4 ms·

> but outside of the software industry, few referred to programs as 'apps' on a regular basis. So? Of those who did, nobody did it in a branded way. It's a gen

by wnight 15y ago

> but outside of the software industry, few referred to programs as 'apps' on a regular basis. So? Of those who did, nobody did it in a branded way. It's a generic term - an obvious shortening of an existing word and one many people had come up with. Why do we care how much time, effort, or money was spent to brand a generic term? That's not useful to the people. Trademarks should be used (and thus given) to help differentiate companies. Letting a generic word be turned into a trademark should, if at all possible, be very hard. If you want a trademark make up a word, like Google, or use a fanciful word for the context, like Apple.

msbarnett 15y ago
> Why do we care how much time, effort, or money was spent to brand a generic term? That's not useful to the people. Isn't it? If you told someone you got food poisoning from the All Bran at the free breakfast at Holiday Inn while representing Network Solutions at a conference on Windows development, are you really asserting that people wouldn't be able to recognize the brands involved despite the generically descriptive trademarks?
- wnight 15y ago
  It'd be wonderful if those weren't trademarks. What if someone asks my to get them an all-bran cereal, then bring it to their holiday inn, the Hilton Beachside, for breakfast before a conference discussing network solutions, where we pitch CRM technology to window developers who make transparent building panels? Mightn't I get confused by all those stupid companies who term-squat on otherwise useful parts of our language? Trademark law pays off well when we allow for names like 'Google'; it's new (not stepping on existing terms or usage) and thus also unique. But names like Network Solutions are actively harmful. They do cause some confusion. In fact, a low-level imperceptible bias is what they're counting on. Trademark law would lose 92.4% of its complexity (and burden to society) if we simply stopped allowing generic terms or combinations of generic terms.
anigbrowl 15y ago
I share most of your feelings about trademarking policy, and find the linguistic land grab aspect of it disturbing. However, my feeling (very slightly) sorry for Apple is because of their ill-fortune with the trademark system that we have now, as opposed to the idealized trademark system of my dreams that would have clear and unambiguous standards on what could or could not be trademarked. It seems to me that they really thought they were following the necessary steps to build a distinct brand. I can understand why this would seem very important to them, because titles can be strangely personal things, notwithstanding the existence of the naming/branding businesses and so on. I used to work in the film business, and surprisingly enough, you can't (in general) get copyright or trademark protection for movie titles. This is a problem for any writer or producer without the backing of a studio, so in the trade you'll often see references to 'untitled Paul Producer project' - Paul Producer probably has a great title, but doesn't have the resources to stop someone else with more money from from pinching it and launching a marketing campaign year ahead of release. You'd be surprised how often this happens. If you're interested, here's a good article on that issue, though not without a few minor errors: http://troygould.com/layouts/50/graphics/handel_la_lawyer.pdf http://troygould.com/layouts/50/graphics/handel_la_lawyer.pd...

by wnight 15y ago

msbarnett 15y ago

> Why do we care how much time, effort, or money was spent to brand a generic term? That's not useful to the people. Isn't it? If you told someone you got food poisoning from the All Bran at the free breakfast at Holiday Inn while representing Network Solutions at a conference on Windows development, are you really asserting that people wouldn't be able to recognize the brands involved despite the generically descriptive trademarks?

wnight 15y ago
It'd be wonderful if those weren't trademarks. What if someone asks my to get them an all-bran cereal, then bring it to their holiday inn, the Hilton Beachside, for breakfast before a conference discussing network solutions, where we pitch CRM technology to window developers who make transparent building panels? Mightn't I get confused by all those stupid companies who term-squat on otherwise useful parts of our language? Trademark law pays off well when we allow for names like 'Google'; it's new (not stepping on existing terms or usage) and thus also unique. But names like Network Solutions are actively harmful. They do cause some confusion. In fact, a low-level imperceptible bias is what they're counting on. Trademark law would lose 92.4% of its complexity (and burden to society) if we simply stopped allowing generic terms or combinations of generic terms.

anigbrowl 15y ago

I share most of your feelings about trademarking policy, and find the linguistic land grab aspect of it disturbing. However, my feeling (very slightly) sorry for Apple is because of their ill-fortune with the trademark system that we have now, as opposed to the idealized trademark system of my dreams that would have clear and unambiguous standards on what could or could not be trademarked. It seems to me that they really thought they were following the necessary steps to build a distinct brand. I can understand why this would seem very important to them, because titles can be strangely personal things, notwithstanding the existence of the naming/branding businesses and so on. I used to work in the film business, and surprisingly enough, you can't (in general) get copyright or trademark protection for movie titles. This is a problem for any writer or producer without the backing of a studio, so in the trade you'll often see references to 'untitled Paul Producer project' - Paul Producer probably has a great title, but doesn't have the resources to stop someone else with more money from from pinching it and launching a marketing campaign year ahead of release. You'd be surprised how often this happens. If you're interested, here's a good article on that issue, though not without a few minor errors: http://troygould.com/layouts/50/graphics/handel_la_lawyer.pdf http://troygould.com/layouts/50/graphics/handel_la_lawyer.pd...