The generic term for windows is "operating system" and the distinction between "windows" and "operating system" is quiet clear.
Actually, it's not. Just about every modern operating system implements a graphical user interface, and almost every graphical user interface is designed around a "window" system.
Mac OS, Unix/Linux (most distributions), NeXTstep, Amiga OS, BE OS, [...] all have basic user-visible interface elements that are referred to as "windows". Even iOS has "windows", even if they always full screen...
So, "window" is a generic term that applies to most operating systems...
Don't let your ignorance of copyright and trademark laws become the foundation of your hate for Apple, or any company
As noted in previous post, copyright and trademark laws in the US and the world, allow the copyright of a word, to brand itself in a given field, if no one has copyrighted it yet.
IBM -- may have different meanings, but the original International Business Machine (IBM), has trademark "IBM" so no one is allow to use it, as a trademark
At the same time, a company cannot claim automatic trademark of a word, even if it the first to create or coin it, as was the case with the term "Aspirin" (see previous post).
Then, there is the creation of a "new term" to convey a different meaning altogether
Face and book may be generic words, but "Facebook" is a new term
And, so is "App Store" (see above)
but yout happiness, or those of the detractors here, is not the focus of copyright and trademark laws.
CGC
I don't think the issue is about who first coined the term or whether it is a new term. The issue seems to be that Microsoft now think the term has become so generic as a means to identify a particular thing that it can't be trademarked.
Don't let your ignorance of copyright and trademark laws become the foundation of your hate for Apple, or any company
As noted in previous post, copyright and trademark laws in the US and the world, allow the copyright of a word, to brand itself in a given field, if no one has copyrighted it yet.
IBM -- may have different meanings, but the original International Business Machine (IBM), has trademark "IBM" so no one is allow to use it, as a trademark
At the same time, a company cannot claim automatic trademark of a word, even if it the first to create or coin it, as was the case with the term "Aspirin" (see previous post).
Then, there is the creation of a "new term" to convey a different meaning altogether
Face and book may be generic words, but "Facebook" is a new term
And, so is "App Store" (see above)
but yout happiness, or those of the detractors here, is not the focus of copyright and trademark laws.
CGC
My ignorance of trademark law is boundless, but to use IBM in this conversation is of no value.
Who did you say was the detractor? not me, shirley
According to registration # 2463526 or serial # 75879977 Microsoft owns WINDOWS, as well as a bunch of variations such as WINDOWS XP, WINDOWS ME, etc. I just looked it up in TESS.
edit: Here's a cut and paste from my search
94 75879977 2463526 WINDOWS TARR LIVE
95 75811226 2729524 WINDOWS POWERED TARR DEAD
96 75573286 2513051 WINDOWS TARR DEAD
97 75982727 2640353 WINDOWS XP TARR LIVE
98 75982782 2640357 WINDOWS XP TARR LIVE
99 75517786 2635678 WINDOWS MEDIA TARR LIVE
100 75888922 2559770 WINDOWS ME TARR LIVE
Well done, but I have to say it was easy to win that argument
Actually, it's not. Just about every modern operating system implements a graphical user interface, and almost every graphical user interface is designed around a "window" system.
Mac OS, Unix/Linux (most distributions), NeXTstep, Amiga OS, BE OS, [...] all have basic user-visible interface elements that are referred to as "windows". Even iOS has "windows", even if they always full screen...
So, "window" is a generic term that applies to most operating systems...
No, it's designed around a SCREENED system, with different screens for different functions.
The whole point of picking "Windows" as a name was that it was like opening a window to a new experience with each screen. As I said before, even today many people still refer to each window as a screen (mainly the old guys I work with who have been in IT for many many years.)
So "Windows" is a creative term used to differentiate a specific operating system.
If apple called their store the "iOS app store" and Microsoft called it the same, then obviously this would all make sense
An "app store" is all that is: A store to buy apps from. Apple fails to realize that people have been calling software "Apps" or "Appz" for AGES.
Don't let your bias cloud your reasoning. "Apps" may have been used before, but can you point to me any publication that has coined the term, "App Store" before Apple did? And, even if someone did, the original creator of the term "App Store" protected it with a trademark?
If not, then a company can do so within a given time period, and prevent others from using the same term. That is the essence and intent of Trademark laws in the US and many countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
If Microsoft called their software "Screens" then Apple's argument would make sense. The use of "Windows" was creative, while "App store" is not, plain and simple.
