Microsoft has trademarked "Word" and long ago sued a man because his product name used the Hebrew word for "bookshelf" which they also owned. It's hard to know how they can fairly object that something sounds too general. If their objection is upheld (which may or may not have merit... I'm no expert), it should automatically be applied to their own line.
if apple has trademarked 'app' or 'apps' then i would go with apple. if not, then i agree with MS
they could call it the 'mac store' but then get sued by maxtor....
Seems like about the only words Microsoft could lay claim to are their corporate name and Visio.
Don't forget this classic: Visual InterDev
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian
I am just "T'd" off, about this whole thing.
I would like to remind you of Mr. O.J. Simpson trying to "copywright" the term OJ. so he could cash in every time we bought O.range J.uice....
Yea, no one thought of that before him.
Copyright and trademarks are different beasts.
You can only trademark a term for a specific industry or type of product.
A trademark for a hypothetical Lumberjack truck model wouldn't prevent some other company from having a separate trademark for Lumberjack flannel shirts or boots or thermoses* -- or even paper towels.
The trademark lawsuit between the (then) Apple Computer and Apple Records started when Apple Computer began to move into music, because Apple Records felt they owned the "Apple" trademark in that niche or industry.
* Edit: On reflection, "Thermos" is already trademarked.
has been one which Apple used from the beginning to describe actionable computer software. Long before OS X or iOS ... if you were having a conversation with a not-Mac user and used the term "application" the odds were they'd look at you and say "huh?" Then you'd say .. "Program" and they'd understand what you were referring to.
"Alias" anyone? Use the term "shortcut" and anyone knows of what you speak.
During the 90's ... M$ and its user community herd did everything in their power to have Apple go the way of Amiga and the rest or render it marginalized.
So let them have their "Program" store. Everyone knows what it means. Right?
Microsoft products evolve around generic terms!! Windows, Office, Word, and Internet Explorer. If MS really think it is generic, where were they all these years? It's first come first serve when it comes to trademarks.
No, it is a specific term that refers to a specific public network. That's why you capitalize it when you talk about the Internet.
Combining a specific and a generic can yield a trademarkable name. Internet Explorer. Hula Hoop. Power Mac. Intel Inside.
The problem with "App Store" is that it is alleging that both terms are generics. While we've certainly all heard the dimunitive "app" as a replacement for "application" a lot more often since the iPhone, I wouldn't be at all certain that Apple could lay claim to inventing the usage. However, even then in some contexts I bet you could do it, if the combination itself was unique within a particular context. I think the problem is that the phrase "app store" is just as logical a generic description for what it is as it is a proper name for it. It's quite possible that even if it were called something else, if someone were to ask you to describe Apple's storefront for mobile applications, you might well think to refer to it as an "app store"-- again, presuming that "app" is common parlance for a mobile application.
Kleenex can insist you refer to other facial tissues without using the term Kleenex, but I doubt Kleenex would be allowed to trademark Facial Tissues to prevent competitors from using that combination of words to describe their products.
After this reply and several others, I think I'm going to apply for a trademark for the phrase "comment thread sarcasm."
Internet is a generic term referring to the connections around the world of computers.
Explorer is a generic term for someone who goes around seeking out things.
Word... Office...
Seems like about the only words Microsoft could lay claim to are their corporate name and Visio.
Oh... Kin and Zune. They could lay claim to those. Not sure why they would want to... but they could.
It?s not that single words are generic, it?s the combination that is still generic in App Store. I certainly use app store to refer to other app stores. The only variance is my capitalization of Apple?s App Store.
No one says Internet Explorer to mean Safari or Firefox. Speaking of, fire and fox are examples of generic words creating a unique term. Internet Explorer isn?t as catchy but it?s just as unique.
Now Office and Word have something different going on. They are often used as genericized trademarks, like Coke, Klennex or Band-Aid, because of their dominant position, but the words themselves weren?t a generic and all encompassing term when first used in the product. on top of that, They also contain Microsoft, which makes them unique.
