Apple pushing for multi-touch trademark

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 42 of 69
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 43 of 69
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 44 of 69
    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 45 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 46 of 69
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    "Introducing Microsoft's new VelvetGlove™ touch-screen. Smooth as a baby's butt, with graphics..."
  • Reply 47 of 69
    deckarddeckard Posts: 63member
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 49 of 69
    deckarddeckard Posts: 63member
    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.



  • Reply 50 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 51 of 69
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,004member
    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.
  • Reply 52 of 69
    spindriftspindrift Posts: 674member
    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 53 of 69
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    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 54 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 55 of 69
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    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 56 of 69
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    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 57 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 58 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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 59 of 69
    spindriftspindrift Posts: 674member
    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 60 of 69
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    It used to be called the Queen's English.



    But that would probably be french.



    Non?
Sign In or Register to comment.