Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:41 PM   #101
Kludge420
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
"Microsoft also fought against Apple, arguing that 'app store' is a compound noun that is a generic characterization of the store itself -- a store for apps."

This is the same Microsoft that trademarked the word "Windows" right?
Kludge420 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:41 PM   #102
Dr McKay
macrumors 68040
 
Dr McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kirkland
Send a message via MSN to Dr McKay Send a message via Skype™ to Dr McKay
Quote:
Originally Posted by miknos View Post
Seems like Apple made the term popular. Let free markets decide which "App Store" is better. The only people benefiting from this fight are lawyers.
Its not in debate whether Apple made the term more popular than it used to be. What's in discussion here is that there seem to be people under the false impression that Apple invented the word app. Or for some misguided reason believe that Apple deserves rights to it because they made it popular. I've seen that a lot on here.

"Apple did this first!"

"No they didn't, here's a documented source showing someone did it before them

"Yea well Apples is much better!"

It seems there is a legion of armchair lawyers here who seem to believe all you have to do is improve on someone's design to invalidate it.
__________________
Worth the weight
Dr McKay is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:44 PM   #103
Morshu9001
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: the capital of Assyria
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyjibbs View Post
In reality, Apple should not have been allowed to trademark such a generic name as "App Store"
If it didn't exist before them, sure they should. There are so many other names you can have: "App Market", "App Source", "App Shop", "Download Store", etc. But I kinda doubt Apple was the first to have an App Store.

Think about other companies with generic, copyrighted names:
Tiger Direct (sued Apple b/c of Mac OS X Tiger and lost)
Tuff
Bounty
Microsoft's OS "Windows", word processor "Word", and office suite "Office", all single English words
Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, and others that are very common Japanese names
Spumoni's and other Italian restaurants are just "(Italian name)'s"

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kludge420 View Post
"Microsoft also fought against Apple, arguing that 'app store' is a compound noun that is a generic characterization of the store itself -- a store for apps."

This is the same Microsoft that trademarked the word "Windows" right?
Yeah, exactly. I think "Windows" and "App Store" are both protectable.
Morshu9001 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:46 PM   #104
MH01
macrumors 68040
 
MH01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by slffl View Post
Google - trademarked
Amazon - trademarked
1-Click - trademarked AND patented (so no you can't let buyers buy things on your website with a single click unless you pay royalties to Amazon)
Larry - trademarked

Clearly most of you don't understand trademarks.
Nope, your the one struggling to understand. Don't bother, your barking up the wrong tree, but it seems it will amuse you for hours....days...months...
MH01 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:48 PM   #105
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
"App" being used in jargon is different from commercial use.
Right.

So if people were generally to call something, for example, a "table", then it would make a trademark on the word "table" (as used to identify any certain seller of tables) so weak as to be indefensible.

Just like "App". And especially like "App" when app is used as a descriptive modifier, as in "App Launcher" or "App Store".

Face it: Trying to enforce a trademark on App Store is like trying to do the same with Toy Store or Grocery Store.
iGrip is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:50 PM   #106
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Right.

So if people were generally to call something, for example, a "table", then it would make a trademark on the word "table" (as used to identify any certain seller of tables) so weak as to be indefensible.

Just like "App". And especially like "App" when app is used as a descriptive modifier, as in "App Launcher" or "App Store".

Face it: Trying to enforce a trademark on App Store is like trying to do the same with Toy Store or Grocery Store.
Not exactly, because "Toy" and "Grocery" are actual nouns in the English language, while "App" is not.

But it's pretty close though. I don't think Apple should have a trademark on the term, but they are responsible for it being popular right now, so much that's it's now a generic term that everybody says.

"Cola" is considered a generic term and isn't trademarked by Coca-Cola, even though they popularized the term and anybody can call a drink a Cola now.
pgiguere1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:54 PM   #107
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by slffl View Post
Google - trademarked
Amazon - trademarked
1-Click - trademarked AND patented (so no you can't let buyers buy things on your website with a single click unless you pay royalties to Amazon)
Larry - trademarked

Clearly most of you don't understand trademarks.

