Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Microsoft Objects to Apple's 'App Store' Trademark Application

Programs VS Applications

Ever since 1984 (possibly sooner than that) Apple has called software that runs on it's operating system Applications.

Everybody knows that software running on Microsoft is called Programs.

The App Store is a term that Apple coined up, it's a play on the Apple company name, Apple, Applications, App... get it?

Why can't Microsoft use the term, Program Store or Prog Store?

Microsoft could play with their name a bit, Micro Store, Soft Store, MS Store?
 
KnightWRX said:
Microsoft is opposed to not just the "app" portion.
Click to expand...
Microsoft is opposed to having their smartphone arses handed to them. Again.

If there was anyone in Redmond who could recognize a threat, they'd be a lot more concerned with Google and a lot less concerned with Apple. But the corporate culture there prevents that from happening...
 
bobborries said:
Ever since 1984 (possibly sooner than that) Apple has called software that runs on it's operating system Applications.

Everybody knows that software running on Microsoft is called Programs.

The App Store is a term that Apple coined up, it's a play on the Apple company name, Apple, Applications, App... get it?

Why can't Microsoft use the term, Program Store or Prog Store?

Microsoft could play with their name a bit, Micro Store, Soft Store, MS Store?
Click to expand...

Everybody doesn't know this because people realize that Programs and Applications are used pretty much interchangeably in the Computer world.
 
Full of Win said:
Talk about history coming back to bit one on the a--.






App has been, in general use, for the Mac OS. Windows used the term "Programs" in their ecosystem. (e.g. My Programs vs. Applications). In fact, I have NEVER heard anyone call a Windows program an 'Application'
Click to expand...

I've heard Bill Gates use the term application many times in old interviews on channel9. Its a computer term, just because the world revolves around apple here for people doesn't mean that the other part of the computer industry doesn't exist. If a person covers their eyes in front of a building, does that mean that building doesn't exist? That what this reminds me. Defend apple at all cost.
 
KnightWRX said:
Wait, how is that wrong ? App has been an abbreviation of Application since forever. And how is this even the issue ? Microsoft is opposed to not just the "app" portion.



The running Store ? Are you refering to a Store that sells "running" (which is not even a noun, much less a product) ?

And since "The Running Store" doesn't actually exist (are you thinking of the Running Room ? or Runner's Corner ?), that says a lot for your argument.
Click to expand...

you are right on that its the running room but explain away the box store, the box shop, the container store and the storage store if you please
 
Rodimus Prime said:
No you are confusing it.

Just because it is a shorten version of a word that is commonly us to describe Applications (aka App) means it is generic.

App is generic and App store is Generic.... It does not need to be in the Websters to not be generic. Also under how a word is created App is a word. Just because Webster's has not updated it yet does not make it any less of a word.
Click to expand...

Again, no I am not confusing it. And these are Apple's grounds. Read the post again. Additionally, there are countless articles from different media sources saying the same thing, that these are the grounds Apple will fight on. Doesn't mean they will win, but it is the principal. Just because something has become generic, no matter how quickly, does not mean the company that influenced or built that generic term has no grounds for its protection. And when you say "under how a word is created, App is a word"- Huh? App is not a word. It will likely become one in future editions, as Google, Zipper, Velcro and many others have. Before the iPhone and "Apps", I never heard people say, when going out to buy Windows or Photoshop, that they had to go out and buy an App. It was referred to as software. App evolved with the "small little applications" people could buy to do simple tasks on their iPhones and iPods initially. I am no more confused than Apple's legal team is, and I bet they are arguing their case on similar merits. Whether they win is another case, and it is certainly going to be a tough case.
 
levitynyc said:
I kind of agree with M$ here. App Store is very generic.
Click to expand...

the term app store wasn't widely used until apple came out with the app store. Its use in the press to describe all other "app stores" is due to the fact that the app store is what people think of first, and the best way to describe it is with a reference to apples app store. The concept of an app store was around long before apple, true, but in the years before the app store's existence, other companies had the opportunity to jump on the name and never did.

granted it is a more generic term than this example, but this is sorta like someone claiming kleenex shouldn't be allowed to be a trademark. After all, everyone calls tissues "kleenex" now, but why? Because kleenex is the biggest, and thats what people think of when they think kleenex. Just like a place to buy smartphone apps is immediately compared to apples app store, thus being referred to as an app store
 
Fanboys? Maybe.

inlovewithi said:
I've heard Bill Gates use the term application many times in old interviews on channel9. Its a computer term, just because the world revolves around apple here for people doesn't mean that the other part of the computer industry doesn't exist. If a person covers their eyes in front of a building, does that mean that building doesn't exist? That what this reminds me. Defend apple at all cost.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we are fanboys defending Apple on this issue.

