Apple sued over iCloud

by Tom Brewster | Tuesday 14 June 2011

An Arizona company claims Apple's iCloud has already significantly harmed its business, just a week after the product's launch.

Just a week after Apple announced its iCloud offering, the company has been sued over the service.

An Arizona- based company named iCloud Communications alleged its brand had been damaged thanks to Apple’s launch.

Furthermore, iCloud Communications, which filed a suit in the US District Court in Arizona, claimed Apple’s iCloud offered many similar services.

“The goods and services with which Apple intends to use the ‘iCloud’ mark are identical to or closely related to the goods and services that have been offered by iCloud Communications under the iCloud Marks since its formation in 2005,” the Arizona firm claimed in its filing, first seen by The Next Web.

“However, due to the worldwide media coverage given to and generated by Apple’s announcement of its ‘iCloud’ services and the ensuing saturation advertising campaign pursued by Apple, the media and the general public have quickly come to associate the mark ‘iCloud’ with Apple, rather than iCloud Communications.”

The company alleged Apple “was aware of or was willfully blind to iCloud Communications’ use of and rights in the iCloud Marks."

Apple has been involved in a number of legal tangles with other tech firms over naming issues.

Just recently, it has been attempting to ensure the App Store name cannot be used by other companies – something rival Microsoft has expressed dismay at.

“Apple's announcement of and the launch of its advertising campaign for its iCloud service have so thoroughly swamped the reputation of iCloud Communications and the goodwill it had built up over the years in the iCLoud Marks that is likely to cause – and has actually caused – confusion among consumers of cloud computing services and members of the general public as to the source of the parties’ goods and services,” iCloud Communications added.

At the time of publication, Apple had not responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

This article originally appeared at itpro.co.uk

See more about: apple | sued | icloud

Readers of this article also read...

