AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple pushing for multi-touch trademark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pushing for multi-touch trademark - Page 2

post #41 of 70
7/7/07 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua OS X View Post

Trademarks do not have to be registered in the US. You can still take someone to court if you did not register a trademark.

remember... there's ® but there's also

Registration of both trademark and copyright do not HAVE to be registered in the USm, that's true.

But, as any lawyer would advise (I've had them advise me soforcefully!), I would strongly advise anyone to go through the registration process as Apple, and all other responsible companies would.

Registration clears up the question of whether it can be trademarked, or copyrighted, and thus, makes the defense of them, if granted, easier.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 70
7/7/07 at 10:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard! Not only has the idea been around for years in several forms, but so has the term "multi-touch" and Apple getting a trademark on that would be stupid! Yes, I hope the application fails in every single country they filed for it. This is something a marketing company would do, not a company that was made by engineers and designers.

Sebastian

You don't understand the concept.

Commonly used words can be trademarked, if they refer to a particular thing. I could, for example (unless someone has already done so), trademark the word "pencil", referring to a device that is thin, and is used as a pointing device. I'm sure you can think of many others.

It's the idea behind the trademark that matters, not that it's been used before. Even if others have been using it for pretty much the same thing, you can often trademark it anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 70
7/8/07 at 1:51am
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #44 of 70
7/8/07 at 1:54am
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #45 of 70
7/8/07 at 11:25am
the lemur and dexter controllers that you can read about at:

http://www.jazzmutant.com

have been using this technology (and referring to it as multi-touch) for a few years.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 70
7/8/07 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

The concept here is portable devices. iPhone is the only portable implementation that I know of that uses multi touch technology even though the technology itself has been worked on for years.

In truth I don't really care that they may be able to legally pull it off because I have no doubt in my mind that they can, I still don't like it.

Sebastian

The truth is that it's only a matter of competitiveness. The actual terms themselves are almost always trivial.

So, if Apple does matter to trademark this, fine. Let others come up with more meaningful, and marketable terms.

This isn't going to prevent others from usinf a technology that accomplishes pretty much the same thing, as a patent would.

If Apple does have some patentable areas for this as well, then that's fine too.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 70
7/8/07 at 11:59am
"Introducing Microsoft's new VelvetGlove™ touch-screen. Smooth as a baby's butt, with graphics..."

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #48 of 70
7/8/07 at 5:40pm
This is why 'Band Aid' have tried so hard to NOT have every single sticking plaster brand called a Band Aid - their trademark becomes a generic English term.

Frankly, Apple haven't got a hope of trademarking 'Multi-Touch'... they could trademark iTouch or Apple Multi-Touch, but not generic common use English words or phrases.
-----------------------------------------
In faecorum semper solum profundum variat!
-----------------------------------------
Reply
-----------------------------------------
In faecorum semper solum profundum variat!
-----------------------------------------
Reply
post #49 of 70
7/8/07 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard View Post

This is why 'Band Aid' have tried so hard to NOT have every single sticking plaster brand called a Band Aid - their trademark becomes a generic English term.

Frankly, Apple haven't got a hope of trademarking 'Multi-Touch'... they could trademark iTouch or Apple Multi-Touch, but not generic common use English words or phrases.

The same thing is true for "Scotch" Tape but it's trademarked anyway.

The reason why "elevator" is in use everywhere, is because the company forgot to trademark it.

But, Xerox didn't.

Anyway, common words or not, they can still be trademarked.

After all, "Apple" is a pretty common word, and the use of it as a trademark, by a large number of companies, doesn't indicate the type of business, or product the companies are producing. It also doesn't hinder the use of it for other purposes.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 70
7/8/07 at 10:42pm
Yes, but they are 'Apple Computers' or 'Apple Inc', not just 'Apple'. Same goes for other companies using the word Apple - 'Apple Studios', 'Apple Music'. It's the combination that's trademarked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The same thing is true for "Scotch" Tape but it's trademarked anyway.

The reason why "elevator" is in use everywhere, is because the company forgot to trademark it.

But, Xerox didn't.

Anyway, common words or not, they can still be trademarked.

