Yes, app is universally used for mobile applications ... NOW.
But that's largely due to Apple's choice of the word. When Apple introduced it, it was just an abbreviation for "application". Today it has its own specific meaning.
Not to me. The word "app" has retained the generic meaning (abbreviation for "application") that it has held in my lexicon since at least the mid 1990s.
The distinction between a mobile application and a non-mobile application remains immaterial to my generic usage.
I'm not going to say that I'm pro-Microsoft and anti-Apple in this case, because of the extra baggage that will imply. But I'm certainly pro-"denying-the-trademark".
Or Microsoft could maybe INNOVATE with their own name?
Why do they need "app store" - everyone associates that with Apple. Why not "Application Central" or "App Centre" or "Market Place" - oh, hang on...
Always the need to copy and steal Apple's innovation in all areas, why not just get off their lazy behinds and coin their own phrase to eclipse Apple's own?
By your reckoning, "Apple" is an invalid trademark.
'Apple' isn't a trademark. The Apple Device and the display of the word apple using a specific font, or in a certain context is. There's more to a trade mark than a name.
Speaking as a total Apple fan boy, inclined to defend them at the drop of a hat.
Absolutely correct MS. It is too generic.
Well, the term iPod is now pretty generic, people use it to refer to a personal music player, just as walkman was the generic term in the eighties - maybe Apple shouldn't be allowed that trademark either.
Just because a company introduce a product name or phrase which becomes used in standard language doesn't mean it should be excluded from trademark protection. A great example here in the UK is "hoover", which most people use to refer to a vacuum cleaner as the hoover company made the biggest selling cleaner in the UK for decades... 'Hoover' is still owned by the hoover company though...
MSFT is grasping at straws. If I were the judge, I'd throw it out right off the bat and make them file the suit somewhere else. Apple made App store a house hold name. Why shouldn't they be able to trademark it? People associate App Store with Apple. This is just a way to make Apple spend unnecessary funds trying to defend the lawsuit.
Well, the term iPod is now pretty generic, people use it to refer to a personal music player, just as walkman was the generic term in the eighties - maybe Apple shouldn't be allowed that trademark either.
Just because a company introduce a product name or phrase which becomes used in standard language doesn't mean it should be excluded from trademark protection. A great example here in the UK is "hoover", which most people use to refer to a vacuum cleaner as the hoover company made the biggest selling cleaner in the UK for decades... 'Hoover' is still owned by the hoover company though...
The iPod argument doesnt hold as Apple made it generic and copyrighted it beforehand. Its actually an unusual name for a music device. It has no use in common language beforehand.
The term app is merely a shortening of application which was in common use for years, and I am sure were the situation reversed we would be attacking MS for trying to copyright Software Store, or whatever.
I have been a software developer for 25 years and never heard or used the term "App" until Apple used the name in its store. I always heard and used the terms "programs," "applications," "code" or "software."
Much like patents, trademark registrations have gotten out of hand.
It should not be possible to trademark an already used word, ever. You want a trademark, you should have to make up a new word.
Apple may be the cause of the word application being shortened to app, but they're not the ones who came up with the word, and even if they were, it was in common use for years before they decided they wanted a trademark.
It's generic, M$ is right this time. Not that they usually are on this issue - they should be forced to give up trademarks on windows and word.
Oh, and trademark loss on genericization should be automatic. Words like xerox, kleenex, and google are now part of the language, and should no longer be trademarkable, much like aspirin is now fully public domain, rather than a trademark of Bayer. As far as that goes, apple shouldn't be trademarkable by itself, they should have kept the company name Apple Computer.
I Couldn't disagree more. These companies innovate, they were there first, it was their success through financial investment, R&D and plain hard work than "generizised" these words. Apple were the first to coin "App Store" Apple's success has led to this being entered into common use. It remains their property. By your reckoning Microsoft, Apple, and Kleenex should have no control over how their names are used - so I could set up a company making tissues tomorrow and call the product "Kleenex"?!
Awww, poor Microsoft. Pout, pout, pout. We didn't think of it first. This mentality really reminds me of Ballmer who's basically a big crybaby who doesn't get his own way. Boohoo. Think of your own original ideas first. Oh, and don't own a trademark on the word "Word" and we'll chat. K?
The iPod argument doesnt hold as Apple made it generic and copyrighted it beforehand. Its actually an unusual name for a music device. It has no use in common language beforehand.
The term app is merely a shortening of application which was in common use for years, and I am sure were the situation reversed we would be attacking MS for trying to copyright Software Store, or whatever.
Yup, just as the App Store, that is wasn't copyrighted in advance is irrelevant, it's use is clearly attributal to Apple and their Application Distribution Store. Additionally we're not talking about the word "App" we're talking about the phrase "App Store" - I think you're missing the point.
Apple has popularised the term "App Store" so Microsoft wants to steal it.
Nothing new, M$ has been trying to pass itself as Apple for decades....
BTW In the past Microsoft has always used the term "Programs" and Apple has always used the term "Applications". Will a new feature of Windows 8 be the "App Menu"!
