Apple Denied Trademark for Multi-Touch

[FakeWozniak]

The summary on the very front page MRs writes said that the onus would be on Apple to provide proof that consumers equate the words "multiple-touch" with Apple's devices. And, simple, Apple cannot.

Reasonable argument, but when Apple applied for the term, a Blackberry was considered bleeding edge. The courts drag their collective asses (or donkeys) and 4 years later all these terms Apple popularized are common-speak.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

A what?

You mean a Big-Ass Table™ you can't take home and that is barely seen by anyone?

Congratulations, Microsoft. A $12,000 coffee-table that's done sweet f all for your mobile business. And to think that had you been prescient enough, creative enough, energetic enough, and not so arrogantly, blindingly stupid, it might have been Steve Ballmer giving the iPhone keynote at the Mobile World Congress in 2007.

Well, that would of course had been an impossibility anyway, because Steve Ballmer can barely carry Bill Gates' shoes, never mind Steve Jobs' New Balance 993s. Apple came totally out of left field and you can't expect the also rans to be capable of comprehending what was coming down the pike (not "pipe", by the way.)

But hey, you can still see a Big-Ass Table™ at Disney and some hotels. In fact, MS has, like, 120 partners that use it! Cool!

Or you could just get an iPhone. And you won't need your buddy's pickup to take it home. Or a second mortgage.

does not change the fact it was meaniful.
The entire world does not revolve around consumers. You are the one who keeps moving the goal post. So far most if not all your arguments boil down to the "Unless Apple does it then it sucks"

I can already tell you think Apple made smart phone meaningful. Never mind the fact that smart phones were already starting to take off before hand and some phones were popular that were smart phones.

 

[benmrii]

Reasonable argument, but when Apple applied for the term, a Blackberry was considered bleeding edge. The courts drag their collective asses (or donkeys) and 4 years later all these terms Apple popularized are common-speak.

... but considering the decision you're referring to was actually made in 2007 and not in 2011 (since this is about a 2011 appeal), your point is... well, wrong.

 

[kas23]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

The summary on the very front page MRs writes said that the onus would be on Apple to provide proof that consumers equate the words "multiple-touch" with Apple's devices. And, simple, Apple cannot.

Reasonable argument, but when Apple applied for the term, a Blackberry was considered bleeding edge. The courts drag their collective asses (or donkeys) and 4 years later all these terms Apple popularized are common-speak.

It doesn't matter. Neither in the present or in the past has the term "multi-touch" been exclusively related to any of Apple's devices. Simply put, when you ask a consumer what device has the exclusive function called "multi-touch", I highly doubt they are say iPhone. And if they do, they probably think every smartphone is an iPhone the same way every mp3 player is an iPod.

 

[FakeWozniak]

... but considering the decision you're referring to was actually made in 2007 and not in 2011 (since this is about a 2011 appeal), your point is... well, wrong.

Read much. Try the article this thread is about...

"Apple originally applied for the trademark on January 9, 2007, the day the iPhone was introduced."

Go to page 6 of the scribd posting of the USPTO document. It quotes many published links from 2009 and 2010. My point is the judge is using publish references to the term AFTER Apple applied for the mark.

 

[something3153]

Ugh. Apple STARTED the trend of touch screen "smartphones." Especially "multi touch" ones. Not to mention "tablet computers." There was no Android, Galaxy, or anything else when Apple applied for the trademark.

How can it be used to describe many other products, when the other products weren’t even CONCEIVED until the other companies saw them, and how well Apple was doing with them. Apple is the one who initiated the touch screen phone revolution, which has greatly benefited Apple lovers and haters alike.

Personally, I have never heard the term "Multi-Touch" used for anything other than an Apple iDevice.

Apple seems to give something of theirs a unique name, and all the other companies copy the name and use it for their products. For example, "Application", "App", "App Store" etc. are used by Apple's competitors, even when "program" would seem to make more sense for what it is.

Heck, a GUI with windows and a mouse is so ubiquitous these days, no would would know it was originally an Apple thing.

Apple has trade dress infringement problems out the wazoo. Which is exactly from where the other companies’ verbal defenses are emanating.

What level of hubris do you have to assume that no one else, ever, at any other company, would ever have thought to take the increasingly-affordable capacitive touch screens and made a touchscreen slab phone, using research done by Fingerworks? Face it, Apple has always integrated things done by others. They do a good job of it, but to assume they're the only ones who could is impressive.

