1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up

Discussion in 'Jason Stoddard' started by jason stoddard, Jan 23, 2014.
  1. golfbravobravo
    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
     
    barondla and Jason Stoddard like this.
  2. golfbravobravo
    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
     
  3. Pietro Cozzi Tinin
    This is where the discussion gets pear-shaped.
     
  4. RCBinTN
    I actually understood parts of that, because I'm recently enjoying John Le Carre books.
    Thanks for the informed perspective :)
     
  5. 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.
     
    AudioGal and Rattle like this.
  6. ev13wt
    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..."

    :)
     
    CAPT Deadpool likes this.
  7. rkw
    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/
     
  8. Ableza
    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. :)
     
    motberg and barondla like this.
  9. winders
    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
     
  10. winders
    Nor was mine....hence "into general use in computer vernacular."
     
  11. Robert Padgett
    Thanks, what would we do without Wikipedia?:dart:
     
  12. StefanJK
    Yes, best example is patent pools between large firms with no payments make. Patents only get used against other firms.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  13. hearditontheX
  14. dieslemat
  15. belgiangenius
    This made me laugh because being a patent lawyer is what I do when I'm not listening to music.

    It is true that there is always a risk that your patent application never grants, at least in a commercially valuable form. But since you guys seem to be doing stuff that is actually innovative, I would say this risk is quite low.

    You are right that patents are expensive. Filing an application and prosecuting it through to grant can easily cost $50 grand. Employing a trade secret strategy is smart where your innovation is difficult to reverse engineer.

    But if you think that patents really afford zero protection, you need to speak to better patent lawyers and better IP strategists. :smile_phones:
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
    thebmc, Ableza, rdaneel and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page