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
  #21  
Old July 9th 11, 07:53 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 1:31 PM, RichA wrote:
On Jul 8, 11:16 am, 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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


Changing subject lines as I've said before, is the last refuge of the
internet scoundrel.


Your response has nothing to do with the accuracy of his comment.

--
Peter
  #22  
Old July 9th 11, 08:02 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 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:39:28 -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.


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.


No, you wrote "apps store" and I corrected it to "app store".
Remember, *you* are the one who wants names to be right and corrected
me when I wrote "Mac" instead of "Apple". Apple does not refer to
their "apps store": http://www.apple.com/mac/app-store/

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


What about them? Apple was trying to retroactively protect a term and
deny another company the use of a similar term. The names you have
listed have already been protected by their owners, and they are not -
as far as I know - trying to enjoin anyone from using a similar name.

American Airlines, Inc. has copyright protection on a number of terms.
http://www.aa.com/i18n/footer/copyright.jsp While many of them
include common words like "American AAdvantage Mileage Funds©", a
competitor would be most probably be enjoined from using "American's
Advantage Mileage Funds" because of the existing protection and the
similarity of the two.

The Container Store® Inc. has registered the trademark of the logo
shown on the page you have linked to, and registered the name "The
Container Store". They have protected themselves.

Look at an Apple page and you will not see a © or ® after the term
"app store". Look at
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html and you see that
Apple does not list "app store". They use the term generically like
"grocery store".

Had Apple registered a trademark logo using the term or copyrighted
the term when they started using it, Amazon would have been SOL.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #23  
Old July 9th 11, 08:05 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 Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:40:48 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

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?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #24  
Old July 9th 11, 08:06 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 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:39:33 -0700, nospam
wrote:

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.


You just make up your answers?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #25  
Old July 9th 11, 08:54 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:

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

Do they actually own the trademark?


yes.


You just make up your answers?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


yes it is. check again. here, i'll help you: it's under service mark,
towards the bottom
  #26  
Old July 9th 11, 08:54 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:

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


Do they actually own the trademark?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


wrong. it's listed as a service mark.
  #27  
Old July 9th 11, 08:54 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:

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.


No, you wrote "apps store" and I corrected it to "app store".


ok, but the point remains, the issue is not 'app' but 'app store',
which was your original (and wrong) argument.

Remember, *you* are the one who wants names to be right and corrected
me when I wrote "Mac" instead of "Apple". Apple does not refer to
their "apps store": http://www.apple.com/mac/app-store/


there's quite a bit of difference in saying 'mac' instead of 'apple'
(two entirely different words), versus adding or omitting the letter
's', which happens to begin the very next word in the term.

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


What about them? Apple was trying to retroactively protect a term and
deny another company the use of a similar term. The names you have
listed have already been protected by their owners, and they are not -
as far as I know - trying to enjoin anyone from using a similar name.


apple filed for a mark in 2008 and it was awarded in 2010.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...on-over-app-st
ore-trademark.ars

Apple filed for a trademark on the term App Store in 2008, and after
an initial rejection and an appeal by Apple, it was approved in early
2010. Microsoft filed an objection in July 2010 on the grounds that
the term was too generic, and later asked the Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board to issue a summary judgment denying Apple's trademark
application.

Apple fired back, noting that App Store is no more generic a term for
a mobile app store than Windows is for a WIMP-based operating system.
Microsoft then complained to the Appeal Board that Apple's response
was set in too small a typeface, requesting the court force Apple to
resubmit its response to Microsoft's objection. That dispute is still
ongoing.

microsoft knows they have weak argument if their response is to
criticize the font size.

American Airlines, Inc. has copyright protection on a number of terms.
http://www.aa.com/i18n/footer/copyright.jsp While many of them
include common words like "American AAdvantage Mileage Funds©", a
competitor would be most probably be enjoined from using "American's
Advantage Mileage Funds" because of the existing protection and the
similarity of the two.


southwest airlines is an american airline, particularly since it does
not have any international routes.

american airlines flies overseas, so they're really not american
airlines, they're international airlines.

The Container Store® Inc. has registered the trademark of the logo
shown on the page you have linked to, and registered the name "The
Container Store". They have protected themselves.


as did apple.

Look at an Apple page and you will not see a © or ® after the term
"app store". Look at
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html and you see that
Apple does not list "app store". They use the term generically like
"grocery store".


check again. they list it.

Had Apple registered a trademark logo using the term or copyrighted
the term when they started using it, Amazon would have been SOL.


they did.

and as i said, the trial is next year. although this is a setback, it
isn't the final word.
  #28  
Old July 9th 11, 09:24 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 15:54 , nospam wrote:
In , tony cooper
wrote:

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

Do they actually own the trademark?

yes.


You just make up your answers?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


yes it is. check again. here, i'll help you: it's under service mark,
towards the bottom


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_mark_symbol

indicates "some legal standing" _preceding_ completed registration that
is in process. If the registration were approved they would more likely
use the ® symbol. (If that didn't come out it was the (R) symbol.)

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

  #29  
Old July 9th 11, 09:34 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 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:54:21 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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

Do they actually own the trademark?

yes.


You just make up your answers?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


yes it is. check again. here, i'll help you: it's under service mark,
towards the bottom


No, that's for "Mac App Store". You can't separate a phrase and say
every word in the phrase is protected. That would allow Apple sole
use of the word "store". The protection is for the full phrase in
advertising a service such as a store that sells apps for Macs.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #30  
Old July 9th 11, 09:35 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 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:54:24 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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

Do they actually own the trademark?

Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


wrong. it's listed as a service mark.


Nope. A different term is service marked.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 




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 03:10 AM.


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.