Apple might lose, but the fact that the term app had been used before Apple started using it is meaningless. The issue is whether the term was generic at the time Apple started using it. I do not recall the term having widespread usage before Apple incorporated it. I am sure Apple made the term popular, which does establish consumer recognition towards Apple's use of the Mark.
I absolutely agree that Apple made the word "app" popular with the mass populace. However, the term was well known already to smaller groups.
The fact that a generic term isn't well known to the mass public, does not mean it belongs to the first person to make it popularly known. There must be millions of such terms in the medical, engineering, aviation, marine, manufacturing, archaeological, heck... any!... field.
Remember, Apple also made the term "multi-touch" popular. But although the USPTO originally allowed that trademark as well, they ultimately denied it to Apple after a protest was lodged by a famous touch researcher who argued successfully that the phrase was already a generic term in the touchscreen world.
So. "App" was already generic. That cannot be denied.
However, is "App Store" generic? The two words together are the real debate.
Well, you think it's a waste of time to protect the uniqueness of something you created.
TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.
I think the fact that Apple basically invented the term "App" and that it was in use exclusively in the NeXT/Apple community for years before any "outsiders" ever even heard of it or used it should be the trump card in Apple's favour.
Also, Amazon's argument is that it was a term in general use before Apple's app store and thus common and "generic." The existence of a couple of examples of obscure use of the term doesn't actually prove that point. for Amazon to prove it's point, the term would have to be in wide-spread use to the point of ubiquity.
I think it's hilarious that Microsoft, the company that trademarked the name "Windows" for a windowing user interface, is objecting to Apple's application for a mark for "App store". Where was microsoft's objection to Sage or Salesforce.com's marks? Oh, that's right, they didn't make any.
The reason is, in 1998 and 2006, there was no Apple App Store, whose name they wanted to steal.
However, Sage networks abandoned their mark. They would have had a claim if they maintained the mark. The more relevant one is Salesforce.com's mark. They have a claim on the name, thus when they "gave" it to Apple, or abandoned it in deference to Apple, they are effectively transferring their rights to the name to Apple. (without actually selling the name.)
For amazon to prevail, they need to show that Salesforce has no right to the name also. And it would be damn hard to claim it was a generic term in 2006.... which also proves Apple's point. It only became well known when Apple introduced the App Store in 2008.
Quote:
2011 Jul - Tim Cook refers to "app stores" in the generic sense in a quarterly call.
This is akin to Balmer talking about the mac and saying it "has windows". It's true, the mac does have windows, and had it before Windows did. Except that Windows is a completely generic term, while "App store" is a unique combination of two terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Still, the same words can be trademarked if the words become exclusively associated with a certain company. Unfortunately, even Apple's own CEO has used "app store" in a generic sense, and consumers in general were already using "app store" the same way.
The term "App store" means Apple's App Store. Despite knowing about Amazon's "Amazon App Store" for years, I forget that it is called that. The idea that consumers in general have heard of it seems a bit silly. Certainly if you asked 100 people in america "who runs the app store", at least 99 out of 100 who didn't name some other company or didn't know would say Apple. I doubt even that 1 out of 100 would say Amazon.
TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.
What in heaven's name is wrong with you? There was nothing whatsoever unclear about the example I presented. Either ask for clarification, find it yourself, or just don't bother posting. :no:
What in heaven's name is wrong with you? There was nothing whatsoever unclear about the example I presented. Either ask for clarification, find it yourself, or just don't bother posting.
Not according to Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has used it to mean app stores in general. For instance, during a public quarterly call he said:
"We've got the largest app store ..."
and
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSes on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
He could've used another term like "app markets" , "app providers", "app sellers", etc. But he did what any normal person would do, and automatically called them "app stores" because it's such an obvious generic term for them.
Quote:
Despite knowing about Amazon's "Amazon App Store" for years, I forget that it is called that. The idea that consumers in general have heard of it seems a bit silly. Certainly if you asked 100 people in america "who runs the app store", at least 99 out of 100 who didn't name some other company or didn't know would say Apple. I doubt even that 1 out of 100 would say Amazon.
