Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Denied Trademark for Multi-Touch

honkj said:
uh, no apple didn't invent the process, THEY BOUGHT THE COMPANY WHO DID INVENT MULTITOUCH CAPACITANCE screens though....

i've noticed an on going trend of clueless people commenting about stuff they have no idea about.. and no no one would be using the term Multitouch screen if the iPhone were never invented... not Android, not anyone.

although the term shouldn't be trademarked because most terms should not be trademarked, and most things should not be patented, the idiot review board using Android as an example is just plain idiotic, there would be no multitouch android capacitance screens if there was no iPhone, Android was a feature phone OS that had no touch capabilities, until Andy lifted the ideas from apple, by the way, Andy worked at Apple before buying Android, and then working for Google...

also Eric was on the Apple board while the iPhone was being developed..

hence the multi-touch Android system, (which still took nearly two years to modify the old Android to get to work as a poor copy of the iOS operating system after the iPhone had been shipping)

that is how out of touch that idiot is....
Click to expand...

And which company was that?
 
Tiggs said:
No surprise they didn't get the trademark. Would agree that the term seems overly broad.
Click to expand...

I think Apple knew this but why not try. For a small amount of money (to them) they had a chance to completely mess around with other companies that would affect them in a large way. May as well try. Might just be an attempted revenge attack to Samsung and Google.
 
starvingartist8 said:
I am not sure what to think on this one. I supported Apple's attempts to trademark other terms because lets face it, the word 'app' was never used ever before apple and now everyone uses it.
Click to expand...

I thought we had buried this one, but I guess not. "App" goes back decades. It was mentioned before the iPhone was announced on this very forum. Apple has no claim to it whatsoever. None.
 
something3153 said:
I thought we had buried this one, but I guess not. "App" goes back decades. It was mentioned before the iPhone was announced on this very forum. Apple has no claim to it whatsoever. None.
Click to expand...

that is not my whole post silly. + we are on the trademark discussion. Use your brain
 
starvingartist8 said:
that is not my whole post silly. + we are on the trademark discussion. Use your brain
Click to expand...

I wasn't addressing your whole post. And yes, we're on a trademark discussion. You brought up an example of a trademark you think Apple should have. They shouldn't. I didn't change the topic; I shot down your point. Try to keep up. And try not to spout completely inaccurate statements; they really hurt your credibility.
 
something3153 said:
I wasn't addressing your whole post. And yes, we're on a trademark discussion. You brought up an example of a trademark you think Apple should have. They shouldn't. I didn't change the topic; I shot down your point. Try to keep up. And try not to spout completely inaccurate statements; they really hurt your credibility.
Click to expand...

lol sorry your highness
 
I think it sucks a bit for Apple. I browse their trademark list and it has Multi-Touch trademarked from years ago. They spend their money to trademark a name then the court just goes and says it is too generic. Why the hell would they have gotten it trademarked in the first place if it was too generic.. The court should pay Apple back their money they used to trademark that term years ago if anything.

----------
something3153 said:
I thought we had buried this one, but I guess not. "App" goes back decades. It was mentioned before the iPhone was announced on this very forum. Apple has no claim to it whatsoever. None.
Click to expand...

BTW can you provide a link to the term "App" that was around before Apple? Not taunting. I am serious
 
Krakor said:
I think is very safe to say multi-touch as a both a concept and term have been in use long before iPhone. I remember watching a cool video by Xerox Parc of a multi-touch display surface that was done in the 90's (but I can't find the link anymore). For an interesting history on touch/multi-touch, check this interesting article by Bill Buxton: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
Click to expand...

was there ever anything non-cool coming out of parc? =)

----------
MacinDoc said:
By this reasoning, Apple could reapply for the trademark by renaming iOS "Multitouch", citing "Windows" as a precedent. After all, multitouch is just one element of iOS, just as a window is just one element of Windows.

Edit: my point is not that Apple should have been awarded a TM for Multitouch, which existed for decades before Apple started to use it. Just that I believe that the Windows TM is equally absurd, just as silly as it would be if a company tried to TM the name "Widgets" for a mobile OS.
----------


Yes, with numerous other examples, like Apple TV, iPhone, OS X etc.
Click to expand...

Then, you clearly (which may be my fault) did not get the reasoning at all. Unfortunately, i dont have the time to clarify atm. Gotta suit up for le conference!
 
@something 3152

NeXT, founded by Steve Jobs in 1985, and the basis for the modern Mac OS, also calls software “Apps”. This is from NeXT OpenStep 4.2

http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Steve-Jobs-NeXT-Apps-founded-1985-580x435.jpg

source: http://obamapacman.com/2011/01/anal...mark-objection-microsoft-tries-to-fool-uspto/

so unless you can find me the term 'App' actively used before 1985 then you are a ..


The ending sums up my argument:

Judging from industry history and Microsoft’s own failed attempts to successfully brand the generic “marketplace” word, naming a mobile software distribution business “App Store” is anything but obvious or generic. If it was so obvious, why didn’t Microsoft use “App Store” before 2008? In reality, Apple created the App Store through hard work and success of the iPhone platform; other companies (especially Microsoft) had no part in it.

