'APP STORE' prior to Apples creation had never been used before in any commercial environment. Had it been a generic term or a common phrase a patent would not have been issued.
As for Amazon, couldn't they have come up with they own unique phrase????
Are you a programmer like me ? We never used the term apps for applications, only programs, subprograms, subroutines etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.
I am a computer programmer and have heard the term "App" used as shorthand for application many many times, long before the iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, many programmers wrote Applets, a nickname for a small application that gets its name from adding the suffix let (meaning small) to app (again, shorthand for application).
So...I really don't get what point you were trying to make there. I doubt Apple is trying to prove they coined the term app, cause that simply is not the case. What they are trying to do is defend the term App Store as a brand name.
I say give the trademark to Apple. I have used Windows since Windows 95, and I cannot for the life of me ever recall anything running on Windows being called an "App". Every application on Windows is ALWAYS referred to as a "Program" ...
Good point. Not sure it's entirely relevant, but it is certainly ironic. They are also called applications or application programs in computer science. Nobody asked, but I think application is the more precise nomenclature because application is a type of program, of which there are others. Only the most dedicated Mac snobs have pondered on this one, I'd wager.
'APP STORE' prior to Apples creation had never been used before in any commercial environment. Had it been a generic term or a common phrase a patent would not have been issued.
As for Amazon, couldn't they have come up with they own unique phrase????
App Store is trademarked, you can't patent a word or phrase. A patent would be more for something like the design of the iPad. (which Apple also owns)
Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.
I am a computer programmer and have heard the term "App" used as shorthand for application many many times, long before the iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, many programmers wrote Applets, a nickname for a small application that gets its name from adding the suffix let (meaning small) to app (again, shorthand for application).
So...I really don't get what point you were trying to make there. I doubt Apple is trying to prove they coined the term app, cause that simply is not the case. What they are trying to do is defend the term App Store as a brand name.
Lotus 123 was the "killer app". Dvorack must have used this a hundred times in the 90's.
Apple reserving "App Store" for their own use is only an insult, not an injury like all the beat-downs Microsoft has taken since iPhone was released. A far bigger insult is the fact that Apple has replaced Microsoft as the world's most valuable tech company.
But the one that really hurts is that Apple products are becoming part of modern culture. Everyone knows what an iPod is. Everyone has heard of iPhone and iPad and Macintosh. And now everyone knows that if your phone doesn't run apps, it's toast. No apps, no sale.
If you ask an American for a Kleenex, we know exactly what you're talking about. Or a Q-Tip or Scotch Tape. If you ask anyone in the world about the App Store, they will likely think of the Apple App Store.
It's too late, Microsoft. Mindshare is infinitely valuable. You can't buy it. You can't throw money at this problem, spread FUD, and expect to come up with something barely acceptable in version 3.0. You're the next Sony. The next major corporation whose golden years were in the previous century.
Has the Windows trademark ever been tested in a court of law? It probably has but I'm too young to remember.
I'm don't know much about US IP law but the app store trademark wouldn't be valid in England & Wales. You can't trademark names, places or nouns related to your business field. So, yes, you could open a restaurant in the England called McDonald's. The moment you started using a red and yellow colour scheme is when you'd be in trouble.
The Beer Store reference wasn't a joke. They used to be called "Brewers Retail" but everyone called them "The Beer Store." The changed the name in the 80's or 90's to "The Beer Store." However, I have never seen a TM reference on their signs.
Has the Windows trademark ever been tested in a court of law? It probably has but I'm too young to remember. .
No. There was a case, but Microsoft paid $20 M to gain the rights to the Lindows trademark and settle the case, so the validity of the Windows trademark has never been litigated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
And here we go again!
Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.
And Apple has already done that. The problem is that you ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with you. Apple had a number of expert linguists testifying that 'App Store' was inextricably tied to Apple in most peoples' minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
You probably can't trademark a generic word or business category. For example, "Dress Shop" Or, "Coffee Shop." Starbucks, of course is a very distinctive brand name.
Bank of America
U.S. Bank
Visa
American Express
Federal Express
United Parcel Service
Windows (as applied to computer software)
Office (as applied to computer software)
You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
Uh, please.
Walmart is called such because of it being created by Sam Walton, not because it sells or deals with anything "walls".
Starbucks sells coffee, not stars or bucks.
General Motors is just the holding company of its marques. You don't see them trying to sue General Electric over its name because it is just that, generic.