New Apple Mac Pro is insanely powerful and looks insane too

firefox 14 June 2011	I don't think this is an actual cause of concern, merely a strategy to get their name out there and generate more $$$, they won't win the court case as its clearcut unlike the App Store lawsuit. Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article: Apple sued over iCloud? An Arizona company claims Apple's iCloud has already significantly harmed its business, just a week after the product's launch. What do you think? Join the discussion.
elfalot 14 June 2011	I don't know, some companies can be very protective of their label, good or bad. Aren't Apple the type to get all riled up when something has an 'i' in the front of its name, if its their brand and Apple are 'hijacking, the name I'd probably be a little annoyed.
photohounds 14 June 2011	There's already talk of Apple settling as long as the ORIGINAL iCloud doesn't ash for a hundred million .... Maybe the "Big A" should make vacuum cleaners. Ah what name, though?
photohounds 14 June 2011	http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217586/Apple_likely_to_settle_iCloud_trademark_lawsuit_says_legal_expert?taxonomyId=144&pageNumber=2 and for fun: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9174279/Apple_gets_iPad_trademark_just_in_time_for_launch and: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9011638/Apple_Cisco_make_iPhone_peace_will_share_name and I thought thr Big A" were good at 'inventing' names for their stuff. Pity they just steal them and then bully the original owners. 1990s M$ all over ...
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. 15 June 2011	The hate in this thread is overwhelming.
photohounds 15 June 2011	Not really CG, The Big A cannot claim to be unaware and went ahead anyway, or do you refer to their hatred of a fair go?
amcmo 15 June 2011	I'm with you CG. There are endless examples of major companies announcing a product/business name then finding some obscure company somewhere has been using it. Doubt that Apple are much better or worse here than others. Because it's Apple the 'haters' jump in every time to slag them. It's easy to do a trademark or business name search, not find anything then suddenly find that someone has been using a name in business as a 'trading as' or product name that your searches miss, then suddenly they're after a slice of $$, especially if your'e a big target and a good number of the US majors have been caught in this manner. It's a little easier here in Oz with every state insisting that 'trading as' names be registered, but in the US, we have several 'trading as' names that are registered only in the state we are registered in, and only then as an attachment to our company registration. Almost impossible to find if you're in another state, in fact even within the state it's hard enough. As we have registered trademarks in the US we know from experience that if a trademark even remotely similar in a SIMILAR business sector is registered, the trademark gets bounced until you provide overwhelming evidence of no overlap. This particular company apparently never registered the trademark which makes it difficult to find in any search, however they can claim 'prior use'. Sorry, Apple hater's you're getting all frothy at the mouth about an everyday happening....
photohounds 15 June 2011	eeeeah am... not a hater here, but certainly not an apologist for anyone either. The caft that people do it does not make it OK, to believe that is kindergarten logic. The Big A would have known of this company (it's not THAT tiny), the Big A have lots of smart people to find these things out. iExcuse iLies iBully ...
amcmo 15 June 2011	It a large stretch to say they would have known. THE TRADEMARK WAS NEVER REGISTERED. Given that the US consists of what are almost independent countries wiht different rules and databases it's a massive task to ensure that there isn't a business name or trademark (trademarks at least are on a national register)on some state database. I know this from personal experience. iBully iLies, sounds a lot more like iHate than not being an apologist.
photohounds 16 June 2011	Dingoe's kidneys am... - 1985 ... oh that's before Apple had iANYTHING... ---- just google: icloud -apple (the -apple would be unnecessarey 2 months ago. iApologist ----------- Since 1985, iCloud Communications has been a local and long distance telephone provider. In this new era of broadband technology, iCloud has launched the most comprehensive, flexible and cost-efficient broadband telephone service available today. The iCloud package provides both business and residential customers with Fortune 500 technology and functionality ~ all at a significant cost savings over traditional phone companies. took me ONE search attempt to find it - they have er... more resources than me.
amcmo 16 June 2011	In their filing, they state since 2005, so don't know where 1985 comes from. Did they have a different name prior to 2005? Since they refer to VOIP services, they wouldn't have had anything Cloud to offer much before 2005. A Versign lookup shows a 2005 registration of geticloud.com with no details of the registrant, and a search at GoDaddy, the registrar shows it's a proxy registration, so no knowing if it was iCloud Comm's or a speculative registration (of which GoDaddy seem to be involved in a large number) later on-sold or any other facts from what I can see. No doubt will all come out in the wash. There are other users of the term however don't seem to be conflicting. It's not an offence to use a name that's the same if in a different industry. Since the group Apple purchased the iCloud domain off got in first, one could suggest iCloud Comms went the cheap/lazy way, just add a word in front to make a catchy name - geticloud. What did they call themselves before changing the name? We're still quite some way from anyone being able to label Apple as iBully etc... One could comment about companies sticking an i in front of their name riding on the back of Apple's use of the term going back to the first iMac. Seems to be a favourite of hundreds without the imagination to come up with their own catchy name, name them ifollower, ilack of imagination.
