Apple and Amazon Ordered to Enter Settlement Talks Over 'App Store' Trademark Issue

[garylapointe]

Hummm.... sure... I remember the word "App" before 2008 being used here and there in the industry, but the term "AppStore" was unique to my knowledge when Apple came out with the AppStore. Sure, it's common now because everyone loved it and started using it, but does not mean Apple does not have a right to try and defend it.

I think since Mac OS X started they started having applications with the .APP extension, just thought I'd point that out, that's almost 12 years now?

It's not like they started calling them "EXE"s...


This is carried over from the NeXT OS and Apple used that for a bit (or more) for the start of OS X. (See section 4.1 if curious)

Gary

 

[KnightWRX]

I think since Mac OS X started they started having applications with the .APP extension, just thought I'd point that out, that's almost 12 years now?

It's not like they started calling them "EXE"s...


This is carried over from the NeXT OS and Apple used that for a bit (or more) for the start of OS X. (See section 4.1 if curious)

Gary

And it's irrelevant as NeXT did not coin the shortened form of Application, a word that has been used in computing since before Wozniak and Jobs built the first Apple I in a garage somewhere in California, nor would have coining the term mean that the descriptive "App Store" had gained any kind of Secondary Meaning.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secondary+Meaning

Read it. Understand it. Then start discussing.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Seems to me this is like Publix and Winn-Dixie arguing over who is allowed to use the title "grocery store".

I almost agree, but where did we pick up the lingo "apps?"

The term that was always used was "programs." "I got a new computer program." "Click on programs..." Applications/Apps was always a Mac thing. Even before smart phones. Then Apple expands "apps" the even the original iPhone with "web apps."

So where I kind of see Apple's point is that no one else used this lingo except them until now. However, I don't see Apple's argument as valid. No one is confusing the Amazon App store for anything else. Hardly anyone uses it unless they're using a Kindle device. I switched to Android, and I never think about buying Apps there. It's too inconvenient much as it is buying music from Amazon. Amazon has killer deals on albums a lot, and trying to download and move those to devices is a pain because of how they have it implemented. Side loading apps from them wouldn't be any more fun.

Not to mention, if you bought apps from amazon and have an IOS device, you deserve to be screwed out of your money because you'd have to be a total idiot. (And I'm sure there are a few out there.)

 

[garylapointe]

And it's irrelevant as NeXT did not coin the shortened form of Application, a word that has been used in computing since before Wozniak and Jobs built the first Apple I in a garage somewhere in California, nor would have coining the term mean that the descriptive "App Store" had gained any kind of Secondary Meaning.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secondary+Meaning

Read it. Understand it. Then start discussing.

Silly me, I though the link was going to point to somewhere referencing people calling applications "apps". I don't think there was any question that "apps" is short for "applications" but thanks for explaining it.

I've been programming (in the US) since the Apple II and Atari 800 days and we've never called them apps. I even remembered that they were .app on the Next from the mid 90s and even thought it was memorable then. (I specifically said in the US, since someone said once they thought it was common in the UK, but I never saw any specifics)

The only other times in the past I've seen "apps" used is when getting starters (appetizers) at a restaurant.

Gary

 

[Lennholm]

And Windows, Office and Word isn't? xD Personally I think in this case they seem as bad as each other.

They are generic, but unlike "app store" they're not also contextually descriptive. The problem with "app store" is that it's both.

 

[KnightWRX]

Silly me, I though the link was going to point to somewhere referencing people calling applications "apps". I don't think there was any question that "apps" is short for "applications" but thanks for explaining it.

I've been programming (in the US) since the Apple II and Atari 800 days and we've never called them apps. I even remembered that they were .app on the Next from the mid 90s and even thought it was memorable then. (I specifically said in the US, since someone said once they thought it was common in the UK, but I never saw any specifics)

The only other times in the past I've seen "apps" used is when getting starters (appetizers) at a restaurant.

Gary

Again, that is completely irrelevant to the issue of App Store. Read the link about Secondary Meaning. Has Apple achieved it with the descriptive App Store ? No ? Then it shouldn't be trademarked.

As for the App thing, it's been debunked countless of times, heck there's a screenshot from RiscOS on an Acorn earlier with a big APPS folder :

But you know what ? Again that's completely IRRELEVANT to this topic!

 

[kitsap2]

Wow, what an incredible thread! It just goes on, and on.

