this has been using them interchangeably.
incoming rhetorical question: are these editors orangutans? (before anybody answers, i know editors & authors want to be the first one out the door so they get the most clicks and all that, but it’s really not hard to make sure you’re at least using the correct word. It seriously took me 20 seconds to find an answer on the difference between patent and trademark)
I think a lot of the issue is the widespread use of the term Intellectual Property which, arguably deliberately, conflates a few completely distinct legal concepts under one umbrella.
It's intentional in the sense that they all involve intangible works of the mind and are only "property" in the legal system due to developments much, much later than the "I'll bash you with a club if take my food" or the "I'll stab you with a spear if occupy my farm" social contracts of personal and real property. It was very useful for those learning the law.
You're right that they do very different things in society though, and it's not particularly helpful outside the legal profession to bundle them so tightly together. Trademarks in particular should only protect branding and identity and when not abused provide a pretty valuable direct service for consumers in that you know who you're dealing with.
The other two protect creators and therefore indirectly promise to "encourage innovation" that should benefit everyone, but they're literally nothing more than legalized, if limited, monopolies. As Disney has shown though, you can smear the edges of copyright and trademark until they start to blend together.
Of course they made the trivial mistake, because they also made a much, much bigger one. The X trademark as it pertains to social media is owned by Meta, who bought it from Microsoft when they acquired Mixer (which later became Facebook Gaming), including Mixer's X logo.
The amount of people in general that don’t understand even the most basic shit about trademarks or how they differ from copyright and often mix up the two is staggering really.
Add comment