URU Live on iPhone

dairyairaz · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:15 am **Posts:** 27

Anyone know when URU Live will be available on the iPhone?

Just a little levity for the day.

Islander · **Posted:** Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:29 pm

Hmm. I would have thought it very unlikely that URU would be playable on the iPhone at all, let alone available for it.

I know nothing of the iPhone, so I could easily be wrong, but surely it'll never be powerful enough for URU.

exial · **Posted:** Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:00 pm

When the OSX port hits we can check since the iPhone is computable..... now playing uru on a phone....

maztec · **Joined:** Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:05 am **Posts:** 393

While the iPhone is coolsauce, we don't really have any hardware specifications on it.. and the odds that its graphics chip would support Uru are slim. But, it would be cool if it did.. That'd put a whole new face to games on mobiles

Jishin · **Joined:** Mon May 15, 2006 8:47 pm **Posts:** 1046

I am SO THERE. *is an unabashed Applegeek*

Anaerin · **Joined:** Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:20 pm **Posts:** 303

I don't know when Myst will be available on the iPhone. Perhaps you should ask Linksys?

S_Brennan · **Joined:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:33 am **Posts:** 120

Wow... there's two iPhones? I only heard about Apple's contribution to the market... not LinkSys's.

Tweek · **Joined:** Tue May 09, 2006 12:11 am **Posts:** 2633

I smell a law suit

chucker · **Posted:** Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:24 am

Tweek wrote:

I smell a law suit

No, Cisco has owned the "IPHONE" trademark for about a decade, but they've been negotiating with Apple.

No lawsuit.

varian · **Joined:** Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:29 am **Posts:** 67

Quote:

The OS: It isn't OS X proper, as you'd expect. And like an iPod, it won't be an open system that people can develop for. Remember, this is both an iPod and a Phone.

from here.

Quote:

No, Cisco has owned the "iPhone" trademark for about a decade, but they've been negotiating with Apple.

No lawsuit.

from here:

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Cisco Systems Inc. said Wednesday it is suing Apple Inc. in federal court over Apple's use of Cisco's registered iPhone trademark for its new handheld device.

Lawsuit.

belford · **Joined:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:01 pm **Posts:** 1890

Which is to say they *were* negotiating, but something went kaboom at the last minute. (To be literal, on the last day.)

I'm curious which side got grabby, but there's no way to tell now -- they both have their lawsuit faces on.

maztec · **Joined:** Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:05 am **Posts:** 393

Bait and switch by both sides. Heh.

It serves Apple by giving them free advertising on a global scale which makes it so they can change the name and get lots of free publicity behind it. It also serves Apple by making it so people will identify their phone as the "iPhone". It is likely they will probably call it the "Apple Phone" if they can not win the lawsuit or come to a settlement.

It serves Cisco by advertising their product, establishing their identity, and getting more money out of Apple.

The Complaint that was filed is really odd in contrast to the announcements on Tuesday from Cisco regarding a "potential deal" with Apple. They must have thrown something last-minute nasty into it to get Apple to refuse it, or someone had something wrong somewhere. My vote is they saw how immensely popular the iPhone was going to be and decided they wanted more money. Somewhere I smell breach of contract.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs/20 ... vapple.pdf

---

Now, other rumors, within all of this, are that Cisco gave Apple the right to use:
"Apple IPhone" or "IPhone-Apple" (note the capitalization)

Where Cisco would have privilege to use "Cisco iPhone" or "iPhone-Cisco" and had exclusive rights to "iPhone" on its own.

So, one possibility is Apple did sign a contract (which is not mentioned in the lawsuit, in fact the lawsuit implies no such negotiations ever took place and no such contract has ever existed, which really is not that unusual for a lawsuit). But used "iPhone" in their press releases and should have used "Apple iPhone" and are therefore in trouble. Which actually makes sense.

Then again there a lot of possibilities out there.

One of the funniest being a bit of an egg-in-the-face possibility where you consider Cisco has multiple legal departments. Apple signed the contract. Cisco's contract department knows this. But Cisco's "protect our trademark" department is not fully aware and therefore sued. Oops.

This will be fun to see how it falls out over the next six months. ;p

Maz

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:08 am

I predict Apple will successfully get rights to use iPhone. Why? Historical precedent. They ripped off the Beatles by using "Apple" and succeeded - twice. They ripped off Xerox PARC by using, well, everything, and succeeded, then had the gall to sue Microsoft for doing to them what they did to Xerox. Cisco is a nit in comparison.

chucker · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:26 am

JWPlatt wrote:

I predict Apple will successfully get rights to use iPhone. Why? Historical precedent. They ripped off the Beatles by using "Apple" and succeeded - twice. They ripped off Xerox PARC by using, well, everything, and succeeded, then had the gall to sue Microsoft for doing to them what they did to Xerox. Cisco is a nit in comparison.

Oh boy.

The Beatles have the right to the Apple trademark in various music-related contexts. Apple, primarily, is a computer company. The only time the Beatles' rights clash with Apple's is when Apple releases music-related products. This first happened in the 80s when Apple added a music chip to a computer (the Apple IIgs). Then it happened again when Apple started selling songs (the iTunes Store).

And as for this whole PARC urban myth; that will never get old, will it? Xerox had no intention of marketing a computer with a GUI to the masses, so they didn't care. Apple saw a potential, so they did care. End of story. There was absolutely nothing fishy or illegal going on. Like everyone else, you can do your through research before making such defaming statements.

I guess it's time to see how well this ignore feature works.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:42 am

The technicality of your arguments do not overcome Apple (Computer)'s questionable modus operandi.

Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds Apple sued Microsoft.

My neighbor worked for Xerox PARC during the time of the development of these technologies. We chat.

URU Live on iPhone

Who is online