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."

Comments

Windows

[BasilBrush]

Not quite as generic as "Windows" though, eh Microsoft?

Re:Windows

[Fluffeh]

Or "Word" eh?

Re:Windows

[Dunbal]

It's actually "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows".

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

...right. But "Lindows" without the "Microsoft" was still infringing?! (It was settled out of court).

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

Hey, maybe Microsoft could call their version the "Lapp Store".

Oh no, that won't work...

Re:Windows

[OopsIDied]

Yeah but in the context of mobile devices, Windows is pretty non-generic while "App" is a shortened version of Application and so is very generic in the relevant context.

Re:Windows

[kimvette]

I'm sure Apple would not object to "Crapp Store" :)

Re:Windows

[Digana]

That's not how genericity of a trademark works. If Microsoft were in the business of selling large crystal panes that you can attach to walls to see through them, then yes, it couldn't call them "windows", because you're using the generic word for that product. It's just like Apple isn't selling produce, so they can use that common word as a trademark. The genericity of a trademark depends on the domain to which it is applied. In the case of "app store", Microsoft has a good case, because Apple is trying to trademark the general shortening of "application". I don't think the shortening of "application store" to "app store" will be able to withstand the attack of genericity.

Re:Windows

[kimvette]

"Settled out of court" translated to normal English really means "We would win against evil Microsoft if we had the funds to take this to the end, but sadly their lawyers are bleeding us dry with continual delays so we accepted their offer to settle."

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft would disagree...

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx

"Microsoft" and "Windows" are two separate registered trademarks.

Re:Windows

[vikisonline]

They should just call it the iApp Store.

Re:Windows

[node 3]

"Windows" refers to the most generic thing in a GUI, the window. Also, "app" isn't the primary generic term for programs. "Programs" and "applications" are. In fact, a lot of geeks got tweaked by the cutesy shortening of the word "applications" into "apps", as popularized by Apple.

Re:Windows

[aliquis]

M$ App store? :D

Though yeah, cool if they stole the word iApp ;D

Makes me wonder though, now when Apples market cap actually is bigger than Microsoft should we maybe switch?

iPhone$, iPad$, App$?

I don't see the problem for Microsoft. Why not call it Microsoft market? Microsoft store? Windows store? Mobile store? Exploitz'n'crapware'r'us?

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

You're wrong. The US Patent and Trademarks Office doesn't let me link directly to it, so here's a cut and paste of Microsoft's Windows trademark.

Word Mark WINDOWS
Goods and Services IC 009. US 038. G & S: computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; namely, graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers. FIRST USE: 19831018. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19831018
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74090419
Filing Date August 20, 1990
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition June 21, 1994
Registration Number 1872264
Registration Date January 10, 1995
Owner (REGISTRANT) Microsoft Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE One Microsoft Way Redmond WASHINGTON 980526399
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record William O. Ferron, Jr.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20050407.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20050407
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Re:Windows

[node 3]

That's not how genericity of a trademark works. If Microsoft were in the business of selling large crystal panes that you can attach to walls to see through them, then yes, it couldn't call them "windows", because you're using the generic word for that product.

They don't sell "Windows: n. 1. transparent glass panes", but "Windows: n. 2. Primary graphical representations in a windowed GUI system".

Re:Windows

[bondsbw]

So, what do you call these generic rectangle user interfaces containing buttons such as Close, Minimize, and Maximize, and a title bar, client area, and grips used to resize such generic rectangle UI? I have an idea of what I would call it, but according to you I would owe Microsoft money for the use of the word.

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

Is it? Then show me what mobile device company was using "App Store" before Apple did.

e.g. Nokia used "Software Marketplace"
Microsoft used marketplace too. "Windows Mobile Marketplace" etc.
Android uses "Android Market".

App Store seems like the obvious thing to call it now, because Apple have been so successful with it. But other companies were not wanting to use it till Apple got there first.

Re:Windows

[flyingkillerrobots]

The more intuitive word, assuming no prior prejudices, would probably be "boxes."

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

The frames around an application's UI, that you can move around and such? Those were called "windows" in the trade press before Microsoft wrote their OS. A bit ago Microsoft sued Lindows claiming "Lindows" was too close to their "Windows" trademark. They dropped the suit when the judge said that the Lindows legal team had introduced enough evidence to call into question Microsoft's claim on the Windows trademark, and opted instead to buy the Lindows trademark for $20 million (the Lindows software is now called Linspire).

Still feeling quite so sure of your superiority to the OP?

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

Back when Windows was trademarked, Microsoft's product was an application framework that let you create applications that ran in windows. Windows was as generic a term in computing then as it is in house construction now. It seemed absolutely ludicrous that Microsoft could trademark it. It might now seem so weird now, because we've got so used to it.

I don't think the shortening of "application store" to "app store" will be able to withstand the attack of genericity.

If "Windows" did, then "App Store" certainly will, if judgements are consistent.

Re:Windows

[lxs]

Microsoft could always call theirs the Exetaria.

Re:Windows

[Dahamma]

X Windows predated Windows 1.0 by at least a year. And previous systems (like "W" - which was the basis for the name of the "X" Window System) were around a couple years before that.

Re:Windows

[Trouvist]

how about "Crapple store" or "Crapple app store" ?

Re:Windows

[martin-boundary]

Microsoft has a good case, because Apple is trying to trademark the general shortening of "application".

Is that what they are shortening? I always thought App Store was short for Apple Store...

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

True. It's a bit like asking Google to change it's name cause it's a generic term for googling something and competitors should be able to use it.

And all this from a company who copyrighted the letters N and T

Re:Windows

[erroneus]

Windows fails the genericity test because they did not invent the Windowi GUI and the term "window" was coined to describe the interface long before Microsoft entered that marketplace. If you followed the Lindows story closely, you would know those details and how the settlement over "Lindows" resulted from a counter-claim seeking to remove Microsoft's trademark of the word "Windows." All predictions were that Microsoft would lose it and they quickly settled with the company they were suing over the use of the name Lindows and paid them an undisclosed amount of money while getting them to agree to name it Linspire. Microsoft almost never backs down from things like this. This is a pretty strong indication that they would lose.

Personally, I think if someone were to organize a legal action to have "Windows" removed as a trademark, I would donate to the cause... hell, I'd probably donate at least several hundred dollars to see it happen.

Re:Windows

[migla]

Well yes, but no. App store is obvious because it's a store that sells apps. If you'd asked people before there was an "App store" what an app store is, they would have nailed it.

Re:Windows

[rzlq]

They can always say it's a shortening of APPle ;)
apple store makes sense... like in The One Ronnie show.

Re:Windows

[gcnaddict]

...so many lawyers in this thread.

How about I cite one?

I also think that MS might successfully argue that "Windows" is not a generic term for operating systems, but is descriptive of an attribute of the goods, thereby opening the door for acquired distinctiveness -- an undoubtedly easy showing.

That says nothing of the argument that "Windows" for operating systems has "ceased to have current generic meaning," and is therefore susceptible to trademark protection. See the dicta of Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1458 (2d Cir. 1999). Does anyone in common usage call OS-X or Linux based GUI's "Windows"? I think the answer is they call them "Operating Systems" or "GUI's" or the like, even if these OS's/GUI's utilize "windows" (lower case "w").

Source: SonnabendLaw, via this forum post.

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

"Killer App" was a common term years before "App Store". Geeks used this term all the time, even in the bulletin board days.

Re:Windows

[hcs_$reboot]

Not quite as generic as "Windows" though

Maybe. But, anyway, which MS competitor would really want to call their own product/system Windows now?

Re:Windows

[thegarbz]

Yes but there also was no Windowed GUI system in common use before Windows came out, however there were in fact Windows. That is somehow like saying you can't trademark the name Google, because common use of the word "google" now is a verb to search the internet.

I would argue that "app store" is incredibly generic in that it is simply a shortening of the two very common words used actively in general population "Application" and "Store". Who aside from some very lucky ubernerds working for Xerox actually used the term Windows to describe their GUI? Certainly not every teenager on the street that's for sure.

Re:Windows

[catmistake]

In the case of "app store", Microsoft has a good case, because Apple is trying to trademark the general shortening of "application". I don't think the shortening of "application store" to "app store" will be able to withstand the attack of genericity.

Actually not. You have to see the keynote when Jobs introduced the App Store to see that "App" is NOT an abbreviation of application, but a new word they coined that day. Jobs discussed the differences between the two concepts, so, not an abbreciation, but a separate word (albeit a homonym of the abbreviation of application).

Also, "app store" is NOT generic.

The generic term for Apple's App Store is package manager.

Re:Windows

[MichaelSmith]

I don't think the shortening of "application store" to "app store" will be able to withstand the attack of genericity.

Perhaps App Store is actually short for Apple Store.

Re:Windows

[JohnBailey]

"Settled out of court" translated to normal English really means "We would win against evil Microsoft if we had the funds to take this to the end, but sadly their lawyers are bleeding us dry with continual delays so we accepted their offer to settle."

As far as I remember, "Settled out of court" in this case, meant " Oh Shiiiiiit!!! We could lose the rights to Windows as too generic to trademark!! QUICK BUY EM OFF".

Re:Windows

[TheChrisCarroll]

True, but to the extent that 'Windows' is generic, other OSes do freely use the term.

Re:Windows

[johny42]

True. It's a bit like asking Google to change it's name cause it's a generic term for googling something and competitors should be able to use it.

That actually happens, which is why Google actively prevents spreading of the verb "to google".

Re:Windows

[diegocg]

Office, Internet Explorer, SQL Server...

Re:Windows

[jedidiah]

> Yes but there also was no Windowed GUI system in common use before Windows came out

Are you kidding? Microsoft pretty much sat on it's hands for 10 years after GUIs became commonplace on every other platform.

Re:Windows

[ArsenneLupin]

I don't think the shortening of "application store" to "app store" will be able to withstand the attack of genericity.

Who sez that it's a shortening of "application store"? It would work just as well as a shortening of "apple store". And I've even heard that moniker used by some iPhone toting colleagues.

Re:Windows

[L4t3r4lu5]

If you're a typical full time mother or pensioner, you call everything computer related Windows.

"My Windows won't turn on!"
"I can't open my Windows letters!"
"Windows has deleted Google from the internet!"

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Well no, settled out of court usually actually means "We never really had a case, so we've paid them off with a reasonable figure to avoid the potential that they could get awarded a massive, company destroying figure in court".

But as this is Slashdot and this is an anti-Microsoft thread I can understand how people like you might enjoy changing the status quo to suit your ignorant biased hatred.

