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).
Did the shareholders get together and offer to pay Steve Jobs for his guidance?
Steve has only stepped down as CEO ... he is Chairman of the Board. But at a fundamental level, Apple will never be without Steve Jobs. Apple is Steve Jobs and vice versa.
This is what people (notably self proclaimed technology journalists) don't get.
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?
No. Before Apple started calling them 'Apps' everyone else called them programs. Or rarely, executables. Or just generically, software.
I've been working with computers / technology since the early 1980s and the first time I ever heard the term 'App' used to refer to software was when I started using OS X. In my experience, that is when programs became packaged in App bundles that used the suffix .app
Putting them in the /Applications folder further reinforced the idea of refering to them as applications or apps for short. Eg. "Apps" go in the "/Applications" folder, and on that other computer, "Programs" go in "c\Program Manager" - seems pretty well differentiated to me right from the start.
So IMHO the terminology "App" carried from OS X into iOS and therefore, Apple did coin the term.
No. Before Apple started calling them 'Apps' everyone else called them programs. Or rarely, executables. Or just generically, software.
I've been working with computers / technology since the early 1980s and the first time I ever heard the term 'App' used to refer to software was when I started using OS X. In my experience, that is when programs became packaged in App bundles that used the suffix .app
Putting them in the /Applications folder further reinforced the idea of refering to them as applications or apps for short. Eg. "Apps" go in the "/Applications" folder, and on that other computer, "Programs" go in "c\Program Manager" - seems pretty well differentiated to me right from the start.
So IMHO the terminology "App" carried from OS X into iOS and therefore, Apple did coin the term.
Cheers
Well, it didn't matter that the term "container" was in common use before The Container Store got their trademark. Nor did it matter that "apple" was in common use before The Apple Store was trademarked.
Salesforce.com is a public company. How can its CEO just "give" an asset worth millions of dollars to another company? What did the Salesforce share holders get out of this deal? If the CEO had given Apple a building owned by Salesforce worth millions of dollars, would everyone been so nonchalant?
I find it completely unnecessary, and quite weird, to put [sic] after "gonna" and "kinda" in spoken quotes.
Dunno if he "said" it or the writer added it for whatever reason (apparently the latter - see below), but he seems like a decent, normal guy, whereas, I've hardly ever seen "sic" used in something that didn't creep me out a little.
To me it seems a favorite of people like religious and political fanatics and maybe serial killers. That is, as soon as I encounter it, I begin to have a suspicion I'm dealing with someone and something I'd really rather not.
Still, after all these years, I don't know what it really means and when it's "supposed" to be used. But I could check, I guess....
Sic—generally inside square brackets, [sic], and occasionally parentheses, (sic)—when added just after a quote or reprinted text, indicates the passage appears exactly as in the original source. The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription—that they are reproduced exactly from the original writer or printer. A bracketed sic may also be used as a form of ridicule or as a humorous comment, typically by drawing attention to the original writer's mistakes.
Huh. How about them apples... ...He (Chris Smith the writer) used it correctly. But it's still creepy, so I'd watch out for Chris, LoL.
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?
Hundreds of little 'transactions' like this happen all the time, in all our lives (and I'll bet many dozens have in SJ's life). It's not always about contracts and lawyers and courts and bureaucrats (although that's all that makes the news).....
This is what makes it all worthwhile in the long run.
Salesforce.com is a public company. How can its CEO just "give" an asset worth millions of dollars to another company? What did the Salesforce share holders get out of this deal? If the CEO had given Apple a building owned by Salesforce worth millions of dollars, would everyone been so nonchalant?
Great question. if it occurred just as described, the CEO may have overstepped his bounds.
There are two scenarios where it's not an issue:
1. The CEO determined that the value was actually relatively small and that the benefits he received from Apple were adequate compensation. Given that Salesforce.com apparently didn't do anything with it, that is entirely plausible. It may have been worthless to them - and he had no way of knowing that it might be valuable to someone else.
