Tim Cook seems a lot more willing to settle and avoid these lawsuits.
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.
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.
Nope....Amazon wins and they should counter sue for legal fees......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.
This analogy would make sense if Hoover called their product "vacuum" and then trade marked "vacuuming" but they did not (they would get just as far as Apple did with their stupid lawsuit).
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.
I cannot remember ever hearing anyone using the term "app" until Apple made it popular,
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...
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....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.
Like Windows?
I'm just asking about the importance of winning or losing this particular case.
You were in iTunes and had an App open? Not sure I understand what you were doing.
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.
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.![]()
I just find it Hysterical that Microsoft whose copywrote (copywrited?) the words "word" and "windows" would even get anywhere near this argument.
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.
Yes, Microsoft Word can be a trademark for a word processor application. Yes Microsoft Windows can be a trademark for a computer operating system.
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.