Kids figure out passwords. And the age verification is a pop up that says 'Are you old enough?' and you tap yes. A five year old can reply and get past that step....
It's worth remembering that most folks don't even bother with the parental controls on their kids computers or on their own.
Also, every kid I've met in the last ten years or so has already seen any kind of porn they wanted or that you could even imagine, and worse (murder, various beheadings, torture porn, etc.), since about age 10. As soon as a kid gets interested in sex they look for it on the Internet and it's really, really, really easy to find.
In the early 80's, in North America at least, one could still get to the age of maturity having no idea what the other sex even looked like under their clothes, if you only stuck to mainstream media like TV and magazines. Today, the Internet is mainstream media and almost all kids have seen things that would make your blood curdle before they leave grade school (whether they told you about it or not).
In this environment, censorship, especially blanket censorship of sexual imagery that ignores the real danger of the violent stuff, is a joke really.
If Microsoft can trademark a word as generic as "windows", then I don't see how apple can't trademark "app store" (and heck -- apple has a trademark on "apple", which itself is pretty generic).
The trademark is not for the word, it is for a specific use of the word. In 1983 when MS announced Windows, there was no association in the public mind between the word "windows" and computers. The term was in use within Xerox Parc by 1980 if not earlier, but not with any commercial/public products.
App store is an obvious term for a store that sells apps. In 2008, the term app was in use as a short word for a computer application and the term store was in use for a place that sells stuff, including online stores that do not have a physical presence. Putting them together is hardly a major leap of innovation. Apple has a MUCH harder case to make than Microsoft did.
Yeah OK, just like they get sued for porn on Macs, and MS gets sued for porn on windows. Give up, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Actually, charlituna makes a good point. Apple would be liable, because they host and distribute the content. Apple can't be held responsible for how their products (Macs/iOS devices) are used, they can be held responsible for content purchased through the App/iTunes store. And the issue of children being able to access porn is a very serious one that Apple is right to simply refuse to make even possible.
I personally applaud Apple for not having a backroom/"red light district" portion of the App Store. If the android folks wanna take the low road, that's fine by me. And besides, just because Apple refuses to distribute porn or porn-related apps doesn't mean that those who really want to wouldn't be able to access/view porn on their iOS devices. It's just that Apple doesn't want to participate in that sort of thing.
Also, with Apple sitting on over $50 billion in cash, they don't need resort to porn distribution to stay afloat, e.g. "I was young! I needed the money!"
Historical use of generic terms is not the relevant legal consideration with regard to enforcement of a trademark. What matters is if the generic terms has acquired a secondary meaning that is unique to the product of the trademark holder.
It is important to remember that despite what trademark holders would like to think, the purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion of the public. This clearly provides a benefit to the trademark holder by avoiding the diversion of revenue by virtue of customers who, intending to patronize Apple's App Store, inadvertently make purchases elsewhere. There is also the issue of the trademark holder's name and reputation being tarnished, which is what Apple seems to be arguing here. Essentially, they don't want the six o'clock news to say "There is more porn in the app store tonight," and have the uninformed public associate that material with Apple's brand.
I think this will be an interesting case to watch.
I am in my final semester of law school, and happen to be doing research in the area of intellectual property with a focus on software End User License Agreements. If you want to help me out, please take my survey at www.joshfenton.net - it deals with the experiences people have had buying software, and it takes about 3 minutes to complete.
Actually, charlituna makes a good point. Apple would be liable, because they host and distribute the content. Apple can't be held responsible for how their products (Macs/iOS devices) are used, they can be held responsible for content purchased through the App/iTunes store. And the issue of children being able to access porn is a very serious one that Apple is right to simply refuse to make even possible.
I personally applaud Apple for not having a backroom/"red light district" portion of the App Store. If the android folks wanna take the low road, that's fine by me. And besides, just because Apple refuses to distribute porn or porn-related apps doesn't mean that those who really want to wouldn't be able to access/view porn on their iOS devices. It's just that Apple doesn't want to participate in that sort of thing.
There is a ton of porn sold through all sorts of outlets without a rash of lawsuits. You may agree or disagree with Apple's possition, but to suggest it is because of litigation is simply false, and quite frankly ignorant. Stay in touch with reality.
Actually, charlituna makes a good point. Apple would be liable, because they host and distribute the content. Apple can't be held responsible for how their products (Macs/iOS devices) are used, they can be held responsible for content purchased through the App/iTunes store. And the issue of children being able to access porn is a very serious one that Apple is right to simply refuse to make even possible.
