Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Amazon Over 'App Store' Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, although, I'm terrible with grammar and spelling, lets see;
"Got to love armchair thread critics who don't know the difference between its and it's. Hilarious.
-Hilarious is not a sentence, does not require a period.
Why are you making this an Apple vs Microsoft issue. Palm is just ONE company that has been using the terms APPS (not programs, not executables, etc) long before Apple.
-Questions get a question mark at the end of the sentence, not a period.
-etc. requires a period on the end to mean Et cetera.
But go ahead - make this a stupid MS vs Apple "war" if you want. Apple should prepare to defend why it believes they should own the trademark exclusively. Because it's being challenged. That's what Apple should be read to do.
-you used a dash in the middle of your sentence
-vs. also an abbreviation. It requires a period to indicate "versus."
-"Because it's being challenged." Is not a complete sentence.
-"ready" has a y at the end.
-You used three sentence fragments to communicate a single idea. Instead of saying like, "Since Apple is being challenged they should be ready to defend to defend their trademark."
And anyone challenging should be defending their argument that "app store" is generic.
-does not justify a new paragraph, your still on the train of thoughts.
-There was no need to start this sentence with "And." While there are valid times to do so, this is exactly the reason schools tell kids never to start a sentence with "and."
-it should be "the" argument. Anyone challenging is on the same side of the same argument. They don't each have their own version of the argument.
It's between lawyers and judges. As I said several pages back - the actual affect on the consumer is nothing either way. Unless you count a bunch of Apple diehards who will piss and moan if Apple loses its trademark (which they don't own yet because it's already been contested)"
-again with the dash in the middle of the sentence.
-while "affect" is a word, the word you mean is "effect."
-"either way" is repetitive and unneeded. If the effect has no difference regardless of outcome, "either way" is already implied.
-the whole sentence is just poorly written. "As I said before, the actual effect for consumers is virtual nothing," "As I've previously posted, the end results will not have an affect on the consumer," OR "Either way, the consumer will not be affected."
-Your closing sentence fragment, is not a sentence.
-Your closing "sentence" is a sentence fragment.
-Your closing "sentence needs a coma before the parenthesis.
-Your closing "sentence" requires a period before the last parenthesis.
Of course, this is ignoring the logical contradictions you've presented in your arguments.
Sorry to inform you, but their trademark is on "The Container Store", not Container Store.
You are correct. When it comes to the case between Apple and Amazon, I do not matter at all. Individuals and their opinions don't. What matters is existing law and how it will be applied to the facts.
Nevertheless, your premise, that you and others in the "industry" used the term "app" actually supports the argument that I was insinuating ... that the term "app" was not in common use among the average person. As you point out, it was in limited use among a specific group.
It doesn't matter anyway. Apple did not seek to get a TM on the term "app," just "App Store."
You write "the FACT that it wasn't opposed." Do you know that it wasn't opposed? Have you researched this? Or are you just making assertions blindly?
Last edited by a moderator:
You mean when I could buy thousands of mobile "apps" 10 years ago from the store on PalmGear.com to install on my mobile devices, that was a different context?
Popularity contests and your personal opinion of recognition are irrelevant.
My issue with your logic is this. You say "App" is short for, or a well-known nickname for, "Application." Going with your shoe store analogy, "Kicks" is a well known nickname for "shoes." There are plenty of shoe stores with similar names. http://kickzstore.com , http://kicks-store.com , http://shoes.com , http://ShoeStore.com
What a load of crap !
Like ford trademarking the term "Automobile" after making the model-T ...
Shut up Apple and play nice.
Trademark "Shoe store"
Or "Clothing Store"
You can't trademark a description.
I'm going to trademark the color Red
and YES ...There are reference's to Applications being called APPs in Various Microsoft related materials Way before Apple started the APP Store.
This is going to be a pathetic fight.
Actually it would be more like Apple trademarking Kicks Store as opposed to shoe store. Shoe store would be Application Store.
In regards to "I'm going to TM the color Red" ...
TMs have been granted for specific colors, when they have been proven to denote a certain thing.
See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/0495Bulletin/US_ColorTrademark.html
TMs have been granted for specific colors, when they have been proven to denote a certain thing.
See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/0495Bulletin/US_ColorTrademark.html
You're confusing deliberate writing style and acceptable use cases vs what YOU believe are correct usages based on old rules. I'm not saying my entire entry is grammatically correct. I'm just saying that you're being nitpicky to the n'th degree.
And you're wrong - I meant affect as it's defined. Not effect. But you're more concerned with playing teacher than contributing to the thread. You'll note that my initial "snarky comment in the thread was to someone who wasn't adding any value. Hence my "snarky" reply about its vs it's.
