Apple, Amazon can't settle 'Appstore' issue as August trial looms

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 69
    ireland wrote: »
    Here's one case I hope Apple really wins. Fucking ass wipes couldn't come up with a name for their store. They could have named it anything. App Shop. Anything!

    Agreed.

    Steam Store
    Xbox Live Arcade
    PlayStation Store
    Google Play
    Windows Marketplace

    All original names. All NOT "App Store"
  • Reply 22 of 69
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realwarder View Post




    Saleforce.com (2006) and Sage Networks (1998) filed for trademarks on "appstore" before Apple made filed for "app store".



     


    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.  

  • Reply 23 of 69
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Amazon is running a store that sells apps. Perhaps US law differs greatly from English law but the phrase definitely falls foul of what's unacceptable as a trademark over here.



     


    You are forgetting that before Apple became popular, we mostly didn't use the term "apps" for computer programs.  


     


    For most of the history of computers, Windows dominated and the term "executable" was the generic term (because *.EXE).  Sometimes people would call them "software applications" and shorten that to "applications," and I'm sure that occasionally some hipster used the term "apps," but the term itself came out of the NeXT/Apple community. (because *.APP)


     


    Everyone just has a short memory.  "Apps" is a very recently popular term but one that has a long (almost exclusive) history with Apple.   

  • Reply 24 of 69
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    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.
  • Reply 25 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    You are forgetting that before Apple became popular, we mostly didn't use the term "apps" for computer programs.  

    For most of the history of computers, Windows dominated and the term "executable" was the generic term (because *.EXE).  Sometimes people would call them "software applications" and shorten that to "applications," and I'm sure that occasionally some hipster used the term "apps," but the term itself came out of the NeXT/Apple community. (because *.APP)

    Everyone just has a short memory.  "Apps" is a very recently popular term but one that has a long (almost exclusive) history with Apple.   

    One of the earliest references to "apps" was in the old Frameworks II dating back to 1985. I recall mentions that "apps" wasn't an uncommon term in the developer community earlier than that, though I'm certainly not talking from personal experience!
  • Reply 26 of 69
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    In my opinion, the very fact that Amazon decided to call the "Amazon Appstore (one word)" strikes me as a purposeful attempt to try to skate around Apple's trademark. Which in my view acknowledges the validity. If they truly felt a principled stand was necessary, why not just call it the "Amazon App Store"?

    The point of Amazon's name isn't to be descriptive, it's a clearly an attempt to ride the coattails of success. Which is what trademarks are supposed to prevent. Amazon is arguing a technicality, but are violating the spirit of the law.

    The term "App Store" is/was synonymous with Apple, and Apple took an uncommonly used term and added all the value into it. Should Amazon be allowed to reap what it didn't sow?

    My opinion at least.
  • Reply 27 of 69
    realwarderrealwarder Posts: 136member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post




     


    Everyone just has a short memory.  "Apps" is a very recently popular term but one that has a long (almost exclusive) history with Apple.   



     


    The term 'apps' is a very old term.  Here is an example back in 1982.

  • Reply 28 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    Agreed.

    Steam Store
    Xbox Live Arcade
    PlayStation Store
    Google Play
    Windows Marketplace

    All original names. All NOT "App Store"

    Do a Google Search for "Windows appstore" and look at the first sponsored listing. It's from Microsoft themselves.
    "Windows® 8 App Store - Windows.microsoft.com?"
  • Reply 29 of 69
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member


    Here's an interesting tidbit.... in Apple's Application for Trademark they referenced Prior Registrations that include "The Apple Store" and "Apple Store" trademarks. So I'm guessing they're arguing App Store is just an Extension of Apple Store by dropping the "le" similar to how they dropped the "The"? It could also have been grounds for fighting Salesforces trademark?

  • Reply 30 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    realwarder wrote: »
    The term 'apps' is a very old term.  Here is an example back in 1982.

    Here's Computer World job listings from 1981:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Ux9iw6tMs6MC&lpg=PA81&vq=apps&as_pt=MAGAZINES&pg=PA81#v=snippet&q=apps&f=false

    Just to be fair I do think Amazon should consider a name change for their app...
    uh.... well. . .store. Whether Microsoft is willing to continue picking a fight with Apple over it? Who knows except MS.
  • Reply 31 of 69
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member


    And for those that think App Store shouldn't be trademark able because the term App was common what about... Office Depot... or Home Depot... or Windows... or even Apple.  It's as much a matter of how the words are used as it is what the words are.




