Salesforce chief gave Steve Jobs ?App Store? trademark as token of appreciation

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Salsesforce chief executive Marc Benioff revealed this week that he handed over his firm's ?App Store? trademark to Apple as a way of thanking co-founder Steve Jobs for personal insight and support over the years.



In an interview with Bloomberg, Benioff said he has on multiple occasions turned to Jobs for professional guidance, specifically recounting a particular event from 2003 when he took members of his executive team to see the iconic Apple leader. The feedback received during that meeting motivated Benioff to focus on building an ecosystem for Salesforce?s ?fantastic enterprise application,? which is how Jobs described it.



That ?ecosystem? became an app store itself known as the Salesforce App Exchange. However, its creators had originally registered the "App Store" URL and trademarked the phrase, before deciding to settle on App Exchange instead.



Benioff was in the audience in 2008 when Jobs introduced Apple's own App Store to analysts and members of the media. At the end of the presentation, he walked up to Jobs and told him: ?I?m gonna [sic] give you the trademark and the URL because of the help you gave me in 2003.?



?He has probably given me more help and more advice than just about anybody," Benioff said of Jobs. "And when I get in trouble and I kinda [sic] get lost in my own vision, I?ve been fortunate to be able to go and see him and he?s been willing to show me the future a couple times.?



When asked about Apple?s future without Jobs, Benioff said he believes that the company can stay on top ?for quite some time? even after losing ?the best CEO in the world,? which is what he considers Jobs to be.







Apple?s App Store concept became a critical component of Apple?s mobile ecosystem. The digital download store offers a large inventory of free and paid applications which can be installed and run on iOS devices such as iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. As of May 2011 Apple approved over 500,000 apps, which have been downloaded over 15 billion times by over 200 million iOS users.



The Cupertino-based company's competitors have also embarked on similar initiatives as part of their smartphone environments. Google owns the second most popular application store, the Android Market, and companies like Microsoft, Nokia, RIM and Amazon operate the Windows Phone Marketplace, the Ovi Store, the BlackBerry App World and the Appstore, respectively.



The latter, an online application distribution system for Android devices, sparked tensions between Apple and Amazon due to the similarities between the names of these two digital stores.



Microsoft has also voiced concerns against the ?App Store? trademark for being too generic. The software maker has filed objections to the mark in both in the USA and European Union, where it was backed by various handset makers including HTC, Nokia, or Sony Ericsson.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    How ironic would it be if the court does decide that the term is too generic?
  • Reply 2 of 51
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,414member
    Regardless if they do deem it too generic or not... it's still a great token of generosity.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I wonder if this ownership strengthen's Apple case or if there is no effect whatsoever.
  • Reply 4 of 51
    No effect, I assume. Still a kind gesture.
  • Reply 5 of 51
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,288member
    If it was trademarked by Salesforce, and the trademark was acquired by Apple, how can others just appropriate it willy-nilly and defend their actions by saying it is too generic? It wasn't generic in ca. 2003 when Salesforce coined it. Is the problem that everyone else copied it in the meantime and Apple failed to defend it, making the trademark moot?
  • Reply 6 of 51
    I find it completely unnecessary, and quite weird, to put [sic] after "gonna" and "kinda" in spoken quotes.
  • Reply 7 of 51
    jr_bjr_b Posts: 64member
    This speaks volumes about Steve Jobs and Marc Benioff. How often do you hear of one company giving another company a URL and Trade Mark free of charge?
  • Reply 8 of 51
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,490member
    Nice story. I would have done the same.
  • Reply 9 of 51
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    If it was trademarked by Salesforce, and the trademark was acquired by Apple, how can others just appropriate it willy-nilly and defend their actions by saying it is too generic?



    One must understand that there's a counter-RDF that arises where fronteirs of Apples success encounters the MeToo-Plagirisers and Freetards domains. Like the Samsung and Motorola apologists that insists that Xoom and Galaxy Tab doesn't ripoff the design and success of iPad. And the folks at Google who designs Anrdoid to be as similar to iOS as they possibly can without being astoundingly obvious. The delusion of being inventive when you're just engaging in mimicry is tragic.
  • Reply 10 of 51
    slapppyslapppy Posts: 331member
    Wow. If I ever need or know someone that can use their service, their getting my recommendation. Classy CEO and company.