Lastly, if you're going to play the role of teacher, then perhaps you should (also) use proper expressions. The cliche is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
But now I'm being hypocritical as my only purpose in this particular post is to show your hypocrisy and not truly add to the discussion. Have a nice day...
Last edited:
It wasn't just in the industry. "App" has been used by handheld and smartphone users for the past decade. It's only new to people who are new to such old devices.
Not that it matters where or how much it was used. Heck, "RAM" and "ROM" were mostly in industrial use decades ago, as well.
Yes, this is the only point that people should be discussing.
Actually it would be more like Apple trying to trademark "Auto Store" as opposed to "Automobile Store" - and unsurprisingly, nobody in auto sales has a trademark on "Auto Store" (though there are some other automation and machinery areas that do use the term).
I have no idea how to research this particular information, but it would be very interesting to see the statistics on Google searches that included the term "app" before and after Apple's App Store was founded.
Wasn't "widget" a common term applied to things that we now call apps in the days before the App Store. Not saying it was used in all instances, but it was fairly common, and seems less so now.
EDIT - someone will soon explain the difference between Widget and App, which are two different things. Sorry.
Wasn't "widget" a common term applied to things that we now call apps in the days before the App Store. Not saying it was used in all instances, but it was fairly common, and seems less so now.
EDIT - someone will soon explain the difference between Widget and App, which are two different things. Sorry.
Last edited:
I bet you were also for Apple when they stole iOS and iPhone straight out of Cisco's trademark portfolio.
LICENSED. At least get the facts straight.
Agency Theory looks at conflicts of interest between people with different interests in the same assets. Not sure how this applies between Apple and one of its own products.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A790175 for the use of apostrophe. It can be used as a contraction (such as "I am" becoming "I'm"), as a possessive (as in "Jack's Ball") and in the solitary case of single lower case letters, it is preferable to use an apostrophe to avoid confusion, as in "mind your p's and q's". In this case "app's" is not a contraction, it isn't possessing anything and "app" is not a single letter.
With respect you have shown and proven nothing..
Apple was awarded the TM in 2008. Popular usage of the terms 'app' and 'app store' only begin to appear after Apple had brought them to market.
Those are facts. Easily proven, facts!
I think this case interestingly does go to show just how far Windows has now fallen that people who once called themselves fanboys now desperately deny ever using words like 'programs' to describe the windows ecosystem.
iPods became so popular that they became the generic term for mp3 players,
iPhones were so future forward that they are still the smartphones.
iPads have already defined what is a tablet,
and the 'app store' is yet another example of Apple completely innovating how users of their products interact with their world.
But the revisionists still try to twist the truth, so that they can justify to themselves why they never need to be thankful, or act in any way respectful.
And that it's absolutely fine for everyone else to rip-off Apples ideas.
And it is not all or nothing. The ability to trademark a name is not struck down by evidence of prior use. You cannot point to evidence the word or phrase has been used ever and say it cannot be trademarked. This is not a patent.
The amount of usage of the term can be debated, but pointing out that the term has existed is not a final argument. So it may end up that in response to statements such as yours a judge may say "you don't matter".
And as another person has pointed out, this is about "app store" not app anyway but the point is still the same.
I think it does. The argument about the validity of a trademark is not based on one evidence of usage and the trademark is denied. But certainly how widespread the usage is and in what application of the term.
Last edited:
Revisionists? That's pot calling the kettle "black" me thinks.
Part of the problem is based on some people's perception of what is popular or not.
If you owned a Palm device - for years you've been using Apps. YEARS. Does that mean the phrase Apps wasn't popular - because YOU or others weren't using it.
I'm not judging - just posing the problem/issue with the definition of popularity. It's easy to say "well the masses or general public define it" - but is that completely legitimate?
There are hundreds of words or phrases in every occupation from doctor to lawyer to the tech world, etc that are POPULAR but not among the general public. Does that mean they aren't popular "enough" to be considered mainstream?
I won't even discuss how iPads have determined what a tablet is or is not. That discussion is something else entirely. What I will say - is you're clearly biased. Tablets were defined years ago. You're confusing defining (as a device) and defining as "gold standard." One does NOT equate the other
There were many many many smart phones before the iPhone in 2007.
But again - you're biased. Especially stating that you think those that are arguing against you are "revisionists." Pot, kettle, black
Despite the legal wranglings, if you can't call it an app store what do you call it? Maybe too simplistic, but it would be akin to trademarking supermarket. Someone, somewhere had to "invent" a word at some point in history. Doesn't mean they should hold exclusive ownership over that word.