Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fights Apple Trademark On 'App Store'
angry tapir writes "Microsoft is asking the US Patent and Trademark Office to deny Apple a trademark on the name 'App Store,' saying the term is generic and competitors should be able to use it. Apple applied for the trademark in 2008 for goods and services including 'retail store services featuring computer software provided via the internet and other computer and electronic communication networks' and other related offerings."
Not quite as generic as "Windows" though, eh Microsoft?
"Microsoft App Store" will always be "Microsoft App[le] Store" in my mind because Microsoft is (once again) playing catch-up.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Clothing store, department store, toilet store. What would be the obvious name for a store that sells apps?
MS should trademark "iAppStore".
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
other on line shopping sites had software downloads before apple had the app store.
Hey Microsoft, why not use "Program Files Store"?
..in this case, as in: "All Your Apps are Approved By Steve", or UBOUGHTAPL-GOTSCREWD, for short.
Steve dont do Generic.
Next thing MS will want the French version too: App Le Store.
Anybody want a peanut?
How is that possible? I mean, you're proposing that apple didn't invent something, that everything they do isn't new and magical and just gosh the best. Something must be wrong with your perception of reality...
I've been in tech since the early 90's and I've never heard of a product with the name "App Store" before Apple popularized it. The only generic phrases I know of involving the word are "Killer App" and "Net App"
By the same token, the word "bing" and "kin" are generic, although I find it unlikely anyone would want to use those toxic words at all.
They're not claiming a patent on app stores, just a trademark on app stores called App Store. You can have a McDonalds Shoe Store and trademark it to prevent another shoe store from calling itself McDonalds, even if there have been other shoe stores and other McDonaldses for decades.
However this trademark is quite likely invalid, 'cause you probably can't trademark a shoe store called Shoe Store.
Never thought I'd say this, but thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for Microsoft.
You have to be smarter than the machine you're working with.
Pretty sure Sales Force came first.
Back in 2006, when the iPhone was but a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye. And now there are lots of 'app stores'; including Apple's, but also including the Android app store, and others.
So... where is Apple's eligibility for using this descriptive non-creative name as a trademark, if they do not have exclusive use, first use, or even most famous use in commerce?
As far as I'm concerned, Apple's product is the iTunes App Store, which is specific and famous, but App Store is generic, and used by many organization's before and after Apple.
Actually.. when I think of "App Store", the first thing that comes to mind for most people is the Android App Store. If anyone should be awarded the trademark (and they should not), it should be Google.
That's not in dispute. Microsoft is mad because for once they can't legally copy something someone else popularized. Unlike GUIs, you can trademark words and phrases associated with a product or service.
I'm a former Mac user, so I hate Apple.
I actually give a damn about stability, so I hate Microsoft.
It's like watching zombies and vampires fight. No matter who loses, I cheer.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Since all GUI applications have a .app extension. App only came into common use after apple opened the App store and everyone started referring to mobile programs as Apps. It's like trying to claim the name Xerox is a generic common name for a photo copier.
If they want to open a store they should call it an Exe Store.
I'm no Apple fan, but to be fair, when I hear "app store", I think of Apple. When I hear of another company's service being referred to as an "app store", I think of Apple. Apple has made the term "app store" what it is. I don't think Microsoft would be too pleased about Apple beinging out their new Windows interface for iDevices.
Microsoft has about 16,830 U.S. patents (not applications; those are separate) while Apple has 3,659. (Source: USPTO)
Funny thing is it's never Apple or Apple fans that make this claim, just Apple detractors.
Before iPhone, the term 'app' was not really known or used by commonfolk. Now that it is a widely known term, I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of the population thinks it stands for 'Apple'.
other on line shopping sites had software downloads before apple had the app store.
This is not a patent fight, it's a trademark fight. None of those software download stores decided to brand themselves App Store. Heck, I never heard anyone refer to software as Apps until the iPhone made the term popular. Everyone called it Software or Programs before.