After all, "Apple" is a pretty common word, and the use of it as a trademark, by a large number of companies, doesn't indicate the type of business, or product the companies are producing. It also doesn't hinder the use of it for other purposes.
-----------------------------------------
In faecorum semper solum profundum variat!
-----------------------------------------
Reply
-----------------------------------------
In faecorum semper solum profundum variat!
-----------------------------------------
Reply
post #51 of 70
7/9/07 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard View Post

Yes, but they are 'Apple Computers' or 'Apple Inc', not just 'Apple'. Same goes for other companies using the word Apple - 'Apple Studios', 'Apple Music'. It's the combination that's trademarked.

The "Inc.", "Co.", "Limited", "Partners", etc, are all required by law. They aren't part of the copyright, per se.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 70
7/9/07 at 6:38am
To go along with this conversation, I just read in today's paper that there is a guy here in New Jersey with the name Keith Urban. He is some kind of artist and for years has had the website Keithurban.com. The singer (and husband to Nicole Kidman) has filed a lawsuit to take the website away from this guy.
The newspaper (the Newark Star-Ledger) said that the singer claims that his name is his trademark.

Interesting. Apple's case seems to be rather mild in comparison.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #53 of 70
7/9/07 at 7:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard View Post

This is why 'Band Aid' have tried so hard to NOT have every single sticking plaster brand called a Band Aid - their trademark becomes a generic English term.
.

Actually "Band Aid" is not a generic English term, it's a generic American term. The English term would be "plaster".

Also in English, people don't use "elevators", they use "lifts" they don't "Xerox" anything, they "photocopy" things and we actually call Scotch tape (and most other brands of sticky tape) "Scellotape".

Just thought I'd clear that up!
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 70
7/9/07 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

Also in English, people don't use "elevators", they use "lifts" they don't "Xerox" anything, they "photocopy" things and we actually call Scotch tape (and most other brands of sticky tape) "Scellotape".

Probably the BBC's fault and in particular Blue Peter although I do wish they'd stop calling iPods 'MP4 Players'.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 70
7/9/07 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

Actually "Band Aid" is not a generic English term, it's a generic American term. The English term would be "plaster".

Also in English, people don't use "elevators", they use "lifts" they don't "Xerox" anything, they "photocopy" things and we actually call Scotch tape (and most other brands of sticky tape) "Scellotape".

Just thought I'd clear that up!

You don't mean "in English". You mean, "in England". Quite a bit of difference, for the far smaller population.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 70
7/9/07 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You don't mean "in English". You mean, "in England". Quite a bit of difference, for the far smaller population.

No, he's right. In England there are many languages spoken, some native, some imported but there's only one English.

In English, we don't use those words in the context they're used in American English. Whatever you foreigners choose to add to English is your own affair and your own foreign branch of the language but English is English. Or would you want us to call English 'English English' now?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 70
7/9/07 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You don't understand the concept.

Commonly used words can be trademarked, if they refer to a particular thing. I could, for example (unless someone has already done so), trademark the word "pencil", referring to a device that is thin, and is used as a pointing device. I'm sure you can think of many others.

It's the idea behind the trademark that matters, not that it's been used before. Even if others have been using it for pretty much the same thing, you can often trademark it anyway.

I think he understands the concept completely. The terms "multi touch" have been used for a long time, for exactly this type of technology. This isn't like taking a stylus-like pointing device and trademarking the name "Pencil" for it; it's like taking an actual pencil, and trademarking the name "Pencil" for it ... even though other people have been calling them pencils for years. Then what? They'll sue all the other companies who have been making pencils?
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 70
7/9/07 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

No, he's right. In England there are many languages spoken, some native, some imported but there's only one English.

In English, we don't use those words in the context they're used in American English. Whatever you foreigners choose to add to English is your own affair and your own foreign branch of the language but English is English. Or would you want us to call English 'English English' now?

Well, then what you both mean is England's English.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 70
7/9/07 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

I think he understands the concept completely. The terms "multi touch" have been used for a long time, for exactly this type of technology. This isn't like taking a stylus-like pointing device and trademarking the name "Pencil" for it; it's like taking an actual pencil, and trademarking the name "Pencil" for it ... even though other people have been calling them pencils for years. Then what? They'll sue all the other companies who have been making pencils?

I meant that he doesn't understand the concept of tradmarking, not that he doeasn't understand the concept behind multitouch.

The concept (for both of you) is that unless others have already tradmarked it, whether or not it has already been used for the concept, but is not a household word, then it can often still be trademarked.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 70
7/9/07 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, then what you both mean is England's English.