But Apple didn't try to trademark "The App Store". Just "App Store". And there's a lot of Android users out there. So if we ask a hundred people "who runs an app store?", we'll likely get back at least "Apple and Google", plus "Amazon" from all the Kindle Fire owners and any savvy Android users.
Personally I think Apple should've gone with something less generic. "Apple App Orchard" or something. Now THAT would be a term that nobody could copy without running into clear trouble.
Well, the term Coca-Cola is also trademarked. Just because Cocacola is grammatically different from Coca-Cola doesn't mean a company can start a Cocacola brand, when Coca-Cola is hugely popular. The term App Store has become generic, well... so has Coca-Cola.
You can call a Pepsi a Coca-Cola and no one will care. But you can't trademark another Coca-Cola, that's why it's called Pepsi.
And that's why Apple's is App Store, Google's is Play Store, and Microsoft's Whatever Market.
"who runs an app store?", we'll likely get back at least "Apple and Google", plus "Amazon" from all the Kindle Fire owners and any savvy Android users.</span>
Personally I think Apple should've gone with something less generic. "Apple App Orchard" or something. Now THAT would be a term that nobody could copy without running into clear trouble.
Who makes coke? Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Who owns the Coke trademark? Coca-Cola, not Pepsi. So there are many brands of coke, but the only one of them who can use the term officially is Coca-Cola.
However, Coca-Cola doesn't have the Cola trademark, which in analogous terms is the 'Store' part in question.
So Amazon can use Program Store, Applicationstore, SoftwareStore. But not App Store nor Appstore.
Just like you can't trademark 'Cocacola', because Coca-Cola already exists.
Well, the term Coca-Cola is also trademarked. Just because Cocacola is grammatically different from Coca-Cola doesn't mean a company can start a Cocacola brand, when Coca-Cola is hugely popular. The term App Store has become generic, well... so has Coca-Cola.
You can call a Pepsi a Coca-Cola and no one will care.
But you can't trademark another Coca-Cola, that's why it's called Pepsi.
And that's why Apple's is App Store, Google's is Play Store, and Microsoft's Whatever Market.
TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.
Good day, sir.
You hit the eject button right when the debate was coming into focus. His argument isn't a straw man. It's the basis of Apple's suit against Amazon. Apple alleges that Amazon is using a trademark ("App Store") that Apple owns, and Amazon dispute that. TS paraphrased the suit as "protecting the uniqueness of something you created" -- in this case, Apple is trying to protect the uniqueness of the App Store trademark.
I get that you think the suit is a waste of time for everybody. That's your opinion, and I'm fine with it. Just back it up with something stronger than dismissing the crux of the lawsuit a "straw man." That doesn't make any sense.
Who makes coke? Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Who owns the Coke trademark? Coca-Cola, not Pepsi. So there are many brands of coke, but the only one of them who can use the term officially is Coca-Cola.
However, Coca-Cola doesn't have the Cola trademark, which in analogous terms is the 'Store' part in question.
So Amazon can use Program Store, Applicationstore, SoftwareStore. But not App Store nor Appstore.
Just like you can't trademark 'Cocacola', because Coca-Cola already exists.
Pepsi makes Pepsi Cola. "Coke" is not a generic term to describe Pepsi. The generic term is cola.
Yes it's a generic term (like "Shoe Store" or "Car Dealership") and stupid to claim the rights to it but is it really worth spending a ton of time and money to fight about it? Amazon should really just change the name of their app store and be done with it. It seems like they're not too bright about picking which battles to fight.
Yes I agree it's now a generic term and these big guys should just agree on some compromise.
But with lawyers involved, they will drag it on, spending money they made from us.
Time these big companies behaved like adults occasionally!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Apple might lose, but the fact that the term app had been used before Apple started using it is meaningless. The issue is whether the term was generic at the time Apple started using it. I do not recall the term having widespread usage before Apple incorporated it. I am sure Apple made the term popular, which does establish consumer recognition towards Apple's use of the Mark.
I absolutely agree that Apple made the word "app" popular with the mass populace. However, the term was well known already to smaller groups.
