Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Cobalt Networks Could Sue Apple Over Cube Design 225

Posted by Hemos from the i'm-patenting-the-square dept.
mcwop writes "\ Looks like Cobalt Networks is suing Apple over their cube, according to ZDNet UK This is interesting because Cobalt Networks settled a lawsuit over their cube with Cube Computer Corp back in January. While they are both cubes one is specifically a server though the other could be used/marketed as one in the future. Technology and lawsuits seem to go hand in hand these days. " Basically, Cobalt has alleged that Apple has infringed on their trademarks. Oh, BTW, I've patented the shape "block". I'm going to be suing for past due royalties from humanity. My ownership of the block means that unlicensed use - like buildings are money to be made! Why didn't I think of this earlier?!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cobalt Networks Could Sue Apple Over Cube Design More

Cobalt Networks Could Sue Apple Over Cube Design

Comments Filter:

  • Teach Apple a lesson? (Score:4)

    by barzok ( 26681 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:12PM (#895978)
    I really hope Cobalt doesn't win (actually, I hope it doesn't even get to trial), but I'm glad they're filing the suit. If only to demonstrate to Apple how stupid the idea is.

    Do you see DaimlerChrysler suing Ford for stealing styling ideas on pickup trucks? Or Kenworth, International, et. al. suing DaimlerChrysler for borrowing styling from big rig trucks? Actually, the auto industry in general - there's a LOT of "stealing" of features and styling cues. But no one suing. Because that industry has matured past that point.

    I think that's what's causing all these lawsuits - the immaturity (I don't mean "childish") of this new consumer industry. It will pass once it's demonstrated how foolish these lawsuits really are.
  • Here's a cube computer that predates NeXT. The Thinking Machines CM2 is from 1986. Want to see a picture [berkeley.edu]?
  • That is the most disgusting, vile thing I have ever seen.
    --
    _|_
  • I thought the same thing. Especially since Apple is well known for sueing the shit out of everybody. Remember the GUI patent wars with MS or the lawsuits against all the iMac look-a-likes?
  • Apple uses PARC ideas to build a graphical OS. MS lambasts the products, then uses knowledge obtained under NDA to produce their own GUI-based products.

    MS... lambasts? NDA? I don't remember it that way at all; can you give more details?

    The way I remember it: Apple and MS use PARC ideas. Apple gets a nice head start by designing new hardware. MS agrees to port Word and Excel to the Mac, as long as Apple agrees never to sue over Windows. Nearly all business Mac users buy both Excel and Word, and MS makes piles of money on the Mac. When Windows begins to look less like a joke, Apple sues MS over Windows.

    (Cute lawyer tricks department: Apple lawyers take HP New Wave, based on Windows, and change all the desktop settings to look more like a Mac; then they create screenshots showing how much Windows and New Wave resemble the Mac.)

  • Oops. I suppose this means NeXT abandoned their TM when they stopped making Cubes? Either way, the prior art still exists as physical evidence.
  • The interface [which seems to count for everything in the world of Apple] is completely different.

    * A G4 Cube is a fully functional computer, with all the flexibility / difficulty that that entails. The Qube is a more simplistic way of operating a server, where its very easy to perform a small specific set of functions.

    * The Cube is designed to have a monitor plugged into it, the Qube is administered primarily through a web based system, and occasioanlly through some buttons and a backlit screen on the unit.
  • Not quite the same thing.

    1) Apple spent a lot of money marketing their imac and eMachines tried to leech of of it.

    2) Cobalt is a virtually unknown company who probably spent less money on marketing their cube since it started selling than Apple spent attending Macworld to annouce their cube.

    3) Cobalt is making a publicity stunt to leech of the already bigger mindshare of the G4 Cube.

    4) Apple Entreprise (NeXT), made the NeXT Cube in 1989.
  • apple did not "sue" anyone because they made a theme that looked like Aqua. They sent a cease-and-desist [slashdot.org] for certain themes that actually contained the apple logo.

    As far as I know, a company CANNOT allow their trademarks/logos to be used without permission otherwise they lose the trademark.

    The whole emachines debacle happened because emachines INTENTIONALLY tried to confuse customers with an extremely similar looking machine. That sort of thing is generally frowned upon by the courts, whether or not the plaintiff is Apple.

    Hate apple all you want, but at least get the facts straight.

  • The thing I don't get is this: Cobalt got sued by Cube Computer Corp and settled, this would imply that Cube Computer Corp has some kind of trademark rights to cube shaped computers... so how come Cube Computer Corp is not now also suing Apple? Unless of course the NeXT cube predates the founding of Cube Comp. Corp.

    I've never even heard of Cube Computer so I have no idea how long they've been around, but I was using '030 NeXTcubes as far back as 1990 (first one was, IIRC, mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu...unlimited time on the system was a wonderful thing to have when the main public-access system there (uxa?) limited you to seven hours a week). I have a hunch that that predates Cube Computer by some amount. It also predates Cobalt, and since Apple bought NeXT, Apple ought to tell Cobalt what it can go do with itself.

    _/_
    / v \
    (IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
    \_^_/

  • Cube computers aren't as rare as Cobalt (or Apple) would have us believe.

