davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,765
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,197
Reactions
-
Apple Cinemas may come to regret their name as lawyers step in
Just because a trademark name for a product has become "generic" for the product, it doesn't mean that others can use the trademark for their similar products. Just because "Clorox" has become a generic name for bleach, it doesn't mean that any bleach company can or should be able to, call their bleach "Clorox". Same with Kleenix, Scotch Tape, Coke, Pampers, iPod, Thermos, Band-Aid, Victrola, Levies, etc.VictorMortimer said:Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
The whole point of a trademark and it's enforcement is to ensure that consumers are not confused by which company made the product. How would consumers know which bottle of Coke was made by Coca Cola if any brand of cola can put "Coke" on their bottles? I bet your kid wouldn't be too happy if he ask for an iPod and you bought home a Zune because you thought he meant any MP3 player.
Besides, here were talking about the trademark of a company name, not a product. "Apple" is not generic for any computer company or any computer products. If you walked into a computer store and ask to see an Apple laptop and the clerk brings out a Dell, time to shop at another computer store. Trademarks of a company name never become generic under trademark laws, no matter how long the company been around. And if the name is trademarked, it means that the name was not generic at the time they got the trademark. And unlike copyrights, trademark never expires, so long as it's still in use. RCA trademark along with Nipper is so well known that it can not be used by any company for any product, even though RCA been around for over 100 years. It's a joke that you think 10 years might be long enough for any company to use the trademark name of another. Just try to name your gas station "Shell" and see how far you get trying to convince the Trademark board that "Shell" is a common English word, "Shell" has become generic to mean a gas station and it's been more than 10 years that the company had the name.
With this case, notice that the company behind "Apple Cinema" was denied a trademark in 2024 so they never got a trademark for "Apple Cinema" back in 2010. Most likely because they knew Apple would protest. Apple at the time was already marketing the Apple TV and into streaming movie rentals, video download sales and pay per view. Or that Apple knew about the name, allow the small town theater to keep the name, but did not allow them to trademark the name. If Apple Cinema actually got a trademark for the name back in 2010, it might be an uphill battle for Apple to force them to stop using it now. Apple would most likely have to buy the name from them. But fortunately the trademark board don't consist of Apple haters and their only concern is whether consumers could easily mistaken "Apple Cinema" to be own by Apple Inc.
-
Epic Games is annoyed UK regulator isn't working harder to enable third-party app stores
There's no third party app stores allowed in the US, but yet Fortnight is once again available in the Apple App Store. I'm sure it's not for charity on Sweeney part. So if Loony Tune Sweeney don't want to make Fortnight available in the UK (on iOS). it's on him. Trying to blame Fortnight not being in the UK (on iOS) on Apple or the UK CMA, is plain stupid.Fortnight on iOS still made Epic Games hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion dollars) when it was in the Apple App Store paying Apple's commission and before Sweeney stupid move to violate his Apple App Store contract, that got Fortnight kicked out. It's one thing for Sweeney to be greedy and not want to pay Apple their due commission in order to make more profit. But it's just plain stupid for Sweeney to not want to greatly profit at all from selling virtual items with an over 90% margin (not counting scamming his customers), even if he has to pay the commission. Loony Tune Sweeney is the classic case that proves ........ you can't fix stupid.
-
FTC 'Click to Cancel' rule that was annoying some services cancelled by the courts
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Apple "one click to cancel" feature, only with subscriptions paid for using one's iTunes account (Apple account) and not necessarily with any subscription apps in the Apple App Store? Apple have no way to force developers to have "one click to cancel" with their apps in the Apple App store, when payment is done using the developers own payment systems, on their own websites. There, Apple have no way of knowing what payment method (CC, Debit, gift card, PayPal, Bitcoin, etc.) the subscribers used for payment.If I recall, it's Apple that is doing the actual stop payment when payment is done using an iTunes account, no matter what payment method was used in the account (CC, Debit, gift card, cash balance, etc.) And developers have to agree to this if they want their apps in the Apple App Store. If the payment is not made using iTunes account, then the subscribers would have to log on to their account on the developers (publishers) websites to cancel from there or deal with their CC, bank, PayPal, etc. to stop payment. (This is where the FTC "one click to cancel" rule would had helped Apple App Store customers.)The same is true for refunds. If an app purchaser (that paid for an app with their iTunes account) wants a refund, Apple will do the refunding immediately and then go after the developer to get paid back. Usually by deducting the cost of the refund directly from the developers account. Which is one of the reasons why payment to developers for purchases are held in the developers Apple account for up to 21 days, before they get to transfer it to their own accounts. (Like how a bank will hold payment for a check until it clears.) -
Apple Watch blood oxygen ban should never have been put in place, and Apple wants it overt...
