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

[samcraig]

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.

The height of maturity is namecalling, right? Really? Steve "Emballmer" And you criticize Microsoft for being whiny/petty/etc? Oh please. Ask yourself - how much does it/will it affect you regardless of the outcome. Who cares what the store is called or referenced at?

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.

You act as if Microsoft is the only one that this affects. It's not. If Apple succeeds - then all of these other companies can't use App Store either. It doesn't matter if it was MS or Samsung or Toshiba who brought the issue up. The issue has been brought up. And personally I see very little reason for excitation on this board except for those that want to insist that Apple is being targeted by spiteful MS. As if it really matters to the consumer. It doesn't.

The question that could be raised as whether or not this breeds confusion in the marketplace. And I don't think it does. Apple will say it does - because that's their STOCK answer as to why they keep their walled garden walled. And that works for them.

But if you own a iPhone - you're not going to be confused by the MS App Store. And if you have a MS phone - you won't be confused by the iTunes App Store.

Apple MIGHT have a solid case if there was bound to be consumer confusion. I see none.

But this thread is nothing unique. These arguments/reasons/etc all get repeated over and over. The topic might be different. The arguments/posts are always the same.

 

[notabadname]

The best example ever! I forgot about it, Thanks Benjy91 for reminding me of Microsoft's software store on the XBox, "Marketplace".

Such an awesome example of a totally generic, global expression and concept, that Microsoft has trademarked.

Absolutely the identical concept. Such hypocrisy. Perfect!

 

[inlovewithi]

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.

Then why didn't Microsoft rename their store before Apple tried to trade market? The logic is all off. The world really does not revolve around Apple. I would suggest that if you're really into Apple, you should also read about an expose yourself to other parts of the computer industry, to have better perspective on things.

 

[pr5owner]

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?

your comment is possibly the largest amount of BS ive ever heard on here

Herman Hollerith was awarded a series of patents[11] in 1889 for mechanical tabulating machines. These patents described both paper tape and rectangular cards as possible recording media. The card shown in U.S. Patent 395,781 was preprinted with a template and had holes arranged close to the edges so they could be reached by a railroad conductor's ticket punch, with the center reserved for written descriptions. Hollerith was originally inspired by railroad tickets that let the conductor encode a rough description of the passenger:

Hollerith's original system used an ad-hoc coding system for each application, with groups of holes assigned specific meanings, e.g. sex or marital status. His tabulating machine had 40 counters, each with a dial divided into 100 divisions, with two indicator hands; one which stepped one unit with each counting pulse, the other which advanced one unit every time the other dial made a complete revolution.

so did apple exist in 1889?

 

[Dr McKay]

The best example ever! I forgot about it, Thanks Benjy91 for reminding me of Microsoft's software store on the XBox, "Marketplace".

Such an awesome example of a totally generic, global expression and concept, that Microsoft has trademarked.

Absolutely the identical concept. Such hypocrisy. Perfect!

They haven't trademarked 'Marketplace' I said if they had, as an example. I'm pretty sure they haven't because Sony's online store is called the Playstation Marketplace.

 

[samcraig]

They haven't trademarked 'Marketplace' I said if they had, as an example. I'm pretty sure they haven't because Sony's online store is called the Playstation Marketplace.

They haven't. As per the link on the previous page (which we can ALL reference) Marketplace does NOT appear as a trademark.

But a lot of people like to pull facts out of the air or make up crap just to seem smarter than they are or win at all costs. Silly.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

your comment is possibly the largest amount of BS ive ever heard on here





so did apple exist in 1889?

Of course! They knew Apple would exist at some point so they stole there idea preemptively!

 

[samcraig]

Of course! They knew Apple would exist at some point so they stole there idea preemptively!

I blame Doc...

 

[inlovewithi]

They haven't trademarked 'Marketplace' I said if they had, as an example. I'm pretty sure they haven't because Sony's online store is called the Playstation Marketplace.

I like how he or she said, "I forgot about," and then thanked you for reminding them.

 

[StuddedLeather]

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.

Some of us get it. Some don't!

Of course something will become generic if everyone wants to use it now. Hence why this was granted in 2008 or something like that.

The argument isn't about the word Application shortened to App. It's about the context in which Apple uses it in and NOW Microsoft wants to use it and make it seem like everyone else does as well.

Why isn't anyone bring up the trademarked "There's an App for that" surely that's generic now too. . .

