Tag Archives: Apple
Whenever a company involved in making Apple products adds to its workforce, the internet is flooded with “cheap iPhone” and “iWatch” stories. The latest event to perk up the rumor mongers is Pegatron, which announced that it’ll be hiring 40,000 more workers in China for the second half of 2013. During an investor call, company president Jason Cheng predicted that revenue from “communication products” would increase by 16 percent between July and December — so hopefully he’s seen something on his order book to make him that confident. That said, the only solid fact we have is that the company has stated it’ll be producing Haswell-powered laptops for a variety of companies, but we won’t let that stop you staring at your wrist and hoping.
[Image Credit: Jay Greene/CNET]
A small New York publisher that uses the label “ibooks” has struck out in its lawsuit against Apple, after a New York court on Wednesday held that the publisher’s mark was not distinct and that consumers would not confuse the two companies’ products.
The case began in 2011 after Black Tower Press, a publisher of sci-fi and fantasy titles, filed a trademark suit in response to Apple’s announcement that it would use the word “iBooks” to describe software that allows users to purchase online books. Here’s a look at the two marks:
Black Tower came into possession of the “ibooks” mark in 2006 by purchasing the assets of another publishing company that had used the word for an imprint that sold millions of sci-fi and horror books in the early 2000′s. Neither Black Tower nor its predecessor, however, obtained a registered trademark for the word.
Apple, on the other hand, did obtain registered trademark rights. It first obtained a license to use “iBook” from another software company in 1999 to describe a line of colorful computers; in 2010, Apple bought the other company’s trademark entirely.
In a detailed decision, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote explained that the word “ibooks” was simply descriptive of books sold on the internet, and that Black Tower had not acquired any distinctive meaning in the word — only in the word and lightbulb logo used together.
Cote also wrote that she was granting summary judgment to Apple for a second reason: that no consumers would be confused by the two companies’ products:
They have offered no evidence that consumers who use Apple’s iBooks software to download ebooks have come to believe that Apple has also entered the publishing business and is the publisher of all of the downloaded books, despite the fact that each book bears the imprint of its actual publisher.
You can read a copy of the decision below with important parts highlighted. (Publishing insiders — check out the judge’s skewering at pages 31-35 of the expert testimony of industry veteran, Michael Shatzkin).
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
- Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
- Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $ 8B by 2015
- How consumer media will change in 2013
The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Samsung is heating up yet again. This time around, Apple is turning to Google and has requested that they hand over various Android source code documents. Apple claims that Google is withholding information relating to Android, and says that Android is used in all of Samsung’s infringing products, which “provides much of the accused functionality.”
The report comes from Bloomberg, which notes that Apple attorney Mark Lyons says that all of this basically deals with “transparency,” and he argues that Google is beating around the bush with delivering evidence that is requested by either Apple or the court. However, Google lawyers argue that the company was to be kept off of the case in the initial court filing, so they don’t have the same legal rights as Apple or Samsung in this case.
Google is concerned that if they eventually do hand over the source code documents, Apple may discover other information that Google believes Apple isn’t entitled to, which could give the Cupertino-based company further “ideas about how to proceed that they wouldn’t have had” in the first place.
This second patent lawsuit comes after Apple was awarded $ 1.05 billion payable by Samsung after the court ruled that the Korean company infringed on Apple’s patents. However, that award has since been lowered to $ 639.4 million, and a new trial is set for November to re-evaluate some of the products involved in the downgraded award.
[via Android Community]
Apple demanding Android source code in Samsung lawsuit is written by Craig Lloyd & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.
Apple is rather notorious for ruling over the App Store with an iron fist. Just because developers have their app accepted to be offered via the App Store doesn’t mean Apple won’t change its mind later and ban the application. This is exactly what some developers reporting is going on now.
Apple has reportedly begun banning some app discovery tools and other applications if the apps feature “filtering, bookmarking, searching, or sharing recommendations.” One app developer says that his app discovery tool was blocked by Apple because of features that interfere with App Store regulation 2.25. That particular regulation has to do with restricting apps that could be confused by consumers as app stores.
Apple has apparently expanded the coverage of regulation 2.25 to ban sharing via e-mail or social networks. The ability to search the Apple App Stored using third-party applications is also reportedly blocked. The developer whose app has been blocked describes his application as being “primarily focused on sharing recommendations to your friends.”