Re:Windows

[TheoGB]

thegarbz is saying that nothing before was termed 'windows', rather it was a GUI. The history of x windows at Wikipedia implies strongly that it has only gained that term subsequent to everyone calling such an interface 'Windows', which is precisely the point being made in the parent. Anyway, this is a ridiculous argument to have. The claim that Microsoft is just being hypocritical is a bit of a straw man to whether Apple should be able to trademark App Store: clearly they shouldn't; and I think we're all agreed that Microsoft have also trademarked terms they shouldn't have been able to, but that doesn't make Apple right.

Re:Windows

[Hucko]

Tell me this is a case of the 'winners' writing history. When 'Windows' came out there was a huge number of people mocking such a stupid name in the computing industry because it was a blatant knock off of the primary elemental division in a GUI --- which Microsoft was late to the party to get. Even in Dos applications functions were described by the 'window' as opposed to the screen.

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

Being able to work out from a trademark what a product or service is is a common and desirable feature of a trademark. It's not a reason to be disallowed.

Re:Windows

[digitig]

Well no, settled out of court usually actually means "We never really had a case, so we've paid them off with a reasonable figure to avoid the potential that they could get awarded a massive, company destroying figure in court".

But as this is Slashdot and this is an anti-Microsoft thread I can understand how people like you might enjoy changing the status quo to suit your ignorant biased hatred.

Really? And have they gone after "X Window System" yet?

Re:Windows

[Fzz]

Yes but there also was no Windowed GUI system in common use before Windows came out

Windows 1.0 came out in 1985.

It's predated by Xerox Star, the Apple Macintosh, Sun's SunView, the W Window System from Stanford, and early releases of the X indow System. Probably a bunch more too - Symbolics comes to mind. Of those, the Mac and SunView at the very least were widely used.

Microsoft, as usual, were late to the party.

Re:Windows

[spottedkangaroo]

I think the situation is different. The trademark is mean to protect the consumer, not the company. Personally, I'm glad there's only one *operating system* called Windows. If you wanted to make a set of rubber gloves called Windows, MS wouldn't have anything (legally) to say on the matter.

But as far as App Store goes: I mean, if MS is selling apps in a store, ... well, it's a fucking app store.

Those situations seem totally different to me.

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I should hope you're apologizing, because that is utter shit.

Re:Windows

[digitig]

I would argue that "app store" is incredibly generic in that it is simply a shortening of the two very common words used actively in general population "Application" and "Store". Who aside from some very lucky ubernerds working for Xerox actually used the term Windows to describe their GUI? Certainly not every teenager on the street that's for sure.

They referred to it as a "WIMP" interface, which they probably knew stood for stood for "window, icon, menu, pointer". And Gem and Mac System 1.0 were in common use before MS Windows.

Re:Windows

[digitig]

thegarbz is saying that nothing before was termed 'windows', rather it was a GUI. The history of x windows at Wikipedia implies strongly that it has only gained that term subsequent to everyone calling such an interface 'Windows', which is precisely the point being made in the parent.

Except we didn't call it a GUI, we called it a "WIMP interface". And the "W" stood for?

Re:Windows

[jo_ham]

No, it generally is the shortening of "application", since programs on the Mac operating system, especially from OS X onwards were already called "apps" for short, since the extension is .app (and what an app actually is, is a folder containing all the resources necessary to run the program, called a bundle, named nameofprogram.app that OS X treats as a single entity (although you can drill down into it if you really want).

The common parlance for some of these apps has appended the word app onto the end, for example "Mail" is often called "Mail app" since it is less cumbersome. Others have not taken this suffix, like iTunes or Safari. In fact, Mail is the only common one I can think of right now - perhaps also Preview app.

Either way, I think Apple were the first to use the term "App Store" when referring to a mobile program storefront, and it seems obvious now, since it has gained popular traction.

Re:Windows

[TheoGB]

Again, I don't think people shortened this to just 'Windows'. The W could be termed to stand for only 'window'. I refer you to the second half of my original post. :D

Re:Windows

[dangitman]

1) Be Generic (ie. Kleenex)

How is "Kleenex" generic? Because you use it to kleen your ex? Or do you use it to klee your nex?

Re:Windows

[TheRaven64]

Smalltalk-76 referred to rectangles on the screen that could be moved around and could contain independent UIs as windows. As the name suggests, it was released in 1976, 5 years before Microsoft started work on the project that eventually became Microsoft Windows 1.0, released in 1985.

There's probably nothing prior to Smalltalk, because the Smalltalk environment was the first to include a WIMP (windows, icons, mice and pointers) interface.

There were other GUIs around, but a GUI does not necessarily imply a windowing system. In the '80s, it often implied a full-screen, often keyboard-driven, interface, but one which required a framebuffer display rather than a text terminal to run.

Re:Windows

[TheRaven64]

That's not the word that they chose at Xerox, because they were concerned with the user perception, not the implementation. In implementation, they were just reserved regions of the frame buffer (Smalltalk-76 didn't support overlapping windows), but in terms of user interaction they were things that you looked through into your document - windows. This is why they called them windows (instances of the Window class in Smalltalk-76 and Smalltalk-80). This was almost a decade before MS Windows 1.0 (which also didn't support overlapping windows) was released.

Re:Windows

[TheoGB]

Is Smalltalk-76 a person or a company? If the former then I'm sorry my post sounded so specific. Let me re-write it: "thegarbz is saying that nothing before was widely-termed 'windows' in any serious sense of being a generally used name, though naturally it's very possible the term was used in passing, just as infinite monkeys could write Shakespeare". Right, I'm off to clean my nit-comb with alcohol. :)

Re:Windows

[TheRaven64]

Is Smalltalk-76 a person or a company?

Is that a serious question? If you're commenting on the history of windowing graphical user interfaces, then you really should look it up. It was developed at Xerox PARC, which hopefully you have heard of in this context...

Re:Windows

[boxwood]

The X Window System isn't a competitor to Windows. It is a component, not a complete OS.

Re:Windows

[DJRumpy]

Is this a big deal? It looks like Android already has it's own 'brand' name, as do a variety of handset makers, none of which appear to conflict with 'app store'. This is only a trademark, not a patent on the word.

Re:Windows

[xtracto]

THANK YOU! I hope I had mod points. A software "window" have been called a "window" much before Microsoft existed.

Re:Windows

[TheoGB]

Apologies, it was a serious question. I should have read what you wrote again. Not that this response in any way impacts on the point I was questioning, as to whether 'Windows' was used as a general term to describe a GUI or WIMP system.

Re:Windows

[uliko]

BTW: Glass is not a crystal, it is amorphous.

Re:Windows

[peragrin]

It's Microsoft you you have to add words in that are random and ultimately meaningless.

So it would be the Software Application SuperStore, or SASS. Since your using windows your used to be sassed anyways.

Re:Windows

[drinkypoo]

Really? And have they gone after "X Window System" yet?

Microsoft was on the Motif WG which is why Motif and Windows 3.11 have the same layout and button behavior, they would not have a leg to stand on.

Re:Windows

[drinkypoo]

That actually happens, which is why Google actively prevents spreading of the verb "to google".

Pray tell how Google actively prevents spreading of the verb "google", and watch out for spurious grammar.

Re:Windows

[pckl300]

Not quite as generic as "Windows" though, eh Microsoft?

Not really. It's not like they trademarked "Operating System". That would be a closer analogy.

Re:Windows

[The Mighty Buzzard]

It might as well be a patent on the words. Unless you plan on releasing "app store" brand ale?

Re:Windows

[dogmatixpsych]

Thanks for posting that. "App" (even as a shortened form of application) did not enjoy widespread use until Apple's application of it. In fact, there is a much evidence that App is a shortening of Apple as it is application. It was simply Apple's way of being clever with a new term. Edit: I just saw that some others posted the App as shortened Apple bit.

Re:Windows

[delinear]

The one time it was tested, the court made a summary judgment against MS who panicked over the trademark going generic and paid off the alleged infringer instead. It will be interesting to see what happens here - Apple are as unlikely to want to give up the term "app store" as MS were "windows", but they're going to be up against a company with deep pockets and a history of litigation.

Re:Windows

[Confusador]

Did anyone actually attack it? I certainly can't think of any cases, and it seems to me that most people have just ignored it because it hasn't caused harm to anyone big enough to fight.

Re:Windows

[dogmatixpsych]

No, most people wouldn't. The concept of an "app" didn't really exist before Apple's use of it. Sure, there were people here and there who used it a s a shortening of application but it was not a term people generally used.

Re:Windows

[postermmxvicom]

GP is right, google it.

Re:Windows

[delinear]

The difference is that Lucas coined the term droid. Apple didn't invent the term "app" - it's been a widely used shortening of "application" for years - since the 80's according to Dictionary.com. If Apple had used, for instance, the "Appli Store" (short for application and because it's Apple-y... sorry) then the two situations would be analogous, since I've never before heard someone refer to an application as an appli, but an app? Please.

Re:Windows

[delinear]

And when they say there's an app for that, they actually mean there's an apple for that?

Re:Windows

[theVarangian]

Try reading the wikipedia entry he linked to:

Avoiding genericide
Trademark owners will naturally seek to maximize the popularity of their marks. However, generic use of a trademark presents an inherent risk to the effective enforcement of trademark rights and may ultimately lead to genericide .... Google has gone to lengths to prevent this process, discouraging publications from using the term 'googling' in reference to web-searches. In 2006, both the Oxford English Dictionary[7] and the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary[11] struck a balance between acknowledging widespread use of the verb coinage and preserving the particular search engine's association with the coinage, defining google (all lower case, with -le ending) as a verb meaning "use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet".

Re:Windows

[vrmlguy]

...so many lawyers in this thread.
How about I cite one?

I also think that MS might successfully argue that "Windows" is not a generic term for operating systems, but is descriptive of an attribute of the goods, thereby opening the door for acquired distinctiveness -- an undoubtedly easy showing.

At this point, only a lawyer being paid by Microsoft would believe that. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows...

The case

In addition to the United States, Microsoft also sued Lindows in Sweden, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Canada.
Lindows started off with a handicap of having to defend themselves from their own lawyers (from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company) who initially refused to defend Lindows.[1] Judge Robert Takasugi found St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company had breached their contract.[2][3]
In response to these lawsuits, Lindows launched ChoicePC.com, which allowed people to purchase lifetime Lindows memberships that included a free copy of LindowsOS, free LindowsOS upgrades for life, and a ChoicePC.com t-shirt, for $100 US. All money from the memberships went towards helping Lindows in its legal battle against Microsoft.
Lindows had also retaliated against Microsoft's lawsuits with Lin---s (pronounced Lindash) and the corresponding domain lin---s.com (now disused). Consumers and resellers from countries in which Microsoft has blocked the sale of Lindows products due to the trademark lawsuits were encouraged to visit the Lin---s website instead of Lindows.com to purchase the Lin---s software, which was identical to Lindows except for the name change.
As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and that the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before[4]. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims[5]. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark. .

