PDA

View Full Version : Apple: Amazon's Appstore Isn't an 'App Store'




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
May 20, 2011, 01:21 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/20/apple-amazons-appstore-isnt-an-app-store/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/05/amazon_appstore.jpg


The dispute between Apple and Amazon over the term "App Store" continues, with Apple filing a new document with the court claiming that Amazon's "Appstore for Android" can't possibly be an app store because the term is a non-generic one referring only to Apple's App Store. Apple's official response comes via Bloomberg (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-05-20/apple-denies-amazon-s-claim-that-app-store-is-generic-term.html):"Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," the company said in a filing yesterday in federal court in Oakland, California.

The term isn't commonly used by businesses to describe download services and, because the mark "app store" isn't generic, Amazon's Appstore for Android service isn't an "app store," Apple said in the filing.Apple sued (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/21/apple-sues-amazon-over-app-store-trademark/) Amazon in late March over the "App Store" term after Amazon rolled out its marketplace for Android applications. Amazon fired back (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/26/amazon-responds-to-apples-trademark-lawsuit-over-app-store/) late last month, arguing that the term is generic and filing a counterclaim against Apple seeking dismissal of the original suit, reimbursement of costs, and a declaratory judgment giving Amazon free rein to use the term.

Apple is fighting a similar battle simply in trying to have the "App Store" trademark officially recognized. Microsoft in particular has been working hard (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/12/microsoft-objects-to-apples-app-store-trademark-application/) to convince trademark examiners that the term is generic and not specific to Apple's implementation, using as one of its most important pieces of evidence quotes from Apple CEO Steve Jobs using the term generically to refer to non-Apple application stores.

Article Link: Apple: Amazon's Appstore Isn't an 'App Store' (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/20/apple-amazons-appstore-isnt-an-app-store/)



lord patton
May 20, 2011, 01:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Sounds like a tautology to me.

BLUELION
May 20, 2011, 01:25 PM
lets go..

Minimoose 360
May 20, 2011, 01:26 PM
Their app store isn't an app store?

http://arch.413chan.net/George-Takei-oh-my-(n1299484680413).jpg

hexx
May 20, 2011, 01:27 PM
this is retarded, let's be honest here. retarded same way like amazon's one-click or microsoft's windows trademarks.

AtHomeBoy_2000
May 20, 2011, 01:28 PM
Your store that sells apps isnt an app store

orangerizzla
May 20, 2011, 01:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Is a game an app?

allpar
May 20, 2011, 01:30 PM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

iWinning
May 20, 2011, 01:31 PM
Sounds like Apple is going to lose another one.

mack pro
May 20, 2011, 01:32 PM
Apple's going to trademark word every word in the dictionary and sue everbody in the country.

decimortis
May 20, 2011, 01:32 PM
Is is really going to matter after tomorrow anyways? ;)

D.

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 01:33 PM
Amazon's appstore shouldn't be called appstore because our app store is the app store.

Confusion ensues.

CQd44
May 20, 2011, 01:35 PM
this is retarded, let's be honest here. retarded same way like amazon's one-click or microsoft's windows trademarks.

Almost certain one-click refers to the way they implemented easily purchasing things and how Windows is only referring to OS implementations of WHY AM I DIGNIFYING YOU WITH A RESPONSE

emvath
May 20, 2011, 01:35 PM
Apple,

I love you buddy, but you are coming off looking stupid on this one. Give it up please and get back to working on my wireless sync.

ZMacintosh
May 20, 2011, 01:36 PM
Sounds like Apple is going to lose another one.

Even if they dont lose this one, they've "lost it".

staveb
May 20, 2011, 01:37 PM
For every reason I loved Apple when they were the scrappy little dog, they are behaving very poorly here, and I hope Amazon crushes them in their counter-suit.

Rather than try to copyright generic terms, innovate Apple! You're better than this!

mrochester
May 20, 2011, 01:38 PM
Apple's response to this claim seems to just be 'you can't call it an app store because we said so' without any substantive evidence.

Born Again
May 20, 2011, 01:38 PM
I'm not with apple on this

Customers are intelligent enough to differentiate one store from the other.

Are you doubting your customers apple?

econgeek
May 20, 2011, 01:38 PM
I'm tired of every no-account, ethics free, innovation-incapable company just ripping off apple's work and getting away with it.

Apple didn't coin the term "store", but they did coin the term "app".

App is a legitimate trademark.

Amazon needs to lose here.

rjohnstone
May 20, 2011, 01:40 PM
Funny... I download "Apps" from the Amazon's Appstore all the time.

notabadname
May 20, 2011, 01:40 PM
Oh no, not again. Courts, please settle this, either way, so we can be done with the pointless argument. As if the repetitive, belabored discussion on MR will resolve the case. Both sides have merit, or or their respective suits would already have been dismissed by the courts.

econgeek
May 20, 2011, 01:41 PM
For every reason I loved Apple when they were the scrappy little dog, they are behaving very poorly here, and I hope Amazon crushes them in their counter-suit.

Rather than try to copyright generic terms, innovate Apple! You're better than this!


"app" has never been a generic term. It was never used until apple coined it. And they aren't "copyrighting" it, which you can't do, they are trademarking it, and using this form of IP correctly.

It is really sad to see so many people so ready to believe that Apple is some big bad company without ethics.

Apple plays by the rules. Amazon, however, for instance, is a reprehensible company that abuses and defrauds its employees, has no regard for its customers, and bullies everyone in the business. Of course people outside the business have a completely different perception because they've never had to deal with amazon.

econgeek
May 20, 2011, 01:43 PM
Apple's going to trademark word every word in the dictionary and sue everbody in the country.

"App" is not even a word that exists in the dictionary.

Do you guys even think about what you're saying?

BC2009
May 20, 2011, 01:43 PM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

don't forget to google for the going price of your jeep before ebaying it.

;)

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 01:43 PM
Funny... I download "Apps" from the Amazon's Appstore all the time.

No you don't, you download APK's. It should be APK store! /s

(The logic applied here is the "apple use .app extension" logic, despite the fact that their mobile applications use "ipa" extension.)

emvath
May 20, 2011, 01:44 PM
"app" has never been a generic term.

Yes it has.

Westyfield2
May 20, 2011, 01:45 PM
"Apple denies that, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps"

Now that is sig worthy!

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Sounds like a tautology to me.

:D

CQd44
May 20, 2011, 01:46 PM
"Apple denies that, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps,"

Now that is sig worthy!



:D

It really is.

Up next: a used car dealership denies that the words "used car dealership" together denote a dealership for used cars.

emvath
May 20, 2011, 01:47 PM
"App" is not even a word that exists in the dictionary.

Do you guys even think about what you're saying?

Oh, well then that settles it. :rolleyes:

rjohnstone
May 20, 2011, 01:47 PM
No you don't, you download APK's. It should be APK store! /s

(The logic applied here is the "apple use .app extension" logic, despite the fact that their mobile applications use "ipa" extension.)
Umm.. no... they're called "apps".
Their file extension is irrelevant as you have pointed out. ;)

So Apple should call their app store the IPA Store right? :D

hcho3
May 20, 2011, 01:47 PM
App was never popular until apple started it all off with iphone and iPad. Microsoft should give up their window as well from their OS system. That sounds pretty generic.

RebeccaL
May 20, 2011, 01:48 PM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

You forgot to google it :p

Piggie
May 20, 2011, 01:49 PM
It's so stupid.

Can you imagine the future.

So, Mr Retailer, you can now see your products online can you?

Yes, we made an App for tablets.
Oh, and also we made a program for all other brands of tablets that are not Apple.

They should be able to write Apps (Applications) for any format and say, yes, we have written Apps for all major brands of device.

Žalgiris
May 20, 2011, 01:49 PM
No you don't, you download APK's. It should be APK store! /s

(The logic applied here is the "apple use .app extension" logic, despite the fact that their mobile applications use "ipa" extension.)

ipa is just a renamed zip file where actuall aplication is contained (it has an .app ending)

Doctor Q
May 20, 2011, 01:50 PM
Sometimes corporations remind me of little kids arguing on the playground. Except more than lunch money is involved.

decimortis
May 20, 2011, 01:51 PM
Yes it has.

No™ it™ hasn't.™

Steve™

emvath
May 20, 2011, 01:53 PM
App was never popular until apple started it all off with iphone and iPad. Microsoft should give up their window as well from their OS system. That sounds pretty generic.

There is of course a difference between the apple example and the microsoft. Apple called their App Store "App Store." Microsoft called their Operating System "Windows", not "Operating System."

If Apple had called their app store "doorknob" (which is of course a very generic word like windows) then Amazon would obviously not be able to call their app store the same thing.

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 01:56 PM
ipa is just a renamed zip file where actuall aplication is contained (it has an .app ending)

Perhaps it's time to rebrand it "Renamed zip file where actual application is contained (it has an .app ending) - store"?

Umm.. no... they're called "apps".
Their file extension is irrelevant as you have pointed out. ;)

So Apple should call their app store the IPA Store right? :D

You did see my sarcasm tag didn't you? :o:D

ten-oak-druid
May 20, 2011, 01:56 PM
In related news, amazon announced that sales of kindle books are now greater than hard cover and paperback combined. (Not including free kindle books which would raise the kindle number unfairly).

I think Apple needs to look more closely at the e-ink development than the app store trademark. As e-ink color develops more and the damage resistance to e-ink from overly large bends improves, e-ink will likely take over LCD as a cheaper, more aesthetically appealing screen. There are already e-ink phone prototypes and large sized e-ink displays. The technology is cheaper too. If amazon decides to do what apple did and get into the phone business, they may have something. Apple used the popularity of itunes and the ipod to attract people to the iphone. Amazon could do the same with the kindle and kindle store.

I think in the future, many people will opt for e-ink screens for portable devices and possible laptops. The LCD will be an upgrade option for those who like having back lit screens.

As for the lawsuit, I think in the early stages of these new markets, companies go through this process to define the playing field. Just where is that intellectual property line?

Themaeds
May 20, 2011, 01:57 PM
"app" has never been a generic term. It was never used until apple coined it. .

Ever been to a TGI Friday's?

BC2009
May 20, 2011, 01:59 PM
Apple's going to trademark word every word in the dictionary and sue everbody in the country.

except that "app" is not in the dictionary. anyway, nobody is trying to trademark "app" or "store", but the combination thereof. personally, i believe that many trademarks should be shot down, but given the history of trademarks i find it amusing that folks like microsoft and amazon are complaining about this. the truth is that they are specifically seeking to dilute apple's recognition with the term. too many try to copy apple -- they should be forging their own way instead of trying to ride in apple's wake and attach grappling hooks while they are at it.

microsoft is one of the worst trademark offenders with "office" and "windows". ridiculous. i would award this to trademark to apple simply because it would be the fair thing to do given what has been awarded to the other guys. but in my opinion, it would be best if it was denied with the stipulation that other trademarks like "one-click", "windows" and "office" would be revoked.

Oh no, not again. Courts, please settle this, either way, so we can be done with the pointless argument. As if the repetitive, belabored discussion on MR will resolve the case. Both sides have merit, or or their respective suits would already have been dismissed by the courts.

yes -- i wish they could just flip a coin and be done with it.

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 01:59 PM
I'm not sure Amazon cares if Apple recognizes their store as an App store or not LOL

Legion93
May 20, 2011, 02:01 PM
Amazon: we reserve the right to name our store to our liking.

Apple: No, you don't.

Steve, sent from my iPhone

ciTiger
May 20, 2011, 02:01 PM
I have to say I kinda understand both sides... It is true that it is somewhat generic but it was thanks to Apple that the term became so widely used and given all the marking Apple put behind it their concern over this is understandable...

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 02:03 PM
microsoft is one of the worst trademark offenders with "office" and "windows". ridiculous. i would award this to trademark to apple simply because it would be the fair thing to do given what has been awarded to the other guys. but in my opinion, it would be best if it was denied with the stipulation that other trademarks like "one-click", "windows" and "office" would be revoked.

Microsoft Windows does not refer to a window. You are still free to call a Window a Window without any repercussions from Microsoft. The same applies for Office.

(this is officially the most time I've typed "Window".) :o

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 02:15 PM
I don't understand why some people find this so difficult to understand.

Apple's not fighting for people to not call mobile applications "apps".

What they're doing is claiming that "App Store" denotes a particular experience (quality, ease, design, etc) and brand tie -- in people's minds "AppStore" brings to mind Apple and iPhones.

They've been using this name and mark for years now (you know the "avail in the App Store" badges we've grown accustomed to seeing? The ones that tell us immediately it's an app we can get for the iPhone?), and the claim is that if other companies start using "Appstore", or some variation thereof, it will create brand confusion for customers.

Frankly, they're right. It will cause confusion.

Now perhaps some people think this is just too bad, and Apple should rebrand as "Apple App Store" or something of that nature. That's a fine position to have, but to claim that Apple's concerns are unwarranted is kinda ridiculous.