.
So, if it was plain and simple, and not creative, why then does the more creative Microsoft object to its exclusive use by Apple, since no one has trademark it yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Who did you say was the detractor? not me, shirley
Read the phrasing again: " Your happiness, and the detractors...."
That you are not lumped as a single group, is a recognition (or at least my understanding of your post I responded to is that you may supportive rather than a detractor... like chronster, LuisDias, etc.
Oh, puh-leeze. Nobody ever even used the term "App" until Apple popularized it. Windows users never even called their programs "applications" -- they always called them "Programs" or "Program Files". Even Apple themselves didn't use the word "App" until the iPhone came out. Apple invented this word and they deserve the right to use it... nobody else.
Go, Apple!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarchetta
Actually, they didn't. There are myriad documented uses of "app" before the iPhone. It's fine if you wish to defend their trademarking "App store," but let's not revise history simply to make a point, k?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rf9
BS! We used the term app commonly in the software industry long before Apple "invented" it. However it was generally use in a two word description like "native apps," "web apps," and "portable apps." Apple did coin the term "app store" though. Prior to them doing so no one ever thought of an "app store" per se. Even Handango which is arguably one of the first mobile application stores years before Apple "invented" the app store didn't call themselves an app store.
So I agree Apple should be able to TM "App store" because I can't think of anyone else ever using it before them. Not successfully.
Ha ha! Pretty funny. Well, you're all right, to some degree, and all wrong, to another. You're all just too young, apparently, to know the history of the word "App" and how it came into common usage.
Apple did indeed coin the term "application," or "app" for short. But it wasn't for the iPhone. It was in the early 1980's for the Lisa computer, and subsequently used it for the Macintosh too. At that time most people in the industry used the term "program," or other terms which are now completely archaic, to describe what we know today as an "App." I know, because i was writing software before Apple was even founded.
Incidentally, it was Apple ? or more accurately Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak - who coined the term Personal Computer, or PC for short. Ironic, since it was IBM which popularized, and M$ which subsequently usurped it.
Actually, it's not. Just about every modern operating system implements a graphical user interface, and almost every graphical user interface is designed around a "window" system.
True. But probably not relevant. Perhaps it is better put this way: if Microsoft tried to trademark the term "Operating System" it is would likely fail. Whilst windows are typically a characteristic of an operating system (but not universal) it does not describe the operating system itself, unlike in the case of Apple's App Store, where the trademark being applied is arguably descriptive. Trademarks by definition must distinguish one thing from it competitors in the same market.
Quote:
Mac OS, Unix/Linux (most distributions), NeXTstep, Amiga OS, BE OS, [...] all have basic user-visible interface elements that are referred to as "windows". Even iOS has "windows", even if they always full screen...
So, "window" is a generic term that applies to most operating systems...
Ha ha! Pretty funny. Well, you're all right, to some degree, and all wrong, to another. You're all just too young, apparently, to know the history of the word "App" and how it came into common usage.
Apple did indeed coin the term "application," or "app" for short. But it wasn't for the iPhone. It was in the early 1980's for the Lisa computer, and subsequently used it for the Macintosh too. At that time most people in the industry used the term "program," or other terms which are now completely archaic, to describe what we know today as an "App." I know, because i was writing software before Apple was even founded.
Incidentally, it was Apple ? or more accurately Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak - who coined the term Personal Computer, or PC for short. Ironic, since it was IBM which popularized, and M$ which subsequently usurped it.
As noted previously, only clueless people would think that the term, "Application" is new. It is the new term "App Store" and the right of Apple to trademark the aforementioned term that is being contested here.
If you are aware of any publication that used the term, "App Store" before Apple did, please enlighten us.
And, to reiterate a previous point, unless someone has already trademarked the term, Apple is within its right to do so.
Like others have said, windows although an existing word isn't being used for the same meaning. Whereas app and store are so therefore its no different to someone trying to trademark the name tv store or shoe store, which sounds ridiculous.
However in the UK our largest retailer of games is called "game" which too is very generic. So I would say its ok if you can show its recognised as only being yours which in this instance I don't think they can.
BS! We used the term app commonly in the software industry long before Apple "invented" it. However it was generally use in a two word description like "native apps," "web apps," and "portable apps." Apple did coin the term "app store" though. Prior to them doing so no one ever thought of an "app store" per se. Even Handango which is arguably one of the first mobile application stores years before Apple "invented" the app store didn't call themselves an app store.
