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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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'.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
http://www.jazzmutant.com
have been using this technology (and referring to it as multi-touch) for a few years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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'.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
But that would probably be french.
Non?