Slashdot Mirror
If App Store's Trademark Is Generic, So Is Windows'
Toe, The writes "In response to Microsoft's attempt to dismiss Apple's 'App Store' trademark application, Apple references Microsoft's claim to the Windows trademark. 'Having itself faced a decades-long genericness challenge to its claimed WINDOWS mark, Microsoft should be well aware that the focus in evaluating genericness is on the mark as a whole and requires a fact-intensive assessment of the primary significance of the term to a substantial majority of the relevant public.'"
Bill Gates doesn't work at Microsoft anymore
That's not Bill Gates, that's Woody Allen. But you're right, he never worked there.
It *is* generic because I was using the term well before Apple. In fact I was using it in a PC environment. At my job, which is a fairly large government agency, if we wanted to install software on our computers then we were told to "look in the appilcation store" to see if it had been approved. If it was then we could "order" the app and it would either automatically install at boot, install pending license validation, or hold for technician assistance. And often times amoung the more savy folks it would just be called the app store.
So suck it Apple.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
It's time for you to learn a lesson: it's not a copyright issue, but a trademark one.
This isn't about copyrights, this is about trademarks.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Copyright != Trademark
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Apple would be better off referencing Microsoft's claim on 'SQL Server'.
This isn't about copyright. It's about trademarks.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Windows, in its literal meaning, implies a hole in the wall, often filled with glass, for the purpose of providing visual penetration or airflow.
Windows, in its secondary meaning, refers to an operating system written by Microsoft.
"App Store" has no secondary meaning as far as I can see, as its literal and "secondary" meanings are identical.
Now, losing a trademark on grounds of genericness, aka "being adopted by webster", is something else.
For examples, I see "xerox" and "google" in danger in this way.
MS doesn't need Windows trademark, since noone would like to use it anyway due to its bad reputation. If they had a chance, they'd drop that trademark and start from over.
i'm in my after work haze right now so the article posted makes jack for shit to me however windows is a brand name i believe they have more right to keep others from using it when related to computers than the term app store, app store is short for application store. that's like having a trademark for hardware store. it is a description not a unique name. windows isn't a description however it is the name they are using for their company. hasn't apple had similar problems with the beatles record label? also i feel that this article is overly descriptive in an attempt to make it sound relevant while in reality it is two children bickering at the corporate scale.
How far of a leap is it to say that application is just a longer form of app so it's also covered under trademark. No more application developers unless you want to be sued. I know it's a stretch but application was really the first word that popped in my head when i read app. not the brand Apple.
You get a generic trademark when a product or service has become so ubiquitous in the field that the mark's name comes to represent the field rather than a specific company's product. (For example, escalators, or zippers, or Pilates.) I don't think Apple's argument that Windows is generic really flies very well. When the word "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" are said, it creates a very clear image of what is being discussed - specifically, Microsoft's own operating system. However, when you say the word "App Store", I think that conjures up images of just about any sort of app stores that we have nowadays - Palm's, Blackberry's, Windows Phone's Android's, etc. Even though none of the other companies precisely use the term "App Store" in their product's name, the mark itself immediately conjures up the entire field instead of Apple's specific App Store service.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
"App Store" by itself is inherently generic. It literally just means "place where apps are sold." Trademarking it is as ridiculous as trademarking "shoe store" or "electronics store." Windows, used in the context of a computer product, is not generic. Rather, it's a specific, well-known product.
I have a hard time seeing how "Windows" is generic. Had Microsoft chosen another word or phrase for their operating system, I don't think I would associate the word "windows" with computers or software. At this point, I think that when someone hears the term "windows" with reference to computers, they immediately recognize it as a computer program, and that "windows" indicates the product comes from Microsoft and no other source.
AFAIK, Microsoft got rejected when they tried to register "Windows" as a trademark and went for "MS Windows" and "Microsoft Windows" which both are valid trademarks.
Apple had trouble with it's name as Apple was used by a record company before... They got through it by agreeing to not sell music... Untile they started iTunes and the whole issue came back...
"App Store" by itself is a généric name and should not be copyrightable (same for App Market and so on). But Apple can trademark "iTunes" and "Apple App Store" if they want...
But they'll have trouble enforcing the "App Store" trademark...