2. If the CEO felt that there was significant value, he would have needed Board approval.
In reality, I don't think the value of the name is that great. Apple could have called it something else and it probably would have done just as well.
I agree, I don't believe it's necessary unless the original speaker unintentionally misspoke (which is clearly not the case here)
Actually, I think it is more useful when the writer is concerned that the reader will not be able to determine if the error was part of the quote or a misquote. The intention of the speaker is not at issue...
Salesforce.com is a public company. How can its CEO just "give" an asset worth millions of dollars to another company? What did the Salesforce share holders get out of this deal? If the CEO had given Apple a building owned by Salesforce worth millions of dollars, would everyone been so nonchalant?
The CEO can counter that SalesForce has grown in much greater added value thanks to it's innovative CEO knowing his limitations and smart enough to leverage his connections by taking sage advice from Steven P. Jobs, thus producing considerable new revenue.
SalesForce redirected it's products after Steve gave that advice.
If you think a CEO has to ask shareholders how the company needs to take a collective pee every time you don't understand what is or is not a publicly traded corporation.
How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Is there anyone at the PTO who even knows what the fuck a computer is? are the PTO reviewers living in the dark ages?
How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Is there anyone at the PTO who even knows what the fuck a computer is? are the PTO reviewers living in the dark ages?
However, its creators had originally registered the "App Store" URL and trademarked the phrase, before deciding to settle on App Exchange instead.
Under US Law you can't sell a trademark without the underlying business, as I understand it. It's not clear to me whether they had actually registered it either, but in any case, they apparently were not using it and by 2008 would have been in danger of losing it by abandonment.
So, if they couldn't sell it then it probably wasn't worth much to them anyway, and this was probably a reasonable course of action.
Under US Law you can't sell a trademark without the underlying business, as I understand it.
That is incorrect. A trademark is property like any other.
The only complexity is that you can not force the USPTO to recognize it in the hands of the new owner. Thus, it would typically only be sold without the underlying business to someone who wanted to use it for exactly the items covered by the original trademark.
How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Comments
I find it completely unnecessary, and quite weird, to put [sic] after "gonna" and "kinda" in spoken quotes.
I agree.
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).
Did the shareholders get together and offer to pay Steve Jobs for his guidance?
After all they probably benefitted from it.
Unless 'there is no such thing as a free lunch' holds true behind closed doors.
This is what people (notably self proclaimed technology journalists) don't get.
Having your claim of "too generic" approved is NOT gonna make your 'app stores' suck less.
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?
No. Before Apple started calling them 'Apps' everyone else called them programs. Or rarely, executables. Or just generically, software.
I've been working with computers / technology since the early 1980s and the first time I ever heard the term 'App' used to refer to software was when I started using OS X. In my experience, that is when programs became packaged in App bundles that used the suffix .app
Putting them in the /Applications folder further reinforced the idea of refering to them as applications or apps for short. Eg. "Apps" go in the "/Applications" folder, and on that other computer, "Programs" go in "c
So IMHO the terminology "App" carried from OS X into iOS and therefore, Apple did coin the term.
Cheers
App Store is actually not generic.
The question is whether it can be trademarked by one company, and the answer is clearly, yes. Saleforce.com.
No. Before Apple started calling them 'Apps' everyone else called them programs. Or rarely, executables. Or just generically, software.
I've been working with computers / technology since the early 1980s and the first time I ever heard the term 'App' used to refer to software was when I started using OS X. In my experience, that is when programs became packaged in App bundles that used the suffix .app
Putting them in the /Applications folder further reinforced the idea of refering to them as applications or apps for short. Eg. "Apps" go in the "/Applications" folder, and on that other computer, "Programs" go in "c
So IMHO the terminology "App" carried from OS X into iOS and therefore, Apple did coin the term.
Cheers
Well, it didn't matter that the term "container" was in common use before The Container Store got their trademark. Nor did it matter that "apple" was in common use before The Apple Store was trademarked.
I find it completely unnecessary, and quite weird, to put [sic] after "gonna" and "kinda" in spoken quotes.