MS probably has no issue with Mac App Store as it?s clear what the term refers to. It?s the iOS App Store which is only written as App Store that will be on concern. I think MS has a solid case here.
After years of losing smartphone market share to Apple's popular iPhone, Microsoft released a new mobile operating system, Windows Phone 7, along with Marketplace, its answer to Apple's App Store, last fall. At the end of December, it was revealed that the Windows Phone 7 platform had reached the 5,000 app milestone, well behind the more than 300,000 apps available for Apple's iOS.
Last fall, several Windows Phone 7 developers expressed concern over development for the platform, complaining that Microsoft had yet to release any app store analytics and was delaying payment until February 2011. Microsoft quickly changed course, releasing reporting tools for its developers and moving up the first pay date to January 2011.
Some pundits had speculated that Microsoft's delay in releasing Marketplace analytics was to delay the public revelation of Windows Phone 7 sales numbers. Initial reviews of WP7 were muted; reviewers praised the interface, while criticizing it as several years behind Apple's iOS and Google's Android mobile OS.
The U.S. launch of Windows Phone 7 was lackluster, with some stores reporting having sold just a handful of units.
In December, technology journalist Walt Mossberg pressed Microsoft VP Joe Belfiore for specific sales figures, but Belfiore repeatedly dodged the question. Belfiore later admitted to Mossberg that it could take at least "a couple of years" for Microsoft to "get back into the market."
*snip*
Half of this article is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand and rehashes information that's been posted at AI many times already. Is this DED again?
It?s not that single words are generic, it?s the combination that is still generic in App Store. I certainly use app store to refer to other app stores. The only variance is my capitalization of Apple?s App Store.
No one says Internet Explorer to mean Safari or Firefox. Speaking of, fire and fox are examples of generic words creating a unique term. Internet Explorer isn?t as catchy but it?s just as unique.
Now Office and Word have something different going on. They are often used as genericized trademarks, like Coke, Klennex or Band-Aid, because of their dominant position, but the words themselves weren?t a generic and all encompassing term when first used in the product. on top of that, They also contain Microsoft, which makes them unique.
MS probably has no issue with Mac App Store as it?s clear what the term refers to. It?s the iOS App Store which is only written as App Store that will be on concern. I think MS has a solid case here.
I would strongly disagree as I'm not aware of App Store being in use before Apple opened The App Store. You use it now, only because they created it and have NOT YET enforced their trademark in the current derivative situations.
I think the precedences of Windows, Word and Office being upheld is previous challenges (remember Lindows) bode very well for Apple in this case. I think there is Zero chance of a summary judgement or even a restraining order.
But in general, the Windows versions of apps are more full-featured and have fewer bugs compared to the OSX version, if any such version is available.
Really? The Mac versions of Office have generally had the more innovative features before Windows. Excel and Word both gestated on the Mac first and then moved to Windows. Of course Microsoft hasn't always been interested in promoting their Mac applications, but the Mac Business Units is one of the more profitable units within Microsoft.
Quote:
And the software written by Microsoft itself (for regular computers, anyways) is always first-rate.
I dunno, Microsoft has had their share of bombs. Office hasn't always been the best experience and has had significant growing pains in the past.
Windows biggest problem is it's early evolution was in a single user non-networked environment, so developers (including Microsoft) developed lots of bad habits that eventually came back to bite them.
It's not that the Unix guys were that much smarter or more prescient than Microsoft, much of Unix's early development happened on machines that were big and expensive and often shared. If a rouge application or user took the whole machine down, the expense involved was significant, so there was an early focus on stability and security from a practical cost perspective - not some sort of moral superiority over other manufacturers like Microsoft that lots of Unix weenies tend to claim. The early days of Unix weren't exactly pretty either! Microsoft's big problem is networking and mutli-user utilization of personal computers didn't really become important until they had this large momentum of poorly architected software and cadres of programmers that were used to being coddled.
