Microsoft Hires Linguist to Oppose Apple's 'App Store' Trademark

[Tampa Tom]

How cunning. Hire a linguist.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.

Amen, brother... M$ wants to have it their way but not allow anyone else to do the same.

 

[Vegasman]

But MS never consistently used the term App to describe any part of their business. Sure it pops up occasionally here and there, almost at random, but that's about it. Historically they've always used 'Programs'. So to use your example, why couldn't they say: "We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can buy programs.....". Why are they not happy with that? It will line up so much better with their software genealogy.

I suspect the truth of the matter is they now want to start using 'App' for everything (instead of Programs), because Apple has popularized the term. Its on everybody's tongue now. And MS wants in on it. They want their stuff to be associated with the buzz that Apple created. That's borderline parasitic to me.

Because apps and applications have been used interchangeably for over a decade. Why only allow Apple to use it?

 

[rpieket]

Disclaimer: Apple fanboy here. But agree with Microsoft.

App Store is simply the description of the actual thing: An app store. It's just too simple.

It would be a description of the actual thing if the App Store were, in fact, an actual store.

But it isn't an actual store. It is a service and an application.

-Ron.

 

[Lone Deranger]

Then why doesn't Apple just trademark the word "App"?

You'd think after 25 years dealing with MS they'd know better.

 

[davelanger]

Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.

Does an "app" mean an Apple program?



It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.

Applications are a strict subset of programs.

Apple didnt TM application or app they TM appstore.

I dont see why people are trying to argue the wrong point.

MS can call it something, I and others have given different names they could use. MS has the marketplace, hell that is a generic name as well. Should apple sue them for that?

 

[blahblah100]

Amen, brother... M$ wants to have it their way but not allow anyone else to do the same.

Care to explain how App£€ differs?

 

[Lone Deranger]

Why only allow Apple to use it?

And there we have it. MS greed. Thank you.

 

[KnightWRX]

I agree that app store is a very generic term, but in order to avoid all the legal troubles and the money and time lost, why not just create your own name?

Microsoft has their own name. I guess they are just trying to protect the descriptive nature of the term. "Microsoft Marketplace, the app store for Windows Phone 7".

Microsoft does not intend to use the trademark.

I don't get why Apple filed for such a descriptive mark anyway. iTunes App Store was what they called it at first, what was wrong with that ? iOS App Store would also save all these legal troubles. Apple App Store another that's perfectly fine.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

My linguist is better than your linguist

 

[logandzwon]

So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)

I guess the counter argument would be that an application is a type of program, not a part of a program. (which I personally would disagree with. As I understand, the individual binary is an application, where the program is the sum of the binaries, libraries, resource files, etc...)

 

[cube]

So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)

That's like saying it's OK to name a restaurant "Burger Place" because it's technically a "Fast Food Place".

 

[3N16MA]

They don't want to call their store "MobileApp" because they already have a store. It's called "Marketplace".

They would however like to describe their store that called "Marketplace" by saying that it is a store that sells apps. You know, an app store.

It is a market that sells apps. You know, and app market. No need for them to describe it as an App Store since that description would not fly over anyone's head.

 

[ChazUK]

It is a market that sells apps. You know, and app market. No need for them to describe it as an App Store since that description would not fly over anyone's head.

But it is an "app store".

 

[bassfingers]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Damn i wish i was smart enough to be a lawyer. Lots of money to be made!

I wish I were*

 

[wovel]

Agreed.... Macs had windows long before PC's had "Windows". I think that if one can be a trademark then the other surely can. Personally, I think that if there were no such precedence, then neither should be allowed as a trademark. But terms like this have been allowed as trademarks for quite some time. Microsoft should just drop it -- what is their vested interest here anyway? There are a thousand things they can call their application store.

Microsoft's interest is obvious. They want to create marketplace confusion to aid in the sale of an inferior product. You know, the thing trademarks were designed to protect against..

You say App Store, everyone on the planet who does nut have their head shoved up their backside only thinks of one thing. Before Apple made the App store, no one thought of anything at all when you said it...

 

[Tailpike1153]

You'll find Microsoft's reason to sue Apple is here. Guess Microsoft is protecting itself from a legal butt kicking by being preemptive.

 

[KnightWRX]

I guess the counter argument would be that an application is a type of program, not a part of a program. (which I personally would disagree with. As I understand, the individual binary is an application, where the program is the sum of the binaries, libraries, resource files, etc...)

Actually, the individual binary is an executable.

Web Apps are complex, contain client side code, server side code, datasets, data models, etc..

Applications and Programs are pretty much interchangeable and describe the whole. MS actually got it wrong in that Explorer screenshot, .EXE should simply say Executable and .DLL should simply say dynamically linked library.

 

[logandzwon]

That's like saying it's OK to name a restaurant "Burger Place" because it's technically a "Fast Food Place".

ya or "Burger King" because technically they were just the king of making burgers?

 

[iliketyla]

Microsoft has their own name. I guess they are just trying to protect the descriptive nature of the term. "Microsoft Marketplace, the app store for Windows Phone 7".

Microsoft does not intend to use the trademark.

I don't get why Apple filed for such a descriptive mark anyway. iTunes App Store was what they called it at first, what was wrong with that ? iOS App Store would also save all these legal troubles. Apple App Store another that's perfectly fine.

Ahhh, I didn't realize the first part.

Off topic, have you seen or used a Windows Phone 7 yet?

 

[Vegasman]

So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)

Interesting indeed. But i would argue that app, application and program are all equally interchangeable.

A club can call itself "Liqueur Store" all it wants. It is not a store that sells liqueur. It's a club that sells liqueur.

 

[FoxMcCloud]

Stupid, just stupid. You can't possibly trademark App Store.

Putting two generic words together to form a generic term generically shouldn't be legally trademarked.

How often have you seen a music store named Music Store, or a food store named Food Store.

The part you should be able to trademark would be with your company name in front I.e Pheonix Music Store. Therefore no one else can call their music store Pheonix Music Store.

A store that sells apps cannot be trademarked as such, unless it featured a brand prefix like Apple App Store, Microsoft App Store, Amazon AppStore etc.

Example, if Amazon trademarked Amazon AppStore then this would prevent RIM from opening an AppStore in the Amazon forest called Amazon AppStore.

See?

Likewise, Tasty Food Store, there could be only one. But Food Store itself, no.

 

[ericmooreart]

But they don't sell rooms. They sell furniture. The app store sells apps.

In the world of legal mumbo jumbo MicroEvil has a point. app is a term not generic to apple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APP_(file_format)

The should just call it the iApp Store

 

[3N16MA]

But it is an "app store".

According to Microsoft it's a market. No one calls the local farmers market a store yet everyone knows you can purchase products there.

 

[davelanger]

You'll find Microsoft's reason to sue Apple is here. Guess Microsoft is protecting itself from a legal butt kicking by being preemptive.

wouldnt app hub (store) be ok since its not just appstore?