Well, it IS possible for a trademark to slip into the public domain and be lost, maybe even in the time between the iPad trademark and this application. I'm wondering if that's what the patent reviewer had in mind?
I don't think so, because I certainly don't see "iPad" being used to refer to tables generically. I think your first reading was accurate, you were correct in finding it puzzling, and the reviewer's reasoning was just incorrect.
Yes, for the reasons you mention the ruling does seem bizarre to me. However, I suspect that the descriptiveness of "mini" is still enough to reject the application, even if the other reasoning is fallacious, so I didn't want to focus on arguing those points.
- The fact that there are no trademarks for "Mac mini" or "iPod mini" is strong evidence that "iPad mini" cannot be trademarked...
- The fact that there is a trademark for "iPad" is strong evidence that, well, you know, "iPad" can be trademarked;-)
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet.
No, it does not say that. It says that they can't trademark "iPad mini" because because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet and "mini" is descriptive.
1) The analysis only applies to the current application, not to any other hypothetical application.
2) They already have the trademark on iPad (registered 3 years ago).
Or Apple's previous products: Mac Mini, iPod Mini, iPod Nano? I'm curious to know if these had been previously trademarked?
No, no, yes. (As 5 seconds at uspto.gov would have revealed.) So I guess "nano" is a less common work--or perhaps it's not a word in common usage, but a prefix. "Mini" means small, literally descriptive, while "nano" means 1 billionth, not exactly literal?
What responsibility does Google have to spend time and money on infrastructure on products that are used by the minority of people?
None whatsoever. Entering into such a deal, where the other party obviously has no obligation to you, is a bad idea--and that's largely the point here, even if obscured by the clever attempts at humor;-)
Fines don't do it. Jailtime for CEOs would. My rule of thumb- any crime bad enough to be fined a 100K dollars should include 6 months of jailtime for a CxO or the president of the board of directors. For every 100K after that, add 6 months for another of them. No parole. THAT would get companies to clean up their act.
No, it would merely limit fines actually imposed to $99,999.99;-)
The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke.
Just like how when you lease a car, the car manufacturer is responsible for all maintenance, and even for replacing the car if you lose it or break it.
When you purchase a cellular phone in CA, you are charged sales tax on the non-subsidized price. Source: I recently purchased a Galaxy SIII for my mother and was charged a little more than $50 in sales tax although the out-of-pocket cost for the phone was $100.
That's an interesting point, that sales tax practices vary state-to-state. I'm pretty sure the last time I bought a phone, I was charged sales tax only on the out-of-pocket cost--in Colorado.
I agree with your position on allowing unlocking. But your arguments are so wrong in so many ways that you'd really do better to shut up. "Our side" does not need such ignorant easily disproven drivel clouding the issue.
You OWN your home, even though its mortgaged. You are not leasing it. You are not renting it. It is yours to do with ANYTHING you please. The bank has a lien on your home if your are mortgaged. They do not own it, nor can they tell you in any way what to do with it. You can sell it for any price you wish or burn it down...
So, you've never actually read a mortgage and are completely unfamiliar with the laws pertaining to them...
Likewise, when I purchase a phone + contract, I own the phone immediately. The phone company counts it as an immediate sell on their books and all other accounting...
No, they do not--they recognize the revenue on the subsidized part of the phone as they receive it.
...which is why you pay taxes for it immediately rather than over time.
No, you do not. You pay taxes on the part you pay, not the part that is deferred.
If it was a lease, you would be required to buy it at the end of your contract...
No, you would not--in fact you've got this one exactly backwards. A lease means you return the item (in good condition) without further obligation at the end of the contract.
...that is a LEGAL requirement for leases, they can't automatically be 'given' at the end.
It is a legal requirement in order to be able to deduct certain leases as business expenses that there be no pre-negotiated sales price at the end of the contract, that you pay fair market value at that time, that you receive no special consideration as the former lessee. Now you are right that if you get the item for free at the end, it's not a lease--because that's the very definition of a lease, that you don't take ownership. But getting this point only partly wrong still leaves your argument resoundlngly muddled.
They have early termination charges attached as an agreed on termination cost.
Yes, and that should be enough.
Not allowing your phone to not work on another provider ISN'T IN THE CONTRACT AT ALL, so its not something you agreed on ever.
Of course it is in the contract--the questions are: 1) whether or not such a term should be enforceable at all, and 2) if it should be enforceable, should it be a criminal act to unlock, or a civil issue between you and the carrier in the event you do not pay the early termination fee.
The RSA Professor of Electrical Engineering, the Ford Professor of Engineering. Do universities really need money so badly that they have to sell advertising in their faculty position names?
Uhm, endowed positions have been around at universities for, what, a few hundred years at least???
Look at the first photograph on the webpage (first link), of him standing in front of it holding the powered undercarriage. The sun is shining through from the inside and lighting up the side. Note the direction of the shadows. It looks like fabric on a frame, to me.
OK, I had not seen that.
