tktaylor1
Feb 5, 02:09 PM
2002 Audi A4. 18th birthday present
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:03 PM
$299 are you out of your mind?
That's very inexpensive but... what about motion? soundtrack? Livetype?
That's very inexpensive but... what about motion? soundtrack? Livetype?
tbobmccoy
Mar 23, 11:04 AM
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the blind. The Classic is the only iPod (other than the tiny Shuffle) that would be of any use to them. The 128,000 bps that's suicide-inducing for music is (sort of) OK for voice, and 220 GB would hold a LOT of Books on "Tape"�Hell, record your lectures too and you could carry a college education in your pocket! I expect quite a negative reaction from handicapped activists if they discontinue the iPod Classic.
Very true. For some, physical keys are essential, and until they create a way to modify the screen to incorporate tactile buttons on demand, there need to be physical key devices out there for those that cannot see. I do think that they will discontinue the use of hard drives sometime soon, though. Flash memory is just the way of the future.
Very true. For some, physical keys are essential, and until they create a way to modify the screen to incorporate tactile buttons on demand, there need to be physical key devices out there for those that cannot see. I do think that they will discontinue the use of hard drives sometime soon, though. Flash memory is just the way of the future.
hellomoto4
Apr 1, 12:32 AM
New mute image: http://cl.ly/5gHn
windows311
Sep 15, 02:28 AM
CR hasn't been relevant in at least 5 years. Another mag that made a terrible transition to the web. Welcome to the interweb CR, now will you please hire a web designer? Your site is embarrassing.
mrgreen4242
Aug 30, 08:09 PM
SAVE page prices don''t go down when new models appear. They are already reduced from original prices. For example, PowerBook G4's are still at the same price they were last year as are the Quad G5 since February.
I don't think that is always the case. In this case, specifically, we are likely looking at the high end mini bumping down to the low end price range, and the high end being a new machine. That would meant that the high end mini is basically getting a price drop, which would push the refurb price down: the refurb Core Duo mini is currently MORE than a new Core Solo. I'd definitely expect to see Duos get a price drop in the refurb store if the new mini line up is 1.66 duo and 1.83 duo.
I don't think that is always the case. In this case, specifically, we are likely looking at the high end mini bumping down to the low end price range, and the high end being a new machine. That would meant that the high end mini is basically getting a price drop, which would push the refurb price down: the refurb Core Duo mini is currently MORE than a new Core Solo. I'd definitely expect to see Duos get a price drop in the refurb store if the new mini line up is 1.66 duo and 1.83 duo.
supremedesigner
Jul 18, 07:38 AM
This is bulls***! IF they want to do that way, then it's their loss! That is really stupid. I'd rather buy DVD instead of renting their cheapstake movies!
autrefois
Sep 6, 10:37 AM
If Apple is concerned with showing potential switchers that Macs are more affordable than PCs, why not keep on the old Mac mini low-end model and price it at $499 (like the low-end Mac mini used to cost a while ago) or eventually even a little lower?
It's all fine and dandy that Apple can show during the keynote that the Mac Pros are significantly cheaper than comparable Dell machines, but why not try to show they can be competitve (or at least exist) at the under-$500 end of the spectrum as well?
It's all fine and dandy that Apple can show during the keynote that the Mac Pros are significantly cheaper than comparable Dell machines, but why not try to show they can be competitve (or at least exist) at the under-$500 end of the spectrum as well?
Evangelion
Aug 29, 09:20 AM
Compared to similarly priced PC's, $799 for a yonah duo 1.8 is pretty weak.
To be honest, I'd rather see the cheaper model drop in price (if not both) than a speed bump.
Since we don't know the prices yet, my suggestion is that we don't touch the "jump to conclusions mat" just yet.
My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!
To be honest, I'd rather see the cheaper model drop in price (if not both) than a speed bump.
Since we don't know the prices yet, my suggestion is that we don't touch the "jump to conclusions mat" just yet.
My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!
BRLawyer
Jul 19, 04:58 PM
The great numbers shown today just prove that this is the perfect moment to bury MS once and for all in the OS war...OS X is by far the best system, and Longsight is still more than 6 months away...Microsoft is doomed.
macbookairman
Apr 12, 09:22 PM
I found this audio stream of the keynote. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/foxtrotyankee
It hiccups now and then but not awful.
It hiccups now and then but not awful.
Multimedia
Jul 14, 08:51 AM
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!Gee I hope you're right. Quad MacIntels For Under $3k Would Be A Miracle. Thanks for the heads up. :rolleyes:
Amnak
Apr 2, 10:19 PM
I think what you don't realize is that for people who love the iPad either:
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I love your analogy, I'm going to use it all the time now!
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I love your analogy, I'm going to use it all the time now!
iBug2
May 2, 06:03 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Obviously the guy you replied to did not know anything he was talking about. Apple's resume function on Lion does not break the multitasking we have on SL anyway and it's just a nice addition.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Obviously the guy you replied to did not know anything he was talking about. Apple's resume function on Lion does not break the multitasking we have on SL anyway and it's just a nice addition.
