Apple Denied Trademark for Multi-Touch

[Krakor]

Multi-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.

I think is very safe to say multi-touch as a both a concept and term have been in use long before iPhone. I remember watching a cool video by Xerox Parc of a multi-touch display surface that was done in the 90's (but I can't find the link anymore). For an interesting history on touch/multi-touch, check this interesting article by Bill Buxton: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

 

[AppleScruff1]

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.

I wonder why Steve didn't trademark apple pie? I think he invented that too. That was just after he stole the Apple name and logo from the Beatles.

 

[theBB]

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.

It does not matter. Bayer lost the trademark for aspirin, too. Apparently, Apple could not stop the media or the general public from using the term as a generic descriptor and now it is too late.

 

[Peace]

Just out of curiosity is Android a trademark ?

 

[Datalinks]

What about "Multi-Touch App Store" then?

 

[demodave]

Trade Secrets

I wonder if Apple's obsession with secrecy meant they couldn't make a claim for the trademark before they announced the iPhone?

Indeed. That is exactly what "trade secrets" are about. When a patent or trade mark is filed, it becomes necessarily visible to the public. Sometimes, if your idea is good enough, you don't want that, so you keep it secret until it is publicly unveiled as a finished/sell-able products, or you don't reveal it at all and force your competition to figure it out via reverse engineering.

If it comes to a patent battle, it will frequently go down to research and development notebooks to figure out who had the idea first. Don't know how it works with a trademark, though.

I wish that I had kept better notes years ago. I swear I saw some Apple presentations that referenced this kind of work back in the early 90s. (No, I am not talking about the Knowledge Navigator video. I mean something later.)

 

[jonnysods]

Oh no. Apple are going to get destroyed in the marketplace now that they got burned on this.

How many lawyers do you reckon they have on retainer over there?

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; GT-I9100 Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Just out of curiosity is Android a trademark ?

Is the "Android" operating system an actual Android?

No. What is your point if so?

 

[e-coli]

Jeff Han coined this. He developed this technology. I think this is the right decision.

 

[divinox]

I can see the logic, but at the same time, Microsoft has a trademark for "Windows" so it isn't always clear when common or descriptive terms are eligible for trademarks. Of course, it works the other way, too. "Escalator" was once a trademark.

Windows is fine, MSFT is not a window-maker.

 

[MacinDoc]

still, the fact that Apple went as far as to try to trademark 'multitouch' is pathetic.

after innovation, Apple's second priority is clearly lawyers, the best lawyers.

And the fact that Microsoft has trademarked Windows is any less pathetic? Microsoft wasn't even the company that popularized the window paradigm.

 

[divinox]

This denial was not for a "patent". It was for a trademark term or word.

Apple has been going through litigation with the trademark office early 2007 . Long before the word was in general use.

Had Apple not come out with the iPhone with multi-touch in 2007 the "terminology " would not be in " general use " today.

The trademark office was wrong.

Yeah, because no one other than Apple saw multi-touch as useful.

 

[Lord Appleseed]

While I have to agree to that, the same could be said about a lot of patent lawsuits too. For example the one with the in-App button of a trial version to purchase the App.

 

[BTW]

Funny how Apple is the first for the "App Store" and "Multi-touch" then everyone copies them and they can't get a trademark. Maybe they should have tried "Multi-Finger-Gestures-On-Glass-Surface".

 

[MacinDoc]

Windows is fine, MSFT is not a window-maker.

What is your point? In computing, a window is a visual paradigm for a collection of files stored in the same logical location. At the time MS named its visually-based OS "Windows", the term "window" was already in use in the computing world, not just the construction world.

 

[divinox]

And the fact that Microsoft has trademarked Windows is any less pathetic? Microsoft wasn't even the company that popularized the window paradigm.

Actually, it was*. But thats besides the point. This case has already been reviewed by the courts, and the ruling, iirc, is quite clear. Windows is fine as the trademarked product is the OS, not individual elements on the screen. In short, Apple is fine calling windows in their ui windows. That is not what MSFT has protected through trademark.

* they didnt invent it though, the researchers at xerox parc did.

----------

What is your point? In computing, a window is a visual paradigm for a collection of files stored in the same logical location. At the time MS named its visually-based OS "Windows", the term "window" was already in use in the computing world, not just the construction world.

see above.

----------

I think we place a greater emphasis on when Apple is actually the first to do something meaningful with an idea.

Yes, there was a tablet market before but it was pathetic and nearly dead before Apple got into it. If the tablet market pre-2010 (and pre-2007) actually matters at this point it does so in the context of history and perhaps some interesting trivia (in terms of who came up with what idea, that eventually got wasted by poor implementation.) Beyond that, be happy that Apple changed the tablet game and actually made it matter (an understatement, since Apple did much more than that, having put it at the forefront of computing moving forward.)