But there are plenty of other problems... The "wings" that are really more sails than airfoils, which wouldn't provide enough lift; no way to deform them in a controlled way, just the rudder alone would not have provided adequate yaw control, much less pitch and roll; and on and on...
I'm not saying that it's impossible that someone, maybe even this inventor, achieved controlled flight before the Wright Brothers--just that it would not have been in this bathtub/glider contraption. I can believe that there was some gliding achieved, and prolonged by mechanical propulsion, but actual powered flight? Not so much;-)
Turn over all the subscriber info to Canpire immediately. Let them send out demand letters. Then send out letters to all those subscribers explaining the exact nature of Canpire's business, on the theory that there's a least a handful of those subscribers with money, good lawyers, and short tempers;-)
What boards? Just because it is shaped like a boat hull doesn't mean it is made like a rowboat. Geez! I have been in boats made of thin fabric, they exist. (and work.)
Look closely, that's not thin fabric, it's planks.
Unless this is totally anecdotal they're counted somewhere, because you state that they increase. If it's recorded, where can the figures be found?
It's never reported when cities talk about the results from red light cameras. Of course the information is recorded, however it has been up to 3rd-party advocacy groups to compile it and try to publicize it.
It's not webkit - all browsers on iOS are required to be thin wrappers around Safari. For example, Chrome is Safari with Chrome's tabs and branding.
Uhm, no, it is webkit that is the requirement. The phrase "thin wrappers around Safari" does not even make sense. Safari is a complete application, not a framework/library; there is no way on iOS to create an app that is a "thin wrapper" around another app.
The real joke is that many of the site users apparently cheered the "move". Apparently forced labor concentration camps, widespread torture, arbitrary arrest and murder of citizens by the government, collective punishment for entire families and villages, complete absence of freedom of speech, no independent media, death penalty listening to foreign radio are bad, but not as bad as IP laws that prevent you from downloading stuff you want for free.
Guess what? Dennis Rodman. Guess what? You know. Guess what? It's the same here. Guess what? Politics. Guess what?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it IS possible for a trademark to slip into the public domain and be lost, maybe even in the time between the iPad trademark and this application. I'm wondering if that's what the patent reviewer had in mind?
I don't think so, because I certainly don't see "iPad" being used to refer to tables generically. I think your first reading was accurate, you were correct in finding it puzzling, and the reviewer's reasoning was just incorrect.
Conan O'Brian beat you to that joke ;-)
Do they lose the trademark for that? Or did they not have it in the first place?
Never had it in the first place. (Nor "iPad mini"--the summary, as usual on /., is worded imprecisely.)
This just seems bizarre to me.
Yes, for the reasons you mention the ruling does seem bizarre to me. However, I suspect that the descriptiveness of "mini" is still enough to reject the application, even if the other reasoning is fallacious, so I didn't want to focus on arguing those points.
- The fact that there are no trademarks for "Mac mini" or "iPod mini" is strong evidence that "iPad mini" cannot be trademarked...
- The fact that there is a trademark for "iPad" is strong evidence that, well, you know, "iPad" can be trademarked ;-)
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet.
No, it does not say that. It says that they can't trademark "iPad mini" because because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet and "mini" is descriptive.
1) The analysis only applies to the current application, not to any other hypothetical application.
2) They already have the trademark on iPad (registered 3 years ago).
Or Apple's previous products: Mac Mini, iPod Mini, iPod Nano? I'm curious to know if these had been previously trademarked?
No, no, yes. (As 5 seconds at uspto.gov would have revealed.) So I guess "nano" is a less common work--or perhaps it's not a word in common usage, but a prefix. "Mini" means small, literally descriptive, while "nano" means 1 billionth, not exactly literal?
They don't have a trademark on Mac mini either, and I assume the reason is the same. So why even bother???
Damn. I was going to point that out, because I figured no one else on /. would know it ;-)
Replicated systems need regular backups too. No shit, sherlock...
I smell some antitrust concern here...
What responsibility does Google have to spend time and money on infrastructure on products that are used by the minority of people?
None whatsoever. Entering into such a deal, where the other party obviously has no obligation to you, is a bad idea--and that's largely the point here, even if obscured by the clever attempts at humor ;-)
sudo make me a smartwatch
Not quite...
su apple -c 'make me a smartwatch'
Fines don't do it. Jailtime for CEOs would. My rule of thumb- any crime bad enough to be fined a 100K dollars should include 6 months of jailtime for a CxO or the president of the board of directors. For every 100K after that, add 6 months for another of them. No parole. THAT would get companies to clean up their act.
No, it would merely limit fines actually imposed to $99,999.99 ;-)
The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke.
Just like how when you lease a car, the car manufacturer is responsible for all maintenance, and even for replacing the car if you lose it or break it.
Oh, wait...
When you purchase a cellular phone in CA, you are charged sales tax on the non-subsidized price. Source: I recently purchased a Galaxy SIII for my mother and was charged a little more than $50 in sales tax although the out-of-pocket cost for the phone was $100.
