I'm guessing we'll get tired of talking about it in this thread before it's settled.
Can't these things drag on for months...or years?
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 Objects to Apple's 'App Store' Trademark Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm guessing we'll get tired of talking about it in this thread before it's settled.
Can't these things drag on for months...or years?
I'm guessing we'll get tired of talking about it in this thread before it's settled.
Can't these things drag on for months...or years?
Yeah I'm already tired of it and saying (typing) and seeing App Store is so annoying to me now. Lulz
We'll look back at this thread and realize we made this pointless subject a big deal! We all have to agree to disagree
..and you're basing this on what? Experience? Hardly! As has been repeatedly stated many times previously find anyone pre-Apple using the term 'App Store' - you can't, so you lose...sorry!
No. It's me realizing there's something better for me to do than to sit here and argue with some very closed-minded people who disagree with common sense. Sort of makes me a hypocrite posting here again but I couldn't help myself.
Unfortunately, the term 'app' has been in use long before the iPhone came out. Or before Mac came out, for that matter. It was mostly used in early UNIX operating systems. I'm basing this on fact. Apple hyped the term, but it doesn't mean they invented it.
You must have missed the several posts I posted about Handmark using it then.
Guess you lose.
Doesn't. They once bought some shares, non-voting shares, sold them at no profit. These shares would be worth about $7 billions now. I bet whoever decided to sell them is kicking themselves know. Probably Ballmer or Gates.
Doesn't. They once bought some shares, non-voting shares, sold them at no profit. These shares would be worth about $7 billions now. I bet whoever decided to sell them is kicking themselves know. Probably Ballmer or Gates.
Pretty sure that Gates has enough that he doesn't care. Ballmer most likely as well.
As pointed out, that would be an argument for it being generic.
For Apple to trademark it has to ONLY refer to Apple. However, Xerox and plexiglass etc ... managed to get their trademarks through so Apple still has a better than decent shot.
Just because everyone says the phrase App Store *now* doesn't mean Apple does not own it and cannot trademark it. Xerox is still owned by Xerox. Kleenex is still owned by Kleenex. And if you try to come out with a photocopier that you call "zerox" they'll sue your ass.
Bad example. Duct tape is an actual type of tape, and has been in use since the 1930's. It is not, and never has been, trademarked. It was simply a tape with a specific function. "Duck" Tape is a brand of duct tape and is protected by a trademark.
Last edited by a moderator:
prior art is irrelevant here. There does not need to be prior art in this case.
So sorry but you loose.
App store is to generic to be trademark plan and simple.
If the majority of the public thinks the category of stores that sell mobile software applications is known as "app stores," then the term is generic, not merely descriptive. In that case, regardless of whether the public also associates "app store" with Apple, Apple cannot have a trademark on the phrase.
People know that "Kleenex" is a type of facial tissue and "xerox" is a type of photocopier. Apple's "app store" is a type of ...? I think many people would say Apple's "app store" is a type of "app store.". If so, Apple loses.
I told my buddy he should go to the "App Store" and see if Redbox has an app. He has an Android phone. To me it's all the same and I don't associate it with Apple...never did. (Perhaps because I came from a Palm background and was a regular user of Handmark.)
Exactly, that is really important to think about. People on these forums are of course bound to associate "App Store" with Apple, but guess what, many people don't even know about Apple's App Store.
My girlfriend has a Sony Ericsson Xperia, and the other day, when she asked what I was doing (and why I was so excited
) and I told her I was installing the App Store on my mbp, she said something like "oh, like the app store on my phone?". The closest she's come to Apple is her Nano, and she likes small phones, so she doesn't care about the iPhone.So before you just assume that everyone thinks of Apple when they hear "App Store", remember, not everyone is an Apple user and many, if not most of those people don't even know (or care) that Apple has an App Store. That is what, in my opinion, makes "App Store" generic.
