General Electric sells turbines, locomotives and airplane engines. Why do they need to watch their backs?
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.
Microsoft Hires Linguist to Oppose Apple's 'App Store' Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
General Electric sells turbines, locomotives and airplane engines. Why do they need to watch their backs?
Your facts have been debunked already. About 3 dozen times in this very thread, hundreds of times in the other threads on the same subject.
Microsoft has been using Application and App for the longest time, as much as Apple. Extensions have nothing to do with this, nor does the very fact of the use of "App or Application" have any bearing on the discussion here.
Prior art is for patents, we're talking trademarks.
Haven't you heard ? They have an electric General. He's to lead the armies of Elementia against Darkos of the Dead Rising.
(No really, if anyone can make stuff up in this thread and post it as fact, so can I).
It would be unfair if Apple had to make another name instead of App Store for their app store because of this. Apple built up upon the name with their success.
From what I gather, this isn't the same as trademarking something using a common word that isn't self-referential. You wouldn't use 'Windows' in a sentence to describe another OS for example.
HOWEVER, try using another term other than App Store in sentence. It's also a bit ridiculous if Microsoft, Nokia, Palm or another company had to pay royalties to use 'app store' in their promotional materials to describe their store.
From what I gather, this isn't the same as trademarking something using a common word that isn't self-referential. You wouldn't use 'Windows' in a sentence to describe another OS for example.
HOWEVER, try using another term other than App Store in sentence. It's also a bit ridiculous if Microsoft, Nokia, Palm or another company had to pay royalties to use 'app store' in their promotional materials to describe their store.
It's very simple.
"App Store" *is* an application store.
"Windows" is *not* a piece of glass you look through.
Quite the contrary. Apple would be free to continue using App Store as their store name all they want if this trademark were to be revoked. You people do realise that you can use a name for your store that isn't trademarked or trademarkable ?
You don't have to have a trademarked name.
Or you know, they could call it the iOS App Store or the iTunes App Store (like they once did) or the Apple App Store, or the iApp Store and then trademark that.
It's a good thing Apple sells AAC files (not mp3s) and had iTunes otherwise they and Amazon would have already had a run in over the Amazon MP3 Store.
Last time I checked, Microsoft made programs, not applications. Apple, has, at least since the time of the Lisa, marketed software as applications.
TEG
TEG
That is true, and is the same with "app store"
People are using the term now because of the power of the branding but if Dyson where to release a product called the "Hoover" then Hoover would be in their right to file suit to protect their trademark.
This is exactly what apple are doing. Their never before used, legally trademarked brand has such strong marketing power that other companies want in. App are using their legal right (in fact obligation if they wish to retain the trademark) to fight back.
If Dyson had released a product called "vaccum cleaner" then we could have a conversation. But they released a product called Hoover. A Hoover did not describe a vaccum cleaner when Dyson came up with the name Hoover.
Why is "TV Shop" a valid trademark? I'll give you a clue... both "TV" and "App" are abbreviations...
that is totally not the same thing. apps are apps, short for applications. it would be like someone trying to coin the term vacuum instead of vacuum cleaner.
the hoover example would better be applied to the ipod becoming a generic term for mp3 players.
You are making the mistake of breaking the trademarked name into its component parts. As long as there is no prior example of common usage of a term anything can be trademarked, with the exceptions of various offensive grounds.
.
So...
Mr Softie thinks that a cunning linguist will solve his problems -- and be a good fella too...
.
So...
Mr Softie thinks that a cunning linguist will solve his problems -- and be a good fella too...
.
