Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paper, by MiSoft

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#41

Post by TomSawyer »

chaz wrote: post #27
Mithaldu wrote: post #5

I 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?

Pages, they're what books are made of.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#43

Post by [deleted] »

cwp wrote: post #40
akavlie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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]

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#44

Post by antihero »

Gorbzel wrote: post #25

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.…

Because legal disputes are an even playing field.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#45

Post by DannyBee »

smm2000 wrote: post #9

More to this story http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/ 53 looks more and more like a jerk here

So, they make a claim i'm having trouble substantiating (but may or may not be true, of course :P).

They state the PTO has a problem with fiftythree's mark, but actually, the PTO approved it for publication (yes, after some discussion). It was published for opposition (IE the PTO approved it) A request for extension of time to oppose has been filed.

But it hasn't been "refused", or else it would not have issued to the stage it did.

I can see some correspondence going back and forth with the USPTO, which i imagine related to figure53 in some way, but hard to say.

Despite claims otherwise, the goods/services this mark applies to is still the same on the approved mark:

"Computer hardware design; computer software design for use in graphics, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems; updating and maintenance of computer software"

and "Computer graphics software for mobile applications, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger"

SO i have trouble with the "USPTO thought it was confusing and refused it". From what i can see,t hat did not happen.

Also note as of right now, nobody owns a trademark on "paper", though FiftyThree applied for a mark on 1/28/2014, citing use back to 2012.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#46

Post by chaz »

Mithaldu wrote: post #38
chaz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't even know what Facebook Paper is and don't care. However as you mentioned, compounds, even of the simplest kind, are a GREAT idea. The important thing is that, even if you lack the common sense or creativity, it is completely and fully unreasonable to not expect someone else to make the same bad decision. Open letters, heartfelt emotional addresses and displays of surprise are not a thing that should happen a…

Compound words can cause the same consumer confusion, which is why I don't see it as any different from one word. You'll definitely get a call from corporate counsel if you launch a truck called the F-151, a burger named the Huge Mac, or an energy drink named Blue Bull. Naming things is hard.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#47

Post by rbritton »

bennyg wrote: post #37
k-mcgrady wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have 180 days after registering the name to use it - and then you can never register that name again under that developer account.

There's a loophole. If you register it, submit a binary, and then reject the binary you get unlimited time.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#48

Post by [deleted] »

TomSawyer wrote: post #41
chaz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Pages, they're what books are made of.

[deleted]

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#49

Post by yogo »

chaz wrote: post #27
Mithaldu wrote: post #5

I 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?

iPaper? Wait, that's what Apple will call their version. Facebook should have gone with Notebook (a paper product ending in book) :).

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#50

Post by Mithaldu »

chaz wrote: post #46
Mithaldu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what Facebook Paper is and don't care. However as you mentioned, compounds, even of the simplest kind, are a GREAT idea. The important thing is that, even if you lack the common sense or creativity, it is completely and fully unreasonable to not expect someone else to make the same bad decision. Open letters, heartfelt emotional addresses and displays of surprise are not a thing that should happen a…

Compound words can cause the same consumer confusion, which is why I don't see it as any different from one word. You'll definitely get a call from corporate counsel if you launch a truck called the F-151, a burger named the Huge Mac, or an energy drink named Blue Bull. Naming things is hard.

You're confusing things here, this is about the reaction to someone else introducing a product named the same, or similar to your own badly named product. You're describing the situation where one is the person who does the introduction of the second product. Related, but different things.
Post reply on HN