    Everex had their StepCube systems out in the early '90s. Spectacular boxes, those were. Tried looking for some info about them and couldn't find squat. Pity, it's my favorite case design so far.

    Then there's the Intergraph InterPro series of workstations, one of which is sitting behind me as a monitor stand. Anyone know if Linux has been ported to those things? CLIX, the OS they used, isn't Y2K compliant. (Though I haven't actually turned this one on since 1998.)
    And I found a picture of this one. http://www.intergraph.com/about/history/wshist.htm (tenth picture, the box in the center, and I have the monitor on the right)
  • Exactly! Didn't the first Next Cube come in the late-80's. Cobalt needs a history lesson.
  • If Apple can sue others for making gaudy, ugly translucent cases, why can't Cobalt sue Apple for making a cube-shaped case? It seems only fair, with "trade dress" apparently being something you can sue over these days.

    Please don't use the word "innovation" in your replies.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • "Qube" is not the same word as "Cube".

    Don't have too much sympathy for Apple. Apple will be the first in line to sue the next manufacturer to produce a computer with the word "Cube" in it.. just wait and see.
  • Someone Mentioned the Micro Server by Gateway:

    http://www.gatewayatwork.com/prod/sb_apsrv_Categ ory.shtml

    Unless Gateway is selling a black&white version of the Qube, perhaps Cobalt is sueing the wrong person.

    Go here for a comparison of all three Cubes:

    http://homepage.mac.com/hikahi/PhotoAlbum.html

    Seems mighty suspicious to me. Anyone know if Gateway and Cobolt have some sort of an agreement together?
  • Cube Qube pube who fucking cares. I mean come one its a geometrical shape not a marketing scheme. Look at the Cobalt and than look at SGI's systems. If you ask me I would say that Mac and Cobalt copied them. hmmm... but really who cares its just a case. you know a thing that holds the motherboard and keeps bad elements from frying the guts of your machine. Why all this bullshit over some stupid cover when the only thing that really matters is the stuff on the inside.
  • ...was the Thinking Machines cube. Ok, granted it's a *big* cube, but when you have 65,536 processors, you suck a lot of space. So Cobalt was beat by *two* people to the cube idea (the Thinking Machines cube even has lots of nice blinky lights :) - Thinking Machines (now owned by Gores Technology - www.gores.com) in 1985 and NeXT (now owned by Apple) in the late 80's. I think Cobalt isn't exactly going to win on originality here...

    For a picture of the Thinking Machines cube, see http://forest.bigw.org/cmu_presentation/sld007.htm (yeah, I know it came from PowerPoint, but...)

  • Dude, I don't know what that website is doing, but it's fscking up my Netscrape (running on NT at work here) ROYALLY! If I have a single Netscape window running, the text & hypertext get written over whatever window I was last in (imagine a page of text superimposed over top of explorer). It's not pretty! Even worse, when I scroll down the page it repeats the text like an effect from Photoshop (er the Gimp). Anyone elso out there experience this effect? Too bad too, it looks like an interesting site but the only thing I could really see on it was the direct link to the picture of the NeXT cube.

    ----
  • However, I must realize that I'm posting this on slashdot, where many readers think stealing is better than paying, and IP means nothing
    A bit of a heavy handed statement!
    as a (relatively new) /. reader I havn't seen anyone express interest in stealing anyone elses product or IP.
    Point 1 - /. is run on Linux servers and its general readership are supporters of the GPL.
    2 - /. ( /.'s readership) has generally denounced napster for infringing copywrite. thus it shows an interest in protecting copywrite.
    As a statement this is unfair and IMHO incorrect. Most of us work in the whole IT sector and benifit from IP laws. This is how we make a living.
    Why would we support product stealing and IP ripoff when it feeds us?
  • getting involved, just to generate some fees.

    I wonder if these guys are the same ones doing the the brain dead patent filings.

    no wonder the courts are backed up..

    :-(

  • I didn't want to see that picture. How did this get a score of 2?
  • Anyone see the Irony in this and the lawsuit Apple had against E-Machines for thier e-One a few months back?

    Anyone see the Irony in this post?

  • A direct link to ZDNET's comparison picture [zdnet.co.uk] of the two cubes...

    Don't look much alike to me...

    Winton

  • If you started selling a car that looked just like a Mercedes, minus the badge, Daimler-Chrysler would probably go after you.

    I notice lexus are still in business.

  • Re:Exactly. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This issue is ironic because Apple tried to sue Microsoft over look and feel for a PARC design.

    As for the iMac:
    Color? Integraph had some pretty colors for their cases. I seem to recall a Dvorak article a very long time ago(read: pre-iMac) where he talked about a South American computer expo where they were showing a variety of styles and color in case design.
    All-in-one? Not even the original Macs can lay claim to that one. I never owned a Kaypro or an Osborne but I do remember the "stylish" gray/black/light-blue casing of the all-in-one Commodore SX-64. I seem to recall the Commodore Pet as being an all-in-one desktop design as well--beige as I recall.

