Microsoft complains font is too small on Apple "App Store" trademark brief

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 71
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    If MS thinks that it can trademark "Windows", then Apple can trademark "App Store".




    I think the Judge should give this point to Microsoft, then we can watch the Microsoft App Store drown into oblivion... Arguing about it just makes publicity for Windows Phoney...
  • Reply 42 of 71
    charelcharel Posts: 93member
    If Apple had applied for a trademark of ? Application store? Microsoft would have stood a chance. ?App store? is a different story altogether.

    Microsoft deserves to loose and be forced to pay Apple?s legal costs.
  • Reply 43 of 71
    dotnskdotnsk Posts: 2member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Just the idea of a required font size and number of pages for legal briefs is a comic concept. I wonder, do they also have one for font style, leading and tracking, margins, headers and footers?



    IANAL, but I am a law student, and the rules of filing paperwork vary with the court in which you're filing. Margins, spacing, font size, typeface, page numbers, page limits....these all matter. Some courts will just blanket reject things you file that don't conform to their requirements. It seems silly that Microsoft is contesting this, but it's likely valid (again, depending on the court in which the parties are filing the briefs).



    I'm actually surprised to hear that Apple's legal team would file something that's six pages longer than the limit and potentially has a smaller font than what's allowed. I haven't read the briefs in this case, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation in which Apple would need more than 25 pages to explain their position, especially if the court has a VERY generous minimum font allowance of 11pt font. Some of the courts in my jurisdiction require 14pt font, which is annoyingly large.
  • Reply 44 of 71
    gary54gary54 Posts: 169member
    Don't these people have anything better to do with their time?
  • Reply 45 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dotnsk View Post


    IANAL, but I am a law student, and the rules of filing paperwork vary with the court in which you're filing. Margins, spacing, font size, typeface, page numbers, page limits....these all matter. Some courts will just blanket reject things you file that don't conform to their requirements. It seems silly that Microsoft is contesting this, but it's likely valid (again, depending on the court in which the parties are filing the briefs).



    I'm actually surprised to hear that Apple's legal team would file something that's six pages longer than the limit and potentially has a smaller font than what's allowed. I haven't read the briefs in this case, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation in which Apple would need more than 25 pages to explain their position, especially if the court has a VERY generous minimum font allowance of 11pt font. Some of the courts in my jurisdiction require 14pt font, which is annoyingly large.



    There is a standard Blue Book format but most courts do not require strict adherence to it or have their own local rules with minor variations. Format requirements become more strict at the appellate level... one reason being a standard strict format prevents a side from distorting information visually in much the same way that say.. voting pamphlets are prone to do.



    That being said, in bench hearings especially where the judge is presiding over a case in its first instance, unless its a gross departure from the norm conventions such as page limit and font size can be waived. Moreover, in a full brief the captions, summaries, fact recitation, and points and authorities can account for quite a number of pages before getting to the real crux of the legal analysis and argument.



    This kind of knit-picking by MS lawyers though is a pretty useless move... it essentially signals the opposing counsel that no leeway should be given in the future with respect to continuance of deadlines and any number of even more petty legal minutia. Anyone making that move better be prepared to deliver timely and flawless legal representation at every stage of the litigation. And not to say the least... violation of local format rules is often an issue for the Judge (i.e. their judicial clerk) to point out. I.e. it's waivable at the court's discretion and hardly a strict compliance issue.
  • Reply 46 of 71
    tipttipt Posts: 36member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dotnsk View Post


    IANAL, but I am a law student, and the rules of filing paperwork vary with the court in which you're filing. Margins, spacing, font size, typeface, page numbers, page limits....these all matter. Some courts will just blanket reject things you file that don't conform to their requirements. It seems silly that Microsoft is contesting this, but it's likely valid (again, depending on the court in which the parties are filing the briefs).



    I'm actually surprised to hear that Apple's legal team would file something that's six pages longer than the limit and potentially has a smaller font than what's allowed. I haven't read the briefs in this case, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation in which Apple would need more than 25 pages to explain their position, especially if the court has a VERY generous minimum font allowance of 11pt font. Some of the courts in my jurisdiction require 14pt font, which is annoyingly large.



    Being a lawyer, tables of contents and table of authorities are quite common. They do not count towards the page limit. So Apple should be fine. I also checked the font by converting the court doc to Word and it appears to be Times New Roman at 11 point font. Most people do not file such complaints, at least in my years of working and I've seen a whole lot worse.
  • Reply 47 of 71
    fibfib Posts: 1member
    Did Google register Goggles ?
  • Reply 48 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dualie View Post


    I definitely think Microsoft has a point. And if Apple didn't follow the rules in its brief then it really should know better than to try and pull a fast one.



    Seeing as it's not the court that took issue with formatting and length of the (not so) brief, but Microsoft's lawyers, my guess is that Apple's legal team did it intentionally, as a kind of "f*ck you" to Microsoft's team.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post


    Apple's brief was not very brief.



    LOLz.



