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.
You write like one of the paid hack young attorneys Microsoft paid in droves during their Anti-Trust case. I knew a few of them. They got $35/hour to read emails.
I stop reading after the first paragraph. And laugh hysterically. Out loud. Font size, WTF?
Joke? Desperate? Too much money? Seriously....
There are standards for legal briefs. If you look at most legal briefs and contracts, they're still generally printed in 12pt Courier (monospaced) font, a holdover from the days of typewriters, even though readability experts will tell you that variable spaced fonts are easier to read (although maybe that's the point - they're not really meant to be read.) Pre-printed forms are an exception - if you go to the store and buy a Blumberg's form, those are generally in a tiny serif font. I just looked at one (State of New York Bill of Sale) and it's in a large, italicized (!), serif font. (It looks awful.)
When I was the guy in charge of forms analysis and design at a big Wall Street firm, we had to contend with New York law that specified that contracts had to be 8 points minimum, and "clear and readable". I used Pagemaker to compose these contracts, and used Helvetica Concensed Light, 8.4 or 8.5 point, and fudged on line and paragraph spacing.I could handle Apple's 11 pt requirement in my sleep.
If MS thinks that it can trademark "Windows", then Apple can trademark "App Store".:
except microsoft HAS trademarked windows, because nobody strong enough prevented them.
apple have to find a convincing reason why they should be alloowed to call it "app store" with somebody who has suitably deep pockets to play that game
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?
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!
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!
Exactly. I wonder, has nobody heard of the concept of word counts?
They have no shame! Can't they think of something original ever? How about Crapp store? Oh that't taken by Google.....
I know how Apple can get out of this! Think of another cool name for it and give it to them as a gift. Obviously creativity is not in their vocabulary!!!!!
In the motion, Microsoft asked for Apple's response brief to be stricken and for the Cupertino, Calif., company to refile a brief "that complies with the rules and does not add any new matter or arguments."
So if MS couldn't read the brief because the font size was too small, how are they going to determine if "new matter or arguments" have been added?
I think MS is grabbing at legal straws here in an attempt to cover their won ass with some extra time. I'd like the judge to just tell them to either put on reading glasses like the rest of us or go run it through a copy machine set to enlarge to 125% so they can read it.
Next they're going to complain because the font isn't Microsoft Truetype Helvetica. I dare Apple to file the brief using Comic Sans!
I'm just talking abut common sense, Dr. Peabrain. 'First use' doesn't matter if the term is too generic to be trademarked.
I don't want to get in the middle of this except to note that "window" is a pretty generic term dating back hundreds of years. Xerox PARC, then later Apple used that term in the new GUIs being developed. MS had the chutzpah to copyright it. See the Lindows case if you really want to see legal puffery blown by MS' lawyers.
McDonald's has ddone the same thing "protecting" their trademarked name, going after all sorts of mom and pop grills and coffee shops that are named "McDonald's" or "MacDonald's", even if that is the true name of the owner. If your name is McDonald, you simply can't open a grill called McDonald's.
You write like one of the paid hack young attorneys Microsoft paid in droves during their Anti-Trust case. I knew a few of them. They got $35/hour to read emails.
Every young, fit office worker in SF knows that a dualie is way cooler than a regular road bike. Stopping can be tough but if a lawyer is riding one, he/she can sue whatever it is that gets in the way. (Kinda fits the whole MS ethos.)
Hmm, I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, an "app" is a program. It wasn't a layman term until the past 2-3 years though. I would venture that only programmers would know it as such before recently. 4 years ago, if someone said they had an app, I'd say, "College app? Job app?..."
American Apparel owns a trademark on its name, even though it just means "American clothes". They can't prevent people from saying, "I like American apparel better than French apparel". But if someone started a clothing company called "American apparel", you'd bet they'd have a case.
If I were the judge, I'd allow MS and other companies to use the term "app store" generically. Like "our app store is better than Apple's." But I would not allow them to use it as the title of their store, e.g. "Microsoft App Store".
The trick is to start a computer company, but call it American Apparel. Different industry entirely.
I hope the USPTOTTAB (ouch, what an acronym) refuses their application for not complying with their Application Guidelines (uh, I meant their brief for not complying with their trademark briefs guidelines, of course )...
Comments
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.
You write like one of the paid hack young attorneys Microsoft paid in droves during their Anti-Trust case. I knew a few of them. They got $35/hour to read emails.
I stop reading after the first paragraph. And laugh hysterically. Out loud. Font size, WTF?
Joke? Desperate? Too much money? Seriously....
