Actually, a "macintosh" is a kind of apple.
I fixed your typo. As you know Mac, mac and MAC are all different things. I'm not trademark expert but Mac vs mac vs MAC ie. that little difference could mean everything.
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.
Judge Skeptical of Apple's 'Appstore' Trademark Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I fixed your typo. As you know Mac, mac and MAC are all different things. I'm not trademark expert but Mac vs mac vs MAC ie. that little difference could mean everything.
Hi All,
Just for you member is the USA
In Europe and the rest of the world, Amazon don't have an Appstore as Apple have rights to the name 'Appstore' so Amazon can't use it...
There are plenty of forums about compaining that Amazon dont have an 'Appstore' anywhere other that the US.
Andriod users are very upset that they can't download exclusive things like Angry Birds Rio at the time of launch, of Amazons 'free app a day'
Amazon are refusing to release 'Appstores' around the world at they can't use the 'Appstore' name, they are hoping that they win the right to use 'Appstore' in the US, and use that as a springboard to contest the rights that Apple hold in Europe and RotW.
IMO Amazon have ****ed up here... They should have just named their store something else, and released it worldwide, they are going to lose a fortune from Europe whilst this is going on, and they might be late to the races and get no European market share when they do release something.
Just for you member is the USA
In Europe and the rest of the world, Amazon don't have an Appstore as Apple have rights to the name 'Appstore' so Amazon can't use it...
There are plenty of forums about compaining that Amazon dont have an 'Appstore' anywhere other that the US.
Andriod users are very upset that they can't download exclusive things like Angry Birds Rio at the time of launch, of Amazons 'free app a day'
Amazon are refusing to release 'Appstores' around the world at they can't use the 'Appstore' name, they are hoping that they win the right to use 'Appstore' in the US, and use that as a springboard to contest the rights that Apple hold in Europe and RotW.
IMO Amazon have ****ed up here... They should have just named their store something else, and released it worldwide, they are going to lose a fortune from Europe whilst this is going on, and they might be late to the races and get no European market share when they do release something.
Yes, and they can't release in Europe MP3 store and Video on demand store because they don't have the trademark.
Thats not it at all...if you go by who has the rights to the trademark Apple owns it in the US currently too, thus the reason for this article and the ongoing legal battle
The reason Amazon doesn't have it world wide is likely because they just haven't made arrangements in those countries yet; and I doubt Apple has any impact on it what so ever. Many many US based companies take time to release services outside of their home country. Microsoft not releasing the Zune store globally years ago wasn't because Apple had iTunes elsewhere but rather other arrangements needing to be made.
You also can't order a lot of products from Amazon in Australia yet because they simply do business different across the border.
Last edited:
Actually a "McIntosh" is a kind of apple, whereas a "Macintosh" is a kind of Apple.
How about the original applicant for the trademark of AppStore then ?
Notice the date. AppStore or App Store is not something Apple invented. It's a descriptive phrase that is used to describe the service provided by a place that sells applications, like Grocery Store, Hardware Store, Container Store (and their trademarked logo, not name).
Anyway, Steve Jobs basically lost this lawsuit on his own in less than 2 minutes during a Earning's call earlier this year :
Steve Jobs said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-steve-jobs-referred-to-app-stores-2011-4#ixzz1Q5bVy2ny
So much for that.
And Apple is a fruit. Trademarks can use generic words without any problems, it's the field they are applied to that matters. In this case, App Store's problem is that it is descriptive. It is an "App Store", a place that sells applications.
However, Apple computers is not a company that makes fruit based biological computers. Windows is not a glass pane that you put on a building or a graphical square on screen that contains other controls to create a user interface. If you want to have a descriptive mark, you usually trademark it as a logo, which while it has to be unique, doesn't stop others from using the descriptive nature of the phrase.
This is correct, but using a generic term makes much easier for people to associate your trademark to the generic business you are trying to protect instead of your specific business. If people when using the trademark stop thinking about your business and start thinking in general your trademark is gone.
Let's say Apple was granted the trademark "App Store" a long time ago. If nowadays when you talk about "App Store" you still think only about Apple's the trademark stands. If you think in general about a kind of software applications store, the trademark does not stand anymore.
Trademarking the term "App Store" is like trademarking the word "Windows" oh wait thats already been done... Microcrap got away with trademarking the generic Windows so Apple should get App Store its only fair
when I hear the term Windows I think of the glass box in my living room, bedrooms, etc that I open and close....
****ing learn to read or dont comment!
Yep, they'll have a hard time arguing its not a generic term when the company itself uses it as such
Well said
That is exactly what has been happening. My parents in US are on Verizon and are now running an iPhone but previously they were convinced to buy other phones which were very similar to the iPhone and had all its features.
And that too at cheaper prices overall.
Bwahahaha!
No, Macintosh has never been a variety of fruit-bearing tree, nor the name of a fruit borne by such a tree.
You're thinking of "McIntosh". That is a variety of apple.
[edit]Sorry, others beat me to the punch.[/edit]
Your example wasn't a store. It rented software over the internet. The App Store isn't a store either. It's closer to a brokerage then a store. It doesn't buy anything, it doesn't sell anything, it doesn't have a physical presence, it doesn't carry merchandise. It's does hosting, advertising, and payment processing. The App Store can't even set it's own pricing on anything, because again, it is not the actual entity selling anything.
This argument really doesn't hold any water. There was (is?) no generic name for what these places are. He was talking to a group used to the Apple ecosystem whom would all be expected to know what App Store is, and would know the other vendors had similar for their offerings, but not actually what they were called. Like, someone on this board was to say, "The competition's iDisk is ..." It is clear he is talking about Dropbox, Unbuntu One, and the like.
