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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.


Uhhh...

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

Try again.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:02:07 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




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

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.


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?




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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

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