That's an interesting point, that sales tax practices vary state-to-state. I'm pretty sure the last time I bought a phone, I was charged sales tax only on the out-of-pocket cost--in Colorado.
I agree with your position on allowing unlocking. But your arguments are so wrong in so many ways that you'd really do better to shut up. "Our side" does not need such ignorant easily disproven drivel clouding the issue.
You OWN your home, even though its mortgaged. You are not leasing it. You are not renting it. It is yours to do with ANYTHING you please. The bank has a lien on your home if your are mortgaged. They do not own it, nor can they tell you in any way what to do with it. You can sell it for any price you wish or burn it down...
So, you've never actually read a mortgage and are completely unfamiliar with the laws pertaining to them...
Likewise, when I purchase a phone + contract, I own the phone immediately. The phone company counts it as an immediate sell on their books and all other accounting...
No, they do not--they recognize the revenue on the subsidized part of the phone as they receive it.
...which is why you pay taxes for it immediately rather than over time.
No, you do not. You pay taxes on the part you pay, not the part that is deferred.
If it was a lease, you would be required to buy it at the end of your contract ...
No, you would not--in fact you've got this one exactly backwards. A lease means you return the item (in good condition) without further obligation at the end of the contract.
...that is a LEGAL requirement for leases, they can't automatically be 'given' at the end.
It is a legal requirement in order to be able to deduct certain leases as business expenses that there be no pre-negotiated sales price at the end of the contract, that you pay fair market value at that time, that you receive no special consideration as the former lessee. Now you are right that if you get the item for free at the end, it's not a lease--because that's the very definition of a lease, that you don't take ownership. But getting this point only partly wrong still leaves your argument resoundlngly muddled.
They have early termination charges attached as an agreed on termination cost.
Yes, and that should be enough.
Not allowing your phone to not work on another provider ISN'T IN THE CONTRACT AT ALL, so its not something you agreed on ever.
Of course it is in the contract--the questions are: 1) whether or not such a term should be enforceable at all, and 2) if it should be enforceable, should it be a criminal act to unlock, or a civil issue between you and the carrier in the event you do not pay the early termination fee.
The RSA Professor of Electrical Engineering, the Ford Professor of Engineering. Do universities really need money so badly that they have to sell advertising in their faculty position names?
Uhm, endowed positions have been around at universities for, what, a few hundred years at least???
Look at the first photograph on the webpage (first link), of him standing in front of it holding the powered undercarriage. The sun is shining through from the inside and lighting up the side. Note the direction of the shadows. It looks like fabric on a frame, to me.
OK, I had not seen that.
But there are plenty of other problems... The "wings" that are really more sails than airfoils, which wouldn't provide enough lift; no way to deform them in a controlled way, just the rudder alone would not have provided adequate yaw control, much less pitch and roll; and on and on...
I'm not saying that it's impossible that someone, maybe even this inventor, achieved controlled flight before the Wright Brothers--just that it would not have been in this bathtub/glider contraption. I can believe that there was some gliding achieved, and prolonged by mechanical propulsion, but actual powered flight? Not so much ;-)
Turn over all the subscriber info to Canpire immediately. Let them send out demand letters. Then send out letters to all those subscribers explaining the exact nature of Canpire's business, on the theory that there's a least a handful of those subscribers with money, good lawyers, and short tempers ;-)
What boards? Just because it is shaped like a boat hull doesn't mean it is made like a rowboat. Geez! I have been in boats made of thin fabric, they exist. (and work.)
Look closely, that's not thin fabric, it's planks.
Unless this is totally anecdotal they're counted somewhere, because you state that they increase. If it's recorded, where can the figures be found?
It's never reported when cities talk about the results from red light cameras. Of course the information is recorded, however it has been up to 3rd-party advocacy groups to compile it and try to publicize it.
I'd like to know how incidences of rear-end collisions are affected in areas where red-light cameras are installed...
They go up, way up in some cases. But they're not counted because they do not occur in the intersection.
It's not webkit - all browsers on iOS are required to be thin wrappers around Safari. For example, Chrome is Safari with Chrome's tabs and branding.
Uhm, no, it is webkit that is the requirement. The phrase "thin wrappers around Safari" does not even make sense. Safari is a complete application, not a framework/library; there is no way on iOS to create an app that is a "thin wrapper" around another app.
1) Weight to lift surface ratio--I don't care how thin those boards are, it weighed too much.
2) Control--no way that wing configuration delivered control.
At best that thing might have glided a bit--but I doubt it even could do that.
The real joke is that many of the site users apparently cheered the "move". Apparently forced labor concentration camps, widespread torture, arbitrary arrest and murder of citizens by the government, collective punishment for entire families and villages, complete absence of freedom of speech, no independent media, death penalty listening to foreign radio are bad, but not as bad as IP laws that prevent you from downloading stuff you want for free.
Guess what? Dennis Rodman. Guess what? You know. Guess what? It's the same here. Guess what? Politics. Guess what?