    As for the G4 cubes not being marketed at Qube customers, where do you get that? Apple has already said they'll be dropping OS 9 in favor of OS X. They're trying to push OS X onto the open source community and it is Unix. Do you think Apple won't target this thing at the anti-Intel open source Unix crowd with an emphasis on ease-of-use Unix? Of course, we won't be duped into going with a non-free(as in speech) hardware design, but Apple never quite got how that whole free speech in engineering movement worked out.
  • I am so looking forward to seeing the response from all those Apple zealot sites. You know, the ones that responded with such righteous indignation when eMachines began selling something that looked like an Apple product.
  • 1) Apple spent a lot of money marketing their imac and eMachines tried to leech of of it.

    Are you implying that it is okay for Apple to "leech" off the Qube trademark because Cobalt is not spending enough on marketing?

    2) Cobalt is a virtually unknown company who probably spent less money on marketing their cube since it started selling than Apple spent attending Macworld to annouce their cube.

    According to the article [cnet.com] on cnet.com, Cobalt paid $4.1 million dollars to Cube Computer to use the Qube name! Apple didn't even misspell "Cube"...

    3) Cobalt is making a publicity stunt to leech of the already bigger mindshare of the G4 Cube.

    This makes it okay for Apple to dilute Cobalt's trademark?

    4) Apple Entreprise (NeXT), made the NeXT Cube in 1989.

    And the Qube is a current, shipping product with a current trademark.

    What goes around, comes around, indeed. Apple is either going to need to pay up, as Cobalt did, or change the name to "The G4 Right Rectangular Prism" or something.

    steveha

  • First, Apple owns NeXT, which introduced the original Cube shaped server.

    Secondly, Apple's suits against Emachines and other imac knockoffs was based on trade dress. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any violation of trade dress when comparing the G4 cube to Cobalt's.

    Third, the G4 Cube and Cobalt's were not created for the same market. While the G4 Cube may be used as a server, that's not its intended niche. This sounds like a "trial balloon" on the part of Cobalt. My bet is that papers never get filed on this one.

  • Bad Hemos (and everyone else) (Score:5)

    by _Swank ( 118097 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:18PM (#896007)
    Methinks Hemos got a little carried away when he went off on his patent tirade. He says it himslef just prior to this, that it is about trademarks. Not patents. And now we're back to the retarded "I'm gonna patent X, and you'll all owe me money" crap. Trademarks go by different rules and Cobalt is claiming here that Apple's Cube will cause confusion with people getting the Cobalt Qube and Apple's Cube mixed up. Read first please!
  • Now that's no way to speak to your mother young man!
  • If memory serves me, the first NeXTCubes came out around 1987, and Steve Jobs formed NeXT Computer a year or two before that.

  • comparison image (Score:5)

    by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva@gm a i l.com> on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:19PM (#896010) Journal
    Well now it's clear, they don't look alike at all: the Mac cube resembles a washing machine, while the Cobalt Qube may pass for a table top refrigerator. Case closed.
  • The next manufacturer will probably be Nintendo then who I believe have announced that "Dolphin" will be called "Star Cube".
  • Ya, I know when I went to The Apple Store to purchase a G4 cube, I was confused by the fact that Cobalt sells a server called Qube, and so I left the Apple website without buying anything. So then I went to CompUSA, and asked the guy about a G4 Cube, and he said 'Sorry, we don't carry Cobalt products!" so I got no satisfaction there, and now I'm really confused...

    give me a break. another fucking gratuitous lawsuit.

  • The point of trademark, trade dress, and design patent law isn't to promote innovation, but to prevent predatory marketing and avoid customer confusion.

    Thank you for clearing that point. The best replies I get are the corrections.

  • Update: It looks like they have reached an out-of-court settlement. From my European point of view, I'm beginning to think that American companies look at court more as a usual line of business and profit than as a protection for their rights.
  • Here we go again. Why can't these companies just get on with developing useful stuff instead launching these petty, bickering lawsuits over such trivilaities. I'm still waiting for Apple to sue other PDA manufacturers over the fact that most machines are more or less identical to their Newton. (handheld, has a screen, and can be written on with a stylus.) Or have they already done that? I propose a boycott of any companies that do this sort of thing. Sell your shares!
  • Actually, it looks like the JPEG image at the top of the page is the culprit, it's doin' a helluva job at screwing up Netscrape. If you stop loading the page before the image gets loaded you're OK.

    ----

  • Re:Bladder Police (Score:3)

    by QuoteMstr ( 55051 ) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Friday July 28, 2000 @06:53PM (#896017)
    What the hell is so revolutionary about making a cubic case that it deserves a patent.
  • iMac: Apple pays money for a uniquely designed computer that puts aesthetics on a par with function for the first time since the NeXT Cube.

    Even people who do approve of IP might well question whether advances in the color and shape of a computer case is of sufficient importance to the people to warrant protecting by law. From that point of view, the imac case and the qube case are identical.

    However, I must realize that I'm posting this on slashdot, where many readers think stealing is better than paying, and IP means nothing.

    Many here indeed do not recognize the validity of IP. That does not mean they approve of stealing, since stealing involves taking the property of others; you're pretty obviously begging the question. I'm not sure why you chose to say this, unless you think that the best way to deal with those who disagree with you is to insult them. I hope not; that'd be lower than being a thief.

