Slashdot Mirror


Apple Sues Amazon.com Over App Store Trademark

tekgoblin writes "Apple is suing Amazon.com over the use of Apple's trademarked App Store name in their mobile software developer program. Apple filed the suit back on March 18th, which detailed the trademark infringement and unfair competition which Apple felt was happening. Apple's statement in the suit reads: 'Amazon has begun improperly using Apple's App Store mark in connection with Amazon's mobile software developer program.' Apple also said, 'We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers.'"

285 comments

  1. Bring it on. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    hey Amazon, want to reconsider that one-click patent?

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Bring it on. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Not that I'm in Apple's corner on this whole "App Store is so unique we need to prevent users from getting confused because they can't buy stuff for their iOS devices that will work from the wrong stores anyway, but that doesn't really mater ..."

    2. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! More lawyer expenses which adds to the prices of these idiot companies products so less people buy them!

    3. Re:Bring it on. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Trademark != patent.

    4. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The average apple customer is an idiot, and wouldn't know better. The fact that they spend $2000 on $800 "PC" hardware proved that ages ago.

      "app store" is generic though. I have used the word "app" or "apps" for more than a decade to refer to computer software. It's like trademarking "supermarket" as a type of grocery store.

    5. Re:Bring it on. by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Supermarkets and grocers are different.

    6. Re:Bring it on. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      True, but I think that the above poster was making a point that IP is being awarded in both cases to something that it should never have been.

    7. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh.

    8. Re:Bring it on. by pushing-robot · · Score: 2
      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    9. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As another poster has already pointed out, MASSIVE fail.

      This is a trademark dispute. Not a patent dispute.

      Although, tactically, maybe Amazon should sue Apple back, given Apple's TV ads clearly show you can buy books and music with one click on the iphone 4.

      btw, Amazon has usually done the right thing. Customer data agreements? To date, still owned by Amazon so that hasn't come into affect. Book market going down? Used books even though they got slapped around by the Author's Guild. Even brought about the Kindle. 1984 fiasco? They apologized, and people seem to miss that it was, at the time, a copyright violation that had unwittingly participated in, and they went overboard in their response. Fixing broken DRM? They haven't.

      They get a lot of heat for doing the wrong thing, but people often miss that they attempt to correct themselves. This is quite unlike Apple has acted in recent years.

    10. Re:Bring it on. by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Apple licensed 1 Click after Amazon sued them.

    11. Re:Bring it on. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      No they're not.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    12. Re:Bring it on. by 517714 · · Score: 1

      The average Apple customer may well be an idiot, but he/she runs Windows not OSX, because iPods, iPads and iPhones weigh more heavily than iMacs, MacBooks and MacMinis on what constitutes "average".

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    13. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WRONG!

      Amazon never sued Apple for 1 click. They sued Barnes and Noble.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

    14. Re:Bring it on. by somersault · · Score: 2

      If Amazon having an App Store will "confuse" people, then surely OSX having the "Mac App Store" will also cause confusion and mislead customers? Seems a bit of a double standard there. Either that or they're just talking out of their ass.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Bring it on. by Cruciform · · Score: 2

      Sure they are. The grocer is a person. The supermarket is a store.
      I think you fell into a trap set by a pedant.

    16. Re:Bring it on. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The difference: Apple owns the App Store trademark, and operates both the iOS App Store, and the Mac App Store. They aren't going to sue themselves, surely?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:Bring it on. by somersault · · Score: 1

      No, but they'd better come up with a better reason than it's "confusing" to have more than one "App Store".

      Though technically I wouldn't be surprised if the iOS and Mac app stores are run off of the same infrastructure. Perhaps you can probably even buy iOS apps from your Mac - but they server different devices/markets. Anyone who finds Amazon having an App Store confusing, will also find the Apple App Store confusing.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    18. Re:Bring it on. by servo335 · · Score: 1

      A better reason then confusing? Why? It worked so well in World Wildlife Foundation vs World Wrestling Federation years ago!

    19. Re:Bring it on. by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      What happened there?

      I know that the Wildlife people ended up with WWF, and Wrestling became WWE, but was Wildlife there first?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    20. Re:Bring it on. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The World Wildlife Foundation were idiots. They should have let wrestling use the WWF mark for a percentage of the profits. That way they'd get a stream of income to supplement their regular fundraising.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    21. Re:Bring it on. by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right. Apple licensed it after initial rumblings, not waiting until it went to the courts.

      Different Apple then: gave up faster.

    22. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what your point is.

      But I can tell you so much, that last time I browsed through my iPhones copyright section, it said that the one-click functionality in the iTunes store / app store was licensed from Amazon.

    23. Re:Bring it on. by DirkBalognapantz · · Score: 1

      hey Amazon, want to reconsider that one-click patent?

      I hate all of these disputes as well. That being said, Apple has been crediting Amazon for 1-Click in iTunes. I would assume they cut an agreement with Amazon to avoid this type of complaint. If you go into the "About iTunes" window, you will see “1–Click® is a registered service mark of Amazon.com, Inc.” scroll by.

    24. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's why I have to click twice to buy an app?

    25. Re:Bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a trademark its invalid as well, 'app' is just the contraction for application. stop thinking with your colon.

  2. Appholes by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, they added "store" to a word we've been using in the industry for decades. Surely there's no merit in this...

    1. Re:Appholes by afaik_ianal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I should probably have included the obligatory link:
      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes

    2. Re:Appholes by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're going to claim 'apps' is short for apples or some crap like that.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:Appholes by mewshi_nya · · Score: 0

      Obviously, my department at work should sue Apple for using "Apple Store" -- we sell apples (among other things) so we could be considered an apple store, as well.

      The thing here is that this is not a unique phrase. App has been around for decades, as you pointed out. By this logic, I can sue the local bakery if I open a place called "Bread Store" or something, right?

    4. Re:Appholes by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      Yeah, like apples are something new that they invented.

      Apple, the fruity computer.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    5. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Only problem is NeXT ( and Apple ) were the first company to call their binaries "Apps" officially.
      Previously we called them "exe"s and "binaries" and "programs"... and the Mac called themmm...... Applications!
      Prior to this, "applications" were not considered things in themselves, but a description of what you used the program for.

      And then some years later, NeXt called their binaries .app and referred to them as "Apps" .

      Sure it's a natural abbreviation ... but no one really called it that before Apple/NeXT.

      ( And even if you don't buy this argument, if you don't think tacking a random word onto the end or beginning of another word makes for a defendable trademark, you need to talk to "CDbaby", "e-bay", "Facebook", or "Word", "powerpoint"... you get the picture.

    6. Re:Appholes by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Let's talk about how they work next, since that's an entirely different matter."

      One you're apparently not aware of, since you're very obviously not a business owner that has had to enforce trademark and copyright in court, like myself.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Appholes by dwywit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, "application" has been used for some time to differentiate user-type software, from operating system-type software - I heard it used in that context back in the eighties, when I first started messing around with an AS/400.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    8. Re:Appholes by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I'm quite aware of them, their worth, and how they work. I wouldn't get rid of them or suggest they're as broken as patents or the like. Can't a guy just make a snarky comment for fun sometimes though? ;)

    9. Re:Appholes by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trademarks have the concept of a domain in which they are valid. People tend not to mix up produce with personal electronics very often, so you'd have a tough sell at court for your Apple Store idea, especially so since they'd have a tough time registering a trademark in the electronics domain since Apple Inc. would already have a claim there. That said, two different stores, each selling programs for mobile devices, could easily be mistaken if they share the same name.

    10. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will start with laying claim to "apps" as well as "apple", - but very soon they will own the letter "A".

    11. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 1

      The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    12. Re:Appholes by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      And do you need to be at the gym in 26 minutes?

    13. Re:Appholes by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If they attempted to do that, they could find themselves on the hook for perjury, since that's not what it actually stands for.

    14. Re:Appholes by PitaBred · · Score: 2

      It doesn't mean that it's not generic just because they used it first.

    15. Re:Appholes by exomondo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.

      Bullshit.

    16. Re:Appholes by Giometrix · · Score: 2

      I tried watching this on my iPad, but I couldn't because the video is in flash. Sigh. Appholes indeed.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    17. Re:Appholes by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      There's an App for That.