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:17 PM
[QUOTE=BC2009;12605092]
microsoft is one of the worst trademark offenders with "office" and "windows". ridiculous.[QUOTE]

Yes, because the words "apple, lion, snow leopard, garage band, mail, safari, bootcamp", etc. aren't generic words at all :rolleyes:

furi0usbee
May 20, 2011, 02:18 PM
If it's not an app store.... why the fuss? Let Amazon sell their widgets in the app store that is not really an app store. That hurts Apple how? So if it's not an app store, but they do sell apps, what is it really? Is it even a store? In breaking news, Amazon doesn't sell books.

burnside
May 20, 2011, 02:18 PM
Microsoft Windows does not refer to a window. You are still free to call a Window a Window without any repercussions from Microsoft. The same applies for Office.

(this is officially the most time I've typed "Window".) :o

+1000

Some of you need an app to smack you in the head. App sounds like "application", but Windows does not sound like "operating system". You get it? Obviously you don't. To those that do, keep spreading your genes around so we can filter out these idiots Darwin style.

netvvork
May 20, 2011, 02:22 PM
lets go..

have you been living under a rock? this game is in its 6th inning.

sined13
May 20, 2011, 02:23 PM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.


The word "app" (referring to computer applications) has existed since (edit: around) 1979.

Google has also existed for some time...try using it before posting.

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 02:23 PM
There's no customer confusion or loss of revenues with app store being generic.

iDevices can't run any apps sold by Amazon and vice-versa.

And most people know where to find THEIR apps. Those who don't - only have to "try" once and see that they're in the wrong place and problem solved.

I don't blame Apple for trying to corner the market with the name trademark. I just think it's only going to benefit trademark and IP lawyers.

burnside
May 20, 2011, 02:23 PM
I have to say I kinda understand both sides... It is true that it is somewhat generic but it was thanks to Apple that the term became so widely used and given all the marking Apple put behind it their concern over this is understandable...

I understand what you're saying too, but Apple kind of got them self in this mess by naming a store so generically. Program names like iTunes or features like Genius are pretty unique and would be cause for infringement if the names were used by another entity. I like Apple products, but they need to let this go. If anything, they're showing how anal they can be and it's not sitting well with some of the public.

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:24 PM
I don't understand why some people find this so difficult to understand.

Apple's not fighting for people to not call mobile applications "apps".

What they're doing is claiming that "App Store" denotes a particular experience (quality, ease, design, etc) and brand tie -- in people's minds "AppStore" brings to mind Apple and iPhones.

They've been using this name and mark for years now (you know the "avail in the App Store" badges we've grown accustomed to seeing? The ones that tell us immediately it's an app we can get for the iPhone?), and the claim is that if other companies start using "Appstore", or some variation thereof, it will create brand confusion for customers.

Frankly, they're right. It will cause confusion.

Now perhaps some people think this is just too bad, and Apple should rebrand as "Apple App Store" or something of that nature. That's a fine position to have, but to claim that Apple's concerns are unwarranted is kinda ridiculous.

Larry's Burgers kinda sounds like Barry's Burgers. Sue him Larry!

Geckotek
May 20, 2011, 02:26 PM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

FAIL

Ref: Handmark App Store
Ref: Java App
Ref: Windows App (in Explorer)

steadysignal
May 20, 2011, 02:27 PM
WHY AM I DIGNIFYING YOU WITH A RESPONSE

because you can.

it is what it is.

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 02:28 PM
Larry's Burgers kinda sounds like Barry's Burgers. Sue him Larry!

Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Larry's Burgers

being a successful nationwide chain, and then another dude named Larry opening up

Larry'sBurgers

Would that cause customer confusion? You tell me.

orangepeel
May 20, 2011, 02:30 PM
uggg, so stupid. At this point I hope apple farmers get together and sue apple computers.

Owing apple products is starting to embarrass me.

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 02:30 PM
Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Larry's Burgers

being a successful nationwide chain, and then another dude named Larry opening up

Larry'sBurgers

Would that cause customer confusion? You tell me.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong - but Apple doesn't yet actually HAVE the trademark. They've simply filed for it. They are now (as are others) jockeying for control of that trademark.

So the analogy doesn't work. Unless Larry's trademark is currently under review and isn't owned.

something3153
May 20, 2011, 02:33 PM
I'm tired of every no-account, ethics free, innovation-incapable company just ripping off apple's work and getting away with it.

Apple didn't coin the term "store", but they did coin the term "app".

App is a legitimate trademark.

Amazon needs to lose here.

"app" has never been a generic term. It was never used until apple coined it. And they aren't "copyrighting" it, which you can't do, they are trademarking it, and using this form of IP correctly.

It is really sad to see so many people so ready to believe that Apple is some big bad company without ethics.

Apple plays by the rules. Amazon, however, for instance, is a reprehensible company that abuses and defrauds its employees, has no regard for its customers, and bullies everyone in the business. Of course people outside the business have a completely different perception because they've never had to deal with amazon.

"App" is not even a word that exists in the dictionary.

Do you guys even think about what you're saying?

I have to jump in here, as this is not the first thread I've read while lurking here where people have posted this. Look, I don't know if you guys never poked your heads out of the Apple world or are just too young to remember, but people were talking about "killer apps", using "app" as a short form of "application" over a decade ago, long before iPhones were being seriously planned, let alone allowed to download applications.

For example, here's a book with "app" in the title from 1998:
http://www.amazon.com/Unleashing-Killer-App-Strategies-Dominance/dp/1578512611

And oh look, an Xbox game from 2004 with "app" in the title:
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/562/562809p1.html

And to round it off, here's a post from this very forum of someone using "app" to refer to an application on an Xbox in 2004, three years before the iPhone was released:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=73571

Now can we finally bury this nonsense about the word "app" being invented by Apple? :rolleyes:

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:33 PM
Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Larry's Burgers

being a successful nationwide chain, and then another dude named Larry opening up

Larry'sBurgers

Would that cause customer confusion? You tell me.

You mean "App Store" and "Amazon Appstore"? Let's test it...

I just purchased "Angry Birds" on Amazon Appstore. Which of these two companies just received my payment?

A: Apple
B: Amazon

Confused?

erzhik
May 20, 2011, 02:34 PM
Christ, not this again.. App is a generic term, just because no one cared to use word "App" in such magnitude before, doesn't mean Apple can trademark it.

Only an idiot can confuse Apple's App Store with Amazon's App store, I don't even understand how this excuse can fly in a court room. Enough is enough. App is short for Application, we all know that. Do you see anyone suing anyone for using word "Auto" as in Auto showroom or Auto magazine? No, because Auto is a generic term, same as App.

"app" has never been a generic term. It was never used until apple coined it. And they aren't "copyrighting" it, which you can't do, they are trademarking it, and using this form of IP correctly.

It is really sad to see so many people so ready to believe that Apple is some big bad company without ethics.

Apple plays by the rules. Amazon, however, for instance, is a reprehensible company that abuses and defrauds its employees, has no regard for its customers, and bullies everyone in the business. Of course people outside the business have a completely different perception because they've never had to deal with amazon.

How much is Apple paying you?

Stella
May 20, 2011, 02:35 PM
"app" has never been a generic term. It was never used until apple coined it. And they aren't "copyrighting" it, which you can't do, they are trademarking it, and using this form of IP correctly.


The fact that "App" has been used for 30 years....

Psion came up with "Netbook" back in 1999, however, the term Netbook became popular and generic which meant Psion lost its attempt to trademark the word.

kiljoy616
May 20, 2011, 02:37 PM
this is retarded, let's be honest here. retarded same way like amazon's one-click or microsoft's windows trademarks.

Very well said, but don't tell the Fangirls they will get their panties in a twist. :D

ten-oak-druid
May 20, 2011, 02:37 PM
The word "app" (referring to computer applications) has existed since (edit: around) 1979.

Google has also existed for some time...try using it before posting.

It wasn't part of the lexicon of society as a whole though.

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 02:38 PM
Steve Jobs and Tim Cook - both publicly have referred to App Store in a generic sense..

IE “So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.” - Steve Jobs

Not much of a leg to stand on when you're using the term generically yourself.

kiljoy616
May 20, 2011, 02:39 PM
You mean "App Store" and "Amazon Appstore"? Let's test it...

I just purchased "Angry Birds" on Amazon Appstore. Which of these two companies just received my payment?

A: Apple
B: Amazon

Confused?

I am, so you gave your money to an apple or you sent it off to the amazon? Why would you do that? :rolleyes:

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 02:39 PM
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong - but Apple doesn't yet actually HAVE the trademark. They've simply filed for it. They are now (as are others) jockeying for control of that trademark.

So the analogy doesn't work. Unless Larry's trademark is currently under review and isn't owned.

Apple applied for it in 2008 and were granted the trademark this year.

In any case, that's immaterial to the question of whether customer confusion is a valid concern or not, which is what I was addressing with my prior comment. I think the issues are split -- whether such concerns are valid, and whether that is enough to warrant companies trademarking such terms, etc.

kiljoy616
May 20, 2011, 02:40 PM
Steve Jobs and Tim Cook - both publicly have referred to App Store in a generic sense..

IE “So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.”

Not much of a leg to stand on when you're using the term generically yourself.

Attorney do get bored also. I am more on this not been a CEO issue as something for the attorneys to do. :o

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 02:40 PM
You mean "App Store" and "Amazon Appstore"? Let's test it...

I just purchased "Angry Birds" on Amazon Appstore. Which of these two companies just received my payment?

A: Apple
B: Amazon

Confused?

Let's try another game. My friend asks, "Hey where did you get that cool game?" I say "From the app store."

Which one do I mean?

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:41 PM
It wasn't part of the lexicon of society as a whole though.

What does that matter? (I love your sig though!)

Consultant
May 20, 2011, 02:42 PM
THE Apple App Store vs. other software stores.
http://obamapacman.com/2011/01/analysis-apple-app-store-trademark-objection-microsoft-tries-to-fool-uspto/

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:43 PM
I am, so you gave your money to an apple or you sent it off to the amazon? Why would you do that? :rolleyes:

Meth is a hell of a drug man.

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:46 PM
Let's try another game. My friend asks, "Hey where did you get that cool game?" I say "From the app store."

Which one do I mean?


Lets go even one further! My friend says, "where did you get that game?" I say "From the store."

Holy crap, nothing should be called store anymore! It's too confusing!

Simplicated
May 20, 2011, 02:46 PM
I remember once Apple sued Psystar for selling Hackintoshes and Psystar desperately accused Apple of not owning the Mac OS X copyright. Some similarities there, huh?

Oh by the way, 1-click is generic enough, Amazon.

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 02:48 PM
THE Apple App Store vs. other software stores.
http://obamapacman.com/2011/01/analysis-apple-app-store-trademark-objection-microsoft-tries-to-fool-uspto/

Surely you mean "THE App store", not "Apple App store" to prove your point?

rjohnstone
May 20, 2011, 02:50 PM
Apple applied for it in 2008 and were granted the trademark this year.

No... they were not granted the trademark.
It's still in the opposition phase.
No registration number has been issued.
The mark is not "officially' theirs until they get a registration number.

eternlgladiator
May 20, 2011, 02:50 PM
What a stupid joke. How is the judge not laughing about this. It's the most generic term out there. I'm all for protecting yourself against competition but this is ludicrous. Apple needs to chill and come up with a better term or don't. Nobody will care.

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 02:51 PM
Let's try another game. My friend asks, "Hey where did you get that cool game?" I say "From the app store."

Which one do I mean?

Wouldn't he know what phone you have? Or ask?

dethmaShine
May 20, 2011, 02:52 PM
Even though Apple revolutionised the terms, Apple should give up on this.

I have realised, the term 'App Store' is way generic and Apple shouldn't fight for such a thing. Give it up Apple.

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 02:54 PM
No... they were not granted the trademark.
It's still in the opposition phase.
No registration number has been issued.
The mark is not "officially' theirs until they get a registration number.

The application was granted, however, allowing them to use a TM symbol and go after Amazon.

In any case, they have three years of prior use which renders this a little moot.

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 02:55 PM
Wouldn't he know what phone you have? Or ask?

If he has to ask, there's consumer confusion.

Game. Set. Match.

ten-oak-druid
May 20, 2011, 02:55 PM
What does that matter? (I love your sig though!)

Well the trademark battle will be based in part on how commonly used the term was. It is more generic today than it was years ago. I think simply stating it existed years ago isn't enough to invalidate the trademark. Another company had a trademark on it years ago as a figure/logo rather than text/name though. Anyway I don't think that if it is shown that some small segment of the internet community used the term, that it will be defined as "common". That is my opinion anyway. So far no one has convinced me otherwise and I'm sure people who feel differently than myself will not be convinced by my opinion. I'm not trying to wage a legal battle so I really don't care if people agree or not.

Anyway it is "app store", not "app" that is the issue.

This is one of those issues that I am rather neutral on. I'm curious to see how it turns out. I can understand Apple wanting to fight for its trademark. And I can understand others declaring it is generic now but once again we see the same trend of Apple making something popular and others following. The anti-apple argument is always "well someone else did x first". But in reality apple took the chance with large scale implementation. Take tablets for instance. Sure there were tablets before but Apple dove in with full commitment and large scale production instead of testing the waters with a small run like others. Suddenly netbooks are scaled back by the competition in favor of tablets. Same with the iphone. And out of that came the true emergence of apps as all society recognizes today. Apple trademarked the app store in the process. Apps are now common on non-apple devices but we don't see any originality in the competition. No one could come up with a unique name for them? Not even the store? It is typical.

