這個故事告訴我們：
一、大公司的錢，果然最後都是被律師賺走的.....
二、再厲害的商人，吵起架來也像小孩子！
Do you ever get the feeling some companies just have too much money for their own good? And that maybe they could be using it to better purpose than lining lawyers' pockets?
你有沒有覺得有些公司就是錢太多。難道沒有把鈔票花在律師身上更好的方法嗎？
Microsoft and Apple are currently embroiled in a fairly ridiculous court case over whether Apple should be allowed to trademark the phrase "App Store".
微軟和蘋果最近捲入一場荒謬的官司：蘋果能不能拿"App Store"這個詞註冊商標？
In the latest salvo, Microsoft has continued its opposition to Apple with testimony from linguist, Dr Ronald R Butters, PhD, arguing that app store just means "store at which apps are offered for sale". Butters has been employed to refute testimony for Apple by Dr Robert A. Leonard, PhD, who argued App Store was a proper nounthat had become associated with Apple. Or something like that. It's all a bit complicated, semantic even.
微軟引用語言學家Ronald R Butters的意見，稱"App Store"這個片語意為“出售應用軟體的商店”，是通用詞彙（就跟“五金行”一樣，沒人會用這種詞來註冊商標），不能用來當商標的名字。蘋果則聘請Robert A. Leonard教授辯護，認為App Store是專有名詞，而且一說就使人聯想到蘋果，當然可以拿來做商標名。從語義學上看的確蠻複雜。
As an aside, it's funny! how both linguists have a middle initial in their name - do you think that's something common to linguists or only to linguists that provide expert testimony to computer companies engaged in trademark rows?
跳出來看，有趣的是兩位語言學家的名字裡都有一個首字母縮寫的中名——你覺得是語言學家都有這樣的名字，還是只限於會為IT公司商標爭奪戰提供專業意見的語言學家？
Quite why a company that trademarked the word Windows should have an issue with a company that has trademarked the word Apple seeking to do the same for App Store is a bit odd. Was Microsoft planning to follow in Apple's footsteps by launching its own "store at which apps are offered for sale" and calling it the App Store?
到底為什麼一家用Windows這個詞註冊了商標的公司會和一家用apple這個詞註冊了商標的公司，會就app store這個詞能不能用來註冊商標吵起來？難倒微軟也想弄一個“出售應用軟體的商店”的品牌，並取名叫app store？
A bit of common sense might have been better employed from sides rather than paying lawyers and linguists. Sadly, there isn't an app for that.
雙方都要有點常識，不要把錢白白浪費在請律師和語言學家上面。不過，還真沒有那一款應用軟體能解決這個問題。
沒有留言:
張貼留言