So in terms of actual viability (which is rather important), Apple was indeed the first in terms of multi-touch, tablets, smartphones, etc. Tech tends to mean so much more and reach its true potential under Apple. This phenomenon is a salient feature of the industry today, like it or not.

the tablet market pre-ipad was neither pathetic nor nearly-dead - it just had no consumer-end. in fact, i read the other day that pc-tablets still dominate the business-end. (Given how the ipad is touted around here as the be-all end-all, that actually surprised me for a while)

----------

Please list some of these devices, and/or cite examples. Otherwise your argument is null and void. I can't recall any specific device before the original iPhone that was using multi touch. No one pinched to zoom, or double tapped to zoom until Apple came along. It's only so commonplace now because everyone else is ripping on Apples idea. BlackBerry, Palm OS, and Windows Mobile were the smartphones of yesteryear, and none of them had any multi touch.

imagine a world where every single device would require its unique set of interaction. ok, not so hard i guess given the fact that were surrounded with pos-crap, but still. i, for one, is happy that every computer i sit down at is very likely to have a) a qwerty keyboard and b) a mouse (hopefully two-buttoned). For similar reasons i, and most i would argue, prefer standardization here too.

That said, many of these gestures were around long before Apple implemented them anyway.

----------

It was a university project far before Apple bought it. I remember watching the demos on YouTube. Apple owns the IP now but they didn't invent it.

It was called Fingerworks. They came up with the majority of gestures we use today. Apple bought them in April 05.

Fingerworks too built on earlier work (research).

 

[blackhand1001]

I didn't see a single thing in that video that was multitouch. Everything was based on using a single finger. That's not multitouch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VfpVYYQzHs
At 9 seconds she rotates the photo. Same video that you said there was no multitouch in.

 

[divinox]

I think it's less common than Windows®.

less common, yes. less descriptive, no.

----------

As in my previous post: <sigh>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch





Apple does an awesome job of putting things together in a cohesive whole. It was a smart move to go for the trademark but the technology wasn't groundbreaking. At the time using it in a phone-sized device was pretty impressive though.

Ironically, at least one of the guys from the Toronto group is a long-time MSFT employee. You know, that company that apparently never innovates...

----------

There wouldn't even be android devices had it not been for Apple.

Ask Eric Schmidt

Except for the fact that Google bought Android when? 2004?

 

[something3153]

What is your point? In computing, a window is a visual paradigm for a collection of files stored in the same logical location. At the time MS named its visually-based OS "Windows", the term "window" was already in use in the computing world, not just the construction world.

You realize that Apple named its OS... "OS", right? They seem to love really generic, descriptive names. Like "App Store".

 

[MacinDoc]

Actually, it was*. But thats besides the point. This case has already been reviewed by the courts, and the ruling, iirc, is quite clear. Windows is fine as the trademarked product is the OS, not individual elements on the screen. In short, Apple is fine calling windows in their ui windows. That is not what MSFT has protected through trademark.

By this reasoning, Apple could reapply for the trademark by renaming iOS "Multitouch", citing "Windows" as a precedent. After all, multitouch is just one element of iOS, just as a window is just one element of Windows.

Edit: my point is not that Apple should have been awarded a TM for Multitouch, which existed for decades before Apple started to use it. Just that I believe that the Windows TM is equally absurd, just as silly as it would be if a company tried to TM the name "Widgets" for a mobile OS.
----------

You realize that Apple named its OS... "OS", right? They seem to love really generic, descriptive names. Like "App Store".

Yes, with numerous other examples, like Apple TV, iPhone, OS X etc.

 

[divinox]

I know quite a few people who are actually very disappointed with the lack of stylus these days. Don't get me wrong, they do like the capacative screens, but when it comes to things like note taking many people prefer to use a stylus that transcribes, rather than type on a keyboard. It would seem that there's quite a market for it, but people are too obessed with the younger generation to take notice of the market that would actually like a stylus.

styluses are great in its own little space. the sooner people realize that stylus and fingers are complementary styles of interaction, the better.

hopefully, samsung note will be well-received. That could speed things up.

 

[Tiggs]

No surprise they didn't get the trademark. Would agree that the term seems overly broad.

 

[divinox]

I would LOVE a stylus. Drawing with a finger is like driving a car with your hands stuffed inside turkeys. I know people who can make amazing pieces on the iPhone but probably a few people would manage just fine with the turkeys. Most likely some would actually improve.

Samsung Note.

5.3" screen...

 

[something3153]

Yes, with numerous other examples, like Apple TV, iPhone, OS X etc.

The Apple TV is not a TV. iPhone is a name they actually made up and not generic or descriptive ("Phone" would be an issue). OS X is my example.

 

[starvingartist8]

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.

I am not sure what to think on this one. I supported Apple's attempts to trademark other terms because lets face it, the word 'app' was never used ever before apple and now everyone uses it.

This one though I am not too sure. The way I am looking at it is just say Apple didn't make touch screen phones. I think there is a good chance other companies would invent that same term Multi-Touch.. perhaps without the hyphen though *shrug* because the term multi - everyone uses that for saying multiple stuff like multi layer chocolate etc and touch well I don't need to go into the term 'touch' lol.

Also Multi-Touch doesn't sound ultra magical. It is not if though Apple should be proud of coming up with that name. Good on them for trying because the more they try the more chance they get to rub some dirt back into the sheep companies faces.