That's stupid. "Windows" may well be generic, but it's a very different situation from "App Store". What does the App Store do? It sells licenses to executables (and implements an infrastructure to that end). Those executables can be referred to by a very small set of words: application, program; others are overly specific (tool, utility, game) or overly technical (executable, binary). The place where one sells things can also be referred to by only a few words: market, store, shop (and those names for physical places are routinely metaphorically extended to refer to virtual places).
What I'm saying is that the name "App Store" is a fairly accurate description of what the App Store is. It's a natural name for it in the same manner that Red Truck is a natural name for certain kinds of large red vehicles. What's more, it's one of a fairly small set of accurate short names for such things.
So what about "Windows"? Certainly, the graphical user interface objects you often deal with are also windows. But what does Windows do? Well, it's an operating system, etc. etc. It does not do windows, though, neither is it a window or windows. Maybe it's a windows operating system, a compound noun similar to app store? I guess that'd be a fairly daft (or, possibly, creative) way of referring to an operating system that contains a GUI: in which case it'd be acceptable to refer to OS X as a windows operating system. Doesn't work very well.
So maybe the Windows trademark is generic since it's derived from a prominent/visible constituent object. But unlike app store, the trademarked name doesn't describe the whole thing. Instead it's is a case of metonomy, arguably a more creative process than compounding two very salient concepts.
Why yes, I am a linguist. Which I guess makes me quite unqualified to participate in a legal discussion. But sometimes it's fun to talk about these things as if they were bound to reason.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
We, the geeks, know that there is only One True Windows System. :)
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
BadAnalogyGuy, is that you? Because you say that "truth in advertising" should teach them a lesson about copyright in a trademark case?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Try a search for +"app store" -apple. Everyone understands the term in a generic sense to refer to an online store where software applications are sold.
Meanwhile, nowhere talks of "Windows for Macs" when talking about OS X, or "Windows for Unix" when talking about X Window.
The term "application" was used to refer to software package on Acorn 32-bit computers since the late '80s. The app directory/folder would start with an exclamation mark/pling (!) to indicate that it wasn't just a regular directory. comp.sys.acorn.apps has existed since as long as I can remember - it was popular back in 1995.
Arn't trademarks contextualised, too?
So "App Store" in the context is selling applications IS generic.
But "Windows" in the context of an operating system clearly isn't generic.
Apple would have a point only if Microsoft had called their OS "Operating System". Calling their OS "Windows" after a major element of the GUI is more like trademarking a car "Engine" or "Trunk".
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Did anyone really use 'App Store' in everyday language before the one on the iPhone? Someone says that they used it internally in their company, but I'd suggest that this was the exception - it was not an everyday term.
I'm not being pro-Apple here, but their case is actually stronger than the case for 'Windows'. Maybe they're both bad, but Apple's is still stronger. I certainly referred to 'X Windows' (however incorrect that may be!) before I ever saw Microsoft Windows, so is just 'Windows' a valid trademark?
So people may or may not think that 'app store' is something they said before the iPhone, but the majority of people definitely didn't use it. Also, while I guess it's more likely that people might combine 'app' with the word 'store' in the US, that would never be a natural thing to say in the rest of the world. For example, you'd say 'shop' in the UK, not 'store'. Perhaps 'App Store' is actually far less generic in most of the world than 'Windows' is? Apple should perhaps try to register the trademark in the UK - they'd get far less grief.
No, BadAnalogyGuy is a promising Mensa compared to commodore6502
Let me get this right: According to Apple, "Windows" is a generic term but "Apple" is not?
Windows tried to sue Lindows for violation of their trademark, but the court said that Windows was a generic term and the trademark only were valid for "Microsoft Windows". So, yes! Windows is generic, but I guess that was not their only defense....
Nonsense, when you say "windows" in the OS context, you always mean Microsoft Windows. The term has not become generic, that would mean that people use "windows" to refer to OS that is not in fact Microsoft Windows. On the other hand, you could easily say "app store" and mean the android application repository. The term has not even become generic, it has always been generic. It never exclusively referred to Apple app store.
Please? There's a reason why you can't place a trademark on normal everyday words as "intellectual property".
I am officially gone from
Wahhh,Wahhhh,wA...wa....WAHHHHHHHH!
Big Baby.
Apple is a fruit or a Trade Mark ?