Curious, here.

I'm retired, and have the time to read all of the posts. Is everyone else here retired? Be interesting to see how many here are retired;
Employed at work;
Employed on a day off;
Unemployed;
Unemployable.

Just curious

 

[KnightWRX]

I almost agree, but where did we pick up the lingo "apps?"

The term that was always used was "programs." "I got a new computer program." "Click on programs..." Applications/Apps was always a Mac thing.

No! Applications was not always a Mac thing, it's a word used to describe software in computing, has been since the 1960s. Do I need to AGAIN, post the cover to that 1960 book titled "Computer Applications" ?

Yes I do it seems.

People, read the thread. These images have been posted over and over and over again.

 

[LagunaSol]

What if Amazon opened a new retail store called TheContainerStore? I'll bet most of you who are defending Amazon here would find that move uncool.

But since we're talking about Apple...

 

[AppleFan1984]

Navlet's Nursery is also descriptive - it's a nursery owned by Navlet. But the term "Navlet's Nursery" can absolutely be trademarked. Being descriptive is not, in itself, a disqualifying factor.

Excellent example.

After Apple gets spanked by the court maybe they'll take out a real trademark for "Apple App Store" and this whole thing goes away.

 

[Morshu9001]

Sorry, but yes, "App Store" is generic. You can't trademark it.

I don't think anyone gets confused, they know you go to the app store to get apps regardless of what device it is on.

"Microsoft filed an objection, also arguing that the term was generic."

Microsoft trademarks a product called "Windows" and another called "Office". Either both companies are right to own these kinds of names, or both are wrong.

 

[AppleFan1984]

This is ridiculous. People wonder why Apple charges so much for their products. I bet Apple's legal division is as large as their R&D group.

Apple spends more on patents than R&D after Jobs patent vow
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/app...ts-than-randd-after-jobs-patent-vow-50009420/

 

[apolloa]

Anybody else find it funny that Amazon is using the "generic" argument when it defended it's "one click shopping" patent so aggressively?

I understand each issue needs to be separate... but seeing that Apple still pays Amazon for the use of the most ridiculous of ridiculous patents... I suggest the same arrangement here. Amazon pays Apple for every purchase through the "appstore."

I fully understand how these corporations have used and abused a corrupt and broken patent and courts system for several years in order to gain market share because nobody can be bothered to innovate anymore!
Amazon is only doing what Apple is doing and the patent office is beginning to pay for it's stupidity. But in Apple's case is could prove to yet be another nail in it's coffin as it has made so many bogus patents.

 

[xanagu]

Has that ever actually happened?

You are talking of apple users, so OF COURSE!

----------

Wow someone else who doesn't look at SCREENSHOTS.

Please people, respect other posters by at least reading the thread before posting non-sense that's been debunked.

They must be using iphones so they cant visualize images correctly. Get a nexus ffs!

 

[samcraig]

What if Amazon opened a new retail store called TheContainerStore? I'll bet most of you who are defending Amazon here would find that move uncool.

But since we're talking about Apple...

First of all - not the same. TheContainerStore is not the same as ContainerStore.

Further - Amazon didn't open up AppStore. They opened up AmazonAppStore (graphically) and Appstore for Android (textually).

But to answer your question - Yes. I would definitely find Amazon opening up a physical store that sold containers and called it TheContainerStore "uncool"

But as illustrated above - that's not akin to what they did.

 

[pacalis]

[/I]? I really don't understand why , with all the possible and clever combinations available, Amazon HAD to go with "app" and "store".

My goodness man. I'll try this again. Isn't it obvious? They called it an app store because it is an app store.

I couldn't quite get what point you were trying to make while you were hurling insults through your teeth. Can you try again, a little less mean, please?
.... But pretending to be superior by bashing others is just pathetic and weak.

Should I explain this one too? You said I was mean and then you called me pathetic and weak.

OK, so I don't PRETEND that I'm superior...

But the main point that MANY have made is that trademarks have different rules, different intentions and different history than patents and copyrights.

If they were the same rules you wouldn't need a different name for them.

With that, if a trademark enters into common use it can be lost. So if the general public thinks app store isn't AppStore, it doesn't matter who was first with the mark.

