|
|
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said:
What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said: What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational. However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball. They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been widely adopted by others. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2011070808163270933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said: What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. -- Regards, Savageduck We could go surreal here. If the "app" of Appstore referred to Apple, the company, maybe some confusion, but the diminutive "app" is for "application" so what's the problem? Stelios created his "easy" group - easyJet, easyCar, easyHotel, easyBus, easyVan, easyOffice, easyCinemay, easyHolidays, easyAir, easyFlights, easyBags, easyGym - to protect his business. Apple came along after the Beatles set up Apple records and got themselves an expensive law suit by claiming "ownership" of the word "Apple". Here in the UK, the word "Hoover" (amongst words) has become generic and also a verb. No one here (including Hoover, the company) believes the phrase "hoovering" or "hoovering-up" means anything other than using a vacuum cleaner; manufacturer-independent/unspecified. Urban myth is that Hoover were delighted to become synonymous with vacuum cleaners - got their name out there. |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 2011-07-08 09:01:50 -0700, tony cooper said:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said: What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational. However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball. They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been widely adopted by others. Apple's issue was Amazon (not exactly an example of the most benign business operator, but one I have no problem using) creating an outlet for Android Marketplace and calling it "Appstore", when Apple had been using "App Store" for over three years before Jeff Bezos created his. At the time Apple started using "App Store" it was unique to them. Apple has had its share of stepping on other developers and businesses, but not to the extent that it has been copied and followed as it continues to be an innovative force. All they are trying to do is protect some of that innovation. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 7/8/2011 12:01 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, said: What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational. However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball. They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been widely adopted by others. True. But, attempted claims of a exclusive right to use as a service mark, a term that's in the public domain are not unique to any business entity. e.g. Levi Strauss has a claim of exclusivity to use of an upside down chevron in connection with bluejeans. Even the term "Apple" is not unique, except in connection with computers. I think the Duck's point was directed at RichA's rants. -- Peter |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
In article , tony cooper
wrote: However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball. They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been widely adopted by others. what others had an 'app store' prior to 2008? |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 2011-07-08 09:21:04 -0700, "Keith" said:
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2011070808163270933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA said: What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. -- Regards, Savageduck We could go surreal here. If the "app" of Appstore referred to Apple, the company, maybe some confusion, but the diminutive "app" is for "application" so what's the problem? Stelios created his "easy" group - easyJet, easyCar, easyHotel, easyBus, easyVan, easyOffice, easyCinemay, easyHolidays, easyAir, easyFlights, easyBags, easyGym - to protect his business. Apple came along after the Beatles set up Apple records and got themselves an expensive law suit by claiming "ownership" of the word "Apple". Here in the UK, the word "Hoover" (amongst words) has become generic and also a verb. No one here (including Hoover, the company) believes the phrase "hoovering" or "hoovering-up" means anything other than using a vacuum cleaner; manufacturer-independent/unspecified. Urban myth is that Hoover were delighted to become synonymous with vacuum cleaners - got their name out there. To quote Robert Ardrey; "Territorial imperative is everything." The same applies to business "territories" however they might be represented. He also adds this; "If life is to go on, then there must be those moments in the history of animate beings when nature will brush aside the most perfect of conditionings, as it will brush aside the most imperfect of philosophies, to put older, more trusted mechanisms to work. Towers of reason, of impeccable design, will topple in a dusty instant. The waters of our most genuine idealism and of our highest moral purposes, which have made green our fields of longing and made seemingly real our gentlest hopes, will be dimly recollected tomorrow as a mirage upon the desert. The intruder will have knocked. The territorial imperative is as blind as a cave fish, as consuming as a furnace, and it commands beyond logic, opposes all reason, suborns all moralities, strives for no goal more sublime than survival." -- Regards, Savageduck |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
On 2011-07-08 09:46:26 -0700, PeterN said:
On 7/8/2011 12:01 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, said: What will this company do next, ........ All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following their lead. Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational. I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational. However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball. They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been widely adopted by others. True. But, attempted claims of a exclusive right to use as a service mark, a term that's in the public domain are not unique to any business entity. e.g. Levi Strauss has a claim of exclusivity to use of an upside down chevron in connection with bluejeans. Even the term "Apple" is not unique, except in connection with computers. I think the Duck's point was directed at RichA's rants. Yup! Make that RichA's OT ant-apple rants. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com