But the simple fact of the matter is that Apple innovates and Microsoft replicates. When Microsoft sees anything that can prevent its own feeble attempt to ride the success of Apple, it objects legally.

If any company but Microsoft had filed this, it wouldn't be getting most of us this agitated. But of all organizations that could object to Apple protecting its innovations, this Carbon Copy Company just rubs us the wrong way.
 
Microsoft makes a good point and Apple shouldn't have this trademark. It doesn't really matter though, as "the" app store (without any other context) is always going to be in reference to the iTunes app store.

Eventually it will become a genericized trademark just like Kleenex.
 
A lot of ridiculous comments and analogies getting thrown around here.

Hate Microsoft all you want - but they aren't alone here - they're perhaps just the biggest going after Apple on this trademark app(lication).

Almost every TV manufacturer now with Internet TV refers to their widgets as apps.

Apple might win - but they shouldn't. App Store is generic. And for those that think it's easy enough for Microsoft to figure out an alternative - it's just as easy for Apple. They could call their the iApp Store. Or the iStore. Or a million other things.

In regards to this particular trademark - it should never have been an issue because the phrase should never be trademarked.

ETA: EVERY company copies. Get your panties in a wad over Microsoft crying foul because they "copy"? Take a long look at Apple's history. NO COMPANY is an innocent
 
jimmy75 said:
but explain away the box store...
Click to expand...

Trademark applications/registrations ? No one is saying Apple can't call their application store "App Store", only that they shouldn't be allowed to trademark it. The UPTSO has an objection mechanism which Microsoft is using.

If "The Box Store" did trademark their name, did anyone object ?
 
KnightWRX said:
Trademark applications/registrations ? No one is saying Apple can't call their application store "App Store", only that they shouldn't be allowed to trademark it. The UPTSO has an objection mechanism which Microsoft is using.

If "The Box Store" did trademark their name, did anyone object ?
Click to expand...

exactly....
 
notabadname said:
Again, no I am not confusing it. And these are Apple's grounds. Read the post again. Additionally, there are countless articles from different media sources saying the same thing, that these are the grounds Apple will fight on. Doesn't mean they will win, but it is the principal. Just because something has become generic, no matter how quickly, does not mean the company that influenced or built that generic term has no grounds for its protection. And when you say "under how a word is created, App is a word"- Huh? App is not a word. It will likely become one in future editions, as Google, Zipper, Velcro and many others have. Before the iPhone and "Apps", I never heard people say, when going out to buy Windows or Photoshop, that they had to go out and buy an App. It was referred to as software. App evolved with the "small little applications" people could buy to do simple tasks on their iPhones and iPods initially. I am no more confused than Apple's legal team is, and I bet they are arguing their case on similar merits. Whether they win is another case, and it is certainly going to be a tough case.
Click to expand...

go look up how a new word is defined and you will see why 'app' is a word.
it becomes a word after it is used so many times in print and spoken under a given way it was defined.

app has been used often times in both spoke and written speech to mean application.
Because it is not written as 'app.' nor is it consider an abbreviation for the word application. app means applications but not the shorten form of it.
App is a word that means application and at some point it will be in websters as see application
Apple will and should loss this one. People should take noticed that when apple first tired it was denied under it being too generic. They only got it tenatitively and see what objections there are. It is safe to bet that MS is not going to be the only one objecting to it on the same ground MS is objecting to the App store. Just MS has more money to fight it than the others.
 
notabadname said:
<snip>

I never heard people around me say, when going out to buy Windows or Photoshop, that they had to go out and buy an App. It was referred to as software. App evolved with the "small little applications" people could buy to do simple tasks on their palm, winmobile, symbian, BB etc. initially.
Click to expand...