  • What eventually became Pixar was a component of Lucasfilms that Jobs bought back in 1986. I don't believe that Lucasfilms at that time had a cube. Anybody out there, please correct me if I'm wrong. I 1st saw the cube back in early 1989. Actually, I had the chance to use the Pixar cube at that time.

    But you have a very interesting point. Did the component of Lucasfilms that Jobs bought have a cube back in 1986? I always thought that the cube was solely a Pixar product but it could have been a Lucasfilms design. If so, then Jobs "stole" another idea.

  • Re:This is stupid^H^H^H^H^H^H payback (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That's right it isn't a patent dispute. Yep, and neither is it a "trade dress" dispute. It is, if you'll read the article, a trademark dispute. Colbalt allowed its trademark to lapse back in good ole' 1998. End of story, Schithead McWhine.
  • Apple has no one to blame but themselves.
  • IANAL, but Apple could probably sue Cobalt citing the fact that NeXT made computers with a cube form factor and Apple now owns NeXT.

    Heck, Atair (If it's still around) should go around suing everyone for selling "Boxes with CPUs, that are intended to sit on a desk or table" They'd make millions!
  • Cube cases (or almost cube) cases aren't really anything new -- many server cases that are cubes have been around for years.

    Sometimes you by Force overwhelmed are.
  • It was dismissed. I don't remember why exactly but could it be because they were different markets and thus there was no trademark dilution? Anyone know exactly why it was dismissed?

  • Oh Yeah.... (Score:5)

    by tealover ( 187148 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:02PM (#896025)
    Well, Rubik can sue Cobalt. Go ahead Cobalt. Your move.

  • Cobalt reaches a new low. Poor Apple. Poor Steve. that's just so uncool.

    How can you patent something like that? What, now there can be no computer cube-shaped? If that's so, then I take this opportunity to patent round-shaped computers, oh, what the hell, throw in the disk-shaped, and flat computers as well. Oh, and also glow-in-the-dark computers are patented now. I'll be rich.


  • Bladder Police (Score:3)

    by Eharley ( 214725 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:03PM (#896028)
    Wait a second, didn't NeXT come out with a cube in the 80s? Why does Cobalt think they can claim a patent on something that is in common use?

    Now, if Apple were marketing the cube in the same market as the Cobalt Cube, the same advertising as the Cube, and the same color scheme as the cube, their case would probably hold as much water as Jimmy Hoffa's bladder.
  • t's not a "little known product." Cobalt has always had a nice booth at Linux World, I've seen many reviews of their products, the Raq* products are in ISPs everywhere... definately not a "little known product."

    Yeah, sure. I know what a Cobalt Qube is. You know what a Cobalt Qube is. Joe "MBA" Purchasing Executive doesn't know what it is. Trust me, I watched Joe furrow his brow in puzzlement and ask, "So this Cobalt thing can serve web pages? Is it something we could use?" on Friday, after noticing it because of the ZDNet article, which he saw because he was reading up on the G4 Cube, wanting one for his wood-and-crystal decor desk.

    Just because you're clueful, doesn't mean everyone is. I'd call any Linux-only box little known outside of our circles, except where massively promoted by us geeks to our pursestring holders (IE VA Research)...
  • Cube cases (or almost cube) cases aren't really anything new -- many server cases that are cubes have been around for years.

    Yes. But...

    Cobalt built a cute little cube. Then they trademarked the name "Qube" and had a big advertising campaign.

    Apple's box is somewhat similar in appearance. So far no big deal. But...

    They mad a big publicity splash, calling it the "Cube". That dilutes Cobalt's trademark.

    And of course they did it AFTER they'd (successfully) sued other manufacturers, who had ONLY used colored translucient cases, for trademark infringement against the Imac.

    Oops!

    I've been wondering why Cobalt hadn't hauled them into court ever since I first heard of Apple's name for their box. Now it looks like it was just a duck-alignment delay.
  • Hey: a cubic computer is a pretty default shape. it's just a wierdly proportioned rectangular box. and it's a shape that apple - nee NeXT - has used before.

    On the other hand, you just try and convince me that you came up with an iMac shaped computer by accident. . . and translucent blue just happens to be the cheapest plastic we could find on the market (but we're planning 5 other translucent colors)..

    &nbsp No I don't buy bridges from strangers.

  • There is the BlockStackers Intergalatic patent on blocks of course (as Hemos mentioned).
    Now MeowPawjects happends to hold the patent on cats. But find that it's not being infringed. The current use of cats as pets is well within the global liccens agreement.. However cats as food or slaves is outside the liccensed agreement...

    Rinkworks has a patent on Technology Stupidity. (They should sue Microsoft any day now).

    But the biggest patent infrengment of all time...
    BSI again... they own the rights to "Everything".