Which happens to be English, American English is identified as different in many respects. England's English as you put it is NOT spoken by the smaller population.. Proper English is spoken in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and every other European country that speaks English as a second language.

American English (which even has a separate dictionary) is not.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 70
7/9/07 at 7:21pm
It used to be called the Queen's English.

But that would probably be french.

Non?
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 70
7/10/07 at 12:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TednDi View Post

It used to be called the Queen's English.

But that would probably be french.

Non?

French? The current line of English Royalty is mostly German.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 70
7/10/07 at 12:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

Which happens to be English, American English is identified as different in many respects. England's English as you put it is NOT spoken by the smaller population.. Proper English is spoken in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and every other European country that speaks English as a second language.

American English (which even has a separate dictionary) is not.

Uh, the only point I was making was that over there, in England, the words may be different.

I neither know, or care for the point of my earlier post.

Here, in North America, those are the words used, even in most of Canada. At least in the times I've been there.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 70
7/10/07 at 12:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

Which happens to be English, American English is identified as different in many respects. England's English as you put it is NOT spoken by the smaller population.. Proper English is spoken in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and every other European country that speaks English as a second language.

American English (which even has a separate dictionary) is not.

That's not really true. In almost every country where English is taught as a second language, such as China, and Russia, Brazil, etc, it's American English that's taught.

In former Colonial countries, and Commonwealth countries, it's different. Though Canadian English has moved much more to the American, because of the proximity.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 70
7/10/07 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

Actually "Band Aid" is not a generic English term, it's a generic American term. The English term would be "plaster".

Also in English, people don't use "elevators", they use "lifts" they don't "Xerox" anything, they "photocopy" things and we actually call Scotch tape (and most other brands of sticky tape) "Scellotape".

Just thought I'd clear that up!

Just another thought... both the English English and the non-tea drinking / tax paying English versions are sort of incorrect. Elevating and lifting are really only half of the function of elevators / lifts. Wouldn't it also be appropriate to call them descenders and lowers?
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 70
7/11/07 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's not really true. In almost every country where English is taught as a second language, such as China, and Russia, Brazil, etc, it's American English that's taught.

Not true at all. I have Russian and Chinese friends who were both taught real English throughout their education. I can't vouch for Brazil.

Brazil and perhaps one of two other exceptions does not constitute almost every country where English is taught. English is taught in all European countries as a second language. In fact, BBC English is even taught in many. That's just about as 'proper' as it gets.

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into what it has become, I was originally just making a light hearted comment / dig at the differences between American and English.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 70
7/11/07 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsvisser View Post

Just another thought... both the English English and the non-tea drinking / tax paying English versions are sort of incorrect. Elevating and lifting are really only half of the function of elevators / lifts. Wouldn't it also be appropriate to call them descenders and lowers?

Reply
Reply
post #68 of 70
7/11/07 at 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post

Not true at all. I have Russian and Chinese friends who were both taught real English throughout their education. I can't vouch for Brazil.

Brazil and perhaps one of two other exceptions does not constitute almost every country where English is taught. English is taught in all European countries as a second language. In fact, BBC English is even taught in many. That's just about as 'proper' as it gets.

Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into what it has become, I was originally just making a light hearted comment / dig at the differences between American and English.

Well, I also have friends in that position who are here now from China, and I know a lot of Russians who live in my area. I have to disagree.

There is no such thing as "real English". There is British English, and American English. They are both "real".

The French are attempting to keep their language "real". Thankfully, neither the British or Americans are stupid enough to try that.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 70
7/12/07 at 9:06am
Removed reply so the thread does not drift any further off topic.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 70
1/19/08 at 10:31pm
there is nothing wrong with them trademarking it. apple are doing what is best for their company, and understandably dont want all manner of people popping up with competing 'multi-touch' products. theres no harm in trying, even if it gets rejected. people shouldnt be so quick to criticise such an excellent and successful company. apples shares have shot up, admittedly since they have been under the leadership of steve jobs. their tactic is pretty much trying to entirely annihilate the competitions chances, and rightfully so. they make excellent products, and the thing many criticis fail to do is provide a FAIR comparison, most of the time any comparison at all. they do marvellously well with their products, and, really, any comnpany has flaws, but ive never seen people jump at a company for any small imperfection more than at apple.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple pushing for multi-touch trademark