No, you are confusing (like most posters) "descriptive" trademarks with "generic" trademarks. The reason "app store" is (or might be) generic is that the majority of the public calls on-line stores that allow immediate downloads of software applications "app stores." In other words, Apple's App Store is an "app store." The phrase "app store" is used (so MS claims) by the public as the name of the genus of stores which includes particular stores like the Android Marketplace, Handango, Apple's App Store, etc.
Whether or not people think of Apple when they hear "app store" is irrelevant if the term App Store is generic; it is only relevant if, instead of being generic, the phrase "app store" is merely "descriptive" of that type of store.
I suggest that since there is no agreed-upon term for this type of store other than "app store," it probably is generic. (Contrast this with the following examples:
"google" is a "search engine" (no problem)
"kleenex" is a "facial tissue" (no problem)
"xerox" is a "photocopier" (no problem)
"polaroid" is an "instant camera" (no problem)
"aspirin" is (in the U.S.) an "aspirin" (hence Bayer lost the trademark)
"App Store" is an "app store" (uh oh)
That's like telling people not to debate death penalty because the governments don't care about our discussions. Debating is fun, educational and intellectually stimulating, and forums are a great place to do it (although it can be a bit problematic sometimes, like not knowing if people are sarcastic, but I hope I detected yours correctly).
You must have misunderstood my post, since we both say the same thing. But to use your own words, my girlfriend uses the phrase "app store" as the name of the genus of stores which includes particular stores.
LOL...sometimes you gotta wonder who is reading these things. We may assume we are in a bubble here, but this stuff gets indexed by Google.
You never know who's watching!
Exactly. MicroSlime wants to profit from Apple's hard work.
So, where's the billion dollar Hallmark software store? Oh wait.
So, where's the billion dollar Hallmark software store? Oh wait.
Nobody implied how much money it brought in. The only point made is that there was an "App Store" before Apple's.
Given my Amiga history, I never thought I'd be rooting for Microsoft on anything, but I have to root here. I'm sick of all this crap with trademarks (even "Multi-Ball" back in my pinball days irked me as other pinball companies had to come up with things like "Tri-ball" and what not because the more descriptive "Multi-ball" was trademarked to Bally/Williams (WMS).
And then there's software-patents.... They REALLY irk me.
The most "irk" gets saved for contract law regarding software usage (i.e. the infamous 10-page lawyer-speak "Eulas" attached to every two-bit piece of software you install. NO ONE reads them in full every single time and yet you cannot use the software without lying and saying you "agree" whether you read it or not or whether you agree or not or whether you have no idea whether you agree or not because you cannot understand WTF they're even saying with all that lawyer-speak crap. Then suddenly a few months later all your personal information is being sold to corporations on the social site you didn't bother reading their privacy policy carefully enough or they changed it while you were on sabbatical and just send your information out anyway since you never responded in a timely fashion to a new agreement or whatever and that's just the tip of the ice-berg. Lovely. Just lovely stuff.
I understand people and businesses want to corner markets and do well, but there comes a time and place where these people will own literally everything and you'll find yourself a 21st Century "Serf". That time is coming fast, gauging by Supreme Court rulings in the USA.
And then there's software-patents....
They REALLY irk me. The most "irk" gets saved for contract law regarding software usage (i.e. the infamous 10-page lawyer-speak "Eulas" attached to every two-bit piece of software you install. NO ONE reads them in full every single time and yet you cannot use the software without lying and saying you "agree" whether you read it or not or whether you agree or not or whether you have no idea whether you agree or not because you cannot understand WTF they're even saying with all that lawyer-speak crap. Then suddenly a few months later all your personal information is being sold to corporations on the social site you didn't bother reading their privacy policy carefully enough or they changed it while you were on sabbatical and just send your information out anyway since you never responded in a timely fashion to a new agreement or whatever and that's just the tip of the ice-berg. Lovely. Just lovely stuff.
I understand people and businesses want to corner markets and do well, but there comes a time and place where these people will own literally everything and you'll find yourself a 21st Century "Serf". That time is coming fast, gauging by Supreme Court rulings in the USA.
