Hacker News Reader

Comment by smm2000 | Hacker News Reader

smm2000

More to this story http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/

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.

Figure53's claim is that FiftyThree's original application was not

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).

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...

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com