Settlement

In July 2004, Microsoft offered to settle with Lindows.[6] As part of this licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $20 million US, and Lindows transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed their name to Linspire.

Re:Windows

[thegarbz]

Of those, the Mac and SunView at the very least were widely used.

I don't think the term widely used means what you think it does. Definitely not on the scale of people widely use windows as a feature of a house that lets light through. And yes it does make a difference to the courts when determining if a trademark is generic or not.

Re:Windows

[garyebickford]

Oddly enough, IIRC the term 'Killer App' was first used in the context of the NeXT machine marketplace, predecessor to the present-day Mac.

Re:Windows

[garyebickford]

Indeed. Archetypical case was Aspirin, originally a Bayer trademark. ... oops, the reasoning I was going to use seems to not be valid in this case. I originally thought it was because they did not defend the trademark from generic use, but the real answer - at least according to Wikipedia - is a fascinating bit of history so I am posting it for the general amusement.

As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name. Today, "aspirin" is a generic word in Australia, France, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Jamaica, the Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. Aspirin, with a capital "A", remains a registered trademark of Bayer in Germany, Canada, Mexico, and in over 80 other countries, where the trademark is owned by Bayer, using acetylsalicylic acid in all markets, but using different packaging and physical aspects for each.

Re:Windows

[erroneus]

If this were true, then Microsoft wouldn't have settled with Lindows by giving them about $20 million and asking them to change their name. Microsoft saw a clear and present danger to their trademark claim -- a danger that still exists. I sincerely hope it is exploited.

Re:Windows

[sugapablo]

"App" is short for "Apple"....duh! ;)

Re:Windows

[smooth wombat]

Believe it or not, Internet Explorer is not trademarked. Many, many years ago, when browsers were just coming into existence, there was a product called Internet Explorer which someone was selling (via floppy disk).

Microsoft came along and made their Internet Explorer and gave it away for free. The guy sued them claiming infringement but because he had not trademarked the name, there was no case. Thus, Microsoft drove him out of business and continues to use the name Internet Explorer without issue.

Don't believe me? Open up Internet Explorer and check the About info. Windows is copyrighted but there are no marks for Internet Explorer.

Thus, if you wanted to make a browser called Internet Explorer, you are free to do so.

* I'm sure someone with a bit more knowledge will correct me on the specifics, but the above is a general description of what happened.

Re:Windows

[drinkypoo]

You're just a meta-wanker now, because I have to ask, "How does Google discourage publications from using the term 'googling' in reference to web-searches?"

Re:Windows

[Bemopolis]

The same case can be made against Microsfot, given that "X Windows" predates "Microsoft Windows" by about a year.

Re:Windows

[garyebickford]

As one of those ubernerds (I guess - I've never felt particularly uber), I worked with perhaps a dozen 'window systems' between 1978 and 1987. The entire 'workstation' market was based on window-based systems. I wrote a couple of toy ones myself. I recall that Microsoft's success in trademarking 'Windows' was both offensive to everyone in the industry, and an example of the stupidity of the people in charge of trademarks - similar to the software patents debacle. Prior to Microsoft, everyone distinguished their windowing system with a prefix such as X-Windows, etc. To this day, I persist in using 'MS Windows' when describing the Redmond Virus.

Re:Windows

[msauve]

"Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance" - Harvard Business Press; Revised Edition edition (March 2000)

"application (app)" - Dictionary of Business Terms, Barron's Educational Series, Inc.; 3rd edition (May 1, 2000)

"Google Apps" - August 2006

Re:Windows

[theVarangian]

You're just a meta-wanker now, because I have to ask, "How does Google discourage publications from using the term 'googling' in reference to web-searches?"

Whine, piss and moan ... The next time you decide to ooze your venom over somebody at least RTFA they link to first it's not that hard.

Re:Windows

[garyebickford]

Indeed, in the SIGGRAPH CORE 3D software standard (1977), there were two terms, windows and viewports. I'd have to look it up but if I recall correctly, the 'viewport' referred to the 2D rectangular area on the display (you might say the 'window frame'), and 'window' referred to the same rectangle as defined in the 3D space ('what you saw in the window'). The difference was the projection transform and the clipping. But it's been a long time since I messed with that stuff.

If my recollection is correct, the 'viewport' in that specification was more closely analogous to the 'window' term as presently used. There was some debate at the time, as window was more intuitively related to what we saw on the screen, and other systems (like the XEROX Alto) used the term window.

Carson
Very interesting timeline of computer graphics and animation, starting from essential and preparatory technologies

Re:Windows

[garyebickford]

I mentioned this in another reply, but it relates here as well. To my knowledge, the first use of App was indeed in the late 1980's, in the context of the NeXT machine - predecessor to the present-day Mac. My company made and sold a NeXT App, one of several potential 'killer apps' at the time. The file extension for an application's file directory was .app - in fact that's how an 'app' was defined - a directory with the extension of .app.

Which brings in an interesting question - if true, then a company that was subsumed by Apple has the most prior usage of the term. I think 20 years without trademarking 'app' probably means they couldn't trademark 'app' now, but it does seem to provide a small amount of 'social' (as opposed to legal) justification for use in the new context. App was used consistently in the NeXT and Apple market for a long time before it migrated over to the Microsoft market. I doubt that provides any stronger legal basis though.

Re:Windows

[garyebickford]

In fact, there is a much evidence that App is a shortening of Apple as it is application

Nope, it was widely used for NeXT machine applications - even to the extent of using the .app extension to define a directory containing an application's code and other files. We used to talk about what would be the NeXT's "killer app" back in the day. But then NeXT ended up as part of Apple, so where does that put the question? :D

Re:Windows

[UnknowingFool]

If I remember correctly in MS vs Lindows, the court agreed with Lindows.com, Inc that "Windows" was generic enough to be challenged as a trademark. The case was settled but it would have not been likely to have survive an actual challenge as "Windows" in computer UI has been around for decades longer than Microsoft. MS however would likely be able to defend "Microsoft Windows" as a trademark.

Re:Windows

[squiggleslash]

The word app certainly was used widely before Apple used it, as a shorter version of the word "application". As others have pointed out, we talk about "killer apps" not "killer applications", a common phrase before 2006. Even restricted to mobile applications, I've been using phones that run applications since 1997 (Nokia 9000 FTW!) and apps/programs/applications were words used interchangeably back then. I'm really not sure where this thing that "Apple invented the word app" comes from, they most certainly didn't!

Not that I necessarily agree with Microsoft's lawsuit, although it depends upon the context. If someone calls their mobile application payment and installation utility "App Store", then yeah, I see Apple's trademark as having merit as that might creation confusion. On the other hand, if someone writes "The Superdooperphone has an app store called Superdooperphone App Exchange", and gets hit with a trademark lawsuit, I think the trademark is being misused. Certainly the scope of the trademark needs to be as limited as possible, as the word "app" followed by the word "store" is something that will reasonably appear in English speech when describing a tool that performs the task the App Store does.

Re:Windows

[sribe]

If Microsoft were in the business of selling large crystal panes that you can attach to walls to see through them, then yes, it couldn't call them "windows", because you're using the generic word for that product.

You're ignoring 2 facts: 1) The term "windows" was in wide use to describe a feature of systems that were in wide use that were called "windowing systems", 2) the USPTO denied the "Windows" trademark multiple times, but Microsoft wore them down with lawyers and years in court.

Re:Windows

[Myopic]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember Microsoft settling with that guy. I presume they paid him some money, he dropped the suit, and Microsoft claimed ownership of the name. I don't know enough to guess how a judge would rule, but if you made a browser called Internet Explorer, I'm pretty certain you'd get sued.

Re:Windows

[tixxit]

I've been using the term web app for quite a while too.

Re:Windows

[multisync]

The X Window System isn't a competitor to Windows. It is a component, not a complete OS.

So was Microsoft Windows for the first 10 years of its existance.

Re:Windows

[Golddess]

Did just that in IE8, and though it is too small to make out what the mark is, there is some sort of a mark next to Windows, the "e" icon, and even Internet Explorer (just the Internet Explorer part, it does not include the 8).

Re:Windows

[gravis777]

True, but 1) no one else trademarked "Windows", and 2) the trademark would state that no one else could call their system Windows, but they can still use the generic word, as in "multiple windows on a desktop" or a "windowed graphical operating enviornment". Just because Microsoft has trademarked the word "Windows" doesn't mean that Apple tech support cannot tell a user to open a new window on their computer.

Re:Windows

[slshwtw]

Office, Internet Explorer, SQL Server...

If you ask Microsoft what the "SQL" stands for in "SQL Server", the official answer is that it doesn't stand for anything, it's just "SQL". Otherwise they couldn't trademark it (since they didn't develop the language and it is an ANSI standard).

Re:Windows

[Skuld-Chan]

The first time I ever heard killer app was in reference to Visicalc (spreadsheet for those who don't know) on the Apple 2 - an application that justified purchase of the entire machine. The next time I heard the term was with the Video Toaster and the Commodore Amiga.

Re:Windows

[mcgrew]

SASS would be a Trademark violation.

Re:Windows

[David Off]

> Microsoft, as usual, were late to the party.

That is because they had to wait for the Mac to come out so they could see how it was done, decompile the OS etc etc. so they could produce their own rip-off version. I think this is widely known. Microsoft is late to every damn party, it is hard wired in their DNA from the day they ripped of CP/M via QDOS.

Other windows systems around the same time were GEM (1983) and Siemens Collage (for Unix - mid to late 80s similar to GEM). The term commonly used was WIMP systems for Windows, Icon, Mouse Pointer. This term dates from 1980. GEM was also widely used.

Re:Windows

[kimvette]

If you look at very early builds of Windows 95, you'll see an OS which was built on or at least based (concept-wise) Motif. Many widgets were undressed and so radio buttons and checkboxes looked like they would on Motif apps on *nix at the time, that is, radio buttons were diamond-shaped. Wait, I just found a screen shot with radio buttons:

http://toastytech.com/guis/c73prop2.gif
and another one (same site)
http://toastytech.com/guis/chicago3.html

. . .on a tangent one thing I really liked about early Windows 95 builds was how the command processor worked. One shortcut I distinctly remember was you could move up directories by several levels just by stacking "dots" - I mean, to move up two directories you would normally need to "cd ..\.." (or on *nix shells, "cd ../.." but in early Windows 95 builds you could "cd ..." and to move up three levels, you could "cd ...." instead of "cd ..\..\.." and so on.

