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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HDR. The horror continues | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | January 8th 10 09:38 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 05:27 AM |