Paper, by MiSoft(daringfireball.net)
daringfireball.net
Paper, by MiSoft
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/04/paper-paper-paper
22 comments
I remember when Paper by FiftyThree first came out, I went to the App Store and searched for "Paper". The first result was some other simple drawing app called "Paper" (not miSoft's). There was definitely a "Paper" app in the App Store, for drawing, before Paper by FiftyThree.
Disclaimer: I'm a co-founder at FiftyThree
Just a few facts:
1. "Paper", an app from developer "Contradictory", has existed in the App Store since October 27, 2011. This is presumably before miSoft registered their Paper. (https://twitter.com/FiftyThree/status/430873195097632769) Contradictory is clearly a name squatter.
2. miSoft's Paper launched ~5 months after Paper by FiftyThree. (https://twitter.com/FiftyThree/status/430845528805756928)
3. miSoft renamed another of their apps "Kid Paint" to "Paper Express" on 12/20/2012 after FiftyThree won App of the Year (https://twitter.com/georgpetschnigg/status/43091631900616704...)
Just a few facts:
1. "Paper", an app from developer "Contradictory", has existed in the App Store since October 27, 2011. This is presumably before miSoft registered their Paper. (https://twitter.com/FiftyThree/status/430873195097632769) Contradictory is clearly a name squatter.
2. miSoft's Paper launched ~5 months after Paper by FiftyThree. (https://twitter.com/FiftyThree/status/430845528805756928)
3. miSoft renamed another of their apps "Kid Paint" to "Paper Express" on 12/20/2012 after FiftyThree won App of the Year (https://twitter.com/georgpetschnigg/status/43091631900616704...)
Thanks for your reply. I have no problems with your name (and I'm in love with your app, Paper). But on your release day I did come across another app called "Paper" that I actually downloaded by mistake because App Store search is so bad it hadn't indexed "Paper by FiftyThree" yet.
I can't find it anymore, but the icon was very simple, a plain white A4 piece of paper on a blue background. I assume this app existed on the store before yours because I managed to accidentally download it on your release day.
When a name is generic like Paper I think it's okay to have multiple apps on the App Store.
I can't find it anymore, but the icon was very simple, a plain white A4 piece of paper on a blue background. I assume this app existed on the store before yours because I managed to accidentally download it on your release day.
When a name is generic like Paper I think it's okay to have multiple apps on the App Store.
Wasn't their point that they registered the name Paper with Apple before anyone else? You can register an app name and have it held for a couple months I think before actually launching.
If someone registers the name but it appears nowhere on the store, the name + some string is OK and an existing app can change to the same name and get published in the meantime, it's basically as if there is no name registration.
You have 180 days after registering the name to use it - and then you can never register that name again under that developer account.
That doesn't make a difference for trademark rights though. Priority for trademark rights would be based on the first date the name was actually used on an available product/service – or, at the very least, the date an intent-to-use trademark application was filed (which MiSoft does not appear to have done) – NOT the first date it was thought of or worked on.
[deleted]
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 about it.
If your apps biggest selling point is that its named after a commonly used noun then I think you have problems. Its a similar concept to idea vs execution. We saw the same thing at the start of the internet revolution with domain squatting.
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.
[deleted]
tl;dr iOS Developer whining because he thought he could lay a special claim on a dictionary name (). Serves him well.
() Yes I know you brands do this all the time. It's bullshit.
() Yes I know you brands do this all the time. It's bullshit.
There are so many companies that do this its outrageous. Target, Apple, and on and on. I don't even comprehend how they can even think they can own the word Paper in an app market.
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.
> exhibiting no common sense or creativity
I think it makes perfect sense to name products with words that exist (like "Sprite", "Mustang", and "Tide"), or a compound word made up of 2+ words. Making up new words ("Pepsi", "Camaro", and "Clorox") can be a lot more risky, especially if it's a consumer brand.
What would you have named Facebook Paper instead?
I think it makes perfect sense to name products with words that exist (like "Sprite", "Mustang", and "Tide"), or a compound word made up of 2+ words. Making up new words ("Pepsi", "Camaro", and "Clorox") can be a lot more risky, especially if it's a consumer brand.
What would you have named Facebook Paper instead?
I don't even know what Facebook Paper is and don't care. However as you mentioned, compounds, even of the simplest kind, are a GREAT idea. The important thing is that, even if you lack the common sense or creativity, it is completely and fully unreasonable to not expect someone else to make the same bad decision. Open letters, heartfelt emotional addresses and displays of surprise are not a thing that should happen and instead, if one feels the need to go ahead and use one of the top 300 english words, one should be fully prepared for legal battles ahead.
