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

?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
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'.
 
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.
 
Is May 1974 far enough back for you?

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 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.
 

Attachments

  • untitled1.jpg
    untitled1.jpg
    151.4 KB · Views: 90
  • untitled2.jpg
    untitled2.jpg
    173.2 KB · Views: 100
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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
....
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?"
 

Attachments

  • palm-apps.png
    palm-apps.png
    38.1 KB · Views: 72
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.