Sued him into the ground? He used his name plus Soft, specifically in order to sound like Microsoft, on purpose. Microsoft offered to pay the $10 it cost him to register the domain name. He asked for $10000, which was fairly preposterous. The settlement was Microsoft paying the $10, plus giving him some software, an xbox, and a vacation.
Meanwhile, Apple is using the most obvious generic term for a store that sells apps, App Store, as a trademark. The only defense (IANAL; I'm talking about common sense defense) I can see is whether App was in popular use for application/program/software/etc. before Apple started using it. It kind of was in popular use (especially in the portmanteau "webapp") but perhaps not to the degree it was post-iPhone app store. That's really more of an argument for trademarking App itself, though.
That's because Apple fans have their mouth too full of Steve Jobs' cock to say much. :)
"OS"
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
with miniture penis chair for it to sit in.
hypocrites? hypo?
How about Kwik-E-Mart? Sounds like an App Store to me . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
You could give your store a name that makes no sense.
The very next story demonstrates this trademark in action.
Since 2000, I've been maintaining GraphApp, an open source GUI portability library. Although named GraphApp on the web site, it was always supposed to be part of a larger portability library providing other services, which is why its header file is named app.h, why it compiles to libapp.a under Linux and app.lib under Windows, why the FAQ mentions "App" as the name of the intended work, and why one of the first things you do when making a program with my library is you create an App struct using the new_app call.
Leaving aside the question of whether the term is now generic, what protection do Open Source developers have for the names they choose for their tools, which have been in use for years?
I'm gonna go ahead and trademark a porn hub for mobile phones called the "Fap Store."
However this trademark is quite likely invalid, 'cause you probably can't trademark a shoe store called Shoe Store.
Ahh but you can trademark a shoe store named "S Store", just like it is possible to trademark an application store named "App Store". It is possible to trademark a modified version of a common name for an object as long as that modified version has "distinctive character".
Honestly, for most other markets the software was called "programs". It's mostly on the Apple side that they called the software "applications". It's really only the popularity of the "App Store" that has made the word "app" more popular when referring to software. In fact, Apple was using the ".app" extension for software on their platforms as far back as 1999 with the betas of Mac OS X.
I'm not saying that this can't be challenged, just that there is a valid reason for Apple to try to get and maintain this trademark.
Sapere aude!
HERESY!!! Shun the disbeliever. Shun!
App- Isnt short for APPle?
I'm shocked--shocked!--no one had already suggested this.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Wow, I must be getting old... I've heard them called that (and done the same myself) for decades. Or EXEs, executables, programs, COM files (for that class of executables), and of course applications.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Umm.. google search for "app store" -itunes with date range (before 2008)
http://www.google.com/search?q=app+store&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=GRd&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&sa=X&ei=tngtTfDoJIWclgeT-7GUDA&ved=0CAkQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A01%2F01%2F2007#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=S7x&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F1990%2Ccd_max%3A01%2F01%2F2007&q=%22app+store%22+-itunes&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=bdddfab3d4d782f2
They also don't sell Lindows. And X Window was earlier.
Microsoft sue shopped until they found a court where Windows wasn't a generic name. A foreign country. THEN, facing the need to pay for solid defence, Lindows caved, took the money and Windows won.
Please don't do revisionism, please.
Microsoft did NOT just buy the trademark. Microsoft shopped for a non-english-speaking country which therefore wouldn't have "Windows" on their house and sued for "similarity to" Windows. Faced with a court that said "Yeah, we don't have a term of 'Windows', so it's not generic", they sold the trademark or lose the case in that one country, and face going bust anyway.
All your app store are belong to us!
Leaving aside the question of whether the term is now generic, what protection do Open Source developers have for the names they choose for their tools, which have been in use for years?