This is why I see the App Store on the iPhone and now Mac OSX as huge - the focus has shifted from pleasing the developer at all costs with backwards compatibility and support for poorly ported applications to a customer-first focus.
Whatever the name, the Apple App Store is a huge shift in thinking, and even if you don't personally buy into it, just like Android wouldn't exist without the iPhone, much of the future application quality for all operating systems will improve with Apple's relentless focus on the end user experience.
I've been a technologist for a long time, and I'm ashamed to admit that in the past, even I have had a derogatory view of the "users" - and that's just wrong. Technology doesn't exist for the sake of technology. Yes, geeks like us think it's cool, but we are in the minority. For the majority, these things are just tools - and that's OK! Currently Apple is the only company who's primary focus is on the customer - and boy is this rubbing the "tech elite" the wrong way. The sacred cow is under attack! What really amuses me is all the "open" advocates who call for Apple to basically conform to the traditions. Talk about ironic! Apple is offering more choice, but because it doesn't fit their philosophical view of the world it must be destroyed - classic hypocrisy.
Comments
Microsoft has trademarked "Word" and long ago sued a man because his product name used the Hebrew word for "bookshelf" which they also owned. It's hard to know how they can fairly object that something sounds too general. If their objection is upheld (which may or may not have merit... I'm no expert), it should automatically be applied to their own line.
if apple has trademarked 'app' or 'apps' then i would go with apple. if not, then i agree with MS
they could call it the 'mac store' but then get sued by maxtor....
Seems like about the only words Microsoft could lay claim to are their corporate name and Visio.
Don't forget this classic: Visual InterDev
I am just "T'd" off, about this whole thing.
I would like to remind you of Mr. O.J. Simpson trying to "copywright" the term OJ. so he could cash in every time we bought O.range J.uice....
Yea, no one thought of that before him.
Copyright and trademarks are different beasts.
You can only trademark a term for a specific industry or type of product.
A trademark for a hypothetical Lumberjack truck model wouldn't prevent some other company from having a separate trademark for Lumberjack flannel shirts or boots or thermoses* -- or even paper towels.
The trademark lawsuit between the (then) Apple Computer and Apple Records started when Apple Computer began to move into music, because Apple Records felt they owned the "Apple" trademark in that niche or industry.
* Edit: On reflection, "Thermos" is already trademarked.
doesn't matter anymore if this gets dismissed or not. The app store is now synonymous with apple. When people hear app store, they think of apple.
used to be 'think different'
now its 'think douchebag'
"Alias" anyone? Use the term "shortcut" and anyone knows of what you speak.
During the 90's ... M$ and its user community herd did everything in their power to have Apple go the way of Amiga and the rest or render it marginalized.
So let them have their "Program" store. Everyone knows what it means. Right?
No, it is a specific term that refers to a specific public network. That's why you capitalize it when you talk about the Internet.
Combining a specific and a generic can yield a trademarkable name. Internet Explorer. Hula Hoop. Power Mac. Intel Inside.
The problem with "App Store" is that it is alleging that both terms are generics. While we've certainly all heard the dimunitive "app" as a replacement for "application" a lot more often since the iPhone, I wouldn't be at all certain that Apple could lay claim to inventing the usage. However, even then in some contexts I bet you could do it, if the combination itself was unique within a particular context. I think the problem is that the phrase "app store" is just as logical a generic description for what it is as it is a proper name for it. It's quite possible that even if it were called something else, if someone were to ask you to describe Apple's storefront for mobile applications, you might well think to refer to it as an "app store"-- again, presuming that "app" is common parlance for a mobile application.
Kleenex can insist you refer to other facial tissues without using the term Kleenex, but I doubt Kleenex would be allowed to trademark Facial Tissues to prevent competitors from using that combination of words to describe their products.
After this reply and several others, I think I'm going to apply for a trademark for the phrase "comment thread sarcasm."
