You're right, other companies copy stuff from Apple. Just as much as Apple copies ideas from other companies. Shall we simply call it "fair trade" and once and for all be done with it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're right, other companies copy stuff from Apple. Just as much as Apple copies ideas from other companies. Shall we simply call it "fair trade" and once and for all be done with it?
From any idea that Apple has copied they have made it 10000 x better. Take the latest and greatest source of hate on the net - The Android Notification System. It looks like ****. nuff said
Apple took it and made it look nice. Nuff said
In a way it is almost like the mac vs pc war
PC = looks like crap but is priced cheaper
Mac = Looks like something you would want to keep longer than a day and you pay a bit more for the design (glass, aluminium, brand name, design work)
The first thing you learn in law school is that nobody cares what you meant, it's only relevant what you actually said.
And your post didn't progress things either nor did you post any relevant judgment. Actually, you just come across as arrogant as I come across in my own post. Now that I pledged guilty, is it fair enough for you to stop the pissing contest at this point?
well this isn't lawrumors.com is it. It is also open to the public. Yeh you came across arrogant that is why I replied in same.
My aim in writing to you was to get you back on track but I think it will fail. You can't say my post was not productive when I was trying to make you more productive. Anyway enough.
Last edited:
1. Apple owns many of the patents covering various aspects of multi-touch technology. They bought them. The inventor is happy, because they got paid for their invention. So saying "Apple didn't invent this" is nonsense.
2. Please educate yourself about what a patent is, and what a trademark is. You get a trademark for a name. There is no need to invent anything to get a trademark. There isn't even a need for the word to mean anything. Actually, it is much easier to get a trademark if the word doesn't mean anything. Apple didn't invent the Multi-Blubber. If they applied for the trademark, they would easily get it.
And then people wonder why some cant stand apple fanboys.
So apple can copy because they are apple but others cant copy apple? LOL
ANdroid and ios both have its advantages and disadvantages wich is better depends on personel situation.
So..... Copying from apple and making it better is wrong, but if apple copies and makes it better it's ok?
btw, I have a Galaxy S2, I still like the notifications on Android a lot more iOS, even after the copy. Your argument is pretty flawed.
I for one am happy that apple copied android, helps competition, I just wish iOS fans like you would admit that they took a good idea from android, rather than claiming "Oh, it's only a minor feature and it was crap anyway."
The term multitouch (or multi-touch) has been in use for at least 25 years in the scientific user interface community. I cite this paper as the earliest which I could find that uses the term multi-touch: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=317461
Yes, it uses a hyphen, but I sincerely hope that this is not of importance to a trademark.
Totally irrelevant. There were a number of multi-touch phones before the iPhone but this is not about some patent based on MultiTouch. It's about a trademark to the 'catch word' 'MultiTouch' that Apple made so popular resulting in a scenario where every company started using it.
Here is google trends proving the hypothesis:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=multi-touch
I agree with the explanation. It is possible but I don't think Apple should be responsible for Google/Microsoft/HTC using their 'catch word'.
The only reasoning (as you said) that can be attributed to the denial is that Apple was too late to acquire the trademark(which is not the case).
Exactly. But Apple is not responsible for USPTO delaying this grant by 5 years (~ Jan 2012)? Apple sincerely applied for the trademark in January 2007 and in my opinion, it rightfully deserves it.
Had they tested out their marketing and applied for the trademark in ~2008/2009, I'd be the first one to reject the idea. But really, Apple was very sincere to file for the trademark in 2007 and henceforth USPTO should have granted that back in the day itself. I don't know about USPTO's guidelines or terms of grant/denial but ethically speaking, USPTO is not doing the right thing.
The argument and the denial now also implies that any company with a new product that's trying to trademark it may as well lose the trademark if the USPTO delays it by a number of years during which a number of companies start to use the 'catch phrase'.
Nuff said, Apple rocks, all the others suck and anyone that doesn't agree is a troll.
It didn't exist in mobile phones, but: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13410734/
----------
I'm sure there's lots of - in a lack of a better word - silly trademarks out there. I'm no lawyer, but I highly doubt that pointing out that other's have a similarly silly trademark would win any case. Where would we be if everybody could get any trademark because they could find an example of a poor ruling on another, related, and just as silly trademark?
My first thought was, good for you, USPTO. My second thought was to check Wikipedia, and in fact, there was no article on "multitouch" until January 10, 2007, so Apple probably did in fact make this term themselves. So 'multitouch' is probably as rightfully Apple's as 'iMac.' Maybe they should've called it iMultitouch.
(Of course they didn't invent multitouch, but they did invent the term, and this is a trademark, not a patent.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-touch&dir=prev&action=history
E: My third thought was to actually read the initial Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-touch&oldid=99852927), and it looks like Apple doesn't deserve it after all, though they did make it a popular term. Probably Jeff Han http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/ or someone should get it. E2: Unless Apple bought that guy's technology, in which case I guess they should own the trademark too.
Stop! I can not hear that anymore!!!! Patent law should be reformed very soon, otherwise this is getting even more pathetic!
Apple should realize that someone else made multitouch before. And imagine they would now proof that this Japanese guy was the first and patents it and forces apple to NOT USE multitouch!? It would be similar to apples behavior, but in that case apple would be the looser.
I can imagine that apple is upset because samsung copied the design (to some extend). But some of the patents are totally stupid. Imagine there was a patent for wheels, for glass, for the shape of beds or bicycles in general? Stop!
Apple should realize that someone else made multitouch before. And imagine they would now proof that this Japanese guy was the first and patents it and forces apple to NOT USE multitouch!? It would be similar to apples behavior, but in that case apple would be the looser.
I can imagine that apple is upset because samsung copied the design (to some extend). But some of the patents are totally stupid. Imagine there was a patent for wheels, for glass, for the shape of beds or bicycles in general? Stop!
I agree but my point was not to win any case, I'm not in a position to do so anyway. Just to point out that what Apple is doing here is not an exception but the norm. Just do it!, I'm loving it! etc
Trademarks are not patents. This has nothing to do with the technology, it's just about registering the name.
Yep. I think this is best for everyone that such common terms don't get trademarked.
It actually does not matter. Even "iPod" could be lost as trademark if it becomes a broad and generic term for any similar device. E.g. Sony had to fight a lot to avoid losing the "Walkman" trademark and actually lost it in Austria.
You can find more details here with many interesting examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
In australia there actually was a guy who thought our patenting system was so screwed that he set out to patent the wheel. Stupid thing is that he succeeded. Luckily he was a standup guy a put that particular patent into the public domain.
Awesome, I had forgotten about this one! It's shows how far behind Apple is, and who's copying who.
Oh, so if something isnt on Wikipedia, it doesnt exist? Great reasoning there. Okay, you did change your mind, but that doesnt make the initial reasoning (which you dont reject) any less flawed. As stated in the thread the term has been used for almost 3 decades, if not more. It is the de facto standard term for "the-thing-that-it-is" (i.e. multi-touch). Apple trademarking multi-touch would be analogous to Henry Ford trademarking "steering-wheel".
Apple OWNED the technology! Apple spent years in R&D. Competitors copied the technology. Apple should at least keep the name for themselves. How dare they deny Apple's request!