I think this is a good idea. Anything to let TiVo get extra revenue to help it survive is good by me. I dont know about you guys, but I got TiVo to watch tv shows on my schedule and to waste less time watching those tv shows. I did NOT get TiVo out of some moral compulsion to avoid commercials. As long as these popup ads dont lessen the speed of the fast forward, or make shows longer to watch... i dont care. And I dont really get why any of you guys care. You can either pay more for TiVo, or you can find unobtrusive ways to subsidize the service. I vote for the option that is cheaper for me.
add me to the "one" guy list. I have the HD tivo and it is worth every penny i paid. People who bitch about the price of the HD TiVo are the same people who drive (or want to drive) a BMW 540i but complain that premium gas is too expensive. If you can afford the car, you can afford the gas. Same thing here, if you can afford a kick ass HD tv, you can afford the tivo. not only that, but if you buy the best tv, it is inconsistent and illogical not to buy the best dvr (unless you just don't want dvr).
apple approached cisco because law suits are expense, and out of court agreements are not. even if apple is right, they'd have to have a law suit to establish it. all major litigants take legitimate steps to out of court agreements before taking a case to court. apple approaching cisco is a gesture without any underlying meaning.
You are referring specifically to registered trademarks. There is also common law trademark defense. A trademark need not be registered in order to be protected, its just easier to defend if it is registered (the registration puts everyone on constructive notice). Anyway, even if Cisco originally registered for a specific use, the trademark can still apply to unregistered products/services as long as there is an association of the mark to the product/service and use by another entity would dilute that association.
Cisco, in my opinion, loses on other grounds. I think their use of "i" on a consumer electronic that is not an accessory dilutes apple's trademark. Everyone (except a few small subset of well informed individuals) would automatically assume an iPhone was an apple product. This is because people associate "i" with apple. Cisco's trademark, i think, dilutes apples brand name and is therefore not protected and can be enjoined... registration or not.
"I suggest you stick with fast food chains and leave the technical gadget stuffs to the experts."
I do leave tech stuff to experts. Trademark viability is a legal issue. So my point was engadget shouldn't necessarily speculate on the strength of legal positions without speaking to a lawyer or knowing more about the law.
The fact is that Cisco may be infringing on apple's trademark... not the other way around.
Engadget should stick to tech commentary and leave legal analysis to the professionals. I'm not entirely sure that it is clear that Cisco's 11 year trademark has the upper hand in this situation. There are a significant number of trademark cases involving McDonalds and their trademark to back me up. Think of the "Mc" in McDonalds as analagous to the "i" in almost EVERY apple product. Trademarks are not patents or copyrights, they dont get absolute protection just because they are registered. Registration is just evidence of weight of a trademark, not dispositive proof of validity. If I were Apple, i'd claim a trademark on "i" the same way McDonalds has a trademark on "Mc" (e.g.: McD's stopped a Quality Inns from opening up a new chain called McSleep... an area that McDonalds is not involved in).
Anyway, my point is that with trademark... first in time is not always first in right.
I think something has to be clarified to people who are saying Apple should have trademarked iphone or any variation thereof. You cannot just trademark a name for potential future use. Trademarks, in order to be protected, require use. If a trademark is not in use, then there is no protection. So apple could not have trademarked iPhone X years ago, because there was no product to associate it with.
With that said, I still think apple has a solid chance in court to stop Cisco's injunction.
to Robert Aitchinson... if you already have one tivo on the lifetime plan, your second tivo should only be approx $6/month... not $12. A lifetime is only worth it if you want the second tivo for 4+ years. (i have 2 tivos as well, the first one i got a lifetime subscription from 3 years ago)
Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"All of these new nettops have me intrigued. I'm looking for a small, quiet and cheap PC to replace my aging tower in my home office, and all it really needs to do is load Microsoft Office, check email and surf the web. Is there a particular nettop that's better (or a better value) than another? I know it's a rather new segment, but hopefully someone has taken a chance on one already. Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
