or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple drops 'App Store' lawsuit against Amazon, says no need to pursue case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple drops 'App Store' lawsuit against Amazon, says no need to pursue case - Page 2

post #41 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Does this mean that someone can bring back Lindows?

No. It has pretty much zero relevance to that.

post #42 of 70

For those arguing that of course "App Store" is invalid, explain all the following trademarks:

The Room Store

Workday

Salesforce

The Running Store

 

It's easy to forget that before Apple created the App Store it was not generic.  Nowadays it seems obvious and generic and presumably that factored into Apple dropping this issue.

 

I do find it amusing that Amazon chose or got stuck with "Appstore" instead. 

post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, yeah.

But of course they were going to win.

Now we'll never know. It has ended.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #44 of 70
What matters in the end is what Apple said, people know where to shop for the apps they want.

When I search Google for "App Store" the top 5 results are all for Apple.com and Amazon's store comes up in 6th place, with Google Play further down.

Even if the courts don't agree, "App Store" is synonymous with Apple.
post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

I'm not a lawyer, just a normal everyday human being, App Store to me seems generic. iPad or iPhone or iBooks or iCloud are names of specific things that seems like they could be infringed upon.

 

App Store seems about as generic a term to me as a Book Store or Grocery Store. But you can qualify it by saying iTunes App Store or Amazon App Store to specify which app store you're talking about.

 

You just don't understand how stupid the masses can be. About a month ago I attended a social event and encountered a woman who was being shown an iPhone by her acquaintance. He was showing her how to send text messages, how to post on Facebook, you know, the general stuff. She was enthralled and stated she would like to get one. I piped in and told her go to the local Apple store to check it out further. Do you know what her response was? I kid you not...

 

"Apple? I thought they weren't around anymore."

 

This is exactly the type of person who would go to the wrong "AppStore" and get pissed because they couldn't download anything for their "iPhone." To this person AppStore and iPhone were generic terms. iPhone meant any smartphone to her. Yes there are lots of people like this in the world, millions of them.

post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

 

I'm not a lawyer, just a normal everyday human being, App Store to me seems generic. iPad or iPhone or iBooks or iCloud are names of specific things that seems like they could be infringed upon.

 

App Store seems about as generic a term to me as a Book Store or Grocery Store. But you can qualify it by saying iTunes App Store or Amazon App Store to specify which app store you're talking about.

 

Who was using it before Apple? Keep in mind, Amazon is the same company who patented the concept of saving credit card numbers and using that information for one click shopping. That seems pretty obvious to me. 

post #47 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

That to me is different. 

 

App is short for Application. Its nothing unique as the term Kleenex "was" back in the day. 

 

App Store is to Application Store as Gas Station is to Gasoline Station. 

Yet, trademarks are awarded like that all the time. How about, "The Container Store?"

post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


Can't decide which one of the two is more idiotic.

You might actually learn something if you read #36 above. But I don't expect you will.
post #49 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

exactly, it is not that hard to understand... App Store is just Application Store cut down, Yes Apple made it popular but that does not make it theirs - Just like who ever made Gas Station or Auto Shop popular can claim those.

I'm sorry, but just because you say something doesn't make it true.

"Yes Apple made it popular but that does not make it theirs"

Do you understand what a trademark is? It's not about 'owning' something. It's about 'using' something.

Everyone loves to comment on these threads with their backyard law degrees. 'Ooohhh "app" is a generic term, blah blah blah".

Shoosh.
post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

For those arguing that of course "App Store" is invalid, explain all the following trademarks:
The Room Store
Workday
Salesforce
The Running Store

It's easy to forget that before Apple created the App Store it was not generic.  Nowadays it seems obvious and generic and presumably that factored into Apple dropping this issue.

I do find it amusing that Amazon chose or got stuck with "Appstore" instead. 

The difference being that 'The Room Store' doesn't sell rooms and 'The Running Store' doesn't sell runnings. The problem is not that the name is generic but too descriptive. You would probably not be able to trademark 'The Shoe Store'.
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

You just don't understand how stupid the masses can be. About a month ago I attended a social event and encountered a woman who was being shown an iPhone by her acquaintance. He was showing her how to send text messages, how to post on Facebook, you know, the general stuff. She was enthralled and stated she would like to get one. I piped in and told her go to the local Apple store to check it out further. Do you know what her response was? I kid you not...

"Apple? I thought they weren't around anymore."