onemoreone said:
I guarantee that the Chinese companies aren’t paying Masimo a single cent, since Masimo has no way to sue them in China to stop them.Most likely these China smartwatch companies are paying Masimo a small licensing fee for the use of their patents, as a form of ...... "go away money".Your guarantee is worthless.This from 2002, but it shows that even back then, Masimo is not ignoring the China market.>Irvine, California, December 19, 2002, Masimo, the innovator of motion and low perfusion-tolerant pulse oximetry technology, announced today that it has formed a strategic alliance with leading Chinese medical device manufacturer, Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd. (Mindray) of Shenzhen, China. Mindray, the largest domestic manufacturer of patient monitoring products in China, will incorporate Masimo SET® motion and low perfusion tolerant pulse oximetry as its primary pulse oximetry technology for its patient monitoring products.<
-
Apple tells EU to forget about getting all the new iOS 26 features
avon b7 said:
Nope! And if you had read up on why that requirement was put into place, you would know full well that the EU had tried for decades to harmonise the situation.missile man said:
If you believe in free markets and no fraud is occurring, please tell how the EU setting a USB-C standard is a good thing. Shouldn’t companies be free to provide options. If the customers feel ripped off, they’ll buy an Erickson or Nokia. Oh wait, that didn’t work out too well. Did Apple cheat or just out compete? Since the EU has mandated USB-C, how will we ever get anything better? Oh yeah, the old Soviet model, what ever the government mandates is for the good of the people! Do you remember the US government mandating Windows for all us Government computers? How well did that work out? Innovation?sloth77 said:I voted Remain in the UK back in 2016. But as an Apple user, I can't say hand-on-heart that I would do so now, with the shenanigans the EU is pulling with Apple.
It is a shame, as some of the EU regulations have been decent - like the USB-C support.
The requirement was due to fragmentation in charging options (and goes far beyond phones BTW).You are giving the EU way too much credit (surprise!, surprise! surprise!) for fixing the fragmentation that existed with mobile phone chargers, pre-iPhone. Apple and Google deserves most of the credit, not some memorandum that mandated the use of a USB Micro port (by 2012) in 2010.Before the iPhone (2007), most mobile phones owners did not need to be sync their "dumb" phone with a computer. Back then, syncing to a computer was mainly use for importing and editing contact info, without having to use the small number pad on the phone. Therefore most phones back then had a syncing port and a separate charging port. And the most common syncing cable had a serial DB9 interface on the computer end. Guess what a DB9 interface don't support? Charging.But soon after the release of the iPhone, mobile phone companies were scrambling to catch up. And the fastest way was to use the free Open Source mobile OS from Google .... Android. And what did Android already support? The USB interface for data syncing and charging. So there was no longer a need to have a separate charge port on their mobile phones. By the time the EU charger memorandum was signed in 2010, by nearly all the mobile phone makers, the fragmentation of phone chargers was already fixing itself. All Android phones were already using either USB Mini or the newer USB Micro interface. With nearly all of them using USB Micro, before adopting USB C when it came out in 2015,Apple also signed the memorandum and did not violate any of its mandates. Though many here think they did with them using their Lightning interface, instead of USB. With-in the memorandum, was a cause that allowed any mobile phone makers to adopt an interface that had better technology than the USB Micro (at the time). And it had to be more than just size of the port. Apple 30 pin dock connector and then Lightning, had far better tech than what USB Micro can offer. It is this clause that allowed for mobile phones makers to adopt USB C. If it weren't for this clause, Android phones would still be using USB Micro. Which was the standard set at the time the memorandum was adopted. The EU did not want to limit innovation by forcing mobile phone makers to adopt a standard whose interface was technologically inferior, to what was available or possible.Lightning remained better technology than USB C with USB 1 protocol. USB C with USB 2 protocol mostly caught up with Lightning but Lightning still had its advantages. It wasn't until USB C with USB 3 protocol that Lightning began to show its age. Apple could no longer claim that Lightning was better technology than USB C. But still, a lot of the tech advantages of USB C with USB 3 protocol were for computers. It still took a year or two for hardware on mobile devices and mobile network, to evolve and benefit from those advantages. By this time, Apple had already planned to move on from Lightning. USB C had already been adopted on Apple high end iPads. Rumor had it that the iPhone would fully adopt USB C before 2026. But because of the EU, Apple adopted USB C about year earlier than they planned.As for E-waste, Apple stopped supplying a charger with their iPhones back in 2020. Samsung soon followed about a year later, of course after making fun of iPhones no longer coming with a charger. (With most mobile phone makers following Apple lead more than 2 years later.) By the time the EU forced Apple to use the USB C port on their devices, a USB C charger could be used to charge an iPhone. Most iPhone users at the time were either re-using a Lightning charger they already had or they bought a USB C charger with a USB-C to Lightning cable. A USB C charger have a USB C port on the charger itself. One can use it to charge USB A, USB Mini, USB Micro and Apple Lightning devices, with the use of the compatible cable. (And one of high enough voltage and wattage, can also charge laptops.)The iPhone not having a USB C port was not causing any added E-waste. The E-waste being generated by the fragmentation of chargers on mobile phones, which was the main reason for the memorandum (2010), is with the charging brick. With most of them at the time, having an attached cable with a proprietary interface. Left alone, all mobile phones would had eventually adopted USB C, even without any EU memorandum to set USB C as the standard. Just like how they were all already migrating to the USB interface, before the memorandum (in 2010), thanks to Google offering for free ..... Android that supported USB and mobile phone companies having to make mobile phones that had to compete with Apple iPhones getting thinner and smarter. Natural competition and innovation would had taken care of chargers fragmentation (on mobile phones), soon enough.
