Sure, but the point is that you have to know what category someone is search for in order to apply the ad filtering rules. If people search for "windows", Google has to take its best guess on whether you want Windows 11 or quotes on replacing your wall-holes.
Even then, what counts as an ad that competes with Microsoft? Can ubuntu advertise their Windows alternative? Can an authorized reseller advertise themselves as the best place to buy a copy?
This problem sounds almost impossible to me, and the cure almost sounds worse than the disease.
I suspect there are very few searches for the single word “windows”. Google probably knows the category for the vast majority of searches from additional words, previous queries, etc.
But I think it would be crazy to prohibit competitive advertising in the first place.
This is false. Apple applied for a trademark of a black-and-white depiction of an apple. They aren’t suing any Swiss organization over infringement of a trademark.
The Wired article makes it seem like Apple is going after someone here, but they’re ‘just’ filing for a trademark.
Whether you agree or disagree with the tactics, what they’re doing isn’t what you claim they’re doing.
Please stop spreading this incorrect version of the story.
Apple is not suing anyone; it has asked for a re-ruling from the Swiss trademark authorities. As far as I have been able to see, this is based on the ownership of the Apple Corps trademark, and the Swiss fruit association is making unnecessary noise that has been amplified by the credulous because anything about Apple (Designed in California) makes for more clicks.
It's not a grey area if you're putting out an ad for a product in the same category as the registered trademark.
Putting up a "Nintendo Switch" ad on the "Steam Deck" search term, and vice versa, is wrong. Even more so when big companies camp on the trademarks of smaller startups.
