[golfbravobravo]

You mean Apple, of course......

I assume you are jerking my chain here.........

 

[winders]

I assume you are jerking my chain here.........

Not at all. Apple Computer with the Lisa and Macintosh are what brought the use of the words "window" and "windows" into general use in computer vernacular. Microsoft followed on afterwards with Windows. I know as I was there right in the heart of it.

 

[golfbravobravo]

Uh, if you look around you'll see that it's very common. Starting just with company names in the Dow Jones Average : Apple, Caterpillar, Visa. Trademark simply prevents somebody else from using the same name for their company or product.

Actually, not! In each such case, the applicant has to demonstrate that the mark has become distinctive - and that takes (usually) many millions of dollars to "re-educate" people and then to do the research to support their assertion. That's why most people take the easy route and, if they use a word, the do so in a typographical form or in combination with some unique graphic.

A trademark prevents the use of the mark - and then only in prescribed classes in a particular territory. In the case of Apple, IIRC, the graphic came first and then the word - in a fairly loose form, hence the court case with Apple Corps when Apple moved into the music space. Apple are also relaxed when it comes to using other people's marks. I have - somewhere - an iPhone that was a VOIP handset long before the thing we now now was produced. I happened to spend the last four years of corporate life in legal action against Apple for their abuse of the UNIX trademark - which is why the laptop I type this on is now a certified UNIX system.

Cheers

 

[golfbravobravo]

Not at all. Apple Computer with the Lisa and Macintosh are what brought the use of the words "window" and "windows" into general use in computer vernacular. Microsoft followed on afterwards with Windows. I know as I was there right in the heart of it.

My point wasn't about who was first though (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about Apple, would we ), it's who invested the resources to convince the market (and thereafter the PSTO) that their product should be allowed to use the word as a trademark.

Cheers

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

This is where the discussion gets pear-shaped.

 

[RCBinTN]

So, in each case (Yes, granny I know I'm teaching you egg sucking here) when a TM is used to distinguish a from b or make your product stand out in a crowd, there is a requirement for education. Both of the market and of the consumer (are they the same thing? Maybe). Until Microsoft came along we all knew that a window was something we looked out of (or into if you are of a particularly pervy nature). After MS spent literally millions of dollars, we came to know that Windows was no longer a generic noun, but in fact meant this special computer operating system. They did such a good job that they managed to achieve the impossible - they got a generic noun registered as a trademark.

[As an aside, buy me wine and I can tell you how my business colleague and I observed one of the partners of one of the largest IP firms in Lincoln's Inn consume a hat when we got "The Open Group" registered as a trademark]

My point here is that there is ALWAYS an education job to do. Sometimes it's huge, sometimes more modest. Deciding the form of that education, and as part of that, the description of what "IT" is, is key. I hate that my profession (I'm a recovered Chartered Marketer and Fellow of the professional institution) has allowed clients or employers to take the easy route in many industries (notably computing (speeds and memory) and digital photography (megapixels, et al) to define their approach to their consumers. So my tack is always the opposite. Let's talk to (that is, educate) our potential market about the benefits [Note, marketing 101 readers NOT THE FEATURES]. In simple terms, what will this deliver to me that nothing else will.

Of course, there is always the opposite point of view: namely that if one knows the language (I still can't work out many of these abbreviations and/or acronyms - yes there ARE different (for my American readers)) then one is clearly a member of this special club. I still prefer the former approach and it seems that Schiit does, looking at the web site.

So Continuity, Coherence and Nexus all seem to pass that test - you have to educate me for them to have any meaning in context. Unison USB, I get it but it's veering techy . And when we veer techy, there is a natural trendy to take the easy route: "everyone knows USB, do we need to do more?" Yes, clearly. This is a superdooper benefits up the wazooo USB.
Is there no restriction from the USB IF to using USB in a TM claim?

So to the "that which shall not be named". I hate Janus. Primarily because it's overused and overabused - that is it fails the distinctive test. For those wordplay people like me, we'll always ask if you are being two-faced. YMMV.

So, this forum being full of old farts (relevance follows), I'm surprised that I haven't seen TAFDO (or given your certain success Tafdo. I note that TARDIS is now defined by at least one dictionary as "tardis: something that appears larger on the inside than the outside" ) crop up. I quite like that, it rolls off the tongue, it's unique, etc, etc. as the King says.

