RippyZ

the only thing more tiring than all the the iPhone stories are the mindless lemmings defending apple.

And while nobody may be 'forcing me to visit', I do find the site very entertaining (aside from the nonstop slurping they've been doing with the iPhone).

If you don't like my comments, no one's forcing you to respond.

Axtell

If you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to visit.

bigtimes

matto

How the hell are you guys going to sustain these craptacular stories for 5 months until the POS comes out? Then I suppose you'll be running stories about the iPhone 2.0?

Enough with the apple suckfest, please.

Axtell

drum

Actually, that point, as you well know, is highly debatable. A trademark has to be used to become a valid trademark and trademarks are not property they way copyrights are. A company is granted a monopoly on a "trademark" so that consumers won't be confused by imitators, but a company must continue to use its trademark and it must actively enforce the trademark and the term must not become generic or the company will lose rights to the mark.

The company Cisco bought that registered the iPhone trademark never used it and Cisco's attempt to claim "continuous" usage by slapping an iPhone sticker on an existing package weeks before the deadline for the 6 year "Declaration of Use" is very questionable.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=239

Skeptic

Mark Wilson

toejam357

JohnnyB

As much as I personally detest Cisco (because of my Cisco stock loss a few years back), I feel they operate like all businesses must to survive in a dog eat dog economy. All companies bend the rules, and some break the rules, it's all a part of business in today's world.

Dark13

Mark, you understand the GPL, right? The move itself is not tacky or stupid. The timing might be a little suspect, but Linksys (now Cisco) has a history of taking GPL code and failing to release their modifications without significant pressure. In most cases, when a GPL violation results in a suit, the terms of the law suit are simply to force the company to release their code to the public. In rare circumstances (such as the company denying any use of GPL code), is the company obliged to pay any kind of fine.

Perhaps I'm overreacting to your use of the words "tacky" and "stupid," but any GPL violation I take very personally. It amazes me how many people to get away with it, just to make a few bucks off of someone else's work by claiming it as their own.

samLD

deusdiabolus

Adex2491