In short: Hire a gaggle of lawyers before using any of these verbatim: http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Most_frequent_1...
In short: Hire a gaggle of lawyers before using any of these verbatim: http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Most_frequent_1...
Compound words can cause the same consumer confusion, which is why I don't see it as any different from one word. You'll definitely get a call from corporate counsel if you launch a truck called the F-151, a burger named the Huge Mac, or an energy drink named Blue Bull. Naming things is hard.
You're confusing things here, this is about the reaction to someone else introducing a product named the same, or similar to your own badly named product. You're describing the situation where one is the person who does the introduction of the second product. Related, but different things.
"Coming soon: Baby by Google!"
iPaper? Wait, that's what Apple will call their version. Facebook should have gone with Notebook (a paper product ending in book) :).
Word.
Apple Pages. Adobe Ideas. Box. Facebook.
FWIW, Facebook also has an app called Pages. :-)
I thought you were agreeing with parent. Then I realized you were also pointing out a product that fits the complaint. We'll played, my good person.
More to this story http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/
53 looks more and more like a jerk here
53 looks more and more like a jerk here
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 the stage it did.
I can see some correspondence going back and forth with the USPTO, which i imagine related to figure53 in some way, but hard to say.
Despite claims otherwise, the goods/services this mark applies to is still the same on the approved mark:
"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"
and "Computer graphics software for mobile applications, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger"
SO i have trouble with the "USPTO thought it was confusing and refused it". From what i can see,t hat did not happen.
Also note as of right now, nobody owns a trademark on "paper", though FiftyThree applied for a mark on 1/28/2014, citing use back to 2012.
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 the stage it did.
I can see some correspondence going back and forth with the USPTO, which i imagine related to figure53 in some way, but hard to say.
Despite claims otherwise, the goods/services this mark applies to is still the same on the approved mark:
"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"
and "Computer graphics software for mobile applications, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger"
SO i have trouble with the "USPTO thought it was confusing and refused it". From what i can see,t hat did not happen.
Also note as of right now, nobody owns a trademark on "paper", though FiftyThree applied for a mark on 1/28/2014, citing use back to 2012.
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 hardware and computer programs for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images and moving pictures into an interactive delivery for multimedia applications; computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications, namely, for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images, and moving pictures."
"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 hardware and computer programs for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images and moving pictures into an interactive delivery for multimedia applications; computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications, namely, for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images, and moving pictures."
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).
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).
Edit: Note that document #1 is the most recent while #20 is the first chronologically. The goods claimed changed.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85622695&docId...
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85622695&docId...
Yes yes, TSDR is a mess.
In any case, the PTO still issued the mark, so saying "the PTO refused the mark", is not quite right.
And in this case, a random # like 53 isn't a common 5 letter word like "Paper". Figure53 is more in the right vs FiftyThree than "Paper by FiftyThree" vs "Paper by Facebook"
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.
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.
I'm trying to follow your logic trail, but why should they support a product that undermines their own?
Well, for one, for the same reason that we have iTunes for Windows and Office for Mac. It would increase their potential customer base and generally make said customers happier. Driving adoption and winning consumers' mindshare, by getting as many people using their app as possible, is probably worth more than whatever sales they gain by enforcing lock-in and alienating users.
Figure 53 acquiring MiSoft would really kick this story up to 11 on the popcorn meter.
As soon as they wrote their letter, praising themselves for changing the world, and talking about sending the lawyers I moved from their side.
How is this much different than the "Candy" "Saga" situation?
How is this much different than the "Candy" "Saga" situation?
Imagine how angry Dunder Mifflin must be. When do we get to hear their version: "Paper, from Dunder Mifflin"
From their open letter: "There’s a simple fix here. We think Facebook can apply the same degree of thought they put into the app into building a brand name of their own."
Can you file, receive, and enforce a trademark on the app store? Presumably Apple respects that? It's a messy situation and resolving it at the trademark level seems like a fair and reasonable solution.
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" :-)
Hehe, may the best one win, the race is on!
Once someone is out in the market then that is pretty lame but the name squatting on iOS/iTunes sucks. You have 90-120 days to use a name but if you upload a binary/app build you can keep it for a long time. Games people play. If everyone was allowed to use the same names and the first out out gets it or has a trademark then we are back to fair. Google Play solves this by again letting the free market decide the best, allowing names to compete. Remember the two Tetris games on the 8-bit NES?