They lost in the English speaking world, shopped around until in Finland, they won (because those glass holes in walls you look through aren't called windows in finland).
At that point, Lindows sold their name to Microsoft and changed to Linspire because MS could have sued in Finnish courts and since they don't make much money off it, it would cost them their company to continue. Since prosecution would cost Microsoft some pocket change, they used it to buy the trademark and end it.
My vendor had no problem just using a different name for their store and don't have a problem with people finding it. They call their store "Warez"
The huge difference is that Microsoft doesn't actually sell actual windows, they sell software. Just like Apple doesn't actually sell apples they sell computers. An App Store sells apps...that's the difference here. If Windows were the brand of actual windows it wouldn't be a trademark because it would be too generic. This is really a really stupid argument.
With trademarks we get such great company, product, and website names as (compiled from the web):
Doostang, Twubs, Ftags, Blews, Opodo, Putacart, Plurk, Flickr, Cuil, Awind, Twitter, Flizo, Fluidux, Exaact, Galxz, Linqto, Tilili, or E-On
This alone should be reason enough to stop this idiotic legislation and get rid of trademarks altogether. Seriously, please stop this madness! These name abominations hurt everyone's eyes and ears.
It all comes down to use of the word, not about if a word can be used or not. Apple can not name a PRODUCT "Windows", yet it can use the term "windows" when talking about a GUI element. On the flip side, an "Application Store", or "App Store" should be seen as a generic term for anywhere you can buy applications. There is no real competition here, since the APPLE App store does not offer products for other platforms, the Android "app store" would be for Android devices, etc. App store is really a convenient label, so it shouldn't be something that can be trademarked...the next thing you know, they might try to trademark the name "store".
We are also not talking about a product that is sold here, or a company name. The Apple App store is there as a supporting element of Apple products, in the same way that any other "non-competing" app store for other platforms is there to support that given platform. Is there anything really unique about the Apple App Store since no competing sources of applications are even allowed on the iDevices?
How far of a leap is it to say that application is just a longer form of app so it's also covered under trademark.
Surely Apple would object to other shortened forms of "application" as well. Can you imagine an "appl store"?
Why? It states EXACTLY what is in the article:
"Having itself faced a decades-long genericness challenge to its claimed WINDOWS mark, Microsoft should be well aware that the focus in evaluating genericness is on the mark as a whole and requires a fact-intensive assessment of the primary significance of the term to a substantial majority of the relevant public," says Apple in the filing. "Yet, Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole."
Reading is fundamental.....
And....Oh Snap!
"Windows" makes sense as a trademark for an OPERATING SYSTEM because it is not particularly generic or obvious; yes, modern GUIs have "windows," and if they were trying to enforce that term outside the boundaries of OS names, it would be more problematic, but it's not the same as "App Store".
The functional trademark equivalent of "App Store" for an OS would be trademarking the phrase "Operating System".
Apple should lose.
I have a Macbook Pro, an iPod, an iPad, and 5 PCs.
Apple. You hardly can get more generic than that.
omg! of course it's copyrighted by apple. ... ... so every app developer should pay 30% to apple! ;-)
everybody knows "app" comes from "apple".
as in apple store -> app store
So suck it!
Their mark applies to
. In other words, it only applies to the "boxed product". I can still tell you that "Apache Derby is an SQL Server" because I am referring to a downloadable program, not a saleable functional complete product with manuals.
I think this shows you why lawyers and patent agents get paid according to the amount of weasel in their heredity. Clearly someone at Microsoft demanded that SQL Server get trademarked, and the scope got narrowed and narrowed until at last the USPTO rolled over.
Me, I always refer to it as "Microsoft ess queue el server 2008" because i won't play those silly games. As for people who call it "sequel", they need to get off my (IBM-coloured) lawn, because I can remember SEQL!
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
How far of a leap is it to say that application is just a longer form of app so it's also covered under trademark. No more application developers unless you want to be sued.
A huge leap. Their trademark isn't on "App" or "Application", but on "App Store", and only in that specific field.
"Application" is the only thing that has ever popped into my head when i have heard "App".
That is why I say my idea for a MSFT icon would be much more appropriate: Picture Ballmer sticking his tongue out with an "I Heart Apple!" beanie on. In one stroke you've captured Ballmer's undignified CEO style and MSFT's "Me too!" attitude that seems to be the SOP since Ballmer took the reins, see Zune and Kin for examples.