I also love how, whatever stage Apple's contribution to a technology is, that's the important one and they deserve to own it for contributing that stage.

 

[makingdots]

It became common term AFTER 5+ YEARSSS !!

Just think about how people are amaze with pinch to zoom on iPhone 1.

Wouldn't they think it's common if they discus it wayback when Apple files it?

 

[KingCrimson]

What level of hubris do you have to assume that no one else, ever, at any other company, would ever have thought to take the increasingly-affordable capacitive touch screens and made a touchscreen slab phone, using research done by Fingerworks? Face it, Apple has always integrated things done by others. They do a good job of it, but to assume they're the only ones who could is impressive.

I also love how, whatever stage Apple's contribution to a technology is, that's the important one and they deserve to own it for contributing that stage.

What level of hubris by the Apple haters to take away Apple's gigantic contribution to multi-touch technology. If it weren't for the iPhone we'd still be stuck in the smartphone dark ages using LG Prada variants.

 

[benmrii]

Read much. Try the article this thread is about...

"Apple originally applied for the trademark on January 9, 2007, the day the iPhone was introduced."

... seriously? I do. I'd suggest you continue to read the entire article before you tout your reading prowess.

The very next sentence: "A lawyer for the USPTO denied Apple's initial trademark application and the company appealed to the Appeal Board."

And later in the post, the appeal decision is linked. The dates:
Hearing, April 20, 2011
Decision mailed, September 23, 2011

To simplify it: your argument is wrong because you're suggesting that the term would have been approved in 2007. It wasn't.

 

[FakeWozniak]

It doesn't matter. Neither in the present or in the past has the term "multi-touch" been exclusively related to any of Apple's devices. Simply put, when you ask a consumer what device has the exclusive function called "multi-touch", I highly doubt they are say iPhone. And if they do, they probably think every smartphone is an iPhone the same way every mp3 player is an iPod.

If the other companies with "more than 1 finger touch capability" didn't use a term that another company filed a trademark application for, then this wouldn't be in the courts, would it.

I guess the lesson is if someone files a trademark, start using it right away before the courts move on it. Then you can catch a ride on their attempt to market differentiate.

 

[zeromeus]

It wasn't heavily used, but it was used... Some tablet PCs have multiple touch interfaces and they referred to it as multi touch. This was way before the iPhone came out. For example, I have a 6 year old convertible laptop that uses pen input as well as hand input. They called this multi-touch because it uses two different touch interfaces.

Though the term was used to refer to something completely different, Apple wasn't the first to use such a terminology. Therefore, it's the right decision that Apple did not get to trademark the term as they weren't even the first company to use it. They were only the first company to use it to refer to multiple points touch.

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.

 

[benmrii]

What level of hubris by the Apple haters to take away Apple's gigantic contribution to multi-touch technology. If it weren't for the iPhone we'd still be stuck in the smartphone dark ages using LG Prada variants.

I don't know how much simpler we can make this:

Apple's level of contribution to multi-touch technology is insanely large. Also, Apple's level of contribution to multi-touch technology has absolutely nothing to do with this decision.

You are arguing something that is absolutely, completely, utterly, wholly irrelevant to this trademark decision. A dozen posts have already explained this. It's like you are yelling that the brick wall is orange so why can't we decorate it for Christmas while the woman at the restaurant is explaining to you that they are out of apple pie.

 

[bdkennedy1]

Multitouch gestures have been in numerous movies such as Minority Report. Just because no one has patented the idea before doesn't mean it should be patented.

 

[Peace]

I don't know how much simpler we can make this:

Apple's level of contribution to multi-touch technology is insanely large. Also, Apple's level of contribution to multi-touch technology has absolutely nothing to do with this decision.

You are arguing something that is absolutely, completely, utterly, wholly irrelevant to this trademark decision. A dozen posts have already explained this. It's like you are yelling that the brick wall is orange so why can't we decorate it for Christmas while the woman at the restaurant is explaining to you that they are out of apple pie.

Mmmmmm. Apple pie. Now you've gone and given me an appetite for apple pie !

 

[bbeagle]

Multitouch gestures have been in numerous movies such as Minority Report. Just because no one has patented the idea before doesn't mean it should be patented.

So, when a time machine is eventually invented, the person inventing it can't claim a patent on it because you've seen it in movie after movie?

 

[FakeWozniak]

To simplify it: your argument is wrong because you're suggesting that the term would have been approved in 2007. It wasn't.