There are standards for legal briefs. If you look at most legal briefs and contracts, they're still generally printed in 12pt Courier (monospaced) font, a holdover from the days of typewriters, even though readability experts will tell you that variable spaced fonts are easier to read (although maybe that's the point - they're not really meant to be read.) Pre-printed forms are an exception - if you go to the store and buy a Blumberg's form, those are generally in a tiny serif font. I just looked at one (State of New York Bill of Sale) and it's in a large, italicized (!), serif font. (It looks awful.)
Apple's brief was not very brief.
You're right. And ABBREVIATED is too long a word. It should set an example.
If MS thinks that it can trademark "Windows", then Apple can trademark "App Store".:
except microsoft HAS trademarked windows, because nobody strong enough prevented them.
apple have to find a convincing reason why they should be alloowed to call it "app store" with somebody who has suitably deep pockets to play that game
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?
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!
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!
Exactly. I wonder, has nobody heard of the concept of word counts?
And get it rejected yet again?
On what basis?
I know how Apple can get out of this! Think of another cool name for it and give it to them as a gift. Obviously creativity is not in their vocabulary!!!!!
You can't trademark the name "Grocery Store" or "Department Store."
You shouldn't be able to trademark the name "App store."
Your analogy is totally incorrect.
'App' Store would be similar to 'Gro Store' or 'Dep Store.'
In the motion, Microsoft asked for Apple's response brief to be stricken and for the Cupertino, Calif., company to refile a brief "that complies with the rules and does not add any new matter or arguments."
So if MS couldn't read the brief because the font size was too small, how are they going to determine if "new matter or arguments" have been added?
I think MS is grabbing at legal straws here in an attempt to cover their won ass with some extra time. I'd like the judge to just tell them to either put on reading glasses like the rest of us or go run it through a copy machine set to enlarge to 125% so they can read it.
Next they're going to complain because the font isn't Microsoft Truetype Helvetica. I dare Apple to file the brief using Comic Sans!
I stop reading after the first paragraph. And laugh hysterically. Out loud. Font size, WTF?
Joke? Desperate? Too much money? Seriously....
I assume they have a digital version and I guess they haven't heard or resizing fonts at Microsoft! Unbelievable in 2011 isn't it?
I'm just talking abut common sense, Dr. Peabrain. 'First use' doesn't matter if the term is too generic to be trademarked.
I don't want to get in the middle of this except to note that "window" is a pretty generic term dating back hundreds of years. Xerox PARC, then later Apple used that term in the new GUIs being developed. MS had the chutzpah to copyright it. See the Lindows case if you really want to see legal puffery blown by MS' lawyers.
McDonald's has ddone the same thing "protecting" their trademarked name, going after all sorts of mom and pop grills and coffee shops that are named "McDonald's" or "MacDonald's", even if that is the true name of the owner. If your name is McDonald, you simply can't open a grill called McDonald's.
Why comment on stuff you know nothing about?
I'm just talking abut common sense, Dr. Peabrain. 'First use' doesn't matter if the term is too generic to be trademarked.
Hey! That's 'Prof. Peabrain' to you!
Might hold a Doctorate degree, though...
/
/
/
Calling an app store "App Store" is definitely a challenge to say it is necessarily an Apple phenomenon. I don't think Apple will win this at all.
You write like one of the paid hack young attorneys Microsoft paid in droves during their Anti-Trust case. I knew a few of them. They got $35/hour to read emails.
Every young, fit office worker in SF knows that a dualie is way cooler than a regular road bike. Stopping can be tough but if a lawyer is riding one, he/she can sue whatever it is that gets in the way.
Hmm, I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, an "app" is a program. It wasn't a layman term until the past 2-3 years though. I would venture that only programmers would know it as such before recently. 4 years ago, if someone said they had an app, I'd say, "College app? Job app?..."
American Apparel owns a trademark on its name, even though it just means "American clothes". They can't prevent people from saying, "I like American apparel better than French apparel". But if someone started a clothing company called "American apparel", you'd bet they'd have a case.
If I were the judge, I'd allow MS and other companies to use the term "app store" generically. Like "our app store is better than Apple's." But I would not allow them to use it as the title of their store, e.g. "Microsoft App Store".
The trick is to start a computer company, but call it American Apparel. Different industry entirely.
Welcome to the Internet, where access and a keyboard makes everyone an expert.
The case will be decided by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I hope the USPTOTTAB (ouch, what an acronym) refuses their application for not complying with their Application Guidelines (uh, I meant their brief for not complying with their trademark briefs guidelines, of course