      ("There's an App for That" is a registered trademark of Apple Corporation.)

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    18. Re:Appholes by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Like you? Yeah, there's danger in Khyber entering the common vernacular. Better protect that TM.

    19. Re:Appholes by socsoc · · Score: 1

      I have a local bakery called The Bread Store you insensitive clod.

    20. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried watching this but I am not allowed to view Comedy Central content in this country. On the net that is.

      Just love watching free-to-air TV when Jon says "catch the rest of this interview on our website" at the end of the show only to find the website caters to USA only.

    21. Re:Appholes by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 2

      "The Container Store" is also a trademark for a chain of, uh, container stores, although I've used containers in conversation long before it. Trying to market a knockoff chain "The Container Shop" may not work.

    22. Re:Appholes by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit, Why the hell are people still trying to credit some company with the abbreviation app, it has been in use in IT for decades and certainly before NeXt even existed. No apple did not invent it, neither did NeXt, I was certainly using it pre 1985 as I have a program called dotapp, which I wrote to output text to a crappy dotmatrix printer at the time, Now while I did a lot of cool stuff in programming back then, I certainly didn't invent the abbreviation and I was using it before NeXt existed.

    23. Re:Appholes by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Yes, you have a point there about competition in the market for mobile devices.

      It would have more validity, though, if Apple would open up the iOS market.

      In other words, only if Amazon is able to sell apps in their 'App Store' that can install on Apple hardware are they intruding into conflict with Apple's trademark.

    24. Re:Appholes by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'd have given you more leeway had you added a bit more snark to it to give it away. ;)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    25. Re:Appholes by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, I have a full calisthenics set and water weights for rehabilitation. I'm better equipped than most gyms just because I'm part titanium.

      Wrong person to play that meme on, sorry. Mr "Gym in 26 minutes" wouldn't last 3 seconds in any real fight with me. His head would get caved in with one blow from my plastic and titanium reinforced leg.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 0

      AppStore is not the search term I used, I used "App Store" as used by Apple. Search engines return exact matches, and my statements were true and complete. Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive prior to September 15, 2008; however, I found that eWeek had a citation for the press release from 2007 that's valid. I was cautious about accepting your URL, only because I have seen "press releases" altered before.

      SalesForce used the term AppExchange on their website and the search for "Appstore" on their website is rather telling: It appears that they used AppStore internally and in press releases in a manner similar to the way Microsoft used Chicago as the working name for Windows 95, but they never used the term in commercial manner (product or service). It is telling that they did not feel the need to clarify "Apple App Store" in the many references to "App Store" and "AppStore" which refer to purchasing Iphone/iPod applications from Apple. Prior use of the term does not prevent or invalidate registration, and I do not know if this evidence of one prior use would be sufficient to convince a judge that the term is generic.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    27. Re:Appholes by mindwhip · · Score: 2

      ("There's an App for That" is a registered trademark of Apple Corporation.)

      Strange how everyone here uses that phrase to make a dig at how useless most apps on the ipad/iphone (and the devices in general) are... for example...

      "Want a cracked screen on your phone? There's an app for that!"
      "Got an upset stomach and run out of toilet paper? There's an app for that!"
      "Accidentally ran over your neighbours dog? There's an app for that!"
      "Can't remember your own name? There's an app for that!"

      Feel free to supply more examples...

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    28. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supplying more examples? There's an app for that!

    29. Re:Appholes by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Like they have a problem with mixing up electronics and music? (Until the electronics maker starts trying to sell music...)

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    30. Re:Appholes by somersault · · Score: 1

      Need to make an app for that? There's an app for that.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    31. Re:Appholes by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, I can watch it here in Portugal. Me thinks they have a problem with their geoIP service.

    32. Re:Appholes by icebraining · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, it's descriptive. It's the same reason why Microsoft claims there is no trademark on IE: a browser is an "internet explorer".

      And their store is an app(lication) store.

    33. Re:Appholes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Flogging a dead horse? There's an app for that!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:Appholes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't block it because they think Portugal is a city in Oregon.

      P.S. If I need to do IP spoofing, is there an app for that?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Appholes by somersault · · Score: 2

      In a bad mood today? There's an app for that!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    36. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 0

      IE is not a product, it is an abbreviation. Internet Explorer is a registered trademark - both the term and the logo: http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx

      You are wrong if you telling me that if I invented "hastforks" that I could not trademark "Hastfork Store" or "Hast Store" because they are descriptive. Or that Kimberly-Clark can't register "Kleenex Store". If Apple can demonstrate that they marketed Apps before others used the term to describe their programs, suites, wares, or whatever for commercial purposes they should prevail in this.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    37. Re:Appholes by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work for me because I'm not in the right place.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    38. Re:Appholes by icebraining · · Score: 1

      IE is not a product, it is an abbreviation. Internet Explorer is a registered trademark - both the term and the logo: http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx

      Oh, sorry, then I was badly mistaken. I had read those old articles where MS claimed it wasn't a trademark, but I didn't notice the articles which said that they settled for $5M.

    39. Re:Appholes by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Back in 1983, I was buying the INPUT magazine for programming the ZX Spectrum. They had a section called "Applications", consisting of.. you guessed it.. Applications. Source code that we could type to do intresting stuff. In fact the term Applications was used back then to differentiate from "Games", "Utlities", "System".

      Binaries/Programs/EXEs/packages/JARs/WARs/Assemblies refer to a "runnable code" and often describes the FORMAT of the runnable code/Distributions (with EXEs being specific to MS DOS and its descendants).

      Even Android has a section called Games, and a section called Applications in its Market

      Point being, the word Applications were used long before the Mac/Next. In fact the term binaries/exe/programs are generic terms

      I really cant believe you have written the above. You are wrong, and yet you present what you wrote as fact. Your Reality field is really screwing up your thought process.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    40. Re:Appholes by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2

      Ultra B*llsh*t. I have seen the term being used many years ago. Watford Electronics in the UK, had a section of its store called... you guessed it.. App Store. And watford electronics were in business since the 80's (they are defunt now, and have been bought by Sava Stores)

      Nobody trademarked it before because.. its obvious, and its a generic term that describes what is beign sold.

      Apple popularised the app store iPod/iPhone/iPad app store to advertise a feature available on their devices (the ability to easily add and run third party apps that have been verified by Apple). They are hardly the first, the only, nor the last. However, thanks to their marketing they are certainly having a huge mindshare.

      Apple have used SEO techniques (and marketting) to ensure their app store whitewashes Google/Yahooo/Bing results. That doesnt mean they were the first/last or only.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    41. Re:Appholes by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Prove it.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    42. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 0

      UK doesn't matter as we are discussing a US matter. Hearsay is not evidence in any event. Please provide Watford Electronics URLs other than savastore.com and saverstore.com prior to March 2008, I found no use of the term "app" on them on the Internet between April 2001 and March 2008 using the Internet Archive. I believe your memory may be faulty, BTW they started in 1972, not the 80's.

      Nobody trademarked it before because.. its obvious

      You are making a presumption that is not supported by the facts in evidence, Apple trademarked it at a time, when as far as anyone has been able to show, no one else was using the term. The courts (if it goes to trial), not you, not me , not the President, not everybody else, will make the determination if it was too generic.

      SEO techniques would not wipe out past history, "App Store" is absent and "AppStore" shows up for one company prior to March 2008 when the Apple App Store opened.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    43. Re:Appholes by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're going to claim 'apps' is short for apples or some crap like that.

      That wouldn't work. They'd still be in trouble with the fine folks.... at APPLE!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    44. Re:Appholes by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Can you install apps on/in the bread?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    45. Re:Appholes by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Funny. Apple is suing Amazon for using "AppStore", not "App Store".

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    46. Re:Appholes by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      Really. App is short for application. An App store sells Applications. End of discussion.
      Let's see which shoe store tries to sell another for selling "shoes" first, now.

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    47. Re:Appholes by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      Redundant comments? There's an app for that and an app for that too!

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    48. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who did you sue, the cockneys?

    49. Re:Appholes by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 1

      The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results.

      By the same argument, Coca-Cola must have been invented in 1995, because if you do an internet search for the term "Coca-Cola" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results.