    Hay BSI can e-mail me we at MP would like to talk about a massive liccensing agreement...
    Thanks :)

  • parc plato (Score:3)

    by jitterbug ( 38915 ) on Saturday July 29, 2000 @02:45AM (#896045)
    Actually the cube was developed much earlier than this, at a place called parc plato and was extensively studied there. Unfortunately due to the shortsightedness of upper management, which didn't see far enough into the future to see the value of packaging this powerful design as a computer case, the opportunity was lost. PARC yielded an astonishing volume of groundbreaking polyhedron innovations, and was decades and decades and decades before the the importance innovations was fully realized.
  • Strange how changes in the situation can occur. Usually it's Apple suing other companies for ripping off their designs (most notably ther iMac's in recent years).

    But they were never this bad. At least an iMac has a distinctive design. But a cube?! Cobalt's insane if they think they can win this.

    Besides which, if anyone does have a trademark on a cube-shaped case, it's NeXT. And Apple bought NeXT, so the trademark would be theirs now, I would think. Apple could countersue if they wanted to get really stupid about it. I hope they don't, but they might be able to.

  • NOte that it says 'could sue' not 'is suing'. (Score:4)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @07:16PM (#896054)
    Also... cobalt will realize, after looking at it, that a 'server without monitor or keyboard' is not new, that 'the cube shape' is not new, and that the color really has very little to do with purchasing of servers.

    Back off cobalt.. sell your products based on their actual functions...
  • Didn't anyone remember that Apple is just as bad, suing people for trademark infringement for making Themes [themes.org] similar to their new OS look? They sued for trademark infringement for "simple" machines similar to their iMac. Suddenly, Cobalt is suing Apple for a similar design, and people are saying that Cobalt is wrong?

    Did people forget that it's just Apple getting a piece of their own medicine? I'm not saying that Cobalt is right, but Apple does this to others, why's it so bad that they're getting it right back?

    Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
  • Actually, I believe Cobalt shipped their translucent Qube long before Apple shipped their iMac. The first I remember hearing about someone having seen a Qube in person was in May 1998. The iMac didn't ship until August of that year.

    _Deirdre

  • Didn't Apple buy Next? (Score:3)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @05:20PM (#896058) Journal
    I think cobalt is both too soon and too late to claim ownership of the notion of "cube" for a geometric shape.

    While they may be ok for Qube, spelled with a Q, they have a long way to go to complain about likelihood of confusion over the use of "Cube" to describe a cube.

    Remember, Sting just lost a domain name claim for the word Sting.

  • People--this is not a patent suit (Score:5)

    by TechLawyer ( 182030 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:26PM (#896062)
    Give the patent indignation a pass this time and read the article. Cobalt is suing for _trademark_ infringement, not patent infringement. No one is asserting that anyone "invented" the cube case.

    The issue in a trademark case boils down to whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Apple's cube and Cobalt's cube. This further boils down to whether a member of the purchasing public, when seeing a computer in a cube, thinks, "Ah! Cobalt!" I don't known if the purchasing public thinks that or not. That will be established by surveys, etc. used at trial. This case seems a little weak, given that 95% of tech people upon seeing a cube think NExT or Borg, but it's not frivolous.

  • To protect a design that is not functional, but is purely aesthetic, one can take out a 'design patent.'

    This could protect certain floral-shaped wrought-iron gates, for example. The floral pattern is not a functional element of the design, and wrought-iron gates are nothing new.

    The shapes of shampoo bottles can be patented similarly.

    The key element is that there needs to be nothing functional in the choice of that design.

  • We'd all be driving 3-wheeled, 3-doored tricycle-mobiles.

  • He's referring to lawsuits that Apple has filed in the past.

  • You have to first take a look at the PowerMacCube and the Cobalt Qube. This is a totally different situation than the iMac clones.

    It's a similar shape and size, but a different color with other different factors of asthetics.

    Consider:
    - the iMac and the eOne:
    + similar naming notion
    + very similar shape involving a complex shape (ie. not a basic block)
    + very similar coloring
    + same market
    - the Mac Cube and the Cobalt Qube:
    + different markets
    + a simple shape
    + very different overall appearance

    Also consider that Apple might be able to cite "prior work" given the NeXT cube.

    Interestingly enough, the NeXT cube was far closer in appearance to the Cobalt than the new G4 cube. You could argue that the new G4 cube isn't even a cube given it's cool plexiglass shell.

    Clearly there is no case on the grounds of infringement of a particular design. But there is a reasonable case for confusion of trademark in a similar market. Apple could probably settle very easily by simply giving the box a better name and avoiding the use of the word "cube". Maybe they should do like Cobalt and call their box the "Que-oob".

    I think that the some of the iMac knock-offs were ridiculous, but some other machines were lumped in the fray unfairly (the Gateway dead-end).

  • Yeah, and my friend has your prior work riiight heeeha (points to shelf with magnesium cube full of books and junk) ..

    Cobalt would only prove they are not only obtuse for going against a much larger company that makes a PROFIT (something about "operations" in the article causing problems with Cobalt) and is obviously over-litigious and in a position to counter-sue them.

    I mean, come ON, Apple would sue their own fans for crying out loud! Does Cobalt really believe they can win this one?

    And last I checked, a LOT of things out there are cubic in shape. It would be like Intel patenting that absurd pyramid. Not to mention the Apple Cube is prettier, appears to float, has all connections on the bottom, and all drives in the top, has a vent on top, and isn't that painful neon-purple. Yeah, they look the same, I'm so confused.

