We followed Apple’s Rules, that is, we went into our Developer account and created the App “Paper”. The name Paper was assigned to us by Apple as NO ONE ELSE was using it.
While working on the app over many months, other apps named “Paper” came and went. How? Do to glitches in Apple’s system. A Developer can add other words to an un-available name, or open an account registered outside the US, create an app with the same name as an existing US app, get the app approved for sale outside the US, then set the app territories to make it available in the US! They can even change the name of an older, existing non-US app and enjoy what looks like an earlier first use.
We pointed these glitches out to Apple at WWDC 2012 and, well, the next day another “Paper” app, one which added other words after the name Paper so it could post in the US App Store, received an AWARD! We felt somewhat put upon. That other app was very well funded, money talks, and they had been out “breaking things” in our market for a while. There are Best Practices in the Developer world against, in Apple’s words, “confusingly similar” names. Why didn’t that matter for these guys? Why is this not only tolerated, but awarded? Which Rules do we follow; the posted rules, the rules others use, the rules which work, or the rules which we believe in? A conundrum in many areas of mobile today.
We approached the makers of that other Paper app on the floor of WWDC after they received their award, told them our story, and offer to discuss settling this. We even later sent a message to their CEO. Nothing. So we’ve been considering our options.
Now we see this other “Paper” app is upset that an even larger company has also chosen to name an app “Paper”, same trick, by adding more words to the end.
That’s the story of this app, welcome to the 1st, and what should be the only, Paper.
If true, this certainly makes FiftyThree’s complaints and demands seem hollow.
[Via DF]
Karma is a bitch.
I would feel more sympathy if nobody were trying to claim ownership of the word “paper”.
I agree with Shadowphiar, the word ‘Paper’ shouldn’t be limited to just one App.
This is just the flip side of ‘Candy Crush’ trying to force other companies to stop using the word ‘Candy’ in their app names.
It’s ridiculous. And companies that use just a common word for their app shouldn’t get any special protection for that common word.
It appears FiftyThree copied both the name and concept of the first Paper app from MiSoft. Sure, more than one app can use the same name, but the FiftyThree app looks to be a blatant ripoff of the the MiSoft app in both name and concept. As well, it appears that FiftyThree ripped their company name from the company Figure53 whose company name predates the FiftyThree company by a few years doing the same type of development. Looks to me like indeed, Karma is a bitch and they have little to complain about now that Facebook is pushing them around. What’s that saying? Oh yea. The chickens have come home to roost. As they say….
Back at the birth of the Apple App Store, there were no back end checks to prevent apps from being named exactly the same as another. We had seen this with one of our card game names. But as the store evolved, Apple put in back in checks to prevent this (and to also prevent parking on a name without submitting a binary within a specific time frame).
A key fact missing from this post is that MiSoft’s Paper was released 5 months after Fifty-Three’s Paper.
Nobody is trying to claim ownership of the word “paper.” The debate is clearly only about ownership of the iOS app name “Paper.” Same as there was a debate over who owned the Internet domain name “sex.com” that had nothing to do with owning the word “sex.”
Paper by Fifty-Three turns your iPad into a piece of paper. What do you propose they call it? “Facebook?”
It only appears that way if you believe a single blog post from MiSoft. The first-ship dates are available in App Store and the MiSoft app shipped 5 months after the Fifty-Three app.
And “Fifty-Three” and “Figure53” are not actually all that similar.
Facebook eats FiftyThree eats miSoft http://imgur.com/FpGQYEU
“I’m Brian. And so’s my wife.”
for what it’s worth, I’ve been tweeting with a dev at FiftyThree and he says their ‘Paper’ launched before the MiSoft one
twitter.com/wmorein/statuses/430847320557895680
Yes, they are. Of course they are. They’re trying to claim that on it own, the word “Paper” is something to be associated with them, and with no other iOS developer. That it is unique to them in some fashion, that they have more right to this single word than anybody else. It’s bogus. There are already about four times more apps in the Apple app store than there are words in the English language. If you are trying to suggest that calling it “Facebook” is the only plausible alternative name to a single English word then every developer on the planet needs to pack up and go home, because the store is full already.
A combination of two words has a much better claim to being unique and distinctive, because the number of possibilities is, in comparison, limitless. They could put an adjective on it. “LightPaper”. Or a verb. “TouchPaper”. Those took about 30 seconds to think of and either of them would be a more solid basis to base a company reputation on than this idea of having some singular claim to a single word which has been common in the language since the 1100s.
So no one was using Paper so Apple like it through. Forcing 53 to use “Paper by 53” because two apps can’t have the same name. Nice.
And note, this app is the same as 53‘s being a drawing/writing app made to look like real paper. By these guys were first so they could press the point that 53 ripped them off and possibly win. Don’t think they would now given they didn’t before. After all if you let someone violate for months the court generally doesn’t let you suddenly care. But it does diluting 53‘s bluster
While you are correct it is only to a degree. They are trying to claim ownership of the word when used to talk about software, or at least mobile apps. And again that is not cool. The term is too vague. Same with candy or saga
Even if you are correct about the ship dates it says nothing about who submitted first etc.
Nor does it negate that the term paper is too vague and ‘mobile device applications’ to broad a market definition for this to make sense as a valid trademark.
so youre proposing they try to own the words “LightPaper” or “TouchPaper”..! but, but, nobody can own words!
dur. nobody is claiming they own the words, no more than they do when registering a domain. what one is doing is staking the claim in the subset of the particular market system — domain registration systems, iOS app name registration systems, etc… these are limited subsets.
just like Apple doesnt own the word apple.
but that isnt how the Apple app name system is designed — it’s designed to keep app names unique per market.
“Figure 53” and “FiftyThree” are completely similar names. so similar, in fact, that the USPTO rejected FiftyThree’s attempt to register the name due to Figure 53’s use of it within the domain space descriptors submitted by each, forcing FiftyThree to re-classify their descriptors.
ship dates arent the only relevant date in the iOS app system — while MiSoft shipped later, they reserved it first while doing their dev work. in the same way as Marco Arment has reserved Overcast but hasnt released it yet.
these arent trademark registrations, their app-name registrations, unique and particular to the iOS app name registration system.
not relevant — they had reserved the name while working on the app (as opposed to name squatters) and released it thereafter. in the same way as Marco Arment has reserved Overcast but hasnt released it yet.
publication date on the App Store is a separate date than reserved date. they had reserved the name while working on the app (as opposed to name squatters) and released it thereafter. in the same way as Marco Arment has reserved Overcast but hasnt released it yet.
yeah I figured it was something like that too
I don’t think that this limitation of scope is as significant as you make out (especially given the tendency of companies to file trademark registrations over vast swathes of different industries).
OK touchpaper was a bad example – I said I didn’t spend long thinking about it – but lightpaper is not a word. If someone names their product that, they’ve taken a creative step and contributed new meaning where previously there was none. So yes, I do think it’s more reasonable for someone to lay claim to a combination of words, for that reason and also because instead of about 250 thousand possibilities, there are more than 60 billion.
For what it’s worth I’m not really a fan of Apple’s name either, but at least they brought new meaning to the word in a completely unrelated industry. Nobody would confuse the context of apple the fruit versus apple the record company. But Paper? If anything it’s worse. They have added no value to the word and in fact are trying to take value away. “Oh, I drew it on Paper”. They are intentionally aiming to confuse. It’s abhorrent.