Anyway it should be interesting to see how it unfolds.

BJMRamage
May 20, 2011, 02:55 PM
I don't understand why some people find this so difficult to understand.

Apple's not fighting for people to not call mobile applications "apps".

What they're doing is claiming that "App Store" denotes a particular experience (quality, ease, design, etc) and brand tie -- in people's minds "AppStore" brings to mind Apple and iPhones.

They've been using this name and mark for years now (you know the "avail in the App Store" badges we've grown accustomed to seeing? The ones that tell us immediately it's an app we can get for the iPhone?), and the claim is that if other companies start using "Appstore", or some variation thereof, it will create brand confusion for customers.

Frankly, they're right. It will cause confusion.

Now perhaps some people think this is just too bad, and Apple should rebrand as "Apple App Store" or something of that nature. That's a fine position to have, but to claim that Apple's concerns are unwarranted is kinda ridiculous.


QFT!
people say can your iphones do this and yes "there's an app for that"

if Amazon and the others start selling Apple Apps it might not be as confusing but people can (and very easily) be confused thinking they can buy Apps off Amazon or others and they'll work with their iPhone/Pads/Pods.

Amazon and others are simply using the terminology that Apple has coined into Pop Culture usage and hoping people think when they buy a non-Apple product and hear they can use Apps from this App Store that they are going to get Apple's Apps experience and they wont.

If Apple coined BubbaJibba and used BubbaJibba Store and Amazon wanted to use Amazon BubbaJibba Store for their stuff if would be the like. App is an abbreviated term for Application which Amazon could EASILY use instead of App but uses App because Apple made it popular.


Whew!! Bubbajibba

emvath
May 20, 2011, 02:59 PM
If he has to ask, there's consumer confusion.

Game. Set. Match.


Wow...you certainly showed us! :rolleyes:

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 02:59 PM
If he has to ask, there's consumer confusion.

Game. Set. Match.

Game. Set. Match in your mind perhaps.

That's hardly classified as confusion - especially since the odds in your FRIEND knowing what phone you own is pretty much a guarantee.

You just showed him the game.

The "confusion" in manufactured drama by those insisting that Apple should own a trademark on a generic term. A term SO generic- that even the CEO referred to it generically.

How's that for Game. Set. Match?

Taank
May 20, 2011, 03:01 PM
It really is their own dumb fault. It's comparable to if they had called iTunes the "mp3 store". So then they go ahead and sue anyone who tries to sell mp3's and has the audacity to pair the word "mp3" with the word "store".

For the record, I have had folders in my programs files directory called "games" "apps" since sometime around 1993.

I just thought of a business plan. I am going to start selling sneakers at a website I will name the "sneaks store". I will then sue anyone trying to sell "sneaks" and claim that it is too confusing for the consumer. Actually, perhaps I will just trademark every common abbreviation for every commonly used term, then when these big companies want to use them I will start raking in my billions.

Sorry if any of my arguments didn't make sense. It's impossible to proofread my posts on this glossy screen.

PeterQVenkman
May 20, 2011, 03:03 PM
Let's try another game. My friend asks, "Hey where did you get that cool game?" I say "From the app store."

Which one do I mean?

Which Matress Warehouse got my business when I bought a mattress?

http://www.sleepoutfitters.com/images/navigation_r1_c3.gif
http://media.washpost.com/capdeal/email/mattress_warehouse_logo3.jpg
http://www.sleepoutfitters.com/images/navigation_r1_c1.gif

Two of those logos are from the same parent company. One is a different entity entirely. It causes confusion, but one can't sue the other over the name (and win) because "Mattress Warehouse" is too generic. Both have tried to gain exclusive use of the name. Both have failed.

tzeshan
May 20, 2011, 03:05 PM
This trade mark is very important to Apple in its fight with Google Android. Google Android copies iOS every where. This trade mark will create a divide between Android and iOS. It will thus make Apple's fight easier.

rjohnstone
May 20, 2011, 03:05 PM
The application was granted, however, allowing them to use a TM symbol and go after Amazon.

In any case, they have three years of prior use which renders this a little moot.
Anyone can use the TM mark the moment they file the application.
However they do not need any permission form the USPTO to use it.

Consultant
May 20, 2011, 03:06 PM
Surely you mean "THE App store", not "Apple App store" to prove your point?

Something like that. Apple's official legal page puts its description as "The App Store."

Mentioned Apple due to Amazon's attempt to dilute an established trademark.


What a stupid joke. How is the judge not laughing about this. It's the most generic term out there. I'm all for protecting yourself against competition but this is ludicrous. Apple needs to chill and come up with a better term or don't. Nobody will care.

The problem is, no established company used the term, until Apple made it work with the iPhone.

Perhaps Amazon should give up their 1-click trademark.

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 03:06 PM
This trade mark is very important to Apple in its fight with Google Android. Google Android copies iOS every where. This trade mark will create a divide between Android and iOS. It will thus make Apple's fight easier.

What are you on about? This is Amazon's app store. Nothing to do with Google.

rockosmodurnlif
May 20, 2011, 03:08 PM
It really is.

Up next: a used car dealership denies that the words "used car dealership" together denote a dealership for used cars.
"Pre-owned" car dealership, not used.

Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Larry's Burgers

being a successful nationwide chain, and then another dude named Larry opening up

Larry'sBurgers

Would that cause customer confusion? You tell me.
Actually you can't use that analogy because "burgers" is one word. Let me fix if for you.
Actually, the correct analogy would be:

Larry's Burgers Meat Shack

being a successful nationwide chain, and then another dude named Larry opening up

Larry'sBurgersMeatShack

Would that cause customer confusion? You tell me.

I see your point. For instance, on my iPhone I have an App Store, a revolutionary term for a revolutionary store, and on my Mac I have an App Store, more revolution. But to buy applications from my Mac for my iPhone, I have to open iTunes, go into the iTunes Store and click on App Store. That's two one-of-a-kind App Stores on the same machine. Are these two stores the same? I'm so confused. I need a TM so I know which one is the real store.

Help me Apple, you're my only hope.

RidleyGriff
May 20, 2011, 03:09 PM
Game. Set. Match in your mind perhaps.

That's hardly classified as confusion - especially since the odds in your FRIEND knowing what phone you own is pretty much a guarantee.

You just showed him the game.

The "confusion" in manufactured drama by those insisting that Apple should own a trademark on a generic term. A term SO generic- that even the CEO referred to it generically.

How's that for Game. Set. Match?

1. App Store is a brand associated with Apple and iOS devices, and has been used as such in the marketplace for three years.

2. If your friend needs to know what phone you have to know what app store you mean, then then brand App Store has been diminished, and there is newfound consumer confusion.

As I said before, we can decide to think that granting them a trademark is or isn't valid (both points of view have arguments here, imo), or that the term is too generic and it's just Too Bad for Apple (as you've argued up above).

But what can't be argued is that Amazon releasing an "Appstore" helps create consumer confusion around that term. No qualifier -- needing to know what phone somebody has, qualifying with "the app store" vs. "app store" -- changes this.

Several different arguments in play around this whole thing -- the moral correctness of the system, the real world effects of usage, etc. -- and they often get conflated. All discrete issues to be argued separately, imo.

Rodimus Prime
May 20, 2011, 03:12 PM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

Sorry but we have gone over these countless times before and already been shown that nope you are wrong.

Sometimes corporations remind me of little kids arguing on the playground. Except more than lunch money is involved.

So going in my sig.


More on topic. MS is not the only company fighting Apple on App store being generic. You should look at Europe and see the list fighting Apple getting it trade market. I want to say you have MS, Amazon, Nokia, Google, Sony and I think a few others all objecting to it. All using the argument that app store is generic and therefor can not be trademarked. Apple is going to loss this battle and really this defense by Apple is pretty weak.

damage00
May 20, 2011, 03:12 PM
I think PocketGear.com has been using the term "app" in conjunction with "marketplace" since well before the iPhone was even released. I used to buy "apps" there for my Treo and before that my Jornada. If that's the case, maybe Apple's claim fails the test of trademark "first use".

In any case, I think this is a weak argument that is doing nothing but generating ill will in the industry. They should concede and move on to protecting their business against IP trolls like Lodsys rather than becoming one themselves.

tzeshan
May 20, 2011, 03:13 PM
What are you on about? This is Amazon's app store. Nothing to do with Google.

What applications are Amazon selling?

rjohnstone
May 20, 2011, 03:16 PM
What applications are Amazon selling?
The list is too long to post. Go visit the store and see for yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b/ref=sa_menu_adr_app4?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011

Unspeaked
May 20, 2011, 03:16 PM
if Amazon and the others start selling Apple Apps it might not be as confusing but people can (and very easily) be confused thinking they can buy Apps off Amazon or others and they'll work with their iPhone/Pads/Pods.

How unfortunate that there are still poor fools in this world who might mistakenly think Apple would subscribe to a free market system of software distribution.

Maybe once the Mac App Store kills off third party distribution for Apple devices entirely they won't need to worry about anyone being confused...

maclaptop
May 20, 2011, 03:17 PM
Sounds like a tautology to me.

Sounds like Jobs typically discursive style to me.

tzeshan
May 20, 2011, 03:18 PM
The list is too long to post. Go visit the store and see for yourself.

I went to Amazon.com. It said it is an Appstore for Android. Go see it yourself.

samcraig
May 20, 2011, 03:20 PM
But what can't be argued is that Amazon releasing an "Appstore" helps create consumer confusion around that term. No qualifier -- needing to know what phone somebody has, qualifying with "the app store" vs. "app store" -- changes this.



Amazon released their appstore - not to create confusion. They launched it with that name because that is what it is. An App Store. I'm sure they also launched it with that name and when they did as a big fat f. u. to Apple to illustrated how the term is generic.

Again - When you have the CEO and other execs at Apple referring to App Stores in the generic sense - you sort of lose a lot of legal footing when claiming App Store for your own while "not acknowledging" others.

Amazon doesn't need Apple's blessing. They already have the CEO on record referring to their store as an app store.

Oletros
May 20, 2011, 03:20 PM
What applications are Amazon selling?

Applications wich compete AGAINST Google Android Market?

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 03:25 PM
What applications are Amazon selling?

Android applications. Not Google applications.

Is it really that difficult to differentiate Google and Amazon?

mrochester
May 20, 2011, 03:28 PM
Let's try another game. My friend asks, "Hey where did you get that cool game?" I say "From the app store."

Which one do I mean?

I'd say, whichever app store is on the device in question. So if someone with an Android phone said they had got it from the 'app store' I'd take that to mean the Android Market. Likewise, if someone had a WP7 phone, I'd take that to mean Windows Marketplace and so on and so forth. What the 'app store' was would depend on the device.

Mad Pierre
May 20, 2011, 03:32 PM
This really does make Apple look petty. Concentrate on having the best App Store, not the only one with that name.

fxtech
May 20, 2011, 03:51 PM
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

You're going to EAT the floor??!!

mactree
May 20, 2011, 04:06 PM
Are there gonna be words left to describe anything in a few years?

JeffTL
May 20, 2011, 04:07 PM
From the perspective of trademarks, Steve screwed up big time when he used "app store" generically. Since I am sure that the legal department looks over his speaking notes before he gives a presentation (at least, I hope so), I think Apple's trying to make a retroactive trademark here...more or less, trying to shut the barn door after the horse has already left. The whole point of a trademark is that it differentiates your product from a competitor's, so you can keep your customers from being sold counterfeit goods by third parties -- you never use it to describe something that is not sold by you or your licensee, and certainly not a competing product.

shaynes
May 20, 2011, 04:18 PM
Wait, there's an app store on iOS devices? I thought the app store sold OS X applications?

I wish the 2 companies who offer those 2 completely separate services would stop trying to confuse me.

ilogic
May 20, 2011, 04:19 PM
Wow lame rebuke Apple. The term has become generic, and I'm sure the judge will figure that out. Besides, Apple really should lay off. "App" sounds very close to Apple, why wouldn't they want as many people using the App Store term. Think about it.

Great Dave
May 20, 2011, 04:33 PM
Apple's going to trademark word every word in the dictionary and sue everbody in the country.

Yeah, I agree.

Apple has become the new darkside.

mrpither
May 20, 2011, 04:38 PM
"You're naming it wrong."

ericmooreart
May 20, 2011, 04:40 PM
just found this link on the word app. As I remember its been around a while

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=app&i=37865,00.asp

Definition of: app

(APPlication) The term has been used as shorthand for "application" in the IT community for decades. However, it became newly popular for mobile applications in smartphones and tablets, especially due to the advent of Apple's iTunes App Store in 2008. It is just as correct to say "iPhone application" as it is "desktop computer app;" although app is shorter, and computer people love to abbreviate.

Lotso
May 20, 2011, 04:41 PM
If Apple loses this legal battle then Amazon needs to lose it's 1-Click trademark. Anyone who disagrees is absolutely biased.

something3153
May 20, 2011, 04:44 PM
If Apple loses this legal battle then Amazon needs to lose it's 1-Click trademark. Anyone who disagrees is absolutely biased.