That's a good reference. I think it is true that many people don't really know the purpose of trade and service marks, the different strengths of various categories of marks, or the application of similar marks in disparate industries.

The Wiki article explains it all.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:58 PM   #108
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Not exactly, because "Toy" and "Grocery" are actual nouns in the English language, while "App" is not.
...
This is the point that Microsoft was trying to make... "App" at that point has become common language to describe the programs on mobile devices.

In Eastern Airlines v NY Airlines, even though Eastern Airlines had an air-shuttle called Shuttle, it was deemed that 'shuttle' has become a common used term for an any air shuttle and not specifically identifying Eastern's air shuttle.

.
paul4339 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:59 PM   #109
barkmonster
macrumors 68020
 
barkmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lancashire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr McKay View Post
Windows has referred to .exes as Applications for longer than iOS, other older mobile platforms like PDAs have ran apps too. You base your evidence because Windows has a "Programme Files" folder? Why does Windows also have an App Data folder?
And what menu do you go to when you want to launch them?

The PROGRAMs menu!

Just because Apple have always kept software in an Applications folder and users link to said folder as a dock item or in the case of the classic Mac OS, as a desktop shortcut, doesn't mean the place, folder, menu or otherwise that you go to on a Mac isn't called Applications while other platforms, mobile or otherwise, have kept them in menus labelled Programs.

It's the fact that for years, Macs have had Applications, Windows has had Programs. They're the same thing, it's just what they chose to refer to them as. The popularity of the term "Apps" or "App" has come about from smartphones, not desktop OS's because "Apps" are just a more snappy sounding term than "Progs". It's just easy to forget that in the smartphone world, they're following Apple's lead, not innovating.
__________________
16Gb iPhone 5 • 2.53Ghz Mac Mini (8Gb, 60Gb Vertex 2) • Icy Box IB-328U3SEb with Toshiba DT01ACA300 HDD
Mbox2 • LG W2343T • Samsung SyncMaster 913n

Last edited by barkmonster; Jan 3, 2013 at 05:53 AM.
barkmonster is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:01 PM   #110
phillipduran
macrumors 6502a
 
phillipduran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Iowa
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyjibbs View Post
In reality, Apple should not have been allowed to trademark such a generic name as "App Store"
Yes! It's as dumb as it would be if you allowed gas station or gen (general) store get trademarked.

A basic item or service used in a name should not be trademarkable.

Gun Store, Gas Station, Auto Sales etc. should all be considered too generic to receive trademarks. App is nothing more than the short version of application just as gas is to gasoline.
__________________
That's "Geniuses," not Genii, genius.
To err, is PC.
phillipduran is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:05 PM   #111
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
"Application" was also not originally the .exe filetype in Windows. It used to say "Executable". One could argue that Windows added that only to follow Mac OS, but let's not jump in another debate
Can you point in which version the changed it?
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:08 PM   #112
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul4339 View Post
This is the point that Microsoft was trying to make... "App" at that point has become common language to describe the programs on mobile devices.
The fact that it's in common language now doesn't mean that a company can't be responsible for the popularization of the term.

Think of: Aspirin, Band-Aid, Cellophane, Dry ice, Escalator, Heroin, Kleenex, Linoleum, Thermos, Videotape, Yo-yo, Zip code and Zipper.

Those are all trademarks popularized by companies now used in common language.

Heck, I'm not even saying Apple should be granted a trademark like the ones I listed, just that they have the credit for the term being in common language now.
pgiguere1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:11 PM   #113
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Not exactly, because "Toy" and "Grocery" are actual nouns in the English language, while "App" is not.
If it is not a noun why the Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for it?
Oletros is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:15 PM   #114
uwbadger
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabianjj View Post
Here's a picture of a TI-84 from 2004, it has a button that says APPS in purple, which opens a list of installed apps. I'd say this is at least an indication that the word app was used by others referring to software applications generically before apple, which in turn should make the term 'App Store' considered generic.
The HP-49G, released in 1999, has an "APPS" key as well:

uwbadger is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:18 PM   #115
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
The fact that it's in common language now doesn't mean that a company can't be responsible for the popularization of the term.