I see what you were trying to say now. I was only commenting on the current decision, yes.

I don't recall the original ruling. Got an URL for it?

I think page 2 of the recent ruling states that Multitouch is too close a term to what is being done, not that anyone else was using it. Probably the same reason as App Store.

 

[zeromeus]

So, when a time machine is eventually invented, the person inventing it can't claim a patent on it because you've seen it in movie after movie?

You can patent it. You just CAN'T "trademark" the term "time machine."

 

[milkyboy]

How is apple's implementation of multitouch better? Seems much of a muchness to me.

I agree that a lot of people would agree with you, but it is subjective to say certain features are "better." For example, to say that iOS is "Better" than android is subjective, I prefer android therefore it is subjective. HOWEVER, to say that the CPU in one phone is better than the others (based on tests) is different. At the moment many of the iPhones hardware features are lacking, but we'll wait for the 4th to revise that claim, but the software features are preferred by many people.

Yes, I agree that it's a subjective opinion and not an objectively determined fact. However, I'm of the belief that amongst the reasons for iPhones claim to fame, multitouch played a huge role. In my opinion, the micro lag that has been bothering the android's UI for so long (if they've corrected it, I beg your pardon) makes the android's version of multitouch a lesser version than the one that Apple supplies. Now, I figure that many will argue that I should separate the OS from the multitouch - but I just don't think that you can do that, since the multitouch is basically a tracking and computation of finger movement on your screen and it can't be done without the OS. It's a piece of software, if you will. Of course you're welcome to disagree with me on that point.

With that said, I still don't think that Apple should've gotten to trademark the noun/verb multitouch.

 

[thecartoonguy]

I can !

Because Apple is the worst kind of company and hinders the development of others by trying to assimilate other companies and their patents, then cry foul play.

This is good because if apple got the patent it would be like a car company getting a patent on the "Round" wheel.

In that case they must have taken several pages from the Windows book on assimilate other companies and their patents... Oh what? Yea read it again....

 

[rjohnstone]

... seriously? I do. I'd suggest you continue to read the entire article before you tout your reading prowess.

The very next sentence: "A lawyer for the USPTO denied Apple's initial trademark application and the company appealed to the Appeal Board."

And later in the post, the appeal decision is linked. The dates:
Hearing, April 20, 2011
Decision mailed, September 23, 2011

To simplify it: your argument is wrong because you're suggesting that the term would have been approved in 2007. It wasn't.

Pretty much sums it up.
It was published for opposition in error and was pulled form the gazette.
March 27, 2008 administrative response.
The USPTO declared it descriptive
http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=77219819#

Out going office action sent on July 10, 2008
http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentVi...c Action Outgoing/79/10-Jul-2008/sn/false#p=1

And of course Mr. Bill Buxton is kindly mentioned since he is one of the principles that actually made the tech work.

Section 2(e)(1) – Merely Descriptive Refusal

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a function of applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

Words or terms that describe the function or purpose of a product or service may be merely descriptive or generic. TMEP §1209.03(p); see In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding SCREENWIPE generic for an anti-static cloth used for cleaning computer and television screens); In re Cent. Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d 1194 (TTAB 1998) (holding ATTIC generic for sprinklers installed primarily in attics); In re Reckitt & Colman, N. Am. Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1389 (TTAB 1991) (holding PERMA PRESS generic for soil and stain removers for use on permanent press products).

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

Applicant’s seeks registration of the mark MULTI-TOUCH for “handheld mobile digital electronic devices with electronic mail, digital data transmission, audio player, video player, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, telephone, computer gaming, and camera functions; computer software used to operate and control electronic mail, digital data transmission, audio player, video player, handheld computer, personal digital assistant, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, telephone, computer gaming, and camera functions in handheld mobile digital electronic devices.”

The proposed mark merely describes that applicant’s software is used to control and operate multi-touch devices, and that applicant’s devices feature multi-touch functionality. Multi-touch is described as the technology that enables a device to recognize user input from multiple touch points on a screen or pad to control a device. See attached Internet evidence, described in detail below. Applicant itself uses the term “multi-touch” to describe devices that are controlled by input from touch points. See attached Internet evidence from applicant’s website, describing applicant’s “iPhone” devices as having a “large Multi-Touch touchscreen display and innovative new software” that “lets you control everything using only your fingers” and excerpts from the “iPhone User’s Guide” describing a feature of the device that allows a user to adjust the view of a webpage, email, photo or map to zoom in and/or out by pinching one’s fingers together and apart. See also Exhibit A to the attached Letter of Protest, which consists of patent applications filed by applicant that describes multi-touch surfaces and devices.