Re:Windows

[drinkypoo]

Interesting, I didn't get involved with Chicago until Beta 2 or 3, something like that. By the time I got it, the window menu had the program icon.

The cd ... behavior you liked is a holdover from DOS, just as Windows 95's shell is. They didn't change much beyond VFAT, support for which also became available in other forms.

It's worth mentioning that we're STILL using the Motif input styles TODAY, BOTH GNOME and KDE, not to mention Windows. Stuff looks different but it all basically still works just like Motif. Sometimes the widgets get rearranged for no reason (I'm looking at you, Ubuntu) but it's all quite Motif-ish. The only departures with any permanence that I can think of are MacOS (which has tended more towards everyone else as time has passed) designed for simplicity and Squeak which is designed for tampering and ends up awfully busy and cryptic.

Re:Windows

[DriedClexler]

Or Canada eh?

Re:Windows

[BlackSnake112]

I know many people who called applications "apps" since the mid 1990's. Granted these were not phone or mobile device applications back then, but the term was used long before 2008. These were not computer geeks, unless you call the 90's CEO, COO, and other managers and bosses geeks back then. The term started out as install my software applications. Which was shortened to applications. That was shortened to apps. This was around 1996-1997. Apps just stuck from that point on.

The catch is Apple's filing states via the internet or network. That will probable make it happen. Which is sad, the trademark office would shoot it down without that wording. Since the internet has been a source of software applications (or apps) for years before 2008, it should shoot this down.

Re:Windows

[cloricus]

Well it does make it right. Microsoft created a precedent in league with the trademark people. Now they are unhappy with their abuse of the rules being used by another company. Tough cookies in my opinion.

Re:Windows

[mcgrew]

Unless I'm misinformed, Thermos lost their trademark on the vaccuum bottle when "thermos" became generic. Xerox is another company that has had to take great pains to preserve their trademark.

Re:Windows

[jspayne]

Well, I don't know if there are enough pixels there to make that distinction, but this page makes it pretty clear that Internet Explorer is a registered trademark:

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx

Re:Windows

[TheoGB]

You live in a strange world.

Re:Windows

[tlhIngan]

That is the copyright symbol (a c inside a circle). That only refers to Windows, not the browser.

In my IE8, there's the little mark beside Windows, and the same smudge after "Internet Explorer".

It looks like:

Windows*
Internet Explorer* 8

I don't think that smudge is referring to the copyright symbol, but trademark instead since below that is a (c)2009 Microsoft Corporation at the bottom of the about window as well.
The same smudge is beside the "e" icon beside that text too.

Re:Windows

[Culture20]

"application store" is generic and obvious, ergo "app store" is generic and obvious. It's like calling a coffee shop "coffee shop" or "coffee store". It's too generic to be trademarked. I've been to plenty of software stores. How is "software store" different from "app store"? The differentiation is "Babbage's" or "Mom & Pop's" those things can be trademarked.

Re:Windows

[fahrbot-bot]

It's predated by Xerox Star, ...

Indeed. I did LISP research in college from 1985-87 on a Xerox Star 8010 "Dandelion". Granted, it was a $50k system, so it was only widely available to people with lots of cash. :-)

Re:Windows

[Culture20]

The concept of an "app" didn't really exist before Apple's use of it.

Yes it did. You're either lying or ignorant. Considering you continue on to say people actually did use "app", I'm inclined to believe you're lying. "web apps" were all the rage of web 2.0. "App" was the hip way for PHBs to talk about software applications since 1990s and everyone knows it.

Re:Windows

[icebraining]

So when they sell apps, they're actually selling apples? That's nutritious.

Re:Windows

[ArsenneLupin]

Indeed. Do you want a green one, or do you prefer a red one? :-) But be careful about your loose tooth!

Re:Windows

[SilverEyes]

(I posted this previously before I logged in)

Correction; Kleenex isn't a genericized trademark, but its close. Still illustrates what I was going for though, as other commenters have pointed out.

Re:Windows

[SilverEyes]

Trademarks also help the company establish trust and brand recognition. Consumers don't file for trademarks, but they get the benefit of knowing who they're dealing with. It works both ways.

Re:Windows

[catmistake]

We can all agree that a file format is different from an application, they have 2 distinct meanings. And you (and I in other posts) point out that app is also a file format (which happens to be specific now to Apple). There are a lot of homonyms in the English language.

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

orly? Single Action Shooting Society

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

Please tell me you're not suggesting Mac was first and foremost. I imagine if MS needed to decompile they had a large host of other players to pick from.

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

I knew exactly 1 person in college with a Mac (circa 1990ish). Everyone else had PCs. Common use? Only for people who had extra money to throw at computers.

Re:Windows

[Kz]

Please tell me you're not suggesting Mac was first and foremost. I imagine if MS needed to decompile they had a large host of other players to pick from.

but they picked Mac. It's not anti-MS fanboyism, it's documented. MS got with it because Apple had the worst contract lawyers on earth.

In short, Apple asked MS to write applications for Mac, since it was poorly documented at the time, MS asked access to the sources. Apple complied, and never bothered to check what kind of uses the contract granted.

Of course, MS didn't just copied and recompiled (it wouldn't worked, it was lots of 68000 assembly language, and they used the astounding 32-bit words quite cleverly), so they did reimplement most the system keeping the architecture, and throwing out some pretty sophisticated things that just couldn't be done well in 16-bit 80186. (like the amazing 'regions' functionality of QuickDraw, which resulted in significant differences in mouse handling smoothness)

Re:Windows

[jittles]

Liken it to me trademarking the phrase: "Grocery Store" or "Supermarket".

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

Hmmm, all I asked was that the GP wasn't suggesting Mac did GUI first. I really don't care about the rest, I'm just sick of the CoA folks saying Apple was first when in fact they were far from it. NLS and PARC were there LONG before the Lisa and eventually the Macintosh.

So it is in fact fanboyism.

Re:Windows

[Mike Buddha]

Yeah, because everyone was calling their OS a Windows before Microsoft got that trademark. Mod parent +1 insightful. Perfect analogy.

Re:Windows

[digitig]

Yes, but how many with PCs running something like Gem? The Amstrad 1512 / 1640 had pretty good market penetration in the UK (I had one), and that came with Gem preinstalled.

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

CP/M had died out before I started college in 1989 (in the US), and I didn't know anybody with an Atari ST (though I wished I had at the time). The only think I saw like GEM was I think DosShell (or something like that name) which wasn't as nice as the images I just saw of GEM on Wikipedia.

So I suppose I should clarify further in that they were hardly common in the US, where Apple is and likes to file suit (against GEM back in the day as a matter of fact).

Re:Windows

[cHALiTO]

But.. Copyright != Trademark

If Internet Explorer was a trademark, shouldn't there be a (tm) next to it? (or a circled 'R' in spanish for marca Registrada)

Re:Windows

[node 3]

I knew exactly 1 person in college with a Mac (circa 1990ish). Everyone else had PCs. Common use? Only for people who had extra money to throw at computers.

What does "1990ish" have to do with the early 1980s?

And your claim above is extremely disingenuous. In 1990, "everyone else" most certainly did not have PCs. Few people had computers back then.

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

I don't know if anyone challenged the Windows trademark when Microsoft first filed it. Tech industry news didn't spread so easily in the days before the web. But the Windows trademark was certainly challenged on the "generic" issue by Michael Robertson, the Lindows guy.

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

Why would "they had to wait for the Mac to come out so they could see how it was done" when there were plenty of examples before it?

Re:Windows

[I8TheWorm]

I guess you didn't infer "everyone else who had a computer from that statement.

and 1990ish was when I actually saw my first Macintosh (a roommate's). Before that I saw Apple ][s, Commodores, etc...

Re:Windows

[Confusador]

I seem to recall that that case was settled, meaning either MS didn't think it would stand up in court, Lindows didn't think they had enough money to fight, or both. So we really still don't know what the court would say, although I bet the current case will give us a pretty good idea.

Re:Windows

[Solandri]

To be fair, their trademark is on Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Office, etc. That's why there's no real problem with OpenOffice. While they've filed some dubious lawsuits going after people who use "windows", "word", "office" in a more generic sense, if Apple tried/managed to get a trademark on "app store" then IMHO that's clearly way too generic.

Re:Windows

[The Tessellator]

Or "Office"..... FCS - The most amazing thing about this is MS is clearly burning while Ballmer fiddles, spending time and resources on disputing if "App Store" has become more generic than say.... Kleenex, Coke or Xerox (which is doubtful) (or Windows or office or word)

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

"application store" is generic and obvious, ergo "app store" is generic and obvious. It's like calling a coffee shop "coffee shop" or "coffee store".

Actually it'd be "Coff Store", which is quite ugly, but certainly trademarkable.

How is "software store" different from "app store"?

Different specific words. Which is pretty important when it comes to trademarks.

Re:Windows

[exomondo]

In fact, a lot of geeks got tweaked by the cutesy shortening of the word "applications" into "apps", as popularized by Apple.

Rubbish, 8 character DOS file/directory name limits had plenty of people naming their applications directory apps nearly 30 years ago.

Re:Windows

[exomondo]

Not quite as generic as "Windows" though, eh Microsoft?

Context is everything.

Does Google have an App Store? Yes, even Steve Jobs will tell you that.

Re:Windows

[shon]

As I recall, when Microsoft sued Lindows for trademark infringement, the tables were turned. Lindows convinced the court that Windows was generic, and the court was considering invalidating the Windows mark. Microsoft quickly settled at that point.

Re:Windows

[shon]

Found this wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows

The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.

Re:Windows

[taustad]

I see "ring of death" is still up for grabs.

Re:Windows

[exomondo]

Back when Windows was trademarked, Microsoft's product was an application framework that let you create applications that ran in windows. Windows was as generic a term in computing then as it is in house construction now. It seemed absolutely ludicrous that Microsoft could trademark it.

Yeah because everyone referred to their operating systems as windows...not sure what history you're remembering.

Re:Windows

[The Mighty Buzzard]

In what reality was that not what I said?

Re:Windows

[DaVince21]

Yeah, but one easily associates Windows with Microsoft, whereas something like App Store isn't specifically associated with Apple, since many devices and systems have their own app store.

If it was Apple Store or something like that, it would be quite different.

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

App Store isn't specifically associated with Apple, since many devices and systems have their own app store.

Name one. I know of a few that have software marketplaces, but I don't know of anyone else with an App Store.

Re:Windows

[DaVince21]

Android, Microsoft, Nokia. They most definitely have app stores. App stores with their own properly trademarkable names.

