Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple: Amazon's Appstore Isn't an 'App Store'

samcraig said:
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.

....
Click to expand...

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.
 
samcraig said:
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.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing how many posters here insist the iPhone is the first smart phone.
 
tzeshan said:
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.
Click to expand...

missed the point of my post entirely... LOL
 
Such objectivity ...

FakeWozniak said:
Such negativity.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
logandzwon said:
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.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a consignment store
 
tzeshan said:
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.
Click to expand...

And where is Google fighting?
 
tzeshan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
samcraig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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".
 
What can be considered a legitimate trademark

BC2009 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AidenShaw said:
Apple's legal team is at the Texas Eastern District Court filing the suit against the United States Postal Service as we speak....
Click to expand...

yes, that would be funny.

dataParser said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BC2009 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oletros said:
Google generic?
Click to expand...

KnightWRX said:
Yes and no. It's based on Googol, which is 10 exp 100.
Click to expand...

Oletros said:
Yes, I know what is a googol and were Google came from but this not makes Google a generic word
Click to expand...

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".
 
KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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:
  • 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
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
BC2009 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

BC2009 said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.

BC2009 said:
However, here is a list of "descriptive phrase" Amazon trademarks:
  • 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
Click to expand...

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.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
BC2009 said:
However, here is a list of "descriptive phrase" Amazon trademarks:
  • 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
Click to expand...

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

Edit: Insert foot in mouth, forgot about 1-click.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back