I was a huge opponent of that patent at its outset and completely agree with you. Still, "app" was used long ago, and the 1-click patent is not the topic of this discussion.

yiyopr
May 20, 2011, 04:44 PM
"App" is not even a word that exists in the dictionary.

Do you guys even think about what you're saying?

Just checked my dictionary, "app" is it... It says "see Application". You sir, are a d*ck...

As for the debate, the term "app" was here way before Apple released their appstore, it just wasn't mainstream...

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 04:53 PM
If Apple loses this legal battle then Amazon needs to lose it's 1-Click trademark. Anyone who disagrees is absolutely biased.

Amazon doesn't have a 1-click trademark. They have a patent on it.

tzeshan
May 20, 2011, 04:53 PM
Yeah, I agree.

Apple has become the new darkside.

You guys are still missing the whole picture. The trademark Apple tries to protect is "App Store". It is not just App. If Amazon used Appmarket then Apple has no point to sue. But "Appstore for Android" is to fool buyers that the things inside it is similar to what App Store has. This is the essence of trademark in protecting a successful business from copycats.

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 04:56 PM
You guys are still missing the whole picture. The trademark Apple tries to protect is "App Store". It is not just App. If Amazon used Appmarket then Apple has no point to sue. But "Appstore for Android" is to fool buyers that the things inside it is similar to what App Store has. This is the essence of trademark in protecting a successful business from copycats.

Well, yes, it is a store that sells Apps. It's not trying to "fool" buyers, it's trying to tell them "Here, we have this store y'see, we sell apps".

Apple should've stuck with iTunes App Store.

Oletros
May 20, 2011, 05:00 PM
But "Appstore for Android" is to fool buyers that the things inside it is similar to what App Store has.

Yes, this is why it's called appstore, because it is an store which sells apps. App store.

Legion93
May 20, 2011, 05:00 PM
Just checked my dictionary, "app" is it... It says "see Application". You sir, are a d*ck...

As for the debate, the term "app" was here way before Apple released their appstore, it just wasn't mainstream...

I agree, just checked with the Oxford Dictionary of English, the word "app" appears to be a valid word; it is the shortened word for "application". Whoever said the word "app" does not appear in the dictionary needs to revise their thinking before posting false statements.

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 05:03 PM
If Amazon is in violation of a trademark, then they are. What are we discussing, that it's ok to violate patents, trademarks because a certain company is large?

Oletros
May 20, 2011, 05:04 PM
What are we discussing, that it's ok to violate patents, trademarks because a certain company is large?

No? We are not discussing that

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 05:06 PM
If Amazon is in violation of a trademark, then they are. What are we discussing, that it's ok to violate patents, trademarks because a certain company is large?

We're discussing the validity of Apple's claims. And Amazon can't be in violation of a trademark that is still in the opposition phase and has yet to go to trial to sort out the filed oppositions against it.

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 05:06 PM
No? We are not discussing that

But Amazon is in obvious violation, so the court should nail them to the wall. I'm sick and tired of everyone stealing Apple's innovations.

rjohnstone
May 20, 2011, 05:06 PM
You guys are still missing the whole picture. The trademark Apple tries to protect is "App Store". It is not just App. If Amazon used Appmarket then Apple has no point to sue. But "Appstore for Android" is to fool buyers that the things inside it is similar to what App Store has.
You're missing the point.
A lot of the apps in the Amazon Appstore are the very same apps that are available in the Apple App Store with one exception... they're for Android devices, not iOS devices.
As stated in the stores full name "Appstore for Android". Only a complete moron would think they could get apps for an Apple device there.


This is the essence of trademark in protecting a successful business from copycats.
The essence of a trademark is to protect the trade dress of a particular product or service from being copied.
The success of the business behind it is irrelevant. ;)

But Amazon is in obvious violation, so the court should nail them to the wall. I'm sick and tired of everyone stealing Apple's innovations.
What have they stolen.... nothing.
The idea of buying applications online has been around long before iTunes and the later application section of iTunes called the App Store.
Apple is bitching about a name that in itself is descriptive at best.

Oletros
May 20, 2011, 05:08 PM
But Amazon is in obvious violation


And is in obvious violation because....

shartypants
May 20, 2011, 05:26 PM
Hmm, Although I think everyone knows that Apple originally coined the term (phrase), it does feel natural to call them all App Stores. It is also natural to say Kleenex, although that is still trademarked... Wow, this is a tough one. Even if Apple loses this one, I'm not sure they lose very much.

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 05:28 PM
Hmm, Although I think everyone knows that Apple originally coined the term (phrase), it does feel natural to call them all App Stores. It is also natural to say Kleenex, although that is still trademarked... Wow, this is a tough one. Even if Apple loses this one, I'm not sure they lose very much.

It's a matter of principle. I'm sure Steve Jobs feels aggrieved by this.

unlinked
May 20, 2011, 05:39 PM
You guys are still missing the whole picture. The trademark Apple tries to protect is "App Store". It is not just App. If Amazon used Appmarket then Apple has no point to sue. But "Appstore for Android" is to fool buyers that the things inside it is similar to what App Store has. This is the essence of trademark in protecting a successful business from copycats.

It is similar. Kinda like the way all book stores sell books.


Anyway Apples appstore is just a cheap ripoff of the salesforce.com one.

http://www.zdnetasia.com/salesforce-com-appstore-to-go-shopping-61974303.htm

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 05:40 PM
It's a matter of principle. I'm sure Steve Jobs feels aggrieved by this.

Then maybe he should have thought of that before trying to register the digital equivalent of "Grocery Store". I don't have any pity for the man in this case.

Rodimus Prime
May 20, 2011, 05:41 PM
I think Apple is running really scared if that is their current defense.

emvath
May 20, 2011, 05:44 PM
But Amazon is in obvious violation, so the court should nail them to the wall. I'm sick and tired of everyone stealing Apple's innovations.

I'm in full agreement that Apple's innovations get copied a lot. However Amazon in NOT in obvious violation. In fact in my opinion Apple is obviously wrong on this one and not one comment on this thread has swayed me even a little.

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 05:44 PM
I think Apple is running really scared if that is their current defense.

Especially since Steve himself blew it :

http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcript.html
In addition to Google’s own app marketplace, Amazon, Verizon, and Vodafone have all announced that they are creating their own app stores for Android.

Straight from the Man himself. Amazon is creating its own app store...

Rodimus Prime
May 20, 2011, 05:48 PM
Especially since Steve himself blew it :

http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcript.html


Straight from the Man himself. Amazon is creating its own app store...

Yep. I have ask the question multiple times here on how would you respond to that question of the CEO and they jump right over it.

Hell you know in this court case the judges are going to flat out ask that question of how is it not generic when your own CEO uses it that way in a public keynot and it is currently on Apples OWN web site.

I am still waiting for a good response to that one.

runningman1228
May 20, 2011, 05:49 PM
Why doesn't Amazon just call their currently named appstore something else; like the AppMall or app marketplace....

kdarling
May 20, 2011, 05:52 PM
Look, I don't know if you guys never poked your heads out of the Apple world or are just too young to remember, but people were talking about "killer apps", using "app" as a short form of "application" over a decade ago, long before iPhones were being seriously planned, let alone allowed to download applications.

+ 1000. Besides "killer app" dating back almost 30 years, a favorite mobile example of mine is this article from 2000, courtesy of the Internet Wayback Machine:

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 05:52 PM
Especially since Steve himself blew it :

http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcript.html


Straight from the Man himself. Amazon is creating its own app store...

Yeah Steve Jobs has blown it so badly that Apple is sitting on $60 billion in cash...:rolleyes:

Jimmy James
May 20, 2011, 05:53 PM
I have to agree with Apple on this one.

If other companies called their syncing software "iTunes" it would be the same dilemma. It's a proprietary term.

splashnader
May 20, 2011, 05:54 PM
I disagree with those who have said that Apple is longer innovative. Clearly Apple is in this position because they are one of the few comapnies that is innovative. Basically the computer and technology companies constantly have their eyes on what Apple is doing. Even though Apple never really invents anything from scratch, they do a really good job of taking a design or product and making it appeal to the masses. Yes there were MP3 players long before the iPod, but Apple turned a small product market, at the time, into a billion dollar industry just on the side. They created the most ppular digital media distribution stores, iTunes, on the planet. And yes every time they did this other companies took notice and created their own MP3 players, digital media stores.

But this to be expected. It is part of the price of success. Yes when you create or vastly improve the quality or effectiveness of a product, other companies or going to follow suit. Apple has made a lot of money, and have earned a lot of loyal fans. But they should be careful not to let the small things bring them down.

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 05:54 PM
Yeah Steve Jobs has blown it so badly that Apple is sitting on $60 billion in cash...:rolleyes:

What does that have to do with my comment ? Steve Jobs blew their defense of "Amazon's AppStore isn't an App Store by referring to it as an App Store.

Seriously, that's your comeback ? That's going to be what you use to try to argue against me ? That they have 60 billion in cash ? So what, that doesn't entitle them to do whatever they want and doesn't prevent the CEO from blowing their defense in this case we are discussing to smithereens.

I have to agree with Apple on this one.

If other companies called their syncing software "iTunes" it would be the same dilemma. It's a proprietary term.

That is the worse analogy I've read on this topic yet. Again, even Steve himself says that "Amazon is creating their own app store". iTunes is not a descriptive term for music syncing software. Your point would be valid if iTunes was called "Music Syncing and library management software with a store interface thrown in" and Amazon launched their own "Amazon's Music Syncing and library management software with a store interface thrown in".

tzeshan
May 20, 2011, 06:02 PM
Why doesn't Amazon just call their currently named appstore something else; like the AppMall or app marketplace....

You know those Amazon and Google defenders will not answer you. But the fact they will not discuss this says amply why trademark law is important.

lilo777
May 20, 2011, 06:04 PM
I have to agree with Apple on this one.

If other companies called their syncing software "iTunes" it would be the same dilemma. It's a proprietary term.

You should have added sarcasm sign to this post. :)

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 06:06 PM
What is the difference between "iTunes" and "App Store"? There is none from trademark law POV. Amazon doesn't have a leg to stand on.

mrpither
May 20, 2011, 06:06 PM
I think PocketGear.com has been using the term "app" in conjunction with "marketplace" since well before the iPhone was even released. I used to buy "apps" there for my Treo and before that my Jornada. If that's the case, maybe Apple's claim fails the test of trademark "first use".

In any case, I think this is a weak argument that is doing nothing but generating ill will in the industry. They should concede and move on to protecting their business against IP trolls like Lodsys rather than becoming one themselves.Winner!

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 06:07 PM
You know those Amazon and Google defenders will not answer you. But the fact they will not discuss this says amply why trademark law is important.

Answer him ? The opposite question is as valid : What was wrong with iTunes App Store in the first place ?

There is no answer to his question : they did because they felt like it. End of story.


What is the difference between "iTunes" and "App Store"? There is none from trademark law POV. Amazon doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, there is. One isn't descriptive, the other is. For App Store to be allowed to be registered (it's not registered yet) Apple will have to prove it has achieved secondary meaning. Since Steve Jobs the man himself refers to other app stores as well... app store... good luck with that.

Again, since you don't seem to understand. Click and read :

http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcript.html
In addition to Google’s own app marketplace, Amazon, Verizon, and Vodafone have all announced that they are creating their own app stores for Android.

Straight from the Man himself. Amazon is creating its own app store...

iEvolution
May 20, 2011, 06:13 PM
"App" is not even a word that exists in the dictionary.

Do you guys even think about what you're saying?

Did you even use the internet before the app store was open? app has always been used as short hand for application.

This lawsuit is bogus, apple doesn't own the word and neither does amazon.

something3153
May 20, 2011, 06:15 PM
It's a matter of principle. I'm sure Steve Jobs feels aggrieved by this.

I don't care how Steve Jobs feels, and it's completely irrelevant to this case.

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 06:18 PM
Did you even use the internet before the app store was open? app has always been used as short hand for application.


It's especially bogus a claim as Apple is not the first one to register a trademark with the words App and Store :

Typed Drawing

Word Mark APPSTORE
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing computer software application hosting services by means of a global computer information network, where such services allow multiple users to rent software applications developed by applicant or third parties
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75542841
Filing Date August 26, 1998
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition February 29, 2000
Owner (APPLICANT) SAGE NETWORKS, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT DELAWARE 215 FIRST STREET CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS 02142
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record John P. Courtney
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date November 24, 2000

Notice the filling date...

grs
May 20, 2011, 06:50 PM
"Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," the company said in a filing yesterday in federal court in Oakland, California.

I don't think this comment will pass the court's laugh test. Apple also seems to be saying, at least from the quotes in the Bloomberg article, that the term "App Store" isn't generic because it isn't generic. I'm going to make a prediction that Apple loses this one.

macsmurf
May 20, 2011, 06:52 PM
The word "app" (referring to computer applications) has existed since (edit: around) 1979.

Google has also existed for some time...try using it before posting.

Not to mention Google Apps :D

tzeshan
May 20, 2011, 06:55 PM
Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," the company said in a filing yesterday in federal court in Oakland, California.

