Yamaha Home Theater
iPhones & iPods: Why doesn't Apple trademark their innovations?
Why doesn't Apple trademark their innovations?
by markb1967 - 10/18/09 10:57 AMI don't understand why Apple creates all these spectacular innovations like the iphone and then do not protect the interface, design or other functions of the products from copy cats. Can't they trademark how the phone works, or the touch screen, or the interfaces. Look at the past... We have the Imac, copied to death, the ipod, copied over and over, and now the iphone, copied by everyone. Even the Mac OS is studied and copied by Microsoft, not that they do a very good job, but they try to copy it.
Is there anything Apple can do to protect their intellectual property?
Apple does patent their innovations,
by mrmacfixit
- 10/20/09 4:32 PM
In reply to: Why doesn't Apple trademark their innovations? by markb1967
the copying people come close but do not infringe the patents, yet.
I know what you mean though, it annoys me too
P
Mainly because trademark protection extends only to logos
by grtgrfx - 10/23/09 5:09 PM In reply to: Why doesn't Apple trademark their innovations? by markb1967You're thinking of patents, of which Apple has thousands, and be assured they pursue infringers rabidly. However, you cannot patent everything, including, for example, the look of a screen with 32 x 32 pixel icons on it. You can only patent the functions they perform, not the appearance of the device. Patent protection for user interfaces are limited.
The iconic Apple device names and their logos, such as Macintosh, iPod and the Apple, are all trademarked.
Patents hurt
by mikebliv - 10/23/09 7:52 PM In reply to: Why doesn't Apple trademark their innovations? by markb1967Apple has a lot of patents but even they are working off the efforts of many others that have come before them. One example of innovation attributed to Apple was touch gestures used in the iphone. That was pioneered by another company but was copied by Apple. As great marketers, Apple has copied as much as any other company has copied from Apple and each other, but have not suffered for being branded a copy-cat. One reason I think this is so is because they copy early enough and add their own flair and improvements that they gain the mindshare of the public.
You may have heard of the 'Innovator's Dilemma', where the first to innovate are often worse off than those that copy them later. Patents are supposed to make this better for the innovator, however, at least in software, what gets to be patentable is too broad that it is stifling innovation instead. There is a case where one company (EOLAS) is suing other companies (including Apple) for use of plugins in a web browser. Embedding has been a part of web standards and this is akin to patenting the use of paragraphs in a book (paraphrased from a recent episode of TWiT).
So be careful what you wish for. If you can't use a gesture of flicking a page on your next touchscreen device because some company patented it, you may regret that wish.
I wonder why.....
by Jelly Baby - 10/24/09 4:09 AM In reply to: Why doesn't Apple trademark their innovations? by markb1967Possibly because Apple have "copied them to death" themselves?
There are very few Apple "innovations" - mostly just a stream of successful marketing ploys. I'm not knocking Apple - they are a marketing / branding company and they do it very very well - they're just not the "innovators" they always claim to be.
At least MS are honest about this "we liked it so much we bought the company" type of development.
They also say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery......
Can't patent something that's already patented!
by FiOS-Dave - 10/24/09 9:35 AM In reply to: I wonder why..... by Jelly BabyItems like the mouse and the GUI interface were designed (and possibly patented) by others. Apple may have had the foresight to use these items, however, they can't rightly claim ownership.
Sorry - untrue ...
by treerod1 - 10/24/09 11:19 PM In reply to: Can't patent something that's already patented! by FiOS-DaveYou're correct in one case ... both the GUI interface and the Mouse were patents held by Xerox. Actually the Mouse was developed by another company (I believe Pacific Scientific) and PS was bought by Xerox after the Xerox / IBM / Kodak antitrust suit by the feds. For everybody's "book-of-worthless-information," Xerox also invented the Ethernet (~1976), bit-map graphics (1976), the Laser Printer (~1969), WYSIWYG text editors, the Interpress - the precursor to Postscript and Object Oriented Programming.
