Is this a good/right way to use generic interface?

I have a generic interface like:
[code]
public interface Ia<E> {
public void add(E element);
public E get();
}
[/code]

I can implement it like:

1.
[code]
public class A implements Ia {

public void add(Object element) {
}

public Object get() {
return null;
}

}
[/code]

2.
[code]
public class A implements Ia<Object> {

public void add(Object element) {
}

public Object get() {
return null;
}

}
[/code]

3.
[code]
public class A<F> implements Ia<F> {

public void add(Object element) {
}

public F get() {
return null;
}

}
[/code]

4.
[code]
public class A<F> implements Ia<F> {

public void add(F element) {
}

public F get() {
return null;
}

}
[/code]

IMO, all implementations above are valid, but:
* implementation 1 treat generic as old code before generic imported into Java, compiler will give a warning on it, but at least it's clear to most of all
* implementation 2 is weird in fact, it's same with implementation 1, but it will give a shock to user
* implementation 3 use generic interface in a not bad way, but it use Object on one of methods prototype, and I don't think it's better for user either
* implementation 4 use generic interface in a right way

What's your insight?