None of that matters. Someone was claiming that you couldn't get a trademark using generic words. There are countless examples that prove that wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
Good. Now explain why they aren't suing anyone else like US Bank.
Because US Bank and Bank of America apparently have smarter lawyers than Microsoft. Everyone who is familiar with trademark law understands that the use of a generic word inside a trademark does not invalidate the trademark. I would venture that there are 100 banks who have trademarked names that contain the word 'Bank'. But 'Bank' is not the trademark, 'Bank of America' or 'US Bank' or 'Fifth Third Bank' is the trademark. As long as Bank of America doesn't start advertising themselves as US Bank, they haven't infringed US Bank's trademark.
This really is simple stuff. Leave it to the veteran Apple-haters to be so easily confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
And, again, explain Apple Records.
Simple - for anyone with even the tiniest understanding of trademark law (which obviously doesn't include you). Trademarks cover a market. You are perfectly free to sell office windows for the construction market. You are NOT free to sell a product called 'Office' or 'Windows' in the computer software market.
Similarly, at one time, Apple Computer had the trademark for 'Apple' as applied to computer hardware and software while Apple Records had the trademark for music. (Obviously, the iPod created some overlap - which is why they ended up back in court). It is very, very common for two different companies to use the same trademark in different markets.
These two co-exist so it doesn't look like it's been tested in a court of law.
Quote:
Visa
American Express
Federal Express
United Parcel Service
All of these incorporate one or more words not related to their field of business. Parcel Service wouldn't be allowed as a trademark, United Parcel Service is fine.
Quote:
Windows (as applied to computer software)
Office (as applied to computer software)
Again, like the banks, Open Office and KOffice exist so probably untested in a court of law.
Quote:
You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.
Got any examples of single generic, market-related words that have survived a court challenge?
Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.
And Apple has already done that. The problem is that you ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with you. Apple had a number of expert linguists testifying that 'App Store' was inextricably tied to Apple in most peoples' minds.
I should have been more specific.
To make this case go away Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
To win this case Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
By "prove" I mean by the standard of law where ever this case was filed, not by my standard or this forums.
Neither side has proven their position yet, hence these articles continually popping up on AI.
There is so much misinformation, rhetoric and opinion from "arm chair enthusiasts" (yeah that was a dig at your fat a** sofa butt) in this thread it's ridiculous. I love how all of the nonsense comes from "experts" with less than 100 posts and anything that remotely resembles logic the opposite is true.
A couple of things to point out by a non expert that are at least attributable to basic logic...
1) Apple's reference to Apps and Applications was built into Mac OS right from the beginning and was differentiated as PROGRAMS in windows, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. There is already precedence and it was set by MSFT when they released Windows. Apple users always used Apps and I've never heard a windows user refer to apps or applications. Always software or programs. To navigate to a program you go to "start" and "Programs", not Applications. If i was to use that terminology in a support session with a windows user they would most likely be lost.
2) Apple is not trademarking "App" or "Application" alone. They are trademarking "App Store". There, so far as I know, never existed an "App Store before Apple. It is not a generic term; certainly no more than as others have pointed out than Bank of America or General Motors.
Only an idiot or an company run by idiots (MSFT or Amazon who has zero precedence in the field; I have no idea why they are even pretending to be in this game; Porting Apps to the Kindle, please with a screen that refreshes like molasses WITH ghosting, yeah that'll work quite well. ) would believe Apple would not be rewarded or able to defend a trademark bearing the name "App Store"
Please someone who is a trademark lawyer speak up. The rest of us should just STFU. Myself included. Please, Please Please someone with credentials and is not paid by either party speak up.
Heck, even use the example you cited. There were burgers and kings, so "Burger King" shouldn't be valid, right?
Did you know in Australia the trademark for Burger King is not owned by the Burger King. That is why Burger King restaurants in Australia are called Hungry Jacks. Although this may have been rectified by now and the trademark may have been purchased but Hungry Jacks has kind of become a well known name for Australians.
Burger King actually lost their case in respects the trademark because it had been used for many years in Australia before Burger King started going international.
However, this is not the case with the App Store. No one has been able to claim they were using App Store before Apple therefore Apple is well within their rights to protect something they made popular.
Incidentally I still hear people use "iPod" in reference to generic MP3 players, a trademark that Apple started so how is App Store any different?
Comments
'APP STORE' prior to Apples creation had never been used before in any commercial environment. Had it been a generic term or a common phrase a patent would not have been issued.
