Trademarks are not global variables. They are scoped.
In trademark law these are called "classes".
If I have a trademark for McDonalds that covers navigation equipment, then the hamburger company can't sue me using their trademark which covers hamburgers. The coverage is scoped.
Now!
Observe the list of classes -- 37, 38, 41 and 42.
Apple is essentially registering "startup" to cover devices, their maintenance, development and training.
Not all uses of "startup" ever. Just those uses attached to what Apple produces.
The owner of a mark with a sufficient reputation can take action against dissimilar goods and services where they're riding on the goodwill of the mark of course so TMs are not completely limited to their classes.
Rolex could sue me if used their marks on a good which they weren't registered in if I was trying to take unfair advantage of their mark, tractors for example.
Whilst it's highly unlikely in this case that Apple would, I think it's inappropriate to seek protection of the term in the first place, at least from a PR perspective and from the risk of trade mark creep.
Thanks for that. Interesting! Looks like in Australia there has to be a likelihood of confusion even where a mark has reputation.
This is not the case in the EU, where the mere act of taking unfair advantage/causing detriment is sufficient for a TM owner to take action, even where there is no likelihood of confusion. Likewise, in the US, a TM owner would also have an action for TM dilution which does not require confusion.
I agree however looking forwards the brand could grow sufficiently large to gain this enhanced protection. I think even if this did happen Apple would be unlikely to enforce overly harshly but their stance on the App Store mark goes some way to show their approach to TM enforcement (though the discussion over the distinctiveness is another discussion!)
Within a narrow band of applicability. itafroma speculates that it's likely to be a retail package.
For example, suppose that Apple cuts out telcos and sells plans directly. What might those plans be called? It's easy to imagine the base plan being called "startup".
Or maybe it's a new technology or feature they plan to introduce. "Apple Startup, your gateway to the geohypersocialcloudappmotrons!". And so on.
If you're agin it, hire a trademark lawyer and lodge an objection. I've had good experiences with my lawyers: Golja, Haines and Friend in West Perth.
I originally engaged Thomas Haines to do help me with a patent. He's the only patent lawyer I could find in Perth who has a computer science background.
I'm told that no one cares whether Apple is shady because they build quality products, but I really want to see a shift away from Apple products in protest of said shadiness.
Linux is actually not half bad nowadays. It's not 2001 anymore.
I've migrated my main laptop from Windows 8 to Elementary OS and the only complaint from my very non-technical SO is that things "are different" (i.e. the close button is in upper left corner of the window).
Apart from that, everything just works. In fact it all worked out of the box, with the noticable exception of Skype.
Linux is turning into a pretty viable option. Really.
Of course there are. It is the forever configurable Linux after all. But since the discussion was about Apple products having the close button on the left is a benefit ;-)
But really these things are frustrations at first but you will learn the differences and get over them very very quickly. Just ask anyone who switched from win to osx.
I have been using it full-time circa 2006-2009. I guess that counts as "past decade".
1. There was no out of the box support of my particular NVidia video card, so I've had to build the driver from source and fiddle with my system to install it.
2. I've had userspace processes freeze on network activities and become impossible to kill, because of a kernel deadlock in my wireless driver.
3. Proper smooth fonts required work at the time (freetype did not ship with good subpixel hinting).
4. Proprietary media codecs did not work out of the box and required a third-party repositories.
5. The whole KDE four-point-not-really-zero debacle.
A minimalistic XMonad+Vim+terminal setup was decent and worked for me, but eventually I got sick of desktop Linux and moved to OSX.
I realise that many things have been fixed in the meantime, but it was not a flawless experience back then. If I was to give desktop Linux another shot today, I'd be cautiously optimistic, but not expect a miracle.
As you said many things happened in the meantime and you should not stay on your 2009 impressions. Besides, Please mention the distribution you used, there is no "single Linux Experience", just like you don't compare Windows 8 and windows XP as being a single brand of "Windows". For your particular comments:
1. Not an issue anymore in most recent distributions, and Nvidia is now supporting even the latest graphics cards on Linux.