The fact that a generic term isn't well known to the mass public, does not mean it belongs to the first person to make it popularly known. There must be millions of such terms in the medical, engineering, aviation, marine, manufacturing, archaeological, heck... any!... field.
Remember, Apple also made the term "multi-touch" popular. But although the USPTO originally allowed that trademark as well, they ultimately denied it to Apple after a protest was lodged by a famous touch researcher who argued successfully that the phrase was already a generic term in the touchscreen world.
So. "App" was already generic. That cannot be denied.
However, is "App Store" generic? The two words together are the real debate.
Fighting over the difference between app store vs. App Store vs. Appstore seems like a waste of time for all parties involved.
Someone comes on here with the username "Droid FTW" and starts insulting himself and his own genitalia and you're not bothered by it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Someone comes on here with the username "Droid FTW" and starts insulting himself and his own genitalia and you're not bothered by it?
Pardon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
"Application" predates Apple. "Killer app" predates NeXT. And "app" had been used for handheld programs for many years before the iPhone came along.
"1" and "One" predates Amazon. "Click" predates Amazon. Therefore "1-Click" cannot be trademarked. Oh, wait a minute....
Well, you think it's a waste of time to protect the uniqueness of something you created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
"1" and "One" predates Amazon. "Click" predates Amazon. Therefore "1-Click" cannot be trademarked. Oh, wait a minute....
Yep. You're saying the same thing that I am.
It's the combination of the two words that should be the debate topic, not whether "app" or "click" by themselves are generic terms.
*sigh*
This place was a lot better when TS was banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, you think it's a waste of time to protect the uniqueness of something you created.
TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.
Good day, sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think the fact that Apple basically invented the term "App" and that it was in use exclusively in the NeXT/Apple community for years before any "outsiders" ever even heard of it or used it should be the trump card in Apple's favour.
Also, Amazon's argument is that it was a term in general use before Apple's app store and thus common and "generic." The existence of a couple of examples of obscure use of the term doesn't actually prove that point. for Amazon to prove it's point, the term would have to be in wide-spread use to the point of ubiquity.
Some background on "AppStore"/"App Store":
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/mac/apples-app-store-and-a-little-trademark-history/1063
I think it's hilarious that Microsoft, the company that trademarked the name "Windows" for a windowing user interface, is objecting to Apple's application for a mark for "App store". Where was microsoft's objection to Sage or Salesforce.com's marks? Oh, that's right, they didn't make any.
The reason is, in 1998 and 2006, there was no Apple App Store, whose name they wanted to steal.
However, Sage networks abandoned their mark. They would have had a claim if they maintained the mark. The more relevant one is Salesforce.com's mark. They have a claim on the name, thus when they "gave" it to Apple, or abandoned it in deference to Apple, they are effectively transferring their rights to the name to Apple. (without actually selling the name.)
For amazon to prevail, they need to show that Salesforce has no right to the name also. And it would be damn hard to claim it was a generic term in 2006.... which also proves Apple's point. It only became well known when Apple introduced the App Store in 2008.
Quote:
2011 Jul - Tim Cook refers to "app stores" in the generic sense in a quarterly call.
This is akin to Balmer talking about the mac and saying it "has windows". It's true, the mac does have windows, and had it before Windows did. Except that Windows is a completely generic term, while "App store" is a unique combination of two terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Still, the same words can be trademarked if the words become exclusively associated with a certain company. Unfortunately, even Apple's own CEO has used "app store" in a generic sense, and consumers in general were already using "app store" the same way.
The term "App store" means Apple's App Store. Despite knowing about Amazon's "Amazon App Store" for years, I forget that it is called that. The idea that consumers in general have heard of it seems a bit silly. Certainly if you asked 100 people in america "who runs the app store", at least 99 out of 100 who didn't name some other company or didn't know would say Apple. I doubt even that 1 out of 100 would say Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/mac/apples-app-store-and-a-little-trademark-history/1063
The author of that article does not understand trademarks.
