Apple Defends Against Microsoft in 'App Store' Trademark Dispute

[35g700]

Microsoft is right on this one. The term "App Store" is very generic (although most people here won't admit it).

As for Apple saying "Windows" is generic, the only operating system that has a more generic name is "Operating System 10"

But I doubt that Microsoft is the only company that thinks that the term "App Store" is to generic, Apple will probably lose because Microsoft is a much bigger company with many more resources that they can use to their advantage.

 

[BaldiMac]

Microsoft is a much bigger company with many more resources that they can use to their advantage.

Not any more.

 

[linux2mac]

Mobile Office, Xbox Live, Live Tiles, etc etc etc.

Also, over two million users are using it and growing...after only 4 months.

Nice logic. McDonald's has served billions of people, does that make them the best restaurant? LOL

 

[tatonka]

Not any more.

Not that I agree with the statement you commented on, but the "size" of a company is a very difficult to measure. You are refering to is the value according to the stock price, where Apple is bigger.
Microsoft has almost twice the amount of employees for example. Apple has a slightly higher revenue where MS has a slightly higher profit ... you get the picture.

I think we can agree that both companies are big ass companies that do have enough money for legal shenanigans like this ..

T.

 

[JAT]

You also hate the company which first came out with tablets, the first company to put an operating system, based on good technology on a phone, the company which made a computer in the house quite affordable, the company which licensed tools for use in iOS software.

None of that is accurate, except licensing ActiveSync. Microsoft has made very few hardware devices, the Xbox really the only exception. Everything else was mice and keyboards.

No one said that.

Maybe you should read the first page, again.

 

[michael.lauden]

[...]Apple will probably lose because Microsoft is a much bigger company with many more resources that they can use to their advantage.

No, Apple won't lose because Microsoft is 'a bigger company', Apple will lose because App Store is pretty generic. I can see why they would want to trademark it - They had the 'first' app store, every phone has 'apps' because of Apple, their dev network for iOS is the most extensive, and again - the 'first'. I can see the logic on both sides

 

[BaldiMac]

Not that I agree with the statement you commented on, but the "size" of a company is a very difficult to measure. You are refering to is the value according to the stock price, where Apple is bigger.
Microsoft has almost twice the amount of employees for example. Apple has a slightly higher revenue where MS has a slightly higher profit ... you get the picture.

I think we can agree that both companies are big ass companies that do have enough money for legal shenanigans like this ..

T.

I understand that, but I was commenting on the statement as a whole in context. Not just what company is "bigger." Apple has just as many resources as (if not more than) Microsoft to litigate this issue. Having more employees doesn't really help.

I wasn't referring to stock cap. I would more specifically point to revenue, profits, and cash on hand.

 

[JAT]

I think we can agree that both companies are big ass companies that do have enough money for legal shenanigans like this ..

T.

It's like everyone here assumes that Steve and Steve have to pick up the Yellow Pages and find a lawyer to sue each other.

They're already on staff, and their cost is already included in the financials.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, Apple won't lose because Microsoft is 'a bigger company', Apple will lose because App Store is pretty generic.

Stating anything at this point as fact is pretty disingenious. The USPTO could go both ways. Let's at least wait for the trial to end and the verdict on the mark to be pronounced before we start claiming to know who will "win" or not.

I can see why they would want to trademark it - They had the 'first' app store, every phone has 'apps' because of Apple, their dev network for iOS is the most extensive, and again - the first. I can see the logic on both sides

None of those are the first. J2ME has been around forever, I was writing "apps" for my Sony Ericsson dumb phone back in 2003, using their Simulator to run the code on my PC before uploading it to the phone. There was a dev network around J2ME, it shipped with NetBeans, a free IDE and was supported on many devices for which vendors provided SDKs that added on top of the base distribution.

My carrier sold games through their "Mobile Games store" even before I started dabbling in this, predating the App Store by many, many years. Gameloft, a very popular mobile games company started in 1999 and their aim has always been mobile phones :

http://www2.gameloft.com/corpo_gl_brief.php

Gameloft is a leading international publisher and developer of video games for mobile phones and consoles. Established in 1999, it has emerged as one of the top innovators in its field.