    50. Re:Appholes by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Trademarks have the concept of a domain in which they are valid. P

      Yes, but Trademarks also have to be distinctive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness)

      That's why you see all those annoying misspellings in trademarks (Kwik-E-Mart, you know), because a Quick Market is a description of what it is, which doesn't get much protection from trademark law.

      Apple's App Store and Subway's Footlong (tm) are both examples of trademarks that really should be knocked down under challenge.

    51. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Amazon just call it "Appl Store", different spelling, no infringement

    52. Re:Appholes by exomondo · · Score: 1

      AppStore is not the search term I used

      But the one you should have used.

      I used "App Store" as used by Apple.

      Except that's not what they're suing over.

      Search engines return exact matches

      No they don't.

      Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive prior to September 15, 2008;

      That would be true if the 'internet archive' were a 100% perfect snapshot, which it isn't.

      Prior use of the term does not prevent or invalidate registration, and I do not know if this evidence of one prior use would be sufficient to convince a judge that the term is generic.

      I wasn't suggesting that, I was refuting this claim:
      It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
      The certainly didn't coin the term.

    53. Re:Appholes by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.

      This took me one minute to find:

      There are no EB's allowed in AZ, the one store we have was forced to
      change their name (not kidding, it's true). The EB is named "shop-n-go
      software", and while they do have some limited videogames, it's basically
      a PC app store.

      (EB = Electronics Boutique, a brick-and-mortar computer software store)

      This is from back in 2000 - the term "app store" was already in use as a generic. Just to make this post Slashdot-complete, this is like GM trademarking The 2012 Chevy Pickup Truck(tm).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    54. Re:Appholes by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That's like saying prove that "phone" is short for "telephone". Duh. It's common knowledge. Any judge that speaks english natively and has even the slightest clue about using personal computers is going to know that "app" has stood for "application" long before Apple's App Store came around, and if Apple is seriously going to try to claim that "app" stood for Apple the whole time, they are going to have to be in front of the world's most idiotic judge in order to get away with it. I think it's unlikely they would want to take that chance.

    55. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Search engines return exact matches

      No they don't.

      Yeah, they do when you put double quotes around them as I very clearly indicated. Try searching for this nonsense string "appl dsd" and then for appl dsd and force Google to use dsd instead of ssd. 1 result (2, if you tell Google to show all results) vs 1,870,000 results. Google treats certain characters as if they are not there or are spaces,only those characters can be in the space between appl and dsd as you can see in the results.

      Your citation isn't as authoritative as you might think, since that web page in not on the Internet Archive [waybackmachine.org] prior to September 15, 2008;

      That would be true if the 'internet archive' were a 100% perfect snapshot, which it isn't.

      It is true precisely because the 'InternetArchive' is not a perfect snapshot. That was exactly my point in making the statement. Your link would not stand up to scrutiny because it could not be found, not necessarily because it never existed in the required timeframe. I also pointed out a citation which found "AppStore"in the required timeframe which you have removed from the quotation. It should be clear that I was not trying to hide anything.

      I wasn't suggesting that, I was refuting this claim: It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously. The certainly didn't coin the term.

      To refute the claim, the search term should be, to use your words, "the one you should have used", 'App Store' with the space; as Apple has trademarked it; the term that they are suing to defend - That search did not return any valid results, so it remains a distinct possibility that Apple coined 'App Store', in spite of a very similar 'AppStore' having been used by one company.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    56. Re:Appholes by exomondo · · Score: 1

      To refute the claim, the search term should be, to use your words, "the one you should have used", 'App Store' with the space; as Apple has trademarked it; the term that they are suing to defend - That search did not return any valid results, so it remains a distinct possibility that Apple coined 'App Store', in spite of a very similar 'AppStore' having been used by one company.

      Why? Apple clearly didn't coin the term 'AppStore' yet they are the ones claiming - based on their lawsuit - that their use of 'App Store' is the same.

    57. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 1

      > This took me one minute to find:

      Well Done! Now all Amazon needs to do is show that the page hasn't been altered.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    58. Re:Appholes by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Because you defend your trademark, you happen to attack someone else's. I had to deal with a trademark issue of my former employer. We were Crane Co., another company in the dispute was Crane Manufacturing. Our trademark was Flomatics, I think their's was Flowmatics, but there were five companies in all with IIRC Flomatic, Flowmatic, and Flow Matics. Our trademark was much older than the others,but because it had not been defended in a timely manner the court ruled that the markets were different and customers were not likely to be deceived in spite of three of the products being valves. All companies kept their trademarks, two of the companies had to agree to some conditions. The lawyer said we would have been able to prevent any of them from using those trademarks if we had acted eleven years earlier.

      Someone found 'App Store' from 2000, (PC app store to be exact) so Apple did not coin the term. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2047794&cid=35581308

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    59. Re:Appholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should probably have included the obligatory link:
      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes

      Using the daily show as a meaningful reference to anything says a great deal about those folks who consider themselves intelligent.
      James Douglass
      Garden City, Kansas

  3. Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apps has been known as a shortened version of applications for many years.
    This would be no different to suing a company for using the name "phone store".

    1. Re:Rediculous by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not about the word app -- it's about the phrase App Store (or appstore, or any permutation involving spaces between the two words and capitalization).

      Modifying your own query, we get zero results for "app store" in the given date range, but 18,000+ results if we're not date-restricted.

      This is not the first time a company has trademarked or otherwise branded a simple phrase. What if Budweiser used, "Good to the last drop" as their motto (it's Maxwell House's motto)?

      Personally, I do think Apple's being pretty juvenile, but they were the first ones to use the phrase App Store with real success.

    2. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slogans deserve different treatment from titles. Since conciseness matters in a title, usually resulting in extremely few possibilities, trademarking a simple term is strongly anti-competitive.

      It's actually ridiculous slogans are trademarked at all considering no one in history has ever cared for them.

    3. Re:Rediculous by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This is not about the word app -- it's about the phrase App Store (or appstore, or any permutation involving spaces between the two words and capitalization).

      A phrase that Apple is not the first user of in commerce.. in other words, that Apple does not have exclusive use of.

      Salesforce.com used it first back in 2006 to refer to a product,

      AppStore will give customers a single source for trying, buying and deploying AppExchange applications

      Now you tell me.... how different Amazon's product really is in type from Salesforces' ? :)

    4. Re:Rediculous by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Windows. Sun. Photoshop. Illustrator. Red Hat. Android.

      All anticompetitive?

    5. Re:Rediculous by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

      None of those are similar to 'app store' and the current lawsuit because they're not self descriptive. Facebook is the closest though, but if they sue someone making, lets say Anonymous Coward's face book, they will be laughed out of court because such use precedes the trademark. Microsoft can't sue people using the 'word' to describe words, only if someone makes word processors with that name. The problem isn't that 'app store' is generic, but that it describes itself without Apple even entering into the picture. You cannot trademark words like Television and then sue people calling their product a television. On the other surely you can use the word 'Television' to sell apples in the supermarket and trademark it for fruit. Adobe cannot sue shops that sell photos for calling themselves a photo shop, which is similar to what Apple is trying to do here.

      --
      This space for rent.
    6. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of them, with the possible exception of Windows, took a generic term of its function to be its name.

      Better comparisons would be

      • an operating system named Operating System (tm)
      • a special mailbox named Mailbox (tm)
      • a car named Car (tm)
    7. Re:Rediculous by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      But Salesforce.com didn't register it as a trademark. The prior use means that Salesforce.com can continue using "AppStore" as a mark. But it doesn't invalidate Apple's registered trademark. Apple still has the right (and the duty if they want to keep their trademark live) to prevent companies other than Salesforce.com using the mark.

    8. Re:Rediculous by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      Well, Ubuntu is a windows-based operating system, in that all programs/applications and even configuration can (nominally) be done through boxes on the screen which can be dragged around, resized, minimized, etc.

      Maybe this only works because no one wants to say they're windows-based in the first place ;) (someone's probably gonna drag up a Lindows reference...)

      Actually, I'm sure there's a market in Silicon Valley for an appetizer joint that brands itself as an App Store (or App Place, or something that takes a jab at Apple). It would be great to be a waiter there...no substitutions or user requests! (Now I'm thinking of a Sony-themed restaurant...they take away your food half way through your meal...)

