http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCORzYW6lQ
Even with MSFT Surface Samsung is obviously out copying Apple as always...
----------
Which technology do you claim that they OWNED? And on what grounds?
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCORzYW6lQ
Even with MSFT Surface Samsung is obviously out copying Apple as always...
----------
Which technology do you claim that they OWNED? And on what grounds?
What's all this talk of the technology and who invented what anyway ? This is quite off-topic and far from the subject at hand.
We're discussing a trademark here.
We're discussing a trademark here.
It doesn't matter in the least who invented the underlying technology, or when it was invented, or how many different underlying implementations (non-mutually-infringing) could independently be invented to arrive at the same user experience by different processes. That is the domain of patents, not trademarks.
For the purposes of trademark, all that matters is the name that is used to describe the product or feature. Not the implementation details of the product or feature itself.
A previous poster has claimed to have posted a link to evidence that the word "Multi-Touch" was coined to describe the general concept more than 25 years ago. (Remember, for the purposes of trademark, as noted above, it doesn't matter if they hadn't yet worked out all the technical details to describe how the technology would work.) If that link is accurate, then even in 2007 when Apple filed its claim, it was already more than 20 years too late to the game. End of story.
Last edited:
In that case I'm all with you!
You're absolutely right in that Apple is just doing what is the norm. Since other companies play by the same rules they need to play by the same book. I don't like that book, though.
For the record, so to speak...
Those rolling their eyes or citing Windows as being generic are not paying attention to the reason Apple was denied. It wasn't because the term was generic per se - it was because ""multi-touch" not only identifies the technology, but also describes how a user of the goods operates the device."
Windows does not describe how an OS is used. And in fact - windows is "meaningless" - but just a name. Just like Apple is a fruit - but also a company.
Windows is unique to the computing world because it's the name of a product and because the name doesn't describe anything in specific ("how a user of the goods operates the device")
But I guess if you blindly hate Microsoft or need to make Apple look better in your eyes for whatever reason - go ahead thinking that Apple was slighted here.
Those rolling their eyes or citing Windows as being generic are not paying attention to the reason Apple was denied. It wasn't because the term was generic per se - it was because ""multi-touch" not only identifies the technology, but also describes how a user of the goods operates the device."
Windows does not describe how an OS is used. And in fact - windows is "meaningless" - but just a name. Just like Apple is a fruit - but also a company.
Windows is unique to the computing world because it's the name of a product and because the name doesn't describe anything in specific ("how a user of the goods operates the device")
But I guess if you blindly hate Microsoft or need to make Apple look better in your eyes for whatever reason - go ahead thinking that Apple was slighted here.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
So just because apple popularized a certain product category they should be given exclusive rights to all the existing words hat most people were not familiar with before? Like apple deserves some kind of gratefulness from the Uspto only because hey found a way to make a lot of money?
Peace said:
So just because apple popularized a certain product category they should be given exclusive rights to all the existing words hat most people were not familiar with before? Like apple deserves some kind of gratefulness from the Uspto only because hey found a way to make a lot of money?
fixed it a bit for you. This is the glaring point. If Apple could have had the mark achieve secondary meaning before it went mainstream (ie : "Multi-Touch ? you mean that Apple tech ?") then they would have been granted the mark even though it was descriptive.
The problem is that the tech blogs, mags and all the mainstream people started referring to anything that supported multi-touch gestures as multi-touch without referring to Apple. The term was used descriptively and generically all over and Apple failed to push it as "their thing".
Same with App Store really, I can't really see how the outcome will be different. Steve Jobs refers himself to the competition's "App Stores" and pretty much anyone doesn't associate "App Store" with Apple per se.
Reality check Alert.
It's a fancy box that houses some electronic circuitry, that is all.
It's incredibly shallow to base your judgement on the exterior look of something.
Unless of course it's "looks" are its primary function eg a painting, or sculpture.
Funny, if the "looks" helps to identify a brand and communicate something about it, help it sell, and / or increase usability and so on, then "the looks" is a function of that product.
Many many many many consumer choices are based on the way something looks mate? Why do you think fashion exists in the first place?
If it isn't on Wikipedia, then it certainly isn't very well known, especially for computing terms. Apple was definitely the first ones to widely publicized the term, at least. If only one guy in his mom's basement had used the term "steering wheel" before Henry Ford put it on all his documentation for his model T's, then I'd probably vote for Ford. If I thought that trademarks weren't ridiculous nonsense, anyway. I really can't find any official documentation of multitouch before 2006 (e.g. publications).
patents, apple, and invention
I am very glad that the G chord, and the major scale were never patented. Had they been invented today they would be and music would suffer for it.
Apple has invented some great stuff. But the core technologies, the toolset that they used for their creations, came from a lot of prior art, some of which comes from influences outside of Apple and some of which is organic to the company.
Just because some of us love Apple products while others hate the company or the products or whatever it is they hate, there is no sense in letting feelings for the products that we use drive us to some sort of religious argument. If you like what you use then you won, regardless of what it is.