Of all platforms, the iPhone wasn't even supposed to ship with an SDK. The initial 2007 presentation was all about the Web and the iPhone as a Web access device. Native apps ? Not on the map as far as we're all concerned. The demand took Apple by surprise and it took many months to establish a shippable SDK (probably a clean up of the partner/internal SDK they had)

 

[35g700]

Not any more.

Apple is worth more than Microsoft (Apple marks their products up A LOT more than Microsoft does), but Microsoft has more employees and whatnot which would make them bigger.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple is worth more than Microsoft (Apple marks their products up A LOT more than Microsoft does), but Microsoft has more employees and whatnot which would make them bigger.

Anyway, this argument is worthless. The size of both companies has nothing to do with this thread and its topic.

 

[Apple Corps]

*LTD* - I believe it is about Balmer's ego - he has no clue about how to compete against Apple's innovation pipeline so he approves "distracting" initiatives like this.

 

[tatonka]

It's like everyone here assumes that Steve and Steve have to pick up the Yellow Pages and find a lawyer to sue each other.

They're already on staff, and their cost is already included in the financials.

Yeah I know they both have large legal departments. But it is still time they spend on this and then (of course) can't spend on other things.
Not sure about this case, but even large companies tend to often give those high profile, speciallized cases to external lawers firms.

T.

 

[ct2k7]

None of that is accurate, except licensing ActiveSync. Microsoft has made very few hardware devices, the Xbox really the only exception. Everything else was mice and keyboards.

Maybe you should read the first page, again.

Let me rephrase it then. Placing an operating system, related to Windows technology, on a hardware platform. That sums it up.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple is worth more than Microsoft

Yep.

(Apple marks their products up A LOT more than Microsoft does),

That's not true. Microsoft's margins are much higher than Apple's.

but Microsoft has more employees and whatnot which would make them bigger.

I'm sure that the fact that Microsoft has more employees will have a significant impact on a trademark dispute.

Apple has more money than Microsoft. That would be the significant definition of "bigger" in this context.

 

[Denarius]

*LTD* - I believe it is about Balmer's ego - he has no clue about how to compete against Apple's innovation pipeline so he approves "distracting" initiatives like this.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Apple has never shown any restraint in filing frivolous suits against other people.

That bit in Apple's defence over this issue about how they had 'reached out' to companies that have used their trademark improperly. 'Reaching out' is evidently the new euphemism for threatening legal action.

 

[Denarius]

Yeah I know they both have large legal departments. But it is still time they spend on this and then (of course) can't spend on other things.
Not sure about this case, but even large companies tend to often give those high profile, speciallized cases to external lawers firms.

T.

Then clearly there are too many lawyers with too much time on their hands in both companies.

 

[linux2mac]

Not sure about this case, but even large companies tend to often give those high profile, speciallized cases to external lawers firms.

T.

They do. In the USA, you get the best justice money can buy. And that does not come from a in house legal team. As people have pointed out, it does not matter whether Microsoft or Apple wins. The real winners are the attorneys. They will be the ones laughing all the way to the bank. Take the Madoff case for example. The winners there are the lawyers again while innocent people have lost everything.

 

[tatonka]

Then clearly there are too many lawyers with too much time on their hands in both companies.

I think there are clearly to many lawyers period.

 

[michael.lauden]

Stating anything at this point as fact is pretty disingenious. The USPTO could go both ways. Let's at least wait for the trial to end and the verdict on the mark to be pronounced before we start claiming to know who will "win" or not.

I wasn't stating it as 'fact' if you read the rest of the post I go on to say that both sides have valid points. I meant that 'apple will lose' as in IF apple loses it will be because the term 'app store' is pretty generic - and that they wouldn't lose because 'Microsoft is a bigger company'.

None of those are the first. J2ME has been around forever, I was writing "apps" for my Sony Ericsson dumb phone back in 2003, using their Simulator to run the code on my PC before uploading it to the phone. There was a dev network around J2ME, it shipped with NetBeans, a free IDE and was supported on many devices for which vendors provided SDKs that added on top of the base distribution.

