Wouldn't any claim for damages have to show a loss of profit. As only Apple products can download from the Apple AppStore and only Android based products download from the Amazon site this may be hard to prove. I don't care either way and nor do 99.999% (rough estimate, no science) of consumers, the only people getting rich out of this are lawyers. Oh and it's generating a lot of free publicity for Amazon's AppStore!
Apple should have had the foresight to call it the iStore or something they could really own.
Not iStore, there's already a chain of shops called iStore in the UK. Although as they only sell Apple products, Apple could stop supplying them and send them bankrupt to take the name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NextTechnocrati
In the meantime I will close my account with Amazon and will advise my family and friends to do the same.
Seriously, your going to close your Amazon account not for bad customer services, or a bad experiance shopping with them, but because they've used the term app store to sell apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
The term 'app' wasn't coined by Apple. It was in use before Apple. Apple did make it popular with the popularity of iOS devices, but that doens't make it trademark-able by Apple.
Back in the day......computers ran programs.
Today......devices run apps.
It's generic.
Computers did run programs, but oddly when the developer goes to File > New Project (at least in visual studio) the list of project types they see are all called applications, not programs. e.g. Console Application, Windows Application, ASP.NET Web Application. And as far as I know this is what they've always been called.
Personally, if I had an Android phone, I would much rather prefer to go through Amazon's store than Google's, since I know Amazon is curating their store.
Bingo. That is what Amazon figures people will think. But can they really be trusted? Stealing the name shows that the whole thing rests on a foundation of lies.
I thought you could get App-le Apps at Amazon's App store. And get the Amazon generic best deal. But no.
If you want software for your iOS device there is only one place to buy it - from Steve. That makes it simple, so it is better not to have any other stores that carry iOS apps.
No because by the time trademarks existed that was already a generic
.
From Wikipedia:
In trademark treatises it is usually reported that blacksmiths who made swords in the Roman Empire are thought of as being the first users of trademarks.[3] Other notable trademarks that have been used for a long time include Löwenbräu, which claims use of its lion mark since 1383,[4] and Stella Artois, which claims use since 1366.
It's all so childish. Just think up an original name for cripes sake. Is it that hard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon every again if they win this suit.
And your statement isnt childish? Get real.
You honestly think people will stop buying from Amazon? Their business model is designed so that they provide one of, if not the lowest, prices on the market for any number of their products. They can do this based on purchasing scale and the way they avoid taxes (legally) in areas that they operate.
Amazon is the largest internet retailer in the world. If you think any of your boycott will have an effect should think again.
To the Apple fans, you win some and you lose some. That is life. Move on.
So the "App Store" that is installed on my Mac OS 10.6 does not any content that runs on my iPhone, iPad or iPod, does it? (outside of the developer tools) - and the "App Store" that I access from each of my iOS devices contains a mix of apps that are not 100% compatible with all iOS devices and iOS OS versions - and on my iOS devices I have a separate iTunes (store) although it does not have the word store in the app name - so the iTunes store is an App on the iOS device - but the iOS App Store is not a link from within iTunes - but rather a subset of content available via the iTunes store - but which cannot run on the Mac OS but has to be synced to an iOS device in order to work - any the computer/iTunes will increasingly be taken out of the loop as iCloud and iOS 5 come fully online - or will they then be more tightly integrated into Mac OS 10.7 ?
So how is someone who did not incorporate each of these new names and methods into their daily routine supposed to not be confused by all the offerings from Apple alone - never mind what MS or Amazon through at their Android and WinMoPho7 devices.
This lawsuit was doomed from the get go. The term "App Store" or application store fails the generic test. You can't TM generic things.
/facepalm
How many times do we have to repeat this? It wasn't generic in 2008 - and we know that Sage was awarded a TM on it years before which they allowed to lapse - mentioned in a link that somebody else posted.
So how is someone who did not incorporate each of these new names and methods into their daily routine supposed to not be confused by all the offerings from Apple alone - never mind what MS or Amazon through at their Android and WinMoPho7 devices.