I personally applaud Apple for not having a backroom/"red light district" portion of the App Store. If the android folks wanna take the low road, that's fine by me. And besides, just because Apple refuses to distribute porn or porn-related apps doesn't mean that those who really want to wouldn't be able to access/view porn on their iOS devices. It's just that Apple doesn't want to participate in that sort of thing.
That's a good point. Porn industry should just make it an HTML 5 ready and that way you can watch it on your device at your liesure.
It is important to remember that despite what trademark holders would like to think, the purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion of the public. This clearly provides a benefit to the trademark holder by avoiding the diversion of revenue by virtue of customers who, intending to patronize Apple's App Store, inadvertently make purchases elsewhere. There is also the issue of the trademark holder's name and reputation being tarnished, which is what Apple seems to be arguing here. Essentially, they don't want the six o'clock news to say "There is more porn in the app store tonight," and have the uninformed public associate that material with Apple's brand.
But then nobody would actually report that news. Why? Because in this case (just like the Amazon case) these companies are not just using the term "App Store", instead they're using "Company X's App Store" as the name. Using "MiKandi App Store" or "Amazon Appstore" is clearly different from using just "App Store", because it'd be much harder for anyone to associate those names with Apple's "App Store".
...and quite frankly ignorant. Stay in touch with reality.
Geez. Somebody got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning!
But, snark aside, I think it has more to do with image than fear of litigation. Apple wants to be known as the maker of the best electronics products in the industry, not as a purveyor of porn--even if that porn is kept in a "back room".
If Microsoft can trademark a word as generic as "windows", then I don't see how apple can't trademark "app store" (and heck -- apple has a trademark on "apple", which itself is pretty generic).
Windows isn't descriptive of the product though. A more apt analogy would be if "Google" was called "Search" then started going after other Search engines for having a Search button.
Historical use of generic terms is not the relevant legal consideration with regard to enforcement of a trademark. What matters is if the generic terms has acquired a secondary meaning that is unique to the product of the trademark holder.
Thanks,
Josh
Actually, a generic term can't establish secondary meaning. A descriptive term can. That's why they go 2(f) or on the supplemental register.
A true generic term is given a Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal and you are SOL.
In the App Store trademark application it looks like the Examiner determined 'Store' was generic and that 'App' was descriptive and had acquired distinctiveness and was thus eligible for 2(f).
I'd bet my $.02 on MSFT.
~Former PTO examiner breaking out some o'l training.
Geez. Somebody got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning!
But, snark aside, I think it has more to do with image than fear of litigation. Apple wants to be known as the maker of the best electronics products in the industry, not as a purveyor of porn--even if that porn is kept in a "back room".
Image is a perfectly valid argument well grounded in reality in many cultures, litigation is an ignorant and stupid argument with no basis in reality. See the difference?
Yeah OK, just like they get sued for porn on Macs, and MS gets sued for porn on windows. Give up, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
It's better to be ignorant than arrogant. Those who find the need to talk down to someone else's opinions to defend their argument enjoy both descriptive terms.
I believe you have achieved mastery in both terms. I award you one gold star and will recommend that you are promoted to the second grade.
btw: don't bother replying I don't communicate with such foolishness.
Since Steve don't like porn, No one should have it on their elegant, delicious, sexy, and of so magical iToys!! And Steve's a Liberal, I hope they ban all conservative views too!!! And books that Steve don't like should be banned also!!!! I used to watch a lot of flash videos but now we know their crap!!! Please Apple give us more sexy iAds!!!
Let them all go buy a crappy and clunky Android device..
Historical use of generic terms is not the relevant legal consideration with regard to enforcement of a trademark. What matters is if the generic terms has acquired a secondary meaning that is unique to the product of the trademark holder.
Thanks,
Josh
Actually, a generic term can't establish secondary meaning. A descriptive term can. That's why they go 2(f) or on the supplemental register.
A true generic term is given a Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal and you are SOL.
In the App Store trademark application it looks like the Examiner determined 'Store' was generic and that 'App' was descriptive and had acquired distinctiveness and was thus eligible for 2(f).
I'd bet my $.02 on MSFT.
~Former PTO examiner breaking out some o'l training.
I stand corrected. Thank you. Would you agree then, that to prevail, Apple would have to succeed in establish that: 1) "App Store" is not generic, but 2) is descriptive of their propriety store, and 3) that the term has acquired secondary meaning?