I don't think this comment will pass the court's laugh test. Apple also seems to be saying, at least from the quotes in the Bloomberg article, that the term "App Store" isn't generic because it isn't generic. I'm going to make a prediction that Apple loses this one.

You don't know that inside every iPhone there is an Application called App Store?

KnightWRX
May 20, 2011, 07:00 PM
You don't know that inside every iPhone there is an Application called App Store?

And this is relevant because ... ?

Even Steve Jobs, the man himself, refers to his competitor's stores as "App store" (see the quote in the last page).

Something doesn't have to be trademarked for a company to use it. Apple is perfectly free to use a non-trademarked term if they like.

grs
May 20, 2011, 07:30 PM
You don't know that inside every iPhone there is an Application called App Store?

Sorry, I'm not getting your point. Perhaps you could elaborate. I do know that my iPhone has an app called App Store. The name of the app "denotes a store for apps."

thermodynamic
May 20, 2011, 07:32 PM
Apple's going to trademark word every word in the dictionary and sue everbody in the country.

I'll get the popcorn for when they tussle that Facebook place...

Still, call them "iApps" and be done with it.

*LTD*
May 20, 2011, 08:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134b Safari/6533.18.5)

Amazon wants to use the name because they want the consumer to associate it with the success of Apple's app store - its ease of use, panache, and popularity. Amazon sees it work so well for Apple and now they want in on it, because thanks to Apple the term "app store" has been firmly put on the map. This would never, ever have occurred to Amazon had Apple not done it

something3153
May 20, 2011, 08:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134b Safari/6533.18.5)

Amazon wants to use the name because they want the consumer to associate it with the success of Apple's app store - its ease of use, panache, and popularity. Amazon sees it work so well for Apple and now they want in on it, because thanks to Apple the term "app store" has been firmly put on the map. This would never, ever have occurred to Amazon had Apple not done it

Are you really claiming that Apple is the only company in the world that could come up with the idea of naming a store you buy apps at... an app store? We buy groceries at the grocery store, clothing at the clothing store, and books at the book store, but clearly buying apps at an app store is unique, original, and magical.

And don't even think about going back to the claim that Apple invented the word "app". We've debunked that one already.

FakeWozniak
May 20, 2011, 08:48 PM
Apple II = Programs, Binaries
DOS = Executables, Commands, Batch Files
Macintosh = Applications
Windows = Programs

In the Mac OS world, which I have been a part of since the beginning, all programs have been known as applications since 1984 (e.g. type=APPL, creator=MACW). iOS is a derivation from the Mac world.

It was logical to call a store for Apple platform based software an Application Store, or App Store in shorthand. If it were Windows, it would be called a Program Dump/Garage Sale/Strip Mall/Discount Center/Flea Market or similar ilk.

Even if App were a generic term, App Store is not. The day it opened up, I don't recall the media announcing "Apple opens an App Store called App Store to be confused with all the other App Stores everywhere". Besides Apples, there was 1.

This is similar to the Lodsys argument. Back in the early days, they were the first to have a concept of update buttons. Now it seems obvious, but then, they were unique. I wonder how many people side against Apple on App Store that encourage Apple to fight Lodsys on developers behalves???

FakeWozniak
May 20, 2011, 09:08 PM
You know those Amazon and Google defenders will not answer you. But the fact they will not discuss this says amply why trademark law is important.

I was thinking of selling pizza from my hut, but I am having trouble with the name for the business. The guy in the neighboring hut wants to sell sunglasses and has the same problem.

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 09:30 PM
I was thinking of selling pizza from my hut, but I am having trouble with the name for the business. The guy in the neighboring hut wants to sell sunglasses and has the same problem.

If you don't like trademark law, then lobby Congress to change it. But don't go violating the laws you don't like.

ChazUK
May 20, 2011, 09:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

You know those Amazon and Google defenders will not answer you. But the fact they will not discuss this says amply why trademark law is important.

I was thinking of selling pizza from my hut, but I am having trouble with the name for the business. The guy in the neighboring hut wants to sell sunglasses and has the same problem.

You can't name your pizza restaurant "Pizza Hut" as it is trademarked? Such a shame.

How about you call it "pizza restaurant" and then complain at everyone who tries to describe their pizza restaurant as a pizza restaurant?

Jason Beck
May 20, 2011, 09:37 PM
Call it Amazon Apps, and be done with it.

megsandbytes
May 20, 2011, 10:16 PM
this headline/topic makes me question, what came first, Apple the company or the actual fruit?

:D

megsandbytes
May 20, 2011, 10:17 PM
Call it Amazon Apps, and be done with it.

that has a nice ring to it and rolls off the tongue smoothly in fact

KingCrimson
May 20, 2011, 10:29 PM
Call it Amazon Apps, and be done with it.

Believe me in the end that's what it will be. Amazon is a HUGE brand and Apple doesn't want to take them on.

kdarling
May 20, 2011, 10:40 PM
Apple II = Programs, Binaries
DOS = Executables, Commands, Batch Files
Macintosh = Applications
Windows = Programs

Apparently you've never looked at a Windows directory, going back at least as far as Windows NT. See below. Also, DLLs are called "Application Extensions".

You're barking up the wrong tree. Apple doesn't claim "app". They're only trying to claim "app store".

I think they could've, before they used it so much generically themselves, even in earnings calls.

muncyweb
May 20, 2011, 11:49 PM
I am suing the rest of the world for breathing MY oxygen. So there.

muncyweb
May 20, 2011, 11:52 PM
If you don't like trademark law, then lobby Congress to change it. But don't go violating the laws you don't like.

Technically we're SUPPOSED to violate laws which don't agree with the Constitution. Um, yeah, it's sort of our duty. But we abandoned that philosophy back in the late 1800's.

macdaddykane
May 21, 2011, 12:14 AM
It really is.

Up next: a used car dealership denies that the words "used car dealership" together denote a dealership for used cars.

Most car dealers today refer to used cars as "pre-owned vehicles". The term "used car" has to many bad connotations.

FutureChips.org
May 21, 2011, 12:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



You can't name your pizza restaurant "Pizza Hut" as it is trademarked? Such a shame.

How about you call it "pizza restaurant" and then complain at everyone who tries to describe their pizza restaurant as a pizza restaurant?

I agree. I like Apple's products but their behavior is often outrageous. They like to live in their own world. I wish they had a solid competition so they were unable to dictate their terms. By the way, historically, big companies tend to go down exactly when they start feeling like they rule the world and they can dictate their terms. Numerous examples. i would hate to see Apple go down though, I want an iphone 10.

Dbrown
May 21, 2011, 12:29 AM
I was thinking of selling pizza from my hut, but I am having trouble with the name for the business. The guy in the neighboring hut wants to sell sunglasses and has the same problem.

Pizza Hut literally is a hut made of pizza.

App store literally is a store that sells apps.

mongoos150
May 21, 2011, 02:55 AM
Ack, give me a break. This proliferation of proprietary terms/branding is getting seriously old, and it's doing nobody any favors. If we could just call all mobile applications 'apps' device-wide (I'm talking iOS, Android, WM7, Symbian etc) and in turn freely use any app-prefixed or app-suffixed (or just 'app) word freely, we'd be on a road to cohesion, better able to teach (and lessen the confusion of) older people / less tech-familiar people / anyone else confused about what apps are, what smartphones are, etc.

Even for the tech-savvy, having uniformed terms for essentially-identical products (apps) is just cleaner and more straight forward. Eesh.:rolleyes:

Member(TM)
May 21, 2011, 04:35 AM
Amazon doesn't have a 1-click trademark. They have a patent on it.

They list it as a trademark:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=footer_cou?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088

That page doesn't specify if it is also a registered trademark, but some licensees, including Apple, explicitly state that it is a registered trademark of Amazon.com, Inc:

http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

haravikk
May 21, 2011, 05:47 AM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.
The Mac OS has always traditionally referred to applications in place of calling them programs or executables, and when Mac OS X came around it was a natural progression for them to be packaged as .app files which is when referring to applications as "apps" really took off.

So I can fully understand Apple's stance on ownership of the term "app store" as Microsoft and everyone else have never used the term "app" for anything until the iPhone made the term more popular than ever with it's "apps" and "app store".

emulator
May 21, 2011, 06:59 AM
ipa is just a renamed zip file where actuall aplication is contained (it has an .app ending)
That actual "application" is nothing but a folder with .app ending.

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 07:03 AM
They list it as a trademark:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=footer_cou?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088

That page doesn't specify if it is also a registered trademark, but some licensees, including Apple, explicitly state that it is a registered trademark of Amazon.com, Inc:

http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

I stand corrected. But I don't see how it is relevent to this discussion still.

Kevenly
May 21, 2011, 07:10 AM
This is truly childish and pathetic.

macsmurf
May 21, 2011, 07:50 AM
The Mac OS has always traditionally referred to applications in place of calling them programs or executables, and when Mac OS X came around it was a natural progression for them to be packaged as .app files which is when referring to applications as "apps" really took off.

So I can fully understand Apple's stance on ownership of the term "app store" as Microsoft and everyone else have never used the term "app" for anything until the iPhone made the term more popular than ever with it's "apps" and "app store".

That's only because you are ignorant of the actual facts and are unwilling to research your beliefs. In fact, you could just read a couple of pages in this thread but even that was too much work, eh?

BTW, OS X didn't popularize anything when it came out. The general public wasn't even very aware of Apple as a brand. It was before the iPod came out. I think Google Apps was one of the big ones on that front. It predates the App store, however.

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 09:01 AM
Amazon also hasn't violated anything. Since the trademark hasn't been AWARDED yet - there's nothing to violate. In fact - this IS the time where other companies are supposed to speak up/challenge the trademark.

Apple can continue to fight for ownership of the trademark - but until they actually own it - nothing has been violated.

As for the whole "apps" debate - it's moot really - anyone who's been around longer than the iPhone knows that the word Apps was well used long before Apple.

That's not even the debate. The debate is App Store. Not App. Not Store. But App Store. The combinations of both very generic words.

And as I said earlier in this thread - I don't think Amazon really cares if Apple recognizes their store as an app store or not. Who made Apple the arbiter?

My .02

roadbloc
May 21, 2011, 09:04 AM
Not this again! Someone needs to put Apple straight. They cannot have exclusive use to any word of their choice.

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 09:55 AM
Apple can continue to fight for ownership of the trademark - but until they actually own it - nothing has been violated.


It would help if their CEO and other executives didn't completely blow their defense of the trademark in their earnings calls and other public events too. They're arming the oppositions as it stands.

The USPTO needs to get this thing to trial quick so it can be resolved one way or another.

Mebsat
May 21, 2011, 10:18 AM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Actually if you go back and watch the video where Jobs introduced the iPhone, he called them widgets.

Really.

At one point he yells "YES! We've got widgets!" It's hilarious.

Apple adopted the term Apps because that's what everybody was calling them.

[NOTE: a widget is a part of something called "Dashboard," an application that no one ever uses. It is the thing in the dock that looks like a speedometer. :)]

musiciscool
May 21, 2011, 10:23 AM
+1000

Some of you need an app to smack you in the head. App sounds like "application", but Windows does not sound like "operating system". You get it? Obviously you don't. To those that do, keep spreading your genes around so we can filter out these idiots Darwin style.

APP also sounds like Apple. Anyway, Amazon has a kindle store for its books, should Apple sell books on their own kindle store? Kindle is a generic word......

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 10:24 AM
It would help if their CEO and other executives didn't completely blow their defense of the trademark in their earnings calls and other public events too. They're arming the oppositions as it stands.

The USPTO needs to get this thing to trial quick so it can be resolved one way or another.

Yeah - I posted that several times in this thread upon deaf ears of the Apple "enthusiasts"

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 10:27 AM
APP also sounds like Apple. Anyway, Amazon has a kindle store for its books, should Apple sell books on their own kindle store? Kindle is a generic word......

You're seriously not saying App Store is meant to be Apple Store.

No. You're not. Please. As for Kindle...

kin·dle/ˈkindl/Verb
1. Light or set on fire.
2. Arouse or inspire (an emotion or feeling).

Does the Kindle store sell "Lights or set on fire" or "Arouse or Inspire" ? Because those aren't digital or material goods...

Oh wait.. the Kindle Store is a Book Store. This would be analogous only if Amazon had called it Book Store. Kindle Store is non-descriptive and thus not related to this discussion. Please stay on topic.

Yeah - I posted that several times in this thread upon deaf ears of the Apple "enthusiasts"

I posted the transcript from Steve's Jobs intervention at the earning's call with the quote and all and it led to a very off-topic comment and funny comment by KingCrimson who had nothing to retort at all. His argument against the whole thing ? Apple has 60B $ in the bank... yeah, like that even matters in this discussion...

Face it, some people will go to any lengths to defend Apple, there was a scientific study done showing this is religion to some folks :

Apple causes ‘religious’ reaction in brains of fans, say neuroscientists (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-causes-religious-reaction-in-brains-of-fans-say-neuroscientists/)

Normal people realise that what Apple is trying to do here is ridiculous. And when did it become the "App Store" anyway, it used to be called the "iTunes App Store".

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 10:33 AM
You're seriously not saying App Store is meant to be Apple Store.