Think of: Aspirin, Band-Aid, Cellophane, Dry ice, Escalator, Heroin, Kleenex, Linoleum, Thermos, Videotape, Yo-yo, Zip code and Zipper.

Those are all trademarks popularized by companies now used in common language.
...
And those are all known *genericized* trademark. (that's why "Escalator" was lost and Westinghouse was allow to use it).

BUT in the case of App store, it the Apple App store also sells apps.

If Apple sold cars and called their store "App Store" AND it was identified with Apple only, they would have a much stronger case.

"... even when they become identified with a first user, would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are" ... Although I find this a weak (since App Shop, App Marketplace could be used) but valid argument when combined with such generic words.
paul4339 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:19 PM   #116
DDustiNN
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Damn. I was thinking of applying for a trademark for Grocery Store™.
DDustiNN is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:19 PM   #117
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kludge420 View Post
"Microsoft also fought against Apple, arguing that 'app store' is a compound noun that is a generic characterization of the store itself -- a store for apps."

This is the same Microsoft that trademarked the word "Windows" right?
Microsoft doesn't have a trademark of the word windows
Oletros is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:20 PM   #118
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: HEY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
The fact that it's in common language now doesn't mean that a company can't be responsible for the popularization of the term.
And it doesn't matter a bit if the popularizer didn't trademark the word. While "apps" might've been more commonly used amongst Apple products, you see it referenced in every OS that's come out since at least the mid 90's. Apple might've helped bolster it's usage, but it doesn't change the fact it's been in the lexicon for at least 15 years now.

And since no one company owns or has exclusive rights to the word "apps", you could easily say "app store" is a generic term.
Renzatic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:21 PM   #119
nofunsir
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reno
People are forgetting, APPle made the term "App" (a shortening of the word "application") commonplace with their "There's an app for that." marketing campaign.

People are so stupid these days, I'd guess over half the population probably has *no mental connection* anymore with the word "app" to the original word "application." I would venture this is largely Apple's doing, and they deserve the marketing credit and trademark associated.

I know this is slightly different, but just because 9x% of the population says "kleenex" to refer to booger paper (due to Kleenex's own successful marketing) doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the trademark.

"App store" is even more so an Apple-ism, like it or not.
nofunsir is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:22 PM   #120
ck2875
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
The fact that it's in common language now doesn't mean that a company can't be responsible for the popularization of the term.

Think of: Aspirin, Band-Aid, Cellophane, Dry ice, Escalator, Heroin, Kleenex, Linoleum, Thermos, Videotape, Yo-yo, Zip code and Zipper.

Those are all trademarks popularized by companies now used in common language.

Heck, I'm not even saying Apple should be granted a trademark like the ones I listed, just that they have the credit for the term being in common language now.
Yep. You can be granted a trademark for a generic term, if you make it popular enough to give it secondary meaning, which is sort of what Apple did here. Google (or at least their trends) even agrees that no one cared about an "App Store" which is the trademarked term, not "App", before the App Store was introduced.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=app%20store

I know, I know, the majority here don't agree with the law or what they imagine the law to be.
ck2875 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:22 PM   #121
Lennholm
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Whether "App Store" should be trademarkable or not is another question, but there's no doubt that the term "App" wasn't used at all before Apple's App Store.

Microsoft didn't even call Windows software "applications", they had always called them "programs".

I find it weird that a diminutive of a generic term is necessarily considered a generic term as well, even if nobody used the term. By the same logic, you couldn't have a trademark on something like "Mus Store" or "Boo Store". Meanwhile, it's OK for Microsoft to trademark terms like "Windows", "Office", "Word".

EDIT:

Okay, I did some research like macsmurf suggested.

Wikipedia:
In recent years, the term "app" has been used to exclusively refer to applications for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets, referring to their smaller scope in relation to applications used by PCs.

There may be some anecdotal use of the term "app" before the iPhone (none of which I can easily find using Google, point me in the right direction if you can), but never was it a standard term used by any major tech company.

People started to refer to computer/mobile software as "apps" after Apple's App store, not before.

