"Apple"
"Windows"
It all depends on the scope you're trying to claim.
Paper, by MiSoft
21–30 of 80 posts
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#22FiftyThree just posted this on Twitter: .@daringfireball please don’t take the bait. Paper by miSoft V1 was launched Sep 20th 2012, 5 month after us. https://twitter.com/FiftyThree/status/430845528805756928
Wasn't their point that they registered the name Paper with Apple before anyone else? You can register an app name and have it held for a couple months I think before actually launching.
If someone registers the name but it appears nowhere on the store, the name + some string is OK and an existing app can change to the same name and get published in the meantime, it's basically as if there is no name registration.
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#23More to this story http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/ 53 looks more and more like a jerk here
And in this case, a random # like 53 isn't a common 5 letter word like "Paper". Figure53 is more in the right vs FiftyThree than "Paper by FiftyThree" vs "Paper by Facebook"
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#24Names should not be distinct like on Google Play and let the best 'Paper' win. There is no reason why app naming needs to be unique like domains only the id and bundle. Unique names are always better but noone should be stopped from using the same name unless it is launched first and there is a trademark etc.
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#25It'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.
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#26I honestly have to say that i find myself highly amused by people appropiating the names of everyday objects for their products, exhibiting no common sense or creativity, and then getting upset in true kindergarten style when others do the same thing.
Word.
I thought you were agreeing with parent. Then I realized you were also pointing out a product that fits the complaint. We'll played, my good person.
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#27I honestly have to say that i find myself highly amused by people appropiating the names of everyday objects for their products, exhibiting no common sense or creativity, and then getting upset in true kindergarten style when others do the same thing.
> exhibiting no common sense or creativity
I think it makes perfect sense to name products with words that exist (like "Sprite", "Mustang", and "Tide"), or a compound word made up of 2+ words. Making up new words ("Pepsi", "Camaro", and "Clorox") can be a lot more risky, especially if it's a consumer brand.
What would you have named Facebook Paper instead?
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#28It'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.…
I doubt that Misoft has sufficient resources to "lawyer up". That right is reserved to big companies with lots of money. Like Facebook.
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#29More to this story http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/ 53 looks more and more like a jerk here
Figure 53 acquiring MiSoft would really kick this story up to 11 on the popcorn meter.
Re: Paper, by MiSoft
#30Paper is a generic term when it comes to publishing. If you want trademark protection, there are laws for that, and they don't apply to these guys.