You should email that to Steve Jobs to be forwarded to Apple's legal department
This lawsuit was doomed from the get go. The term "App Store" or application store fails the generic test. You can't TM generic things.
Agreed 100%, this whole lawsuit is just apple's way of trying to stop competition in the mobile application market, and try to prevent competitors (android, windows mobile, Blackberry, etc) from gaining traction with their own app stores.
Sure, apple popularized the term app store, there's no question about that. No one really had a successful mobile application store until apple created the app store for iOS. There's no denying that. But that fact does not mean that apple's trademark is valid. Sure, it got rubberstamp approval when they pushed it through, but that's often the case, until someone questions it, they don't have the manpower to care very much. Had apple called it instead the mobile application store (a lot longer name), and that became a hit, would apple be able to trademark that?
Just because someone popularized a term, or an idea doesn't mean that the term or idea can be trademarked. The term app has clearly been in use for years. Apple has no trademark on app, and can't really argue that they do. Obviously store is generic too, so that can't be trademarked. Combining the two doesn't make a valid trademark either in my opinion.
At the end of the day, this has ZERO impact on apple users. People won't get confused. Everyone refers to app stores on other platforms anyhow, because that's the GENERIC term that apple popularized for mobile application stores. Apple will still be allowed to call their store the app store, no one will argue that, they just won't have exclusive use of it.
Amazon's store will be referred to as the amazon app store. If anything, I see this whole thing as apple trying to bully their competitors into using a name that confuses their customers. It has nothing to do with helping out apple's consumers, and everything to do with punishing the consumers who don't use apple products.
As for people trying to boycott amazon, I'm all about buying more from them. If apple is going to bully people like this, and amazon calls them out, more power to them.
Just because someone popularized a term, or an idea doesn't mean that the term or idea can be trademarked. The term app has clearly been in use for years. Apple has no trademark on app, and can't really argue that they do. Obviously store is generic too, so that can't be trademarked. Combining the two doesn't make a valid trademark either in my opinion.
RollerBlade. Two generic words that became a trademark that became a generic that is still a trademark.
Quote:
As for people trying to boycott amazon, I'm all about buying more from them. If apple is going to bully people like this, and amazon calls them out, more power to them.
Amazon got boycotted by the FSF back in the 90s, for bullying people like B&N. They still keep their 1-click TM and patent, and they still demand licenses on it for any electronic store that lets you buy with one click.
Now either Apple is an evil IP bully in which case so is Amazon, or they're both just firms that seek to maximize the value of their IP, in which case neither is evil. But you can't love one and hate the other, well not with any claim of consistency.
You'll take some flak for the slightly exaggerated way in which you're making your point, but fundamentally, you're spot on (so screw them): Amazon signals great weakness and a basic lack of creativity by naming their store as they did.
Agreed 100%, this whole lawsuit is just apple's way of trying to stop competition in the mobile application market, and try to prevent competitors (android, windows mobile, Blackberry, etc) from gaining traction with their own app stores.
Phil
While I am not saying that the ulterior motive is not along the lines of what you are saying - I think it would be more accurate to say that the lawsuit is Apple's way of stopping someone else for gaining an unfair, undeserved benefit to their business by co-opting brand recognition that Apple work hard and spent money on developing.
Trying to think of a good example - imagine if I opened a pizza shop next door to Pizza Hut and called it Joe's pizza-hut - Pizza and Hut are certainly generic words and I would not expect to be able to trademark either work individually, but taken together it doesn't matter if I capitalize them or use a hyphen where Pizza Hut is already trademarked I should expect to get in trouble with pizzahut, pizza-hut, Pizzahut and probably even Hut of PIzza and possibly even variations such as Pizza Shed or Pizza Shack. I could argue that my menu it different - or I only make square pizzas so no could possibly confuse my products with Pizza Hut's menu, but in the end I would have to come up with some word other than hut - where Shed or Shack might be able to squeak by if my logo and such was sufficiently different that I could demonstrated no consumer confusion.
