A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th 11, 03:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Allen[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 649
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 7/8/2011 4:04 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:02:07 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 7/8/11 11:01 AM, in article ,
"tony 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.


Uhhh...

"Kleenex", "Scotch Tape" are just a couple that come to mind.

Are you saying that "Kleenex" and "Scotch Tape" had been used by
companies other than the makers of these two products before the
makers trademarked the terms?




I would be willing to bet that both Kleenex and Scotch Tape were
trademarked immediately. After all, they both came along after the
famous "Aspirin" tm case in which the courts ruled that Bayer lost
rights to the name by trying to TM it well after other companies were
selling the same product with the same name. How many of you have seen
tissues not made by KC labeled as Kleenex or transparent adhesive tape
not made by 3M named Scotch?
Allen
  #12  
Old July 9th 11, 04:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:56:39 -0500, Allen
wrote:

On 7/8/2011 4:04 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:02:07 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 7/8/11 11:01 AM, in article ,
"tony 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.


Uhhh...

"Kleenex", "Scotch Tape" are just a couple that come to mind.

Are you saying that "Kleenex" and "Scotch Tape" had been used by
companies other than the makers of these two products before the
makers trademarked the terms?




I would be willing to bet that both Kleenex and Scotch Tape were
trademarked immediately. After all, they both came along after the
famous "Aspirin" tm case in which the courts ruled that Bayer lost
rights to the name by trying to TM it well after other companies were
selling the same product with the same name. How many of you have seen
tissues not made by KC labeled as Kleenex or transparent adhesive tape
not made by 3M named Scotch?


That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.

Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
that didn't work.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #13  
Old July 9th 11, 05:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.


wrong horse.

the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
that didn't work.


since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,
and they only lost an injunction so far. it's not over yet. the actual
trial is scheduled for 2012.
  #14  
Old July 9th 11, 01:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,748
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:15:12 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.


wrong horse.

the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.


Wrong, Apple wanted to protect "app store" and argued that "Appstore"
was too close. Apple's "app store" is like "grocery store", and not a
famous, renowned, or prominent term. That was the judge's opinion,
anyway.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #15  
Old July 9th 11, 03:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Neil Harrington[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 674
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

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.


Oh, come on. The term "app" has been common slang for "application" for as
long as I can remember. I have never associated it with "Apple Computer" and
I doubt many others have either.

Apple's claim that the term "app store" would "confuse and mislead
customers" is just ridiculous. The very small minority who might think it
had something to do with Apple Computer would realize it didn't as soon as
they visited it, wouldn't they?


  #16  
Old July 9th 11, 03:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 2011-07-09 10:27 , Neil Harrington wrote:
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.


Oh, come on. The term "app" has been common slang for "application" for as
long as I can remember. I have never associated it with "Apple Computer" and
I doubt many others have either.

Apple's claim that the term "app store" would "confuse and mislead
customers" is just ridiculous. The very small minority who might think it
had something to do with Apple Computer would realize it didn't as soon as
they visited it, wouldn't they?


Agreed and A-greed for Apple.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
  #17  
Old July 9th 11, 03:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Neil Harrington[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 674
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

nospam wrote:
In article , tony cooper
wrote:

That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.


wrong horse.

the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.


But what would an apps store be, other than a store that sells apps?

Not being an Apple user *or* being aware of Amazon's use of the term before
reading these posts, that's all I would take the term to mean if I had seen
it.


Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
that didn't work.


since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,


Do they actually own the trademark?

and they only lost an injunction so far. it's not over yet. the actual
trial is scheduled for 2012.



  #18  
Old July 9th 11, 03:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

On 7/9/2011 12:15 AM, nospam wrote:
In , tony cooper
wrote:

That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.


wrong horse.

the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
that didn't work.


since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,
and they only lost an injunction so far. it's not over yet. the actual
trial is scheduled for 2012.



You remind me of the baseball fan whose team is losing by 8 runs, with
two out in the last of the ninth, who is still rooting for his team to win.

In IP cases the decision to grant an injunctions is based largely upon
likelihood of success and weighing of potential harm. (Yes there are
other factors) In this case the court found little likelihood of success.

--
Peter
  #19  
Old July 9th 11, 06:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.


wrong horse.

the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.


Wrong, Apple wanted to protect "app store" and argued that "Appstore"
was too close.


do you just like to argue? that's exactly what i said. the issue is
about 'apps store' and not 'apps', so not wrong at all.

Apple's "app store" is like "grocery store", and not a
famous, renowned, or prominent term. That was the judge's opinion,
anyway.


then what about 'the container store' ?
http://www.containerstore.com/welcome.htm

and what about these?

staples
windows
office
general motors
american airlines
  #20  
Old July 9th 11, 06:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,


Do they actually own the trademark?


yes.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HDR. The horror continues Chris Malcolm[_2_] Digital Photography 1 January 8th 10 10:38 AM
Anti-digital backlash continues ... Bill Hilton Medium Format Photography Equipment 284 July 5th 04 05:40 PM
Digital rants - got to end. ColdCanuck Medium Format Photography Equipment 1 January 30th 04 06:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.