The.316
Nov 26, 06:52 AM
Logitech diNovo Mac Edition Keyboard
I finally decided that I couldn't put up with not having a number pad any longer. Feels good to have a full sized keyboard again.
Ive been contemplating this keyboard because of the same reasons. I have a question for anyone that can answer this...I use the new Logitech Performance MX, which uses the same mini usb connector, can I use that to connect the keyboard as well, or do I have to add a second USB connector for the keyboard?
I finally decided that I couldn't put up with not having a number pad any longer. Feels good to have a full sized keyboard again.
Ive been contemplating this keyboard because of the same reasons. I have a question for anyone that can answer this...I use the new Logitech Performance MX, which uses the same mini usb connector, can I use that to connect the keyboard as well, or do I have to add a second USB connector for the keyboard?
silentnite
Apr 26, 04:21 PM
All I can say is why didn't I think about trademarking terms like app store back in my O.S.9 & apple Mac works 6 days, etc. The hell with all of it. I would have been having the last laugh today.:D
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 13, 11:42 PM
Meh, Apple came out with that Express Card slot for the MacBook Pro kind of early as well...but I'm with most people in arguing that a blue-ray drive won't see the light of day in Apple computers until early 2007.
m-dogg
Aug 29, 09:03 AM
This is the lowest end machine Apple makes. Let's be realistic. This is a reasonable update for the base model. And it's probably being done in advance of a Core 2 Duo update to the iMac.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 26, 07:39 PM
People on this board claim "app store" is generic and so the trademark is invalid. Yet the trademark application process proceeded to the point that Apple was approved to begin using it.
If the people claiming "app store" cannot be trademarked for the same reasons they claim "pet store" cannot be trademarked were to be believed, then this is a cut and dry case. Yet if it were as simple as they claim, apple's application process would not have made it this far.
So take their words with a grain of salt.
In the end, Apple may lose the trademark. But considering the fact that placing the word "the" in front of a seemingly generic name appears to make a difference, perhaps apple should apply for "the app store" now.
As for Amazon, I don't think Apple will win this case. The name of Amazon's store is "Amazon Appstore".
No apple was never approved the trademarket. They apply for it and in the final stage open to objection MS objected 2 it. Apple has not been granted the final part of it.
This is a pretty weak case by Apple and Apple will loses. I full hope they are force to pay Amazon's legal cost over this one.
Apple did a piss poor job in its own documention and used it genericly.
Got to love it when a judge starts asking question "How is App Store not generic when your Own CEO used it that way to describe others or in own press release documents App store is used to describe other Application stores?"
I have yet to see any one try to counter that argument.
If the people claiming "app store" cannot be trademarked for the same reasons they claim "pet store" cannot be trademarked were to be believed, then this is a cut and dry case. Yet if it were as simple as they claim, apple's application process would not have made it this far.
So take their words with a grain of salt.
In the end, Apple may lose the trademark. But considering the fact that placing the word "the" in front of a seemingly generic name appears to make a difference, perhaps apple should apply for "the app store" now.
As for Amazon, I don't think Apple will win this case. The name of Amazon's store is "Amazon Appstore".
No apple was never approved the trademarket. They apply for it and in the final stage open to objection MS objected 2 it. Apple has not been granted the final part of it.
This is a pretty weak case by Apple and Apple will loses. I full hope they are force to pay Amazon's legal cost over this one.
Apple did a piss poor job in its own documention and used it genericly.
Got to love it when a judge starts asking question "How is App Store not generic when your Own CEO used it that way to describe others or in own press release documents App store is used to describe other Application stores?"
I have yet to see any one try to counter that argument.
Full of Win
Apr 19, 10:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
twoodcc
Feb 20, 11:58 PM
congrats to sparky76 for 3 million points!
suneohair
Nov 15, 09:56 AM
8 Core Mac Pro won't be cheap. And most definitely will not come in at the entry level price point of $2500. I am sure you guys knew that already though.
Most applications are mutli-threaded that isnt the issue. The difference between 4-core and 8-core will be negligible as you can see from the benchmarks. The 8-core Mac Pro will shine when multi-tasking multiple multi-threaded applications.
You will have more power all around. So you can effectively do more at once with less slow down.
Most applications are mutli-threaded that isnt the issue. The difference between 4-core and 8-core will be negligible as you can see from the benchmarks. The 8-core Mac Pro will shine when multi-tasking multiple multi-threaded applications.
You will have more power all around. So you can effectively do more at once with less slow down.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 04:15 AM
Steve Jobs Headlines Keynote Address and Leopard Preview (http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedules/monday_am.html)
Well thats good. But why are people still speaking about tommorrow?
EDIT: Oh I know, TIME ZONES!!!!
Damn i AM a dumbass!
Well thats good. But why are people still speaking about tommorrow?
EDIT: Oh I know, TIME ZONES!!!!
Damn i AM a dumbass!