Comments
Please show when App Store has been used for a mobile application distribution platform?
I posted above about SalesForce, but this overview is much better.
It certainly gives a lot more background as to why the judge is saying Apple has "stumbling block" in the case.
Apple should have had the foresight to call it the iStore or something they could really own.
Not iStore, there's already a chain of shops called iStore in the UK. Although as they only sell Apple products, Apple could stop supplying them and send them bankrupt to take the name.
In the meantime I will close my account with Amazon and will advise my family and friends to do the same.
Seriously, your going to close your Amazon account not for bad customer services, or a bad experiance shopping with them, but because they've used the term app store to sell apps.
The term 'app' wasn't coined by Apple. It was in use before Apple. Apple did make it popular with the popularity of iOS devices, but that doens't make it trademark-able by Apple.
Back in the day......computers ran programs.
Today......devices run apps.
It's generic.
Computers did run programs, but oddly when the developer goes to File > New Project (at least in visual studio) the list of project types they see are all called applications, not programs. e.g. Console Application, Windows Application, ASP.NET Web Application. And as far as I know this is what they've always been called.
In the meantime I will close my account with Amazon and will advise my family and friends to do the same.
Your wife must be a very patient woman! You may be on to something. If we can get everyone to boycott Amazon, then maybe they will change the name!
The Prof. is on board. Anyone else want to close their Amazon account? Want to help Next and Prof. start this off right?
Personally, if I had an Android phone, I would much rather prefer to go through Amazon's store than Google's, since I know Amazon is curating their store.
Bingo. That is what Amazon figures people will think. But can they really be trusted? Stealing the name shows that the whole thing rests on a foundation of lies.
I thought you could get App-le Apps at Amazon's App store. And get the Amazon generic best deal. But no.
If you want software for your iOS device there is only one place to buy it - from Steve. That makes it simple, so it is better not to have any other stores that carry iOS apps.
I think Amazon is being totally prickish and I will probably think twice before buying anything from them from now on.
The boycott is building up steam!
No because by the time trademarks existed that was already a generic
.
From Wikipedia:
In trademark treatises it is usually reported that blacksmiths who made swords in the Roman Empire are thought of as being the first users of trademarks.[3] Other notable trademarks that have been used for a long time include Löwenbräu, which claims use of its lion mark since 1383,[4] and Stella Artois, which claims use since 1366.
It's all so childish. Just think up an original name for cripes sake. Is it that hard?
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon every again if they win this suit.
And your statement isnt childish? Get real.
You honestly think people will stop buying from Amazon? Their business model is designed so that they provide one of, if not the lowest, prices on the market for any number of their products. They can do this based on purchasing scale and the way they avoid taxes (legally) in areas that they operate.
Amazon is the largest internet retailer in the world. If you think any of your boycott will have an effect should think again.
To the Apple fans, you win some and you lose some. That is life. Move on.
I posted above about SalesForce, but this overview is much better.
It certainly gives a lot more background as to why the judge is saying Apple has "stumbling block" in the case.
Salesforce were not making a mobile application distribution store.
The point Apple are making is that Amazon are selling mobile applications under the Appstore moniker.
So how is someone who did not incorporate each of these new names and methods into their daily routine supposed to not be confused by all the offerings from Apple alone - never mind what MS or Amazon through at their Android and WinMoPho7 devices.
This lawsuit was doomed from the get go. The term "App Store" or application store fails the generic test. You can't TM generic things.
/facepalm
How many times do we have to repeat this? It wasn't generic in 2008 - and we know that Sage was awarded a TM on it years before which they allowed to lapse - mentioned in a link that somebody else posted.
So how is someone who did not incorporate each of these new names and methods into their daily routine supposed to not be confused by all the offerings from Apple alone - never mind what MS or Amazon through at their Android and WinMoPho7 devices.
