Holo vs VR vs MR vs AR vs any other reality (All realities)

[VRdommy]

Intel Project Alloy - A Must Read
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3108...first-open-source-third-party-vr-headset.html

The pace of change with new VR product designs is about to increase exponentially.
And while this is one thing to move that along, it's not the only thing.

...MORE...
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/intel-project-alloy-vr-ar-merged-reality

 

[MetaverseBranding]

Apple timing:

 

[VRdommy]

I have to say, I am a bit confused.
Some buy brand names that they hope someone 'Will BRAND WITH',
and when they do "Brand With It", they get upset about it.
...LOL... What are you expecting ?
Why would they will make a product and not seek protection for it's name against confusion?

If you were using the name before the mark, those rights of use are protected. Listed Marks or not.
It's a shame most don't exercise those rights.
The 'First Use In Business' goes a very long way in the courts. It's essential to it all. Marks or not.
A parked domain is not a exercise of 'use in business' that can be protected.

TM is designed to protect things folks make and services they perform against imitations.
You don't need a TM to have protection under the law. But you do need a product or service to protect.
Don't confuse a brand, you have no worries. Your behavior says more about that than the domain.

A TM does not mean you completely own the word(s) unless you can show it is a 'made-up word' and you did indeed make-it-up for use in your G&S (think google).
A Listed TM is a declaration for all to read that you intend to use a name for the G&S listed. That's all.
It does not mean those are justified or established. You have to justify them in court for protection.
UDRP is a method to sidestep the courts where "BAD FAITH" can be demonstrated.
You may have rights, and not be the only one with rights. It's where you profit by intruding on someone else's rights without having any of your own rights that will get you in trouble.

Microsoft (or anyone else) has no rights to the term HOLO as a word or a syllable .
Look how many TM's are using the word / syllable that "predate their mark".
If that were a problem, MS would have been the one with that problem.

But, it's up to you to Read/Learn about it . You will suffer or profit from what you know, or don't.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

I have to say, I am a bit confused.
Some buy brand names that they hope someone 'Will BRAND WITH',
and when they do "Brand With It", they get upset about it.
...LOL... What are you expecting ?
Why would they will make a product and not seek protection for it's name against confusion?

If you were using the name before the mark, those rights of use are protected. Listed Marks or not.
It's a shame most don't exercise those rights.
The 'First Use In Business' goes a very long way in the courts. It's essential to it all. Marks or not.
A parked domain is not a exercise of 'use in business' that can be protected.

TM is designed to protect things folks make and services they perform against imitations.
You don't need a TM to have protection under the law. But you do need a product or service to protect.
Don't confuse a brand, you have no worries. Your behavior says more about that than the domain.

A TM does not mean you completely own the word(s) unless you can show it is a 'made-up word' and you did indeed make-it-up for use in your G&S (think google).
A Listed TM is a declaration for all to read that you intend to use a name for the G&S listed. That's all.
It does not mean those are justified or established. You have to justify them in court for protection.
UDRP is a method to sidestep the courts where "BAD FAITH" can be demonstrated.
You may have rights, and not be the only one with rights. It's where you profit by intruding on someone else's rights without having any of your own rights that will get you in trouble.

Microsoft (or anyone else) has no rights to the term HOLO as a word or a syllable .
Look how many TM's are using the word / syllable that "predate their mark".
If that were a problem, MS would have been the one with that problem.

But, it's up to you to Read/Learn about it . You will suffer or profit from what you know, or don't.

The simple question is this though VRDommy.

If a company are looking for a brand name, can it be off putting if Microsoft already own a trademark for the keyword they are interested in?

Not many companies will touch a name if they think problems could arise in the future.

Therefore peoples concerns are relevant imo. The fact Microsoft are taking out TM's against Holo + Keyword terms could potentially put off end users.

Not every company are going to weigh up the pros & cons. They will see a trademark is owned by Microsoft and that would usually be a indicator that the domain is not worth the investment vs the potential hassle.