    Pardon me while I vomit.

    Sorry, but suing over the eOne makes sense, but Cobalt is just looking for some publicity to suck off of Apple Enterprise's [apple.com] industrial design.

    Perhaps Cobalt should be moderated (-1, Flamebait)

  • In related news, Cobalt has filed lawsuits against Nestle for their Maggi beef and chicken flavored bouillon cubes, a lawsuit against Las Vegas casinos for their cube-shaped dice, lawsuits against manufacturers of children's alphabet blocks, and a class-action lawsuit against the sugar industry for sugar cubes.
  • Bullshit.
    This is not the same as the iMac vs. the eMachines box. The eMachines box was trying to ride the same personal computer wave of fame that the iMac had created.
    The Apple Cube is:
    1) For a completely different market - desktop not server
    2) A full fledged computer, not an internet applicance.
    3) of a totally different industrial design : colors, utilization of space, etc. The eMachines boxes copied the iMac in almost everyway (remember the faux iMac translucent racing stripes)

  • Re:Exactly. (Score:5)

    by MonkeyBoy ( 4760 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:34PM (#896093)
    Uh, yeah. Ever see a NeXT cube?

    Amazingly, it's square design predated the Cobalt Qube by several years.

    Apple bought NeXT. They "own" that design.

    Beyond that we have the iMac case.

    G4 Cubes are not marketed nor targeted at customers who are buying Colbalt Qubes. Nor, aside from the shape (which they didn't "innovate," to use Microsoft-speak), does it even look REMOTELY like the Qube.

    Therefore a "regular person" is extremely unlikely to confuse the two.

    Therefore Colbalt is simply wasting money, as they have no chance of lost sales, which is what both the iMac and Colbalt lawsuits are about.

  • Not a registered trademark (like RAQ(r) is). (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:59PM (#896096)
    Typed Drawing
    ---
    Word Mark QUBE
    Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: servers
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 75311972
    Filing Date June 2, 1997
    Files ITU FILED AS ITU
    Owner (APPLICANT) Cobalt Microserver, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 411 Clyde Avenue Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043
    Type of Mark TRADEMARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
    Abandonment Date August 4, 1998

  • Once again, Pixar Cube (Score:4)

    by craw ( 6958 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @04:00PM (#896099) Homepage
    I mentioned this when the Apple cube was announced, and I'll say this again. I don't think that the NeXT cube was Jobs' 1st cube shape computer. The Pixar cube preceeded it by about a year, IIRC. I believe that this piece of hardware was used to run Renderman.

    There was a demo program that ran on it. It was the one with the bumblebee.

    Did anybody out there see this cube?

  • Hmm. But if we look at actual product names...
    'Qube' (pronounced 'cube') is the name of cobalt's machine.
    'Cube' is also the name of apple's machine. There *IS* reason for consumer confusion here.. if I say I'm buying a 'cube'.. which one is it?

    Yes, certainly Cobalt did not invent the cube... and most of us techies would call it the 'cobalt qube' or the 'apple cube' or the 'next cube'... so..
  • NeXT had it's cube. Also, Pixar released a dedicated rendering engine that used the Renderman algorithm around the same time that was also cube shaped. (Actually I liked the Pixar rendering engine's appearance, as they textured it to look like a large marble cube with an indent in the middle.)

    The cube shape is nothing new. The only elements of the dress design which would make the Cobalt cube unique is the color, lighting scheme, and design elements beyond it's basic shape which differentiate it from other systems. And in that respect, the Apple Cube G4 has nothing in common with the Cobalt cube.
  • NeXT (also run by Jobs) had a cube, a grey looking thing if I recall. Hmm, maybe Jobs should sue Cobalt.
  • The NeXT cube is a long-dead product, like the Apple Newton and the Lisa.

    The Qube and the Mac Cube, however, are both being sold. So the possibility exists that customers would confuse the two.

    Nobody in their right mind would confuse either with a NeXT cube, except to get karma points on slashdot.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • Yes, and when Apple aquired NeXT they also aquired all of the patents. It's quite amazing (all things considered) that Apple didn't sue Cobalt heh.

  • You have to wonder why Cobalt bothers. As has been pointed out, NeXT, which Apple now owns, had a cube long before Cobalt did, and not only that, they even marketed it as a Cube. So Cobalt has to know they'll loose, so why would they even bother paying the legal fees for such a hopeless suit?

    Maybe they're just looking for the press coverage -- it's their way of saying "Hey, we have a cube too!". In not too long we might see Cobalt suddenly decide to drop the suit once they've milked it for as much press coverage as they can get.

    Whatever their motives, they're certainly not encouraging me to buy their products with frivolous lawsuits.

  • My conspiracy theory:

    1) Cobalt knows they can't win.
    2) They don't care
    3) The poetic justice of the situation has already given them a buttload of free publicity.
  • Cobalt is begging for a serious countersuit here... haven't they ever heard of a little computer about ten years ago called a NeXT? Which is now part of the very company Cobalt is accusing of ripping off the "idea" of a cubical computer?
  • Is it just me, or do a lot of post seem (-1, Redundant) to you?

