Judge Dismisses Apple Trademark Claims Against Amazon's Appstore

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

Agreed, and it's happened to MANY companies and products in the past 60 or so years. Aspirin for example, along with this list.

Yup, that's the reason why companies have to protect their trademarks. If it goes undefended and becomes widely used to the point it becomes a generic term, it immediately goes public domain.

The thing about this is that Apple didn't coin the term to the already generic App or App Store, so their rights to the trademark are doubly nil.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by barkmonster

Quite the opposite is true.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by barkmonster

Understand that the best thing about opinions is that you're free to completely ignore them and what you've claimed there is that your opinion is the same as some other people's opinions. Nothing more and nothing that shouting will change.

What we're discussing here isn't opinion. Opinion would fall under lines of thought, such as:

"The Mona Lisa is the prettiest painting in the world".

...or

"Cherry pie is superior to apple pie".

These are statements that are subjective. Don't have a right or wrong answer to them. What we're discussing here is a differing interpretation of facts. When you're proven wrong, you can't keep sprouting your previously nullified interpretation of facts as opinion. Because they're wrong.

And thus is discussion.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by barkmonster

Quite the opposite is true.

I've been here about 5 minutes and I can tell that you are kinda lost. It's okay to be corrected.

SEE BELOW and take notes.

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

That is completely wrong and unrelated. Application was never a trademarked term that became genericized. It's not at all like Kleenex or Xerox or Hoover to refer to tissues, copiers or vaccuums. Application, Apps, have all been used to describe software products. Applications = Tissues.

I stand corrected. Upon further reading I would have known that. Since I do not wish to derail the thread, or continue looking misinformed, I will edit my post.

See Mr. Bark. It happens from time to time. It's not so bad.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

I stand corrected. Upon further reading I would have known that. Since I do not wish to derail the thread, or continue looking misinformed, I will edit my post.

I'm sorry if my post was abrupt, it was not meant to be mean to you. It's just that so much confusion has been introduced in this thread about the actual issue that it's now completely blurred and obscured and almost impossible to discuss anymore.

The issue is that Apple's trademark application is for a descriptive term, App Store, like Grocery Store.

It's not about Generic words (Applications, or Windows) being used in trademarks and it's certainly not about who used what first, who popularized what when or how widespread or not something was before or after a certain date.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by barkmonster

Quite the opposite is true.

Ok - so what is opinion and what is fact?

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

I'm sorry if my post was abrupt, it was not meant to be mean to you. It's just that so much confusion has been introduced in this thread about the actual issue that it's now completely blurred and obscured and almost impossible to discuss anymore.

The issue is that Apple's trademark application is for a descriptive term, App Store, like Grocery Store.

It's not about Generic words (Applications, or Windows) being used in trademarks and it's certainly not about who used what first, who popularized what when or how widespread or not something was before or after a certain date.

Oh don't worry, I totally understand:

1) your frustration
2) your motive in correction
3) that you are a stickler for accuracy based on the many other threads we've participated in.
4) the original topic (thanks to your correction)
5) how I was off topic
and lastly
6) how you'd want to kill someone after dealing with 3 pages of mindlessness. Even if it was on a forum.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Ok - so what is opinion and what is fact?

Apple uses OPinion in their OS, Microsoft uses FACt.

----------

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

Oh don't worry, I totally understand:

1) your frustration
2) your motive in correction
3) that you are a stickler for accuracy based on the many other threads we've participated in.
4) the original topic (thanks to your correction)
5) how I was off topic
and lastly
6) how you'd want to kill someone after dealing with 3 pages of mindlessness. Even if it was on a forum.

The worst part is that I'd have moved him to ignore long ago and shouldn't get frustrated because it's quite obvious what the poster is doing and it's against the rules :

Forum rules

Instantly Bannable Offenses

These offenses can result in temporary forum suspensions or permanent bans. If you get a warning, heed it!
[...]
6. Trolling. Do not post in order to anger other members or intentionally cause negative reactions. For a given post, this can be a subjective call, but a pattern of such posting or an especially egregious case will get you banned.

----------

While this thread is completely off-topic and discussing a completely daft thing like "who used Application moar!", can anyone tell me how many times the words Application and Program appear on the following box :

http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegac...08/nt31box.jpg

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

[/COLOR]While this thread is completely off-topic and discussing a completely daft thing like "who used Application moar!", can anyone tell me how many times the words Application and Program appear on the following box :

http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegac...08/nt31box.jpg

Irrelevant. This box is from what - 1993? Applications wasn't a popular term until 2007. It's a fact. I read it on MacRumors!

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

hahahahaahhahahahahaahahahahahaha

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Originally Posted by barkmonster

Apple clearly have prior use of the term App Store and I'm simply stating that they have a long prior history of consistently refering to software as Apps on their various OSs where as other companies vary to some degree.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

Agreed!