But also, trademarks are far more defensible if they are non-descriptive. The idea is to protect an investment in the mark, not to allow a company to capture common the language to their advantage (Xerox vs. copies, Coke vs. cola). So trademarks that are descriptive can be challenged on fair-use and free speech grounds.

ie. you don't want Apple suing some small developer for trademark infringement because they say they want to sell their app in a store

 

[samcraig]

"Microsoft filed an objection, also arguing that the term was generic."

Microsoft trademarks a product called "Windows" and another called "Office". Either both companies are right to own these kinds of names, or both are wrong.

As been discussed - it's different.

Windows is not glass and a frame. It's an OS. Someone can use Windows and not have a trademark violation. Now create a new OS and called it Windows - another matter.

Same for Office.

 

[pacalis]

Apple spends more on patents than R&D after Jobs patent vow
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/app...ts-than-randd-after-jobs-patent-vow-50009420/

It used to be that patent trolls were seen as a social evil because they didn't sell product.

And now here Apple has innovated again!

 

[KnightWRX]

"Microsoft filed an objection, also arguing that the term was generic."

Microsoft trademarks a product called "Windows"

Microsoft sells panes of glass ? Since when ?

 

[pacalis]

1. Do a search on "Grocery Store."
2. Woo hoo, it's not trademarked!
3. Grocery Store™
...
6. Profit?

 

[dazed]

Kleenex is a household name, but Procter and Gamble still has to call their product "Puffs." Why does amazon get the exception?

Because Keenex isn't a generic term.

 

[Morshu9001]

As been discussed - it's different.

Windows is not glass and a frame. It's an OS. Someone can use Windows and not have a trademark violation. Now create a new OS and called it Windows - another matter.

Same for Office.

Office is an office suite. Windows is a window-based OS (though "OS X" is a more generic name). Word is a word processor. "App Store" is about as generic as these names since it's not really a store, and "app" is slang.

 

[samcraig]

Office is an office suite. Windows is a window-based OS. Word is a word processor.

Yes. What's your point. The point I'm making is Microsoft doesn't sell physical windows. Nor does it sell words. Nor does it sell offices.

It sells software.

 

[Morshu9001]

Microsoft sells panes of glass ? Since when ?

They don't.

----------

Yes. What's your point. The point I'm making is Microsoft doesn't sell physical windows. Nor does it sell words. Nor does it sell offices.

It sells software.

Apple and MS have equally generic names for their products (since "window" doesn't always refer to physical glass), so one of them can't be right while the other is wrong. I never said anything about whether or not both should hold rights to their names, but I will say now that I think they should. I'm not so sure about OS X though... Unlike "App Store", which is one of very many names for a download center for programs, OS X literally means "the tenth version of an operating system".

Google has the Android Market. Do you really think Amazon just chose the name "App Store" by themselves? What are the chances of that happening randomly? Of all the words that mean "program" and all the synonyms for "shop", they chose the same combination that Apple chose... just a coincidence, you know.

----------

They must be using iphones so they cant visualize images correctly. Get a nexus ffs!

Advertising for a phone on a forum? Sorry, but that's pretty lame. At least I don't order people to buy the stuff I have in my signature. You can feast your eyes on that Droid RAZR MAXX, but I'm not going to tell you to buy it. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[KnightWRX]

They don't.

----------



Apple and MS have equally generic names for their products (since "window" doesn't always refer to physical glass), so one of them can't be right while the other is wrong.

Yes, actually it can. Since you admit Microsoft doesn't sell "Panes of glass" and Windows is not a synonym for Operating System, then Microsoft did not in fact trademark a descriptive term.

- App Store - Store that sells Applications. Exactly what Apple has
- Windows - Panes of glass or alternatively, in computing, a UI element that represents part of an application in Graphical environnements. Microsoft sells an Operating System.

Microsoft doesn't hold a trademark for Windows over panes of glass or specific UI elements. It hasn't sued Lowes for selling Windows for your house renovation needs nor as it sued Apple or Oracle or HP over using Windows in their Graphical environnements, be it Finder or CDE or the Java Desktop System. It hasn't sued MIT over the X-Window System, or asked that XCreateWindow() be removed from xlib, that Apple do away with UIWindow or NSWindow in their respective UIKit or AppKit frameworks.

That is how it is different. It's also something we've explained already. Again. And again.

- App Store = descriptive
- Windows = generic word
- Apple = generic word
- Google = generic word

You can trademark a generic word, but if it is descriptive, you have to show it has achieved Secondary Meaning. See legal definition for that, I posted it earlier.