Edit; That said, I agree with not baring Amazon's use while the case is decided. However, I do ultimately think the case should resolve in Apple's favor, and at that point Amazon should have to change the name.
I also think Apple should rename it anyway, and push for generalized use of App Store. It doesn't fit in with their naming convention. App Store vs Mac App Store. Then Apple can market how they invented the whole idea of "App Stores."
Last edited:
Sure it's a store. A store is a place where money is exchanged for goods and services. It doesn't have to be a brick and mortor establishement. My example is fine.
It's also a previous use of the words App Store together, which many posters here claim is not something to have been done before Apple did it.
Now they can bow their heads down in shame.You spin me right round... You know how that song goes ?
Sure there is a generic name for what these places are : Application Stores. A place to buy applications. App Stores for short. Hence his use of "other's app stores".
The argument holds a lot of water. Amazon's lawyers even filed it in their briefs to the court on this very issue. But then again, maybe you're a better lawyer than Amazon's lawyers... or are you even a lawyer to begin with ?
But then he would say "The competition's online storage solutions". That's what iDisk is. Just like the App Store is ... well... An app store. Now if Apple were trying to trademark "Online Storage Solution" to apply it to iDisk, you'd spin this how exactly ?
Again, App Store is a descriptive mark. Hence why it's still not granted to Apple and is being contested.
Actually I am an Android user and whenever Im notifying someone of an App, or being notified of one we say that It's available in the Market.
Do you buy/rent your house/apartment/condo at a housing store?
Is eBay a store?
We might just have different ideas of what a store is, in which case your logic, and the rest of your post makes sense to me. However, I'm accustom to a store being something that buys and sell merchandise. To be a store you have to take the risk of purchasing goods and being able to sell them at a profit.
My local grocery store stocks up on eggs they can try to sell them for any amount. Less then paid for them, or more then they are worth, it's up to the grocer. Where as, if I try to sell my house through a realtor, she has no say in how much I ask or what I will accept. If the grocer sells his eggs at twice market value, or at a loss, or they go bad, the farmer still got paid the same amount. If my house sells for more then market value, or sells for much less then I paid for it, the realtor gets paid a commission based on the sale price. If my house burns the ground in the mean time, she does not take a loss. If my house doesn't sell, she gets nothing. There is no risk of loss for the realtor, where as the store takes all the risk.
it seems your "outrage" is not being received well on this forum at least.
is there some reason you carry this level of concern with you? are you a shareholder?
So wait... because you buy/rent things at other places than a store, a store is not a place where money is exchanged for goods and services ?
I don't quite follow your logic here. You're claiming that because a Rectangle isn't a square, then obviously a square isn't a rectangle...
Depends, eBay themselves don't really sell anything. They offer brokerage services for auctions. They are a auction house. Are they different eBay stores stores though ? Of course they are. They aren't operated by eBay though.
You limit your vision of what a store is. A store can have very different models of stocking up on goods. And essentially, if you go right down to it, the App Store does "buy" goods and "stock" them. They just pay the "distributor" after a sale has occurred instead of before.
You limit your definition of a store to a retail store. What you're describing is retailing.
And Apple fanboys has the right defend the company regardless how silly or trivial the actual lawsuit is. You can easily tell who these fanboys are in this thread.
what about the notifications apple stole from android in IOS5
Thanks you for citing something that has not made it's full public release...
So wait... because you buy/rent things at other places than a store, a store is not a place where money is exchanged for goods and services ?
I don't quite follow your logic here. You're claiming that because a Rectangle isn't a square, then obviously a square isn't a rectangle...
Depends, eBay themselves don't really sell anything. They offer brokerage services for auctions. They are a auction house. Are they different eBay stores stores though ? Of course they are. They aren't operated by eBay though.
You limit your vision of what a store is. A store can have very different models of stocking up on goods. And essentially, if you go right down to it, the App Store does "buy" goods and "stock" them. They just pay the "distributor" after a sale has occurred instead of before.
You limit your definition of a store to a retail store. What you're describing is retailing.
So, then, we define "store" differently. The real question would be, what does the court define as a store? If the court sees "store" as your describing, then I agree with everything you wrote.
However, I do not think the definition of "store" is as cut and dry as you say.
Websters defines store as : "a business establishment where usually diversified goods are kept for retail sale" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store?show=1&t=1308836888 )
Webster's defines broker as ; "one who acts as an intermediary as an agent who negotiates contracts of purchase and sale " ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broker )
Also, what is being sold in the App Store is Software licenses. Are those "goods?" Different states, and even different courts with-in the same state have differing opinions as to if software licenses are "goods" or not. The UK has decided software licenses are NOT goods, although that doesn't directly matter for a US case.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States )
( http://www.slaw.ca/2011/05/12/software-licence-not-subject-to-sale-of-goods-act-says-uk-court/ )
Also, back in the day Barnes and Noble sued Amazon for saying they were "The world's largest bookstore." They said that Amazon wasn't a bookstore, it was a book broker. The case ultimately settled out of court.
This suggests that B&N defines "store" vs "broker" as different things similar to my view, while Amazon sees them like you do. It also suggest that either B&N or Amazon, (maybe both) felt their definition was not strong enough to actually define in open court.
In my opinion the App Store acts as a brokerage and not as a store. I respect that in your opinion it does act as a store. I'd like to hear more about what opinion the court in question would be likely to have.
Actually some general public is really stupid and will buy Apps on Amazon and try to install them on iPhones.