You see, because of its name, app store has become a term for ANY such "marketplace", not just Apple's.

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

Android, Microsoft, Nokia. They most definitely have app stores.

Nope. Android has a market, and Microsoft and Nokia have marketplaces.

You see, because of its name, app store has become a term for ANY such "marketplace", not just Apple's.

Only since Apple's App Store. Because it's been so successful. People remember what Apple's App Store is called. They don't remember what Android, Microsoft and Nokia's markets/marketplaces are called.

Re:Windows

[DaVince21]

People remember what Apple's App Store is called.

How do you know the regular user knows - or cares? In that case, though, I should be saying my argument is based on the same problem anyway - not knowing if "normal" users know about this at all. I sure didn't.

Microsoft App[le] Store

[PatPending]

"Microsoft App Store" will always be "Microsoft App[le] Store" in my mind because Microsoft is (once again) playing catch-up.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily they grought pre-emptive multi-tasking to the desktop which apple introduced in their OS a century after Microsoft did.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[blau]

Luckily they grought pre-emptive multi-tasking to the desktop [...]

LOL bullshit

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[BasilBrush]

Really? You're saying there was a 100 years gap between Windows 95 and OS X?

It was 6 years. Of course that wasn't because Microsoft wasn't slow to get there. It's that Apple (when Jobs wasn't around) was even slower. Jobs own NeXT operating system had pre-emptive multi-tasking 7 years before Windows did.

So whilst in that particular technological point Microsoft wasn't playing catch up to Apple, they were certainly playing catch-up to Steve Jobs.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[RobertM1968]

Really? You're saying there was a 100 years gap between Windows 95 and OS X?

It was 6 years. Of course that wasn't because Microsoft wasn't slow to get there. It's that Apple (when Jobs wasn't around) was even slower. Jobs own NeXT operating system had pre-emptive multi-tasking 7 years before Windows did.

So whilst in that particular technological point Microsoft wasn't playing catch up to Apple, they were certainly playing catch-up to Steve Jobs.

You mean NT (not 95, which was released later and didnt have anything that could truly be called preemptive multitasking (due to various limitations in drivers, holdover DOS calls, Win16 calls, VxDs, memory management subsystems kludged together, and so on that made the "preemptive" part either "sorta" or "in theory"), but otherwise, yeah. Not quite 100 years since NT. Not even close.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[RobertM1968]

I just want to expound on the Win95 thing. First, it called DOS to set up PSPs for full 32 bit apps. It heavily relied upon (at initial release and up until Win98 or OSR2) DOS drivers for many devices. Many apps (heck, including even the Windows Installer - right up into the Windows XP days) still had legacy 16bit code that called 16bit Windows functions that did not pre-emptively multitask. The VxD model released in Win95 was horrendous and had a terrible penalty for calling any of the needed 16bit services or API. Numerous of the older Win32 API calls (v1.25 and below) were poorly (or not at all) implemented in a fashion suitable for pre-emptive multitasking. Since conventional memory and REAL MODE DOS was used for PSPs for every app, 32bit or not, limitations were imposed on even true 32bit apps. The "task switcher" mechanism was one of the worst ever written and was just barely outside of the cooperative multitasking category causing the inability to do any true time-sensitive multitasking on anything resource intensive. Thread management was abysmal and incurred penalties that also prevented time-critical multitasking. I could go on and on.

In THEORY Windows 95 was a true preemptive multitasking OS. But the theory did not fit the reality. It took years since the original Windows 93 plan (and it's actual release as Windows 95) to get "almost there" (WinME's release, as terrible as that was in other respects).

Also in all fairness, the problem decreased with each new release and with updated apps and drivers (and less dependence on DOS Win16 calls, and ancient Win32 calls by such). But on the other hand, a bunch of 16bit code persisted right into the XP age (as mentioned earlier, the Windows Installer as one example). Of course, since XP handled running such code differently, it did not suffer the same penalties.

Somewhere out there (and possibly as evidence in the DOJ case) is a CompUSA teleconference with the... morons... errr, sorry... lying thieves... oops, that's not what I meant... programming and management team for Win95, where they refuse to dispute, that "theory" aside, due to those limitations, it's really for all intents and purposes, Windows on top of DOS and is not a true preemptive multitasking OS, (and admit that they dont care because their customers won't know the difference). And Microsoft themselves, published various... notes? notices? (cant think of the right word), advising users to basically do the impossible (in order to have a preemptive multitasking environment), namely use only true 32bit Win95 drivers, fully 32bit apps (even though various of MS's own apps were not), dont boot into safe mode (which certain games and other apps required) and a few other suggestion. Of course, most or all of those were impossible during the days of Win95. And they knew it.

It's kinda like making a car (for road driving) that you claim can reach 250mph. Sure it can. In theory. But did you remember to mention it has to be secured on rails and run jet fuel, and a variety of other criteria not possible by 99% of the people who buy it? Theories are great. The reality was Win95 was semi-preemptively multitasking under all but idiotically rare scenarios. With each subsequent Win9x/ME release slowly improving.

Not that I was Microsoft's and CompUSA's chosen Win95 support technician for CompUSA Vienna 281 during the alpha, beta, RC and release phases (and beyond) or anything.

It's kinda like how (in theory) the initial release of Windows Phone 7 multitasks... with the caveat that in reality, what it multitasks is absolutely nothing... followed just recently by it finally multitasking Zune. Theories are nice. Reality is better.

This is not intended as a rant. It is intended to be educational, since many people simply do not know the history of PCs, OS's for them and so on; and what information out there of late seems more focused on theoreticals than it is on reality and implementation.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[sgbett]

Good read that. Cheers.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[mschaffer]

Well, to be fair. To a dog, that's 42 years.

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[scot4875]

That's all well and good, but it still doesn't change the fact that MacOS didn't even have *any* form of preemptive multitasking before OSX.

--Jeremy

Re:Microsoft App[le] Store

[RobertM1968]

That's all well and good, but it still doesn't change the fact that MacOS didn't even have *any* form of preemptive multitasking before OSX.

--Jeremy

Technically, MacOS9 to be accurate (for programs that used it's extended APIs). As my earlier response pointed out, he shoulda compared it to NT and not Win95. The post above, that you are responding to, was my additional clarification to support my earlier post (the one that pointed out he should have compared it to NT and not 95), nothing more or less. ;-)

I probably should have responded to myself to make that clearer (as Slashdot seems to reorder posts, making it hard to note such things); but I talk to myself enough as it is, so I try to limit such things from happening online as well.

-Rob

Stores are often named for what they sell

[mykos]

Clothing store, department store, toilet store. What would be the obvious name for a store that sells apps?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[dgatwood]

What would be the obvious name for a store that sells apps

CompUSA?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[BasilBrush]

Huh? Department stores don't sell departments. And WTF is a toilet store?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft(r) Windows(tm) Live Store?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[EvanED]

The app store. But that's beside the point. You would be hard-pressed to find a place that's actually called "The Clothing Store" or "The Department Store", because they are almost certainly not trademarkable names: a competition could open right next door and call themselves "The Clothing Store" and the original store wouldn't be able to do anything about it. That is MS's argument.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[Jaxoreth]

You would be hard-pressed to find a place that's actually called "The Clothing Store" or "The Department Store", because they are almost certainly not trademarkable names: a competition could open right next door and call themselves "The Clothing Store" and the original store wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

You've never heard of The Container Store?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[blackraven14250]

...or the "The Clothing Center".

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

he said "obvious" not, "Shattered old relic from times long past and gone by."

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[PatPending]

Here are some Trademarks (some "live," some "dead) courtesy of http://tess2.uspto.gov/:
A APP PLACE (cue Grammar Nazi)
APPS FOR LIFE
AUTO APP MART
APPS LIB
SMARTAPP
THE LAST KILLER APP
SEX APP SHOP ("Yeah, Baby!")
PREMIER APP SHOP
AT&T APPCENTER
THERE'S AN APP FOR THAT
APP MASTERS
DOTAPP
APP WORLD
.APP etc.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[VortexCortex]

Huh? Department stores don't sell departments. And WTF is a toilet store?

You've never heard of The Container Store?

...or the "The Clothing Center".

... or "The Dump".

They sell what "Toilet Store" discards.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[m95lah]

- How can I help you, sir?

- I'd like one department of agriculture, please. And how much are the departments of foreign affairs?

- ???

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[Tharsman]

• App Shop
• App Market
• App Marketplace
• App Mall
• App Dealer
• Buy Apps
• App Boutique
• App Deli
• App Emporium
• App Outlet
• App Repository
• App Showroom,
• App Stand
• App Supershop

You can also try any of these replacing App with Soft, Software, Program, Executable (a bit geeky there) and any other App synonym you can think off.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[aliquis]

You can also try any of these replacing App with Soft, Software, Program, Executable (a bit geeky there) and any other App synonym you can think off.

Microsoft DRM'd 1's and 0's (optional: store.)

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[amliebsch]

What would be the obvious name for a store that sells apps?

A restaurant! And after my app, the entree!

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[93 Escort Wagon]

Huh? Department stores don't sell departments. And WTF is a toilet store?

Best Buy.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[NiceGeek]

You've honestly never heard the term "killer app"? It predates the iPhone by years.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[Hognoxious]

And "applet" has been around as long as java has.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[lxs]

Appothecary

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[Juanvaldes]

In addition to the other valid points others have mentioned over in the Mac side of the pond we do refer to applications as "apps". The file extension is even .app. Obviously its not exclusive people use lots of words depending upon their computing background and knowledge. executable, binary, app, application, etc...

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[catmistake]

Clothing store, department store, toilet store. What would be the obvious name for a store that sells apps?

"Package Manager"

Microsoft, and most of the posters here, are missing a few really clever things about the name.

Apple actually coined a new word: "App" – Steve Jobs made this clear when he introduced the App Store in his discussion of Applications vs. Apps. It's a marketing trick... obviously, both are computer programs of a sort... but applications run on your full computer, and apps are simpler, not full applications, but more like Apple's dashboard widgets. No one would confuse, say, Photoshop with a dashboard widget, yet all over here the Microsoft apologists are seeing Photoshop as a widget (in effect).

App is also an abreviation of "Apple." The name "App Store" is actually a double double entendre: App (for "app," not "application," also for "Apple"); and Store (for "storage," but of course, also, as in "market").

"App Store" is a brilliant but simple name... and it is not generic.

