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

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#61

Post by gorner »

Greenisus wrote: post #13
Aaronn wrote: post #2

FiftyThree 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

That's interesting but I'm not sure launch date should be the date that determines when it's fair for you to have a name. FiftyThree's Paper is no doubt the better one (I was at WWDC and applauded them when they won their ADA), but some apps take a very long time to build. While you're building your masterpiece, some bozo could start and finish a lesser app and use your name before you have a chance to do anything ab…

If they (MiSoft) had filed a trademark application for "Paper" around the same time they reserved the name with Apple, they might have a case. But reserving a name with a retailer – without actually using it, and without anyone (other than Apple) knowing you were planning to use it – would not to my knowledge have any legal effect with regards to usage rights.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#62

Post by dclowd9901 »

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

Wouldn't surprise me. This is the same company that for months refused to support the Adonit Jot Touch 4 and gave absolutely no reason for it. Until, of course, they released their own stupidly overpriced and proprietary writing implement as well.

As of now, they still have no plans to support third-party styluses, and while I get it might cut into their business model to support the AJT4, they're jerks for not doing so. It's clear they're their only first concern.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#63

Post by speeder »

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.

I am a game developer...

I think I should make a game that is named "game"

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#64

Post by seandougall »

Steko wrote: post #55
DannyBee wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Figure53's claim is that FiftyThree's original application was not "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" But in fact: "Computer graphics software; computer h…

Edit: Removing my original comment because I was reading the PTO's site backwards. Note that document #1 is the most recent while #20 is the first chronologically.

The "technical support services" part is also problematic, because it's so general in scope as to cover all software companies that support their products (as Figure 53 does).

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#65

Post by bdcravens »

drawkbox wrote: post #24

Names 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.

Hold on, let me rename my racing game "IceOne Racer" :-)

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#66

Post by officemonkey »

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.…

>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.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#68

Post by nacs »

speeder wrote: post #63
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.

I am a game developer... I think I should make a game that is named "game"

Better watch out.. King.com already owns that.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#69

Post by Tloewald »

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.…

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.

Re: Paper, by MiSoft

#70

Post by bennyg »

rbritton wrote: post #47
bennyg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's actually awesome to know. I've lost an amazing name because of this - and wish I still had it.
Post reply on HN