Your point would be valid if Microsoft sold actual windows.
Wasn't the term "window" already in common use to describe part of a GUI back when MS trademarked it? Not sure I understand your point. MS did sell windows... GUI windows.
The problem for Apple is that other companies are now free to call their touchscreens Multi-Touch even though they lack the features covered by Apple's patents. Multi-Touch will therefore not be associated with Apple's unique features.
The court seemed to say that Apple did not make it obvious that Multi-Touch was supposed to be perceived as a trademark by the average consumer. Apparently the court wanted to see Multi-Touch? in a big starburst on the front of every iPhone box, the way Color Guard? is on a box of Cheer detergent.
I'd agree, in fact that should have been taken into account.
I suspect what was also taken into account is that there are several different technologies to achieve a 'multi-touch' interface. Allowing only one company to use that descriptive term would be like letting only one company use the term "personal computer"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
I really hope the brain trust over in Cupertino has a lot more up it's sleeve than more BS lawsuits like this.
That will be pretty easy to achieve since this wasn't a law suit. It was an administrative appeal handled by a small group of people. probably 12 at most. Perhaps even only 1-2.
Wasn't the term "window" already in common use to describe part of a GUI back when MS trademarked it? Not sure I understand your point. MS did sell windows... GUI windows.
You still don't have it quite right. Windows is a synecdoche, as it were, of the OS. Just as Pages is a synecdoche of the word processor.
If Windows had patented "Operating System" it would be equivalent (for say, Windows 3.1.)
If Apple had patented "Word Processor" it would be equivalent (for Pages.)
See the difference? One refers to an element of the thing, the other just refers to the thing itself.
If I sold a pair of shoes called Laces it would be equivalent to Pages or Windows. If I sold a pair of shoes called Shoes it would not be equivalent.
Anyone still not getting this? (I feel that maybe I've been too thorough.)
I guess the question is was the term multi-touch in usage before the iPhone, because touch devices that could handle multiple inputs existed before; I just don't know if the term multi-touch was used to describe them.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC RESEARCH LABORATORIES
DiamondTouch SDK: Support for
Multi-User, Multi-Touch Applications
Alan Esenther, Cliff Forlines, Kathy Ryall, Sam Shipman
So let me get this straight. The USPTO is happy handing out vague patents but not descriptive TradeMarks?
And everyone wonders why America's economy is heading down the toilet. How can anyone make any money when idiot acts like this open companies up to litigation.
Maybe Apple should just buy the USPTO and save themselves a world of hurt by scumbags who don't innovate.
So let me get this straight. The USPTO is happy handing out vague patents but not descriptive TradeMarks?
And everyone wonders why America's economy is heading down the toilet. How can anyone make any money when idiot acts like this open companies up to litigation.
Maybe Apple should just buy the USPTO and save themselves a world of hurt by scumbags who don't innovate.
It's safe to say the patents office isn't the reason America's economy is heading down the toilet. Bad foreign and homeland policy and the housing bubble are far more important.
Even though patents and trademarks are clearly quite different things, I can't help feeling that there is something odd about granting Apple the patent on their multi-touch technology, but then refusing to let them trademark an obviously accurate and descriptive name for it.
Merely descriptive words and phrases, like "wooden table", cannot become trademarks. Not unless the public already strongly associates it with a particular source of goods or services, like maybe "the tiny purple pill".
The whole intent behind trademarks is to identify the source of goods for the benefit of the public, in order to forestall confusion about who makes the product. The intent is totally different from the intent behind granting patents, which is to benefit the inventor by granting a monopoly.
I guess the question is was the term multi-touch in usage before the iPhone, because touch devices that could handle multiple inputs existed before; I just don't know if the term multi-touch was used to describe them.
It makes no difference whether somebody else used the descriptive phrase before or not. That would only matter if the phrase were eligible for trademark protection in the first place.
Think about somebody making tables in a variety of colors, and trying to get a trademark on "Wooden Tables in a Variety of Colors".
It's safe to say the patents office isn't the reason America's economy is heading down the toilet. Bad foreign and homeland policy and the housing bubble are far more important.
Comments
I really hope the brain trust over in Cupertino has a lot more up it's sleeve than more BS lawsuits like this.
What lawsuit?
Your point would be valid if Microsoft sold actual windows.
Wasn't the term "window" already in common use to describe part of a GUI back when MS trademarked it? Not sure I understand your point. MS did sell windows... GUI windows.
The court seemed to say that Apple did not make it obvious that Multi-Touch was supposed to be perceived as a trademark by the average consumer. Apparently the court wanted to see Multi-Touch? in a big starburst on the front of every iPhone box, the way Color Guard? is on a box of Cheer detergent.
I'd agree, in fact that should have been taken into account.
I suspect what was also taken into account is that there are several different technologies to achieve a 'multi-touch' interface. Allowing only one company to use that descriptive term would be like letting only one company use the term "personal computer"
I really hope the brain trust over in Cupertino has a lot more up it's sleeve than more BS lawsuits like this.
