Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook seems a lot more willing to settle and avoid these lawsuits.

by the looks of it Time Cook understood Apple had no case. He knew if Apple kept pushing it Amazon win and chances are would sue to have their legal fees covered which Apple would more than likely have to pay.

Chances are the settle ment was to just drop the law suit and call it good. they might of agreed to pay part of Amazons legal fees.
 
Sure, in that sense.

But in the sense that countless headlines and stories across tech news sites and blogs have published and republished evidence that Amazon is unable to function in the app marketplace without copying the market leader's every move, even down to the name of its own store... well, I'm not so sure that's a win. Consumers notice that kind of copycat behavior and being branded the wannabe while your competitor is cast as the "original" is not a good thing.

If you think otherwise, ask yourself why Coke and Pepsi spend so much trying to prove to consumers that they're the market leader and the other is playing catch-up.

So you are saying Amazon won this battle but Apple is winning the war. This seems reasonable. I don't think most people think of anything other than Apple when "App Store" is mentioned. Amazon can call their store the same thing but it will probably end up helping Apple because of the association. Amazon should try to find a different phrase to differentiate themselves.
 
This was definitely one of the more ridiculous lawsuits. Very few courts are going to come to the conclusion that anyone but the most dense individual gets confused between the Apple App Store and the Amazon App Store. It was a pointless lawsuit from the get-go.

Actually it isn't ridiculous at all, I think you completely underestimate the stupidity of the average person.

Just the other day I was in iTunes doing something and had an app open. Someone I was talking too saw it and asked if I could download that for their Samsung phone . . . from iTunes. I said, sorry, it's in iTunes, it's only for Apple products. They told me I was wrong and they would do it themselves. I haven't heard back from them.
 
Actually it isn't ridiculous at all, I think you completely underestimate the stupidity of the average person.

Just the other day I was in iTunes doing something and had an app open. Someone I was talking too saw it and asked if I could download that for their Samsung phone . . . from iTunes. I said, sorry, it's in iTunes, it's only for Apple products. They told me I was wrong and they would do it themselves. I haven't heard back from them.

You were in iTunes and had an App open? Not sure I understand what you were doing.
 
nope, not even close to an Amazon win. Like the article stated, everyone knows App Store in association with Apple.
Amazon is simply using similar terms to draw people to theirs..but in the end more people are buying from Apple's App Store.
Nope....Amazon wins and they should counter sue for legal fees......
The very success of Apple's app store is the very reason this suit should never have existed. You can't spin this any other way than a victory for Amazon. Apple sued......Amazon defended and would have won. So Apple drops the suit...clearly a win for Amazon.
 
Consumers notice that kind of copycat behavior and being branded the wannabe while your competitor is cast as the "original" is not a good thing.

The only "consumers" that can say that are the ones on Apple sites.

----------

I cannot remember ever hearing anyone using the term "app" until Apple made it popular,

Then you have a very short term memory, because the term app has been using since decades ago and the term "killer app" has been used at least since the beginning of the eighties.
 
An interesting quirk in the order: Apple agreed to dismiss it's suit with prejudice, which means they can never bring the suit again in the future. However, Amazon merely agreed to dismiss it's counter-suit without prejudice, meaning it CAN bring it's claims again in the future. I wonder why Amazon required this and why Apple allowed it? Ordinarily cross-dismissals are both with prejudice unless there are unexpired terms of settlement (such as installment payments) for which a party may need to re-litigate upon default.

Hmm...


Well, the article states that they settled. This to me translates into each side got something. My guess is that Apple chose settle this case but did not per se give up on the trademark filing. Apple may have thus elected to allow Amazon to keep using the "Amazon appstore" name or maybe even license it. But, Amazon then did not dismiss with Prejudice to allow them to bring suit in case Apple tries to pursue them by some other means in the future. I can't recall what the counterclaim was in the 1st place.
 
Actually it isn't ridiculous at all, I think you completely underestimate the stupidity of the average person.

Just the other day I was in iTunes doing something and had an app open. Someone I was talking too saw it and asked if I could download that for their Samsung phone . . . from iTunes. I said, sorry, it's in iTunes, it's only for Apple products. They told me I was wrong and they would do it themselves. I haven't heard back from them.
yeah and those same people would follow GPS directions off of a cliff....so you can't patent stupid....or write laws to prevent it.......stupid is as stupid does....
If you go to a Ford dealer looking for Toyota parts.....thats on you.
 
Like Windows?

Windows perhaps is an overkill too. However, the primary meaning of "window" has nothing to do with computers and programs (just like "Apple"). "App Store" on the other hand literally means the store that sells apps. Trademarking this would be a clear nonsense.
 
I'm just asking about the importance of winning or losing this particular case.

Unfortunately it seems like you do know the answer. That is that by giving in / losing this battle, it means that the term AppStore can be used by anyone. There is now nothing stopping the Microsoft AppStore, the Blackberry AppStore, the Samsung AppStore, the IBM AppStore, the Dingleberry AppStore, etc. If you want to maintain a trademark (which this would be, not a patent) you have to go after anyone using it less it become generic. The argument is, that it may already be generic. But before Apple started using it, was it in use? Not really.