2.3. I can't comment on that.
4. On Ubuntu and many other distros they now work out of the box.
Chinese language fonts (especially when mixed with English fonts) and input methods. And I don't just mean the default fonts the OS comes with (those these are better on OSX by a wide margin), but the way font selection and fallback works for GUI elements that contain a mix of Chinese/English.
I've run both linux and OS X as my default setups (currently linux), and I have to say, OS X does a lot of things better. I like linux better overall, but that's just too strong a statement. Here's a few that OS X does better:
-- Font anti-aliasing.
-- Package management - people using linux should be expected to be able to compile from source, I know, but at least most packages released for Mac OS X are developed with binaries.
-- Graphics card drivers, specifically Nvidia (which Mac ships with).
I've been using Linux and BSD for thirteen years and I can't even remember the last time I had to manually build and install an application from source (not counting random, early-stage hobby projects from github and things).
Open source Unix systems are the kings of package management. OS X pretty much does the exact opposite of 'package management', and any third party solution is based on existing Linux and BSD implementations.
Replying to this because I can't reply to the child comment.
This is something I keep hearing, and I keep linking to the same thing. "Download and One-Click Install" can easily be done on Linux. In fact, that's even what it is called: "One Click Install", at least as far as openSUSE is concerned.
Bonus: It still adds a repository so you have a working update path that plays nicely with the centralised package management that lets you manage every single package centrally, instead of having half a gazillion individual updaters, bundled libs etc.
"Package management" is the wrong term. OS X just makes installing software less terrifying.
Let's say you wanted to install Google Chrome. On OS X, you go to chrome.com and click the single "Download now" button, and it downloads.
On Linux, you get the same button, except clicking it takes you to another screen where you have to know whether you are a "Debian/Ubuntu" or a "Fedora/openSUSE" user or need a "community supported" version, and whether you want the 32 bit or 64 bit version, and whether you want to "add the Google repository to your system", and here's a thing to run on the command line if you don't want that.
The "sudo apt-get install yadayada" stuff is legitimately great for power users. But for most consumers, the OS X approach is definitely to be preferred.
OSX works out of the box because the hardware is known in advance.
If the hardware is supported by Linux, today's distros work out of the box too, and Linux supports a lot of different hardware components, especially older ones.
If you buy a new machine which comes with Linux pre-installed, like OSX is preinstalled on Macs, you can be pretty sure that it works just as "out of the box" as OSX does.
My experience is that when a UI feature is present in OS X and Linux, the OS X version will typically (though not always) be less buggy and more polished.
I've got Ubuntu 12 open in VMWare, running Firefox, and so I can compare it to my Mac running Mountain Lion. I'll pick on window resizing. Here are ways that Ubuntu's window resizing is objectively worse than OS X:
1. The resize edges on the right, left, and bottom are exactly one pixel in extent. They're nearly impossible to hit.
2. When resizing the Firefox window larger on the left/top sides, there's ugly flicker and transient drawing artifacts on the right/bottom side.
3. The resize cursors are misleading. For example, if I grab the top and resize the window as tall as it will go, the cursor still implies it can grow taller. On OS X the cursor changes when the window reaches a limit.
4. An Ubuntu Firefox window can be sized down to three pixels wide. It's hard to click on this window to make it bigger again.
5. Ubuntu allows me to position the window under the launcher and then resize it smaller. Such a window then gets "stuck" behind the launcher. I was also able to get an OS X window stuck behind the Dock, but it was harder: I had to make the Dock smaller, reposition the window, then make the Dock larger again.
6. If you position a window partially offscreen and then try to resize it smaller, it does this weird jitter thing.
7. Ubuntu does not appear to support background, fixed aspect ratio, or centered resizing, which are power-user features in OS X that you can access with modifier keys. If I hold down the shift key, then the Ubuntu window does some sort of snapping thing where it alternates between being as wide as it can, and being three pixels wide (??)
That's from a few minutes of poking around with a single UI interaction.
This isn't a fanboi post. While I like OS X, I noticed things that Ubuntu does better. But in turn, an objective Linux user cannot miss the many things that OS X does better.