The following internet evidence also describes multi-touch technology and the use of multi-touch technology with devices, including those offered by applicant:

• from http://www.multitouchinput.com/multi-touch-software.shtml:

DiamondTouch is a novel multi-touch input technology enabling significantly more interactions than conventional input devices. Most noticeably, up to four users can simultaneously operate on the table. Additionally, each user is not limited to a single point of contact. This is drastically different from the sequential turn taking that arises when people use traditional input devices.

• from http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18079:

When Steve Jobs demonstrated Apple's new phone at Macworld recently, the feature that elicited the most "oohs" and "aahs" from the audience was the touch-screen interface: it allowed more than one touch at a time. This "multi-touch" technology adds functions such as allowing a person to easily zoom in and out of pictures and Web pages by pinching the screen with two fingers.

But the full power of multi-touch technology might be unleashed in screens far larger than those on phones. Over the past few years, Jeff Han, consulting research scientist at New York University, has developed an inexpensive way to make large multi-touch screens accommodating 10, 20, or even more fingers.

• from http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120174029197330447-xaox0A7HG1Ir68

AtWaLl06gxYQg_20090130.html?mod=rss_personal_technology
This interface is generally called "multitouch," and it involves using one or more fingers on a screen or touchpad to perform special gestures that manipulate lists or objects on a screen -- without moving a mouse, pressing buttons, turning scroll wheels or striking keys.

• from: www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4212910.html

A new technology called multitouch, which responds to multiple inputs by multiple fingers—even multiple users—at the same time, could transform the way we interact with computers. Why? Because simultaneous finger inputs allow more complex gestures than simple pointing and clicking, such as rotating or resizing a photo by grabbing two corners and pulling or navigating a map by pulling and twisting the image with your fingers.

The technology has been in development for decades: Bill Buxton, now a principal researcher at Microsoft, demonstrated a multitouch system back in 1984 while working at the University of Toronto. “Any of the pointing devices that people have used to date are controlling a single point on a screen, like a mouse,” Buxton said when we reached him recently. “With multitouch, not only can you control more than one point, you can control more than one thing. I’ve been arguing for the importance of this technology for years. I have two hands and I have four fingers and a thumb on each hand, and I’d like to be able to use them.”

 

[benmrii]

I see what you were trying to say now. I was only commenting on the current decision, yes.

I don't recall the original ruling. Got an URL for it?

No sir, can't seem to find one. Though especially in light of this conversation I'd be interested to read it.

 

[DESNOS]

Here's an interesting view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

Mainstream exposure to multi-touch technology occurred in 2007 when the iPhone gained popularity, with Apple stating they 'invented multi touch' as part of the iPhone announcement,[12] however both the function and the term predate the announcement or patent requests, except for such area of application as capacitive mobile screens, which did not exist before Fingerworks/Apple's technology (Apple filed patents for in 2005-2007 and was awarded with in 2009-2010).

This is very much how Apple works. Despite what some people seem to suggest, Apple doesn't actually invent most of what they sell. You can think Apple as experts at implementation. They see a product and see a future for it in a form that no one saw before, and they make it into something people want to buy. You can say you invented the wheel, but if your implementation was a square shape, it probably won't take off. Apple is the company that makes that square wheel into a circle (this isn't literal for those of you who don't understand metaphors).

The "invented multitouch" part was probably to avoid having to explain the difference between capacitive and resistive multitouch, although yes, they were wrong to make the claim.

 

[Shasterball]

Yeah....duh. I doubt they thought they would get it.

 

[Surreal]

sounds reasonable and just. I understand why they tried and why they weren't granted the rights. It sucks that they feel the need to litigate and all that, but it makes some business sense. The new 'first to file' patent bill doesn't seem to allay the need.

 

[something3153]

What level of hubris by the Apple haters to take away Apple's gigantic contribution to multi-touch technology. If it weren't for the iPhone we'd still be stuck in the smartphone dark ages using LG Prada variants.

Prove it. Prove that, somehow, no other company would ever have thought to, or been able to, combine the third-party technologies that Apple did to make the iPhone. What original technology did they add that no one else could have, ever?