You should email that to Steve Jobs to be forwarded to Apple's legal department
This lawsuit was doomed from the get go. The term "App Store" or application store fails the generic test. You can't TM generic things.
Agreed 100%, this whole lawsuit is just apple's way of trying to stop competition in the mobile application market, and try to prevent competitors (android, windows mobile, Blackberry, etc) from gaining traction with their own app stores.
Sure, apple popularized the term app store, there's no question about that. No one really had a successful mobile application store until apple created the app store for iOS. There's no denying that. But that fact does not mean that apple's trademark is valid. Sure, it got rubberstamp approval when they pushed it through, but that's often the case, until someone questions it, they don't have the manpower to care very much. Had apple called it instead the mobile application store (a lot longer name), and that became a hit, would apple be able to trademark that?
Just because someone popularized a term, or an idea doesn't mean that the term or idea can be trademarked. The term app has clearly been in use for years. Apple has no trademark on app, and can't really argue that they do. Obviously store is generic too, so that can't be trademarked. Combining the two doesn't make a valid trademark either in my opinion.
At the end of the day, this has ZERO impact on apple users. People won't get confused. Everyone refers to app stores on other platforms anyhow, because that's the GENERIC term that apple popularized for mobile application stores. Apple will still be allowed to call their store the app store, no one will argue that, they just won't have exclusive use of it.
Amazon's store will be referred to as the amazon app store. If anything, I see this whole thing as apple trying to bully their competitors into using a name that confuses their customers. It has nothing to do with helping out apple's consumers, and everything to do with punishing the consumers who don't use apple products.
As for people trying to boycott amazon, I'm all about buying more from them. If apple is going to bully people like this, and amazon calls them out, more power to them.
Phil
Just because someone popularized a term, or an idea doesn't mean that the term or idea can be trademarked. The term app has clearly been in use for years. Apple has no trademark on app, and can't really argue that they do. Obviously store is generic too, so that can't be trademarked. Combining the two doesn't make a valid trademark either in my opinion.
RollerBlade. Two generic words that became a trademark that became a generic that is still a trademark.
As for people trying to boycott amazon, I'm all about buying more from them. If apple is going to bully people like this, and amazon calls them out, more power to them.
Amazon got boycotted by the FSF back in the 90s, for bullying people like B&N. They still keep their 1-click TM and patent, and they still demand licenses on it for any electronic store that lets you buy with one click.
Now either Apple is an evil IP bully in which case so is Amazon, or they're both just firms that seek to maximize the value of their IP, in which case neither is evil. But you can't love one and hate the other, well not with any claim of consistency.
You'll take some flak for the slightly exaggerated way in which you're making your point, but fundamentally, you're spot on (so screw them): Amazon signals great weakness and a basic lack of creativity by naming their store as they did.
It's truly childish on their part.
That's right. It's childish on Amazon's part
Agreed 100%, this whole lawsuit is just apple's way of trying to stop competition in the mobile application market, and try to prevent competitors (android, windows mobile, Blackberry, etc) from gaining traction with their own app stores.
Phil
While I am not saying that the ulterior motive is not along the lines of what you are saying - I think it would be more accurate to say that the lawsuit is Apple's way of stopping someone else for gaining an unfair, undeserved benefit to their business by co-opting brand recognition that Apple work hard and spent money on developing.
Trying to think of a good example - imagine if I opened a pizza shop next door to Pizza Hut and called it Joe's pizza-hut - Pizza and Hut are certainly generic words and I would not expect to be able to trademark either work individually, but taken together it doesn't matter if I capitalize them or use a hyphen where Pizza Hut is already trademarked I should expect to get in trouble with pizzahut, pizza-hut, Pizzahut and probably even Hut of PIzza and possibly even variations such as Pizza Shed or Pizza Shack. I could argue that my menu it different - or I only make square pizzas so no could possibly confuse my products with Pizza Hut's menu, but in the end I would have to come up with some word other than hut - where Shed or Shack might be able to squeak by if my logo and such was sufficiently different that I could demonstrated no consumer confusion.