JMO though.

 

[VRdommy]

The simple question is this though VRDommy.

If a company are looking for a brand name, can it be off putting if Microsoft already own a trademark for the keyword they are interested in?

Not many companies will touch a name if they think problems could arise in the future.

Therefore peoples concerns are relevant imo. The fact Microsoft are taking out TM's against Holo + Keyword terms could potentially put off end users.

Not every company are going to weigh up the pros & cons. They will see a trademark is owned by Microsoft and that would usually be a indicator that the domain is not worth the investment vs the potential hassle.

JMO though.

I have said the same myself in these threads, many times about any interest on the name that is TM.

And the point I was making is that this is what you should expect if playing BRANDS over Generics.
Don't cry about it unless someone makes a 'unfair' claim of rights.

I read a TM created in BAD FAITH nearly everyday. They don't hold water, but the less you teach yourself about it, the more intimidated you are going to be from them.

Apple had the TM 'APP STORE' and challenged Amazon for it's use of the term. Apple lost.
You can get a mark for just about anything. But it does not mean you can defend it. It's just a claim.
Now go learn why that was and you are one step closer to understanding this.
What if you had APPSTORE.com ? would you have dropped it ? think nobody else will want it ?
I know better. You should to.
Don't develop strong opinions on this till you take the time to learn how it works.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

I have said the same myself in these threads, many times about any interest on the name that is TM.

And the point I was making is that this is what you should expect if playing BRANDS over Generics.
Don't cry about it unless someone makes a 'unfair' claim of rights.

I read a TM created in BAD FAITH nearly everyday. They don't hold water, but the less you teach yourself about it, the more intimidated you are going to be from them.

Apple had the TM 'APP STORE' and challenged Amazon for it's use of the term. Apple lost.
You can get a mark for just about anything. But it does not mean you can defend it. It's just a claim.
Now go learn why that was and you are one step closer to understanding this.
What if you had APPSTORE.com ? would you have dropped it ? think nobody else will want it ?
I know better. You should to.
Don't develop strong opinions on this till you take the time to learn how it works.

Ok fair enough.

But the point I was making was not wether or not I would have gone up against Apple (but yes obviously I would have bottled it myself lol).

The point was that the majority would not want the potential scenario of one day taking on Microsoft in the court room.

Obviously I agree it might make business sense for me to understand a bit more about TM law. But me knowing more about trademark law is not going to stop end users being put off of keywords that are trademarked by huge companies.

Most will find out about the trademark and their intetest will end there.

But yes, I agree with the playing with generics vs brands dilemma.

 

[VRdommy]

Most will find about the trademark and their intetest will end there.

Exactly. I don't target investors so I don't think like them.
If you are a flipper, think like a investor. If your target is the end user. Think like a end user.
Make sure you are a domainer that 'knows better'. Well executed Knowledge & Patients = Profits
Patients is subverted when you hold more names than you can maintain in your portfolio.

To each his own but I buy with the intentions of landing a sale with a end user.
Investors are just a pain in my back side. I am very patient and price according to end users.
Investors spend more time telling me why my name is worthless and yet they wish to buy it to make profits from the resale of it. ...LOL... The longer you do this, the more tired you get hearing it.

 

[VRdommy]

As far as Apple's next 'DEVICES', don't confuse a transparent phone with a transparent DISPLAY.
You can not make a battery and a inductive copper transformer disappear.
And as I said before, you need increased capability SIRI to manage navigation while the device is strapped to your head. Why do you think everyone is strengthening their Voice Response Systems.
(what everyone wants to call AI that is not)

It should be interesting to see what comes from APPLE this year.
I have placed my bets on this some time ago. Just have not revealed them.
In basic form, I expect it to be more like Google Glass and HoloLens. Just better.
It's the new concept display tech I think I will find most interesting when we see it (or not).
3DSmartGlass ?

