[D4rth]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Hmm...

I wonder why that happened?


Well lets think... What interface did Bill Gates tablet PC use? OH YEAH! A stylus. What OS did it use? Uhhhhhm I think it was a reaaaaaally slow version of windows, poorly optimised aswell. Was it well designed? No it was made out of plastic and had a notoriously terrible battery. Was it useful for ANYTHING? Well no, not really. It didn't serve its purpose as a mobile computer because it couldn't do what a netbook could do.

The iPad? Hmmm, the most advanced multitouch ever seen in the industry thusfar? A specific target niche between phone and laptop? A massive development base for their proprietary OS developing apps specifically for that device?

Hmm, the Microsoft Surface? Well all the GOOD things it takes as 'innovations' are taken directly from the Apple iPad, the only good 'innovation' that the iPad took from the tablet PC was a device with no keyboard and dominated by a screen (It still had buttons for cripes sake). The Surface hasn't really done anything brand new...

Theres an 8 year difference between Microsofts tablet and Apples one released in 2010. Every week your current hardware will be going out of date as new one is released.

Microsoft had the idea in 2002, they just did not have the technology at that time to make it a device that people want. I can assure you if they had the hardware back then the MS Tablet would be as big as the iPad.

"Hmm, the Microsoft Surface? Well all the GOOD things it takes as 'innovations' are taken directly from the Apple iPad" like what? All they've done is make a bigger iPhone, Microsoft have created new technology, pushing the boundries, a 3mm keyboard on a tablet thats crazy.

"The Surface hasn't really done anything brand new..." Microsoft is about research and innovation, they care about the consumer bringing something new, what does apple do? Release a new device every year upgrading it slightly making all the apple fans piss themselves wanting one.

Their products are overpriced and limit to what you can do. The new surface has a proper OS on it for peats sake, you are not limited in what programmes you want to use.

All apple is good at is advertising and making people want to buy their products, if it wasn't for steve jobs creating this massive hype about his products then they wouldn't be as successful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAWCz...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4

[cakefish]

Unlucky Americans.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
Ah, I see, so simply mentioning a word in a magazine counts as marketing, does it? Well I suppose whoever posted this job vacancy in this magazine is the de facto owner of the term 'app' then.

Now you're the one grasping at straws, you and I both know the term 'App' as a shortening for 'Application' does not carry the same meaning as the term 'App' in 'Application'. Furthermore, the posting of a JOB PLACEMENT does not constitute marketing as it is not a PRODUCT to be SOLD.

Why is Apple not suing Amazon, then? What partnerships do they have with them? It's funny that Apple has never successfully sued over someone else using the term 'app' ever, considering that they definitely own it because it was mentioned in passing in a magazine article from the 80s.

Unfortunately I am not the collective embodiment of either Apple's or Amazon's legal departments, so I have no idea. The point I am making is that you are committing quite a gross logical fallacy by stating that 'If they haven't sued' then they 'haven't got the right to sue/they wouldn't win if they did sue'.


Now I'm done playing internet lawyer with you, go read up on trademark law a little if you want to know more.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by danny111)
So why doesn't Samsung just change 1 part of the code and it makes the search different, but still essentially the same?

Changing that '1 part of the code' changes the function of the interface.

However, Like I said about touch screens, I don't know how hardware/software patenting is treated explicitly in law when it comes to tech. I can assume that someone has patented the principle of using pressure to divine a users input and another using resistive technology. Those two are not the same thing.

All I know is you cannot patent abstract concepts, the detail of mechanisms has to be there.

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)

I was mocking your method of argument in posting that link. Do you have any evidence that Apple has trademarked the term 'app'? Or are you, as I suspect, assuming it simply because the earliest mention you can find of the term ascribed to a product happens to be from Apple? Clearly you only learnt today that the term was used before 2007.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
I was mocking your method of argument in posting that link. Do you have any evidence that Apple has trademarked the term 'app'? Or are you, as I suspect, assuming it simply because the earliest mention you can find of the term ascribed to a product happens to be from Apple? Clearly you only learnt today that the term was used before 2007.

Ugh, lets end this with some finality shall we?

(Original post by Apple)
App Store online store

http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

(Under service marks).

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

(Under service marks).

Haha, that certainly does end it with some finality - in my favour!!

First of all, it doesn't claim the word 'app' on its own as a trademark. Secondly, the piece of software referred to in that magazine as Mac App is actually called MacApp - i.e. a completely different word from 'app'. Having a trademark that contains the word app =/= having a trademark on the word app. I'm not denying that they have a trademark on the App Store - of course they do, they invented that term! But it's clear they don't have one on 'app', so there we go, QED, end of story, fin.

[danny111]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Changing that '1 part of the code' changes the function of the interface.

However, Like I said about touch screens, I don't know how hardware/software patenting is treated explicitly in law when it comes to tech. I can assume that someone has patented the principle of using pressure to divine a users input and another using resistive technology. Those two are not the same thing.

All I know is you cannot patent abstract concepts, the detail of mechanisms has to be there.

Now that makes sense.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
Haha, that certainly does end it with some finality - in my favour!!

First of all, it doesn't claim the word 'app' on its own as a trademark. Secondly, the piece of software referred to in that magazine as Mac App is actually called MacApp - i.e. a completely different word from 'app'. Having a trademark that contains the word app =/= having a trademark on the word app. I'm not denying that they have a trademark on the App Store - of course they do, they invented that term! But it's clear they don't have one on 'app', so there we go, QED, end of story, fin.

But this entire debate was sparked by 'App store'?

