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

Consultant said:
Exactly. MicroSlime wants to profit from Apple's hard work.
Click to expand...

microsoft mainly makes its income from corporate sales, apple doesnt have anything corporate grade worth a damn, look what happened to the xserve. i can tell you with 100% certanty the 40+ clients ive worked at run windows server 2000/2003/2008 in some way or another, windows is in the background of almost all major companies (like billion dollar oil companies)


So, where's the billion dollar Hallmark software store? Oh wait. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you mean HANDMARK? >>> http://store.handmark.com/

that site is pretty big, i wouldnt be suprised if it makes multi millions of dollars off just software sales, its been around forever, im seeing links from 1999 that link to handmark.

apple sells overpriced hardware / software to gullible people like you, of course their profit is going to be higher than a software distributor
 
"EXE STORE" is simply inadequate

lPHONE said:
What's wrong with EXE STORE? :confused:
Click to expand...

A ".exe" file is a single executable image. Many applications consist of several, many, or lots of ".exe" files. Much of the logic is separated into "application extension" files, usually named ".dll" files.

My Adobe Acrobat installation has 12 .exe files and 85 .dll files.

In other words, "EXE store" would be stupid since it doesn't reflect how an application is designed.
 
Clearly, the uncreative buffoons at Microsoft need an alternative name for their generic little spin-off site. Who wants to help them? :D

"Download Center"
"AppShop"
"MS
---H
---O
---P"
"Windownload"
"iApps"
"MS APPS"
 
lPHONE said:
Clearly, the uncreative buffoons at Microsoft need an alternative name for their generic little spin-off site. Who wants to help them? :D

"Download Center"
"AppShop"
"MS
---H
---O
---P"
"Windownload"
"iApps"
"MS APPS"
Click to expand...

windows-phone-7-marketplace.jpg

zunestore.jpg

htc_winmo65_ars.jpg


seriously do you know anything about phones?
 
Last edited:
Apple should take the loss on this one. And people need to know ubiquitous does not mean generic and vice-versa. (People were arguing "Windows" and "Word" are generic.) They are interrelated, but if a trademark becomes ubiquitous it doesn't mean it becomes invalid, and "App Store" is clearly generic.
 
cmaier said:
So what?
Click to expand...

Cmaier, what I was responding to was this. MS was trying to stop the trade mark application based on the fact that, they claim, app store is a generic term. Someone made the point that Windows, Word, Excel, etc which were trademarked by MS are also generic terms. Then someone made the counter point that the way the meaning of the word "Window" is used as a computer term (separate from its common meaning in everyday life), was not a common generic computer term at the time MS trademarked it. My point was, MS did not invent or come up with the term Window (as a computer term). The term, as it is used in talking about computers, was coined before MS used the term in that way. Therefore it was not Microsoft's to trademark, since it had already been in use.
 
cmaier said:
So what?
Click to expand...

mKTank said:
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.
Click to expand...

mkTank, I just did some research and you're right. The term 'app' was used in a Unix based operating system before Mac OS X. Guess which one, ......
..... NextStep, the OS that became OS X. NextStep was made by the company NeXT, which was founded and privately owned by Steve Jobs. Apple then bought NeXT and so has the rights to everything done by NeXT (being its new owner.) NextStep was used to make OS X. And Mac OS X IS a Unix operating system. So even though you are right that Apple did not invent the term App, they do own the company that did invent it and have the same founder and CEO.
 
Hemingray said:
When you hear, "There's an App for that", who do you think of? I've always associated "app" with the file extension .app. But I also think that "app" has become pretty ubiquitous in the realm of consumers. I'm not so sure Apple will win this one.
Click to expand...

C'mon Apple.
We've been using App/app as an daily use abbreviation of applications since long before Jobs came back yo resurrect Apple.

I'm with MS here (although I really can't imagine other competitors share MS's position).

Too bad for Apple they can't call it the Apple Store. (That's even more generic)

Here's an idea: Why don't they combine HW sales into the Apple store and rebrand it the "Mac Store" That way they'd be covered (iTunes for music and videos, Mac store for HW and software).

Pekka
 
AidenShaw said:
Much of the logic is separated into "application extension" files, usually named ".dll" files.
Click to expand...

Nitpick, what you said is of course right : an application is a mix of executables, libraries and data.

However this point. ".dll" files aren't application extensions. They are part of the application. They aren't "executable extensions" either. DLL means Dynamic Link Library, it's the equivalent to .dylib files on OS X. It's basically a bunch of common routines that your executables will share.

So if your application has 12 executables and all of those need some string manipulation code that is identical, you can either link the same string manipulation routines directly into the executable and need to update these 12 each time you change the string code or you can link it into a dynamic link library which your executable will load at runtime to use, making you need to update only that single .dll to update the code.

Again, just a nitpick about what ".dll" is.

noahrobd said:
mkTank, I just did some research and you're right. The term 'app' was used in a Unix based operating system before Mac OS X. Guess which one, ......
..... NextStep, the OS that became OS X. NextStep was made by the company NeXT, which was founded and privately owned by Steve Jobs. Apple then bought NeXT and so has the rights to everything done by NeXT (being its new owner.) NextStep was used to make OS X. And Mac OS X IS a Unix operating system. So even though you are right that Apple did not invent the term App, they do own the company that did invent it and have the same founder and CEO.
Click to expand...

NeXTSTEP did not invent the term app. App is an abreviation of Application. NeXTSTEP did not invent the term Application either, has as been shown a lot of times in this thread. Don't make stuff up.
 
KnightWRX said:
Nitpick, what you said is of course right : an application is a mix of executables, libraries and data.

However this point. ".dll" files aren't application extensions. They are part of the application. They aren't "executable extensions" either. DLL means Dynamic Link Library, it's the equivalent to .dylib files on OS X. It's basically a bunch of common routines that your executables will share.

<snip>
Click to expand...

this is not slashdot, your level of nitpicking is out of place here. :D

Windows calls .dlls 'application extensions' in their file type, thats good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Let us not forget that apple objected to New York city registering a logo for the big apple! What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
lPHONE said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_store
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-click#Patent
Click to expand...

might like to point out Wiki is not considered a valid sorce for any type of research or legal argument.

In this case your app store wiki link is worthless and means nothing in the term that App store is generic.

Even if you look inside wiki it says "The Apple App Store" which in this case goes against your argument that "App Store" should be trademark and proves that it is to generic to be trademarked.
 
noahrobd said:
Cmaier, what I was responding to was this. MS was trying to stop the trade mark application based on the fact that, they claim, app store is a generic term. Someone made the point that Windows, Word, Excel, etc which were trademarked by MS are also generic terms. Then someone made the counter point that the way the meaning of the word "Window" is used as a computer term (separate from its common meaning in everyday life), was not a common generic computer term at the time MS trademarked it. My point was, MS did not invent or come up with the term Window (as a computer term). The term, as it is used in talking about computers, was coined before MS used the term in that way. Therefore it was not Microsoft's to trademark, since it had already been in use.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it had already been used, unless it was used in commerce (as a brand, essentially). If it wasn't used to designate the source of a product or service, it's only a problem if the term is used as the generic term to describe that TYPE of product or service.
 
cmaier said:
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)
Click to expand...

Quote from Wikipedia (with three sources in the article): "As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name."
 
gnasher729 said:
Quote from Wikipedia (with three sources in the article): "As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name."
Click to expand...

Doesn't that just confirm my point?
 
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