What protection can they afford?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
'Microsoft v. Lindows.com, Inc. was a court case brought by Microsoft against Lindows, Inc in December 2001 [1], claiming that the name "Lindows" was a violation of its trademark "Windows." link
> if judgements are consistent
I know you were joking, but you still made me laugh.
this is not the first time the psychos at apple attempted to claim ownership of a word.
Read radical news here
app was a term that existed at early stages of the web in early 2000s. it is a generic word. by affixing 'store' at the end of a word, you do not make the former word non generic.
Read radical news here
PJ: Microsoft has no shame. Windows is not a generic name? And didn't Microsoft block Lindows from using even a sounds-like-Windows name because of a claimed trademark? I mean, come on. Here's the Microsoft filing, if you are in the mood for a good laugh or a curled lip, depending on your mood today.
http://groklaw.net/
If they get to trademark the words "app store", this would certainly prove the system is broken, maybe beyond repair.
As a word mark, with the letters arranged in a certain fashion, in a certain font and a certain color, this could of course be.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Damn. I should keep better records. I'm pretty sure that I was selling my own application called "Windows" for the Commodore Pet somewhere around 1981. It sold many copies.
Of course, by "selling" I mean knocking out hand-copied tapes for pocket money at the local computer store, "Application" means a farty little 6502 code utility to clear or scroll selected areas on the screen and "many" refers to the widely used "one, two, many, lots" number system.
I should totally go through the attic to see if I have a lawsuit :-)
But seriously folks, the term "window" for an independently clearable/scrollable area of screen probably dates back to the era of the VT100 terminal, or before. I certainly didn't invent it!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
App Store is pretty generic, you would think the Parent Office would deny Apple just because its the right thing to do...
I'm honestly a bit surprised. Something like "Application Marketplace" seems more like a Microsoft-ish name.
What is the airspeed of a fully laden swallow?
Of course there's a valid reason for Apple to try and retain this trademark - but it's not what you suggest (I have a 3.5" disk from circa '91 at home labelled "apps" so my usage of the term predates your 1999 example by almost a decade), it's money pure and simple. Apple have spent a lot of money popularising the term App Store - they obviously don't want their competitors to piggyback, but really I think they're fighting a losing battle. I already hear people calling the other stores "app stores" (most frequently I hear the android marketplace referred to as such but that could be because almost everyone here has either an iPhone or an Android-enabled handset, I've even done it a couple of times myself without thinking ), so basically they took a word that's been pretty common usage for 20+ years, they used it not in some new or novel way that would make it distinct, they just appended "store" to indicate they were selling said apps, and already the term is ubiquitous to other application stores. That doesn't sound like very firm footing for a valid trademark claim.
Didn't Apple coin the word "App" and "Application" back when the Macintosh came out in 1984? Before that, programs were just called programs. If they invented the term, I think they have every right to use and protect it.
>> Jobs even says, IIRC, "they're not applications... they're apps, right?"
Yep, if Jobs tomorrow says "It's not turd, its TURD" and you will start shitting bricks, yeah? You, sir, win the award for fanboi of the day. Congratulations!
That's because Apple 'fans' ignore the facts?
What's good for Microsoft is good for the rest of the world. Microsoft's trademark on "Windows" as an operating system name is problematic at best and Microsoft has lost a few important cases trying to protect this. (Remember the Lindows debacle?) These same cases that Microsoft lost are extremely relevant to Apple's claims.
Considering their own trademark history I can see why Microsoft wants the courts to come down on Apple with their "App Store" nonsense. They have every right to do this and I don't see why we all shouldn't support Microsoft in this endeavor. It will only help us all, not just Microsoft. Besides, what Apple wants is just nonsense!
I say let the large companies battle it out. This is one of the good things about capitalism!
Lets help 'ol MS out, lets suggest some names for their Windows Software Store.
- WinStore
- SquirtCentral
- BetaMart or BetaShop
- SoftBazaar
- SoftStore
- SoftShop
- MicroMart
- WinMart
- SteveMart (take that Jobs!)
- SolutionCentral (heh.. hooo... hah, too funny)
- KinShop
Any others?