Thats what these 5 pages are about?

The whole reason I was arguing for Apple and 'App' was for the 'App store'...

My argument for the 'App store' trademark was that 'App' was a term that initially came from Apple to describe software, and hence they had every right to use and trademark it. I should also probably reiterate, an 'App' was a term used by Apple to describe software. It is NOT a product or service or Company name and can therefore not be trademarked.

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
But this entire debate was sparked by 'App store'?

Thats what these 5 pages are about?

The whole reason I was arguing for Apple and 'App' was for the 'App store'...

My argument for the 'App store' trademark was that 'App' was a term that initially came from Apple to describe software, and hence they had every right to use and trademark it. I should also probably reiterate, an 'App' was a term used by Apple to describe software. It is NOT a product or service or Company name and can therefore not be trademarked.

If you say so. Why didn't you point that out when I asked why they weren't suing RIM for calling their app store the BlackBerry App World? You could have said "well it's actually not the term 'app' that I'm arguing Apple owns, it's the term 'App Store' and as RIM aren't violating that trademark, Apple have no need to go after them"?

It seems to me you've realised you're wrong and are - once again - clutching at straws to save some face. I've never once argued that 'App Store' isn't Apple's trademark, but fair enough, we'll leave it at that.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
If you say so. Why didn't you point that out when I asked why they weren't suing RIM for calling their app store the BlackBerry App World? You could have said "well it's actually not the term 'app' that I'm arguing Apple owns, it's the term 'App Store' and as RIM aren't violating that trademark, Apple have no need to go after them"?

It seems to me you've realised you're wrong and are - once again - clutching at straws to save some face. I've never once argued that 'App Store' isn't Apple's trademark, but fair enough, we'll leave it at that.

Check out my arguments with other people, especially '. . .' and you'll understand why. I tend to work on the assumption that when people like yourself join an argument they have read the other's arguments and are carrying on from it.

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Check out my arguments with other people, especially '. . .' and you'll understand why. I tend to work on the assumption that when people like yourself join an argument they have read the other's arguments and are carrying on from it.

I was only arguing against whatever points you made in the post I initially quoted.

If you really were arguing that Apple owns the patent to 'App Store', then why did you look for evidence that they were the first to use one of the words in the term? Surely all you'd need to show them is that page you just showed me and it'd be argument over. It's like arguing that the reason they own the trademark to the term 'MacBook Pro' is because they used the word 'pro' in an article in a magazine from the 1980s.

Anyway, like I said, I've never argued that they don't hold the trademark for 'App Store', so either you're lying to save face, or you really were sorely mistaken. Only you know which one it is, in your heart.

[Zyyz]

(Original post by . . .)
Not really. I would be confident enough in my product to know I do not need to participate in anti competitive practices to beat my competition.

Evidently you aren't very business savvy...

[. . .]

(Original post by Zyyz)
Evidently you aren't very business savvy...

For having enough confidence in my product to know I don't need to participate in such unfair practices.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Yoko Ono)
I was only arguing against whatever points you made in the post I initially quoted.

If you really were arguing that Apple owns the patent to 'App Store', then why did you look for evidence that they were the first to use one of the words in the term? Surely all you'd need to show them is that page you just showed me and it'd be argument over. It's like arguing that the reason they own the trademark to the term 'MacBook Pro' is because they used the word 'pro' in an article in a magazine from the 1980s.

Anyway, like I said, I've never argued that they don't hold the trademark for 'App Store', so either you're lying to save face, or you really were sorely mistaken. Only you know which one it is, in your heart.

Like I said, I assume people to have READ the preceding arguments before jumping in.

We happened to be arguing over the legitimacy of the trademark. His argument basically revolved around 'App store' being a generic term to describe an application store, which it is not.

'App' was something that Apple demonstrably came up with to describe software and it has been colloquially adopted after that. It is theirs to legitimately use as a part of the trademark for their store.

[Zyyz]

(Original post by . . .)
For having enough confidence in my product to know I don't need to participate in such unfair practices.

It's not unfair, If you invented something and you were making a living off it, and someone came along and replicated it illegally and started selling it, your profits were compromised you wouldn't care?

[. . .]

(Original post by Zyyz)
It's not unfair, If you invented something and you were making a living off it, and someone came along and replicated it illegally and started selling it, your profits were compromised you wouldn't care?

Arguments been done. Read the thread.

[Yoko Ono]

(Original post by Ocassus)
'App' was something that Apple demonstrably came up with to describe software and it has been colloquially adopted after that. It is theirs to legitimately use as a part of the trademark for their store.

Please, demonstrate it. As you've said, Atari was using the term earlier than Apple, except it wasn't to describe a particular product. And the earliest time you could find it is for a product that actually ended up being called 'MacApp' rather than 'Mac App'.

Even if they did come up with it (which I'm not convinced they did - who's to say they didn't co-opt it from Atari?), that has no bearing on whether a trademark that contains that word is legitimate or not. Another of their trademarks is 'Snow Leopard'; this is valid on its own, they don't have to go back in time and prove that they were the first people ever to use the word 'leopard' in a technological context. If that's how you think trademark law works then you're mistaken, kiddo.

[SpiggyTopes]

Can't somebody give them what they deserve? A metaphorical kick in the wedding vegetables!

[de_monies]

(Original post by Zyyz)
It's not unfair, If you invented something and you were making a living off it, and someone came along and replicated it illegally and started selling it, your profits were compromised you wouldn't care?

Can I just say that Apple never invented things like the tablet, but wants to sue any one who dares to make a tablet. They were just the first people to patent such a thing