No. You're not. Please. As for Kindle...

kin·dle/ˈkindl/Verb
1. Light or set on fire.
2. Arouse or inspire (an emotion or feeling).

Does the Kindle store sell "Lights or set on fire" or "Arouse or Inspire" ? Because those aren't digital or material goods...

Oh wait.. the Kindle Store is a Book Store. This would be analogous only if Amazon had called it Book Store. Kindle Store is non-descriptive and thus not related to this discussion. Please stay on topic.



I posted the transcript from Steve's Jobs intervention at the earning's call with the quote and all and it led to a very off-topic comment and funny comment by KingCrimson who had nothing to retort at all. His argument against the whole thing ? Apple has 60B $ in the bank... yeah, like that even matters in this discussion...

Face it, some people will go to any lengths to defend Apple, there was a scientific study done showing this is religion to some folks :

Apple causes ‘religious’ reaction in brains of fans, say neuroscientists (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-causes-religious-reaction-in-brains-of-fans-say-neuroscientists/)

I was going to write this nearly word for word.

Kindle Store isn't Book Store. Very different

And for those stuck on Amazon's 1-click. Try and remember the use, the fact it's a button and also that 1-click is unique vs "1Click" or "One Click" or "One-Click" - etc...

Mad Pierre
May 21, 2011, 10:38 AM
They're only CALLED apps because Apple started calling them apps when they started their app store.

Before that they were called APPLICATIONS (or even, dare I say it? PROGRAMS).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to clean my xerox with a kleenex so I can ebay a copy of my jeep. When I'm done I'll hoover the floor.

Not so. Google Apps for Business has been in existence since 2006, for example - so the term 'app' has been used for application prior to the launch of the app store (launched 2008).

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 10:38 AM
And for those stuck on Amazon's 1-click. Try and remember the use, the fact it's a button and also that 1-click is unique vs "1Click" or "One Click" or "One-Click" - etc...

Let's see about the 1-click thing. There's presently 2 Live registrations for 1-click at the USPTO. Yes, 2. Nope, they don't both belong to Amazon.

This is Amazon's :

Typed Drawing

Word Mark 1-CLICK
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Computerized on line search and ordering service featuring the[ wholesale and ]retail distribution of literary works, music, motion pictures, multimedia products, computer software, books, publications, audiocassettes, videocassettes, compact disks, floppy disks and CD ROMs. FIRST USE: 19970923. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970923
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75413262
Filing Date January 2, 1998
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition May 4, 1999
Registration Number 2264368
Registration Date July 27, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) Amazon.com, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE P.O. Box 80387 Seattle WASHINGTON 981080387
(LAST LISTED OWNER) AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. CORPORATION NEVADA P.O. BOX 8102 RENO NEVADA 89507

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20090619.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20090619
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


Notice the type of trademark. This is important folks. It's a drawing trademark. Amazon trademarked their 1 click logo. Not the words themselves.

So do not bring up that trademark. It has nothing to do with the case at hand. Apple is going for a character mark, not a typed drawing. Otherwise, they would have no case against Amazon since the logos are not identical at all.


Not so. Google Apps for Business has been in existence since 2006, for example - so the term 'app' has been used for application prior to the launch of the app store (launched 2008).

You can go back much farther than that. Visicalc was hailed as the killer app for a then very young platform that just launched. I'll let you look up what that was (hint, we're on a forum about it's maker and back in those years, keyboard music was in and video was trying to kill the radio stars).

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 10:47 AM
Apparently you've never looked at a Windows directory, going back at least as far as Windows NT. See below. Also, DLLs are called "Application Extensions".

You're barking up the wrong tree. Apple doesn't claim "app". They're only trying to claim "app store".

I think they could've, before they used it so much generically themselves, even in earnings calls.

DLL = Dynamic Link Library

The trouble with most of you people's arguments on the App or Application is that you don't go back to 1984. Were most of you born or even an adult at that time. I think if you were, and into computing, you would know Application was a dorky name from Apple. Hmm Apple..Application..Apple..Application.. There's a ring to that.

Over time, Apple's use of 'application' spread, even at 3% market share, and now in 2011 the term is common. This isn't hard to agree to because other terms from the Mac GUI spread into windows. Admit it, there was a lot of copying going on of Apple since they pushing a lot of technology into personal computing.

So in summary, back in 1984 it was only Apple calling programs Applications or Apps. You show me some references to applications in the Microsoft world from that time and I will shut up.

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 10:51 AM
DLL = Dynamic Link Library

The trouble with most of you people's arguments on the App or Application is that you don't go back to 1984. Were most of you born or even an adult at that time. I think if you were, and into computing, you would know Application was a dorky name from Apple. Hmm Apple..Application..Apple..Application.. There's a ring to that.

Old Unix (even older than Apple's stuff) had these things called APIs... I wonder what that acronym stands for... A... programming interface.... what is that A again... ;)

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 10:59 AM
So in summary, back in 1984 it was only Apple calling programs Applications or Apps. You show me some references to applications in the Microsoft world from that time and I will shut up.

Yeah - I'm also pretty sure my palm pilot had APPS

And you're naive if you want to link "App" with "Apple" as a "defense". Pretty lame duck defense at best.

And as it's been said - that's irrelevant to the actual argument. This is about a trademark of "App Store."

Try and keep your "defense" to the actual issue. App Store = Generic.

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 11:02 AM
That's only because you are ignorant of the actual facts and are unwilling to research your beliefs. In fact, you could just read a couple of pages in this thread but even that was too much work, eh?

BTW, OS X didn't popularize anything when it came out. The general public wasn't even very aware of Apple as a brand. It was before the iPod came out. I think Google Apps was one of the big ones on that front. It predates the App store, however.

Were you alive in 1984? Did you own a Mac and PC in 1984. I worked daily on each of them in 1987. Apple popularized the term Application in the personal computing world with the Macintosh.

Here, let me go back to 1984 on Google or Wikipedia to prove it. Oops, they didn't exist for another decade. What, no Internet, bummer! I better dial in to my FIDO BBS at 300 baud to ask the sysop.

Old Unix (even older than Apple's stuff) had these things called APIs... I wonder what that acronym stands for... A... programming interface.... what is that A again... ;)

Sure, API means application programming interface. But it's not the same because APIs were actual definitions of function calls to access software modules, in the API context. In older computer science lingo, an application referred to "applying functionality", the literal definition from a dictionary, i.e. doing something in a generic sense.

I recall Unix, VMS, etc referred to programs as executables (e.g. mode/chmod drwxr-xr-x for unix) as it could be a shell script, binary program, etc.

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 11:17 AM
Were you alive in 1984? Did you own a Mac and PC in 1984. I worked daily on each of them in 1987. Apple popularized the term Application in the personal computing world with the Macintosh.

Here, let me go back to 1984 on Google or Wikipedia to prove it. Oops, they didn't exist for another decade. What, no Internet, bummer! I better dial in to my FIDO BBS at 300 baud to ask the sysop.

Get off your ageist high horse LOL - By 1984 I already had two games (the code) published in Compute Magazine.

Again - the issue isn't "apps" - the issue is that app store is a description which is generic. It's also really a non issue since I doubt Amazon cares if Apple acknowledges its store as an app store.

I also notice you have nothing to respond to the fact that Cook and Jobs themselves refer to other companies having App Stores very publicly.

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 11:18 AM
Sure...

Glad we agree, now we can move on to the topic at hand instead of this imagined off-topic and irrelevant discussion.;)

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 11:20 AM
Yeah - I'm also pretty sure my palm pilot had APPS

And you're naive if you want to link "App" with "Apple" as a "defense". Pretty lame duck defense at best.

And as it's been said - that's irrelevant to the actual argument. This is about a trademark of "App Store."

Try and keep your "defense" to the actual issue. App Store = Generic.

And I finally deleted my older PalmOS development CodeWarrior environment from my file server, darn. I wrote a programmers calculator application that was very popular. But I seem to recall I am a Mac person and so were most Palm developers I knew, so it was logical.

Anyway, the logic of my argument was that Apple popularized the use of Application and App. They should get some recognition for that. When I think about it, this is for lawyers and consultants and experts in that area, so I can't say what is right/wrong in that regards, but I do know Apple had the first "App Store", and they popularize the term, so throw them a bone already.

NutsNGum
May 21, 2011, 11:24 AM
Guys, guys...

Let me bring some perspective to this argument,

Who cares?

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 11:25 AM
And I finally deleted my older PalmOS development CodeWarrior environment from my file server, darn. I wrote a programmers calculator application that was very popular. But I seem to recall I am a Mac person and so were most Palm developers I knew, so it was logical.

Anyway, the logic of my argument was that Apple popularized the use of Application and App. They should get some recognition for that. When I think about it, this is for lawyers and consultants and experts in that area, so I can't say what is right/wrong in that regards, but I do know Apple had the first "App Store", and they popularize the term, so throw them a bone already.

Oh good - we get to the hear of the matter. You want Apple to get recognition. Maybe we can bake them a cake and have a parade?

What kind of recognition should they get specifically do you think. You think a trademark on a generic phrase?

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 11:28 AM
Let me chop up your quote. :-)

Glad ..i..a..m ... irrelevant ;)

The history of the term is important and relevant for trademarking the term. :confused:

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 11:31 AM
What kind of recognition should they get specifically do you think. You think a trademark on a generic phrase?

Yes, the cake and parade would be good too.

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 11:33 AM
Let me chop up your quote. :-)



The history of the term is important and relevant for trademarking the term. :confused:

No it's not.

Netflix made home movie streaming popular - but would you award them a trademark on "Home Movie Streaming"

or "Movie Streaming Store"

?

KnightWRX
May 21, 2011, 11:35 AM
The history of the term is important and relevant for trademarking the term. :confused:

They aren't trademarking "app" and you have the history wrong. This is irrelevant anyhow.

And your chop up was more of an insult. This is against forum rules, next time I will have to report you.

flopticalcube
May 21, 2011, 11:40 AM
From my own experience, App was first used in 1989 to refer to any NeXT application since that was the start of using .app as an extension. I don't recall it being used in the industry before that.

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 11:42 AM
From my own experience, App was first used in 1989 to refer to any NeXT application since that was the start of using .app as an extension. I don't recall it being used in the industry before that.

Ok. But it was.

macsmurf
May 21, 2011, 11:45 AM
Were you alive in 1984? Did you own a Mac and PC in 1984. I worked daily on each of them in 1987. Apple popularized the term Application in the personal computing world with the Macintosh.


Yes, I was alive in 1984. At that time very few owned a computer. If anyone did, it would probably be a Commodore 64, as we did. The general public wasn't even aware of home computing, much less apps.

Member(TM)
May 21, 2011, 12:12 PM
Notice the type of trademark. This is important folks. It's a drawing trademark. Amazon trademarked their 1 click logo. Not the words themselves.


Someone who is more familiar with US law might clarify this, but I believe that "typed drawing" is not the same as "logo", but rather an equivalent of the modern "standard character mark" category.


So do not bring up that trademark. It has nothing to do with the case at hand. Apple is going for a character mark, not a typed drawing. Otherwise, they would have no case against Amazon since the logos are not identical at all.


I'm not defending a particular position on the "App Store" trademark, just pointing out that it's not correct that "1-Click" is not a trademark. I agree that there's not an exact analogy between both cases.


EDIT: I found this link that seems to confirm that typed drawings are indeed not logos:

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/appcontent.jsp

In particular (bold typeface is mine):


What is a "standard character" drawing (formerly known as a "typed" drawing)?

You may submit a standard character drawing if:

All letters and words in the mark are depicted in Latin characters;
All numerals in the mark are depicted in Roman or Arabic numerals;
The mark includes only common punctuation or diacritical marks; and
The mark does not include a design element.

37 C.F.R. §2.52(a).

You must also submit the following statement:

The mark is presented in standard character format without claim to any particular font style, size or color.

flopticalcube
May 21, 2011, 12:15 PM
Ok. But it was.

I'd like to see a reference for that.

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 12:29 PM
They aren't trademarking "app" and you have the history wrong. This is irrelevant anyhow.

I know there are a lot of articles on this topic, but I liked this one...

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/mac/apples-app-store-and-a-little-trademark-history/1063

The quote from the article that I liked was In a nutshell, Apple is claiming a trademark because it gave the word “app” meaning.

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 12:32 PM
From my own experience, App was first used in 1989 to refer to any NeXT application since that was the start of using .app as an extension. I don't recall it being used in the industry before that.

Probably pre-1984 on Lisa, but I don't have first hand experience. At least on Macintosh. All programs had a TYPE metadata and only those with type=APPL could be launched from the Finder.

flopticalcube
May 21, 2011, 12:34 PM
Probably pre-1984 on Lisa, but I don't have first hand experience. At least on Macintosh. All programs had a TYPE metadata and only those with type=APPL could be launched from the Finder.

Yes but was the community referring to such entities as apps? I know for certain it was happening in the NeXT community, both programmers and users.

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 12:44 PM
And your chop up was more of an insult.

I guess smiley's don't convey the attempt at humor when the topic is close to heart.

Please accept my most respectful apologies for the potential interpretation of my comments as an insult. I too could have interpreted your overly terse quote as insulting, implying we agree, which we clearly don't.