The developer notes that he hasn’t seen this particular rejection notice before and believes it to be new. The dev also says that it was previously stated that developers who “bake in” social or local services into their apps would be fine. The developer believes that his app is either not social enough for Apple’s liking or Apple has changed its position. App Store regulation 2.25 reads, “apps that display Apps other than your own for purchase or promotion in a manner similar to or confusing with the App Store will be rejected.”
(Credit: Designed by M)
The iPhone 4 and iPhone 5 were crafted like two beautiful Samurai swords. Few mobile devices have ever been in the same league in terms of hardware design — at least until the HTC One came along.
Of course, the iPhone’s design has famously traded function for form at times. But, from a purely aesthetic point of view, the real challenge for the iPhone is that its owners value the device so much they wrap it in hideously ugly cases to protect it.
The world’s ugliest phone cases are used to protect the world’s most beautiful mobile device. The evidence is in abundance from midtown Manhattan to your local grocery store. There are plastic ones, purple ones, rugged ones, flimsy ones, cartooned ones, bumper ones, and just-plain-ridiculous ones.
It’s a crime against technology.
However, two Floridians have now crowdfunded a product to fix it. They designed a thin aluminum iPhone case that looks remarkably like something that could have come from Apple. In fact, this is the case Apple should have made.
Called the AL13, referring to the abbreviation for aluminum in the … [Read more]
Glowing plants could act as biological night lights
Blast your angry face into space to ward off alien invasions
Shapeways, the Etsy of 3D printing, raises $ 30M
Fund this: MirrorCase for iPad gives you a rear-facing camera
Innovation and re-invention at the Stanford Cool Product Expo
Editor's note: Victor Basta is the MD of Magister Advisors, an M&A advisory firm to the technology industry. The firm has worked on 16 transactions since it was founded three years ago, including the sale of C3 to Apple for $ 250 million and LoveFILM's $ 320m exit to Amazon. Below is his view on Apple's future.
After last week’s earnings, it is even clearer that Apple is not the company you think it is. Its future value will not be as a hardware designer and innovator. It will more likely be as a great software and services business, underpinned by the everyday actions of the hundreds of millions of credit card-enabled users subscribed to the iTunes store.
The iTunes store is now ten. But read the newspapers and you’ll find nearly zero references to iTunes, despite it being core to Apple’s future.
All the talk last week was about hardware and the battle with Samsung. This is the “last war.” Even if Apple steps forward with its “best ever” device in the autumn, how many days before Samsung responds with a better product? Apple can no longer become the first $ 1 trillion company by simply making better mousetraps.
Apple executives are clearly frustrated by this constant device focus. Tim Cook, on the earnings call, audibly emphasized “SERVICES” as much as he felt he could. Apple’s next products only need to be “very good”’ to keep consumers loyal and spending money on software and content. Keep it that way and the Apple profit machine will march on, though not without strategic threat.
Amazon, rapidly building its capabilities as a device-assisted ecosystem of credit card-enabled users, is Apple’s new major competitor. A string of acquisitions leaves little question that Amazon will offer new digital devices and services. In recent years Amazon has quietly acquired SnapTell, an image matching startup; IVONA Software, a text to speech service; Yap, a voice to text startup; Touchco, a specialist in touch screen technology; and Evi, a Siri-style mobile app that turns phones into mobile assistants.
Amazon clearly has broad aspirations to be a key mobile player, which puts it on a collision course with Apple. Amazon has a huge ecosystem of credit-card-enabled users, great devices to download content, a huge trove of valuable content behind the devices, and a world-class buying experience that other retailers try to copy. Apple will face bigger challenges from Amazon than anything it is seeing from Samsung.
This is a two horse race. Neither Google, Facebook, Samsung, Nokia nor Microsoft have this combination of great consumer service and software nor a huge credit-card payment base. Amazon though, importantly, is not hamstrung by legacy or expectation.
Amazon has another emergent advantage. The Kindle, which Amazon astutely sells at a loss, is now owned by tens of millions of customers. They use their Kindles to buy from the Amazon store. This is exactly the same as Apple’s model, yet arguably the model is better.
Amazon currently gets a fraction of the attention that Apple gets. Yet there is a no doubt that it is fiercely competitive. Many great retailers have already been “Amazoned” by the online book-seller from Seattle. It leaves us wondering, if Apple and Amazon’s strategies are heading in the same direction, albeit from different starting points, is even the mighty Apple at risk from this relatively quiet achiever?