'Apple' isn't a trademark.
APPLE?S TRADEMARKS\tGENERIC TERM(S)
AirMac®\twireless hardware/software solution
AirPlay®\tapplication program
AirPort®\twireless hardware/software solution
AirPort Express®\twireless hardware/software solution
AirPort Extreme®\twireless hardware/software solution
AirTunes®\tapplication program
A.Pack®\tsoftware feature
Aperture®\tapplication program
Apple®\tcomputers, computer software, computer peripherals, etc.
Apple logo®\t
Apple IIGS?\tcomputer
AppleCAT®\tapplication program
AppleCD SC®\tCD-ROM drive
Apple Cinema Display®\tcomputer monitor
AppleFund?\treimbursement program
AppleLink?\tcommunication network/computer software
Apple Media Series?\ttraining materials
Apple Remote Desktop?\tremote desktop software
AppleScript®\tapplication program
AppleScript Studio®\tdevelopment software
AppleShare®\tserver software
Apple Studio Display?\tcomputer monitor
AppleTalk®\tnetwork system
Apple TechStep?\tdiagnostic software
Apple TV®\tdigital media extender
AppleVision?\tcomputer display
AppleWorks®\tapplication program
...
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
I suggest they call their on-line store the 'Bug Store', then everyone would know it was Microsoft's.
HAHAHAHA!
This makes Microsoft seem so juvenile, they're like that little kid tattling to mommy that the other kids wont let them play with their toys.
It doesn't matter how generic the terms "burger" and "place" are.
How do you analyze "wooden chair" under that test? Could it be a valid trademark?
Everyone else has "Programs".
Internet Explorer.
Internet is a generic term referring to the connections around the world of computers.
Explorer is a generic term for someone who goes around seeking out things.
Word... Office...
Seems like about the only words Microsoft could lay claim to are their corporate name and Visio.
Oh... Kin and Zune. They could lay claim to those. Not sure why they would want to... but they could.
It?s not that single words are generic, it?s the combination that is still generic in App Store. I certainly use app store to refer to other app stores. The only variance is my capitalization of Apple?s App Store.
No one says Internet Explorer to mean Safari or Firefox. Speaking of, fire and fox are examples of generic words creating a unique term. Internet Explorer isn?t as catchy but it?s just as unique.
Now Office and Word have something different going on. They are often used as genericized trademarks, like Coke, Klennex or Band-Aid, because of their dominant position, but the words themselves weren?t a generic and all encompassing term when first used in the product. on top of that, They also contain Microsoft, which makes them unique.
MS probably has no issue with Mac App Store as it?s clear what the term refers to. It?s the iOS App Store which is only written as App Store that will be on concern. I think MS has a solid case here.
Quote:
*snip*
After years of losing smartphone market share to Apple's popular iPhone, Microsoft released a new mobile operating system, Windows Phone 7, along with Marketplace, its answer to Apple's App Store, last fall. At the end of December, it was revealed that the Windows Phone 7 platform had reached the 5,000 app milestone, well behind the more than 300,000 apps available for Apple's iOS.
Last fall, several Windows Phone 7 developers expressed concern over development for the platform, complaining that Microsoft had yet to release any app store analytics and was delaying payment until February 2011. Microsoft quickly changed course, releasing reporting tools for its developers and moving up the first pay date to January 2011.
Some pundits had speculated that Microsoft's delay in releasing Marketplace analytics was to delay the public revelation of Windows Phone 7 sales numbers. Initial reviews of WP7 were muted; reviewers praised the interface, while criticizing it as several years behind Apple's iOS and Google's Android mobile OS.
The U.S. launch of Windows Phone 7 was lackluster, with some stores reporting having sold just a handful of units.
In December, technology journalist Walt Mossberg pressed Microsoft VP Joe Belfiore for specific sales figures, but Belfiore repeatedly dodged the question. Belfiore later admitted to Mossberg that it could take at least "a couple of years" for Microsoft to "get back into the market."