photohounds 16 June 2011	Not a very different industry at all - iWantit iTakeit iCopyNokia?? Just the way it is ... http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217600/Apple_will_pay_Nokia_to_settle_patent_suit?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2011-06-14
amcmo 16 June 2011	Different story all together. If you check some of the opinion out there on that, there was an agreed cross-licence, though in the end Nokia's patent basket was worth more than the patents Apple were prepared to exchange, hence the payment and royalties. Again, read the full story and there is suggestion that Android phone manufacturers are in for an even greater slug from Nokia as most of them have next to nothing to trade. Seems you can't make a smartphone without crossing Nokia's patents and Apple may not be that upset, knowing that Android manufacturers look like paying even higher royalties. Apple have the margin to grin and bear it, most Android manufacturers don't. The point on phones (and most tech) is, no matter how well you think you design one, there's someone out there who's got a patent that may be interpreted to cover at least part of your design. Nothing whatsoever to do with copying. You think you've covered your arse, but in the end, you wait for the sh.t to hit the fan so to speak, and hope you've got enough cash/patents to play hardball.
rubaiyat 16 June 2011	Apple can be an extreme bully on "Intellectual Property Rights" so they get no sympathy from me if they get get caught in their own trap. They attack small operators like MacTech in Victoria knowing they do not have the resources to defend themselves against Apples legal iBullies and will be simply forced to relinquish the name they have used for decades. Even though they believe they have full right to use it.
amcmo 16 June 2011	I'm not familiar with the Mac Tech case, however take your word on that. I've never said Apple were blameless, and accept they are 'vigorous' in defending what they see as their IP, just not the 'Great Satan' as portrayed by some.
photohounds 16 June 2011	Yes, you're right am.., one could more correctly comment about companies sticking an i in front of their PRODUCT names riding on the back of UNIX's EARLIER use of the term inetd to describe the task that manages Internet services - predating the imac. #### http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inetd #### selective history ... or you need a memory upgrade ? I'm with Ruby for a change - Apple are a clever bunch, but bullies right out of the IBM/M$ mould in some ways. Sad because of the three, they probably need this sh1t least ...
amcmo 17 June 2011	Clutching at straws to bring up inetd. It has nothing to do with a product name or marketing strategy. Typical of Apple (MS/IBM) detractors. Search far enough and you'll find some point with a vague connection and try to use it as evidence. Get real! I have no particular love of Apple (MS/IBM/INTEL....)however the lengths some will go to slag them, especially Apple at present, amazes me, yet these same people hold Google 'we only do evil' (I exaggerate for effect here) up as some worthwhile alternative. As for claims of Apple bullying on IP, I would point out the case of Singer. They failed to vigorously defend their trademark and it became accepted common use (public domain) for any sewing machine. Cost them $$$. One of the first points drummed into students of trademark law, or new venture founders is defend your IP at all costs. Defend from abbreviations, similar useage, anything that may dilute your mark and cause it to move to the public domain or allow anyone to piggyback on your work. While some companies take it to the limit, it is a serious business protecting IP. If you had $Bn's of value in IP (I wish), would you be less vigorous? It can kill a business, bankrupt you - enough examples out there. If you've got more time than most, look up Louis Chevrolet (yes that Chevrolet) and Frontenac cars. There's a sad IP story buried amongst all the history, most gloss over it.
photohounds 17 June 2011	Nice treatise, am.. Fact is, the Big A stole the name from a business they could have EASILY discovered. It wasn't the Big A's IP (if one can call putting an "i" in front of a common word "IP") it was someone else's, so your point is well proven. And that will be the hurdle for the Big A in court. They know it, you know it. Lindows beat MS who sued them because it sounded like windows. Judge said they lost because windows is a common word and it can't be patented. Same with 'i'. Word is, the Big A are going to settle, quite simply because they would lose. I'll look up the other cases you pointed out as a matter of interest, but they are red herrings. Would Sesame street ahve to shun the letter 'i' for fear of being sued? - what iRot. As for putting an "i" in front of a common word being "creative"? Your advice above was (and I agree), get real.