Jobs said last year. "That's a place we don't want to go, so we're not going to."
Apparently they went...
So Apple doesn't allow porn on their app store and yet they come across this... Hmmm, is that why Apple is so secretive?... Is this what goes on behind closed doors at Apple's R&D?.... Wonder what they've been researching and wonder what developed?... Anyway, double standard? You be the judge. </SARCASM>
(hold your horses, Apple probably googled "app store" and with google's help found "MiKandi". Just poking fun people.)... Scheez...
/
/
/
It only takes one hand to do some kinds of research.
If you want to visit the sewers, then Android opens the doors wide open to such swamps. If you want a lock to such conduits, Apple is the garden to visit.
That Apple is also the best at what ever device it tackles, rankles the Envyboy Apple-Haters. Mind you, it would be the same if Apple wasn't the greatest. Such would just be more wind from the Hater's spiel.
It all comes down to choice which the Boys of Envy can't stand. No Apple, no envy, no choice. Chaos would ensue and dark ages would descend from the aether as happened under the rule of Microsoft.
The King that rules sets the stage we live upon. May Ghadaffi fall to Hell and his evil sons dive in to join him.
Simple solution... Have two categories of iTunes accounts: Adult and child. The adult account controls all aspects of the child account including what they can buy or download, who they call, what times they can play games on their phone, blah yadda etc. Mac OS X and Windows 7 already have these type of parental controls on their desktop OS's so there's no reason they can't be on phones as well.
I agree with most of what Steve does, but on this one, he's flat out wrong. *I* decide what content goes on *MY* device and my kids devices.
Not Steve, not Apple, not the government, and not anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Kids figure out passwords. And the age verification is a pop up that says 'Are you old enough?' and you tap yes. A five year old can reply and get past that step.
Apple tried to do the whole credit card must be on the account thing but kids can lift a card out of mom's bag. Privacy nuts jump all over any attempt to get into social security numbers etc.
And if Apple just gives in, they will get sued by those parent groups, women's groups etc. They could also be held liable for any child porn violations etc
Basically Apple will never completely win. Regardless, the trademark office granted them the mark and legally they must actively defend it. Which they are. That it is a porn market is really beside the point
Comments
Kids figure out passwords. And the age verification is a pop up that says 'Are you old enough?' and you tap yes. A five year old can reply and get past that step....
It's worth remembering that most folks don't even bother with the parental controls on their kids computers or on their own.
Also, every kid I've met in the last ten years or so has already seen any kind of porn they wanted or that you could even imagine, and worse (murder, various beheadings, torture porn, etc.), since about age 10. As soon as a kid gets interested in sex they look for it on the Internet and it's really, really, really easy to find.
In the early 80's, in North America at least, one could still get to the age of maturity having no idea what the other sex even looked like under their clothes, if you only stuck to mainstream media like TV and magazines. Today, the Internet is mainstream media and almost all kids have seen things that would make your blood curdle before they leave grade school (whether they told you about it or not).
In this environment, censorship, especially blanket censorship of sexual imagery that ignores the real danger of the violent stuff, is a joke really.
If Microsoft can trademark a word as generic as "windows", then I don't see how apple can't trademark "app store" (and heck -- apple has a trademark on "apple", which itself is pretty generic).
The trademark is not for the word, it is for a specific use of the word. In 1983 when MS announced Windows, there was no association in the public mind between the word "windows" and computers. The term was in use within Xerox Parc by 1980 if not earlier, but not with any commercial/public products.
App store is an obvious term for a store that sells apps. In 2008, the term app was in use as a short word for a computer application and the term store was in use for a place that sells stuff, including online stores that do not have a physical presence. Putting them together is hardly a major leap of innovation. Apple has a MUCH harder case to make than Microsoft did.
Yeah OK, just like they get sued for porn on Macs, and MS gets sued for porn on windows. Give up, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Actually, charlituna makes a good point. Apple would be liable, because they host and distribute the content. Apple can't be held responsible for how their products (Macs/iOS devices) are used, they can be held responsible for content purchased through the App/iTunes store. And the issue of children being able to access porn is a very serious one that Apple is right to simply refuse to make even possible.
I personally applaud Apple for not having a backroom/"red light district" portion of the App Store. If the android folks wanna take the low road, that's fine by me. And besides, just because Apple refuses to distribute porn or porn-related apps doesn't mean that those who really want to wouldn't be able to access/view porn on their iOS devices. It's just that Apple doesn't want to participate in that sort of thing.