    9. Re:Rediculous by mccalli · · Score: 1

      You do know Apple have been going a lot longer than 97, right? The first time I came across 'application' being used was on the Mac platform, then it spread to most GUI platforms shortly afterwards (GEM, Windows).

      There may or may not have been an earlier use, but that actually is the first time I came across it. I'd be interested to see if there's any use of it which predates the 80s, because until then I'd heard things referred to has as 'programs' or 'systems' but never 'applications'. It honestly doesn't strike me as likely that Apple invented it, but I never came across it anywhere else and if someone knows otherwise I'd genuinely like to hear.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    10. Re:Rediculous by somersault · · Score: 1

      Actually, since 'shop is an abbreviation of workshop, Photoshop == Photo Workshop, which is pretty descriptive IMO.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Rediculous by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It's all about "app". If "app" is a generic word meaning software application (and it is), then Apple can't lay claim to "App Store" any more than Budweiser can lay claim to Beer Store or McDonalds can lay claim to Hamburger Store.

    12. Re:Rediculous by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the term "App Store" has already come to mean "an online location to purchase applications for some specific device," not "An online location to purchase applications for IOS devices." Actually, since Apple uses "App Store" for both its IOS App Store and its Macintosh App Store, it is guilty of making the term App Store generic. I know that a company that owns a trademark can use it in multiple ways, but by using it this way Apple has encouraged the general populace to view app store as a generic term.
      Basically, in order to hold a trademark on something it is necessary that people do not already consider the term as the generic for that type of product/use. It is my recollection that as soon as Apple opened the Apple App Store, people started to talk about the idea that other devices should have app stores. That means that as soon as Apple used the term (if not before), people started using it as a generic term.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:Rediculous by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      Being descriptive alone is not and should not be the only metric. Even if it is a little descriptive, they grant trademarks because companies want people associate the product with the brand. The problem comes when companies turn around and sue descriptive uses of the name, like in this case. As I said, Adobe cannot sue someone for naming their store that sells photos as Joe's Photo Shop

      --
      This space for rent.
  4. Oh dear by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 0

    'We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers.'

    Translation:

    'We feel that our customers are too fucking stupid to realize that an "App Store" run under the Amazon banner and site has nothing to do with Apple, and that our customers are not smart enough to understand the difference in context.'

    Of course Apple might have a point (it's not like computers are well understood by a lot of people even today), but it doesn't particularly bode well for what Apple things of the intellect of its users.

    1. Re:Oh dear by mini+me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced. Apple may very well think suing Amazon over this is as stupid as everyone else, but the law says they have to do it anyway, else lose their rights to the trademark altogether.

    2. Re:Oh dear by WitnessForTheOffense · · Score: 1

      They should lose their trademark altogether. That's the point. It's already too generic.

    3. Re:Oh dear by Khyber · · Score: 1, Informative

      'Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced."

      Too bad Apple is SEVERAL years late to the game.

      http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2006/12/061212-1.jsp

      Trademark made INVALID as it has existed in that particular ecosystem well before Apple filed.

      Hey, Jobs, tell your lawyers to back off before I fuck up yet a FOURTH lawsuit for you in my amicus.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they think it's stupid, could they just get a pittance license fee from amazon? They don't have to worry about dilution and Amazon doesn't have to pay the cost of a lawsuit? Or is there still problematic even if use of the trademark is under license?

    5. Re:Oh dear by radarsat1 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But they're still going to fight for it. Clearly it's worth it to them financially speaking.

    6. Re:Oh dear by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Clearly it's worth it to them financially speaking.

      Why do you say that it's "worth it"? "App Store" is just a name. Amazon (or Apple) could use another name instead that would be less generic.

    7. Re:Oh dear by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, you're confused between patents and trademarks. Prior art can make patents invalid after being granted. But prior use does not make trademarks invalid once they've been granted.

      The prior use of "AppStore" as an unregistered trademark by SalesForce.com gives SalesForce.com the right to continue using the mark. But it doesn't invalidate Apples's registered trademark, nor does it in any way give Amazon the right to use the mark.

    8. Re:Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.1

      Owner (APPLICANT) salesforce.com, inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE The Landmark @ One Market Street #300 San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94105

      Filing Date June 14, 2006
      Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
      Abandonment Date December 5, 2008

      Sorry, your example did not enforce their mark and lost it.

      While Apple can not sue salesforce for their use of AppStore, salesforce no longer counts as prior usage in the eyes of the trademark office.

      Apple suing Amazon right now is a requirement if Apple does not want their current existing active mark to do the same.

      There was even an older mark on the term back in 1998, abandoned in 2000.
      http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.2

      But bad news, that doesn't count either :P

    9. Re:Oh dear by Wingman+5 · · Score: 1

      This is the exact reason there is no burger king (the chain) in Mattoon, Illinois

    10. Re:Oh dear by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Abandoned in one field typically means it can't be held as a trademark in that field by anybody else.

      See 'i' anything, which cannot ever be legally enforced due to the sheer proliferation by force.

      Good day.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Store" is not trademarked. "App Store" is. It's a bit generic, but not too generic, especially considering it's the only mobile store with that name. Apple is acting like a business should. Amazon should change the name. Amazon chose that name on purpose, so that people searching for app store will find out about theirs. Amazon is the one being an asshole.

      No, I'm not an Apple fanboy, in fact I really don't like them. (I have a tmobile mytouch 3g, which unfortunately looks like it will become at+t now :( )

      But they are absolutely in the right here.

    12. Re:Oh dear by joesteeve · · Score: 1

      They got to spend all those hard-earned dollars somewhere. :P

    13. Re:Oh dear by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They got to spend all those hard-earned dollars somewhere. :P

      They're legally required to maximize shareholder value. That means either spending the money efficiently on profitmaking, or returning the money to sharholders.

    14. Re:Oh dear by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Apple must also think all of their users have Android devices, because that's the only way any of their users could get confused - Amazon's store is Android-only...

  5. Two different market spaces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can there be customer confusion? Does Amazon sell apps for the iPhone? Does Apple sell apps for any phone other than the iPhone? Seems to me that they are operating in two different market spaces.

  6. generic; prior usage by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The term "application shop" was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995.

    You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.

    What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive as far as UK registration eligibility goes.

    1. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Amzon can just re-name it the 'Apple Store'

    2. Re:generic; prior usage by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 1

      With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    3. Re:generic; prior usage by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because someone once used a similar phrase in the past it doesn't mean it can't be trademarked today. We're not talking about patents. Acorn certainly isn't using it anymore, and there would be little confusion between an iPad and an Acorn OS machine. Besides, to my knowledge Acorn never actually used "App Store". As for Symbian, I'm sure they're safe from Apple's lawyers with their "application shop"-- in fact they can probably trademark that one themselves.

      Apple has historically used "Application" as its descriptive term for this stuff. MacOS's place to put programs is called the "Applications" folder, while Windows used "Program Files". When the iPhone came around, they just shortened it to App, and the phrase became immediately descriptive for what it was-- a tiny application that ran on an embedded device. So an App is a little Application. And a store is where you buy them. But *the* "App Store" is Apple's place to sell iOS apps, and no one else was using that particular phraseology that I know of before them.

      If anything, Apple's biggest challenge is going to be to prove that they themselves didn't ever use it generically, since they were brought rather reluctantly into the proprietary app business when developers refused to use HTML as the way to make iPhone software.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Correction: Microsoft Windows[TM].

      There is a subtle distinction, can you spot it?

      Too bad Apple didn't trademark "Apple App Store"...

    5. Re:generic; prior usage by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Surely you mean Microsoft Windows (tm).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:generic; prior usage by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I thought the trademark was "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows"

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:generic; prior usage by bipbop · · Score: 2

      In the UK, they have "Windows", as ridiculous as that is. Hence the wxWindows rename to wxWidgets.

    8. Re:generic; prior usage by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Go work for the defense. You probably could get a decent pay check for it.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    9. Re:generic; prior usage by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well then surely I can just go any make my own operating system and call it Mike's Windows(tm), eh? Shouldn't have any trouble with that!

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    10. Re:generic; prior usage by exomondo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)

      Well given that the App Store is an app store and Windows is an Operating System (not a windows), i don't see an issue.