So I agree Apple should be able to TM "App store" because I can't think of anyone else ever using it before them. Not successfully.
'App' (capitalized) has something to do with the name of the company, surely?
As far as I am concerned, the others can call theirs the Goo Store, the Micro Store, the Sam Store......
Apple may have pioneered a concept, but it is so broad as to be un-trademarkable. App Stores are clearly the model that others will use. I do not think Apple can trademark this linguistic concept, even if they did originally develop it. An app store is a conceptual thing that can easily refer to any company. Similar, indeed, to a "window." Apple is trying to trademark a generic noun.
I don't think the issue is about who first coined the term or whether it is a new term. The issue seems to be that Microsoft now think the term has become so generic as a means to identify a particular thing that it can't be trademarked.
Not correct, as far as US trademark laws are concerned. Terms can become used, widely, e.g, Google, as in Google it, pretty quick quickly.
Because applications for patents and trademarks take time to review and approve -- it is the time, when the application for trademark application has been made, and whether the term has been generic before that ... that matters.
To my knowledge, unless you can prove otherwise, the term "App Store" is not in wide use before Apple filed its trademark application. It does not matter if "App" and "Store" are generic terms.
If the term, "App Store" has been generic before the time of the trademark application, the first reviewer would have rejected it offhand. To my knowledge, during the first review stage, the application is not made public. At least, in the case of patents, the application is not made public until a final decision has been made by the patent office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
For once I disagree with Apple and agree with Windows. I think that App Store is too generic and that Windows, while potentially generic for windowed OSes in the 80’s, is so set and trademarked that if Apple had an issue with it then they should have said something. Now if Apple were to call the iApp Store and MS took issue with it I’d say Apple would have a case, not MS.
What we think is not what matters in this issue, it is how the US Patent law reviewers decide whether the term "App Store" was generic before Apple filed its application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
Apple may have pioneered a concept, but it is so broad as to be un-trademarkable. App Stores are clearly the model that others will use. I do not think Apple can trademark this linguistic concept, even if they did originally develop it. An app store is a conceptual thing that can easily refer to any company. Similar, indeed, to a "window." Apple is trying to trademark a generic noun.
Your reasoning is contradicted by the fact that "Windows" was trademarked. And, as noted by others, can you point to me a publication that would prove the term "Apple Store" was in wide use (generic) before Apple applied for the trademark protectection?
No way! I want MS to always get better, and bring us better stuff
Well, there's a first time for everything, i suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
so that companies like Apple respond with even BETTER stuff.
Considering that M$ has always copied others, and never really originated anything themselves, it would be a first if they ever inspired Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Why don't clueless Apple fanboys understand the success of other companies is good for everyone!?
Oh, we understand the concept. It's just has never applied to M$. In fact, it can be argued that M$, by trying to spread their monopolistic hold over the computer world, has done exactly the opposite. They literally plunged the world of technology into the dark ages in the 1990s. Finally, the long, dark winter is over, and creativity is blooming once again. And that revolution is being led by Apple.
The only innovation M$ has ever shown is how to stifle competition, or how to make poor quality knock-offs of the hard work of other companies.
I always chuckle when some says M$ is innovative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
The whole point of picking "Windows" as a name was that it was like opening a window to a new experience with each screen. As I said before, even today many people still refer to each window as a screen (mainly the old guys I work with who have been in IT for many many years.)
Of course Apple used the term Windows in this regard well before M$ copied the Mac OS and brought M$ Windows to the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arwald
The generic term for windows is "operating system" and the distinction between "windows" and "operating system" is quiet clear.
If you're saying "operating system" is synonymous with WIndows, you are mistaken. But if you're saying M$ Windows is an example of an operating system, as is Mac OS X, Linux, Unix, VMS, RSTS/11, etc., then you are correct.
An operating system is that layer of software which controls the hardware, and allocates resources. In modern years, it tends to include application frameworks and other APIs. Strictly speaking, it's not about a user interface (although in recent years, many people perceive it to be just that).
For once I disagree with Apple and agree with Windows. I think that App Store is too generic and that Windows, while potentially generic for windowed OSes in the 80?s, is so set and trademarked that if Apple had an issue with it then they should have said something. Now if Apple were to call the iApp Store and MS took issue with it I?d say Apple would have a case, not MS.