As for Amazon, couldn't they have come up with they own unique phrase????
Like the Zon Store or Amazon App Jungle.
Are you a programmer like me ? We never used the term apps for applications, only programs, subprograms, subroutines etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.
I am a computer programmer and have heard the term "App" used as shorthand for application many many times, long before the iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, many programmers wrote Applets, a nickname for a small application that gets its name from adding the suffix let (meaning small) to app (again, shorthand for application).
So...I really don't get what point you were trying to make there. I doubt Apple is trying to prove they coined the term app, cause that simply is not the case. What they are trying to do is defend the term App Store as a brand name.
I say give the trademark to Apple. I have used Windows since Windows 95, and I cannot for the life of me ever recall anything running on Windows being called an "App". Every application on Windows is ALWAYS referred to as a "Program" ...
Good point. Not sure it's entirely relevant, but it is certainly ironic. They are also called applications or application programs in computer science. Nobody asked, but I think application is the more precise nomenclature because application is a type of program, of which there are others. Only the most dedicated Mac snobs have pondered on this one, I'd wager.
'APP STORE' prior to Apples creation had never been used before in any commercial environment. Had it been a generic term or a common phrase a patent would not have been issued.
As for Amazon, couldn't they have come up with they own unique phrase????
App Store is trademarked, you can't patent a word or phrase. A patent would be more for something like the design of the iPad. (which Apple also owns)
Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.
Also, I feel like I've said Amazon more than App Store in my life. How can Amazon be trademarked then?
Because the "Amazon" is a rain forest and not an online book store.
I am a computer programmer and have heard the term "App" used as shorthand for application many many times, long before the iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, many programmers wrote Applets, a nickname for a small application that gets its name from adding the suffix let (meaning small) to app (again, shorthand for application).
So...I really don't get what point you were trying to make there. I doubt Apple is trying to prove they coined the term app, cause that simply is not the case. What they are trying to do is defend the term App Store as a brand name.
Lotus 123 was the "killer app". Dvorack must have used this a hundred times in the 90's.
Every application on Windows is ALWAYS referred to as a "Program"
Windows Explorer refers to them as applications.
But the one that really hurts is that Apple products are becoming part of modern culture. Everyone knows what an iPod is. Everyone has heard of iPhone and iPad and Macintosh. And now everyone knows that if your phone doesn't run apps, it's toast. No apps, no sale.
If you ask an American for a Kleenex, we know exactly what you're talking about. Or a Q-Tip or Scotch Tape. If you ask anyone in the world about the App Store, they will likely think of the Apple App Store.
It's too late, Microsoft. Mindshare is infinitely valuable. You can't buy it. You can't throw money at this problem, spread FUD, and expect to come up with something barely acceptable in version 3.0. You're the next Sony. The next major corporation whose golden years were in the previous century.
I'm don't know much about US IP law but the app store trademark wouldn't be valid in England & Wales. You can't trademark names, places or nouns related to your business field. So, yes, you could open a restaurant in the England called McDonald's. The moment you started using a red and yellow colour scheme is when you'd be in trouble.
The Beer Store reference wasn't a joke. They used to be called "Brewers Retail" but everyone called them "The Beer Store." The changed the name in the 80's or 90's to "The Beer Store." However, I have never seen a TM reference on their signs.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1bugeye.gif
Has the Windows trademark ever been tested in a court of law? It probably has but I'm too young to remember.
No. There was a case, but Microsoft paid $20 M to gain the rights to the Lindows trademark and settle the case, so the validity of the Windows trademark has never been litigated.
And here we go again!
Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.
And Apple has already done that. The problem is that you ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with you. Apple had a number of expert linguists testifying that 'App Store' was inextricably tied to Apple in most peoples' minds.
You probably can't trademark a generic word or business category. For example, "Dress Shop" Or, "Coffee Shop." Starbucks, of course is a very distinctive brand name.
Bank of America
U.S. Bank
Visa
American Express
Federal Express
United Parcel Service
Windows (as applied to computer software)
Office (as applied to computer software)
You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.
Uh, please.
Walmart is called such because of it being created by Sam Walton, not because it sells or deals with anything "walls".
Starbucks sells coffee, not stars or bucks.
General Motors is just the holding company of its marques. You don't see them trying to sue General Electric over its name because it is just that, generic.