    11. Re:generic; prior usage by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      This American finds it odd to see anyone thinking that shop is not in our general lexicon. Shop is common American parlance, even with store the more dominant synonym. And yes, I do mean as a noun.

    12. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. And "Lindows" (not "Licrosoft Lindows") was being contested in court (though we never seen a final verdict).

    13. Re:generic; prior usage by Raenex · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought the trademark was "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows"

      Microsoft sued Lindows over being similar to "Windows". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows They ended up losing some early battles in court and then bought them out.

      They've also bullied/bribed other projects like wxWindows (now wxWidgets). http://www.wxwindows.org/about/name.htm

      Those are just the ones I know about off the top of my head.

    14. Re:generic; prior usage by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      No he doesn't. Microsoft may have "Microsoft Windows" registered as a trademark, I don't know. But I know for sure they do have the word "Windows" on it's own registered, because I looked it up in the database last time it was questioned on Slashdot.

    15. Re:generic; prior usage by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      And in the US too.

    16. Re:generic; prior usage by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's it: call it "App Shop". Done! That'll be $49.95 please.

    17. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Microsoft (tm) Windows (tm) - two distinct trademarks.

    18. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So an App is a little Application.

      Err, our billing app runs to several million lines of COBOL, Assembler and PL/1. It dates to the late 1960s.

    19. Re:generic; prior usage by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Windows is not a description of the product (an OS). If they sold window managers, you'd have a point.

    20. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The App Store is not an app store, it's a computer program and database.

    21. Re:generic; prior usage by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Even just as Windows, it isn't descriptive as it isn't related to software but rather applying something that has nothing to do with software or technology as a name. Microsoft Word would make a better example as it is descriptive. OSX on the other hand could have a hard time in the face of things like OS2 if someone decided to make an OS Eleven.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    22. Re:generic; prior usage by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      Windows is not a generic term for an operating system. Therefore it is a perfectly valid trademark. On the other hand app store is a generic term for an app store. At any point since Microsoft registered the "Windows" trademark, if someone said, "I am going to create a Windows," people would have thought, "He is going to create an operating system similar to MS Windows." At any point in recent history, if someone said "I am going to create an app store," people would think, "He is going to create an online store to sell applications," not "He is going to create an online store like Apple's App Store."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re:generic; prior usage by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So an App is a little Application.

      Wrong. That's an applet.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark

      Why is the simple word, "Windows", a trademark? Why is this post insightful? ...ok, now back to the iHate.

    25. Re:generic; prior usage by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The App Store is not an app store, it's a computer program and database.

      yeah and best buy is not a store, it's just bricks, mortar, steel and glass.

    26. Re:generic; prior usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently just started using a macbook and (to me) it seemed like 'App' or 'Application' was a totally new word to describe items that I originally called 'programs' or exes' on the old Windows machine.

      I don't think the argument is who got there first, but who made it popular. I have to have noticed that after apple started using the word 'App' or 'App store' a lot of other companies have started using the phrase. Heck, I even saw a few Windows commercials where they started using the word 'App'.

      What disappoints me, is that Apple is seeming to make the app word a common standard for the technology industry, yet they are trademarking it. Seems to me like they are going down the 'Windows' road where something as generic as 'windows' can be trademarked (I remember seeing a news story on here about that a few months ago)

  7. Re:you know what confuses me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Frankly, I'm surprised you can recall your birth experience so vividly.

  8. App is generic by Stormwatch · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Apple's stance has little ground. "App" is not specific to a brand, it's not specific to an operating system, it's not specific to a class of hardware. "App" is short for application, that's all. Any computer program is an app. It's a completely generic term.

    1. Re:App is generic by mini+me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.

    2. Re:App is generic by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      You can call your operating System

      "Apple" which is a fruit
      "Macintosh" which is a surname
      OS which is short for "Operating System"
      X which is means "10" or is a letter
      "Snow leopard" which is an animal.

      If you wanted to. But then you can't sue the local greengrocer can you? Linux refers to 'windows' all the times. Its allowed as its clearly not talking about the OS.

    3. Re:App is generic by SudoGhost · · Score: 3, Informative

      Windows is a generic term in certain uses. You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'. You cannot call your OS Windows. That's not the same. You're comparing Apples and Oranges (pardon my pun).

    4. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows when used to refer to an operating system is not generic. When someone says "Windows" when referring to an OS, you know what they mean. No one calls Linux or OS X a "Windows."

    5. Re:App is generic by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Microsoft settled in Microsoft vs. Lindows because they were quite worried that Windows would be ruled a generic termthat wasn't trademarkable. IIRC the Judge they appeared before raised serious questions about the term, and so they paid millions for the Lindows name and settled.

      --
      SSC
    6. Re:App is generic by mini+me · · Score: 1

      But then you can't sue the local greengrocer can you?

      Why not? You can sue anyone for anything for any reason. But yes, you will lose because trademark law is also quite explicit about those cases.

    7. Re:App is generic by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple. It doesn't matter if your Android phone has an app that provides a storefront for downloading software.

    8. Re:App is generic by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.

      You really aren't able to tell the difference between an operating system and the windows in your house? or an operating system and a window manager concept of a window? Next you'll be trying to a Mac from your green grocer.

    9. Re:App is generic by exomondo · · Score: 2

      You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'.

      You can, but you'd be wrong. The X Window system is not a window, it is a window manager.

    10. Re:App is generic by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple.

      Er no. I don't know that, and I would be willing to testify in court.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:App is generic by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Windows is a generic term too"

      MICROSOFT Windows is not. Can you spot the difference, like any other 5 year old?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:App is generic by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I buy Macs from my greengrocer all the time.

      Mac

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    13. Re:App is generic by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      No. If someone said "app store", I'd simply assume it's an online software store. I wouldn't assume it is Apple's app store unless it was specified, or if the context made me realize so.

    14. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first version of the Microsoft Windows GUI began development in 1981 as "Interface Manager" and was official retitled to "Windows" in November 1983. Before the release of the the Apple Macintosh (1984), but after the release of Apple's LISA computer (January 1983). And also much later than the inspiration of all GUI environments, the Xerox Alto (1973).

      TLDR; Microsoft called it Windows before their was a "Macintosh", and before Linux existed. Your house is not likely to be confused with an Operating System.

    15. Re:App is generic by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.

      Actually, I'm pretty sure Microsoft has been denied trademark on "Windows" time and time again.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    16. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the MS trademark is "Microsoft Windows". Other software exists that uses the "windows" term but is not "Microsoft Windows", for instance X-Windows. "Microsoft Windows" is not generic.

    17. Re:App is generic by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Oh no! Now you're going to have Apple's tech support line flooded with calls wondering why their Mac isn't starting up ;)

    18. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone wants to visit my Prog Store?

    19. Re:App is generic by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      So, Apple could call their new operating system Apple Windows?

      (Incidentally, "Windows" by itself is a registered trademark.)

    20. Re:App is generic by Giometrix · · Score: 1

      I don't think that at all. I think of the "app store" of whatever system I'm on (eg marketplace on android).

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    21. Re:App is generic by tprox · · Score: 1

      Do you sell Progressive Rock?

    22. Re:App is generic by Radiophobic · · Score: 1

      Actually, apple did sue a local grocer in Australia because their logo had an apple in it. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html

    23. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's not a window manager either -- something like mwm or jwm is a window manager.

      But more to the point, everyone calls it "X Window" implying that it is a window, named X. Which is somewhat wierd if you think about it too hard (as you say, it's a windowing system, not a window), but historically well-established.

    24. Re:App is generic by 517714 · · Score: 2

      Apple was not able to use the name McIntosh because it is a trademark associated with what your greengrocer sells. Your greengrocer may have large apples of that variety, but wouldn't describe them as Big Macs.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    25. Re:App is generic by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Apple didn't sue Woolworths for use. They objected to Woolworths registering the apple logo as a trademark under a description that included electrical goods and technology. Areas where Apple already has an apple logo trademarked.

      If Woolworths had just tried to register the trademark for grocery, then Apple wouldn't have objected.

    26. Re:App is generic by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to break this to you but Woolworth's isn't a "local" grocer. They're a national australian chain.

