Amusing is finding another registration of iPad just two weeks ago by a company called “IP Application Development LLC” as well. It looks like Apple will need to oppose that filing as well (unless this curious company registering the mark in several other countries is a front for The White Giant.) So was it sheer hubris that led Apple to release the latest iProduct without concern for trademark law or was it an oversight of counsel that had been partying too often in the valley? Apple actually does have a fine team of attorneys in Cupertino, some of which I have the pleasure of friendship.

This newsworthy item begs me to ask the following question. After tearing my ACL playing football several years ago in Central Park (while making a darn fine interception), I registered the domain iKnee.com. I’m also the proud owner of iKoto.com and iSlime.com (don’t ask, I must have imbibed too much sake when that occurred.) This begs the question as to whether I will need to surrender said domains should Apple come calling as it runs out of words to use for its growing product line?

While we’re in a jocular mood, I was amused to discover that other companies registering iPad as a trademark included a bra manufacturer. It seems that humor has cropped up on all fronts regarding the product, purporting that the iPad can solve a whole host of female problems. Joking aside, from a utilitarian standpoint I’m not sure what the iPad is supposed to do and the void it fills for up to $1,000. Perhaps Apple wants to be the “first in the game” but this is an expensive way to go to accomplish something I cannot identify. It has no USB adapter and it has no camera. It doesn’t feature flash for web browsing and, from my understanding, 3G and WiFi will only be available in upcoming models. There aren’t storage expansion options via SD cards either. Perhaps it buys extra coolness for $500 (plus all the necessary extras.)

Committee chair Ed Markey (D-MA) complained that provider exclusivity and high fees are “stultifying innovation and unquestionably [diminishing] consumer choice.” I’m wondering how a GSM-based iPhone “stultifies” innovation and whether providing Major League Baseball and the National Football League with  anti-trust exemptions doesn’t limit consumer choice to watch different professional sports leagues. In the latter example, there is no alternative. In the former, if you don’t like the iPhone, get a Palm Pre, a Blackberry or any other phone you’d like. If the iPhone cannot be exclusively tied to AT&T, then essentially this is a death knell to all freedom of contract for any manufacturer to obtain a premium to distribute exclusively with one or few outlets. Unless I’m missing something here, why is Congress wasting its time on this investigation. Possible reasons:

1. A few members of Congress are hoping to win public sympathy by providing the iPhone to places where AT&T coverage is not optimal
2. Several members of Congress don’t use AT&T mobile phone service but badly want an iPhone
3. Big players are hoping to use Congress to break AT&T’s exclusive deal with Apple for the iPhone

If you’ve got opinions, I’d enjoy hearing them.