Comments
The generic term for windows is "operating system" and the distinction between "windows" and "operating system" is quiet clear.
Actually, it's not. Just about every modern operating system implements a graphical user interface, and almost every graphical user interface is designed around a "window" system.
Mac OS, Unix/Linux (most distributions), NeXTstep, Amiga OS, BE OS, [...] all have basic user-visible interface elements that are referred to as "windows". Even iOS has "windows", even if they always full screen...
So, "window" is a generic term that applies to most operating systems...
Don't let your ignorance of copyright and trademark laws become the foundation of your hate for Apple, or any company
As noted in previous post, copyright and trademark laws in the US and the world, allow the copyright of a word, to brand itself in a given field, if no one has copyrighted it yet.
IBM -- may have different meanings, but the original International Business Machine (IBM), has trademark "IBM" so no one is allow to use it, as a trademark
At the same time, a company cannot claim automatic trademark of a word, even if it the first to create or coin it, as was the case with the term "Aspirin" (see previous post).
Then, there is the creation of a "new term" to convey a different meaning altogether
Face and book may be generic words, but "Facebook" is a new term
And, so is "App Store" (see above)
but yout happiness, or those of the detractors here, is not the focus of copyright and trademark laws.
CGC
I don't think the issue is about who first coined the term or whether it is a new term. The issue seems to be that Microsoft now think the term has become so generic as a means to identify a particular thing that it can't be trademarked.
Don't let your ignorance of copyright and trademark laws become the foundation of your hate for Apple, or any company
As noted in previous post, copyright and trademark laws in the US and the world, allow the copyright of a word, to brand itself in a given field, if no one has copyrighted it yet.
IBM -- may have different meanings, but the original International Business Machine (IBM), has trademark "IBM" so no one is allow to use it, as a trademark
At the same time, a company cannot claim automatic trademark of a word, even if it the first to create or coin it, as was the case with the term "Aspirin" (see previous post).
Then, there is the creation of a "new term" to convey a different meaning altogether
Face and book may be generic words, but "Facebook" is a new term
And, so is "App Store" (see above)
but yout happiness, or those of the detractors here, is not the focus of copyright and trademark laws.
CGC
My ignorance of trademark law is boundless, but to use IBM in this conversation is of no value.
Who did you say was the detractor? not me, shirley
A mystery for sure, but let's hope he hangs on as M$ CEO forever!
No way! I want MS to always get better, and bring us better stuff, so that companies like Apple respond with even BETTER stuff.
Why don't clueless Apple fanboys understand the success of other companies is good for everyone!?
According to registration # 2463526 or serial # 75879977 Microsoft owns WINDOWS, as well as a bunch of variations such as WINDOWS XP, WINDOWS ME, etc. I just looked it up in TESS.
edit: Here's a cut and paste from my search
94 75879977 2463526 WINDOWS TARR LIVE
95 75811226 2729524 WINDOWS POWERED TARR DEAD
96 75573286 2513051 WINDOWS TARR DEAD
97 75982727 2640353 WINDOWS XP TARR LIVE
98 75982782 2640357 WINDOWS XP TARR LIVE
99 75517786 2635678 WINDOWS MEDIA TARR LIVE
100 75888922 2559770 WINDOWS ME TARR LIVE
Well done, but I have to say it was easy to win that argument
Actually, it's not. Just about every modern operating system implements a graphical user interface, and almost every graphical user interface is designed around a "window" system.
Mac OS, Unix/Linux (most distributions), NeXTstep, Amiga OS, BE OS, [...] all have basic user-visible interface elements that are referred to as "windows". Even iOS has "windows", even if they always full screen...
So, "window" is a generic term that applies to most operating systems...
No, it's designed around a SCREENED system, with different screens for different functions.
The whole point of picking "Windows" as a name was that it was like opening a window to a new experience with each screen. As I said before, even today many people still refer to each window as a screen (mainly the old guys I work with who have been in IT for many many years.)
So "Windows" is a creative term used to differentiate a specific operating system.
If apple called their store the "iOS app store" and Microsoft called it the same, then obviously this would all make sense
An "app store" is all that is: A store to buy apps from. Apple fails to realize that people have been calling software "Apps" or "Appz" for AGES.