 

[VRdommy]

VRcamera.io sold 2 days ago for $36. Nice grab. Anyone here ?
https://flippa.com/7900846-vrcamera-io

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/132987/20170124/axon-vr-next-robotic-sensation-virtual-realism.htm

 

[xr reality]

I hope apples smart glasses will run a similar look to these prototypes glasses using the power and engineering of the iphone with Bluetooth capability to power these glasses so they will remain small and cool .

 

[MetaverseBranding]

As far as Apple's next 'DEVICES', don't confuse a transparent phone with a transparent DISPLAY.
You can not make a battery and a inductive copper transformer disappear.
And as I said before, you need increased capability SIRI to manage navigation while the device is strapped to your head. Why do you think everyone is strengthening their Voice Response Systems.
(what everyone wants to call AI that is not)

It should be interesting to see what comes from APPLE this year.
I have placed my bets on this some time ago. Just have not revealed them.
In basic form, I expect it to be more like Google Glass and HoloLens. Just better.
It's the new concept display tech I think I will find most interesting when we see it (or not).
3DSmartGlass ?

Apparently a transparent display is what is being forcast.

I know how impossible this sounds but there is going to be tech used in this phone that Apple have been holding back so the new batteries will be small enough to fit in the phones bezzel apparently.

https://virtualrealitypop.com/im-in...ark-zuckerberg-s-head-5babf01c5713#.jxoyf09hz

The tech for transparent displays is possible as well, Rob scoble bet his career on it to say he's been told by quite a few reliable insiders that the screen is 100% transparent.

For something the size that the iphone will be, he says this is 100% achievable. Obviously a TV requires a lot more power.

 

[mixedrealityfan]

after spatial computing etc., now spatial augment reality (spatial or SAR):

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...t-Reality-Market-2016-2022-Component-Hardware

 

[SuperBrander]

It's been awhile since I bought some MR domains. Grabbed a few:

SuperiorMR(.)com
MRSinging(.)com
MRSingers(.)com
PioneerMR(.)com

I saw that now there's also XR! As if VR, AR and MR weren't enough. Are you guys buying XR domains? When did XR become a thing and how likely is it to become a popular term?

 

[VRdommy]

Apparently a transparent display is what is being forcast.

I know how impossible this sounds but there is going to be tech used in this phone that Apple have been holding back so the new batteries will be small enough to fit in the phones bezzel apparently.

https://virtualrealitypop.com/im-in...ark-zuckerberg-s-head-5babf01c5713#.jxoyf09hz

The tech for transparent displays is possible as well, Rob scoble bet his career on it to say he's been told by quite a few reliable insiders that the screen is 100% transparent.

For something the size that the iphone will be, he says this is 100% achievable. Obviously a TV requires a lot more power.

More than possible, I look at one every day. Just a older prototype that never made it to market.
I don't doubt what can be done, but how and when it can be done at a price that makes it a marketable product.

So is your messiah going to tell you what names to play from that info ?
Now that YOU & ROB KNOW what it is, go find the implications for names if you can.
That is if you are willing to put your 'money' with his reputation (I'm not sure what that is).

What I am saying to you is, KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE 8-BALL.
Don't get so bedazzled by the trick-shot tech that you forget your objective for following it.
Everything has implications. You have to predict what it all means in the future of names.

I don't see anything new for names from that until we see how it is branded.
Just one more likely AR device that I'm sure will WOW folks and I will likely own.
How they do it is not as important as 'what they call' what they do.

 

[cordoba]

If Microsoft are pushing 'mixed reality' so hard, and even calling their apps 'mr + keyword' now, what's to stop them trademarking 'mr + keyword'? Legally, they would have a much better claim as they invented 'mixed reality', they didn't invent holographics or the term 'holo'.

Every company is defining mixed reality as holograms appearing in the real world. The Fragments game page you linked to makese use of the term 'holograms several times. There is only a handful of 'mixed reality' headset manufacturers, and another one of them (besides Microsoft) has branded themselves as Holo.