*snip*
Half of this article is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand and rehashes information that's been posted at AI many times already. Is this DED again?
So motive is irrelevant?
It?s not that single words are generic, it?s the combination that is still generic in App Store. I certainly use app store to refer to other app stores. The only variance is my capitalization of Apple?s App Store.
No one says Internet Explorer to mean Safari or Firefox. Speaking of, fire and fox are examples of generic words creating a unique term. Internet Explorer isn?t as catchy but it?s just as unique.
Now Office and Word have something different going on. They are often used as genericized trademarks, like Coke, Klennex or Band-Aid, because of their dominant position, but the words themselves weren?t a generic and all encompassing term when first used in the product. on top of that, They also contain Microsoft, which makes them unique.
MS probably has no issue with Mac App Store as it?s clear what the term refers to. It?s the iOS App Store which is only written as App Store that will be on concern. I think MS has a solid case here.
I would strongly disagree as I'm not aware of App Store being in use before Apple opened The App Store. You use it now, only because they created it and have NOT YET enforced their trademark in the current derivative situations.
I think the precedences of Windows, Word and Office being upheld is previous challenges (remember Lindows) bode very well for Apple in this case. I think there is Zero chance of a summary judgement or even a restraining order.
But in general, the Windows versions of apps are more full-featured and have fewer bugs compared to the OSX version, if any such version is available.
Really? The Mac versions of Office have generally had the more innovative features before Windows. Excel and Word both gestated on the Mac first and then moved to Windows. Of course Microsoft hasn't always been interested in promoting their Mac applications, but the Mac Business Units is one of the more profitable units within Microsoft.
And the software written by Microsoft itself (for regular computers, anyways) is always first-rate.
I dunno, Microsoft has had their share of bombs. Office hasn't always been the best experience and has had significant growing pains in the past.
Windows biggest problem is it's early evolution was in a single user non-networked environment, so developers (including Microsoft) developed lots of bad habits that eventually came back to bite them.
It's not that the Unix guys were that much smarter or more prescient than Microsoft, much of Unix's early development happened on machines that were big and expensive and often shared. If a rouge application or user took the whole machine down, the expense involved was significant, so there was an early focus on stability and security from a practical cost perspective - not some sort of moral superiority over other manufacturers like Microsoft that lots of Unix weenies tend to claim. The early days of Unix weren't exactly pretty either! Microsoft's big problem is networking and mutli-user utilization of personal computers didn't really become important until they had this large momentum of poorly architected software and cadres of programmers that were used to being coddled.
This is why I see the App Store on the iPhone and now Mac OSX as huge - the focus has shifted from pleasing the developer at all costs with backwards compatibility and support for poorly ported applications to a customer-first focus.
Whatever the name, the Apple App Store is a huge shift in thinking, and even if you don't personally buy into it, just like Android wouldn't exist without the iPhone, much of the future application quality for all operating systems will improve with Apple's relentless focus on the end user experience.
I've been a technologist for a long time, and I'm ashamed to admit that in the past, even I have had a derogatory view of the "users" - and that's just wrong. Technology doesn't exist for the sake of technology. Yes, geeks like us think it's cool, but we are in the minority. For the majority, these things are just tools - and that's OK! Currently Apple is the only company who's primary focus is on the customer - and boy is this rubbing the "tech elite" the wrong way. The sacred cow is under attack! What really amuses me is all the "open" advocates who call for Apple to basically conform to the traditions. Talk about ironic! Apple is offering more choice, but because it doesn't fit their philosophical view of the world it must be destroyed - classic hypocrisy.
It is too generic.
App is generic - the combination of "App Store" isn't. It could go either way. MS wouldn't have filed if they didn't think they at least had a choice.
Although I'm with an earlier poster - I doubt it will benefit MS much, and in the end it just brings more attention to Apple.