My carrier sold games through their "Mobile Games store" even before I started dabbling in this, predating the App Store by many, many years. Gameloft, a very popular mobile games company started in 1999 and their aim has always been mobile phones :

Notice the "'s around first. They weren't THE FIRST, but they definitely created the model that most smartphone companies are going behind (fast phone, sleek OS, apps - and they use the term apps) - of course there was a dev network for J2ME - if there wasn't a dev network behind any of these products - they wouldn't have been successful. I was never trying to make the point that apple had the first dev network.

Of all platforms, the iPhone wasn't even supposed to ship with an SDK. The initial 2007 presentation was all about the Web and the iPhone as a Web access device. Native apps ? Not on the map as far as we're all concerned. The demand took Apple by surprise and it took many months to establish a shippable SDK (probably a clean up of the partner/internal SDK they had)

I am well aware that the iPhone didn't ship with an SDK - was a first day adopter.

 

[JAT]

Let me rephrase it then. Placing an operating system, related to Windows technology, on a hardware platform. That sums it up.

Well, yeah. Copyrights and trademarks make sure that Microsoft is the ONLY company to make a "Windows" operating system, I certainly don't begrudge them their own IP.

Not sure what it has to do with Apple's store.

 

[ct2k7]

Well, yeah. Copyrights and trademarks make sure that Microsoft is the ONLY company to make a "Windows" operating system, I certainly don't begrudge them their own IP.

Not sure what it has to do with Apple's store.

It was in relation to the tumultuous ejaculation or pure abject nonsense I quoted

 

[KnightWRX]

Notice the "'s around first. They weren't THE FIRST, but they definitely created the model that most smartphone companies are going behind (fast phone, sleek OS, apps - and they use the term apps) - of course there was a dev network for J2ME - if there wasn't a dev network behind any of these products - they wouldn't have been successful. I was never trying to make the point that apple had the first dev network.

But that's what you did say :

[...]Apple, their dev network for iOS is the most extensive, and again - the first. I can see the logic on both sides

Apple basically had no firsts with the iPhone. They weren't the first to use the word "App", a long time industry term. They weren't the first to make their phones programmable by the end user. They weren't the first with a Web browser on a phone (WAP browsers ring a bell ?). They weren't the first with an App Store. They weren't even the first with a touch screen phone without buttons in the front (LG was there first by a few weeks, in december 2006).

They brought Visual Voicemail to the industry (and even that is debated http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/technology/15pogue.html) and a full HTTP browser I guess (but then again, Opera Mini was available in 2005 and that is arguably an HTTP browser).

Apple is not proficient at creating new things. They are proficient at taking existing things and marketing them. They sit on the shoulder of giants and are only very rarely giants themselves.

 

[Apple Corps]

I don't think that's entirely fair. Apple has never shown any restraint in filing frivolous suits against other people.

That bit in Apple's defence over this issue about how they had 'reached out' to companies that have used their trademark improperly. 'Reaching out' is evidently the new euphemism for threatening legal action.

May or may not be "fair" - just my opinion. MS is, in large measure, generating cash via their near monopoly with the Windows OS - especially prevalent in the corporate world. Apple has had to innovate to survive and finally thrive - Steve and team have done that beyond most peoples wildest dreams. Balmer - like many "empty suits" in the board room - continue to focus on the income statement and balance sheet instead of the innovation which will improve their future. So lets spend time suing them over the AppStore instead of creating out own niche.

 

[VSEAE15O]

No one at Microsoft would have the nature to mess around like this. This behavior of Microsoft is so recognizable of the 1990's--selfish and hypocritical.

Steve Ballmer wouldn't try anything like this because he wouldn't have the creativity to attack Apple's App Store brand. However, there is one more person who could have thought of this--it could may as well be old Bill Gates himself.

Anyone remember whether Bill Gates, although retired, still has some say and as a lifetime employee, but not day to day operations at Microsoft?