    In fact, you could automate a moderator for this story.

    IF "ya I'll just patent xxx and sue everyone" THEN +1, insightful
    IF "but this isn't a patent - it's a trademark. Give them some credit" THEN +1, informative
    IF "but NeXT had a cube in the late 80's. Apple bought NeXT" THEN +1, informative
    IF "but trademarks cover names, not designs" THEN +1, insightful
    IF "but trademarks are only if consumers may be confused - and Cobalt and Apple are targetting different markets" +1, informative

    A number of things
    1. I *wish* mods would read other posts first. Bring out interesting viewpoints that are being ignored.

    2. Don't always be so hostile to trademark laws. If they didn't exist, there would be nothing from stopping MS from releasing a product called "MS Linux" and spending billions on advertising it when the Halloween Document was just a document and not a call-to-arms.

    Cobalt is a *small* company, and it's good that there is some way of preventing a multibillion dollar multinational (where is Katz when you need him?) from stomping all over the little guy - Cobalt in this case.

    Part of their marketing campaign - the way you recognize them - was their name and the unique shape of their boxes. All the millions they spent on building that name could be lost because Steve Jobs was having a bad hair day.

  • It's only fair... (Score:4)

    by b1t r0t ( 216468 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:05PM (#896133)
    If apple can sue E-machines over the iMac design, then why can't Cobalt sue over a cube design?

    Seriously, though, this is even more silly than the E-machines/iMac lawsuit. I think I'll go form Teal Computer Corp, patent the color teal, then sue a few office chair manufacturers.

    And didn't the NeXT cube pre-date Cobalt by a few years? And Apple bought out NeXT. So maybe Apple should try a counter-suit for Cobalt stealing THEIR design!

  • Look, I got a side! Oh... %#$ @#+\ cube!!!

  • ip (Score:2)

    by mattdm ( 1931 )
    Patents aren't trademarks. (The lawsuit is still stupid, of course.)

    --

  • It looks to me from the article that Cobalt isn't suing anyone. One of their executives said he's considering it, that's all.

    --

  • Great post!

    I browse at 3 and very seldom burrow down. I laughed out loud when I read it and decided to read the replies. It looks like it was moderated back up. I hope it makes it to 5. :)
  • Look, Cobalt has a little-known product that they've been marketting with little luck for two years, and suddenly the most noticed computer company in the world produces something that remotely resembles it. Some exec at Cobalt thinks, "How can I get some of the spillover publicity?"

    Even if he did get slapped with a frivolous lawsuit fine (as if) he'd still make out like a bandit over all the attention this generated. Sort of like a troll-for-profit.

  • Re:Oh Yeah.... (Score:3)

    by acidrain ( 35064 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @04:12PM (#896156)

    Oh, you laugh... But little do you know... here is proof OF THE FIRST APPLE CUBE!!! [puzzle-shop.de]

    Well before these qube posers! This is some spooky voodo.

  • Let's be a bit more rational when comparing this suit to the iMac and MS suits.

    iMac: Apple pays money for a uniquely designed computer that puts aesthetics on a par with function for the first time since the NeXT Cube. While initially laughed at by the media and PC bigots, sales of the iMac boom, and PC folks experience aesthetic envy. e-Machines licenses a machine from a company that is producing clones that are amazingly similar to the iMac's design (which was a trademarked design, unique to the iMac). Apple sues.

    Look & Feel: Apple uses PARC ideas to build a graphical OS. MS lambasts the products, then uses knowledge obtained under NDA to produce their own GUI-based products.

    It's a bit different than basing something on a style or a feel, it's much more like theft. It's very much like having someone cheat off your physics final. You studied, you worked hard, they're getting a free ride and endangering your academic career by risking having you both thrown out.

    However, I must realize that I'm posting this on slashdot, where many readers think stealing is better than paying, and IP means nothing.

    Reagen
  • There used to be ads for the 'Brick' computer in mags I read a few years back. Wouldn't ya know it, it was shaped like a brick...
  • The thing I don't get is this: Cobalt got sued by Cube Computer Corp and settled, this would imply that Cube Computer Corp has some kind of trademark rights to cube shaped computers... so how come Cube Computer Corp is not now also suing Apple? Unless of course the NeXT cube predates the founding of Cube Comp. Corp. I say throw the lawyers for all three corporations into a wrestling ring and have a 'cage match' style down-and-out last person standing lawyers brawl. Whomever wins gets to sue the other two for $50M.

    ----

  • Cube vs. iMac suits (Score:5)

    by JohnsonWax ( 195390 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:07PM (#896167)
    (IANAL)

    The iMac suits seemed to depend on whether or not the consumer might confuse the two products. That is, the eOne did look an awful lot like the iMac, and mistaken identity alone could take away from Apple's sales.

    As for the Cube, I think you'd need to be both blind and stupid to mistake the two. The colors are totally different, the Cube is considerably taller, the Qube indicator light is in no way reproduced, the only resemblance is the basic shape (which is a common shape, unlike the iMac) and size. I don't think you could confuse these two...