What in heaven's name is wrong with you? There was nothing whatsoever unclear about the example I presented. Either ask for clarification, find it yourself, or just don't bother posting. :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What in heaven's name is wrong with you? There was nothing whatsoever unclear about the example I presented. Either ask for clarification, find it yourself, or just don't bother posting.
So that's two people who pretend not to understand the similarities between the argument for DroidFTW and Droid FTW and AppStore and App Store.
'Kay, thanks. You really represent... a lot. :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
The term "App store" means Apple's App Store.
Not according to Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has used it to mean app stores in general. For instance, during a public quarterly call he said:
"We've got the largest app store ..."
and
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSes on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
He could've used another term like "app markets" , "app providers", "app sellers", etc. But he did what any normal person would do, and automatically called them "app stores" because it's such an obvious generic term for them.
Quote:
Despite knowing about Amazon's "Amazon App Store" for years, I forget that it is called that. The idea that consumers in general have heard of it seems a bit silly. Certainly if you asked 100 people in america "who runs the app store", at least 99 out of 100 who didn't name some other company or didn't know would say Apple. I doubt even that 1 out of 100 would say Amazon.
But Apple didn't try to trademark "The App Store". Just "App Store". And there's a lot of Android users out there. So if we ask a hundred people "who runs an app store?", we'll likely get back at least "Apple and Google", plus "Amazon" from all the Kindle Fire owners and any savvy Android users.
Personally I think Apple should've gone with something less generic. "Apple App Orchard" or something. Now THAT would be a term that nobody could copy without running into clear trouble.
You can call a Pepsi a Coca-Cola and no one will care.
But you can't trademark another Coca-Cola, that's why it's called Pepsi.
And that's why Apple's is App Store, Google's is Play Store, and Microsoft's Whatever Market.
I'm thirsty. 8-)
Who makes coke? Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Who owns the Coke trademark? Coca-Cola, not Pepsi. So there are many brands of coke, but the only one of them who can use the term officially is Coca-Cola.
However, Coca-Cola doesn't have the Cola trademark, which in analogous terms is the 'Store' part in question.
So Amazon can use Program Store, Applicationstore, SoftwareStore. But not App Store nor Appstore.
Just like you can't trademark 'Cocacola', because Coca-Cola already exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMarques
Well, the term Coca-Cola is also trademarked. Just because Cocacola is grammatically different from Coca-Cola doesn't mean a company can start a Cocacola brand, when Coca-Cola is hugely popular. The term App Store has become generic, well... so has Coca-Cola.
You can call a Pepsi a Coca-Cola and no one will care.
But you can't trademark another Coca-Cola, that's why it's called Pepsi.
And that's why Apple's is App Store, Google's is Play Store, and Microsoft's Whatever Market.
I'm thirsty.
"These pretzels...... ARE MAKING ME THIRSTY!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
*sigh*
This place was a lot better when TS was banned.
TS, I know your past post history so I'm not going to bother addressing this straw man argument. I may never know what you're talking about when you said that someone was insulting themselves and referencing genitalia, but I can live with that.
Good day, sir.
You hit the eject button right when the debate was coming into focus. His argument isn't a straw man. It's the basis of Apple's suit against Amazon. Apple alleges that Amazon is using a trademark ("App Store") that Apple owns, and Amazon dispute that. TS paraphrased the suit as "protecting the uniqueness of something you created" -- in this case, Apple is trying to protect the uniqueness of the App Store trademark.
I get that you think the suit is a waste of time for everybody. That's your opinion, and I'm fine with it. Just back it up with something stronger than dismissing the crux of the lawsuit a "straw man." That doesn't make any sense.
Pepsi makes Pepsi Cola. "Coke" is not a generic term to describe Pepsi. The generic term is cola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
Yes it's a generic term (like "Shoe Store" or "Car Dealership") and stupid to claim the rights to it but is it really worth spending a ton of time and money to fight about it? Amazon should really just change the name of their app store and be done with it. It seems like they're not too bright about picking which battles to fight.
Yes I agree it's now a generic term and these big guys should just agree on some compromise.
But with lawyers involved, they will drag it on, spending money they made from us.
Time these big companies behaved like adults occasionally!