      Not only that but they're named after the international chain of department stores.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    27. Re:App is generic by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Before you start hurling round insults, you should realize that "Windows" *is* a trademark owned by Microsoft. Your objection to the previous poster is thus invalid, and adding the insult makes you look bad.

    28. Re:App is generic by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No matter how confident you feel, you're wrong. If you look it up in the US trademarks database, you'll find that it was granted in the 1980s, and it's still live.

    29. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're delusional. I wouldn't know if they meant the iPhone app store, the Android app store, the WP7 app store, or any other kind of app store I don't know of.

      Coming from the non-Apple world it actually looks stupid to see 'App Store' capitalized because it's so commonly used in normal lingo. 'Store' is used for all online stores, thus an online store for apps is obviously an 'app store.'

    30. Re:App is generic by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Well, I stand (somewhat) corrected. The USPTO rejected the Windows trademark, after several appeals, in a "final action" in February of 1993 - "Too Generic". Somehow that "final action" decision was reversed, I can't really find a specific reference, but it looks like sometime between 2000 and 2002.

      So it was rejected over and over, but, yes, they were eventually awarded the registration.

      Still seems pretty ... hypocritical for Microsoft to now be appealing to the USPTO to reject Apple's "App Store" registration as "too generic".

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    31. Re:App is generic by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      No matter how confident you feel, you're wrong. If you look it up in the US trademarks database, you'll find that it was granted in the 1980s, and it's still live.

      Okay, I'm wrong that it's not registered now. But it was certainly not registered in the "the 1980s". In fact, I found reference to a "final action" by the USPTO rejecting the "Windows" trademark in February of 1993.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    32. Re:App is generic by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Look again. "Windows" was granted as a trademark in the 1980s. Just not to Microsoft. Microsoft got it in the 1990s.

    33. Re:App is generic by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And it is also owned by at least three other global corporations I can find, none related to the computer software industry.

      Which means Microsoft *MUST* distinguish it by labeling it MICROSOFT WINDOWS, lest they cause cross-market confusion and get sued for that.

      Just finished settling this exact matter in court with my own business in the USA. Apparently ecogroLED looks like Eco-Grow LED despite being registered in another country.

      Before you respond, perhaps you should consider the person you're trying to downplay has quite a bit of experience in this exact matter.

      You have a LOT of homework to do on me before you get close to understanding me.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    34. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it isn't called Windows, but Microsoft Windows, which is a lot less generic.

    35. Re:App is generic by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Your house is not likely to be confused with an Operating System.

      I'm reminded of a phone call I got some years ago with an angry man who was very upset his 98 windows didn't arrive with his computer.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    36. Re:App is generic by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      You're delusional. I wouldn't know if they meant the iPhone app store, the Android app store

      So, what you're saying is.. Because 'app store' is a generic term, you wouldn't know, correct?

      As this is despite the fact Android calls theirs Android Marketplace etc.

      So in summary, because it's a generic term, Apple shouldn't have that trademark.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    37. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd still be wrong. The X window system is not a window manager, although it is strongly recommened to use the latter with the former.
      X is a client/server architecture that renders nesting windows and a mouse cursor, reads input devices, provides an extensive and maskable event-notification system, and a large number of protocol extensions to facilitate GUIs. You could say "wiindow renderer" (but that's only part of what it does), but "window manager" isn't quite accurate (and is the term for a special type of X client, anyway).
      [/pedantic]
      -os ;)

    38. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple

      No. I specificly use "App Store" as a generic all the time when discussing the "Andriod Market" with people who don't have andriod devices. They would probably not recognise the name "Android Market" or nessiarily know what it is, but say "the App Store on the Droid" and everybody knows what you're talking about.

    39. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They objected to a logo that was drastically different from their Apple logo though. It was an entirely green, peeled apple in the shape of a W - does this mean that we can't use anything relating to apples (the fruit) in logo's at all? That's like Microsoft complaining about something with a porthole logo, 'cause a porthole is kind of window'....

      If anyone was going to sue Woolworths - you'd think it would be Woolworths.

    40. Re:App is generic by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And it is also owned by at least three other global corporations I can find, none related to the computer software industry.

      Which means Microsoft *MUST* distinguish it by labeling it MICROSOFT WINDOWS, lest they cause cross-market confusion and get sued for that.

      That's quite simply not true. Microsoft have a trademark for Windows within their own particular class of goods and products. For sure there are other classes, and Windows is also trademarked by others in some of those classes. But that does not mean Microsoft have to prefix Windows with "Microsoft"

      Just finished settling this exact matter in court with my own business in the USA. Apparently ecogroLED looks like Eco-Grow LED despite being registered in another country.

      Before you respond, perhaps you should consider the person you're trying to downplay has quite a bit of experience in this exact matter.

      You have a LOT of homework to do on me before you get close to understanding me.

      Your claim to be an expert means absolutely nothing. Even if we did know who you are and what you do, it would be the fallacious argument of "Appeal to authority". Which is made worse by you proclaiming yourself as the authority. But we know nothing of you. You have no credentials. And further more, looking at your history of comment in just this news story, I see 3 glaring errors, that you've been corrected on, that even a novice wouldn't make. You know next to nothing about trademarks. In other words, you're full of shit.

    41. Re:App is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but Big Mc's would be fine.

    42. Re:App is generic by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the law.

      "Generic" is a technical term in trademark law. It means using the name of a thing as the brand. For example Apple brand Apples would be generic. Operating System brand operating system would also be generic. Generic brands are never trademarkable.

      However, Microsoft Windows falls in the "descriptive" category of trademarks. A descriptive trademark uses some aspect of a thing as the brand. For example "AllBran" brand cereal would be descriptive. Windows brand operating system would also be descriptive. Descriptive brands are trademarkable only if they have acquired secondary meaning.

      The brand "AppStore" is pretty generic because it describes an application store though it may border on being descriptive. The Windows brand, however, is very firmly in descriptive territory.

      Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

  9. If you don't want your trademark used ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2

    Then don't name it something obvious and generic. App Store is a short name for "Application Store" which is the very definition of the service they provide. They essentially named it The "App Store" Application Store. It's like naming something the "Oil Comp" Oil Company, or the "Soft. development" Software development company. They are using a generic term, so fuck them. Be more creative and stop trying to ban language.

    Google did the same shit, they named theirs "Market". I mean, come on!. What is it? A Market. Who owns it? Google. What is it called? Google Market TM. FUCK THAT. Call it SuckingCocksthroughagardenhose TM or Bazinga TM and then we'll all support you when someone tries to infringe on your trademark. Actually, if you call it something original, no reasonable company will try to infringe on your trademark.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      I mean really, if Apple were concerned about this they could have named theirs the "Apple iApp iStore for iPhones where iPaid" or some such crap. As it is, a reasonable person would tell them to get lost. Its too bad that case law and trademark law don't necessarily need to conform to any reasonable person's expectation though. It would sure be nice if there were some way to have a trustworthy "reasonable person" test that stands between suites like this and the court. If it doesn't pass, there is no suit. However, that idea fails as how could we be sure that person wasn't biased?

    2. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by mini+me · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, "app" is the file extension NeXT chose for application bundles. Since OS X and iOS are NeXTStep derrived, they too use the app extension. When you visit the App Store, you really are buying "app"s. Microsoft opening an EXE Store would be a better example of another company doing something similar.

    3. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like by naming your oil company "British Petroleum" or naming your software company "Microcomputer Software"?

      AC because I can't be bothered logging in.

    4. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by SudoGhost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was always under the impression it was called the iTunes App Store. Although I realize my opinion has no weight in the larger scheme of things, I'd see a problem if Amazon called it the aTunes App Store or something...but App Store in the American vocabulary does not mean iTunes App Store. My mom calls the Android Market the app store. I don't see anyone getting confused, as most people call any application distribution platform an app store.

      And by the way, Google's app store is called the Android Market, which is very specific, and leaves no confusion about what it is. Amazon can open a 'market' or an 'amazon market' but they can't open an Android Market.

    5. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      This justification does not work, as iOS devices use the extension ipa for their bundles.

    6. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by mini+me · · Score: 1

      The .ipa is just a zip file. Uncompress it and you'll find your .app inside. Try it!

    7. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try dumbass, but you're actually buying .ipa (iPhone application) files on the App Store. The '.app' is an embedded technicality (like the .text section).