As I said, Robert Scooble is so in tune with the public that he single-handedly killed Google Glass with the unfortunate 'glasshole in the shower' pic. He also still can't comprehend why his darling Hilary, with all her Saudi Arabian millions of dollars, failed to beat a 'misogynist' such as Trump. I've no doubt people will search for 'mixed reality p***' etc. I'm still not sure they will search for 'mr p***' as much as 'holo p***', and anyway, looks like 90% of people in a couple of years time (unless Magic Leap debuts or Apple bring out their own device) will be searching for 'HoloLens p***, in which case a name like 'HoloP***' would be worth far more than 'MixedRealityP***.

I'm really speaking from a guy who has invested heavily in adult holo names. Microsoft trademarks aren't a threat there (possibly for names like 'liveholochat'). Already several adult vr pay sites have branded themselves as holo.

There's also the problem of 'merged reality'. If mixed reality is truly a seperate thing from virtual reality requiring its own name for branding and keyword searches, then why deny 'merged reality' it's place in the sun too? In which case, there's no room in town for both, at least as far as the acronym 'mr' is concerned. Perhaps mixed reality will become shortened to 'mxr' or such like (or even.....holo, hehe ).

 

[VRdommy]

I saw that now there's also XR! As if VR, AR and MR weren't enough. Are you guys buying XR domains? When did XR become a thing and how likely is it to become a popular term?

Very unlikely. As always, anything could happen.
I'm sure there will be a couple of names with relevance using it.

It has a wide sweeping trademark if they should ever actually produce a product to match it.
It is only being promoted by some PR in blogs and social media. Most state the same stuff like a
"catch all phrase to describe it all" while quoting other articles where it is not described as such.
Uncertain of the motivation of that promotion, but I have a few theories I'm not willing to state.

But don't take my word for that, look it up for yourself (before you spend your money).
Some are buying into it though, so there are believers out there.
Just do your own homework before investing heavy.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

More than possible, I look at one every day. Just a older prototype that never made it to market.
I don't doubt what can be done, but how and when it can be done at a price that makes it a marketable product.

So is your messiah going to tell you what names to play from that info ?
Now that YOU & ROB KNOW what it is, go find the implications for names if you can.
That is if you are willing to put your 'money' with his reputation (I'm not sure what that is).

What I am saying to you is, KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE 8-BALL.
Don't get so bedazzled by the trick-shot tech that you forget your objective for following it.
Everything has implications. You have to predict what it all means in the future of names.

I don't see anything new for names from that until we see how it is branded.
Just one more likely AR device that I'm sure will WOW folks and I will likely own.
How they do it is not as important as 'what they call' what they do.

100% agree.

As far as Robert being my Messiah though, I know it might come across as though I worship him but I am realistic enough to know that it's all speculation at the moment.

I do like to try to take little gambles with terms though, so yes if he threw a term or acronym into the mix I would probably gamble on a few names.

I have actually took a gamble on what I think Apple could name their tech/content. This info was not from Robert Scoble, I just took a gamble based on historical references they have made to what we refer to as an AR/mixed reality device in their patents.

But yes, even this is nothing more than a gamble.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

If Microsoft are pushing 'mixed reality' so hard, and even calling their apps 'mr + keyword' now, what's to stop them trademarking 'mr + keyword'? Legally, they would have a much better claim as they invented 'mixed reality', they didn't invent holographics or the term 'holo'.

Every company is defining mixed reality as holograms appearing in the real world. The Fragments game page you linked to makese use of the term 'holograms several times. There is only a handful of 'mixed reality' headset manufacturers, and another one of them (besides Microsoft) has branded themselves as Holo.