Also, with Apple sitting on over $50 billion in cash, they don't need resort to porn distribution to stay afloat, e.g. "I was young! I needed the money!"
It is important to remember that despite what trademark holders would like to think, the purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion of the public. This clearly provides a benefit to the trademark holder by avoiding the diversion of revenue by virtue of customers who, intending to patronize Apple's App Store, inadvertently make purchases elsewhere. There is also the issue of the trademark holder's name and reputation being tarnished, which is what Apple seems to be arguing here. Essentially, they don't want the six o'clock news to say "There is more porn in the app store tonight," and have the uninformed public associate that material with Apple's brand.
I think this will be an interesting case to watch.
I am in my final semester of law school, and happen to be doing research in the area of intellectual property with a focus on software End User License Agreements. If you want to help me out, please take my survey at www.joshfenton.net - it deals with the experiences people have had buying software, and it takes about 3 minutes to complete.
Thanks,
Josh
Actually, charlituna makes a good point. Apple would be liable, because they host and distribute the content. Apple can't be held responsible for how their products (Macs/iOS devices) are used, they can be held responsible for content purchased through the App/iTunes store. And the issue of children being able to access porn is a very serious one that Apple is right to simply refuse to make even possible.
I personally applaud Apple for not having a backroom/"red light district" portion of the App Store. If the android folks wanna take the low road, that's fine by me. And besides, just because Apple refuses to distribute porn or porn-related apps doesn't mean that those who really want to wouldn't be able to access/view porn on their iOS devices. It's just that Apple doesn't want to participate in that sort of thing.
There is a ton of porn sold through all sorts of outlets without a rash of lawsuits. You may agree or disagree with Apple's possition, but to suggest it is because of litigation is simply false, and quite frankly ignorant. Stay in touch with reality.
Actually, charlituna makes a good point. Apple would be liable, because they host and distribute the content. Apple can't be held responsible for how their products (Macs/iOS devices) are used, they can be held responsible for content purchased through the App/iTunes store. And the issue of children being able to access porn is a very serious one that Apple is right to simply refuse to make even possible.
I personally applaud Apple for not having a backroom/"red light district" portion of the App Store. If the android folks wanna take the low road, that's fine by me. And besides, just because Apple refuses to distribute porn or porn-related apps doesn't mean that those who really want to wouldn't be able to access/view porn on their iOS devices. It's just that Apple doesn't want to participate in that sort of thing.
That's a good point. Porn industry should just make it an HTML 5 ready and that way you can watch it on your device at your liesure.
It is important to remember that despite what trademark holders would like to think, the purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion of the public. This clearly provides a benefit to the trademark holder by avoiding the diversion of revenue by virtue of customers who, intending to patronize Apple's App Store, inadvertently make purchases elsewhere. There is also the issue of the trademark holder's name and reputation being tarnished, which is what Apple seems to be arguing here. Essentially, they don't want the six o'clock news to say "There is more porn in the app store tonight," and have the uninformed public associate that material with Apple's brand.
But then nobody would actually report that news. Why? Because in this case (just like the Amazon case) these companies are not just using the term "App Store", instead they're using "Company X's App Store" as the name. Using "MiKandi App Store" or "Amazon Appstore" is clearly different from using just "App Store", because it'd be much harder for anyone to associate those names with Apple's "App Store".
...and quite frankly ignorant. Stay in touch with reality.
Geez. Somebody got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning!
But, snark aside, I think it has more to do with image than fear of litigation. Apple wants to be known as the maker of the best electronics products in the industry, not as a purveyor of porn--even if that porn is kept in a "back room".
If Microsoft can trademark a word as generic as "windows", then I don't see how apple can't trademark "app store" (and heck -- apple has a trademark on "apple", which itself is pretty generic).
Windows isn't descriptive of the product though. A more apt analogy would be if "Google" was called "Search" then started going after other Search engines for having a Search button.
Historical use of generic terms is not the relevant legal consideration with regard to enforcement of a trademark. What matters is if the generic terms has acquired a secondary meaning that is unique to the product of the trademark holder.
Thanks,
Josh
Actually, a generic term can't establish secondary meaning. A descriptive term can. That's why they go 2(f) or on the supplemental register.
A true generic term is given a Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal and you are SOL.