Why did Apple stop pursuing this? Could be that they don't want more negative press. They know that it is already generic and there is no way for them to win. Or it could be that they realize that the average consumer knows that there are multiple appstores and doesn't care. Or some other reason. Either way, it just means that anyone will be able to use it now and it is up to the consumer to understand the difference.

But the average consumer is dumb as bricks; sadly.
 
I don't say this as an insult. You must be new/young.

The term App has been around since back in the Palm Pilot days and even before then.

None, taken. I "converted" from the Windows world in 2001 (with a beautiful, beloved 17in MBP 1Ghz). Given that I hear of 30-year industry vets here, yes, I'm (relatively) new.

I realize that in many cases I seem to be the voice of the (somewhat) average consumer here; many in MacForums are pros, real-PROs, techies, gurus, and the like. I've always used Apple products (well, any computing product)for personal purposes, not professionally, until I entered the IT industry only 2 years ago (still Windows with a little Linux/UNIX thrown in). All my Apple products are "toys", despite their ability to be so much more.

I don't recall ever hearing an application called an "app" in the (then and somewhat still ubiquitous) Windows-world (never used a Palm-pilot), but did encounter the term "applications" for the first time when I switched to the Mac in '01.

I also vaguely recall starting to hear the term "app" used a lot shortly after the iPhone was introduced (or perhaps when the App Store was), though that is also highly subjective. I concede that memory isn't infallible.

I'd love to see actual evidence of someone actively marketing the term "app" before Apple did, just for academic purposes.

Did Palm do that back in the day? (Like: "Our palm pilot can run your favorite apps" type thing) Not arguing, mind you, just curious.
 
App store?

I just find it Hysterical that Microsoft whose copywrote (copywrited?) the words "word" and "windows" would even get anywhere near this argument.
 
None, taken. I "converted" from the Windows world in 2001 (with a beautiful, beloved 17in MBP 1Ghz). Given that I hear of 30-year industry vets here, yes, I'm (relatively) new.

I realize that in many cases I seem to be the voice of the (somewhat) average consumer here; many in MacForums are pros, real-PROs, techies, gurus, and the like. I've always used Apple products (well, any computing product)for personal purposes, not professionally, until I entered the IT industry only 2 years ago (still Windows with a little Linux/UNIX thrown in). All my Apple products are "toys", despite their ability to be so much more.

I don't recall ever hearing an application called an "app" in the (then and somewhat still ubiquitous) Windows-world (never used a Palm-pilot), but did encounter the term "applications" for the first time when I switched to the Mac in '01.

I also vaguely recall starting to hear the term "app" used a lot shortly after the iPhone was introduced (or perhaps when the App Store was), though that is also highly subjective. I concede that memory isn't infallible.

I'd love to see actual evidence of someone actively marketing the term "app" before Apple did, just for academic purposes.

Did Palm do that back in the day? (Like: "Our palm pilot can run your favorite apps" type thing) Not arguing, mind you, just curious.

No worries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handango

Used to have a few palm pilots back in the day. While that entry on wikipedia won't "prove" the use of the words apps - it was an app market where you downloaded software for the Palm Pilot and didn't need to sync with a computer to do so. Many people referred to these programs as apps. I don't think it was ever formally called an App Store.
 
And what I mean is that with something like $110 BILLION in cash reserves, lawsuits are unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on other activities in the company. :D

They do, though. Money isn't the only resource Apple needs to make products. E.g., they probably didn't want their executive team and board spending time on lawsuits -- especially unpromising ones like this one.
 
I just find it Hysterical that Microsoft whose copywrote (copywrited?) the words "word" and "windows" would even get anywhere near this argument.

MS would not be able to copywrite "Word Processor" or "Operating System."

Yes, Microsoft Word can be a trademark for a word processor application. Yes Microsoft Windows can be a trademark for a computer operating system.

Do you really not see the difference between those and "App Store"?

There is a big difference between simple and generic.
 
There's no financial loss on Apple's behalf if people go to another appstore and first try (if they are that confused) to download an app for their iPhone. Amazon won't let you download an app without registering a device... and you can't register an iDevice.

That's like saying that it's OK for Honda to make the Ferrari 458 Italia because nobody is going to see it and confuse it with the real Ferrari.
 
Yes, Microsoft Word can be a trademark for a word processor application. Yes Microsoft Windows can be a trademark for a computer operating system.

Well, they settled the case against Lindows and bought its trademark because they risked losing the Windows trademark

----------

That's like saying that it's OK for Honda to make the Ferrari 458 Italia because nobody is going to see it and confuse it with the real Ferrari.

And like all the other car analogies, this is also wrong. Perhaps if you talked about cars and motorcycles perhaps the analogy could have made more sense
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.