    Unlike Google who looks into SJ for guidance, then turning around to screw SJ.
  • Reply 11 of 51
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    If it was trademarked by Salesforce, and the trademark was acquired by Apple, how can others just appropriate it willy-nilly and defend their actions by saying it is too generic? It wasn't generic in ca. 2003 when Salesforce coined it. Is the problem that everyone else copied it in the meantime and Apple failed to defend it, making the trademark moot?



    Nobody was using the term until Apple started using it, so the Salesforce trademark should still be valid. Since Salesforce is willing to or has transferred the trademark to Apple, then it should still be a valid trademark.
  • Reply 12 of 51
    dcj001dcj001 Posts: 301member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jr_b View Post


    This speaks volumes about Steve Jobs and Marc Benioff. How often do you hear of one company giving another company a URL and Trade Mark free of charge?



    How often do you hear about the CEO of a big company giving advice as a mentor to another CEO while expecting nothing in return?



    You might say, "But that URL could have been worth millions of dollars to Salesforce.com if they had sold it to Apple.



    But the advice that Steve gave Marc could have been worth many more millions (or even billions) of dollars.
  • Reply 13 of 51
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,300member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    How ironic would it be if the court does decide that the term is too generic?



    "App Store" is too generic but "Windows" isn't?
  • Reply 14 of 51
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    "App Store" is too generic but "Windows" isn't?



    Windows doesn't have a thing to do with computing (HAR! ). App Store does exactly what it says.



    So that's their argument.
  • Reply 15 of 51
    irelandireland Posts: 17,669member
    App Store is actually not generic.
  • Reply 16 of 51
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Henriok View Post


    One must understand that there's a counter-RDF that arises where fronteirs of Apples success encounters the MeToo-Plagirisers and Freetards domains. Like the Samsung and Motorola apologists that insists that Xoom and Galaxy Tab doesn't ripoff the design and success of iPad. And the folks at Google who designs Anrdoid to be as similar to iOS as they possibly can without being astoundingly obvious. The delusion of being inventive when you're just engaging in mimicry is tragic.



    It's like you have "xeroxed" my thoughts!!!!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slapppy View Post


    Wow. If I ever need or know someone that can use their service, their getting my recommendation. Classy CEO and company.



    Unlike Google who looks into SJ for guidance, then turning around to screw SJ.



    I agree!!!!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


    Nobody was using the term until Apple started using it, so the Salesforce trademark should still be valid. Since Salesforce is willing to or has transferred the trademark to Apple, then it should still be a valid trademark.



    I Agree!!! And yet again I wonder how such Legal Cases even come up!!! It's pretty SHAMEFUL!!!



    In the recent few days, as Steve Jobs resigned, there was such a huge outpouring of RESPECT in the media coverage!!! I doubt that we'll see any such Magnitude of Respect shown to another Business Leader anytime soon! It was on the level with Presidents, or some other Big Historic Figures! And there was Steve Job, who lives a pretty Private Life! So... I wonder how the CEO's of those Big Name companies can wake up and go to bed daily knowing fully well that they are simply trying to steal other man's property in a broad day light!!!! Droids, iPads are a SHAMEFULLY Copycat Me Too Products, and now with this App Store topic, it's BS Wordplay Soap Opera that wastes tons of $$$ and time! Those costs unfortunately will not be used for Medical Research and other noble causes... SHAMEFUL!!!!!



    In Boxing, points are deducted, or fights are stopped when someone cheats by hitting below the belt, but in Business such THEFT is considered Normal Procedure, Expense?



    I don't know what the Solution is to all that, but I do see that there is a huge need for it, and soon!!!



    Thanks to all those whom I quoted! I wish there were Like, Agree, Thumbs Up/Down Buttons on this Forum...
  • Reply 17 of 51
    Had anyone ever heard the term "App Store" being used before Apple started using it? If App Store is too generic, how is "The Container Store" not generic?
  • Reply 18 of 51
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by radiospace View Post


    I find it completely unnecessary, and quite weird, to put [sic] after "gonna" and "kinda" in spoken quotes.



    Agreed. It's a misusage since the words it was used on are not "unusual" in normal speech. In fact they appear in most dictionaries as simple contractions.
  • Reply 19 of 51
    truetrue Posts: 4member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    "App Store" is too generic but "Windows" isn't?



    And how about "Apple"?
  • Reply 20 of 51
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,721member
    Was it Marc Benioff's to give away? Did the board at Salesforce.com OK that? Not saying they should've held on to it, but that it seems to have had financial value to the shareholders (currently trademark challenges not withstanding).
Sign In or Register to comment.