FTFY p.s. handango
 
If Apple lose I bet Microsoft can't wait to have a website dedicated to their WP7 App Store! Lol

That's all I can think about.

"You can download great Windows App's from our App Store!" They are so lame for this.
 
gwest said:
Perhaps we are fanboys defending Apple on this issue.

But the simple fact of the matter is that Apple innovates and Microsoft replicates. When Microsoft sees anything that can prevent its own feeble attempt to ride the success of Apple, it objects legally.

If any company but Microsoft had filed this, it wouldn't be getting most of us this agitated. But of all organizations that could object to Apple protecting its innovations, this Carbon Copy Company just rubs us the wrong way.
Click to expand...
It's like I'm in bizarro word. Is apple so amazing to you guys that the phrase app store is this innovative term that gives tingle down their bodies? Don't project your feelings, it's like calling a store the prog store.
 
gwest said:
If any company but Microsoft had filed this, it wouldn't be getting most of us this agitated.
Click to expand...

And I hate Microsoft more than anyone here probably, for reasons that actually make sense (not "Windows suck because of viruses!"). Yet here I am and "siding" with them on this issue.

Seriously, remaining objective is so easy, it's a wonder people around here have such an issue with it, especially when it comes to Apple. Your Mac isn't going to catch fire because you don't agree with Apple all the time.
 
4D4M said:
Everything Microsoft does these days screams DESPERATE. They can feel it all slipping away, and everything they do just makes things worse.
Click to expand...

So if Apple kicked up a fuss because Microsoft tried to copyright something like 'Marketplace' for their Xbox Live Store. Would it be Apple, feeling it all slip away, being desperate? To me 'App Store' is just as generic as 'liquor store' or 'hardware store' and 'gas station'.
 
Benjy91 said:
So if Apple kicked up a fuss because Microsoft tried to copyright something like 'Marketplace' for their Xbox Live Store. Would it be Apple, feeling it all slip away, being desperate? To me 'App Store' is just as generic as 'liquor store' or 'hardware store' and 'gas station'.
Click to expand...

Many here will not understand the hypocrisy. But I chuckled at your post because it's spot on.
 
iTravis said:
If Apple lose I bet Microsoft can't wait to have a website dedicated to their WP7 App Store! Lol

That's all I can think about.

"You can download great Windows App's from our App Store!" They are so lame for this.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what this is all about in the end, it's Microsoft wanting to name their future store just what you said, it's not about using generic terms, it's Steve Emballmer's own jealousy of Apple's success and MS's lack of exciting their customers anymore. It's bad enough they had an extremely lackluster appearance at CES.
 
samcraig said:
A lot of ridiculous comments and analogies getting thrown around here.

Hate Microsoft all you want - but they aren't alone here - they're perhaps just the biggest going after Apple on this trademark app(lication).

Almost every TV manufacturer now with Internet TV refers to their widgets as apps.

Apple might win - but they shouldn't. App Store is generic. And for those that think it's easy enough for Microsoft to figure out an alternative - it's just as easy for Apple. They could call their the iApp Store. Or the iStore. Or a million other things.

In regards to this particular trademark - it should never have been an issue because the phrase should never be trademarked.
Click to expand...

MS wants to do this to ride on the market penetration of the brand "App Store". It is now in the world's lexicon, as is "App". This is why TV makers are using it too. Was there a single TV before the iPhone that marketed Apps. The answer is no. Microsoft wants to do this to dilute brand recognition in the marketplace. That alone is proof of Apple's development of a brand identity with the App Store and "App", and why Android and Microsoft want to knock it down. If Apple had instead created the Widget Store, and it had the same market presence, then Google, Rimm and Microsoft would all be saying, instead, that they had a Widget Store too, and we now sell Widgets for our phones, as would the TV manufacturers. They would have zero interest in "App". But "there's an App for that" is a juggernaut they all want a cut of.
 
yea, well...

M$ is right about this one, the term "App Store" is too generic, and should not qualify to be trademarked.

But here's the rub... It's too damn easy to get **** trademarked (or patented). If "App Store" should be denied a trademark, then so should "Windows", which is even more generic than "App Store".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back