Seriously, Apple wants to claim App as the result of their efforts. That is why they are suing Amazon. That is the focus of the suit and also the topic of this thread. The lawyers and the trademark process will settle it. We are all just opining about whether we think what Apple is claiming is fair and you don't and I do. I think it is a matter of history and how language popularizes, and the consultants the Microsoft and Apple hire are appropriate (even if it seems absurd at first).

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 12:51 PM
Yes but was the community referring to such entities as apps? I know for certain it was happening in the NeXT community, both programmers and users.

Totally not disagreeing with you. I agree and I am saying Apple had it before NeXT. They had that Jobs guy running both companies so it wouldn't surprise me.

I wrote PC software in 1987 for DOS. Windows 2.x was new. C was pretty new for personal computers. We had .com files (32K program limits IIRC) and .exe (full memory access) and .bat files. None of those were applications.

Before that, college was unix and VMS, and they were just 'programs' or 'executables'.

Rodimus Prime
May 21, 2011, 12:52 PM
Yes but was the community referring to such entities as apps? I know for certain it was happening in the NeXT community, both programmers and users.

come on. NeXT would not of made it up. They took it from somewhere else. I believe it been reference here that App is from Unix.
Also irrelevant when it was made up because App is generic and used to describ programs/Applications and used interchangeably
I know there are a lot of articles on this topic, but I liked this one...

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/mac/apples-app-store-and-a-little-trademark-history/1063

The quote from the article that I liked was

Yeah that is Apple claim but it is safe to say that it would never past the laugh test. We know that claim is pretty bogus at best.

AidenShaw
May 21, 2011, 01:04 PM
So in summary, back in 1984 it was only Apple calling programs Applications or Apps. You show me some references to applications in the Microsoft world from that time and I will shut up.

How about the publication DEC-II-OMIEA-A-D: INTRODUCTION TO RSX-11M (http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/rsx11/RSX11M_V2/DEC-11-OMIEA-A-D_Intro_74.pdf) from May 1974? Page 1-1 is attached down below, follow the link if you want to read more - the word "application" appears 16 times by the end of page 1-3. (The second attachment is the same page from the June 1979 version of the same manual - AA-2555D-TC.)

Why involve Microsoft, when it is obvious that "application" was common lingo in the industry for at least a decade before the Mac?


In older computer science lingo, an application referred to "applying functionality", the literal definition from a dictionary, i.e. doing something in a generic sense.

Clearly, the existence of a commercial computer system using "application" as a synonym for "program" in 1974 proves your statement to be wrong.


I recall Unix, VMS, etc referred to programs as executables.

For anyone who may not realize it - VMS began as a 32-bit extended version of RSX-11M.

KingCrimson
May 21, 2011, 01:10 PM
The Mac OS has always traditionally referred to applications in place of calling them programs or executables, and when Mac OS X came around it was a natural progression for them to be packaged as .app files which is when referring to applications as "apps" really took off.

So I can fully understand Apple's stance on ownership of the term "app store" as Microsoft and everyone else have never used the term "app" for anything until the iPhone made the term more popular than ever with it's "apps" and "app store".

Funny though I've heard the term "killer app" way before the "app store" launched.

flopticalcube
May 21, 2011, 01:15 PM
come on. NeXT would not of made it up. They took it from somewhere else. I believe it been reference here that App is from Unix.
Also irrelevant when it was made up because App is generic and used to describ programs/Applications and used interchangeably


Yeah that is Apple claim but it is safe to say that it would never past the laugh test. We know that claim is pretty bogus at best.

I'm not so sure. I have never heard it in the Unix community before NeXT came along. In calling the application bundle .app, the term became synonymous with an application. If this was the case, NeXT should have trademarked the term at the time but I'm not sure if they officially sanctioned it or not. Similarly, Apple should have done the same with App Store at the beginning. A little pre-emptive trademarking never hurt no one, except the competition.

kdarling
May 21, 2011, 01:21 PM
Everyone becomes aware of words and phrases at different times, depending on their age, education and exposure. Just because you first widely heard of something at a certain time, does not mean it did not exist before that.

My older brother was an intern mainframe programmer in the mid 1960s. The use of "computer application" dates from at least the early 1960s, and can be found in books from that time.

(I read everything about computers back then, and even collected magazine pictures of them. Like many kids of the time, I got my first Edmund Scientific 3-pot analog computer in 1962, and a plastic 3-bit computer kit (http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/Digicomp-Kit-1963.htm)in 1963. In 1964 I homebrewed my first handheld analog calculator.)

The reason we don't find the use of the abbreviation "app" in the literature from back then, is that society was more cultured and formal, and did not use a lot of slang when writing for publication.

However, anyone who used the word "application" a lot, tended to use "app" in speech to save time amongst peers. With others, you used the full word so as not to leave them out of the conversation.

But not always. Sometimes the abbreviation worked. "Killer app" is an example. As for mobile devices, using "app" instead of "application" was appropriate because it was smaller, like the screen sizes at the time. :) Certainly by 2000, "app" was being widely used in handheld device articles.

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 01:28 PM
Whether or not there are google links or references doesn't matter. As someone who was alive and using technology in the 70s and 80s - I can assure you that Apps, Killer Apps, etc were all used.

That is a non-issue. Do people even read threads here? Or just post without seeing the history and the discussion going on?

Apps isn't under dispute. App Store is the issue. And whether or not you can or should be able to own a trademark on a generic phrase.

Apple says yes and they want to own it and have filed. The CEO and other execs at Apple also have egg on their face on the issue since they have USED the phrase APP STORE in a generic sense when referring to Google, Amazon and other App Stores.

It will be an interesting "battle" - but in the end - the customer really isn't affected nor does the customer (other than Apple fans who want to chest beat) care at all.

PS - KDarling you're spot on. I worked at a company, that among other things created cell phones. And long before Apple had an app store or referred to apps - the engineers and other people throughout the company would refer to things as apps.

IE:
The SMS app
The ringtone app
The alarm app
....

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 02:22 PM
Clearly, the existence of a commercial computer system using "application" as a synonym for "program" in 1974 proves your statement to be wrong.


I never said Apple invented Application. The popularized it. Like mouse, USB, MP3 player, smartphone, and now Apps.

Also, in 2008, if you said "the App Store", what would that mean in the popular context. I believe people familiar with the iPhone and iPod Touch would know and nobody else would. That is when the applied for the trademark, and that is probably why they got to the stage in the process they did.

AidenShaw
May 21, 2011, 02:38 PM
I never said Apple invented Application. The popularized it.

"Application" was already very popular with nearly everyone using computers.

By the same token, Apple "popularized" things like "memory corruption", "force quit", "system hang" and "reboot".

Your statement, though - does seem to credit Apple with creating the term:

The trouble with most of you people's arguments on the App or Application is that you don't go back to 1984. Were most of you born or even an adult at that time. I think if you were, and into computing, you would know Application was a dorky name from Apple.

Over time, Apple's use of 'application' spread, even at 3% market share, and now in 2011 the term is common.

There were many of us who were born and using computers and other smart devices, and the term "application", long before April Fool's day in 1976 - let alone 24 January 1984.

And you were pwned on the "In older computer science lingo, an application referred to "applying functionality", the literal definition from a dictionary, i.e. doing something in a generic sense" claim, at least admit that.

kdarling
May 21, 2011, 03:09 PM
I never said Apple invented Application. The popularized it. Like mouse, USB, MP3 player, smartphone, and now Apps.

And just like those other words, making it popular among people new to such things, does not give you ownership.

Btw, I'd give Microsoft the nod to popularizing smartphone, since they used it in their ads for years: "Windows Mobile (tm) Smartphone". But they never tried to own it.

Also, in 2008, if you said "the App Store", what would that mean in the popular context.

Depends on what kind of device you own, doesn't it? In 2011, people are just as likely to say, "I bought it for my phone at the Android app store." They're not interested in this whole trademark thing.

Even back in 2000, if someone else with a PDA said, "Hey I bought a cool app today", then the other person was quite likely to reply, "Which app store did you get it from, Handango? Handmark? The Palm Store?"

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 03:39 PM
And just like those other words, making it popular among people new to such things, does not give you ownership.

Btw, I'd give Microsoft the nod to popularizing smartphone, since they used it in their ads for years: "Windows Mobile (tm) Smartphone". But they never tried to own it.



It's very telling when a poster write that Apple popularized the "smart phone." Smart phones were around for YEARS and referred to smart phones for YEARS before the iPhone.

CQd44
May 21, 2011, 03:53 PM
http://img6.imageshack.us/i/cap201105211544.jpg

I'm so confused! D:

tzeshan
May 21, 2011, 05:17 PM
Whether or not there are google links or references doesn't matter. As someone who was alive and using technology in the 70s and 80s - I can assure you that Apps, Killer Apps, etc were all used.

That is a non-issue. Do people even read threads here? Or just post without seeing the history and the discussion going on?

Apps isn't under dispute. App Store is the issue. And whether or not you can or should be able to own a trademark on a generic phrase.

Apple says yes and they want to own it and have filed. The CEO and other execs at Apple also have egg on their face on the issue since they have USED the phrase APP STORE in a generic sense when referring to Google, Amazon and other App Stores.

It will be an interesting "battle" - but in the end - the customer really isn't affected nor does the customer (other than Apple fans who want to chest beat) care at all.

....

I agree. Apple is the first company selling applications through "App Store". Thus even though app is being used before, Apple is entitled the trademark App Store.

The Google Android thieves are really afraid that Apple will win. Why do they fight so hard on this board? There are so many alternatives to App Store in English. This is the question we need to keep in mind.

something3153
May 21, 2011, 05:52 PM
It's very telling when a poster write that Apple popularized the "smart phone." Smart phones were around for YEARS and referred to smart phones for YEARS before the iPhone.

I find it amazing how many posters here insist the iPhone is the first smart phone.

samcraig
May 21, 2011, 06:08 PM
I agree. Apple is the first company selling applications through "App Store". Thus even though app is being used before, Apple is entitled the trademark App Store.

The Google Android thieves are really afraid that Apple will win. Why do they fight so hard on this board? There are so many alternatives to App Store in English. This is the question we need to keep in mind.

missed the point of my post entirely... LOL

Geckotek
May 21, 2011, 10:11 PM
I agree. Apple is the first company selling applications through "App Store".

What lead you to this completely false conclusion?

FakeWozniak
May 21, 2011, 10:48 PM
By the same token, Apple "popularized" things like "memory corruption", "force quit", "system hang" and "reboot".

Such negativity.

AidenShaw
May 21, 2011, 11:00 PM
Such negativity.

Actually, objectivity.

You're claiming that people discovering Apples in the mid-80's learned the term "application" from Apple.

This is true if they'd never used any other computer before an Apple.

In that light, they also learned about the dark side of computing from those same Apples.

If they were already computer users, they knew about "applications" and "memory corruption" before they got an Apple.

logandzwon
May 21, 2011, 11:23 PM
Not to mention.... The App Store really isn't a store at all is it? It doesn't keep stock, it doesn't carry goods, it doesn't actually even sell anything.

The developer creates the goods and sets the price. Like a realtor, Apple promotes the goods, then brokers the purchase. Apple gets a commission. 30% of whatever the developer sets.

Dbrown
May 21, 2011, 11:58 PM
Not to mention.... The App Store really isn't a store at all is it? It doesn't keep stock, it doesn't carry goods, it doesn't actually even sell anything.

The developer creates the goods and sets the price. Like a realtor, Apple promotes the goods, then brokers the purchase. Apple gets a commission. 30% of whatever the developer sets.

That sounds like a consignment store

faizanshakyboy
May 22, 2011, 12:18 AM
Soon we will see the launching of Amazon AppStore:D

CQd44
May 22, 2011, 12:45 AM
Soon we will see the launching of Amazon AppStore:D

i swear that's how it looks on my phone. all one word.

Oletros
May 22, 2011, 03:08 PM
I agree. Apple is the first company selling applications through "App Store". Thus even though app is being used before, Apple is entitled the trademark App Store.

The Google Android thieves are really afraid that Apple will win. Why do they fight so hard on this board? There are so many alternatives to App Store in English. This is the question we need to keep in mind.

And where is Google fighting?

ChazUK
May 22, 2011, 03:27 PM
I agree. Apple is the first company selling applications through "App Store". Thus even though app is being used before, Apple is entitled the trademark App Store.

The Google Android thieves are really afraid that Apple will win. Why do they fight so hard on this board? There are so many alternatives to App Store in English. This is the question we need to keep in mind.

I think from the first post of this thread you've been unable to grasp what is being discussed here. This has nothing to do with Google.

If those "Google Android thieves" are really defenders of Google, they would want to see the Amazon AppStore quashed as it competes with the company they defend/love.

It seems your blind hate over Google is preventing your mind from processing a thing that is being written. There may be a language barrier too but hopefully some of this will sink in.

whooleytoo
May 23, 2011, 07:39 AM
Steve Jobs and Tim Cook - both publicly have referred to App Store in a generic sense..

IE “So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.” - Steve Jobs

Not much of a leg to stand on when you're using the term generically yourself.

I'd have thought that would shoot down Apple's own argument pretty convincingly!