 

[HLdan]

The height of maturity is namecalling, right? Really? Steve "Emballmer" And you criticize Microsoft for being whiny/petty/etc? Oh please. Ask yourself - how much does it/will it affect you regardless of the outcome. Who cares what the store is called or referenced at?

Wow, I guess you should report my post to the mods that I'm calling poor Steve Ballmer names. Name calling towards SJ goes on here daily but I don't see you defending him. My gosh your loyalty to Microsoft is really getting embarrassing for you. I'll bet if Apple were the one crying foul about MS using generic terms you would be on the cheerleading team backing up Microsoft.

You should ask yourself that same question as you seem to be the one fighting everybody else here that's backing up Apple.

 

[notabadname]

The height of maturity is namecalling, right? Really? Steve "Emballmer" And you criticize Microsoft for being whiny/petty/etc? Oh please. Ask yourself - how much does it/will it affect you regardless of the outcome. Who cares what the store is called or referenced at?



You act as if Microsoft is the only one that this affects. It's not. If Apple succeeds - then all of these other companies can't use App Store either. It doesn't matter if it was MS or Samsung or Toshiba who brought the issue up. The issue has been brought up. And personally I see very little reason for excitation on this board except for those that want to insist that Apple is being targeted by spiteful MS. As if it really matters to the consumer. It doesn't.

The question that could be raised as whether or not this breeds confusion in the marketplace. And I don't think it does. Apple will say it does - because that's their STOCK answer as to why they keep their walled garden walled. And that works for them.

But if you own a iPhone - you're not going to be confused by the MS App Store. And if you have a MS phone - you won't be confused by the iTunes App Store.

Apple MIGHT have a solid case if there was bound to be consumer confusion. I see none.

But this thread is nothing unique. These arguments/reasons/etc all get repeated over and over. The topic might be different. The arguments/posts are always the same.

Huh, I mention other companies in your quote, so how could I act as if it only affects MS? But the number of other companies that want to usurp Apple's intellectual property is irrelevant. Either Apple developed and properly trademarked "The App Store" or they didn't. The courts will decide. But to say there is no consumer confusion is naive. That is exactly what these companies want, for me to by a Droid, because it has the App Store too. If everyone has "the App Store" why do I need to buy an iPhone. It is the most heavily marketed part of the iPhone's brand identity. Has there been an iPhone add that DOESN'T involve the swiping of Apps across the screen, showing how the iPhone can do anything because "There's an App for that", in fact, approximately 300,000 of them. It is a globally recognized store, "The App Store", so you bet, it's all about market confusion and getting consumers to believe they can get the same "product" elsewhere. To think otherwise is truly naive.

 

[KnightWRX]

Some of us get it. Some don't!

Of course something will become generic if everyone wants to use it now. Hence why this was granted in 2008 or something like that.

This was never granted. Apple applied and Microsoft is objecting following the USPTO objection mecanism.

So I get you're in the "don't get it" category

 

[3goldens]

Microsoft just objects to Apple!

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Microsoft just objects to Apple!

Just like most of you just object to Microsoft.

 

[nelmat]

Window is not a generic term in the computer industry at the time of trademark.

It’s a common word in a domestic sense.

Irrelevant, the patented term is "windows", which in the "sense" of computer operating systems is patented. the "App Store" in the sense of a computer software distribution platform was coined by Apple and had NEVER been used before Apple brought it to the market place. The fact Apple have been trying to patent this since 2008 says a lot, where were the objections back then before Apple had this massive success on their hands - and why has it taken Micro$oft a year to object?!

And before more idiots - who somewhere along the line - forgot to read the original story, Apple is not looking to patent the term "app" or "store", it is looking to patent the phrase "app store" Anyone care to give an example of anyone before Apple using this phrase, or anyone else even providing a similar service back in 2008 when the application was made?

Does anyone care to give a decent reason why Micro$oft have waited until now to complain?

 

[AidenShaw]

Oracle should sue Apple

The term "Oracle Apps" goes back more than a decade.

Their Java name prefix is even "oracle.apps.", as in

500 Internal Error: oracle.apps.fnd.sso.AppsLoginRedirect.AppsSetting​

 

[LagunaSol]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

Hmm, isn't "Windows" a very generic term shared by any GUI OS with...windows?

 

[samcraig]

Wow, I guess you should report my post to the mods that I'm calling poor Steve Ballmer names. Name calling towards SJ goes on here daily but I don't see you defending him. My gosh your loyalty to Microsoft is really getting embarrassing for you. I'll bet if Apple were the one crying foul about MS using generic terms you would be on the cheerleading team backing up Microsoft.

