3 ms·

It's almost as if there needs to be an entire regulatory scheme for dealing with naming disputes, which would allow app developers and startups to protect their

by Gorbzel 13y ago

It's almost as if there needs to be an entire regulatory scheme for dealing with naming disputes, which would allow app developers and startups to protect their brand. Oh wait, there is, it's called Trademark Law! As such, it's getting really old seeing a bunch of angry parties writing open letters and rants on social media trying to claim they're the morally superior party for [BS REASON HERE]. None of that matters. What matters are statutorily defined factors such as likelihood of confusion, levels of distinctiveness, date of first use in commerce, etc that set forth who gets to use a mark as a matter of law. As such, it really doesn't matter what these MiSoft people tried to do in iTunes Connect, as Apple is/should not be the gatekeeper when it comes to naming disputes (see the handful of stories posted by app devs who are mad about takedowns). Nor does it matter if FiftyThree is particularly pouty that Facebook came in and tried to use their brand, because their original mark application really only has to do with stylus based drawing apps. tl;dr: Nothing to see here until the parties in question actually lawyer up and assert infringement.

akavlie 13y ago
I doubt that Misoft has sufficient resources to "lawyer up". That right is reserved to big companies with lots of money. Like Facebook.
- cwp 13y ago
  Right. Remember all the drama and moralizing when Apple and Cisco sorted out the right to the name "iPhone?" Me neither. All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatisa 13y ago
    >All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts. No, it's because they want free publicity for their application. Someone with a history of not wanting to work with people to settle trademark issues (see smm2000's post) isn't doing it on principle. Trademark law is nowhere as time-consuming or unapproachable as you make it out to be.
  - genericbrandx 13y ago
    Or Microsoft and Twitter having drama over the use of the name Vine
antihero 13y ago
Because legal disputes are an even playing field.
officemonkey 13y ago
>it's called Trademark Law! The international nature of app stores makes one nation's trademark law increasingly irrelevant. Also, because most of these app shops are barely making any money, the court of popular opinion is the only one they can afford.
Tloewald 13y ago
Frsnkly, I'm sick of companies -- software companies in particular -- trying to own plain English words. I was sick of it when Microsoft registered "Windows" as a trademark (they actually had the trademark challenged and lost it in Australia -- as a common use term in computing), and "Word" and "Excel" and "Access" and "Money" and on and on. If Microsoft wants to sell "Microsoft Word" then good luck, but I should be able to sell "BillyBob Word" or whatever. (Yes, I guess this means I kind of don't like "Apple" as a registered trademark either. I have no problem with the Apple logo (now they've bought it from the Beatles) or "Apple Inc." or "Apple Computer".) Imagine if Boeing owned the trademark "Airplane" or if Southwest owned "Ticket" (but only in the domain of air travel...). People would think that was ridiculous. MiSoft is angry because they tried to squat on the name "paper" and failed and now "paper" is "owned" by someone else. The sensible option is to allow anyone to call their app "paper" (but underneath it's com.foo.paper or com.bar.paper) and users will be annoyed if your name or icon are utterly indistinct. OTOH if you somehow actually own the name Papr or whatever then good luck to you. Incidentally, "Paper" by 53 is the most annoying iPad application I use. It works well -- I like it a lot -- but its tools are all in-app purchases, and if you accidentally touch a tool you don't own (because they're all there, dimmed out) you get an ad for the tool. After I first got the app I decided I liked it enough to pay for "all" the tools. Then they added a new (expensive) tool I didn't want. So I have this annoying tool I can't remove and don't want to pay for out of principle, but every time I touch it, the frickin' ad appears.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by Gorbzel 13y ago

akavlie 13y ago

I doubt that Misoft has sufficient resources to "lawyer up". That right is reserved to big companies with lots of money. Like Facebook.

cwp 13y ago
Right. Remember all the drama and moralizing when Apple and Cisco sorted out the right to the name "iPhone?" Me neither. All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- whatisa 13y ago
  >All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts. No, it's because they want free publicity for their application. Someone with a history of not wanting to work with people to settle trademark issues (see smm2000's post) isn't doing it on principle. Trademark law is nowhere as time-consuming or unapproachable as you make it out to be.
- genericbrandx 13y ago
  Or Microsoft and Twitter having drama over the use of the name Vine

antihero 13y ago

Because legal disputes are an even playing field.

officemonkey 13y ago

>it's called Trademark Law! The international nature of app stores makes one nation's trademark law increasingly irrelevant. Also, because most of these app shops are barely making any money, the court of popular opinion is the only one they can afford.

Tloewald 13y ago

Frsnkly, I'm sick of companies -- software companies in particular -- trying to own plain English words. I was sick of it when Microsoft registered "Windows" as a trademark (they actually had the trademark challenged and lost it in Australia -- as a common use term in computing), and "Word" and "Excel" and "Access" and "Money" and on and on. If Microsoft wants to sell "Microsoft Word" then good luck, but I should be able to sell "BillyBob Word" or whatever. (Yes, I guess this means I kind of don't like "Apple" as a registered trademark either. I have no problem with the Apple logo (now they've bought it from the Beatles) or "Apple Inc." or "Apple Computer".) Imagine if Boeing owned the trademark "Airplane" or if Southwest owned "Ticket" (but only in the domain of air travel...). People would think that was ridiculous. MiSoft is angry because they tried to squat on the name "paper" and failed and now "paper" is "owned" by someone else. The sensible option is to allow anyone to call their app "paper" (but underneath it's com.foo.paper or com.bar.paper) and users will be annoyed if your name or icon are utterly indistinct. OTOH if you somehow actually own the name Papr or whatever then good luck to you. Incidentally, "Paper" by 53 is the most annoying iPad application I use. It works well -- I like it a lot -- but its tools are all in-app purchases, and if you accidentally touch a tool you don't own (because they're all there, dimmed out) you get an ad for the tool. After I first got the app I decided I liked it enough to pay for "all" the tools. Then they added a new (expensive) tool I didn't want. So I have this annoying tool I can't remove and don't want to pay for out of principle, but every time I touch it, the frickin' ad appears.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]