amcmo 17 June 2011	Again Photohounds, you are ascribing intent to Apple of which you have no knowledge. Lindows lost several cases, won some and Windows remains a trademark, so while many Lindows supporters like to feel they won, at the end of the day, it's still Windows with a capital W. Apple may well end up settling, I've never disputed that, just the immediate assumption of evil intent on the part of the ihaters. The other cases are valid points of IP law,and the principle applies to any company wishing to protect it's IP, nothing red or fishy. Sesame Street! - where did that come from?? As for ... oh can't be bothered any more](*,)
photohounds 17 June 2011	I read the Lindows judgement. The judge was clear, MS did not have a patent or even a trademark on the word as it is common language. Sire, you and I can't sell MS Windows-labelled stuff without their permission. The money a company can waste on legal cases often masks who was right in the first place. I try and stay out of that kind of iStrife.
amcmo 17 June 2011	There were a series of Lindows judgements in the US and Europe. While the appellate judge in the US indicated Windows was generic, EU courts did not and blocked access to the Lindows sites in cases. Lindows were faced with having to have two names for their product, one outside of the US, and Lindows in the US, provided MS did not eventually prevail. Lindows calls it a victory, however a number of judicial reviews indicate there could potentially have been a different final decision had MS continued. I've not seen any indication, in a cursory check, that Euro courts were about to change their stance. The case was included in a paper on the independence of Euro courts from US rulings. The problem was MS did not wish to risk an adverse finding, and it was cheaper for them to pay rather than take the risk. Lindows were happy to accept the payment and change name rather than risk being bankrupted. Who knows how it would have all worked out, other than both MS and Lindows spending obscene amounts on lawyers. Either way, not quite the total victory Lindows try to make out.
rubaiyat 17 June 2011	My take on Apple is not that it is an intentional bully. It is an extremely clever but self centred 'friend' who believes it knows better. ALWAYS. Annoyingly it is mostly right and hard to dissuade from its overbearing self confidence.
amcmo 17 June 2011	You're spot on there!
photohounds 4 July 2011	Locking people in to YOUR way of doing things represents coercion. No matter how 'right' you think you are, no 'friend' does that. With M$ ahving a 'few bob' in The Big A, one wonders what the duopoly will dream up as being 'good for us' next. With so many lemmings on the planet it won't be hard to convince us of the old "2 legs bad" paradigm as applied to openness even though the pigs are quite happy to eschew the use of forelibms for propulsion. Interesting artiel on where computing might be headed at www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/ such a paradigm might make proprietary OS dominance a bit more difficult. Not before time.
rubaiyat 4 July 2011	photohounds wrote: There's already talk of Apple settling as long as the ORIGINAL iCloud doesn't ash for a hundred million .... Maybe the "Big A" should make vacuum cleaners. Ah what name, though? Well there is that old adage that Microsoft should make vacuum cleaners, because it would be the only thing they make that doesn't suck.
rubaiyat 4 July 2011	photohounds wrote: Locking people in to YOUR way of doing things represents coercion. Like all companies Apple is a mixed bag. It lets its users have an enormous amount of latitude and trust unlike Microsoft and mostly uses industry standards. I actually feel much freer to do what I want in Mac OS and MAc OSX than I ever do in Windows and Linux. Particularly right now where I am having to use another organisation's PCs running Windows. The number of things I am blocked from doing, or using, is crippling much of what I am trying to achieve. It certainly is slowing me down to a crawl at frequent intervals. Microsoft has a mixed record on their greatest call to openness, which is with hardware, but with software they are a tyrant and saboteur to anyone who gets in their way. Even Ubuntu and "Open Source" software solutions lock their users into their way of doing things otherwise very little would work.
photohounds 9 July 2011	Open source only "lock" you in if you are not prepared to change something to suit yourself. You can if you want to - what you do with YOUR machine is YOUR choice not someone else's. Look at itoons, only works properly on Mac, buggy on windows and while a Linux version, (noarch would be fine) can be fairly easily compiled from the BSD source, it is conspicuously absent. Doesn't affect me, HDDs are huge, flash is going to get a whole lot bigger and I hate compressed "music" except in a car or other noisy environments where compression makes some kind of sense. Fully reversible compression can be had on a $1 chip in quantity, no need for the proprietary shenanigans any more. Friends don't let friends listen to substandard audio - or sign away their rights :) Now back to building my DLNA server to serve up my purchased music content ... Yep know the old MS joke, can't see anyone ever saying "I'll just Microsoft the hallway, it is dirty :) "
rubaiyat 10 July 2011	Ofcourse reprogramming open source and debugging it is something everybody does. Only takes a few minutes, not that your time costs anything, you are on the dole right? [DrippingSarcasm]That's why there is so much excellent 'free' open source out there, eliminating all the competition.[/DrippingSarcasm] Nothing stopping you making your own uncompressed music collection, no matter what OS you are running. But I appreciate you pointing out yet again how disgusting it is that Apple doesn't just give you other people's material for nothing, or may-as-well-be nothing. Despite what the owners might say about that. Just post the link here where we can download your collection. Thanks. You're not going to be a selfish bastard about this are you?