This is exactly the type of person who would go to the wrong "AppStore" and get pissed because they couldn't download anything for their "iPhone." To this person AppStore and iPhone were generic terms. iPhone meant any smartphone to her. Yes there are lots of people like this in the world, millions of them.

And exactly how would that person accidentally go to the wrong 'app store'? On a computer? Perhaps but I'd guess someone that dumb would never access iTunes on a computer.
post #52 of 70
Amazon promptly opened its newly renamed "Official Apple App Store."
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


And exactly how would that person accidentally go to the wrong 'app store'? On a computer? Perhaps but I'd guess someone that dumb would never access iTunes on a computer.

There are a lot of Android users who also use Windows.

 

Cheers

post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post


The difference being that 'The Room Store' doesn't sell rooms and 'The Running Store' doesn't sell runnings. The problem is not that the name is generic but too descriptive. You would probably not be able to trademark 'The Shoe Store'.

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Shoe-Store/65206411849

 

Cheers

post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

For those arguing that of course "App Store" is invalid, explain all the following trademarks:

The Room Store

Workday

Salesforce

The Running Store

 

It's easy to forget that before Apple created the App Store it was not generic.  Nowadays it seems obvious and generic and presumably that factored into Apple dropping this issue.

 

I do find it amusing that Amazon chose or got stuck with "Appstore" instead. 

 

You bring up a valid point. However, have any of these trademarks being challenged in court? What makes you so convinced that they will remain valid if contested?

post #56 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Shoe-Store/65206411849



Cheers

Is it trademarked?
post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

It's easy to forget that before Apple created the App Store it was not generic.  

 

It certainly wasn't a widely used phrase.  Yet it would've been generic enough to be easily understood.

 

Years before the iPhone came out, if you had said to a fellow smartphone owner, "I just downloaded a Starbucks locator from an online app store", she would've known what you meant, and asked you which app store... the Palm Store, Brighthand, Handango, the J2ME download site, etc.  

 

That's why it's what the USPTO calls a "merely descriptive" term, and why they have turned down every application through the years that only applied on the basis of the two words "app store" without any other argument.

 

Quote:
Nowadays it seems obvious and generic and presumably that factored into Apple dropping this issue.

 

It also didn't help that Apple CEO Tim Cook himself used "app store" generically in a quarterly call with the whole world listening in:

 

"We've got the largest app store ..." 
 
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSes on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
 
Those earnings calls are normally well rehearsed.  He could've chosen another phrase, but he went with the generic form.
 
All that said, I think that if Apple had tried for "The App Store", they'd probably have a great case.

Edited by KDarling - 7/9/13 at 5:20pm
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You might actually learn something if you read #36 above. But I don't expect you will.

Can't speak for others, but I've learned something. I've learned that some assume the worst and dumbest from others so as to establish their superiority. Although I pity the soul that can be truly fulfilled thus, I do recognize that it's an easy trap to fall into. Every time you demean other people, it reminds me to resist following your example. Thanks for the lesson indeed, assodatur.

Nevertheless, it's amazing that it doesn't occur to u that u too present opportunities for others to label u as ignorant and idiotic, but we do not do so for the most part. What kind of person lurks behind your words? The answer is simple and makes many go blech.

So I'm gonna take a hike. U win, in a way that only u appreciate.
Edited by stelligent - 7/9/13 at 5:31pm
post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The frick is THIS nonsense?! They stole the effing name.

What, Samsung can release an i-Pad now and Apple will be fine with it?!

I'd bet there was a back door agreement/trade-off between Apple & Amazon in relation to Samsung and/or Google.

post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


[rant]

Reasonable, mature people understand the difference between insulting posters (which is what you do), and calling out nonsensical posts.

Sigh. You'll get it some day.
post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Sorry, nobody recalls your previous posts because nobody cares what you say. You think you'd take the hint by now.

LOL. Thanks for a laugh.
post #62 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

This kind of criminality is just one of the reasons I don't do business with amazon.

 

Even if Amazon was guilty of trademark infringement, it's a civil law matter rather than a criminal offence. 

post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Notice how the Amazon rep just flat out lied about what happened? Apple dropped the case, not the court.

It's sad that Apple can't get protection in the courts for its intellectual property.