Again, the generic name for what "App Store" actually is would be Package Manager.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[catmistake]

You are confusing two distinct words, or, strictly speaking, an abbreviation with a new word. They are homonyms, "app." and "app" – Jobs made the distinction between applications and apps when he introduced the App Store. Basically, he coined a new word that day. Do you refer to your dashboard widgets, or the Windows gadgets as applications? They are computer programs, but simpler than something so grand and complex and powerful as an applicaiton. Yes... people have been abbreviating "application" to "apps" for ages in computer time. But the App Store is not a market for applications. Those are apps, not applications.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[sFurbo]

Wait, you're not a Poe? I saw your other reply in this thread and thought "Nobody would actually believe that argument, how subtle, and nearly believable, well played".

Just because somebody claims that something is one way doesn't make it true, "App Store" is clearly derived from expressions like "killer app", though I can understand why Jobs would want to make the counterargument (but not why anybody would see it as more than a conceited play on words).

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[Ponyegg]

Just three or four years ago nobody had ever called a software program an "app". That term is new and unique to the iPhone. Software was sold as "software", "programs", and sometimes "software applications", but I had never heard the term "app" before the iPhone.

Sorry but you're wrong there. As has been pointed out before, 'app' has been used as an abbreviation in the Warez/BBS/FXP scene for many years and then latterly has been adopted by the likes of Google & Apple. If you have never heard of this abbreviation before then I can only assume that you are young and are relatively new to the world of computers or associated tech-scenes.

Go read the old marketing for the Blackberry, for Windows CE, for Palm. None of them use the term "app". Just because the iPhone has such a dominant marketing position the term "app" has come to mean cell phone software.

You're probably right (I haven't checked), but then using slang/abbreviations in formal marketing literature is a bit of a no-no. Apple simply cottoned onto to their users being a bit more accepting of such abbreviations in everyday speak, it does not mean they 'invented' the word.

Micro"SOFT" sells software. It's not MicroApp, is it? Apple made a cute catchy term for it's programs. Let Microsoft try to do the same. I'm sure Microsoft marketing can come up with something catchy, like "There's an executable for that".

Putting aside that I don;t really understand your differentiation of 'app' and 'software' Apple didn't make, invent or create anything new in the use of this word, they have simply seized upon the terms use in the wider community in an attempt to build on their tech credentials by using a commonly and frequently used abbreviation. Arguably Google were using the word 'apps' before the 2007 introduction of the iphone or the 2008 introduction of the App Store. Google were referring to to 'Google Apps For Your Domain' in Aug 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Apps). Here's some more uses of it in the wild:

• appstore.com - owned by Salesforce.com since 2005 (originally registered sometime in 1998) until they sold it to Apple Inc in March 2009
• myapps.com - seems to have been created 1999
• myappstore.com - first created 2005

And that's with just 5mins searching. We can categorically show that Apple neither invented or created this phrase. Arguably they may well have popularised tit, but that's no reason for them to be able to trademark it.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[catmistake]

then widgets are applications? Photoshop is clearly a widget, yes? UNIX itself, merely a gadget? Yes, a clever play on words, and yet not a play on words. Language evolves. No one confuses a silly fart app with, say, Postgres. Jobs and Apple marketing coined a new word, app, obviously derived naturally from application, and yet distinct, and not, or at least no longer, an abbreviation. Also... it turns out its a distinct file format (of the bundle or package type, a special folder). Microsoft doesn't use it. They use .exe's. So ... what's wrong with the Microsoft ExeStore ? Yes, as I've stated in otter posts, the generic for App Store is package manager. Microsoft has no case. It's like they're saying "but WE wanted to call our product Kleenex!"

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[sFurbo]

I'm not arguing against (or for) Apple in this case, App Store might and might not be too generic for it to be a trade mark, and I certainly don't want to make that distinction. But to claim that app is a new word coined by Steve Jobs? The concept "killer app" easily pre-dates the App Store.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[catmistake]

Point I am trying to make with you that you have decided to reject... Apple's "apps" are new things. They are these little programs that run on iOS. Jobs even says, IIRC, "they're not applications... they're apps, right?" or something to that effect. Killer app, on the other hand, that's an abbreviation. Apple's apps are not an abbreviation, but a NEW word, with a meaning that is distinct from the meaning of the word application. There are words that are pronounced and spelled the same, but have different meanings, whether subtle or not, they are called homonyms. These are 2 different words, app, the abbreviation for software application, and app, the silly one trick pony programs that run on iOS. Now, I would argue that the new Apple word app could not be trademarked... but App Store absolutely can be, and should be.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[jo_ham]

People were calling software on OS X "apps" long before the iPhone existed, due to the extension for programs being .app

Mail is even called "mail app" by many people.

It was only natural that this was extended to the iPhone when it came out, although the program extension on the bundle for an iPhone app is no longer .app, the name stuck.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[sFurbo]

And this is exactly what I mean by conceited play on words: "they're not applications... they're apps, right?". No, wrong, they are applications that run on iOS. The definition of application doesn't say that it has to be not silly, or do more than one thing. As I said, I understand why Jobs would say that, but that doesn't make it true.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[nyctopterus]

I'm sure Microsoft marketing can come up with something catchy, like "There's an executable for that".

.Exe's are sexy.

Squirt your sexy .exe on my interface. ...I feel a bit sick now so I'll stop.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[itsdapead]

Like "The Sock Shop" (tm)?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[sonamchauhan]

You would be hard-pressed to find a place that's actually called "The Clothing Store" or "The Department Store", because they are almost certainly not trademarkable names: a competition could open right next door and call themselves "The Clothing Store" and the original store wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

You've never heard of The Container Store?

No. Do they sell Java applications?

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[pckl300]

I thought LIVE was trademarked too.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[delinear]

You can also try any of these replacing App with Soft

Soft Outlet sounds more like a stool loosener, though. Still, at least then the whole squirting thing starts to make sense.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[delinear]

If what you're saying is true, that makes any trademark claim even weaker as far as I can tell. The whole point of trademarks is that they are meant to prevent customer confusion, saying that there are things called "apps" that are like but different to "applications" and that this difference apparently rests wholly on the complexity of the code or the size of the program sounds like an incredibly confusing situation. If he really believed that, he should have chosen a name for this new categorisation of software that had no room for confusion with the existing, well established term application that has already been abbreviated to "app" for 20+ years.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[246o1]

You've repeated yourself dozens of times in this thread, and as far as I can tell, convinced no one that Apple invented the word "app."

No one is missing anything 'clever' about the name - it's convenient for Apple that app is the first syllable of apple, but your standards for clever seem to be out of whack. I am sure you could make a point, if you tried, in a way that was less thick-headed than asking everyone to believe that 'app' is a completely new word, and that we are all idiots who just don't understand the nuance of this brilliant, counter-intuitive, not-at-all-the-obvious-name-for-a-store-that-sells-apps, naming strategy Apple had.

They named it the App Store because that is the generic name for it, and they wanted to be the default. That's it.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[BlackSnake112]

I think you need to step away from the reality distortion field for a while.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[BlackSnake112]

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.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[catmistake]

ah... then UNIX is no different than a dashboard widget... and "Hello World" is also a software application. Yes, I can see where it gets confusing ;)

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[catmistake]

Yes, it does. It's called "coining a word," even if Apple is using "App" as a specific subset of a larger class of software programs. Let me remind you that "App Store" is the trademarked term, not "app." Apple is using App to describe something different and more specific than how the abbreviation has been used in the vernacular. Concerning Apple's iOS devices, "App" specifically refers to the little applications available in the App Store (which itself is an app... a package management app!). We usually refer to this sort of thing as "defining your terms." Apple defined their terms.

I can see you and the other responders here in your JrH algebra classes when your teacher says "let x equal the number" and you say "hey, you can call that number x, but x is a letter! Just because you say x is the number doesn't make it so!"

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[NotYours]

To quote Weird Al Yankovic's song White and Nerdy, "There's no killer app I haven't run" Lyrics . According to wikipedia this song was released September 26, 2006. This indicates to me the term app was commonly used more then three to four years ago as this song is filled with nothing but jokes related to nerds like "I'm fluent in Java Script as well as Klingon".

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[I8TheWorm]

I'm pretty sure toilet store was a reference to Anchorman.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[mcgrew]

There are grocery stroes, hardware stores, clothing stores, shoe stores, video stores. Department stores don't sell departments, of course (were you trying for "funny"?), but the store's departments are named after what they sell (clothing department, shoe department, etc).

I've never heard of a toilet store, but what kind of store would sell ONLY toilets? That's crazy. You buy a toilet at a plumbing supply store or a hardware store.

Seems to me you would buy iPhone apps from an Apple app store, and Android apps at an Android App Store.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[Jaxoreth]

No. Do they sell Java applications?

No, but they do sell jars.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[mcgrew]

You must be new to geekdom, because people have been calling applications "apps" for a lot longer than that. Apple just popularized the term "app" for the masses.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[mcgrew]

A horse is a four legged animal, but a four legged animal isn't necessarily a horse.

A widget is an app, but an app isn't necessarily a wiget.

Photoshop is an app, but not a widget. UNIX is an OS, not an app.

From wikipedia:

Application software, also known as an application or an "app", is computer software designed to help the user to perform singular or multiple related specific tasks. It helps to solve problems in the real world. Examples include enterprise software, accounting software, office suites, graphics software, and media players.

Application software is contrasted with system software and middleware, which manage and integrate a computer's capabilities, but typically do not directly apply them in the performance of tasks that benefit the user. A simple, if imperfect, analogy in the world of hardware would be the relationship of an electric light bulb (an application) to an electric power generation plant (a system). The power plant merely generates electricity, not itself of any real use until harnessed to an application like the electric light that performs a service that benefits the user.

The size of the app is meaningless. You may be confusing application with application suite.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[BasilBrush]

Seems to me you would buy iPhone apps from an Apple app store, and Android apps at an Android App Store.

But you don't. You buy Android apps at the "Android Market".

No one else in the mobile industry has used the name "App Store", which means it's free for Apple to have as a trademark.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[exomondo]

Apple actually coined a new word: "App"

No they didn't, there are MANY examples dating back to BBS days, but if you're convinced that apple coined the term then you're likely not familiar with events that far back though surely you'd be aware of Google Apps (back in 2006).

"App Store" is a brilliant but simple name... and it is not generic.

Oh yeah and Microsoft putting 'My' in front of everything because it signals ownership AND it's the first syllable of their company name (like app in apple) makes that brilliant too.

Re:Stores are often named for what they sell

[scot4875]

Except "store" has always meant "storage" -- the "general store" was a place where stuff was stored, and sold. Etymology failure on your part.

Here, I'm going to coin a new word: Apple. It means, "Overpriced piece of generic electronics with hideously expensive accessories." I don't care that the word has been in use to describe fruit, a recording company, and a computer manufacturing company; I say I coined a new word.