In the App Store trademark application it looks like the Examiner determined 'Store' was generic and that 'App' was descriptive and had acquired distinctiveness and was thus eligible for 2(f).
I'd bet my $.02 on MSFT.
~Former PTO examiner breaking out some o'l training.
Oh... so that's how the name, Flash, came into being...
.
This brings a whole new meaning to "touch screen"
.
Yea, I know - is lame as it gets
But be honest
Many of you were already thinking it
.
.
Yes, we shure have been thinking of touching it with a whole bunch of things!
Geez. Somebody got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning!
But, snark aside, I think it has more to do with image than fear of litigation. Apple wants to be known as the maker of the best electronics products in the industry, not as a purveyor of porn--even if that porn is kept in a "back room".
Image is a perfectly valid argument well grounded in reality in many cultures, litigation is an ignorant and stupid argument with no basis in reality. See the difference?
.
This brings a whole new meaning to "touch screen"
.
Yea, I know - is lame as it gets
But be honest
Many of you were already thinking it
.
.
It better come with a new spermatozoaphobic coating... (pun and eeew intended)
Thanks, I'll be here all week!
Yeah OK, just like they get sued for porn on Macs, and MS gets sued for porn on windows. Give up, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
It's better to be ignorant than arrogant. Those who find the need to talk down to someone else's opinions to defend their argument enjoy both descriptive terms.
I believe you have achieved mastery in both terms. I award you one gold star and will recommend that you are promoted to the second grade.
btw: don't bother replying I don't communicate with such foolishness.
Let them all go buy a crappy and clunky Android device..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw
Historical use of generic terms is not the relevant legal consideration with regard to enforcement of a trademark. What matters is if the generic terms has acquired a secondary meaning that is unique to the product of the trademark holder.
Thanks,
Josh
Actually, a generic term can't establish secondary meaning. A descriptive term can. That's why they go 2(f) or on the supplemental register.
A true generic term is given a Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal and you are SOL.
In the App Store trademark application it looks like the Examiner determined 'Store' was generic and that 'App' was descriptive and had acquired distinctiveness and was thus eligible for 2(f).
I'd bet my $.02 on MSFT.
~Former PTO examiner breaking out some o'l training.
I stand corrected. Thank you. Would you agree then, that to prevail, Apple would have to succeed in establish that: 1) "App Store" is not generic, but 2) is descriptive of their propriety store, and 3) that the term has acquired secondary meaning?
For Steve, trademark the words APPle STORE.
For the other Steve, I think he met to say "garbage", not "windows".
For me, anyone out there have a free gift certificate to give me for the porn store,
(in case I figure out how to access Android).
Jobs said last year. "That's a place we don't want to go, so we're not going to."
Apparently they went...
So Apple doesn't allow porn on their app store and yet they come across this... Hmmm, is that why Apple is so secretive?... Is this what goes on behind closed doors at Apple's R&D?.... Wonder what they've been researching and wonder what developed?... Anyway, double standard? You be the judge.
(hold your horses, Apple probably googled "app store" and with google's help found "MiKandi". Just poking fun people.)... Scheez...
/
/
/
It only takes one hand to do some kinds of research.
That Apple is also the best at what ever device it tackles, rankles the Envyboy Apple-Haters. Mind you, it would be the same if Apple wasn't the greatest. Such would just be more wind from the Hater's spiel.
It all comes down to choice which the Boys of Envy can't stand. No Apple, no envy, no choice. Chaos would ensue and dark ages would descend from the aether as happened under the rule of Microsoft.
The King that rules sets the stage we live upon. May Ghadaffi fall to Hell and his evil sons dive in to join him.
And I mean this in the kindest way.
Namaste,
mhikl
I agree with most of what Steve does, but on this one, he's flat out wrong. *I* decide what content goes on *MY* device and my kids devices.
Not Steve, not Apple, not the government, and not anyone else.
Kids figure out passwords. And the age verification is a pop up that says 'Are you old enough?' and you tap yes. A five year old can reply and get past that step.
Apple tried to do the whole credit card must be on the account thing but kids can lift a card out of mom's bag. Privacy nuts jump all over any attempt to get into social security numbers etc.
And if Apple just gives in, they will get sued by those parent groups, women's groups etc. They could also be held liable for any child porn violations etc
Basically Apple will never completely win. Regardless, the trademark office granted them the mark and legally they must actively defend it. Which they are. That it is a porn market is really beside the point