Here's another shot just in case our friend up there needs it.

Attachment 388993

On a side note, the Palm TX had been my DREAM machine and it took the tech industry almost 6 years to finally replace it with the Galaxy Note 2.

I should go pull out my Tungsten T3 sitting in a box and home and see if it'll still hold a charge/power up.

[Nightarchaon]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

This thread isn't about copyright or patents. It's about trademarks.

And trademarks are A-OK with me. I wouldn't want to go to the corner store, look in the fridge and have to read the small print to find out which of all the damn identical Diet Pepsi bottles is the one actually made by Pepsi Co. and not some knock-off. That's trademarks at work for you, preventing consumer confusion.

Trademark, copyright, patent its all the same nonsense, at the end of the day common sense should prevail, if you get something out on the market, and actually sell it, then that's yours, in my opinion you shouldn't be able to pre-copyright/patent/trademark things, unless its on a shelf in a store.

Once you have a product then by all means, but its stupid stuff like trying to trademark/ a shape other than your company logo, or a name, other than your company name that i find offensive the amount of money wasted by companies doing nothing more than having a huge "p***ing" contest with our money over trivial stuff, i wish they would stop it, and either lower the price, or invest that money in R&D or renewable energy or making the world a better place, instead of just lining Lawyers and judges pockets.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

Trademark, copyright, patent its all the same nonsense

But it's not. They are all subsets of the great pool known as Intellectual Property but that is where it ends. The rules, the applications and the laws surrounding all 3 types of IP protection are different and should never be discussed as a single entity because of this.

This thread is about trademarks, more specifically about Apple's attempt at getting a descriptive term/phrase (App Store) trademark to refer to their own App Store.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by Geckotek

I should go pull out my Tungsten T3 sitting in a box and home and see if it'll still hold a charge/power up.

I used my TX until I got my EVO 4G.

I keep telling folks that it did everything and more of what the iPhone and many Android based phones could do, just as or more effectively than they, it just wasn't very pretty to setup at all.

[Nightarchaon]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

But it's not. They are all subsets of the great pool known as Intellectual Property but that is where it ends. The rules, the applications and the laws surrounding all 3 types of IP protection are different and should never be discussed as a single entity because of this.

This thread is about trademarks, more specifically about Apple's attempt at getting a descriptive term/phrase (App Store) trademark to refer to their own App Store.

Trademarks are utter nonsense, there the worst of the lot, when someone can trademark a name, such as "Steven" or "John" then the world is mad

App Store is NOT in my opinion trademark-able, neither , is "Coke", sure, stick Coke on a can, in a certain Font and the whole should be trademark-able, because that's your design of it, but just saying "you can use the word Blue anymore because i have trademarked it" is proof of how dumb ass this all is getting

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

Trademarks are utter nonsense, there the worst of the lot, when someone can trademark a name, such as "Steven" or "John" then the world is mad

I see you don't understand trademarks.

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

App Store is NOT in my opinion trademark-able, neither , is "Coke", sure, stick Coke on a can, in a certain Font and the whole should be trademark-able, because that's your design of it, but just saying "you can use the word Blue anymore because i have trademarked it" is proof of how dumb ass this all is getting

Again, I see you don't understand trademarks. If I made a blue colored sugared Soda and wanted to call it simply "Blue", trademark the term, it would be ok. I could sue and defend my trademark against any other makers of beverages trying to make similar beverages and trying to name it "Blue".

I couldn't however sue a cloud computing company called "Blue Inc." or I couldn't sue the makers of the new "Blue" line of clothing. Trademarks are limited to a field.

Now, imagine if your scenario were true. Which is the real Pepsi ? If you can't trademark the name, just a whole completed specific design, then someone can release another Cola, call it Pepsi, and Pepsi Co. can't say crap about it. So that can that is slightly different, is it a new Pepsi Co. design for their cans or a knock-off brand that calls their cola Pepsi too ?

Trademarks prevent consumer confusion. They are a good thing (and you're talking to a rabid anti-software patents guys here). Not all form of IP protection is bad.

That's how Apple got their trademark btw. By promising never to get into the music field to Apple Records when they started Apple Computers. Nothing Apple Records could do at that point. Of course, Steve probably had to go back to negotiate a deal when they launched iTunes and the iTunes Music store.

[Nightarchaon]

All i want is a world where lawyers don't make a load of money of this crap and people use common sense..

i really don't care if i am drinking Coke or knockoff coke if it tastes the same, ill buy the cheaper of the two anyway, and if they are both in the same can, that looks the same, tastes then i don't care.

If company A produces Product A , and charges $100 for it, and company B produces knockoff product A, packages it the same, and names it the same and it does everything that Product A does with no noticeable difference and then sells it for $50 then Company A deserves all it gets for profiteering IMO.