This kind of criminality is just one of the reasons I don't do business with amazon.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post

 

Read the article.   Both Apple and Amazon asked the court to dismiss the case and the court granted their requests.  Courts dismiss cases.  All Amazon and Apple could do is ask for it to be done.  Amazon did not lie about how the case was dismissed, they just gave all the credit to the court.  I don't see Apple thanking Amazon either though. 

"Asking" the court to dismiss a case is just a matter of one party filing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, or whatever they call that particular document in that venue. As long as the stip is signed by all parties to the law suit, the court automatically dismisses the case. There is no chance that the court will deny the parties the discontinuance, as settlements happen every day between parties. A very low percentage of cases actually go to trial. So by Amazon giving credit to the court, it is misleading. This was an agreement between the parties; not a decision by the court. If one party filed a motion for summary judgment to get the case dismissed and won, that would be another story (but appeals would follow). I've been handling liability claims in many states for the past 21 years. That is how it works.

post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by yragsapo View Post

 

"Asking" the court to dismiss a case is just a matter of one party filing a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, or whatever they call that particular document in that venue. As long as the stip is signed by all parties to the law suit, the court automatically dismisses the case. There is no chance that the court will deny the parties the discontinuance, as settlements happen every day between parties. A very low percentage of cases actually go to trial. So by Amazon giving credit to the court, it is misleading. This was an agreement between the parties; not a decision by the court. If one party filed a motion for summary judgment to get the case dismissed and won, that would be another story (but appeals would follow). I've been handling liability claims in many states for the past 21 years. That is how it works.

 

 
I appreciate your perspective because you are obviously more experienced with these issues than me, without question.  That said, I feel what I said was still correct based on your detailed description of how it all works.  I assumed the court would always dismiss if both parties requested it, but I wasn't sure on that so left that intentionally vague.  
 
I get what you are saying though.  The dismissal was a technicality so thanking the court is disingenuous.  My only issue is there is a difference between "misleading" and "lying".  Neither are good, but "lying" involves saying something completely untrue.  So I feel calling it a "lie" is a bit misleading.  1smile.gif
 
That said, it would have been better for both sides to have kept quiet.   It was a de facto victory for Amazon and I guess they felt that had to gloat somehow.
post #65 of 70
Finally, Apple sees how stupid the lawsuit was in the first place. Only took them 2 years!

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Fair enough: app is short for application.

It's also short for apple.

App(le)store makes far more sense to my eyes and it's happy coincidence that app is also application.

post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post

The difference being that 'The Room Store' doesn't sell rooms and 'The Running Store' doesn't sell runnings. The problem is not that the name is generic but too descriptive. You would probably not be able to trademark 'The Shoe Store'.

You're wrong. Chain of bottle shops in Australia called 'The Bottle-o'. This is a generic (slang) term in Australia for 'bottle shop.' You can trademark whatever you like.

If I say 'I'm going to the bottle-o' I don't mean that store. They came along after the term had been around for years, slapped a trademark on it and use it all over Australia. It is not only generic, but also descriptive.
post #68 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by frxntier View Post

You're wrong. Chain of bottle shops in Australia called 'The Bottle-o'. This is a generic (slang) term in Australia for 'bottle shop.' You can trademark whatever you like.

If I say 'I'm going to the bottle-o' I don't mean that store. They came along after the term had been around for years, slapped a trademark on it and use it all over Australia. It is not only generic, but also descriptive.

I have to ask, what exactly is a 'bottle shop'? A store that sells bottles obviously but of what? Empty, water, soda, liquor, etc?
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman View Post

I have to ask, what exactly is a 'bottle shop'? A store that sells bottles obviously but of what? Empty, water, soda, liquor, etc?

From multiple dictionaries:

bottle shop
noun
(Australian & New Zealand & South Africa) a shop or part of a hotel where alcohol is sold in unopened containers for consumption elsewhere. Also called: bottle store
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by frxntier View Post

From multiple dictionaries:

bottle shop
noun
(Australian & New Zealand & South Africa) a shop or part of a hotel where alcohol is sold in unopened containers for consumption elsewhere. Also called: bottle store

I gonna take a wild guess that you don't mean a bottle of rubbing alcohol. We call those 'liquor stores' and I'm guessing that you don't have to look it up in a dictionary to know what is sold there. I absolutely cannot trademark 'liquor store' and while everyone in your country and several others know what 'bottle-o' is the rest of the world does not and I'm guessing that's why it was allowed to be trademarked.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple drops 'App Store' lawsuit against Amazon, says no need to pursue case