Interesting. I've always associated the name with the legendary tribe of female warriors.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Responds to Apple's Trademark Lawsuit Over 'App Store'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting. I've always associated the name with the legendary tribe of female warriors.
Yes Amazon jump on the "it's generic" bandwagon.
Please lets just keep this thread about the response and not "But how is it generic. . ." "Apple didn't create App. . ." "Well Amazon is right it's generic. . ."
I don't think it's generic that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I'm moving on.
In general, "Applications" are what Apple run on their Mac OS platform "Apps" are what they run on their iOS platform, a cut down version of Mac OS X with a cut down but related and familiar name.
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
Apple have so much prior use of both the term Application to refer to software and App as the shortened term for iOS that Amazon are just picking a fight because Apple offer their own alternative to the Kindle and they don't like the competition.
Last edited:
My title for my first job after Grad school in 1984 was Applications Engineer, my next job in 1987 was Applications Manager. Do you think I have a case against apple using a variation of my old title??? At any rate, I would happy settle of a them giving me the latest iPhone, iPad and a MBP of choice every two years for life
Yes, "program" was popular, but "application" was used as well.
"App" as an abbreviation has been used by application engineers for decades. "Killer App" dates back to the early 1980s.
"Application" is also long used in Windows to describe executables (see below). Both it and its abbreviation were commonly used in articles, for example the Feb 2000 webpage below captured by the Wayback Machine. It's a waste of effort to try to claim that "app" is somehow new or can be claimed by Apple alone. The only discussion should be about "app store".
Attachments
Last edited:
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
"App Store" is a trademarked name of a particular store. "appstore," or "app store" in generic terms and context is a description of a particular thing. How hard is it for these companies to understand that that's possible? Just the same as "Windows" vs. "windows." Actually, I think they do get it, but they don't want "App Store" associated only w/ Apple so they can jump on the bandwagon and (continue to try to) confuse consumers.
Capitalization does not impact trademarks like you claim. "App Store" is the same as "app store".
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used. Windows vs. windows, App Store vs. appstore/app store. "My house has windows," "My computer runs Windows." "I bought this on the App Store," "Modern smartphones have apps that can be purchased from their respective app store(s)." I don't believe Apple needs to include "Apple/iOS/The" before "App Store" to be granted a trademark patent on the term, its style (font, image/icon, etc.), or its brand. It's my understanding that a trademark must include these things and more, which is something that cannot be generalized. (And if I'm not mistaken, the capitalization would at least assist, from a visual cue when looking at the written language, in determining the context of the term in simple sentences like I've presented.)
Last edited:
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
However, using the term app store to relate to any type of software market will lead to confusion between generic app stores and Apple's App Store - which makes it a trademark violation.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
This I totally agree with. In regard to written language, context makes a difference. Context may be substituted for your more correct language of "field of trade." One wouldn't be in violation of the trademark if presenting it in general terms (outside of the field or in reference to something w/in the field, much like Windows OS vs. GUI windows), but would be if they wanted to use the term w/in their own title w/in the same field.
I think we're saying the same things, but perhaps my original post wasn't clear and relied to heavily on implied understanding....
The bold part is wrong. In the field of reference, you can't use the trademark even if you're using it generically or descriptively if it has been granted. You will get sued and maybe even lose if the mark is not rescinded. You can even get sued preemptively as is the case here (Amazon appstore).
Windows OS vs GUI windows is not the same field. One is an Operating System, the other is a GUI element of different computer systems. Microsoft never sued MIT over the X Window System because that's not an OS. They did sue the guys behind the Lindows OS though.
Depends, really. "Windows" can be relevant to an OS or GUIs where both relate to computers, but one can be more specific in saying that an OS underlies a GUI, thus they're two different aspects of software. One could be talking about GUIs and still say "My computer has windows." Point being, how much grey area is general vs. narrowing down to the nitty-gritty of what the trademark involves? That being said, I'm saying Apple should be granted a trademark on "App Store," but folks like us shouldn't be in violation of anything if we refer to others' stores as "app stores." That is, laypersons can do this, but two companies cannot. Thing is, if the specifics of Apple's trademark request involves a digital/electronic store-front for selling digital applications, blah blah blah, it's fine that other business shouldn't refer to theirs w/ any form of that term w/in their digital/electronic store-fronts. BlackBerry Appworld is different enough from Apple's "App Store," where Amazon's "appstore" is just too close to Apple's.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
Last edited:
Hahaha! I didn't have time to edit that before you replied. I'll be clear -- that portion of what you quoted is in relation to what, say, the layperson says vs. two companies. It's okay for you and I to call other digital/electronic store-fronts, etc. as "app store," but another company can't. I may be off here, but for some reason I'm thinking I have to be super-duper specific and clear in replying on this thread versus relying on implied understanding. Again, we're saying the same thing, but I'm just not being as clear as I should be.
We are saying the same thing - the general population, it doesn't matter if they refer to all markets as app stores, much like Windex, Xerox and Google have become generic terms.
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
Last edited:
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
Here is a snapshot of the website 'portableapps.com' from Christmas of 2005:
http://replay.web.archive.org/20051225045018/http://portableapps.com/
Note that it defines 'app' as "a computer program like a web browser or word processor", and then further notes:
"A portable app is a computer program that you can carry around with you on a portable device and use on any Windows computer. When your USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive, iPod or other portable device is plugged in, you have access to your software and personal data just as you would on your own PC. And when you unplug, none of your personal data is left behind."
Not sure when Apple's app store opened, but I know that I personally have (as others have) been using the term 'app' for many MANY years before even 2005 to refer to applications.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you can't own 'drug store', 'hardware store', 'grocery store', 'software store', or 'application store', it doesn't make sense that Apple, or anyone else, could own 'app store'.
Just sayin'
http://replay.web.archive.org/20051225045018/http://portableapps.com/
Note that it defines 'app' as "a computer program like a web browser or word processor", and then further notes:
"A portable app is a computer program that you can carry around with you on a portable device and use on any Windows computer. When your USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive, iPod or other portable device is plugged in, you have access to your software and personal data just as you would on your own PC. And when you unplug, none of your personal data is left behind."
Not sure when Apple's app store opened, but I know that I personally have (as others have) been using the term 'app' for many MANY years before even 2005 to refer to applications.
Now I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you can't own 'drug store', 'hardware store', 'grocery store', 'software store', or 'application store', it doesn't make sense that Apple, or anyone else, could own 'app store'.
Just sayin'
Nothing at all. LOL explains why he disappeared.
I totally forgot about those guys
I am quite surprised that Apple legal hasnt counseled them on this.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store
Quoted for truth. Great post. Really helpful for the non-legal folk here. It helps quiet down the know it alls as well.