None of that matters. Someone was claiming that you couldn't get a trademark using generic words. There are countless examples that prove that wrong.
Good. Now explain why they aren't suing anyone else like US Bank.
Because US Bank and Bank of America apparently have smarter lawyers than Microsoft. Everyone who is familiar with trademark law understands that the use of a generic word inside a trademark does not invalidate the trademark. I would venture that there are 100 banks who have trademarked names that contain the word 'Bank'. But 'Bank' is not the trademark, 'Bank of America' or 'US Bank' or 'Fifth Third Bank' is the trademark. As long as Bank of America doesn't start advertising themselves as US Bank, they haven't infringed US Bank's trademark.
This really is simple stuff. Leave it to the veteran Apple-haters to be so easily confused.
And, again, explain Apple Records.
Simple - for anyone with even the tiniest understanding of trademark law (which obviously doesn't include you). Trademarks cover a market. You are perfectly free to sell office windows for the construction market. You are NOT free to sell a product called 'Office' or 'Windows' in the computer software market.
Similarly, at one time, Apple Computer had the trademark for 'Apple' as applied to computer hardware and software while Apple Records had the trademark for music. (Obviously, the iPod created some overlap - which is why they ended up back in court). It is very, very common for two different companies to use the same trademark in different markets.
Bank of America
U.S. Bank
These two co-exist so it doesn't look like it's been tested in a court of law.
Visa
American Express
Federal Express
United Parcel Service
All of these incorporate one or more words not related to their field of business. Parcel Service wouldn't be allowed as a trademark, United Parcel Service is fine.
Windows (as applied to computer software)
Office (as applied to computer software)
Again, like the banks, Open Office and KOffice exist so probably untested in a court of law.
You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.
Got any examples of single generic, market-related words that have survived a court challenge?
And here we go again!
Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.
And Apple has already done that. The problem is that you ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with you. Apple had a number of expert linguists testifying that 'App Store' was inextricably tied to Apple in most peoples' minds.
I should have been more specific.
To make this case go away Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".
To win this case Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.
By "prove" I mean by the standard of law where ever this case was filed, not by my standard or this forums.
Neither side has proven their position yet, hence these articles continually popping up on AI.
A couple of things to point out by a non expert that are at least attributable to basic logic...
1) Apple's reference to Apps and Applications was built into Mac OS right from the beginning and was differentiated as PROGRAMS in windows, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. There is already precedence and it was set by MSFT when they released Windows. Apple users always used Apps and I've never heard a windows user refer to apps or applications. Always software or programs. To navigate to a program you go to "start" and "Programs", not Applications. If i was to use that terminology in a support session with a windows user they would most likely be lost.
2) Apple is not trademarking "App" or "Application" alone. They are trademarking "App Store". There, so far as I know, never existed an "App Store before Apple. It is not a generic term; certainly no more than as others have pointed out than Bank of America or General Motors.
Only an idiot or an company run by idiots (MSFT or Amazon who has zero precedence in the field; I have no idea why they are even pretending to be in this game; Porting Apps to the Kindle, please with a screen that refreshes like molasses WITH ghosting, yeah that'll work quite well.
Please someone who is a trademark lawyer speak up. The rest of us should just STFU. Myself included. Please, Please Please someone with credentials and is not paid by either party speak up.
... the "killer app". Dvorak must have used this a hundred times...
Supporting links:
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
... not Applications. If i was to use that terminology in a support session with a windows user they would most likely be lost.
Unless, of course, you were helping the user with "Windows Explorer" in which case you would use "applications".
I say give the trademark to Apple.
Apple already has been given it as a trademark. Applied for in 2008 and granted by the USPTO in 2010.
In order to keep a trademark, it has to be "vigorously defended", which is one reason Apple is suing.
Heck, even use the example you cited. There were burgers and kings, so "Burger King" shouldn't be valid, right?
Did you know in Australia the trademark for Burger King is not owned by the Burger King. That is why Burger King restaurants in Australia are called Hungry Jacks. Although this may have been rectified by now and the trademark may have been purchased but Hungry Jacks has kind of become a well known name for Australians.
Burger King actually lost their case in respects the trademark because it had been used for many years in Australia before Burger King started going international.
However, this is not the case with the App Store. No one has been able to claim they were using App Store before Apple therefore Apple is well within their rights to protect something they made popular.
Incidentally I still hear people use "iPod" in reference to generic MP3 players, a trademark that Apple started so how is App Store any different?