photohounds 10 July 2011	Ahem Ruby .... You're barking up the wrong tree (again) and manufacturing another fallacy (again). I expect NO content for free. Bit "hard of reading" are you? It certainly seems so, as I've repeatedly explained that I do NOT steal content a few times. Musicians deserve to eat and pay bills as do we all. However, I rarely MORE THAN ONE COPY of a recorded work. My gripe is that Apple is Linux-like (under the covers) and an itoons for lin would be MUCH easier than porting it to WinDog. Never mind, it's FAR from the best medial player - for me. I prefer a plethora of relevant info rather than dancing album covers and poor performance. Your unsubstantiated biases about all Linux users being pirates are resurfacing as is your custom. I'm in the middle of saving thousands of CDs (bought by ME) to HDD for my use at home and in car. I DO hope it is OK with you if I listen to MY library as I see fit. If not, where do I apply for your permission? Best copy from some other source - and DO stop flogging that very, very dead 'pirate' horse - at least in reference to me.
rubaiyat 11 July 2011	photohounds wrote: Ahem Ruby .... You're barking up the wrong tree (again) and manufacturing another fallacy (again). That makes that a fallacy fallacy on your part as you yet again grab the wrong end of the stick. Quote: I expect NO content for free. Bit "hard of reading" are you? It certainly seems so, as I've repeatedly explained that I do NOT steal content a few times. Musicians deserve to eat and pay bills as do we all. However, I rarely MORE THAN ONE COPY of a recorded work. You do nothing else but whinge about how dare anybody charge you for anything. It is like the universe owes you. Quote: My gripe is that Apple is Linux-like (under the covers) and an itoons for lin would be MUCH easier than porting it to WinDog. Never mind, it's FAR from the best medial player - for me. I prefer a plethora of relevant info rather than dancing album covers and poor performance. Here you even have the gall to demand that Apple give you a free Linux version of software, that you call childish names, and then say you will never use! I don't like the difficult to follow iTunes either, but have not been able to find anything better. Even when I used it on Windows, where I could not detect any bugs, though that may have changed. What I can't understand is that you are using Linux, so why not just write your own superior media software and go through the trivial process of porting it OSX. I am sure all the desperate OSX users will beat a path to your door, especially as your software will be so brilliant and free! Quote: Your unsubstantiated biases about all Linux users being pirates are resurfacing as is your custom. I'm in the middle of saving thousands of CDs (bought by ME) to HDD for my use at home and in car. No. If Linux users are pirates I'm guessing they are no more so than Windows or OSX users. However they are wedded to the irrational belief that free software and content is by definition better and cheaper. No matter how much time you waste trying to get it, get it to work and get someone to explain how it is supposed to work or why it doesn't. Linux users don't get paid, they are on the dole or invalid pensioners?, so time has no value. They are however, pirates or not, the cheapest of cheap cheapskates who like Oscar Wilde said "Know the price of everything and the value of nothing". You vent endlessly that Apple hasn't just given you content that it does not own. The copyright holders of the material were the ones who laid down the restrictions that Apple has worked hard at liberalising. Now that Apple is the dominant player in media it has finally got the publishers to remove their demands for DRM, losing one or two in the process. It has upgraded the quality as technology and users formed a market for the larger files resultant. It has even given the option, for a token amount, now that iCloud is here, for users to upgrade all their content to iTunes' copies, no matter where that content came from. Quote: I DO hope it is OK with you if I listen to MY library as I see fit. If not, where do I apply for your permission? Couldn't give a stuff how you listen or view your stuff. I'm not stopping you. Apple is not stopping you. Why not just get on with whatever you want to do? Apple even gives you the tools in iTunes to convert your media into whatever quality or Lossless version you want. It always has. For free. Quote: Best copy from some other source - and DO stop flogging that very, very dead 'pirate' horse - at least in reference to me. Must be your guilty conscience at work, I didn't accuse of Piracy, just of never wanting to pay, or getting so cheap that it may as well be free.
photohounds 12 July 2011	What a forlorn rant, my commiserations. I like the freedom to alter as much (or more usually as little) as I want. It's much better than "my way or the highway". I took the highway, and found something just as good, in some ways much better. Not being a great coder (adequate more like) I contribute a little by helping new users. I am glad some people will give up time to help others. I already use a superior media player, finding one wasn't too taxing. itoons is expensive because it locks you in, it is not free beyond costing nothing to download. Yes the mp3tunes.com clone is noted.