The only exception I can find is the term "Killer app", but like I said earlier, it has a different meaning. It's also the diminutive of "application", but you wouldn't use the term in the same context. For example, you could say that "X video game" is a console's "killer app". However, would you refer to console games as "apps"? I don't think anybody would, because it doesn't fit with the modern definition of "app" which Apple is responsible for.

Halo was the Xbox's killer app.
You wouldn't say "let's go to Gamestop preorder this app called Halo".
People definitely used the abbreviation "app" well before Apple launched their "App Store".

MS has always used both "Programs" and "Applications". It seems they use the term "program" mostly for the executables and use "application" to refer to the whole package, i.e. executables + resources.

The problem with Apple's "App Store" isn't only that it's generic but also that it's descriptive. None of the examples you mention are descriptive.
"Windows" isn't a term that describes an operating system but "app store" IS a term that describes an app store, a platform for selling app(lication)s. Apple having a trademark for "App Store" is as if Microsoft named their operating system "Operating System" and got that trademark.
On a side note, as far as I know Microsoft have never tried to stop other OS makers from referring to the rectangular visual representations of applications in their OS as "windows" even though they have that trademark. Their trademark for the non-descriptive use of the term as a name doesn't cover the use of the term as descriptive.
Lennholm is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:25 PM   #122
bsolar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Wikipedia:
In recent years, the term "app" has been used to exclusively refer to applications for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets, referring to their smaller scope in relation to applications used by PCs.

There may be some anecdotal use of the term "app" before the iPhone (none of which I can easily find using Google, point me in the right direction if you can), but never was it a standard term used by any major tech company.

People started to refer to computer/mobile software as "apps" after Apple's App store, not before.
You seem to focus on who and when invented the term app in the field of mobile software. Actually, it doesn't matter.

Let's assume that "app" was invented by Apple at least in the mobile software market. Still now it's a generic term and as you wrote "people started to refer to computer/mobile software as "apps"", so not only Apple's software, but *any* computer/mobile software even if not from Apple is described as "app". This means the term has become generic, so it cannot be a trademark and it would lose trademark status even if previously granted.
bsolar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:27 PM   #123
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lennholm View Post
On a side note, as far as I know Microsoft have never tried to stop other OS makers from referring to the rectangular visual representations of applications in their OS as "windows" even though they have that trademark. Their trademark for the non-descriptive use of the term as a name doesn't cover the use of the term as descriptive.
And they lost the trial against Lindows
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:28 PM   #124
pgiguere1
macrumors 68000
 
pgiguere1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by uwbadger View Post
The HP-49G, released in 1999, has an "APPS" key as well:

Image
Because "Applications" didn't fit on a key.

See, there are other abbreviated terms on this calculator like "NXT" instead of "Next", "HIST" instead of "History", or "SYMB" instead of "Symbols".

That doesn't mean that people will start referring to those functions as their abbreviated names. Most will see the abbreviated term but read the actual term, like you would say "Control" even if the key on your keyboard says "Ctrl".

Are you saying a company shouldn't be allowed to be called and trademark "NXT", "CTRL" or "SYMB" if it's not trademarked already, just because they are abbreviations written on keyboards?

The fact that it was abbreviated on tiny calculator keys doesn't mean it was abbreviated in common language and a generic term everybody used.
pgiguere1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:29 PM   #125
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kludge420 View Post
...
This is the same Microsoft that trademarked the word "Windows" right?
Good point... "Windows" wasn't used to describe and market a product that frames a pane of glass for your home.

It used was as a computer terminology that became popular. So why didn't MS lose the mark once it became common lingo??

I think it was mainly because they poured so much money into it that it was identified with an Microsoft product. If Apple, Xerox and IBM early on created Apple Windows, Xerox Windows and IBM Windows and advertised it like crazy to a point where it wasn't associated with MS, then there would be a strong case to challenge.
paul4339 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 02:31 PM
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Apple's Location Tracking in iOS MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 56 Dec 4, 2013 03:19 PM
Judge in Brazilian 'iPhone' Trademark Lawsuit Rules in Apple's Favor MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 61 Sep 27, 2013 11:53 AM
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 113 Aug 19, 2013 11:00 AM
Judge dismisses jury trial for Apple and Motorola case kdarling Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Jun 8, 2012 10:41 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC