And this has to do with MS using the term Aplication since MS/DOS times exactly how?
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
And this has to do with MS using the term Aplication since MS/DOS times exactly how?
And how it changes using it on a mobile device than on other devices? Makes it less descriptive?
I'll name two.
Mac mini.
Macbook Air. Yes, I consider the MBAir separate from a full size laptop. The media is filled with stories of PC manufacturers struggling to build one at a reasonable cost.
This too is discussed in the mentioned thread. Not sure iirc, but could have to do with how MSFT views programs and applications respectively; programs are the-whole-package, applications are executables (e.g. to start the program, you execute the application). I could very well be wrong, but read the thread. There is a lengthy discussion on this.
Simply asking for an example of where the term "multi-touch" has been used before the iPhone haha...why are you people making this more difficult than it has to be.
My God, I have said that the term multi-touch was used BEFORE the iPhone, but not only on mobile devices.
Why it changes nothing if it wasn't used in a mobile device? Does it change the technology involved? does it makes it less descriptive?
And you sound very confident that it has....so...show us where it has?
I mean you're saying things like "My God" as if it's common knowledge, so why is it so hard to provide where it's been done?
Not true. Tell a typical Windows user to launch an "app" and they'll give you a blank stare. Tell them to go to the Programs menu and they'll understand.
Apple did not coin the term "app" but they did popularize it with the masses.
Multitouch.
Yeah, just because Microsoft and Google are following Apple's lead (again) doesn't mean Apple is actually "innovative." Right MS and Google fanboys?
Unleash the straw man.
He shouldn't have to repeat the whole thread again for anyone who hasn't kept up, or who is coming in late to the discussion.
Examples have been given back in the beginning.
For starters, do a thread search for my posts.
Perfect...that's all I asked for. You people need to stop acting like you're being attacked when a simple question is being asked...
What lead?Multitouch.
Yeah, just because Microsoft and Google are following Apple's lead (again) doesn't mean Apple is actually "innovative." Right MS and Google fanboys?
Apple was following others with multi touch.
Microsoft had fully function Surface prototypes back in 2005.
That project was started back in 2001... long before the idea of using multi touch was an itch in Steve's pants.
Apple put together a nice package using existing technology.
They deserve the credit for the work they did, but make no mistake, they are riding on the R&D of others.
Mini-ITX. Look it up.
Dell makes a SFF, the Dell Studio Hybrid. Shuttle (a PC company) are the ones who launched the fad in the first place.
The whole thread has been about this topic, so anyone who hasn't read it all before commenting is going to get resistance
But I'll help...
First off, it's gone way past needing examples of the phrase being used decades ago or being a general descriptive term. The USPTO examiner's statement of Aug 12, 2010 says:
"(Apple) has conceded the descriptiveness of the mark and the sole issue before the Board is the sufficiency of the proffered evidence of acquired distinctiveness."
So the only valid trademark discussion point is whether or not Apple made, through advertising expenditures, packaging, and other assertive efforts, the phrase "Multi-Touch" to be associated with their product alone.
The USPTO said that "multi-touch" was used right away by everyone to describe the feature on any device (which makes sense, as it was already a term used in that field), and thus does not make a consumer automatically think of Apple alone. Moreover, Apple presented almost no evidence that they had made large efforts to associate the phrase with their devices. Therefore the trademark was denied.
Last edited:
I repair computers for family, friends, etc. many of whom are not proficient with technology and used the shorthand "app" for application with them for a number of years.
As far as popularizing the term to refer to a mobile application, Apple did do that; everything on the phone is now an "app".
They also kind of changed the meaning of the term. Now if I use "app" as shorthand for "application", less people get what I mean now than in the past. They just assume I'm referring to a smartphone application and say "No, this is on my computer, not my phone".
Not "everyone," but the typical MacRumors Detractors Brigade who can't bear to admit their own beloved companies (Dell, Microsoft, etc.) bring little more to the table than the status quo.
Notice how Microsoft is suddenly calling "Programs" (which they've used in Windows since who-knows-when, even in Windows Mobile) "Apps." But of course it has nothing to do with Apple. I mean, everyone has been calling them "Apps" forever, right?
It's amazing how things suddenly become "obvious" the moment Apple does it.
Very nice post not like many others here. I totale agree, but this is internet.
The whole thread has been about this topic, so anyone who hasn't read it all before commenting is going to get resistance
It's a forum on the web haha...I will pay you $10,000 if you link me to a forum where people don't ask questions that have already been answered. Such a utopia doesn't exist my friend. Rather then play moderator, it would have been easier to just say "it's in the beginning of the thread", no?
These are simple questions, and you provided a simple, and correct answer. Like I said, "Perfect...that's all I was asking".
Back to touch. There are trademarks for "Touch," "UltraTouch," "Easy Touch," "One Touch" and "No-Touch" for things you operate by touch (or not, in the last case).
I'm particularly interested in the adjective-Touch combination, since that's what Multi-Touch is. If an application that's touched once to activate can have its trademark, if a test strip that works with an easy touch can have its trademark, if a device that operates with no touch can have its trademark, why can't a device that operates using multiple touches have "Multi-Touch"?
BTW, there are several trademarks for most of those, each in its own market.
The whole thread has been about this topic, so anyone who hasn't read it all before commenting is going to get resistance
But I'll help...
First off, it's gone way past needing examples of the phrase being used decades ago or being a general descriptive term. The USPTO examiner's statement of Aug 12, 2010 says:
"(Apple) has conceded the descriptiveness of the mark and the sole issue before the Board is the sufficiency of the proffered evidence of acquired distinctiveness."
So the only valid trademark discussion point is whether or not Apple made, through advertising expenditures, packaging, and other assertive efforts, the phrase "Multi-Touch" to be associated with their product alone.
The USPTO said that "multi-touch" was used right away by everyone to describe the feature on any device (which makes sense, as it was already a term used in that field), and thus does not make a consumer automatically think the device belongs to Apple.
And they didn't, which is the critical insight. Some key takeaways from the denial:
Trademark Denial said:
Apple used the term in literature but not on the product itself or the packaging.
Trademark Denial said:
And Apple argues the product literature and TV commercials without even providing specific proof.
Trademark Denial said:
And then there's the lack of other evidence.
Trademark Denial said:
Apple put forward a claim and backed it up with no evidence that they were using the mark they were seeking as a primary descriptive mark to its products alone. Meanwhile, the term was used generically on similar products in public many, many, many times.
This denial comes as no shock in light of the evidence.
Well, there's "obvious" and then there's "popular".
Often what Apple does has been known or obvious to anyone in that field, but not previously popularized.
For instance, the case style used by the iPad is obvious (both EU courts said so), but it took a big name to make it popular.
It's like when cars started to get fins. Once Cadillac did it, every car did it.
Decades later, when bean shaped cars got popular, everyone had bean shaped cars.
Its like the whole Xerox/Photocopy thing again.
or the Kleenex/Tissue thing.
or the Rollerblade/In-line Skate thing back when.....
or the Kleenex/Tissue thing.
or the Rollerblade/In-line Skate thing back when.....
Does not change the fact that it is a descript term and you can not trademark that.
Apple never marketed it not did they ever try to stop others from using it.