--Jeremy

iAppStore

[oldhack]

MS should trademark "iAppStore".

Re:iAppStore

[PatPending]

"iAppStore" is available. However two separate entries appear for "APPSTORE" -- both have status of "DEAD"
US Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

other on line shoping sites had software downloads

[Joe The Dragon]

other on line shopping sites had software downloads before apple had the app store.

'App' is actually short for 'Approved'..

[Anonymous Coward]

..in this case, as in: "All Your Apps are Approved By Steve", or UBOUGHTAPL-GOTSCREWD, for short.

Steve dont do Generic.

Re:'App' is actually short for 'Approved'..

[VortexCortex]

..in this case, as in: "All Your Apps are Approved By Steve",

Nope, the "App" in Apple's "App Store" doesn't stand for approval -- I can't purchase approval from Apple, fortunately Google's repository gives me the benefit of the doubt...

You are required to purchase approval from MS to distribute a 64 bit driver for their new OSs, so if "app" stands for approval, of course they're pissed off -- MS practically builds their entire product line around charging for approval.

(Know why you can't run a decent sever on MS Windows Home? You have to "upgrade" because MS added limits to the number of concurrent connections... Pro = permission to run servers.)

Re:'App' is actually short for 'Approved'..

[aliquis]

..in this case, as in: "All Your Apps are Approved By Steve", or UBOUGHTAPL-GOTSCREWD, for short.

Steve dont do Generic.

Fart sounding alarm clocks that actually work for instance after new years eve store?

Re:'App' is actually short for 'Approved'..

[PARENA]

Pssst, he said "Approved", not "Approval". ;)

What's Next?

[FrankDrebin]

Next thing MS will want the French version too: App Le Store.

Re:What's Next?

[phayes]

Try "l'App Store"...

Re:What's Next?

[p0]

Le App Store. /goes back to the ragecomics

Re:What's Next?

[crimperman]

whoosh

Re:What's Next?

[phayes]

Va péter plus loin, tu pues...

Re:What's Next?

[DaVince21]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHH

("Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING." Thanks, Slashdot. I totally didn't know that.)

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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...

[MotherErich]

Never thought I'd say this, but thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for Microsoft.

Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[znu]

If users call it the "Android App Store", it's precisely because Apple popularized the "App Store" terminology. It would have to be, because Google doesn't call it that. Google calls it the "Android Marketplace".

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[sortadan]

Cite your sources, mortal.

Isn't that why he links to the 2006 SalesForce press release? Apple's trademark application was in 2008...

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[Rockoon]

Cite your sources, mortal.

He did, basement boy.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

There is no Android App Store. Do you perhaps mean the Android Marketplace?

Even the first hit in Google calls it the market, as does the URL.

Android.com - Market
Android Market. This is a showcase for some of the featured and top ranked ... If you are a developer, learn about publishing your application here. ...
www.android.com/market/ - Cached - Similar

They even refer to applications with the full word...

Then there is the second hit in Google:

AppStoreHQ - iPhone, Android, and mobile web applications and ...
Latest iPhone, Android, and mobile web applications and reviews from blogs ...
www.appstorehq.com/

AppStoreHQ, which started and named after Apple's store, a couple years ago before Android existed.
They only added other platforms later, including other phones which existed before and during the time of iPhone.

The first mention of Android App Store is specifically by Amazon, which was only like a month or two ago, so clearly not original.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[syousef]

>

Back in 2006, when the iPhone was but a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye.

Way back as far as then huh? Way to make a not quite middle age yet guy feel OLD. Man, it must be time for my midlife crisis. Bring on the bimbo and the sports car.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[HeraldMage]

The Android App Store?? Since when? I've never heard it called that, at least officially, in any trade press, IT journals, etc. Android calls it (and always has) the Android Market. The Microsoft Zune has the Zune Marketplace. So I'm sorry but I don't see why Apple can't use App Store, especially when Microsoft gets to hold separate trademarks for Office, Word, Windows (note, the Microsoft and the other word each are separate trademarks).

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[BasilBrush]

Pretty sure Sales Force [programmableweb.com] came first.

Almost the same. "AppStore" rather than App Store.

But here's the thing, Sales Force DID trademark it, but it was listed as a dead patent by 2008, presumably because their "vision" didn't turn into something actual or successful. Also, before them Sage had the trademark in 2000, but that was listed as dead within the year.

Where's Apple's eligibility? Well they are the ones that applied to use a trademark which wasn't currently in use by anyone else. Same reason Sales Force could trademark it.

And what's this nonsense about not even the most famous use? Of course Apple's use of "App Store" is the most famous.

And the Android thing is "Android Marketplace", not app store. Even if it was App Store, how the hell would that mean Google would get the trademark rather than Apple, given that Apple's App Store was already open when Android's marketplace came along. You're talking complete shit.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[ColdWetDog]

That was AppStore not App Store. Different enough for trademark work? Perhaps.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[paimin]

You Android fanboys are cute. The first thing that comes to mind for most people is the Android App Store???? L O fucking L.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[jo_ham]

He cited one source not "many" as he claims were in use.

The OP asked for sourceS with an s on the end.

Either way, it looks like that store (with no space between the words) did come first, but I would argue it is considerably less famous (he claimed "if they didn't have exclusive use or even most famous use") - this is certainly the first I have heard of this sales force store. They seem to have different markets too, which doesn't necessarily mean they infringe on each other.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[bloodhawk]

That is actually false, more people run Android now than IOS, Android passed iOS userbase late last year.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[Theaetetus]

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?

Really, you're claiming that salesforce.com (who?) has the "most famous use" in commerce of "App store"?

I'd say Apple has a good argument for rights in "App Store" already under Lanham sec. 43(a).

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.

[citation needed]

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[UnknowingFool]

It is partly what these other stores were called formally. If they were not called App Store (which they were not), then Apple can claim first usage. That is what a Trademark(TM) is for. If Bob Be names his new fangled operating system BeOS, I'm pretty sure someone may have a problem with that name. That and Bob as an OS name. BobBeOS is fair game.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[E IS mC(Square)]

Would you just go away? Reality and facts are too much for you to take? iOS has been overtaken by Android already. Come out, there is a bright brave new world out there in real life. No, actually, just stay in your cave and make sure Steve gets his blowjob on time.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[mysidia]

You Android fanboys are cute. The first thing that comes to mind for most people is the Android App Store???? L O fucking L.

No... the first thing that comes to mind is the store that sells "Apps".

Probably a button on their phone or computer labelled App Store, which is but a navigational command.

It should probably be noted that the "App Store" is an exclusive product, as in Apple's App Store is only for iPhone users. And the only place iPhone users can get apps is Apple's app store

Google's App store is only for Android users, etc.

The "App store" is so strongly bound to the platform, and the platform so bound to a specific App store, that there is no consumer choice, and therefore, no potential for customer confusion; specifically, it is not as if users of an iPhone could be confused into visiting another App store besides Apple's.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[I8TheWorm]

Except it's actually called "Market" on Android.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[vakuona]

Too many people are stating that as fact, but I think you might be wrong. Remember, iOS is found in iPhone, iPod Touches, iPads and Apple TV. On phone, you might be correct, but in general, iOS is probably still ahead.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[jittles]

Verizon calls it the "Android App Store" in some of the Droid and Droid X commercials.

I don't know who to pull for.

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[TD-Linux]

It's like watching zombies and vampires fight. No matter who loses, I cheer.

No matter who loses, I run.

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[Funnnny]

No matter who loses, we will have a new generation of zombie, the one who fly and drink blood, but never die omg

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[LordLucless]

You should cheer for whichever is right, regardless of who you love/hate. To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent.

In this case, cheer for Microsoft.

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[forsey]

I was about to insult your analogy because Zombies are totally not an equal to Vampires... then I thought about the properties of each...

Vampire (Apple)
- sexy
- intelligent
- chrismatic
- thinks nothing of charming you only to suck you dry of blood/money

Zombies (Microsoft)
- slow
- stupid
- flakey
- only has power in numbers

Further evidence for the Microsoft zombie theory can be found during the Windows Mobile 7 release party.

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[I8TheWorm]

Care to elaborate?

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[Lord Kano]

I'd go a step further by saying that Linux flavors accurately represent vampire clans, although a lot of them could be Nosferatu. Leaving the operating system set will generally result in death from exposure to sunlight, a severe intolerance for running water and religion, and enslaving other mortals, specifically parents, to their means.

I think that would make Red Hat Ventrue. Debian is Gangrel. Ubuntu is Toreador. I'm not sure who would represent my favorite clan though.

LK

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[Lord Kano]

You should cheer for whichever is right, regardless of who you love/hate. To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent.

In this case, cheer for Microsoft.

I don't think that either is right. Apple is attempting to misuse trademark law and Microsoft is attempting to embrace, extend and extinguish. I wish it were possible for them to both lose this.

LK

Re:I don't know who to pull for.

[LordLucless]

I don't know how you can say that in this case. Apple's misusing trademark law, and MS is calling them on it. I don't even know how "embrace, extend and extinguish" can be applied to trademark law. It's not like Microsoft is trying to inter-operate with Apple's trademark, extend the standard, then come to dominate it when it's proprietary trademark-extension become widespread.

I'm no Microsoft fanboy - I'll happily cheer as they get swirled down the toilet of obscurity. But in this particular case, they're on the right side. For reasons of their own, which I doubt are altruistic, but still the right side.

To be fair

[Andy Smith]

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.

Re:To be fair

[jcl-xen0n]

Bizarrely, my (tech-illiterate) father thought the "app" part was a contraction of "Apple" and kept referring to it as the Apple Store (I guess he'd never been into a B&M Apple Store location...)

Re:To be fair

[VortexCortex]

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.

That's funny... When I hear "app store" i think: $_ =~ s/app(lication)? store/repository/;

I've been using software repositories with Unix and Linux long before Apple decided to put a repo on a phone.

Point being: I guess association depends on what name it was introduced to you as, and on what device/platform when you first encountered the idea of software repositories.

'cmon, we all know Apple is trademark happy -- snapping up all i*, and *pod names, including established names like podcast -- No, I don't think trademarking generic terms, or terms that are already established is acceptable. Let them have "Apple App Store", doesn't roll off the tongue, but in commercials they can just say, "our app store".

Making a joke of the Trademark system?
Apple's got crap for that.

Re:To be fair

[klui]

After all, OS X introduced the .app extension. Microsoft's store should be called Exe Store.

Re:To be fair

[Andy Smith]

"Apple is trademark happy -- snapping up all i*, and *pod names, including established names like podcast "

Isn't podcast derived from iPod? A downloadable broadcast that people listen to on their iPod. That would give Apple a good claim to the term.