I just view copyright as stupid, if someone can make me an iPad and make 10% profit instead of 80% profit (or whatever apple makes) then i want to buy it from that company, not have a copyright lawyer saying that they cant make it to protect apples profits margin.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

All i want is a world where lawyers don't make a load of money of this crap and people use common sense..

i really don't care if i am drinking Coke or knockoff coke if it tastes the same, ill buy the cheaper of the two anyway, and if they are both in the same can, that looks the same, tastes then i don't care.

If company A produces Product A , and charges $100 for it, and company B produces knockoff product A, packages it the same, and names it the same and it does everything that Product A does with no noticeable difference and then sells it for $50 then Company A deserves all it gets for profiteering IMO.

In that scenario, you're not protected from Company C, that makes a product called Coke, in a can exactly the same as Coke but is actually Deer piss. You'll know once you take a sip of that hot, acid beverage. And next time you go to the convenience store, you know what ? You still won't know which is the real coke and which is the Deer piss because there is no trademark protection in your world.

You do not understand Trademarks, you cannot criticize Trademarks.

Right now, your company B can already exist. They just have to name their product Pepsi (if they are Pepsi Co.) or Pep Cola or Brand X Cola. It can taste the same thing as Coke (the recipe is a trade secret, if known, it has no real protection), it can look like Coke (they can't prevent you from selling brown fizzy liquids) it just can't be called Coke or look like any of Coke's branding and for good reason: I don't want to drink anything but Coke from Coca-cola and so they need to be able to protect their branding, which is something they invested a lot to build and maintain over the years.

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

I just view copyright as stupid, if someone can make me an iPad and make 10% profit instead of 80% profit (or whatever apple makes) then i want to buy it from that company, not have a copyright lawyer saying that they cant make it to protect apples profits margin.

Copyright doesn't stop anyone from making their own version of an iPad. They only stop them from using Apple's software. Otherwise, how is it fair to Apple ? Apple spend months if not years writing and debugging code, why should another company just be able to profit from all that time Apple invested without giving back anything from Apple ?

You don't seem to understand copyright, just like you don't understand Trademarks.

I think you need to take a long, deep breath and study up on the different methods of IP protection, what they protect, what they don't, and the rules in their application.

[Nightarchaon]

But apple has attempted to copyright things like the shape of the iPad, this is dumb, and annoys me that a bunch of lawyers and judges etc get overpaid to spend days fighting this crap.

we are never going to get an interstellar civilization going with all the crap like this going on ... everyone will be too busy copyrighting the blend of rocket fuel

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

But apple has attempted to copyright things like the shape of the iPad, this is dumb, and annoys me that a bunch of lawyers and judges etc get overpaid to spend days fighting this crap.

Uh ? Again you're showing confusion. Apple has never copyrighted things like the shape of the iPad.

I really, really, really suggest at this point that you actually follow the advice I gave you a few days ago : Read up on the subject before attempting to discuss it. You're just hurting your credibility here.

[Nightarchaon]

i cant hurt my credibility, i have none that i am aware off,

im just saying that the whole thing of copyright/patents and trademarks are not being used how they should be, they are being used to try and prevent other people from producing similar products at all..

Apple spent a long time try to convince people that its tablet should be the only tablet that shape, because consumers would confuse another square screen device from another maker with the one they produced ... common sense does not seem to apply to the whole copyright/patent/trademark field at all.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

i cant hurt my credibility, i have none that i am aware off

Ok, I'll stop now. You aren't understanding trademarks that is clear, you aren't understanding the rules behind them and how Apple is obligated to defend them or what they tried to accomplish here (no matter if you agree or not on the trademarkability of the "App Store" term).

You're only overly confused and admit so much about patents/trademarks/copyright and you lump them all together and try to denounce them. You admit so much.

Next time, be clear you are ranting without knowing what you're talking about, but mostly, be clear you do not want to learn anything and just want to stick to your unfounded impressions rather than gain an educated opinion based on facts and reality. I thus won't waste my time trying to explain things to you.

[Nightarchaon]

Fair enough, im cool with that.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Nightarchaon

Apple spent a long time try to convince people that its tablet should be the only tablet that shape, because consumers would confuse another square screen device from another maker with the one they produced ... common sense does not seem to apply to the whole copyright/patent/trademark field at all.

Yep, sometimes it seems that way, especially when these IP grants are being given out by government workers.

However, even the billion dollar against Samsung jury in California looked at Apple's tablet design patent, and must've decided it was way too generic... because they didn't find that Samsung's tablets infringed on it.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by bressben

Its really appreciable decision.All the companies must be bound to obey all the business and intellectual property rights.

The decision was not about "obeying all the business and intellectual property rights" at all. In fact, quite the opposite. This decision was about Amazon's use of Appstore not causing confusion for the customers and hence Apple's claims about this being throw out from the case.