IMO, this problem goes far beyond "App Store" and Apple - companies want to name/brand their products as obviously as possible; but then want to take exclusive ownership of the term. I think they should have a choice - create a new, exclusive product/service name (e.g. "iTunes") to which you have exclusive rights; or else use a 'generic' phrase which directly suggests the service you're selling "App store" and you have no exclusivity.

They're trying to have it both ways. They're deliberating selecting a service name for it's obviousness to customers, then arguing that it isn't obvious.

BC2009
May 23, 2011, 01:26 PM
Yes, because the words "apple, lion, snow leopard, garage band, mail, safari, bootcamp", etc. aren't generic words at all :rolleyes:

maybe you do not understand the concept of trademarks. "safari" is a generic term, but if somebody else wanted to name their browser "safari" then that would be a trademark infringement. by the same notes "google" and "amazon" are also generic terms. however, if somebody else did an online store named "amazon" or an internet website named "google" then they would be infringing. if anybody was worried about "bootcamp" being a trademark infringement then you'd have apple and the US armed services in court arguing about it.

the term "windows" was used with windows-based operating systems before MS Windows existed. the term "click" was common-place in computers before amazon did "one-click" (somehow i don't see the "one-" as a differentiator since people described things you could do in "one click" very generically before the amazon trademark).

pretty much 90% of trademarks are made up of generic terms -- what matters is when they are generic terms in the field for which the trademark is being applied.

btw... last i checked, apple did not have a trademark on "mail".

AidenShaw
May 23, 2011, 01:51 PM
btw... last i checked, apple did not have a trademark on "mail".

Apple's legal team is at the Texas Eastern District Court filing the suit against the United States Postal Service as we speak....

Oletros
May 23, 2011, 01:51 PM
by the same notes "google" and "amazon" are also generic terms.

Google generic?

KnightWRX
May 23, 2011, 01:54 PM
Google generic?

Yes and no. It's based on Googol, which is 10 exp 100.

Oletros
May 23, 2011, 01:57 PM
Yes and no. It's based on Googol, which is 10 exp 100.

Yes, I know what is a googol and were Google came from but this not makes Google a generic word

dataParser
May 23, 2011, 02:28 PM
maybe you do not understand the concept of trademarks. "safari" is a generic term, but if somebody else wanted to name their browser "safari" then that would be a trademark infringement. by the same notes "google" and "amazon" are also generic terms. however, if somebody else did an online store named "amazon" or an internet website named "google" then they would be infringing. if anybody was worried about "bootcamp" being a trademark infringement then you'd have apple and the US armed services in court arguing about it.


The reason "safari" is a legitimate trademark for a web browser is because an expedition to Africa has nothing to do with surfing the web. However, "web browser" would not be a valid trademark because trademarking it would make it harder for competitors to describe their products.

I do not think that "app store" is a valid trademark because it is a description of the product, not a distinguishing word. In the same way, "auto dealership" should not be a trademark, but "carmax" could be.

Apple should come up with a more clever name if they want to trademark something.

BC2009
May 23, 2011, 05:17 PM
Apple's legal team is at the Texas Eastern District Court filing the suit against the United States Postal Service as we speak....

yes, that would be funny.

The reason "safari" is a legitimate trademark for a web browser is because an expedition to Africa has nothing to do with surfing the web. However, "web browser" would not be a valid trademark because trademarking it would make it harder for competitors to describe their products.

I do not think that "app store" is a valid trademark because it is a description of the product, not a distinguishing word. In the same way, "auto dealership" should not be a trademark, but "carmax" could be.

Apple should come up with a more clever name if they want to trademark something.

i agree -- my only point is that the USPTO has handed many-a-trademark that is as generic or more generic, and the folks companies complaining about these trademarks are just as guilty. i say they should keep handing out generic trademarks until it get so stupid that they realize their error and decide to revoke all the generic trademarks.

the argument going for apple is that the term "app store" did not have much traction with anybody before iPhone OS. which is a better case in my opinion than "Windows" had for being a trademark for a "Windows Based Operating System" or "Windows Operating System". trademarking "Windows" would be like apple trying to trademark "Apps" for the name of their store. however, in either case, both terms are fairly generic descriptions or half-descriptions of what the things are. descriptions should not be trademarks, but if the USPTO feels otherwise in some cases then it needs to be equally stupid in its granting of generic trademarks.

KnightWRX
May 23, 2011, 05:37 PM
i agree -- my only point is that the USPTO has handed many-a-trademark that is as generic or more generic, and the folks companies complaining about these trademarks are just as guilty. i say they should keep handing out generic trademarks until it get so stupid that they realize their error and decide to revoke all the generic trademarks.

Do you have any examples ? Because aside from this App Store thing, I don't quite see which "generic" (as in descriptive, because App Store's problem is that it is descriptive, not generic per se) trademarks you're talking about.

BC2009
May 23, 2011, 06:07 PM
Google generic?

Yes and no. It's based on Googol, which is 10 exp 100.

Yes, I know what is a googol and were Google came from but this not makes Google a generic word

I suppose Google did change the spelling so, it is not generic. But, I actually was pointing out that Google, Amazon and Apple are not generic with respect to trademarks simply because none of them are descriptive terms for the areas they are in. Google is even less generic since they have their own spelling of "Googol".

BC2009
May 23, 2011, 06:36 PM
Do you have any examples ? Because aside from this App Store thing, I don't quite see which "generic" (as in descriptive, because App Store's problem is that it is descriptive, not generic per se) trademarks you're talking about.

I believe that I gave an example regarding "Windows" which you did not quote. "Windows" is essentially short for "Windows Operating System" which was a term used to describe windows-based operating systems or GUI operating systems back in the day. This would be the equivalent of Apple trying to trademark "Apps" instead of "App Store" there would probably be more of an uproar since "Apps" would be even less specific than "App Store".

I had thought that MS trademarked "Office", but checking their trademark list (http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx) it appears they have only trademarked a couple of "Office" logos -- which is a pleasant surprise. Looking at the MS List, they are not such a bad trademark offender as they seem to trademark logos more than generic descriptive phrases.

However, here is a list of "descriptive phrase" Amazon trademarks (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=ox_multi_condition_of_use?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088&pop-up=1):

A Design
DON'T RESTRICT ME
EARTH'S BIGGEST BOOKSTORE
EARTH'S BIGGEST SELECTION
FULFILLMENT WEB SERVICES (FWS)
MUSIC YOU SHOULD HEAR
NEW FOR YOU
1-CLICK
1-CLICK WEBSTORE
RELATIONAL DATABASE SERVICE
SEARCH INSIDE!
SEARCH INSIDE THE BOOK
SELLER CENTRAL
SIMPLE NOTIFICATION SERVICE (SNS)
SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3)
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

KnightWRX
May 23, 2011, 06:41 PM
I believe that I gave an example regarding "Windows" which you did not quote. "Windows" is essentially short for "Windows Operating System" which was a term used to describe windows-based operating systems or GUI operating systems back in the day.

Windows is a not a descriptive term when it relates to computer operating systems. What you are searching for is Windowing System. Operating systems have nothing to do with Windows, the UI element.

This would be the equivalent of Apple trying to trademark "Apps" instead of "App Store" there would probably be more of an uproar since "Apps" would be even less specific than "App Store".

No it's not. A windowing system and a Window UI element is quite different from an operating system. If Apple trademarked Apps to refer to those applications you install on iOS, that would be akin to Microsoft trademarking "Operating System" as the name of their next version of Windows.

However, here is a list of "descriptive phrase" Amazon trademarks (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=ox_multi_condition_of_use?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088&pop-up=1):

A Design
DON'T RESTRICT ME
EARTH'S BIGGEST BOOKSTORE
EARTH'S BIGGEST SELECTION
FULFILLMENT WEB SERVICES (FWS)
MUSIC YOU SHOULD HEAR
NEW FOR YOU
1-CLICK
1-CLICK WEBSTORE
RELATIONAL DATABASE SERVICE
SEARCH INSIDE!
SEARCH INSIDE THE BOOK
SELLER CENTRAL
SIMPLE NOTIFICATION SERVICE (SNS)
SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3)
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE


None of those are descriptive and if you look carefully, most of those are probably trademarks on the respective logos.

Finally, use multi-quote next time, consecutive posts are against the forum rules.

iEvolution
May 23, 2011, 06:50 PM
However, here is a list of "descriptive phrase" Amazon trademarks (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=ox_multi_condition_of_use?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088&pop-up=1):

A Design
DON'T RESTRICT ME
EARTH'S BIGGEST BOOKSTORE
EARTH'S BIGGEST SELECTION
FULFILLMENT WEB SERVICES (FWS)
MUSIC YOU SHOULD HEAR
NEW FOR YOU
1-CLICK
1-CLICK WEBSTORE
RELATIONAL DATABASE SERVICE
SEARCH INSIDE!
SEARCH INSIDE THE BOOK
SELLER CENTRAL
SIMPLE NOTIFICATION SERVICE (SNS)
SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3)
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE


I don't see Amazon trying to sue over these terms either.

Edit: Insert foot in mouth, forgot about 1-click.

BC2009
May 23, 2011, 07:07 PM
Windows is a not a descriptive term when it relates to computer operating systems. What you are searching for is Windowing System. Operating systems have nothing to do with Windows, the UI element.


We can agree to disagree. I fully remember referring to the Mac OS classic as running a "Windows Operating System" -- I'm pretty sure the term "Windowing Systems" came later to distinguish from Microsoft Windows.


No it's not. A windowing system and a Window UI element is quite different from an operating system. If Apple trademarked Apps to refer to those applications you install on iOS, that would be akin to Microsoft trademarking "Operating System" as the name of their next version of Windows.


Yes, but if Apple used the term "Apps" to as the name of their "App Store" it would be equivalent to using "Windows" to describe a "Windows Operating System". The term "App Store" is more specific than "Apps", but still generic and descriptive.


None of those are descriptive and if you look carefully, most of those are probably trademarks on the respective logos.


Actually, you should look a bit more carefully. The term "logo" follows all those that are logo trademarks. Those that are trademarks on phrases omit the word "logo" (e.g.: "Smile Logo" or "Shopping Cart with Border Logo" are trademarks on logos). My favorite of those is "Procurement Web Services" and "Relational Database Services". But still there are many generic terms.


Finally, use multi-quote next time, consecutive posts are against the forum rules.

Sorry I failed to scroll down before responding -- but I do know the forum rules. If I could merge them after the fact I would have.

I am not arguing that "App Store" is not generic and descriptive. It is. Apple just made it popular. What I am arguing is that the USPTO grants these kind of trademarks all the time even to some of the guys who are challenging it. People complain of Apple trying to go after people for using "App Store" and say that "some folks don't go after others for using their trademarks". The truth of trademark law is that if you do not protect your trademark (or desired pending-trademark) then you lose it. So any failure on Amazon's part to enforce their generic descriptive trademarks could lead to them losing those trademarks.

So before we all go crying that Apple is trying trademark a generic descriptive term, let's look at the fact that their is much precedent for the same thing -- and there should not be. Maybe the madness should stop here, but I'd like to see it stop for everybody.

Finally, however this goes (granted trademark or denied trademark) it won't matter to any of us a week later.

KnightWRX
May 23, 2011, 07:33 PM
We can agree to disagree. I fully remember referring to the Mac OS classic as running a "Windows Operating System" -- I'm pretty sure the term "Windowing Systems" came later to distinguish from Microsoft Windows.

Nope, Windowing system is what the industry referred to. That you got the terminology wrong back in the days is anecdotal and irrelevent. Windows Operating System only refers to Microsoft's Windows operating system, not to any other windowing system out there, nor did they change their terminology in light of Microsoft's trademark.

Yes, but if Apple used the term "Apps" to as the name of their "App Store" it would be equivalent to using "Windows" to describe a "Windows Operating System". The term "App Store" is more specific than "Apps", but still generic and descriptive.

We're in highly speculative theoritory now since this is not happening. However, i'd say to be analogous, it would depend on enforcement. Would Apple then go after Amazon still for calling their stuff Amazon AppStore ?

Microsoft does not go after the X-Window System, nor any other operating systems vendor that offer Window based GUIs for their systems when they refer to the UI elements as windows.

So if the enforcement was as lax as Microsoft's (since their trademark is on an OS, something not a Window UI element or a windowing-system) then I'd say it would be ok as the term would not be descriptive. If they kept enforcing it the same way, I would say it wouldn't be analogous at all.



Actually, you should look a bit more carefully. The term "logo" follows all those that are logo trademarks. Those that are trademarks on phrases omit the word "logo" (e.g.: "Smile Logo" or "Shopping Cart with Border Logo" are trademarks on logos). My favorite of those is "Procurement Web Services" and "Relational Database Services". But still there are many generic terms.

Let's refer to them as typed drawings then. It's the actual drawing with the words that is trademarked, not the words themselves (standard character mark).

I am not arguing that "App Store" is not generic and descriptive. It is. Apple just made it popular.

That does not grant them anymore rights than anybody else to the phrase. And seriously, you still have failed to provide any evidence of the USPTO granting such descriptive terms before.

I was at least expecting you to come up with The Container Store...