That will be pretty easy to achieve since this wasn't a law suit. It was an administrative appeal handled by a small group of people. probably 12 at most. Perhaps even only 1-2.
Wasn't the term "window" already in common use to describe part of a GUI back when MS trademarked it? Not sure I understand your point. MS did sell windows... GUI windows.
You still don't have it quite right. Windows is a synecdoche, as it were, of the OS. Just as Pages is a synecdoche of the word processor.
If Windows had patented "Operating System" it would be equivalent (for say, Windows 3.1.)
If Apple had patented "Word Processor" it would be equivalent (for Pages.)
See the difference? One refers to an element of the thing, the other just refers to the thing itself.
If I sold a pair of shoes called Laces it would be equivalent to Pages or Windows. If I sold a pair of shoes called Shoes it would not be equivalent.
Anyone still not getting this? (I feel that maybe I've been too thorough.)
You still don't have it quite right. Windows is a synecdoche, as it were, of the OS. Just as Pages is a synecdoche of the word processor.
If Windows had patented "Operating System" it would be equivalent (for say, Windows 3.1.)
If Apple had patented "Word Processor" it would be equivalent (for Pages.)
See the difference? One refers to an element of the thing, the other just refers to the thing itself.
If I sold a pair of shoes called Laces it would be equivalent to Pages or Windows. If I sold a pair of shoes called Shoes it would not be equivalent.
Anyone still not getting this? (I feel that maybe I've been too thorough.)
Yeah, I get it... Apple should have gone for "Fingers"
Anyone still not getting this? (I feel that maybe I've been too thorough.)
Don't worry! "Ive" got it.
Yeah, I get it... Apple should have gone for "Fingers"
The rough equivalent would be something like Swipe or Flick, although its Indian Name could perhaps be "Dances with Fingers."
Well, the patent is the important one.
I guess the question is was the term multi-touch in usage before the iPhone, because touch devices that could handle multiple inputs existed before; I just don't know if the term multi-touch was used to describe them.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC RESEARCH LABORATORIES
DiamondTouch SDK: Support for
Multi-User, Multi-Touch Applications
Alan Esenther, Cliff Forlines, Kathy Ryall, Sam Shipman
TR2002-48 November 2002
http://www.merl.com/papers/docs/TR2002-48.pdf
Multi-touch term was also used long before this - from 1985
A multi-touch three dimensional touch-sensitive tablet, SK Lee et al
CHI '85 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems
ACM New York, NY, USA ©1985
ISBN:0-89791-149-0
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=317461
Only take you seconds to find many bits of research predating the iPhone that use that term.
The rough equivalent would be something like Swipe or Flick, although its Indian Name could perhaps be "Dances with Fingers."
"I hear there's a technology called 'Multi-Touch', I'd like to hear more."
"Well, you could just 'Google', 'Swipe' or 'Flick' it."
"I hear Samsung has already 'Swiped' it."
iPad, now with 'Apple Dance'. 'Let your fingers do the dancing.' ?
And everyone wonders why America's economy is heading down the toilet. How can anyone make any money when idiot acts like this open companies up to litigation.
Maybe Apple should just buy the USPTO and save themselves a world of hurt by scumbags who don't innovate.
So let me get this straight. The USPTO is happy handing out vague patents but not descriptive TradeMarks?
And everyone wonders why America's economy is heading down the toilet. How can anyone make any money when idiot acts like this open companies up to litigation.
Maybe Apple should just buy the USPTO and save themselves a world of hurt by scumbags who don't innovate.
It's safe to say the patents office isn't the reason America's economy is heading down the toilet. Bad foreign and homeland policy and the housing bubble are far more important.
Even though patents and trademarks are clearly quite different things, I can't help feeling that there is something odd about granting Apple the patent on their multi-touch technology, but then refusing to let them trademark an obviously accurate and descriptive name for it.
Merely descriptive words and phrases, like "wooden table", cannot become trademarks. Not unless the public already strongly associates it with a particular source of goods or services, like maybe "the tiny purple pill".
The whole intent behind trademarks is to identify the source of goods for the benefit of the public, in order to forestall confusion about who makes the product. The intent is totally different from the intent behind granting patents, which is to benefit the inventor by granting a monopoly.
I guess the question is was the term multi-touch in usage before the iPhone, because touch devices that could handle multiple inputs existed before; I just don't know if the term multi-touch was used to describe them.
It makes no difference whether somebody else used the descriptive phrase before or not. That would only matter if the phrase were eligible for trademark protection in the first place.
Think about somebody making tables in a variety of colors, and trying to get a trademark on "Wooden Tables in a Variety of Colors".
It's safe to say the patents office isn't the reason America's economy is heading down the toilet. Bad foreign and homeland policy and the housing bubble are far more important.
Also, staggering greed.
The court seemed to say that Apple did not make it obvious that Multi-Touch was supposed to be perceived as a trademark by the average consumer.
That did not enter into the decision one way or the other.
However, if the public actually did associate the phrase with Apple's stuff, then Apple would have had a fighting chance.