Re:To be fair

[jamesh]

when I hear "app store", I think of Apple

I actually thought that they might just have been having a bit of a play on words, with "app" also being the first 3 letters of "apple".

Re:To be fair

[Xarius]

podcast is a pretty stupid word itself. I'm not sure what a "downloabable broadcast" is at all (sounds like an oxymoron but I may be wrong.)

A podcast is simply and audio file download as far as I can tell...

Re:To be fair

[gnasher719]

I actually thought that they might just have been having a bit of a play on words, with "app" also being the first 3 letters of "apple".

"app" is a shortcut for application, it is a new name for small applications, heavily used by Apple in its advertisements, it is a shortcut for "Apple", making clear where the app comes from, and it is a shortcut for "approved" telling the customer they can expect quality. It is quite clever on multiple levels.

Microsoft is free to call a store "exestore" or "micstore" or "softstore". They can start a marketing campaign for their Windows phones "there is a soft for that" and put the word into everyone's mind. They have lots of very well-paid marketing people who surely should come up with something more clever than I do in two minutes.

But if we ask ourselves: Why does Microsoft want this name to be judged as "generic"? Because they want to use it. There are tons of generic names the could use. "Software source" - the source where all your applications come from. "Software Store". "Program Store". "Software Distribution Centre". I bet Apple can, with a bit of hard work, come up with a list of fifty generic names that you could use. But they want to use "App Store". I'd say the fact alone that they want to use "App Store" out of all these names proves that the name is _not_ generic.

Re:To be fair

[imakemusic]

A podcast is simply and audio file download as far as I can tell...

Yes, usually with some kind of XML file in order to automate the download of new items.

Re:To be fair

[Stele]

That's funny... When I hear "app store" i think: $_ =~ s/app(lication)? store/repository/;

I can't even imagine what you think when you hear "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."

Re:To be fair

[E IS mC(Square)]

To be fair, whenever I hear douchebag, I think of Apple. Funny world, isn't it?

Re:To be fair

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

Maybe, but you're not going to click on an 'App Store' icon on a Microsoft phone and think you're going to Apple's app store.

Re:To be fair

[shadowrat]

I'm an Apple fan and ios developer, and i think MS has a strong case here. The word app has been in use for a long time, in fact, the best prior art i can think of comes from MS' own asp.net which constantly refers to web applications, which developers always seemed to shorten to web app. in the late 90's we were always talking about web apps. Apple didn't invent the word. They could call it the Apple App Store, or the iOS App Store and own that combination, but just App Store is awful generic.

Re:To be fair

[I8TheWorm]

Only if people didn't listen to podcasts through their browser, or podcast apps on the desktop, or on their Androids, or on their Blackberries....

Not to worry though, I'm trying to beat Jobs to the iDouchebag trademark. That'll show him!

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[node 3]

Funny thing is it's never Apple or Apple fans that make this claim, just Apple detractors.

Re:The exe store

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you bought that idea at the Toilet Store!

Applications

[ian_from_brisbane]

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'.

Re:Applications

[KarlIsNotMyName]

I used to name one of my partitions "Apps". Mainly because "Applications" didn't fit.

Re:Applications

[VortexCortex]

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'.

Say what? Depends on what you mean by "common" and "folk". The folk I associate with commonly use "app" to mean "application". Eg: "This web app seems slow", and have done so long before Apple began selling phones.

Is Apple just trademarking common words like "podcast" and "app" to make up for some type of insecurity?
Is it tacked on like Kongie's Dong?

Re:Applications

[aussie_a]

I've seen quite a few web apps over the years. Long before the iPhone was invented.

Re:Applications

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

What does "app" even mean?
We're talking about small software programs, right?
Minature Software... Micro Software... Micro Soft...
Micro Soft Store!
No?

Re:Applications

[Noughmad]

I have a folder called /usr/share/apps. Windows has %APPDATA% or something like that.

Re:Applications

[Overzeetop]

No no no. You should have named it My Apps. That's SO much more descriptive.

Sorry, I didn't mean that outburst. It's a sore spot for an old guy who used to have everything neatly organized on his hard drive: /files /programs /temp (yes, I made them plural - almost as bad as "my", but it was my idea so I liked it :-P)

Re:Applications

[ian_from_brisbane]

I used to name one of my partitions "Apps". Mainly because "Applications" didn't fit.

Thanks for helping make my point. Anyone that has partitioning, and knows how to rename one, isn't 'commonfolk'. You know who I mean, I'm talking about the sheep.

Re:Applications

[ian_from_brisbane]

The folk I associate with commonly use "app" to mean "application".

Exactly. A small subset of the population that associates with a slashdotter.

Re:Applications

[youn]

same here... I didn't have a partition but a folder called apps where I put all the apps, even windows came with program files because I did not want to have to deal with paths such as progra~1 . I am sure many people are in this case or something similar

Re:Applications

[east coast]

My over-60 mother who's an admitted (and proud) technophobe knows what an "app" is. I sense a little hyperhole in your post.

Re:Applications

[exomondo]

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'.

Whether it was used by commonfolk doesn't matter, in terms of trademarks what matters is context - whether it's a common term to the majority of people in the world doesn't matter. And in this case the context is computing devices, so in looking at people familiar with computing devices the vast majority would confirm that 'App' is a shortening of 'Application'. Like back in the days of DOS when file/directory names were limited to 8 characters, Applications wouldn't fit so the logical choice was Apps.

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[Tharsman]

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.

Re:Laughable

[Your.Master]

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.

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Apple fans have their mouth too full of Steve Jobs' cock to say much. :)

I suppose that next they will claim a trademark on

[amliebsch]

"OS"

Re:Program Files Store

[93 Escort Wagon]

Too confusing. Make it "My Program Files Store" and it's a deal, though.

I prefer C:\PROGRA~1\STORE

Microsoft just needs a new name

[PolygamousRanchKid]

How about Kwik-E-Mart? Sounds like an App Store to me . . .

Re:Microsoft just needs a new name

[VortexCortex]

How about Kwik-E-Mart? Sounds like an App Store to me . . .

Nah, the "Let's stick an E in front" phase is out -- Instead of e-mail, e-sign, e-tcetera, we're i-prefix happy.

Perhaps iMart, iStore, iTcetera.

The problem is that MS has already tried to combine both prefixes, much to the chagrin of the entire web developer community -- I dare not speak its name aloud.

Re:Microsoft just needs a new name

[sFurbo]

And, of course, the logical progression is the o-prefix, followed by u-prefix. The y-prefix will only be used sometimes. Hey, the engineers are ahead of the curve, what with their o-rings.

Microsoft may already have lost

[greenreaper]

The very next story demonstrates this trademark in action.

Re:genericity

[Loki P]

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 got this...

[D-OveRMinD]

I'm gonna go ahead and trademark a porn hub for mobile phones called the "Fap Store."

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[Graff]

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.

App

[supapean]

App- Isnt short for APPle?

Ctrl-Alt-Del Store (TM)

[PatPending]

I'm shocked--shocked!--no one had already suggested this.

Re:Ctrl-Alt-Del Store (TM)

[Necroloth]

I see you're not aware of Ctrl-Alt-Del webcomic who have a store here

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[RobertM1968]

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.

Base

[javalizard]

All your app store are belong to us!

Re:genericity

[digitig]

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?

And Windows is not a generic term ?

[doperative]

'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...

[RichiH]

> if judgements are consistent

I know you were joking, but you still made me laugh.

yeah

[unity100]

this is not the first time the psychos at apple attempted to claim ownership of a word.

cut crappy rationalizations

[unity100]

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.

Re:cut crappy rationalizations

[bloodhawk]

early stages of the web in early 2000's??? WTF. I was using a browser on the web in the early 90's and it wasn't new when I started. App has its origins as an abrieviation for application from back in the 80's.

Re:cut crappy rationalizations

[unity100]

some people are trying to sell the patent as 'in-web context'.

Re:cut crappy rationalizations

[vakuona]

Now try writing a browser called Internet Explorer.

Groklaw: "Microsoft has no shame"

[walterbyrd]

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/

Trademark? A word mark, I hope.

[Opportunist]

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.

I call prior art...

[itsdapead]

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!

Who works at those Patent places?

[houbou]

App Store is pretty generic, you would think the Parent Office would deny Apple just because its the right thing to do...

Re:Who works at those Patent places?

[sessamoid]

App Store is pretty generic, you would think the Parent Office would deny Apple just because its the right thing to do...

If it's so generic, I'm sure you'll have no problem citing at least 100 cases where "App Store" was used by a company to denote a mobile program repository, right?

I'm surprised...

[OSDever]

I'm honestly a bit surprised. Something like "Application Marketplace" seems more like a Microsoft-ish name.

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[delinear]

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.

"Applications" vs "Programs"

[teri1337]

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.

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[E IS mC(Square)]

That's because Apple 'fans' ignore the facts?

It's only fair. Apple is touting TM nonsense.

[mschaffer]

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!

Name Suggestions?

[JoeCommodore]

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?

Re:Name Suggestions?

[JoeCommodore]

One more:
- ExeCenter

Re:Name Suggestions?

[DontBlameCanada]

Cash n' Crash!

Re:Name Suggestions?

[BillX]

Nuts, someone already suggested the Ctrl-Alt-Delete store.

Let me ask...

[mschaffer]

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...

[mschaffer]

What about "L'App Store". Makes it more defensible---because it's like French or something.

It's not about company usage...

[mschaffer]

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.

to google: (from the OED)

[mschaffer]

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)

Re:Then again,

[WWWWolf]

You could give your store a name that makes no sense.

"Synaptic" is not the name of the app store. It's the name of the GUI for APT. And APT isn't the name of the app store either; it stands for Advanced Package Tool.

The real name of the app store? *drum roll* "package repository" that contains the "packages" that make up the "distribution".. Note the conspicuous lack of capitalisation and trademark symbols. Note the fact that no one demands you to use just Debian's (or Ubuntu's, or whoever's) repository; you can add more yourself or even start your own.

Steve Jobs used it generically

[recoiledsnake]

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.

llp

[llprice]

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.

Amiga Apps; back from the 90's.

[vortexau]

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.

Re:other on line shoping sites had software downlo

[DaVince21]

Because making something "new" doesn't have to be important to run a company. Point in case: Apple, who does it by reputation only.

Re:Program Files Store

[DaVince21]

"My Documents Store", where you buy back from MS what was rightfully yours.

Hypocrisy Much?

[Celestialwolf]

This from the company that has thousands upon thousands of useless and ambiguous patents of their own...

Wasn't sexy enough?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

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=