I actually understood parts of that, because I'm recently enjoying John Le Carre books.
Thanks for the informed perspective

 

[Robert Padgett]

I was always under the impression that both Jobs and Gates visited the Xerox campus at silicon valley, and noticed that the copier giant had developed a graphical user interface. Gates then announced Windows, without a single line of code written to support it. Jobs went forward and developed Macintosh, which aired on the super bowl in 1984. Matter not to me, as I chose Linux and have no use for either Windows or Apple.

 

[ev13wt]

MagicBit with SizzleSauce.

That's pretty epic in my opinion.
MagicMultibit

"Any technology advanced jadda jadda is indistinguishable from magic. This is magic bit. Even it's creator, while furiously hacking away on a laptop in a bare, dark basement room illuminated only by a single candle while listening to..."

 

[rkw]

Actually, not! In each such case, the applicant has to demonstrate that the mark has become distinctive - and that takes (usually) many millions of dollars to "re-educate" people and then to do the research to support their assertion. That's why most people take the easy route and, if they use a word, the do so in a typographical form or in combination with some unique graphic.

You're missing my point. You'd said that "windows" is a common word and Microsoft had achieved the impossible by trademarking it. So have Apple, and Target, and countless others with common words also achieved the impossible? Nobody else can name their department store Target, even with a different logo.

With respect to Windows, Microsoft was initially denied the trademark in 1993 because the terminology of "window" was already starting to be used in the computer industry. Microsoft argued that "Windows" with a capital W and ending with an s, and referring to an operating system was unique, and they were later granted the trademark in 1995. They have not trademarked a common word but a very specific usage.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/we-own-windows-trademark-microsoft/

 

[Ableza]

Actually, not! In each such case, the applicant has to demonstrate that the mark has become distinctive - and that takes (usually) many millions of dollars to "re-educate" people and then to do the research to support their assertion. That's why most people take the easy route and, if they use a word, the do so in a typographical form or in combination with some unique graphic.

A trademark prevents the use of the mark - and then only in prescribed classes in a particular territory. In the case of Apple, IIRC, the graphic came first and then the word - in a fairly loose form, hence the court case with Apple Corps when Apple moved into the music space. Apple are also relaxed when it comes to using other people's marks. I have - somewhere - an iPhone that was a VOIP handset long before the thing we now now was produced. I happened to spend the last four years of corporate life in legal action against Apple for their abuse of the UNIX trademark - which is why the laptop I type this on is now a certified UNIX system.

Cheers

AND, a trademark can often be restricted to the "trade," meaning just because someone else has applied a TM to the word "Monster" in one industry, it may or may not apply to another industry, regardless of what the TM owner might like. So I can call my power drink Monster and not infringe on an electronics company's trademark.

 

[winders]

I was always under the impression that both Jobs and Gates visited the Xerox campus at silicon valley, and noticed that the copier giant had developed a graphical user interface. Gates then announced Windows, without a single line of code written to support it. Jobs went forward and developed Macintosh, which aired on the super bowl in 1984. Matter not to me, as I chose Linux and have no use for either Windows or Apple.

Gates has not made such a claim when discussing what Apple and Microsoft learned from Xerox. Someone inside Microsoft claimed that Gates had a Xerox Star in 1981 but that cannot be true. Read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

 

[winders]

My point wasn't about who was first though (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about Apple, would we )

Nor was mine....hence "into general use in computer vernacular."

 

[Robert Padgett]

Gates has not made such a claim when discussing what Apple and Microsoft learned from Xerox. Someone inside Microsoft claimed that Gates had a Xerox Star in 1981 but that cannot be true. Read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

Thanks, what would we do without Wikipedia?

 

[StefanJK]

Yeah, its the worst system, except for all the others. How you encourage innovation but also protect inventors is a tough question. People do get patents because they can be incredibly valuable. Nelson Pass, I believe, has a bunch of patented amp designs that he uses exclusively. Larger companies amass patent portfolios to protect their operations (the "if you sue me, I sue you" strategy is highly effective). It's a whole ecosystem that moves money around but doesn't offer a whole lot of value.

Yes, best example is patent pools between large firms with no payments make. Patents only get used against other firms.

 

[hearditontheX]

Don’t recall if this has been posted yet, pics and words from the recent Schiitr meet,
https://audio-head.com/sitting-down-with-the-schiit-ragnarok-2-sol-and-aegir/.