You should ask yourself that same question as you seem to be the one fighting everybody else here that's backing up Apple.

Yes. Let's please diffuse the issue by making this all about me now to divert my initial commentary. Don't presume to know anything about me. You don't. Much like you don't know anything about trademark law or procedure and the like.

It truly is amazing at all the people here who (though they may not recognize it) are actually supportive or denying the legal processes which have precedents.

Apple filed a trademark. That trademark is OPEN TO DISPUTE. A company - who cares which - has petitioned against the trademark.

You're crying foul at the petition? Funny - I bet a bunch of you have been to the genius bar trying to petition what's you think you're entitled to regardless of Apple's policies. Talk about hypocrisy there...

There's nothing NOTHING wrong with the process that's going on here. It happens every day. Trademark disputes are commonplace.

 

[Snookerman]

Yes but "App" is not a word. Each of your examples includes recognized words- "App" is not. It's an informal abbreviation that, in of itself, is meaningless.

First of all, that's irrelevant since Apple did not come up with that abbreviation, it was used way before. Second, it's not meaningless, it's an abbreviation. Third, it's generic, since people refer to apps from Apple's competitors as "apps".

 

[Winni]

Uh, "Windows" anyone???

Uh, "Apple" anyone??? (And they even had to pay A LOT to the Beatles to be allowed to use that name...) Or "Pages". Or "Numbers". Or "Keynote".

Besides, it's about trying to get a trademark on something as trivial as "clothes store".

 

[HLdan]

Yes. Let's please diffuse the issue by making this all about me now to divert my initial commentary. Don't presume to know anything about me. You don't. Much like you don't know anything about trademark law or procedure and the like.

I just love your condescending posts towards me. First you attack me by questioning my maturity then you say that I know nothing about you but you know that I know nothing about trademark law? Why don't you stop making personal attacks towards me and others. Now I understand why I had been getting PM's from other members about you. Well no worries, this will be my last post towards you as you're always personally attacking me. Don't bother responding because you'll be on Ignore and I won't see your posts.

 

[Snookerman]

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.

You've spoken like a true, close-minded fan boy. At least you are aware of it.

I love Apple. I love my macbook pro. I love my ipod. I love my future ipod 2 and iphone 5. But I try to forget all that and just discuss the actual issue, as if it was between two companies that I have no connections to.

 

[notabadname]

The term "Oracle Apps" goes back more than a decade.

Their Java name prefix is even "oracle.apps.", as in

500 Internal Error: oracle.apps.fnd.sso.AppsLoginRedirect.AppsSetting​

This is irrelevant if Oracle didn't trademark. It is not whether "App" had ever been used (and "App Store" had not) anymore than if "Marketplace" had been used. Apple filed for their protection on July 17, 2008. They are not trying to trademark App (APP is filed for by Aluminum Precision Products) and they are of course not trying to trademark "Store". Just the combination, so that really makes the Oracle use of "App" irrelevant.

 

[StuddedLeather]

This was never granted. Apple applied and Microsoft is objecting following the USPTO objection mecanism.

So I get you're in the "don't get it" category

Well this is what I really read into. . .

Apple has been trying since July 2008 to convince the Patent and Trademark Office to grant a trademark on the phrase, with examiners initially denying the application under the rationale that the term is merely descriptive of the services offered by Apple. Apple appealed the decision a few months later, submitting a stack of evidence showing that the term had acquired distinctiveness in marketing materials and media coverage. In response, examiners tentatively decided to award Apple the trademark and published it for opposition in January 2010.

Microsoft signaled its opposition to the trademark approval in July of last year, and followed that up with the motion for summary judgment filed earlier this week in an effort to speed the dismissal of the trademark using the argument that generic terms can not be protected even if they have achieved notability.

So I "get" Apple has been on this Trademark since 2008 and Microsoft just remembered it was going to join the bandwagon, I mean join the App club soon with WP7 in 2010 (2 Years later).

It's pretty clear no one cared in 2008 and that's why I'm defending Apple because Microsoft is just so lazy they can't come up with another name for their App Store (If they really liked their current app store name/marketability of their name this wouldn't be an issue).

http://www.android.com/market/#app=com.joelapenna.foursquared

Android Market

This is a showcase for some of the featured and top ranked applications and games available on Android Market. For a comprehensive, up-to-date list of the tens of thousands of titles available, check out Android Market on your handset.

Are they crying because App Store isn't available? Nope. They thought about another name to market. Eventually people will catch on.