As for TFA, give me a break. MSFT doesn't own Windows they own "Microsoft Windows" same as Apple should be allowed to own the "Apple App Store" but not the word app which is simply application shortened. Hell it isn't even like an app store is a new idea, as Linux had Click N' Run for ages. If Apple wants to claim Apple App Store fine and dandy, but app? Give me a break!
And before someone brings up the Lindows case let me point out that Lindows was putting out a Linux distro that was aping the Windows UI while calling itself a name close enough your average Joe could have been confused if he saw it at the Best Buy. In that one you had a company that was basing their business on confusion with another product, on this you have a concept that has been around forever. Just because you call an application an "app" doesn't magically change it into anything but just another application, sorry Apple.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Apples have been around longer than windows. So Apple should have to give up all it's Apple trademarks too, right?
Actually until 30 seconds ago, I thought App=Application(as I well should), not apple.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
If you create a program called Bindows, you're infringing. If you create a program called X Windows you're infringing. windows are generic. A window on the mind of the artist. A window on the past. A window into the future. Not actual windows. But a view onto something else.
Just like your application is a view on the data within it.
and here I thought the term App Store is short for Apple Store
Or commodore64_love, or any of his other accounts. Starting to think he's the new twitter. Although at least he was moderately entertaining. This tool's just stupid.
Since metonomy neither is nor does metonymy, though probably could be a perfunctory version of the it in question, you might probably be able to do a trademark thing on it.
Why yes, I am a spherical being. Though I have no idea what these words mean.
That is the sound that lawyers make when they read the latest news out of Apple and Microsoft. These two companies are quickly transforming from technology companies to lawsuit companies.
Hey you IDIOTS, why don't you all get back to inventing shit instead of suing anyone and everyone who compete with you?
people who live in "glass houses" shouldn't throw stones... you may get what you wish for in your challenge to Apple's trademark, but lose the trademark for "Windows" when someone else challenges you using the exact same point of law... we all know you run to settle when losing, but how long can you keep settling?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Microsoft would win a lot more if they would focus their criticism on what a huge, customer locking, proprietary, collection of garbage the App Store is rather than the trademark.
Apple would probably gain a bit more if they did not run a forever campaign that identifies the concept of PC with Windows as if Linux, Unix, BSD, Solaris (I do know that Mac is some sort of BSD descendant, and that BSD, Linux and Solaris have a lot of commonalities with Unix as well, just in case someone was wondering). It almost seems as their trying to help Microsoft be the only other option in everybody's mind.
Then everything falls neatly in place!
It's not called X Windows System, you're the freetards, you should be the ones saying it right.
The only issue at hand is whether or not "app store" is a generic phrase. Microsoft claims yes. Apple claims no.
It's more generic than "Windows." If Microsoft named their product "MIcrosoft Operating System," they probably wouldn't have much chance of getting a trademark either. Despite that "Windows" is a generic word, it's certainly not normally used to represent operating systems.
How is it more generic than Windows? Despite the existence of app marketplaces such as Steam before it, that term "App Store" was not in the public existence. Apple created their App Store and started marketing it as such, where nobody else did with a similiar name beforehand. They're legally in the right for this one.
Technically Microsoft doesn't own the trademark on "Windows", they own "Microsoft Windows". The "Microsoft" bit makes it non-generic. Apple could theoretically call their next OS "Apple Windows", though depending on the judge's opinion they might still be successfully sued.
I agree Apple shouldn't be able to trademark "App Store" only "Apple App Store". It quite ballsy of them to even try to trademark "App Store". "Apple Inc." is about the most generic name for a corporation I can think of. It's like they are a moving company trying to make sure their listing is first in the phone book. Maybe the successful shortening of their name from "Apple Computer Inc." to "Apple Inc." has emboldened them.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
I'm not saying it's not trademarkable. I'm saying it's more generic than Windows. Both the words "app" and "store" have pretty well established meaning. Combining the two words and saying nobody ever called it quite that before is not as unique as naming your whole product after a single UI convention.
If "Apple Inc" is the most generic name for a corporation you can think of, then you must not do a lot of thinking.
That's silly logic. I've heard the term "Hot Jobs" used before Hotjobs.com took it, but that's still a good trademark.