    I've noticed also, that "apps" didn't exist until Steve started talking about iPhone apps and the "App Store" when it was originally introduced. Now, it seems, "applications" no longer exist. Everyone is instead talking about "apps". But even so, the armchair lawyer in me thinks that Apple should be allowed to keep the "App Store" trademark, 1) Because Apple first introduced the "App Store" several years ago, and 2) If Microsoft can trademark "Windows", then Apple should be allowed to trademark "App Store".

    Then again, it's silly that Microsoft was allowed to trademark "Windows" in the first place. But, because they did, it's legally consistent that Apple be allowed to keep "App Store". I think it'll be tough for Microsoft to win this case.
  • Reply 49 of 71
    They're arguing on what seems to be a 'technicallity': that means they have no real argument and are desperate?



    Next, they'll complain that the text wasn't in Arial
  • Reply 50 of 71
    So, now it's official!



    Microsoft is really Psystar in disguise!
  • Reply 51 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post


    Don't these people have anything better to do with their time?



    As if picking pockets hasn't kept them busy enough for the past 25 years.
  • Reply 52 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post


    That was my thought exactly - resubmit it in an ultra light condensed font with custom kerning tables to suck out all but the tiniest space out and reduce the leading to 0 between lines and 1 at paragraphs! Or submit the entire thing in the old Cairo font!



    Comic Sans in pretty rainbow colors!!
  • Reply 53 of 71
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post


    It does smack of pettiness somehow though.



    Not really. Microsoft have pumped a stupid amount of money into branding their "Web Apps", that is, the lightweight web version of existing full features programs.



    If the term "App Store" is deemed to not be generic, and to be the property of Apple, the Apple will be able to cause a certain amount of pain for Microsoft wherever they refer to "Apps" (specifically their "Web Apps" branding)



    It's not like Microsoft want to create the "Windows App Store" or to prevent Apple from using the term "App Store", they are just protecting their own "Web Apps" branding.



    I'm surprised that Google haven't complained. If Apple owns the term "App" then Google's "Google Apps" branding will be well and truly eff'ed up.
  • Reply 54 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fib View Post


    Did Google register Goggles ?



    Yes, you must now call them eye-cover-thingies, unless you're cool with giving Google your first and second born children.
  • Reply 55 of 71
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    Steve Jopbs has publicly referred to other application marketplaces using the term "app store." That is a pretty compelling argument that even Jobs himself views the term as generic and I think that will be a VERY difficult hurdle for Apple's lawyers to overcome.
  • Reply 56 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Apparently, the US Senate is working on changes to patent law. Maybe things will get better.



    With all due respect quinney...



    The US Senate might makes things better? Really? I guess there's a first for everything...



    <-- Insert the sounds of crickets chirping here -->
  • Reply 57 of 71
    And Mr. Bill Gates is a philanthropist? Yeah, ok.



    http://www.nlcnet.org/reports?id=0034#daylife





  • Reply 58 of 71
    cimcim Posts: 197member
    Microsoft is a crotchety old man.
  • Reply 59 of 71
    ajrajr Posts: 12member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post


    Quite right. For that matter, the first Supermarket probably should have trademarked that term. All the other big markets would have had to call themselves 'big markets', and would have always sounded a notch below.



    Trademarks, even where unique to the user at the time of creation, can become generic over time. Aspirin, for instance, used to be trademarked by Bayer and only Bayer could sell Aspirin brand acetylsalicylic acid. Over the years, however, Bayer was lax in protecting the mark and the term become widely used among the populace for all acetylsalicylic acid painkillers. Eventually Bayer lost the mark. Now everyone can sell their product as Aspirin. Xerox faces the same problem today, as does BandAid, Lycra, and many others, and you can bet these companies spend a lot of money every year to make clear that there marks represent only their products.



    Apple, on the other hand, has done everything they can to rebrand "applications" as "apps" and other companies have followed suit. If this does go to trial and unless Apple can put forth lots of evidence that they have gone to lengths to distinguish their "App Store" brand from other online application download stores, they will probably lose this battle.



    So, long story short, even had someone trademarked "Supermarket" all those years ago, they probably would've lost it by now.
  • Reply 60 of 71
    I can't believe there is even any debate about this. Apple does not have the right to trademark the name "App Store." The word "app" has been around for decades. It is a generic noun. Look it up in the dictionary. And combining it with the word "Store" to name a store where they sell apps is not unique or novel. They should have no exclusive right to that term as a name for their app store.



    Apple's move is akin to trying to trademark the term "Shoe Store." And despite some of the earlier claims in this thread, you cannot trademark something like "Shoe Store" even if you open the first one. Now if you, for example, decided to open a restaurant called "Shoe Store," than you probably could make a case that you deserve the exclusive right to the name "Shoe Store" when it comes to restaurant names, assuming no one else has been using that name for their restaurant. Trademark law is all about context.



    Comparing this to the "Windows' trademark demonstrates a lack of understanding for what makes a trademark a trademark. Yes, the word "windows" has been around a very long time and it is a generic term when used in its traditional sense, but using it as the name of an operating system was unique and novel. And so Microsoft rightfully earned the exclusive right to call their operating systems by that name. Just like McDonalds has earned the exclusive right to call its restaurants "McDonalds," despite the generations of people who went by that name for centuries before McDonalds the restaurant came to be.
Sign In or Register to comment.