    8. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Can't perform the few keystrokes it takes to log in versus the far more numerous keystrokes it took to type that statement?

      Pretty damned sad.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by mini+me · · Score: 2

      The .ipa is just a compressed distribution package (it is a zip file). The .app file is contained within. I guess you could argue that OS X doesn't use .app either because software is typically distributed via .dmg or .pkg files, but I'm not sure what is to be gained.

    10. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Draek · · Score: 1

      Then Amazon can't be infringing as their App Store clearly sells applications rather than .app files, and no customer would confuse the two of them. Right?

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    11. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have my (very long and randomly generated) /. password stored in an encrypted password file which just so happens to be on a different computer to this one, due to me only purchasing it yesterday I haven't copied everything across yet.

    12. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      .app is also extension for FoxBASE/FoxPro compiled apps. So what?

    13. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You don't use lastpass?

      laughinghackers.avi

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

      (I'm the AC)

      Nope, the goal is to eventually memorize said password. That doesn't work too well when I only ever log in once per machine though.

      --
      I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    15. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      As usual, where iTunes is involved, things get convoluted.

      On a Mac, the media player is called 'iTunes', the music (etc.) store is called the 'iTunes Store'. iPhone apps can be bought through the iTunes Store.

      On an iPhone, the media player is called 'iPod' (the same name as another line of physical products), the music (etc.) store is called 'iTunes' (the same name as the media player on OS X), and iPhone apps are bought through a separate app called the 'App Store'.

      If Apple is really concerned about customer confusion, they should sort this mess out first, because it sure as hell confuses me.

    16. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly Microsoft tried to trademark "Internet Explorer" but they failed. So you can name your web browser "YetAnother Internet Explorer" or simply "Internet Explorer" as long as you stay away from "Microsoft Internet Explorer".

    17. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with you on the Android Market and Amazon App Store points.

      But I want to disagree about if Amazon called it aTunes. While I'm not suggesting they do so, I kind of bristle at the reality distortion field that not only has convinced itself that it owns a letter of the alphabet ("i") that has a history dating from Egyptian hieroglyphics, but also believes that it owns the general concept of "letter + generic noun". ("e-mail"?)

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    18. Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      It's not called Google Market (was it called that before?). Anyway, it's Android Market now. Even if it were Google Market, I think that would be OK, as long as they understood that they weren't getting rights to the word "Market".

      That's why there can be both MS Office and Corel Office.

      Regarding "Oil Company": right. Oil Company is the analogue of App Store. A company; what kind of company? Oil company. A store; what kind of store? An app store, not a stationery store or a candle store.

      To Apple's way of thinking, no oil company could call themselves a company after the first black-turtlenecked one did. It would be:

      Standard Oil Company
      American Oil Corp.
      Anglo-Iranian Oil Group
      Arabian Oil Herd
      Venezuelan Oil Posse

      Or maybe:
      American Greasy Stuff Company
      Anglo-Iranian Black Slippery Goo Company
      Arabian Ebony-Colored Fuel Company
      Venezuelan ? Company

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  10. Want to Sue Your Competitor? by Mirrim · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's an App for that!

    1. Re:Want to Sue Your Competitor? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, there isn't, because it competes with Apple's offerings.

  11. Trademarking a general term is stupid! by JayRott · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go trademark "grocery store" now. Piss off, Apple!

    1. Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the exact point I was just about to make. Every IGA store across the country should be suing Kroger, WalMart, Food City, Publix, etc. for calling themselves grocery stores if this suit goes through. Whoever was the first gas station chain should be able to sue any other gas station with those very words in their names. Roadrunner Market should probably sue Google too. I got so confused when I signed in to the Google Market and couldn't buy Doritos and a Grandaddy Sandwich. And while we're at it, my grandfather should sue Roadrunner Markets. I got confused when I asked my sandwich for sagely advice and only found lettuce.

    2. Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      How about Groc Store?

      could be a place to sell complex code???

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a general term if almost no one used it before Apple? The only time I'd heard the term "app" before the App Store was a shorthand for appetizers in the movie "Beautiful Girls" -- and even then, it was a joke that the guy saying it was showing off with the jargon he knew since taking over a bar. I think another software company did use it (as mentioned in a comment to a previous /. story) which may be enough if true, but claiming it was a general term is really stretching the truth. You could say it was related to a general term, but if they had named it the Soft Store I don't think anyone would argue that was a general term for a software store.

    4. Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that would be Grok Store. As the obvious original creator of this name I release it into the public domain.

    5. Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      App was technical jargon for applications long before Apple. No, the 12-year-olds didn't talk about hot apps, but techies and developers did. It was just common shorthand.

    6. Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If it was developed offshore it would be a Crock Store.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. General Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to open a General Store and call it General Store. I shall sue anyone who dare call themselves, "General Store".

    1. Re:General Store by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Colonel Store best hope he doesn't get promoted then.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  13. To all you iPad fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To those folk who keep telling me how "magical" your iPad is: it's your money that's funding this suit.

    To anyone that has ever bought an Apple product: it's your money that's funding this suit.

    How'd you like them apples now, boy?

    1. Re:To all you iPad fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good! I hope Amazon loses this. You can't infringe other people trademarks plain and simple.

  14. Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT by patch5 · · Score: 0

    Friends don't let friends drink and Slashdot.

  15. Cost of innovation Cost of litigation by JimboG · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming from all the litigation against competitors by large U.S. technology/software firms, it is cheaper and easier for them to sue than to come up with new products and ideas for their customers.

  16. Amazon is either smart or stupid by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The "App Store" (TM) application store by Apple is trademarked. The trademark is 3 years old now, and hasn't seen any real enforcement. Of course, we all know it's a non-unique descriptive that is, by trademark rules, untrademarkable (like "Windows" (TM) to refer to an operating system distinguished because applications run in windows, when the phrase "windows" to refer to the method of display pre-dates the OS in question).

    So, either Amazon doesn't know Apple has an App Store (TM) that they were infringing against, or they did know, recognize it's invalid, and purposefully infringed it to start the legal battle to strip Apple of the trademark that should never have been awarded in the first place. I'm guessing they aren't that stupid. And the pros hint that if Microsoft ever tried to enforce their Windows trademark, that they'd fail as well. So it seems to be a good time to get in the trademark challenges if you want to. I always wonder how the Stealth (TM) guy is doing. Last I heard, he's still suing everyone.

    1. Re:Amazon is either smart or stupid by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the trademark that should never have been awarded in the first place.

      Trade marks aren't awarded. They are claimed, and sometimes registered to strengthen that claim.

    2. Re:Amazon is either smart or stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, it's pretty unique, I've not seen that term used ANYwhere else. I think Apple is in the right here. If Amazon's store is ever going to be able to sell iOS apps (don't know how likely that is, but it's potentially possible) it would be pretty lame to have to differentiate the two stores. Amazon should have come up with a better name. I'm going with stupid.

  17. Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT by Jstlook · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.

    --
    ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
  18. Hoping this backfires on Apple by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    and some judge breaks it off in Apple's rear end for wasting his time with a frivolous lawsuit

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Hoping this backfires on Apple by Desler · · Score: 2

      They were issued a trademark and trademark law says you must defend your mark or lose it. You can dispute the merits of them being issued the mark, but the law itself compels them into this suit or they lose their mark.

  19. Re:you know what confuses me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Barney Frank, is that you? Thanks for causing the housing market crash, you jackass.

  20. which is it ? by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 0

    Is the "appstore" tag on this story referring to the Apple Appstore, or the Amazon Appstore... ?

    There's an "apple" tag - so I pondered it for a bit, and for a moment, assumed it to be the "Apple Appstore".
    But then this big old "amazon" tag came out of nowhere and muddied (by which i mean diluted (tm) the waters !

    So now I'm confused.... which is it ?

    1. Re:which is it ? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Is the "appstore" tag on this story referring to the Apple Appstore, or the Amazon Appstore... ?

      Apple's trademark consists of "App Store", two capitalizations and a space while Amazon uses "appstore" as one word without a space no capitalization. It's obviously Amazon's.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  21. Re:you know what confuses me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well done, sir, well done. The beer and mucus that squirted from my nose will take hours to remove from my keyboard.

  22. Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.

    Oh, well played!

