ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:25 PM
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.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
Therefore, it cannot be trademarked
It was.
"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.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
Therefore, it cannot be trademarked
It was.
Glideslope
Sep 15, 09:45 AM
When will it stop??
Jan 2011. :apple:
Jan 2011. :apple:
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 03:46 PM
Were your other cars manual? The Camaro isn't helping your argument any more than the Lotus is helping mine.
;)
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
;)
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
dime21
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
Yep - I'm not sure that I have ever even been in an automatic!
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
Detlev
Jul 18, 06:15 AM
This does play into the news published about the industry allowing people to burn movies to DVDs but can someone do the math? What would the file size be for 2 hour movie at present? What about if it were compressed into a zip or tz file? What would it be if the quality were improved? How long would it take to download these files with dialup, on dsl, on cable. I would think that most people would not be downloading using their offices T1 connection ;)
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
shoobe01
Nov 27, 02:35 PM
I strongly agree with scottlinux (and almost no one else). I am a graphics professional, and use a 17" Apple LCD with a 17" mitsu CRT to the right as my version of a widescreen. Had it well before there were widescreens, and regardless none of the current crop are wide enough; they all take up too much vertical room. Not just too much to fit my workspace conveniently, but enough my neck gets tired tilting up and down.
I put all my palettes (and sometimes a referring Word doc or something) to the right. The left monitor is for the work. I have used three monitor systems, where the lefthand one is for source material (like on video work).
I do something similar at work, with a 1st gen Cinema Display as the main display, and when docked, the powerbook to the right. But I like all the monitors being the same -- fairly small -- height.
Apple would do great selling a more affordable panel. Aside from space (it would pair well with a thing called a "mini") lots of people will go for the one-stop-shopping experience, as well as the Apple cool and beautiful. Also, they make hella-good displays. I am personally never gonna buy some $129 sale LCD, cause they are crap.
I put all my palettes (and sometimes a referring Word doc or something) to the right. The left monitor is for the work. I have used three monitor systems, where the lefthand one is for source material (like on video work).
I do something similar at work, with a 1st gen Cinema Display as the main display, and when docked, the powerbook to the right. But I like all the monitors being the same -- fairly small -- height.
Apple would do great selling a more affordable panel. Aside from space (it would pair well with a thing called a "mini") lots of people will go for the one-stop-shopping experience, as well as the Apple cool and beautiful. Also, they make hella-good displays. I am personally never gonna buy some $129 sale LCD, cause they are crap.
ready2switch
Oct 23, 09:36 AM
Apple needs to get away from making such a big deal our of small updates (processor change) as Intel will have such things changing more often than motorola or ibm ever did. apple should reserve such announcements and hoopla for major revisions or complete overhauls. based on recent benchmarks there is little performance improvement in these new chips save for the speed bump.
Agreed. Exactly why C2D should have been dropped in a month ago alongside the major PC manufacturers. While Merom is a necessary update for Apple's new place in the world of Intel, it's not really that big. Save the hype for enclosure redesigns and other major changes.
Agreed. Exactly why C2D should have been dropped in a month ago alongside the major PC manufacturers. While Merom is a necessary update for Apple's new place in the world of Intel, it's not really that big. Save the hype for enclosure redesigns and other major changes.
infernohellion
Apr 3, 09:18 AM
The size decrease makes sense right?
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 05:30 PM
I am not trying to back pedal, I was talking about OpenCL before, I've been talking about that and graphics for a while now.
With respect to your objection, what does DirectX 10.1 mean in OpenCL terms? 1.0? 1.1?
All I can see about Sandy Bridge regarding OpenCL is conflicting information. As of now, it has no true OpenCL.
The DirectX version number has nothing to do with whether or not OpenCL support is possible. What does DirectX 10.1 mean in OpenCL terms? Absolutely nothing. They are two separate entities. The reason why Intel's IGP doesn't have true OpenCL support has absolutely nothing to do with a DirectX version number. There are tons of 'DirectX 10.1' cards that support OpenCL, hell the majority of the ones that you can use on Snow Leopard are 'DirectX 10.1' cards. DirectX 11 adds absolutely nothing in the aspect of which you were using it.
With respect to your objection, what does DirectX 10.1 mean in OpenCL terms? 1.0? 1.1?
All I can see about Sandy Bridge regarding OpenCL is conflicting information. As of now, it has no true OpenCL.