I am very glad that the G chord, and the major scale were never patented. Had they been invented today they would be and music would suffer for it.
Apple has invented some great stuff. But the core technologies, the toolset that they used for their creations, came from a lot of prior art, some of which comes from influences outside of Apple and some of which is organic to the company.
Just because some of us love Apple products while others hate the company or the products or whatever it is they hate, there is no sense in letting feelings for the products that we use drive us to some sort of religious argument. If you like what you use then you won, regardless of what it is.
Last edited:
Reason for lack of "public use" is as simple as lack of "public multi-touch devices". Apple had nothing to do with coining the term, or inventing the technology. I know Jobs told you otherwise, but guess what sometimes hes full of **** :- )
Almost everyone who had anything to say about multi-touch used that exact word. That most had nothing to say about it doesnt change anything. Multi-touch was, and is, the de facto standard moniker "for-the-thing-here-discussed" (i.e. multi-touch).
A multi-touch three dimensional touch-sensitive tablet
SK Lee, W Buxton - ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 1985 - portal.acm.org
SK Lee, W Buxton - ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 1985 - portal.acm.org
And yes, that is the Buxton who works at MSFT. Isnt it ironical that the first hit on my scholar search not only was about multi-touch, but that it also was about a TABLET and that one of the authors is a MSFT employee?
The point is you have poor reading comprehension. They ruled a trademark can't be a common way to describe something. If they called it "magic touch", then no problem.
It is not the commonality of the word, it is in the context it is being used. So yes "Windows" can be trademarked because it is an uncommon name for software.
----------
It is like trying to trademark the feature of "walking", "running", "jumping" by Nike for their shoes. But they could do "easy glide technology", "trotting-assist", "extra-super-bouncy catapult".
lol i remember when i got my first iPhone back in the day everyone was like where is the stylus??? when i told them it doesnt have one everyone was like omg, how stupid is that
OMG lol like wow gag me with a fork!
I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that Wikipedia is a valid source by itself.
Wikipedia (and the Internet) didn't even exist very long ago. Wikipedia has relatively little of the world's knowledge, and what it does have, often has few or bad references. Anything related to the iPhone is usually most suspect of all, due to fan submitted material.
Also bear in mind that just because we didn't know a term until recently, that doesn't mean it hasn't been widely used within its field for years. For instance, I started programming for capacitive touchscreens almost twenty years ago. It was a well known term in the field. Most of the public only heard of "capacitive" a few years ago.
Learn to search books, papers, etc. For example:
1. Go to Google. Enter "multi-touch" with the hyphen. This allows it to search for both with and without it. Click "Google Search".
2. When you get the first results, click on "More" at the top and choose "Scholar". One of the first few results is from 1985.
You can also search magazines like Time, Popular Science, etc for articles. This is especially fruitful for terms involving consumer items such as "touch tablet" or older terms that were widespread a decade ago. (The first result in PopSci for "webpad" is for a 1999 touch tablet running on QNX ! )
While I don't disagree that Apple may or may not have presented evidence that they had used "multi-touch" on their boxes or advertising, I do have to mention that Apple did, in fact, go to great lengths to promote the term "multi-touch". It was all over the iPhone web page back in 2007. I remember it have a whole page dedicated to how the tech worked on the iPhone. Steve gushed about it during the presentation.
Here's a non-perfect analogy. Dodge has an engine that they have trademarked as the "Hemi". They call it the hemi because (I think) the cylinder heads are hemispherical in shape. I don't think they have a patent on the cylinder shape or design, just a trademark on the term "hemi" as it relates to an engine.
Now, suppose I want create a new car and I made an engine with hemishperical heads. I wouldn't (and shouldn't) be allowed to call my engine a "hemi" because consumers might be lead to believe I had a Dodge engine in my car.
This is similar to Apple's assertion that multi-touch implies an Apple-quality touch screen. I could be argued that a consumer might see a Motorola phone that has a screen that's called "multi-touch" and think that Motorola used an Apple screen in it.
To me, this is the key point in the discussion. If Apple failed to properly submit the required elements to the USPTO, then shame on them.
And when did it become common? That's right Apple used it first, everyone copies them, and then BAM they say it's too widespread to stop.. ditto app store and every other 'generic' term, that Apple comes up with.
Read the thread. Apple didnt use it first, and it was already the de facto standard to describe multi-touch. Its like if cucumber juice all of a sudden became the big hype thanks to Banana inc., and then no one else is allowed to sell cucumber juice because Banana inc. appealed for a trademark. Makes very little sense to force others to not call something what it has always been called.
Multi-touch has been multi-touch for several decades. Just forget about it.
----------
Neither would be true :- )
Good
Good. There is too much trademarking and patenting going on. They should have to prove themselves out in the market, not just lock down every term and idea.
Good. There is too much trademarking and patenting going on. They should have to prove themselves out in the market, not just lock down every term and idea.