I could trademark two common words, say, "finger joint", if I had some sort of iPhone app that did something cool and I wanted to call it "finger joint". Then it becomes really popular, so I trademark it, to enjoy the financial benefits and protections that come with that. Replace "finger joint" with "angry birds" and you start to see my point.
Define "most", because where I live, all four service providers have unlimited data and no associated charges (Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, and Grande).
Perhaps Austin's market demand can justify all the major competitors not having data limits, and in the rest of the country "most" services throttle your usage?
You are missing the point and dwelling on only half the issue. It's not about the word "App" (unless there's something in the TFA I missed). It's the use of App + Store in the paradigm of dishing up products that Apple has had success with, not the word Apps. I've been using the word apps since probably around 1990, but I'd never claim Apple can't use App + Store because I've been calling a program an "application shortened to app" for 20 years now.
"Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox for photocopiers, Plexiglas for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex for facial tissues, Band-Aid for adhesive bandages, and others.
I don't know how many times they've sued, but I'd say they have the right to sue every single time a competitor calls their bandage product a Band-Aid.
A trademark typically becomes "genericized" when the products or services with which it is associated have acquired substantial market dominance or mind share such that the primary meaning of the genericized trademark becomes the product or service itself rather than an indication of source for the product or service to such an extent that the public thinks the trademark is the generic name of the product or service.
Notice I didn't complain about any of the other methods you mention, because I don't have a problem with right click + minimize, because that's an expected behavior. Random modifier key plus random function key is not.
It makes Amazon wrong for trying to financially benefit off the concept of another company's trademarked term. That's the whole point of trademarks. It doesn't matter if you or I think it's a dumb trademark, only that it is a trademark.
It's not about inventing something or not. That's what patents are for. Apple is profiting off the combination of the terms App + Store and therefore have trademarked it so that others can't just come along and benefit from Apple's diligence/creativity/dumb luck.
Indeed. If no store had used the term "food shop" before everyone else, and then they suddenly started making insane profits, why not trademark the term?
There's no point in arguing against it because you are wrong. You might not want it to be allowable, but it is perfectly legal to trademark common phrases. Just because you don't agree doesn't make you right.
Mind you, the implementation of AD was absolutely terrible.
You just summed up 20 years of Microsoft history. Good ideas (or blatantly stolen ideas) botched horrible implementation. If MS would start paying less attention to the bottom line and more attention to quality, they could be great.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the original owner of Aloha.com and he made a couple million selling it to the tourism board...way back the mid 90s...
Dang, that was the least diplomatic, but best description of Iraq I've ever seen. Bravo!
Yes, idiots, because if the past 10 years are any measure of success...oh wait...
'And I would not dig in soil that has a lot of armadillo excrement.'
I can think of several reasons other than leprosy why I would avoid doing this.
I think you missed the sarcasm tag...or at least I hope you did and he wasn't serious.
Austin > wherever you live?
Did Duncan trademark the term Yo-Yo?
I could trademark two common words, say, "finger joint", if I had some sort of iPhone app that did something cool and I wanted to call it "finger joint". Then it becomes really popular, so I trademark it, to enjoy the financial benefits and protections that come with that. Replace "finger joint" with "angry birds" and you start to see my point.
Define "most", because where I live, all four service providers have unlimited data and no associated charges (Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, and Grande).
Perhaps Austin's market demand can justify all the major competitors not having data limits, and in the rest of the country "most" services throttle your usage?
I live in stupid country USA and have no limit or throttling either.
You are missing the point and dwelling on only half the issue. It's not about the word "App" (unless there's something in the TFA I missed). It's the use of App + Store in the paradigm of dishing up products that Apple has had success with, not the word Apps. I've been using the word apps since probably around 1990, but I'd never claim Apple can't use App + Store because I've been calling a program an "application shortened to app" for 20 years now.
I did find this on wiki, though:
"Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox for photocopiers, Plexiglas for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex for facial tissues, Band-Aid for adhesive bandages, and others.
I don't know how many times they've sued, but I'd say they have the right to sue every single time a competitor calls their bandage product a Band-Aid.
Generecized Trademark, according to wikipedia:
A trademark typically becomes "genericized" when the products or services with which it is associated have acquired substantial market dominance or mind share such that the primary meaning of the genericized trademark becomes the product or service itself rather than an indication of source for the product or service to such an extent that the public thinks the trademark is the generic name of the product or service.
Apple for the win?
Notice I didn't complain about any of the other methods you mention, because I don't have a problem with right click + minimize, because that's an expected behavior. Random modifier key plus random function key is not.
It makes Amazon wrong for trying to financially benefit off the concept of another company's trademarked term. That's the whole point of trademarks. It doesn't matter if you or I think it's a dumb trademark, only that it is a trademark.
There was no success with the phrase "App" to piggy back off before Apple started using it. That's why Apple is allowed to trademark the term.
It's not about inventing something or not. That's what patents are for. Apple is profiting off the combination of the terms App + Store and therefore have trademarked it so that others can't just come along and benefit from Apple's diligence/creativity/dumb luck.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is.
But the band-aid example does stand up because band-aid is trademarked.
Indeed. If no store had used the term "food shop" before everyone else, and then they suddenly started making insane profits, why not trademark the term?
There's no point in arguing against it because you are wrong. You might not want it to be allowable, but it is perfectly legal to trademark common phrases. Just because you don't agree doesn't make you right.
"Metro". Srsly?
I've always considered Win 98 SE to be the best MS OS. Win7 will probably take that spot for me.
Ctrl+f1 pretty much says it all. Because THAT'S such an obvious key combination...
Mind you, the implementation of AD was absolutely terrible.
You just summed up 20 years of Microsoft history. Good ideas (or blatantly stolen ideas) botched horrible implementation. If MS would start paying less attention to the bottom line and more attention to quality, they could be great.
It's 2011...O$X is the new thing these days...