Since you do not have access to the R&D documentation or the patent wrappers of either company, your statements as to who had what, when, are bogus. Demonstrating semi-functional prototypes means nothing, although it could limit your time to file your patent application.
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
Since you do not have access to the R&D documentation or the patent wrappers of either company, your statements as to who had what, when, are bogus. Demonstrating semi-functional prototypes means nothing, although it could limit your time to file your patent application.
You're right. While they were often called "apps" back then, no one explicitly named their online store just "The App Store".
After searching all my old handheld magazines, I finally realized why. It was because online stores usually sold for just one device type. Or if they sold for more than one, they had substores for each type. Therefore a section was always the "Palm Store" or whatever, to clue in the customer as to which device it had apps for.
Back then I was an "embedded apps" engineer (so says my resume) so when I turned to a coworker and said "Hey I got this cool app", they probably responded with "from which (app) store?"
Also, it was a more formal period back then. While you might use "app" as slang in speech or an article, a business would use the full word "application" instead. Banks didn't loan money for just "apps"
All that said, I think Apple had a great shot at getting "App Store" trademarked until their own executives began using it as a generic term even in earnings calls. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Sure. "Multi-touch" was a common term in my field (touch development) long before the iPhone, and thus any device with that capability would usually have it mentioned someplace in its literature.
As for phones, I have said many times that 2006 was the year of all-touch device demos (which is why Apple rushed to show their iPhone in early 2007), so it's a good year to look.
I already gave one example of using "multi-touch" in a pre-iPhone device announcement back in post #90.
A device better known to touch developers was the Synaptics based Onyx smartphone below (video), which was being shown all over the place. The author of this Aug 2006 Slashgear article talks about the ClearPad technology used for its skin:
"...ClearPad apparently harnesses the accuracy of an active digitizer with the convenience of a passive one, coupled with multi-touch recognition..."
I wasn't talking about multi-touch in that comment, I was talking about the "app" nomenclature.
Just because Microsoft loves to "leak" its R&D work looong before ship dates doesn't mean other companies (who show off their products when they're ready to sell) aren't already hard at work on similar concepts.
Like....Microsoft's? LOL!
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.
Image
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.
******** response. ill bet a years worth salary on the fact that neither multi-touch or apps are associated with apple exclusively. dare to bet against?
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.
I almost dare not ask, but who consist of that MDB you talk about? Anyone who has the gall to express an opinion that has the slightest hint of, let we say, contra Apple? Notice how fanboys suddenly mention Microsoft when that happens?
<- Roll eyes.i actually got a 2003 shuttle in my apartment storage room... damn loud gfx (was high-end back then) :- )
I remember the term "killer app" years before the iPhone came out. Sure most people didn't, but that doesn't mean Apple is entitled to the App-Store trademark.
touch* is retarded (same basis as multi-touch), the rest are not.
* assuming it has anything to do with touch-based technology.
----------
killer app is about as old as software itself, and most definitely older than the iphone.
And if Apple were trying to copyright the term "killer app" you might have a point. But since they are trying to copyright the term "App Store" you really just proved yourself completely wrong.
This is how copyright works: You can write a book about a kid called "Harry." You can write a book about a boy whose last name is "Potter."
But combine those two words, and you are going to fall foul of copyright law.
Simple enough for you to understand?
Multi-Touch is the same deal as "appstore". It will be interesting to see whether Apple gets their mark on appstore, if they can't get multi-touch, I'm guessing appstore is gonna end up being the same way.
One difference is that "multi-touch" has decades of documented usage in its field, while "app store" did not.
However, I've mentioned before that I think the problems which stopped Apple's attempt at trademarking "Multi-Touch" are very similar to what's going to happen with its US based trade dress lawsuits:
Apple doesn't advertise its products using what it claims is its trade dress (or trademark).
In other words, Apple does not advertise the iPad as a must-buy because of its case design, nor do they show its packaging. Far from it. Apple advertises the way you use their device or how many apps there are.
--
Why is the way they advertise important? Besides it losing their trademark case, here's another example:
A while back Prestone Antifreeze lost a similar trade dress case. An upstart rural company began selling its own antifreeze in a similar yellow handle jug (but with different script for the name).
Prestone sued, claiming that a yellow jug such as theirs constituted trade dress. They lost, because they could not prove that their advertising ever emphasized the jug design or color as what a consumer should look for. Instead, their ads were always about its performance or whatever.
So you see, if Apple's ads screamed "Buy our lovely rounded rectangle device!" then they'd have a better chance of claiming trade dress damages. Likewise, if they had advertised "If you don't have an iPhone, you don't have Multi-Touch!" they might've had a better shot at the trademark.
suddenly last millenium....
Notice this press release:
Somehow the fact that Microsoft had a Desktop Applications Division at the beginning of 1996 weakens your case.
Notice this press release:
Somehow the fact that Microsoft had a Desktop Applications Division at the beginning of 1996 weakens your case.
Last edited:
Read this forum long enough and you'll know exactly who they are. They live to bash Apple regardless of the topic. They hate Apple the company and Apple products and they're more than happy to tell us this again and again. They have nothing positive to say about Apple. On a forum dedicated to Apple products. Go figure.
I say to each his own, but the courteous thing would be to frequent a forum that caters to your own personal interests, not endlessly agitate the users of a forum that doesn't.
Not at all. I've never said anything to imply that.
If it weren't for such a beurocracy and long wait, i'm sure apple would have gotten the trademark and allowed exclusivity for "multi-touch" in which case its competitors would have just used a different name for its similar technology. Since everyone is now using this term for their own device it has become main stream and can't be trademarked to just one company.
Attachments
Last edited:
Multi-touch has been commonly used within the industry for years before Apple ever mentioned it, but Apple made it a famous term. I mean popularizing a term should give you a trademark for a technology and term that has been in existence for decades before you ever thought about using it? really?
Trademarks for technology should only be granted if you actually invented the technology. You can't take someone else's technology and someone else's term and try to trademark it, that's comical.
Trademarks for technology should only be granted if you actually invented the technology. You can't take someone else's technology and someone else's term and try to trademark it, that's comical.
It had nothing to do with a long wait. It had to do with Apple being (understandably) unable to prove that such a generic term had become exclusive to its own products.
However, while researching the actual sequence of events in order to give you a timeline, I ran across something interesting that I have not seen mentioned before:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PTO was about to publish the trademark for opposition on April 1, 2008 (after which it would've been granted) when Jeff Han (yes, the same Han who had demoed multitouch a couple of years previously) and his company Perceptive Pixel filed a large protest letter with evidence against it.
Han's protest letter is what caused the PTO to decide that allowing the trademark to be published was an error, and after reconsideration, to officially deny its use by Apple a few months later.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire 60+ page protest document can be read by going here, then clicking on the 28 Mar 2008 TIFF link entitled "Administrative Response".
I agree, its a good thing it was denied. They need to stop letting people TM basic tech advancements, that would have been like someone back in the day trying to TM a mouse
That makes no difference. The term "App store" is descriptive, just like "multi-touch"