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
So, in your opinion, can any words that are in the dictionary have a tradmark? At least in the US, trademarks depend on context. It doesn't need to be unique words. Of course, if you pick a single word, like "Windows" you are really at risk at having a indefensible trademark.
Unfortunately, in the US the USPTO system is broken. In some other countries, it's even worse.
As an example of how broken the system is, have you checked out RadioShack's brand icon. IMHO it's way too similar to the actual registered trademark symbol itself.
What about "L'App Store". Makes it more defensible---because it's like French or something.
It's not about company's usage of the term, it also applies to colloquial usage as well. If *anyone* was using the term in this context it should not be a defensible trademark and should not have been issued at all.
Look at Google. There have been many companies that used the word "Google" in the past as servicemarks, trademarks, and wordmarks.
I think the problem with "to google" is bigger than that. This verb has been in the Oxford English Dictionary for quite some time, and they cite their earliest reference from 1909. (Anyone have an old copy of the Westminster Gazette from 5 July?)
Pronunciation: /gug()l/
Etymology: Back-formation googly n.
Cricket. intr. Of the ball: to have a ‘googly’ break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball)
From Jobs' anti-Android rant: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/18/apples-q4-earnings-are-out-records-set-for-revenue-earnings/
There will be at least four app stores with Android, which users much search among. This is going to be a mess for users and developers. Compare this with Apple's integrated app store."
That's probably going to be a big piece of evidence for app store being generic.
This space for rent.
Isn't this a play on both App-lication and App-le? Not that it would have any legal bearing.
Microsoft gained the trademark "Bookshelf Computer" when it bought a small computer company making CP/M computers with that name. It then sued someone making a CD called "The Jewish Bookshelf" which was a collection of books.
> It's predated by
And DRI's GEM. In fact DRI was demonstrating GEM at the COMDEX just before MicroSoft announced that they too would have a graphical front end. While MS was working with Apple on software for Mac it wasn't seen as a threat. DRI, however, was a direct competitor and GEM could have taken the PC market. So MS announced Windows and then spent 2 years writing it before it came out as 1.0. It was vapourware and still not as good as GEM (until version 3.0).
GEM had sold a million copies (good for those days) before 1.0 was released and would have sold more but for MS's 'any day now we will ship'.
Good grief. I live in a town with a few dozen beauty shops. Every year I see a few more small businesses in the hair-cut line roll-out a smart new name to brand themselves. Is there no one in Redmond who can iMagine an online software market with a name other than "App Store?" Software Celler, ByApp, SoftMart, you knowif I tried, names would bubble-up faster than I could type. One of the hundreds of other options is surely as catchy as Apple's. What is the problem. App-le envy? MS should hire a beautician and fire the lawyers.
People have been calling software applications "apps" for years before the iphone existed. My bosses in the mid 90's said to make sure all of their apps were on the new computer. These were not geeky people by any means. I am sure people called software "apps" before that.
Indeed. The category "Applications" was often shortened to "Apps".
A quick search on the web found:
http://193.166.3.2/pub/amiga/apps/
where the Apps directory has the date "11-Aug-1999"
That is mirrored at:
http://ftp.funet.fi/index/amiga/apps/
with the same date.
An article posted in 3 Jan 2007 at: ."
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1025786/the-amiga-dead-long-live-amiga
details the Amiga platform after CBM's 1994 demise:
"Intent is amazing, like Java on steroids: the entire OS and all apps are compiled .
((Since then (of course)development went on for Amiga OS4 in a different direction.))
Intent was a 199'ties development direction.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Because making something "new" doesn't have to be important to run a company. Point in case: Apple, who does it by reputation only.
I am not devoid of humor.
This from the company that has thousands upon thousands of useless and ambiguous patents of their own...
Microsoft actually asked over half a year ago - why is it in the news now? http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pno=&propno=&qs=App+Store&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=
Fandroids hate facts.