Facebook is a pretty generic name, I had a physical facebook in college, but it's a valid trademark today.
I'm not talking about mashing up words or finding new applications of terms. Where do you buy tools? At the hardware store. Where do you buy groceries? At the grocery store. Where do you buy apps? At the app store.
For Apple to successfully defend their trademark, they really need a trademark on "App." Without that, anyone using "app store" (lowercase) to refer to their app markets should be left alone.
~whoosh~
no its not. or at least microsoft dont sue people who say window manager
No they don't. Apple isn't arguing they have a trademark on "App." Hence the existence of App World, App Market, App Bodega (yeah that's a real one), etc. by competitors.
By your reasoning, Apple's new combination of terms in the marketplace is associated with Apple by the public and thus is trademarkable.
How come nobody has compared this to Heinz yet? They didn't invent Ketchup itself.
Where did I reason that apple's combination of terms is associated with Apple by the public?
No, Microsoft does have a trademark on "Windows".
I meant in the legal sense. My great grandfather owned a company called "Standard Electrical Company", that's pretty generic, but not so generic that he was having legal difficulties from "Standard Oil". Had his company just been called "Standard Inc.", a much better case could be made that it would be legally generic. Apple Inc. is the same way. Is it Apple Computer, Apple Records, Apple Hauling and Waste Disposal? There is legal precedent for generic names, but it tilts the playing field toward large businesses, which I'm uncomfortable with.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Aren't you getting tired of sucking MS penis by now?
It would help to have a bit of trademark law primer to understand the issue here. A "trademark" is a "mark" (a name or graphic, etc.) that is used in commerce to identify the source of a product. There are five types of marks: fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic.
A fanciful mark is one that has no prior meaning, and thus usually is a made-up word. (e.g. Kodak, Verizon, Slashdot)
An arbitrary mark is a word with existing meaning but is arbitrarily connected to the product which it labels. So therefore "Apple" is arbitrary when it is used to describe a manufacturer of computers, but not when used to describe an apple farmer.
A suggestive mark is one that *suggests* a quality or feature of the product, but does not describe it directly. Courts usually describe such a mark as requiring a "step of imagination" to get from the mark to the product. Examples include "Coppertone" for suntanning lotion, or "Playboy," or "Home Depot," or "SourceForge."
A descriptive mark is one that directly describes a quality or feature of the product: "International Business Machines," "American Telephone and Telegraph"
Finally, generic marks are those that merely describe the general class of which the product is a member: "corn flakes," "raisin bran," etc.
Fanciful, arbitrary and suggestive marks are considered "inherently distinctive." They can be registered as-is (subject to minor restrictions, like being used in commerce), and immediately grant their owner the right to prevent others from using that mark in commerce. (To be clear, it does not prevent other people from using it for non-commerce purposes, nor does it prevent "nominative" use, where the other party is using it to describe the trademark owner's actual product -- as in, "our service is better than Verizon's")
On the opposite extreme, generic marks are never protected. The middle ground is for descriptive marks, which have to have acquired "secondary meaning" before they can be protected. This means that, despite its lack of inherent distinctiveness, the public must have come to associate that mark with the source. For example, when someone sees "IBM" on a computer they have a very specific idea of the company that produced that product.
The question, it would seem, is whether "App Store" is descriptive or generic, and if descriptive, has it acquired secondary meaning? It seems to me that it is *not* suggestive -- one does not need a leap of imagination to realize that an "App Store" is a store where one buys apps. Personally, I'm inclined to say that it is generic -- an "App Store" is a class of stores, of which "Apple App Store" is one member (the latter is protected as an arbitrary mark, btw).
This contrasts with "Windows," which is either suggestive or descriptive with acquired secondary meaning. Arguably, one needs imagination to jump from the mark "Windows" to "an operating system with graphical user interface." One could claim that "Windows" merely describes one aspect of that operating system, namely that it displays windows, but the counter argument would be that the term "window" itself, as used for a collection of pixels on the screen that displays the output of a computer program, is itself a suggestive term (i.e., it bears little resemblance to the traditional definition of Windows). Furthermore, even if descriptive, "Windows" has acquired secondary meaning, as it is universally understood to refer to the Microsoft product. Whoever first coined that term might have had the right to prevent Microsoft's use at some point, assuming that they used it in commerce, but that right has lapsed by failure to maintain it.