Don't let your bias cloud your reasoning. "Apps" may have been used before, but can you point to me any publication that has coined the term, "App Store" before Apple did? And, even if someone did, the original creator of the term "App Store" protected it with a trademark?
If not, then a company can do so within a given time period, and prevent others from using the same term. That is the essence and intent of Trademark laws in the US and many countries.
If Microsoft called their software "Screens" then Apple's argument would make sense. The use of "Windows" was creative, while "App store" is not, plain and simple.
.
So, if it was plain and simple, and not creative, why then does the more creative Microsoft object to its exclusive use by Apple, since no one has trademark it yet?
Who did you say was the detractor? not me, shirley
Read the phrasing again: " Your happiness, and the detractors...."
That you are not lumped as a single group, is a recognition (or at least my understanding of your post I responded to is that you may supportive rather than a detractor... like chronster, LuisDias, etc.
CGC
Oh, puh-leeze. Nobody ever even used the term "App" until Apple popularized it. Windows users never even called their programs "applications" -- they always called them "Programs" or "Program Files". Even Apple themselves didn't use the word "App" until the iPhone came out. Apple invented this word and they deserve the right to use it... nobody else.
Go, Apple!!
Actually, they didn't. There are myriad documented uses of "app" before the iPhone. It's fine if you wish to defend their trademarking "App store," but let's not revise history simply to make a point, k?
BS! We used the term app commonly in the software industry long before Apple "invented" it. However it was generally use in a two word description like "native apps," "web apps," and "portable apps." Apple did coin the term "app store" though. Prior to them doing so no one ever thought of an "app store" per se. Even Handango which is arguably one of the first mobile application stores years before Apple "invented" the app store didn't call themselves an app store.
So I agree Apple should be able to TM "App store" because I can't think of anyone else ever using it before them. Not successfully.
Ha ha! Pretty funny. Well, you're all right, to some degree, and all wrong, to another. You're all just too young, apparently, to know the history of the word "App" and how it came into common usage.
Apple did indeed coin the term "application," or "app" for short. But it wasn't for the iPhone. It was in the early 1980's for the Lisa computer, and subsequently used it for the Macintosh too. At that time most people in the industry used the term "program," or other terms which are now completely archaic, to describe what we know today as an "App." I know, because i was writing software before Apple was even founded.
Incidentally, it was Apple ? or more accurately Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak - who coined the term Personal Computer, or PC for short. Ironic, since it was IBM which popularized, and M$ which subsequently usurped it.
Why don't clueless Apple fanboys understand the success of other companies is good for everyone!?
We're not all clueless, but you are dead-on. Competition is the "American Way" - or used to be.
Actually, it's not. Just about every modern operating system implements a graphical user interface, and almost every graphical user interface is designed around a "window" system.
True. But probably not relevant. Perhaps it is better put this way: if Microsoft tried to trademark the term "Operating System" it is would likely fail. Whilst windows are typically a characteristic of an operating system (but not universal) it does not describe the operating system itself, unlike in the case of Apple's App Store, where the trademark being applied is arguably descriptive. Trademarks by definition must distinguish one thing from it competitors in the same market.
Mac OS, Unix/Linux (most distributions), NeXTstep, Amiga OS, BE OS, [...] all have basic user-visible interface elements that are referred to as "windows". Even iOS has "windows", even if they always full screen...
So, "window" is a generic term that applies to most operating systems...
Ha ha! Pretty funny. Well, you're all right, to some degree, and all wrong, to another. You're all just too young, apparently, to know the history of the word "App" and how it came into common usage.
Apple did indeed coin the term "application," or "app" for short. But it wasn't for the iPhone. It was in the early 1980's for the Lisa computer, and subsequently used it for the Macintosh too. At that time most people in the industry used the term "program," or other terms which are now completely archaic, to describe what we know today as an "App." I know, because i was writing software before Apple was even founded.
Incidentally, it was Apple ? or more accurately Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak - who coined the term Personal Computer, or PC for short. Ironic, since it was IBM which popularized, and M$ which subsequently usurped it.
As noted previously, only clueless people would think that the term, "Application" is new. It is the new term "App Store" and the right of Apple to trademark the aforementioned term that is being contested here.
If you are aware of any publication that used the term, "App Store" before Apple did, please enlighten us.
And, to reiterate a previous point, unless someone has already trademarked the term, Apple is within its right to do so.