Dunno if he "said" it or the writer added it for whatever reason (apparently the latter - see below), but he seems like a decent, normal guy, whereas, I've hardly ever seen "sic" used in something that didn't creep me out a little.
To me it seems a favorite of people like religious and political fanatics and maybe serial killers. That is, as soon as I encounter it, I begin to have a suspicion I'm dealing with someone and something I'd really rather not.
Still, after all these years, I don't know what it really means and when it's "supposed" to be used. But I could check, I guess.... Huh. How about them apples... ...He (Chris Smith the writer) used it correctly. But it's still creepy, so I'd watch out for Chris, LoL.
Also from the article above, this pun:
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?
Hundreds of little 'transactions' like this happen all the time, in all our lives (and I'll bet many dozens have in SJ's life). It's not always about contracts and lawyers and courts and bureaucrats (although that's all that makes the news).....
This is what makes it all worthwhile in the long run.
I find it completely unnecessary, and quite weird, to put [sic] after "gonna" and "kinda" in spoken quotes.
I agree, I don't believe it's necessary unless the original speaker unintentionally misspoke (which is clearly not the case here)
Salesforce.com is a public company. How can its CEO just "give" an asset worth millions of dollars to another company? What did the Salesforce share holders get out of this deal? If the CEO had given Apple a building owned by Salesforce worth millions of dollars, would everyone been so nonchalant?
Great question. if it occurred just as described, the CEO may have overstepped his bounds.
There are two scenarios where it's not an issue:
1. The CEO determined that the value was actually relatively small and that the benefits he received from Apple were adequate compensation. Given that Salesforce.com apparently didn't do anything with it, that is entirely plausible. It may have been worthless to them - and he had no way of knowing that it might be valuable to someone else.
2. If the CEO felt that there was significant value, he would have needed Board approval.
In reality, I don't think the value of the name is that great. Apple could have called it something else and it probably would have done just as well.
I agree, I don't believe it's necessary unless the original speaker unintentionally misspoke (which is clearly not the case here)
Actually, I think it is more useful when the writer is concerned that the reader will not be able to determine if the error was part of the quote or a misquote. The intention of the speaker is not at issue...
Salesforce.com is a public company. How can its CEO just "give" an asset worth millions of dollars to another company? What did the Salesforce share holders get out of this deal? If the CEO had given Apple a building owned by Salesforce worth millions of dollars, would everyone been so nonchalant?
The CEO can counter that SalesForce has grown in much greater added value thanks to it's innovative CEO knowing his limitations and smart enough to leverage his connections by taking sage advice from Steven P. Jobs, thus producing considerable new revenue.
SalesForce redirected it's products after Steve gave that advice.
If you think a CEO has to ask shareholders how the company needs to take a collective pee every time you don't understand what is or is not a publicly traded corporation.
Is there anyone at the PTO who even knows what the fuck a computer is? are the PTO reviewers living in the dark ages?
How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Is there anyone at the PTO who even knows what the fuck a computer is? are the PTO reviewers living in the dark ages?
Yep, the dark old days pre 2008.
However, its creators had originally registered the "App Store" URL and trademarked the phrase, before deciding to settle on App Exchange instead.
Under US Law you can't sell a trademark without the underlying business, as I understand it. It's not clear to me whether they had actually registered it either, but in any case, they apparently were not using it and by 2008 would have been in danger of losing it by abandonment.
So, if they couldn't sell it then it probably wasn't worth much to them anyway, and this was probably a reasonable course of action.
Under US Law you can't sell a trademark without the underlying business, as I understand it.
That is incorrect. A trademark is property like any other.
The only complexity is that you can not force the USPTO to recognize it in the hands of the new owner. Thus, it would typically only be sold without the underlying business to someone who wanted to use it for exactly the items covered by the original trademark.
How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Apple. Windows. Align (some dietary thing). Sharp.
And since App Store is even less of a generic term than these (these being not generic at all), it's pretty much okay.