rubaiyat 14 July 2011	photohounds you remind me of the Monty Python Meaning of Life sketch about condoms. The Protestant looking out of the window at the Catholic opposite with the 100s of kids, boasts on endlessly that he can wear a condom whenever he wants, "Even a Black French Tickler". His wife comments whistfully "Oh, yes!!", making it clear he never does anything, just "could". At least Apple lets you move the Dock around and hide it, unlike Unity where it is nailed to the lefthand edge of the screen as part of the general imitation of OSX. True you can hack it, or use yet another dialect of Linux, but like all invitations to totally customise or vary your workplace, it just leads to more confusion and lost mobility and productivity.
photohounds 14 July 2011	FUD, nothing more ... as long as you are happy.
amcmo 22 July 2011	I have to chuckle whenever open source fanatics rave about their ability to program or modify whatever they like. Waste hours trying to re-invent the wheel more like it. Fine for the 0.05% of Linux Geeks, however the other 99.95% in the world just want to buy something that works out of the box. Don't give a sh.t if it's by Apple/MS or other - just give me something I can turn on NOW, not fart around for weeks trying to get to work. And as for demanding that Apple/Ms etc should provide free copies of programs for their platform! Reminds me of the Telstra salesperson 'you should buy an Android phone, because it's open source and anyone can write their own program...' I don't want to write a program and I don't want my staff farting around trying to write any either. If I choose to buy a smartphone and obtain programs for it, I want them to work straight up, not contain viruses or trojans - nothing more or less! I want a phone that rings, I push a button and talk to someone, plus connect to WiFi/GSM and get my emails. Don't care if it's closed or open source, just make sure it works and I and my staff don't waste time on it. For my music, I want a program that imports it, displays it in an understandable format and allows cheap enough purchase of new tracks. iTunes does that well on my Win machines (never had any problems... don't know where all the 'bugs' are) and I can copy songs to my N96. All that I need. It allows me to listen to my ripped CD's and purchase new individual tracks from the iTunes store at a reasonable price without wasting trying to find it some few cents cheaper elsewhere and wasting my time(that is worth more than the song in the first place) trying to save the very few cents. Bit like a product one of our divisions manufacture and sell. Had some guy give me an earful about how he can make a reasonable ( 'open source?' #-o??? copy in his home workshop with $10 of alloy and some time with his metalwork machines (which of course everyone has in their garage ](*,) ). Of course he can, if he wants to spend say 7-8 hours at it and end up with something that still looks home made and doesn't have the sexy hard anodised finish ours does. Our product costs $95.00, looks sexy, fits first time, guaranteed... What's his time worth?? Sounds a bit like the 'write/modify my own program' brigade I don't expect Apple to spend time and $$ on providing a version for Linux... there's already a couple of 'clones' that work there. I know one of our staff uses one and claims it works just fine.
rubaiyat 22 July 2011	I shared a house once with a bunch of hacker/programmers, who by the way used anything and everything as far as hardware was concerned yet still loved their Macs to death. I was struck that their DIY attitude did not extend to cooking a healthy meal for themselves or taking the piles of junk food boxes and bottles out, until they couldn't move anymore. Apparently it was much more difficult than taking months/years to write some random software or game. I also remember once shopping for a graphics card in Harvey Norman for a desktop Mac and getting a rude snub from a sales person who said he wouldn't bother with hardware that he "couldn't get the circuit diagram for". What a wanker! Or as we know them in the trade, a real "Black French Tickler".
rubaiyat 22 July 2011	Duplicate glitch. Sorry. Edited by rubaiyat: 22/7/2011 04:01:24 PM
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. 23 July 2011	amcmo wrote: I have to chuckle whenever open source fanatics rave about their ability to program or modify whatever they like. Waste hours trying to re-invent the wheel more like it. I'm no 'fanatic', but I as an Android developer, having the source code at hand is very helpful. It's not about re-inventing the wheel, it's about being able to see an implementation, and improve on it - or just mix it up and create something else entirely. My app wouldn't be as good as it is if I didn't have access to the source.
amcmo 25 July 2011	I'm not commenting about genuine Android developers (many of whom also develop for iOS), just the wannabee's and salespeople who ascribe some magic to the term Open Source (of course a good deal of Apple Safari/iOS code is or is based on Open Source.
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. 25 July 2011	Salesmen always bullshit, that's just what they're trained to do.
amcmo 26 July 2011	Actually ours are trained to tell the truth! If we can't sell our product on an honest description of it's F&B together with our (superior:d ) product support, then we shouldn't be selling it. I had cause to let a salesperson go some years back who, while not bullshitting about our product, spent all his time rubbishing the competition and sailing rather close to the wind on accuracy, rather than selling based on what we brought to the table. It's in our code of conduct, repeated breach of which is out the door. On the subject of open source, our official browser is Firefox, a brilliant example of what can be achieved. I know there's Safari and Chrome, both of which we test sites for compatibility, however Safari has it's quirks and I personally am not too happy about Chrome's default collection of data.