CGC
Go, Apple!!
You mean Apple!
However in the UK our largest retailer of games is called "game" which too is very generic. So I would say its ok if you can show its recognised as only being yours which in this instance I don't think they can.
BS! We used the term app commonly in the software industry long before Apple "invented" it. However it was generally use in a two word description like "native apps," "web apps," and "portable apps." Apple did coin the term "app store" though. Prior to them doing so no one ever thought of an "app store" per se. Even Handango which is arguably one of the first mobile application stores years before Apple "invented" the app store didn't call themselves an app store.
So I agree Apple should be able to TM "App store" because I can't think of anyone else ever using it before them. Not successfully.
'App' (capitalized) has something to do with the name of the company, surely?
As far as I am concerned, the others can call theirs the Goo Store, the Micro Store, the Sam Store......
I don't think the issue is about who first coined the term or whether it is a new term. The issue seems to be that Microsoft now think the term has become so generic as a means to identify a particular thing that it can't be trademarked.
Not correct, as far as US trademark laws are concerned. Terms can become used, widely, e.g, Google, as in Google it, pretty quick quickly.
Because applications for patents and trademarks take time to review and approve -- it is the time, when the application for trademark application has been made, and whether the term has been generic before that ... that matters.
To my knowledge, unless you can prove otherwise, the term "App Store" is not in wide use before Apple filed its trademark application. It does not matter if "App" and "Store" are generic terms.
If the term, "App Store" has been generic before the time of the trademark application, the first reviewer would have rejected it offhand. To my knowledge, during the first review stage, the application is not made public. At least, in the case of patents, the application is not made public until a final decision has been made by the patent office.
For once I disagree with Apple and agree with Windows. I think that App Store is too generic and that Windows, while potentially generic for windowed OSes in the 80’s, is so set and trademarked that if Apple had an issue with it then they should have said something. Now if Apple were to call the iApp Store and MS took issue with it I’d say Apple would have a case, not MS.
What we think is not what matters in this issue, it is how the US Patent law reviewers decide whether the term "App Store" was generic before Apple filed its application.
Apple may have pioneered a concept, but it is so broad as to be un-trademarkable. App Stores are clearly the model that others will use. I do not think Apple can trademark this linguistic concept, even if they did originally develop it. An app store is a conceptual thing that can easily refer to any company. Similar, indeed, to a "window." Apple is trying to trademark a generic noun.
Your reasoning is contradicted by the fact that "Windows" was trademarked. And, as noted by others, can you point to me a publication that would prove the term "Apple Store" was in wide use (generic) before Apple applied for the trademark protectection?
CGC
Apple. the fruit. get it.
Apple is not generically used within the computer industry.
Now windows...
No way! I want MS to always get better, and bring us better stuff
Well, there's a first time for everything, i suppose.
so that companies like Apple respond with even BETTER stuff.
Considering that M$ has always copied others, and never really originated anything themselves, it would be a first if they ever inspired Apple.
Why don't clueless Apple fanboys understand the success of other companies is good for everyone!?
Oh, we understand the concept. It's just has never applied to M$. In fact, it can be argued that M$, by trying to spread their monopolistic hold over the computer world, has done exactly the opposite. They literally plunged the world of technology into the dark ages in the 1990s. Finally, the long, dark winter is over, and creativity is blooming once again. And that revolution is being led by Apple.
The only innovation M$ has ever shown is how to stifle competition, or how to make poor quality knock-offs of the hard work of other companies.
I always chuckle when some says M$ is innovative.
The whole point of picking "Windows" as a name was that it was like opening a window to a new experience with each screen. As I said before, even today many people still refer to each window as a screen (mainly the old guys I work with who have been in IT for many many years.)
Of course Apple used the term Windows in this regard well before M$ copied the Mac OS and brought M$ Windows to the market.
The generic term for windows is "operating system" and the distinction between "windows" and "operating system" is quiet clear.
If you're saying "operating system" is synonymous with WIndows, you are mistaken. But if you're saying M$ Windows is an example of an operating system, as is Mac OS X, Linux, Unix, VMS, RSTS/11, etc., then you are correct.
An operating system is that layer of software which controls the hardware, and allocates resources. In modern years, it tends to include application frameworks and other APIs. Strictly speaking, it's not about a user interface (although in recent years, many people perceive it to be just that).