The DirectX version number has nothing to do with whether or not OpenCL support is possible. What does DirectX 10.1 mean in OpenCL terms? Absolutely nothing. They are two separate entities. The reason why Intel's IGP doesn't have true OpenCL support has absolutely nothing to do with a DirectX version number. There are tons of 'DirectX 10.1' cards that support OpenCL, hell the majority of the ones that you can use on Snow Leopard are 'DirectX 10.1' cards. DirectX 11 adds absolutely nothing in the aspect of which you were using it.
ro2nie
Jul 18, 10:55 AM
Apple don't want to be left out of this online movie thing. They tried to convince the studios, but they couldnt, so I think they have no choice but to make it a rental service before it's too late
icloud
Jan 11, 09:00 PM
worst-name-ever. i hope that it's anything but "macbook air"
Agreed. It's not just a bad name; it's a sin!
Agreed. It's not just a bad name; it's a sin!
Michaelgtrusa
Mar 21, 10:54 PM
You should check out Alex Jones. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/0/aAabLYys72A
He's spot on.
He's spot on.
Senbei
Sep 6, 09:11 AM
Any thoughts - why no Merom?
Apple seems to be stratifying their desktop lines based on processors.
Mini - Core Duo (Yonah) 1.66-1.83GHz
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) 1.83GHz-2.33GHz
Mac Pro - Quad Xeon (Woodcrest) 2.00GHz-3.00GHz
All of this leaves room for Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz) and E6700 (2.67GHz) to eventually appear in a suitable form factor some time in the future.
Apple seems to be stratifying their desktop lines based on processors.
Mini - Core Duo (Yonah) 1.66-1.83GHz
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) 1.83GHz-2.33GHz
Mac Pro - Quad Xeon (Woodcrest) 2.00GHz-3.00GHz
All of this leaves room for Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz) and E6700 (2.67GHz) to eventually appear in a suitable form factor some time in the future.
Surely
Nov 26, 05:00 PM
Link please!
....or you can, I don't know, check the image's url to determine where he bought those shirts.........
Lurchdubious, are you building a glasses case?:p
/ok, I'll stop now
....or you can, I don't know, check the image's url to determine where he bought those shirts.........
Lurchdubious, are you building a glasses case?:p
/ok, I'll stop now
berkleeboy210
Sep 1, 12:03 PM
just checked the apple store... currently 1-2 business day shipping time for the iMac.
this could mean updates on 9/5.....
MBP's still ship w/ in 24hrs though.
this could mean updates on 9/5.....
MBP's still ship w/ in 24hrs though.
SubaruNation555
Nov 24, 06:08 PM
HP ZR24w to replace my 23" Cinema Display. It seems there aren't many 24" IPS 16:10 monitors around for under $500.
http://p.gzhls.at/519550.jpg
http://p.gzhls.at/519550.jpg
Lurchdubious
Nov 24, 11:13 AM
Finally ordered a programmer for my truck!
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=250&uid=1880993794
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=250&uid=1880993794
Multimedia
Sep 6, 09:18 AM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.I do not consider a minor speed bump to be a refresh.
AppliedVisual
Nov 29, 09:03 PM
I think that 17" is great - they've got'em already with the iMac. Prices to need to drop with the market. They'll still be more as the monitors are of better quality. IMHO:
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.
As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:
17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699
...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.
As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:
17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699
...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.
archer75
Apr 20, 08:20 AM
Fixed!
The 6950m and 6970m are also available in 2gb models. That would help with the larger resolution of the 27" display. Let's hope for that as well!
The 6950m and 6970m are also available in 2gb models. That would help with the larger resolution of the 27" display. Let's hope for that as well!
SPUY767
Sep 7, 06:46 AM
Judging by the ratings, I get the sensation that some of us here don't like disney movies. Anyhow, Apple's not really trying to break into any new markets with this, nor are they trying to be revolutionary. They already have an incredibly robust content distribution system, and it costs them next to nothing to host these movies on it. If people download them, great, if not, so what. But seriously, for the price, these mofos better be Hi-Def!
robbieduncan
Apr 9, 04:39 PM
Maybe they are rare where you live. In the UK and the rest of Europe they are more common that automatics.
imac_japan
Apr 6, 10:03 PM
actually, nevermind. i don't care anymore. you are clearly not reading what i've been posting anyway.
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8372
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8372
Mattsasa
Mar 24, 02:36 PM
All of those 5xxx cards were already supported!!! I have had 5870s running natively for a long time, and so have the other 5xxx cards.
If apple is planning on supporting off the shelf graphics cards it would only be beneficial for hacking sheds not real macs. The only Mac where a user can upgrade the gpu is the Mac pro, which is really only sold to businesses, which don't really need to upgrade the graphics, especially since the Mac pro comes with 5870s now
If apple is planning on supporting off the shelf graphics cards it would only be beneficial for hacking sheds not real macs. The only Mac where a user can upgrade the gpu is the Mac pro, which is really only sold to businesses, which don't really need to upgrade the graphics, especially since the Mac pro comes with 5870s now