Comments
It should not be possible to trademark an already used word, ever. You want a trademark, you should have to make up a new word.
By your reckoning, "Apple" is an invalid trademark.
Yes, app is universally used for mobile applications ... NOW.
But that's largely due to Apple's choice of the word. When Apple introduced it, it was just an abbreviation for "application". Today it has its own specific meaning.
Not to me. The word "app" has retained the generic meaning (abbreviation for "application") that it has held in my lexicon since at least the mid 1990s.
The distinction between a mobile application and a non-mobile application remains immaterial to my generic usage.
I'm not going to say that I'm pro-Microsoft and anti-Apple in this case, because of the extra baggage that will imply. But I'm certainly pro-"denying-the-trademark".
By your reckoning, "Apple" is an invalid trademark.
The last sentence of DarkVader's post confirms that indeed, he agrees with that exact sentiment.
Why do they need "app store" - everyone associates that with Apple. Why not "Application Central" or "App Centre" or "Market Place" - oh, hang on...
Always the need to copy and steal Apple's innovation in all areas, why not just get off their lazy behinds and coin their own phrase to eclipse Apple's own?
How bout let Apple name their store after their extension and Microsoft can patent the Exe Store or the Com Store.
Absolutely correct MS. It is too generic.
Don't see how it could be generic when a Mac application file has an extension of .app same as a Microsoft's apps have either .exe or .com.
How bout let Apple name their store after their extension and Microsoft can patent the Exe Store or the Com Store.
The term executable has not really caught on, in general use. Application, or program has.
By your reckoning, "Apple" is an invalid trademark.
'Apple' isn't a trademark. The Apple Device and the display of the word apple using a specific font, or in a certain context is. There's more to a trade mark than a name.
Just another ploy to get attention....
Dan
Speaking as a total Apple fan boy, inclined to defend them at the drop of a hat.
Absolutely correct MS. It is too generic.
Well, the term iPod is now pretty generic, people use it to refer to a personal music player, just as walkman was the generic term in the eighties - maybe Apple shouldn't be allowed that trademark either.
Just because a company introduce a product name or phrase which becomes used in standard language doesn't mean it should be excluded from trademark protection. A great example here in the UK is "hoover", which most people use to refer to a vacuum cleaner as the hoover company made the biggest selling cleaner in the UK for decades... 'Hoover' is still owned by the hoover company though...
Well, the term iPod is now pretty generic, people use it to refer to a personal music player, just as walkman was the generic term in the eighties - maybe Apple shouldn't be allowed that trademark either.
Just because a company introduce a product name or phrase which becomes used in standard language doesn't mean it should be excluded from trademark protection. A great example here in the UK is "hoover", which most people use to refer to a vacuum cleaner as the hoover company made the biggest selling cleaner in the UK for decades... 'Hoover' is still owned by the hoover company though...
The iPod argument doesnt hold as Apple made it generic and copyrighted it beforehand. Its actually an unusual name for a music device. It has no use in common language beforehand.
The term app is merely a shortening of application which was in common use for years, and I am sure were the situation reversed we would be attacking MS for trying to copyright Software Store, or whatever.
Much like patents, trademark registrations have gotten out of hand.
It should not be possible to trademark an already used word, ever. You want a trademark, you should have to make up a new word.
Apple may be the cause of the word application being shortened to app, but they're not the ones who came up with the word, and even if they were, it was in common use for years before they decided they wanted a trademark.
It's generic, M$ is right this time. Not that they usually are on this issue - they should be forced to give up trademarks on windows and word.
Oh, and trademark loss on genericization should be automatic. Words like xerox, kleenex, and google are now part of the language, and should no longer be trademarkable, much like aspirin is now fully public domain, rather than a trademark of Bayer. As far as that goes, apple shouldn't be trademarkable by itself, they should have kept the company name Apple Computer.
I Couldn't disagree more. These companies innovate, they were there first, it was their success through financial investment, R&D and plain hard work than "generizised" these words. Apple were the first to coin "App Store" Apple's success has led to this being entered into common use. It remains their property. By your reckoning Microsoft, Apple, and Kleenex should have no control over how their names are used - so I could set up a company making tissues tomorrow and call the product "Kleenex"?!
Do think things through...
The iPod argument doesnt hold as Apple made it generic and copyrighted it beforehand. Its actually an unusual name for a music device. It has no use in common language beforehand.
The term app is merely a shortening of application which was in common use for years, and I am sure were the situation reversed we would be attacking MS for trying to copyright Software Store, or whatever.
Yup, just as the App Store, that is wasn't copyrighted in advance is irrelevant, it's use is clearly attributal to Apple and their Application Distribution Store. Additionally we're not talking about the word "App" we're talking about the phrase "App Store" - I think you're missing the point.
Nothing new, M$ has been trying to pass itself as Apple for decades....
BTW In the past Microsoft has always used the term "Programs" and Apple has always used the term "Applications". Will a new feature of Windows 8 be the "App Menu"!