    Apple makes no claim for the term App or Store. The claim is putting them together... "App Store" 

  • Reply 32 of 69
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,258member
    Self-fulfilling prophecy: steal the name, use it all over the place; look, it's generic!
  • Reply 33 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realwarder View Post




    I was answering the question, not making any statement on current validity...



    Duly noted. However, I do not think either company acually used the Mark. 

  • Reply 34 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realwarder View Post


     


    The term 'apps' is a very old term.  Here is an example back in 1982.



     


     


    The age of the term does not matter for Trademark purposes. It also generally does not mater if somebody else used it before. 

  • Reply 35 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Amazon is running a store that sells apps. Perhaps US law differs greatly from English law but the phrase definitely falls foul of what's unacceptable as a trademark over here.



     


     


    It is running a store that sells software applications. 

  • Reply 36 of 69
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Everyone just has a short memory.  "Apps" is a very recently popular term but one that has a long (almost exclusive) history with Apple.   



     


    "Application" predates Apple.  "Killer app" predates NeXT.   And "app" had been used for handheld programs for many years before the iPhone came along.


     


     



     


     



     



     



     


     


    You're right that Apple is good at making things popular....e.g. white phones or phrases like "app store"... but they didn't invent white phones, and they cannot trademark a merely descriptive name.


     


    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.  


     


    When a judge denied Apple's original injunction request against Amazon in early 2011, she noted that Apple is not likely to be able to prove their argument that an app store's "meaning is not inherently obvious".    Nor are they likely to prove that consumers are confused between the various app stores for different smartphones.


     


    Moreover, Apple cannot prove a fear of Amazon's store encroaching on Apple's store, since only Apple can sell iPhone apps.

  • Reply 37 of 69
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 336member
    This just in... Amazon releases the Amazon iPad. Defends name choice by saying iPad is now a generic term because it's the only way people refer to tablet computers. /s
  • Reply 38 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    Reading comprehension is important.  He never said he actually gave it away.  He said he was willing to.   


     


    Mr. Benioff said, “and I went up to (Jobs) and said, ‘I have a gift for you. I’m going to give you the trademark and the URL because of the help you gave me in 2003.’”


     


    Perhaps Jobs ignored him.  Perhaps Apple's lawyers thought they needed a history of fighting for the mark.  Whatever the reason, Apple filed an opposition anyway.


     


    My source is the USPTO, not some blog site or internet myth.  If you're not too lazy, you can check it yourself.



     


     


    He told Jobs he was going to give Apple both the App Store trademark and domain registration. If you type in appstore.com, iTunes comes up. So, Mr. Benioff did in fact have Salesforce.com give Apple the domain.


     


    Additionally, Salesforce could not not transfer the trademark to Apple because although Salesforce.com applied to have the Mark registered, that process had not been completed yet. Consequently, it was easier for Apple to oppose Salesforce's registration, which it in fact did. It is informative that Salesforce.com did not fight Apple. Instead, it abandoned the Mark leaving Apple's registration for the same Mark intact. So, Mr. Benioff in effect gave Apple the mark by 1) telling Apple it registered the mark, 2) thereby letting Apple oppose the registration, and 3) not taking action on Apple's opposition. 

  • Reply 39 of 69
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    "Application" predates Apple.  "Killer app" predates NeXT.   And "app" had been used for handheld programs for many years before the iPhone came along.


     


     



     


     



     



     



     


     


    You're right that Apple is good at making things popular....e.g. white phones or phrases like "app store"... but they didn't invent white phones, and they cannot trademark a merely descriptive name.


     


    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.  


     


    When a judge denied Apple's original injunction request against Amazon in early 2011, she noted that Apple is not likely to be able to prove their argument that an app store's "meaning is not inherently obvious".    Nor are they likely to prove that consumers are confused between the various app stores for different smartphones.


     


    Moreover, Apple cannot prove a fear of Amazon's store encroaching on Apple's store, since only Apple can sell iPhone apps.



     


     


    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. 


     


    It will be interesting to see what happens. 

  • Reply 40 of 69
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    tbell wrote: »

    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. 

    It will be interesting to see what happens. 

    Wait, why are we even talking about 'app'? It's 'app store' that is in question.
Sign In or Register to comment.