I don't know the current state of high density display support in X11 (and I may just be an ignorant user and plain old wrong about this), but it was a totally broken deal breaker for me a year ago.
Cater to naive users. I say this as someone who particularly dislikes Apple's way of doing things, but who still recommends OSX to naive users.
Something goes wrong with linux? Better hope there's a congenial neckbeard around, and if it's a hardware problem, good luck to you. In OSX? A larger online presence, and then of course you can always take it into a "genius" bar... and they replace the hardware gratis often enough.
IME, Linux has a long way to go for non-dual-head setups. I have four monitors with different geometries on two graphics cards on a Hackintosh and OS X handles it seamlessly. Ubuntu pukes hard and dies (or, almost as bad, just ignores monitors) when it can't figure out how it should handle them all in a single X session.
A single X session cannot span two graphics cards. X just doesn't support it. You're waiting on Mir or Wayland for that one.
If you manage to get all four monitors on one card somehow, X can handle the multiple geometries just fine. Though it will generally do a terrible job of automatically detecting the right resolution.
In my experience the state of graphics drivers is still a bit of a sad affair on Linux in general. I never got my two screen setup working properly, not out of the box, and not after fiddling with xorg.conf etc. for more than two days.
That commen means: you can take any company and find that its practices are shady. Nobody questions semantics.
You think Apple is shady, I think Google is no less shady, maybe more, given their business model.
Well this interpretation is roughly on par. How does the fact that Google might employ shady practices as well really add anything to the discussion? Does that absolve Apple from any wrongdoings?
I think it's important to stress that trademarks are not copyrights or patents: assuming Apple's trademark application goes through, the protection on the mark is good only for the goods and services they specified in the application (edit: with a caveat mentioned by grabeh elsewhere[1]):
> Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, and consumer electronic devices, and demonstration of products relating thereto
Based on that, this looks to be a new retail service they plan on offering called "Startup".
As far as I can tell from the action on the trademark application[2], it was granted a preliminary trademark (which is standard practice) and was opened up to objections: at least one was raised, and the USPTO has now passed it to Apple to respond. It looks like they have until September 20th to do so[3].
The article doesn't really comment on why Apple would actually want to trademark the word 'startup'. As far as I know it isn't used as part of their marketing anywhere. Can anybody here offer some insight?
The trademark application shown in the article offers a hint. The categories listed include "retail store services", "maintenance, installation and repair of computer hardware", "technical support services".
It sounds like Startup will be a service offered in Apple retail stores, similar to the Genius Bar.
It's not clear yet what the trademark is for, but you generally don't need a product or service on the market for a trademark application to go through, just an intent to use it. TUAW speculates that the trademark is for some as-yet-unannounced retail program: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/24/apple-files-trademark-for-sta...
I was in the Apple store in Amsterdam earlier this summer and saw a large sign saying "STARTUP" on one wall. At first I was confused, thinking of startup companies, but then I realised it seemed more like a place where they help people get started with their new devices.
My point was that the amount of money spent on R&D does not matter. Apple came up with iPhone and iPad anyway.
Your point is? That R&D is apples and R&D is oranges?
It's hard to believe that Apple could get this through in the US given the amount of live marks with the word STARTUP. Over 50 results!
I have been working on a trademark application that was rejected preliminary basis on the grounds of "likelihood of confusion." (My mark is HOTKEY MATRIX for a hardware controller of audio software, the existing mark is HOT KEYS for "Computer Software program for playback of digital audio by touching computer screen.)
I was a little shocked when I delved into the various rulings how byzantine and nuanced the judgements are. Since the core issue is the potential for likeliness of confusion on the part of a consumer, each case is supposed to be judged on its own.
If your into this kind of thing here's the discussion on the US "Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure."
In trademark law these are called "classes".
If I have a trademark for McDonalds that covers navigation equipment, then the hamburger company can't sue me using their trademark which covers hamburgers. The coverage is scoped.
Now!
Observe the list of classes -- 37, 38, 41 and 42.
Apple is essentially registering "startup" to cover devices, their maintenance, development and training.
Not all uses of "startup" ever. Just those uses attached to what Apple produces.