Once someone is out in the market then that is pretty lame but the name squatting on iOS/iTunes sucks. You have 90-120 days to use a name but if you upload a binary/app build you can keep it for a long time. Games people play. If everyone was allowed to use the same names and the first out out gets it or has a trademark then we are back to fair. Google Play solves this by again letting the free market decide the best, allowing names to compete. Remember the two Tetris games on the 8-bit NES?
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. What matters are statutorily defined factors such as likelihood of confusion, levels of distinctiveness, date of first use in commerce, etc that set forth who gets to use a mark as a matter of law.
As such, it really doesn't matter what these MiSoft people tried to do in iTunes Connect, as Apple is/should not be the gatekeeper when it comes to naming disputes (see the handful of stories posted by app devs who are mad about takedowns). Nor does it matter if FiftyThree is particularly pouty that Facebook came in and tried to use their brand, because their original mark application really only has to do with stylus based drawing apps.
tl;dr: Nothing to see here until the parties in question actually lawyer up and assert infringement.
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. What matters are statutorily defined factors such as likelihood of confusion, levels of distinctiveness, date of first use in commerce, etc that set forth who gets to use a mark as a matter of law.
As such, it really doesn't matter what these MiSoft people tried to do in iTunes Connect, as Apple is/should not be the gatekeeper when it comes to naming disputes (see the handful of stories posted by app devs who are mad about takedowns). Nor does it matter if FiftyThree is particularly pouty that Facebook came in and tried to use their brand, because their original mark application really only has to do with stylus based drawing apps.
tl;dr: Nothing to see here until the parties in question actually lawyer up and assert infringement.
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.
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.
[deleted]
I doubt that Misoft has sufficient resources to "lawyer up". That right is reserved to big companies with lots of money. Like Facebook.
Right. Remember all the drama and moralizing when Apple and Cisco sorted out the right to the name "iPhone?" Me neither.
All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts.
All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts.
>All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts.
No, it's because they want free publicity for their application. Someone with a history of not wanting to work with people to settle trademark issues (see smm2000's post) isn't doing it on principle. Trademark law is nowhere as time-consuming or unapproachable as you make it out to be.
No, it's because they want free publicity for their application. Someone with a history of not wanting to work with people to settle trademark issues (see smm2000's post) isn't doing it on principle. Trademark law is nowhere as time-consuming or unapproachable as you make it out to be.
Or Microsoft and Twitter having drama over the use of the name Vine
[deleted]
Because legal disputes are an even playing field.
>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.
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.
Paper is a generic term when it comes to publishing. If you want trademark protection, there are laws for that, and they don't apply to these guys.
Word, Apple, Windows, Pages, Paper, Reader, Brackets.
Noun.
Noun.
tl;dr Silos suck. Inevitably the farmers that control them them make people angry. Money talks. Capricious decisions are made. Today's winners become tomorrow's losers.
My tip is to be more creative and figure out a decent name for your product. “Browse your Paper with simple, natural movements.” Does this product name makes sense for native english speaking people?
I'm having a really hard time understanding the sense of entitlement and indignation carried in these name gripes.
Personally, I tend to think of names as a fraction of what makes up an idea multiplier [0].
0: http://sivers.org/multiply
Personally, I tend to think of names as a fraction of what makes up an idea multiplier [0].
0: http://sivers.org/multiply
We're discussing fully implemented businesses and products here, not pre-code proto startups.
So...if I name my app after an extraordinarily common item, I shouldn't expect somebody else to perhaps do the same?
What's the point here? Why should I care if more than one developer uncreatively names their apps after the same commonplace thing?
I hope daringfireball posts are on the list of things that drop off the front page quickly.
What's the point here? Why should I care if more than one developer uncreatively names their apps after the same commonplace thing?
I hope daringfireball posts are on the list of things that drop off the front page quickly.
The point is that the guy complaining about someone much bigger trampling on his app's good name actually did more or less the same thing to someone else.
For many years I successfully defended our trademark in the app store(google play too), was even called a trademark troll. But hey we have owned said trademark for the past five years and if you don't defend it it's worthless. If you do defend it faithfully it could possibly be worth something you can sell.
Well that was my theory until one of the biggest celebrities on earth created a semi similar app and used our trademark. We tried to defend it but they didn't have any respect for our work and started to lawyer up. We had to back down!
Well that was my theory until one of the biggest celebrities on earth created a semi similar app and used our trademark. We tried to defend it but they didn't have any respect for our work and started to lawyer up. We had to back down!
I defended FiftyThree really hard in the other thread on this topic but I guess I have to eat crow because they really come across as jerks by doing this to another smaller company and now what looks like initiating the start of legal proceedings on this very issue.
Disclaimer: Co-founder of FiftyThree
Please see my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7181910
Please see my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7181910
.@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