Even though App Store is sometimes used to describe mobile software, its use is similar to how people use “Google” to describe web searching. Just because everybody is using it, doesn’t mean the trademark is in the public domain, free for competitors to use.
 
starvingartist8 said:
I think it sucks a bit for Apple. I browse their trademark list and it has Multi-Touch trademarked from years ago. They spend their money to trademark a name then the court just goes and says it is too generic. Why the hell would they have gotten it trademarked in the first place if it was too generic.. The court should pay Apple back their money they used to trademark that term years ago if anything.

----------



BTW can you provide a link to the term "App" that was around before Apple? Not taunting. I am serious
Click to expand...

Search the forum, theres a whole thread on it (probably more than one). Latest i can remember is the thread regarding Microsoft implementing a store in W8. Happy hunting.
 
divinox said:
Search the forum, theres a whole thread on it (probably more than one). Latest i can remember is the thread regarding Microsoft implementing a store in W8. Happy hunting.
Click to expand...

you should check out the link I posted above. Happy reading

----------

c'mon 'Something3152' or whatever your matrix number is... reply to my argument. I love to watch egotistic nerd ragers fail at the truth. I do not care what happens with Apple... I just state facts. Hell I might even buy an Android next when it is time for a new phone. Just depends what is better on the market (stolen ideas or not)

EDIT: I'm outer here so won't get your reply. I can only imagine how foolish it will be if you do though. Peace
 
Leaping Tortois said:
Actually, Linksys had an iPhone before apple released iPhone. Maybe just release dates for Australia were differenty, though
Click to expand...

I've not read into this one but using the lowercase term----- i ------ in front of your products is also copying apple. I actually called my old nokia an iPhone before iPods even existed just because I had an iMac and iLife and i this and i that so I just said out of no where to a colleague "look... iPhone" cause I had the apple logo in shape of a pirate skull on the screen. Not hard to do.

therefore apple has the rights to iPhone because phone is generic - anyone can use it and ------- i -----in front of product names in lower case -- is made up by apple.
 
rjohnstone said:
No.. Palm started the trend of touchscreen smartphones.
Tablet computers existed before Apple ever thought of making one.


I won't go into the rest because the RDF is strong with you as well.
Your lack of knowledge in the history of technology proves this.
Click to expand...

I never said Apple was the first to put a touch screen on a "phone". Apple started the stylus-less-smartphone revolution.

Apple invented the term Multi-Touch in this sense. And applied for a trademark before anyone else was using the name, and before there were any other phones that COULD rightly use the name. Thus I think they should be able to have of touch-screen tech to call their own. That's what this discussion is about.

As for tablet computers, Apple made the first GOOD one. (lawl)

Don't think that I'm an RDF loaded Apple fanboy. Apple simply should have won this one. And other companies DO copy Apple in almost every sense of the word. You can't deny that.
 
starvingartist8 said:
I've not read into this one but using the lowercase term----- i ------ in front of your products is also copying apple. I actually called my old nokia an iPhone before iPods even existed just because I had an iMac and iLife and i this and i that so I just said out of no where to a colleague "look... iPhone" cause I had the apple logo in shape of a pirate skull on the screen. Not hard to do.

therefore apple has the rights to iPhone because phone is generic - anyone can use it and ------- i -----in front of product names in lower case -- is made up by apple.
Click to expand...

placing an i before your product is not something Apple started.
 
divinox said:
placing an i before your product is not something Apple started.
Click to expand...

Apple has created product recognition with their iProducts though. People not in the know will tend to think anything named in that fashion is some sort of Apple product, at least at first. I used to do that in fact, but that was many years ago.
 
mbarriault said:
While I agree that "Multi-Touch" shouldn't be trademarkable, they cited the broad scope of use as a reason why. Was the term in broad use before the iPhone came around? I don't recall.
Click to expand...

That's what i was thinking... They also mention "exclusivity of use" as one of the marks of "distinctiveness". Didn't apple have this when they applied; they don't have it now only because of the length of time it's taken for the lawyers to make this decision.

Just my 2c...
 
Earendil said:
Sadly, it's not pathetic. Apple has to at least try, because if the patent office DOES seem it patent-able, Apple wants to hold that patent. It would be more pathetic if they didn't try, and the patent were acquired by someone that wanted to see the "multitouch" king take a tumble.
Click to expand...

I wish I would get one Euro for every post in which people clearly do not know what the differences between copyrights, trademarks and patents are... It appears to be all the same to almost everybody. Just like everybody also seems to believe that an end user license agreement has the same status and power as a law, is universally valid and cannot be questioned or invalid or even contain illegal terms.
 
Winni said:
I wish I would get one Euro for every post in which people clearly do not know what the differences between copyrights, trademarks and patents are... It appears to be all the same to almost everybody. Just like everybody also seems to believe that an end user license agreement has the same status and power as a law, is universally valid and cannot be questioned or invalid or even contain illegal terms.
Click to expand...

Well if you are smart you should know what he meant then. Obviously he has a point in what he said too. Stop hitting others down who do not know correct terms when it is very easy to understand what they mean and have a valid point. You are just stalling progress with your post instead of making a relevant judgement on it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back