As I said, Robert Scooble is so in tune with the public that he single-handedly killed Google Glass with the unfortunate 'glasshole in the shower' pic. He also still can't comprehend why his darling Hilary, with all her Saudi Arabian millions of dollars, failed to beat a 'misogynist' such as Trump. I've no doubt people will search for 'mixed reality p***' etc. I'm still not sure they will search for 'mr p***' as much as 'holo p***', and anyway, looks like 90% of people in a couple of years time (unless Magic Leap debuts or Apple bring out their own device) will be searching for 'HoloLens p***, in which case a name like 'HoloP***' would be worth far more than 'MixedRealityP***.

I'm really speaking from a guy who has invested heavily in adult holo names. Microsoft trademarks aren't a threat there (possibly for names like 'liveholochat'). Already several adult vr pay sites have branded themselves as holo.

There's also the problem of 'merged reality'. If mixed reality is truly a seperate thing from virtual reality requiring its own name for branding and keyword searches, then why deny 'merged reality' it's place in the sun too? In which case, there's no room in town for both, at least as far as the acronym 'mr' is concerned. Perhaps mixed reality will become shortened to 'mxr' or such like (or even.....holo, hehe ).

This is too long for me to give a detailed reply lol.

But Microsoft didn't invent mixed reality.

Robert Scoble did not single handedly destroy google glass.

The acronym for mixed reality is MR (probably after a keyword works better), microsoft and magic leap have no problem refering to it in this reference.

As far as MR being trademarkable by Microsoft, anything is possible.

As for as your Holo P#rn reference though. If consumers are told that content is called "mixed reality" or "holograms" that is what they would search for.

Microsoft just updated the holographic section in Windows Creators update to "Mixed Reality". To me that says a bit about what Microsoft feel the content should be refered to as. There was no reason to change from holographic to mixed reality, but that was a step they obviously felt was necessary to take.

 

[Elad n]

This is too long for me to give a detailed reply lol.

But Microsoft didn't invent mixed reality.

Robert Scoble did not single handedly destroy google glass.

The acronym for mixed reality is MR (probably after a keyword works better), microsoft and magic leap have no problem refering to it in this reference.

As far as MR being trademarkable by Microsoft, anything is possible.

As for as your Holo P#rn reference though. If consumers are told that content is called "mixed reality" or "holograms" that is what they would search for.

Microsoft just updated the holographic section in Windows Creators update to "Mixed Reality". To me that says a bit about what Microsoft feel the content should be refered to as. There was no reason to change from holographic to mixed reality, but that was a step they obviously felt was necessary to take.

As far as i know canon have a TM on MR & MReal .

 

[MetaverseBranding]

As far as i know canon have a TM on MR & MReal .

Yeah, you are correct.

The trademark on MR though will have no relevance. They won't be able to stop Microsoft, Magic Leap or companies branding themselves around the tech or MR acronym.

If you are registering MReal domains though, that is a different ball game.

 

[VRdommy]

If Microsoft are pushing 'mixed reality' so hard, and even calling their apps 'mr + keyword' now, what's to stop them trademarking 'mr + keyword'? Legally, they would have a much better claim as they invented 'mixed reality', they didn't invent holographics or the term 'holo'.

Every company is defining mixed reality as holograms appearing in the virtual world. The Fragments game page you linked to makese use of the term 'holograms several times. There is only a handful of 'mixed reality' headset manufacturers, and another one of them (besides Microsoft) has branded themselves as Holo.

There's also the problem of 'merged reality'. If mixed reality is truly a seperate thing from virtual reality requiring its own name for branding and keyword searches, then why deny 'merged reality' it's place in the sun too? In which case, there's no room in town for both, at least as far as the acronym 'mr' is concerned. Perhaps mixed reality will become shortened to 'mxr' or such like (or even.....holo, hehe ).

You could not TM 'mixed reality' or any more than you could 'bad vision'.
Don't confuse TM with Patent or Copyright.
You can only have one TM for "WORD" and one TM for "GRAPHIC" per good or service produced.
AND one each for the company mark. (think 'SONY' and 'Playstation' or 'Oculus VR' and 'Rift')
If you wish to change it, you must abandon the other mark so that there is only one.