Anyway, Apple licensed both technologies from Xerox around 1980 (paid in Apple stocks). Both technologies were first used in the Apple LISA computer in 1983, and then closely followed by the Mac in late 1984. In 1983, Apple contracted Microsoft to develop MS Word for the Mac, and then in 1984 MS Excel for the Mac. Needless to say, what Apple basically got were reprogrammed / rewritten versions of Wordstar and SuperCalc.
Sometime during the mid-1990's, Apple tried to sue Microsoft for copyright infringement whe MS introduced the Windows OS, however the judge ruled that Apple knew Microsoft was developing a GUI based system early on, but did not aggressively defend their copyright, which basically meant the statute of limitations for filing suit had expired. The same thing happened to Xerox when they in-turn tried to sue Apple for the same reason (Xerox was mad that they practically gave away the technologies) ... and in the end, Xerox lost their patent protection for those items.
So, "Yes" Apple can claim they had purchased the rights to legally use these technologies - on the other hand, Microsoft basically took the technologies through unethical means.
Wikipedia begs to differ
by mikebliv - 10/25/09 12:32 AM In reply to: Sorry - untrue ... by treerod1According to wikipedia, Apple copied Xerox's GUI without a license and it was Xerox that didn't protect their patents and lost their suit with Apple due to statute of limitations. With Apple's case against Microsoft, it basically went against them because "look and feel" is not something that can be copyrighted. Another example of an attempt to stifle innovation using too broad a criteria.
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
I can't argue with Wiki ...
by treerod1 - 10/25/09 2:57 AM In reply to: Wikipedia begs to differ by mikeblivAs a former Xerox employee during that time, I can say that an agreement was formed between Xerox and Apple ... which included giving a couple of Alto and a Dolphin (2nd generation Alto - the predecessor to the Xerox Star) computers to Apple for "tinkering" with, as well as a blessing to Apple to go for it.
To understand why this happens, you need to know that at the time we used the GUI & mouse technology strictly for in-house purposes only, and at the time had no plans to go commercial with it. Xerox saw no commercial viability because the Alto/Dolphin was too big and expensive to market. They placed their "computer future" on the CPM operating system - with the 1981 introduction of the Xerox 820 CPM personal computer.
It wasn't until 1982-83, two years after Apple's agreement, the Xerox 820 CPM personal computer was deemed a commercial failure - everybody else went the PC-DOS or MS-DOS route. It was at that time Xerox made its final foray in selling computer, the Xerox Star. Thankfully, from Xerox's Corporate viewpoint, the Star ended up a commercial failure by 1985 and that pretty much ended Xerox's computer manufacturing business. Long story short, Xerox Corp (in New York) was not really interested in being a computer manufacturer. Xerox was in it to please the Feds after the 1969 Antitrust suit; which coincidentally was thrown out in 1982 as being “without merit.”
Because of this lack of interest in being a computer mfg, Xerox practically gave away computer technology right & left, ... we never made money on the Ethernet, Astranet (well, Xerox did sell it to two Xerox employees for $1,000 and they in turn opened their own company across the street from PARC), the Laser Printers (other than what we sold), the Mouse, all the software programs, etc.
When Apple went after Microsoft as if they owned the technology, those in Xerox were not very happy about that, however, Xerox's suit of Apple had more to do with the fact they got no royalties or financial earnings from Apple, and the stocks they got from Apple were almost worthless by the mid-1990. It was also during this time that Xerox started to realize they were in financial dire straits as a corporation.
Anyway, putting this all together, Xerox felt Apple had essentially "stole" their technology. If the judge had not ruled the way he did, the fact remains, royalties / fees/ profits sharing /etc. were not discussed in the original agreement - it was a simple "cash & carry" deal.
Your comment just shut down a fallacy winning lol
by FrenchyHey - 10/25/09 11:35 AM In reply to: I can't argue with Wiki ... by treerod1Wow glad to have click on that link and saw your iput.
Otherwise the winning of Apple got the "S" would have endure in that post lo.
Nice to have people like you around to redress some biased view points.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