Anyways, that's what they taught me in IP class in law school. Hopefully that is helpful.
My understanding is that while Microsoft may claim it, it hasn't stood up in court. That might be out of date though.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
... we win.
Perhaps Lord Jobs should just and the cute little "i" in front of the name like he does with everything else and call it iApp Store . Come on Apple...
.exe is called an "Application". .dll is an "Application extension". I still remember back in the 90's the slang for a great program was a "killer app".
So is Apple
I don't think they were able to use it against "Lindows" but that word isn't "Windows". If apple made an operating system called "Windows" tomorrow, Microsoft could win a trademark suit again them. Also, this is a registered trademark, so it's not just Microsoft claiming it, they own it.
You can register anything you want, so long as it isn't already registered by someone else. The trick is whether you can get the trademark to hold up in court. I think if Apple tried to release "Apple Windows", the argument would come down to two things: Whether Windows is commonly used to describe any GUI and whether there is documentation of a GUI being referred to as Windows before MS trademarked the term.
I'm not saying Apple would win, just that of all the types of intellectual property, trademarks are the most legally dicey. Copyright is (or was) pretty clear, patents have a pretty simple formula to determine if they are being infringed upon, but all a court has to do is rule that your trademark is or has become generic and poof it's gone.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
My understanding is that microsoft caved in after suing over the "Lindows" name precisely because they started to feel that they were going to lose the "Windows" trademark in the process. So, in spite of starting the suit over the name themselves, Microsoft did a U-turn, and paid big bucks for an out-of-court settlement to convince Lindows to change to Linspire without a court decision. So "windows" tm hasn't been tested in court because Microsoft has been (rightly) scared to try.
When microsoft was trademarking the term 'windows', what did most people think of when they heard 'windows'? I'd bet they did not think of a computer operating system. Today, many people know what a computer is. They know that computer have programs or applications. Many people call applications apps for short. If apple had submitted the trademark for "app store" in 1990 they probable would have gotten it. Today it is a generic term. Timing matters a lot with trademarks.
what OS do you have on your computer?
(note that it's not what linux / windows / mac os / unix / etc...)
what app store do you have on your phone? ...)
(note it's not android market / windows marketplace / etc
there's a reason why Apple trademarks are for Mac OS, Mac OS X, iOS, etc
in addition, while apple has filed for a tradmark on just 'OS X', they still haven't got it:
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
"App" is to "Application" as "Droid" is to "Android" and "Sudafed" is to "Pseudoephedrine". All are made-up abbreviations that were invented exclusively for use as trademarks, and in all three cases, there are still unprotected generic terms available to describe the broader markets in which these products compete. There is compelling evidence that Apple was the first to use "App Store" to refer to their "Electronic Marketplace"; they were certainly the first to trademark it. The fact that there are other companies selling similar offerings does not make these "App Stores", just as the fact that someone's pizza stand is small and crude does not make it a "Pizza Hut".
I was going to put a sig here, but I had already submitted the message.
In soviet slashdot, users defend microsoft and bash apple... wait a minute...
See the Murphy Bed case for an example on how to lose a trademark based on its generic nature.
Windows is Microsoft’s number one product which has been used for over a decade. if people were complaining that they wanted to call there product ioss or appley i could understand but APP. Why doesn’t the first shoe store sue everyone that ever put the word shoe in the name of their store?
Rocket Surgeon.
It's more generic because it's descriptive, and descriptive trademarks aren't supposed to be granted. The App Store is a store that sells applications. Windows is not a window or set of windows.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Obligatory Slashdot car analogy:
Microsoft trademarking "Windows" as an OS name is like Ford trademarking "Wheels" as a car name. It may sound silly, but it's legal. This does not preclude other people from talking about wheels, or selling wheels that are called "wheels". It only preclude others from selling cars named "wheels" (or something very similar).
Apple trademarking "App Store" for their application store is like Ford trademarking "Car" as a car name. This precludes all other car manufacturers from selling cars as cars.
Apple was using the word 'windows' for the onscreen element of their GUI when Bill Gates was shown the product. The term probably originated at Xerox PARC to begin with, but Gates knew that the term was already being used by Apple. This is just another level of corporate hypocrisy and legal bumfuggery.