illa romza

It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.

Do you have anything to backup your claim against me?

Yep, another example of Apple coercing developers (and users) into using their app store. "The choice is yours, either:

1. use our app store and your app is a first-class citizen of OS X!

2. don't use our app store and your app is a second-class app that will not be able to work like first-class apps -- now they can't even be deleted in the same way..."


Will it be any surprise that eventually the second-class apps will be eliminated and the only option will be apple's app store. Classic proprietary monopoly tactics.



But this will become confusing to some. Some will ask why can I delete some apps this way and others I have to move manually to the trash?

My girlfriend complained the other day that installing new programs is a bit of a pain. I showed her the app store and her response was but what if the programs I want is not in the app store? In this case VLC.

Those speeds line up exactly with the T5000 series of Merom.

Computer lines (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME. It seems like all of you are afraid of the iMac outselling the Mac Pro. The smart thing to do is, yes, to make the iMac super-upgradeable but more expensive to do so, something which is probably intuitive anyway. People will then make the choice of an all-in-one or a tower. There is no such thing as a "too powerful" iMac. Apple sets the price, consumers buy.

No, now that I think about it, I dont think i'm worried about iMacs out selling a Mac Pro.
I'm acctually thinking how Apple tends to keep its computers seperated in some way so that the people that want a Mac Pro get a Mac Pro even if they have to resort to payments just to have it; that way people don't think they could settle for an iMac at 2399 and say "well I wanted a Mac Pro, but this should be ok too i guess"

Thats crazy! no way do Computers (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME.

the 27 imac is a beast!!!!!
God I wish I had the money to get it.

I called my 2007 C2D Extreme iMac "the hombre" when I first got it.

When the Ivy Bridge iMac is released I'll feel that it's time to get a new computer worthy of naming.

Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.



Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.

But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.

If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".

App Store
Apple Store

The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.

One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.



You define the lexicon of the overall society?


I think you are missing the point:

"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?

Registration may be refused if the mark is:

• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"


Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf


App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.

This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.

Example:

Shop that sells windows cannot trademark "Window Seller" because it describes precisely what the shop does. It is generic + descriptive = no trademark.