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  23. Apple sues Sunnyside Day Care by ZipK · · Score: 4, Funny

    In related news, Apple has sued the Sunnyside Day Care pre-school for allowing one Benjamin Turner, age 4, to bite into an apple in such a way as to result in a mark that too closely resembles Apple's trademarked logo. Apple states that they are "in favor" of children eating healthy snacks, particularly apples, but that they are compelled to protect their intellectual property, lest another child mistakes Turner's apple for Apple's logo and attempts to eat the industry giant's products, website or marketing materials. Turner was napping and unavailable for comment.

  24. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    App is the first three letters of Apple, clearly Apple owns this forevermore.

  25. In related news.. by formfeed · · Score: 0

    .. Kotex is suing apple for copyright infringements on the maxipad.

    Come on, how blatant is that, the new ipad even bleeds through on the edges!

  26. It's not even the same word... by wygit · · Score: 2

    Amazon is calling theirs the Amazon "appstore". One word. Lower case.
    Apple's is the Apple "App Store". Two words. Capitalized.
    How can there be any confusion?

    1. Re:It's not even the same word... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Capitalization is stylistic and doesn't apply to proper nouns. Spaces matter, though. However, trademarks are judged by similarity -- whether a person would be confused between the two.

    2. Re:It's not even the same word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say it like that it makes it absolutely clear why Amazon should be sued and Amazon should lose. They are trying to capitalize off Apple trademark.

    3. Re:It's not even the same word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is apple has no right to the trade mark. App Store is about as generic as it gets. Even Microsoft struggles to hold up there trade mark in court for "Microsoft Windows" and that is far less generic than "app store"

    4. Re:It's not even the same word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have every right to that Trademark because it is registered to them.

    5. Re:It's not even the same word... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You're a Python programmer, aren't you.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:It's not even the same word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I suspect the settlement between the two will be that Apple will have to call theirs "The Apple App Store" and Amazon will call theirs "The Amazon Appstore."

    7. Re:It's not even the same word... by wygit · · Score: 1

      No, mostly perl, but the same rules apply.

  27. Goes way back by scotts13 · · Score: 1

    To the best of my knowledge, the first time I heard anyone refer to an "app" was programmers referring to executables on the original Mac OS. All files had a type and creator code; for programs the type was "appl". The "l" was awkward to pronounce, so they were just called "apps".

  28. Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT by Fnord666 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stick to giving eachother AIDS, fags.

    Why don't you run on back to 4chan before your Mom finds out you're using the computer again.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  29. Off to the USPTO I go! by mykos · · Score: 3

    Since we can trademark our stores based on what we sell, I'm off to trademark hardware store, clothing store, electronics store, video game store, grocery store, and music store.

  30. For once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an app developer, let me say I really hope Apple succeeds in shutting down the mess that is the Amazon App Store..

    1. Re:For once... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Won't happen, not because of this. The most they can do is force Amazon to stop calling it the App Store.

  31. arm chair lawyers by codepunk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Would you bet a large sum of your own money that apple will lose the suit? yea, I thought so.

    I see everyone getting spun up about it being too generic.

    Well if that is the case why don't one of you man up and and create a social networking site called face book. I mean come on, face and book are two very generic terms, nobody will care if you put a little space in there and call it face book.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:arm chair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      face%20book

    2. Re:arm chair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.....just a bunch of know nothing punk /.'s that dont know shit about what they are saying. As you point out very nicely...these idiots on /. dont know wtf they are talking about. Apple will win most likely and kick the shit out of Amazon and thier bitch asses.

      fucking idiot /.'s

    3. Re:arm chair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That term is also too generic and was in use before the popular social networking site. I would lose based on the fact that they are rich and powerful, not on whether my case has merit.

    4. Re:arm chair lawyers by adeft · · Score: 1

      Just because Apple has a good chance to win, doesn't make this round of ridiculous lawsuits any more logical.

    5. Re:arm chair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument isn't that "app" and "store" are generic by themselves. The argument is that the phrase "app store" itself is generic.

      I have never heard anyone talk about "face books" that are not Facebook. But I frequently hear people talk about "app stores" that are not Apple's App Store, such as the "Android app store" (32 million Google hits) and the "Blackberry app store" (2 million Google hits).

    6. Re:arm chair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again, facebook is hardly a book of faces, while the App Store is a store for apps.

    7. Re:arm chair lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems like a pretty stupid argument to make. App store is a generic description that describes the type of store it is. Face and book may be generic terms but Facebook is by no means a generic description of all social networking sites, like app store is for all merchants of applications. It's like saying you're going to the drug store, the convenient store, car dealer, etc.

  32. Change the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call it Application Store and don't be so lazy. There fixed it for you Amazon.

    Even /. articles and comments here about anything software related are just typing "app". Stop advertising for Apple.

  33. To prevent confusion? by phonewebcam · · Score: 1

    But I'm already confused - why is the Beatles record label concerned about software on smartphones?

  34. Too Generic by Tsu-na-mi · · Score: 2

    Isn't "App Store" the functional equivalent of "Flower Shop", "Fruit Stand", or "Gas Station"? [what we sell] [synonym for merchant establishment].

    Should never have been granted a trademark on the name.

    --
    I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
    1. Re:Too Generic by organgtool · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. It would be poetic justice if the court ruled that the term "App Store" is too generic and Apple loses their own trademark in the process of suing a competitor.

    2. Re:Too Generic by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      This. Those who are against this are opposing the trademark as pushback against big companies claiming parts of the public space all for their private selves.

      Want to buy Apps? A certain company wants you to think only of them.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  35. Re:you know what confuses me? by somersault · · Score: 1

    That clearly depends on whether you have to clean it out of your keyboard after.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  36. "App" is generic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "App" is an abbreviation for "Application," both of which are generic terms that have long been used to describe programs that run on computers.

    "Store" is a generic term for an establishment that sells stuff.

    Therefore, "App Store" is a generic term for a "store" that sells "apps" or "applications."

  37. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple suing Amazon over a similar name. Is there no end to Paul McCartney's selfishness!

  38. But another poster made much of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But another poster made much of that difference. AppStore was rejected as prior use by that poster because their google search was App Store with the space, exactly as Apple did it.

    You may wish to converse with them to correct their mistake.

  39. And in some sort of ultimate irony... by Max+Hyre · · Score: 1
    No one seems to have noted the part of Bloomberg's article saying:

    Apple applied to register App Store as a trademark in the U.S., and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office approved the application, Apple said in the lawsuit.

    Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has opposed the registration and the matter will be the subject of proceedings before a trademark appeal board, Apple said in the court filing.

    The people who registered `Windows' think `App Store' is unworthy of a trademark registration?

    --
    I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
  40. The Jerk Store called by amliebsch · · Score: 1

    They're being sued by Apple.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  41. Too Generic lets make money off it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats it. I am going to trade mark the name "John Doe" and now any time it is used or given to anyone they have to pay me money. Muhahahaha

  42. Pot Calling Kettle Black by ZomgPonies · · Score: 0

    iWeb Technologies, the webhosting company where I worked has 'asked' for years through litigation for Apple to stop using it's 'iWeb' Trademark, which was registered in 1996 in both Canada and the US, wayyyyyyyyy before Apple put out it's iWeb web creation application. Just goes to show that for Apple, it's 'our way or the highway'.

  43. Yes, Virginia, there are other phones by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Although i$DEVICE users are supposed to have the attitude of "I just want to use it, not tinker with it", doesn't anyone find it patronizing that Apple assumes its users are so dumb as rocks as to not recognize that, Yes Virginia,
    -there are other phones besides the iPhone, and so consequently
    -there must be app[lications] for those phones, and
    -there must be app[lication] stores for those phones?

    Or are Apple users so solipsistic that they can't even begin to conceive of a phone that doesn't wear a black turtleneck?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  44. Re:you know what confuses me? by jgagnon · · Score: 1

    If anything comes out of your ass and hits your keyboard, you're doing it wrong. Regardless of what "it" is.

    --
    Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  45. Re:you know what confuses me? by somersault · · Score: 1

    What if you're trying to fire a rocket out of your ass, and using your keyboard as a target?

    Suddenly, I'm reminded of Jackass 3D.. it involved a blow dart, and a balloon..

    --
    which is totally what she said