    Apple might also be able to argue the Cube is a derivative of the NeXT Cube which Apple should still hold the rights to. The only difference there is the size...

  • Let's boycott Slashdot! (Score:5)

    by vertical-limit ( 207715 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:07PM (#896168)
    Slashdot.org has carried on its patent abuses for too long. Innovation in the architecture field is being stifled by Jeff "Hemos" Bates' oppressive patents on such basic tools as the "block" and "one-click building". We cannot have truly free (as in Willy) buildings until this unjust patent is revoked.

    We must boycott Slashdot until they cease their abuse of the U.S. Patent Office and drop their suit against the author of DeBlockS. In the mean time, let's forget overrated corporate architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and support independent architects instead; you can find their building plans on popular blueprint-sharing services like Bluetella and Planster.

    Down with architecture patents! Free the block!

  • This is *really* stretching it. (Score:5)

    by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @03:08PM (#896169) Journal
    They aren't the same color.
    They aren't targeted at the same group of people.
    They aren't the same size.
    Their aesthetic is different.
    "Qube" is not the same word as "Cube".

    Honestly, this is *pathetic* on the part of Cobalt. I hope they lose and lose badly.

    (Incidentally, I hate Apple Computer. But this is just insane.)

  • TRADEMARK, not PATENT

    The "BigMaq would be a trademark violation" argument is inherently flawed because "Cube" is a noun that factually describes what the product is. To say that "Cube" is a trademark infringement of "Qube" is like saying that IBM should own the trademark on computer, or something crazy like that. If they called it "Little Gray Cube" and someone had a trademark on "Gray Cube" there might be an argument that the name was confusingly similar, but you can't own a single noun like that. They call it the G4 Cube, or the Power Mac Cube. If someone else has something similar to that, Apple would be suing them, not the other way around.

    Heaven help us if IBM tried to enforce a trademark on beige boxes.

  • I'm going to sue ALL of you (Score:5)

    by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @10:10PM (#896178)
    As legal counsel for the Pythagoras estate, I am obliged to advise all of the Slashdotters participating in this discussion that the use of the word Cube(tm) is a violation of Pythagorean intellectual property rights, along with the the use of Tetrahedron(tm), Octahedron(tm), Dodecahedron(tm), and Icosahedron(tm), all of which are inseparable components of the Platonic Solids(tm) suite. Moreover, the use of two- or three-dimensional derivatives of our intellectual property (commonly known as "square", "rectangle", and the general class of "rectilinear solids") without payment of royalties is an actionable offense.

    To avoid the expense of a prolonged legal battle (such as that endured by the RPG community, which had been making unauthorized use of the Platonic Solids(tm) suite in the form of "dice"), please remit US$2.50 for each HTML table cell you have used, and US$1.00 per pixel in applicable video modes (we will be happy to advise you which VGA modes have square pixels).

  • TRADEMARK, not PATENT. BigMac vs BigMaq. (Score:3)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday July 28, 2000 @05:54PM (#896179) Homepage Journal


    If you sold a hamburger, and on the menu you called your hamburger a BigMaq, you can be assured that the trademark lawyers would slam you into so much e.coli-tainted floorstain.

    From the c|net article,
    Given Cobalt's history, a suit likely would take issue with the name, rather than the shape, of the computers. Cube Computer filed a suit against Cobalt in December 1998, alleging that Cobalt's Qube infringed on the trademark of Cube Computer. Cobalt settled the suit in December 1999, the company said in an SEC filing. "We acquired certain trademark rights for a one-time payment of $4.1 million, not including related legal costs," the filing said.

    Thus, the trademark of officially calling a computer a "cube"(tm) has already been established, and Cobalt has purchased rights from the establishing party. Apple has not. NeXT never called their computer a "Cube", "Qube", or "Kyoob."

    This has nothing to do with the markets served, the device characteristics, or even the shape.

  • "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you."
    "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."
    "As you sow, so you shall reap."
    "What goes around, comes around."

    etc, etc, etc...
  • FishPC is an Australian company that market a computer called the FishPC to first computer buyers. They were sued by apple. The machine:
    * Does use semitransparent plastic. So does the imac.
    * Comes in 2 units, for processor and monitor. The imac doesn't, and this is a large part of it's aesthetic.
    * Is shaped like a bloody great big fish, and this is easily its most distinguising feature.
    * Uses different colors than the imac
    * Doesn't have some sad imac derivative name - such as Compaqs ipaq units

    They've been sued by Apple nevertheless. Judge for yourself at www.fishpc.com.au
  • I think there is a big difference between taking design cues from a competitor and trademark infringement. If Ford introduced a truck that looked so close to a DaimlerChrysler pickup that a consumer might confuse it with a Dodge Ram (even using the same colors, etc.), that is definitely wrong, both from a legal and moral standpoint. It was this kind of infringement that Apple was trying to stop with its lawsuits against eMachines, et al.
    Apple has been over zealously litigious of late, but in regard to some of the copyright infringements I definitely side with them. Nathan

  • I'll doubtless be amused to watch Steve's Loyal Army explain why Apple should be able to sue alleged rip-offs of the iMac, but the cube is an original and innovative design that Cobalt have no right to complain about.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close