The courts are not friendly to abbreviations protection since it is not the mark in question.
Facebook has a word and graphic mark but FB only has a graphic mark as well as their thumbs-up graphic mark. Not sure the G&S for each but they are there. No word mark for FB.

Registration of a mark is just a declaration. If you use it in business, you have rights but they do not supersede others rights with or without a TM.
They may use a descriptor that states their patent as a 'merged reality device' (? didn't look) but that is not a TM of a G&S with the name.

 

[VRdommy]

Yeah, you are correct.

The trademark on MR though will have no relevance. They won't be able to stop Microsoft, Magic Leap or companies branding themselves around the tech or MR acronym.

If you are registering MReal domains though, that is a different ball game.

You need to say these things correctly.
You can't brand without a mark. That is branding. It becomes the name.
Saying your device is mr/mixed reality is not "branding" with it.

And the point I keep making is nobody has been branding with MR.... YET !

 

[cordoba]

And the point I keep making is nobody has been branding with MR.... YET !

Yep. The HoloLens isn't even being remotely being aimed at consumers yet, so their pushing of 'mixed reality' isn't as important as it might seem. It's purpose is to differentiate their technology from VR to developers and certain markets such as the medical profession. We don't even know if the acronym 'mr' will take off yet, even if the term 'mixed reality' does (note: there still appears to have been not a single virtualreality+keyword sale to an end user). As you say, nobody is as yet branding themselves 'MR'.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

You need to say these things correctly.
You can't brand without a mark. That is branding. It becomes the name.
Saying your device is mr/mixed reality is not "branding" with it.

And the point I keep making is nobody has been branding with MR.... YET !

Yes exactly, but in the same context no one as pushed mixed reality terminology or even the tech really for that matter commercially as yet.

Mixed Reality might not be a terminology that is ever pushed commercially, but from the evidence I have seen I do believe magic leap and microsoft will try to.

I suppose only time will tell. Really at the moment VR is the only tech and terminology that has really had a commercial push.

But this is where my argument usually comes in regarding current tech domaining and future tech domaining. The current trend is obviously VR, but I do believe this tech era we are approaching will bring some exciting tech advancements to what we refer to as VR.

And I personally believe there will be a need to brand around the differences in these tech's.

If I wan't to see holographic content in the future, I would not expect to have to type in VR to get it.

 

[MetaverseBranding]

Yep. The HoloLens isn't even being remotely being aimed at consumers yet, so their pushing of 'mixed reality' isn't as important as it might seem. It's purpose is to differentiate their technology from VR to developers and certain markets such as the medical profession. We don't even know if the acronym 'mr' will take off yet, even if the term 'mixed reality' does (note: there still appears to have been not a single virtualreality+keyword sale to an end user). As you say, nobody is as yet branding themselves 'MR'.

LinqMR.com ?

 

[MetaverseBranding]

Yep. The HoloLens isn't even being remotely being aimed at consumers yet, so their pushing of 'mixed reality' isn't as important as it might seem. It's purpose is to differentiate their technology from VR to developers and certain markets such as the medical profession. We don't even know if the acronym 'mr' will take off yet, even if the term 'mixed reality' does (note: there still appears to have been not a single virtualreality+keyword sale to an end user). As you say, nobody is as yet branding themselves 'MR'.

So why don't they brand Holo/Holographic/Hologram to developers. That would work, so why are they not doing it, that would differentiate it from VR?

There is no need for Microsoft to go the Mixed Reality route. They called their product "Holo", named their apps "Holo".

Surely the obvious route for them to take would have been to just use the Hologram/Holographic or Holo keyword if all they wanted to do was differentiate themselves from VR.

I have not got the answer. But for whatever reason Microsoft have decided using the term Mixed Reality to describe the content.