Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Responds To "App Store" Lawsuit From Apple

tekgoblin writes "Apple had filed a lawsuit in March against Amazon's use of 'App Store' in their newly launched Amazon AppStore. Apple had informed Amazon that using the term 'App Store' was unlawful because they owned the rights to the term itself. In their response Amazon indicates that the term 'App Store' is too generic for Apple to lay claim to the name itself."

414 comments

  1. uhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this "news" really old?

    1. Re:uhhh by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      I think the "news" is that Amazon has responded with exactly what everyone had already predicted they'd respond with:

      "App Store" is too generic.

    2. Re:uhhh by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's about a 2 day old court filing. You have a very strange definition of "really old".

    3. Re:uhhh by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      Amazon's response is new.

      --
      This space for rent.
    4. Re:uhhh by sjames · · Score: 1

      How many velociraptors did you have to swerve around on your way to work yesterday? If non-zero AND you don't have a hallucination problem, then I suppose this news is a bit old. Otherwise, no, it's a current event.

    5. Re:uhhh by click2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amazon quotes Apple chief executive Steve Jobs in the filing referring to the iTunes App Store as "the easiest to use, largest app store in the world".

      http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/mac-inspector-blog/2046035/amazon-files-response-apples-app-store-suit

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

      And the sad thing is that this comes from the company that patented the "genius" 1-click buying.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    7. Re:uhhh by toastar · · Score: 1

      Well... I did have to swerve around a box with a few velociraptors. Does that count?

    8. Re:uhhh by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Well... I did have to swerve around a box with a few velociraptors. Does that count?

      Yes because Western Digital drives are extremely dangerous and prone to killing off anything that touches their platers.

    9. Re:uhhh by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      Can Klenex sue anyone for using their name when referring to Tissue Paper to blow your nose?

    10. Re:uhhh by dachshund · · Score: 1

      And the sad thing is that this comes from the company that patented the "genius" 1-click buying.

      Which Apple subsequently licensed for some 'undisclosed sum'*, making the whole thing look legitimate and thus helping Amazon when they went to assert their patent against other defendants.

      Watch the same thing happen here.

      * $8.50 and a jar of pimento olives.

    11. Re:uhhh by sjames · · Score: 1

      If they were in a box on the road, they might technically be EX-velociraptors.

    12. Re:uhhh by Quirkz · · Score: 1
      I believe so, yes. Though they wouldn't sue "anyone," just competitors trying to infringe on their trademark. Perhaps they'd also discourage journalists and other big media outlets from using Kleenex as a common term.

      Thing is, "Kleenex" is a completely made-up word, and even then they were so popular it was a close call (and took a lawsuit, if I recall) for them to defend the term as a proper noun rather than a generic term. If it had gone the other way, it might just be "kleenex" today, and anybody could use it, because the brand was nearly that ubiquitous.

      So take something like "app store" which millions of people might string together of their own devices when trying to describe a place where you buy things (i.e., a store), that sells software (i.e., apps), and you've got a situation where it's at least reasonable to argue about whether it's generic or has the ability to be trademarked.

    13. Re:uhhh by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was saying his Apple Computer Incorporated is the bestest Apple Computer Incorporated out of all the Apple Computer Incorporateds in the world? Cuz it is.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    14. Re:uhhh by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate them, they hunt in packs!

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    15. Re:uhhh by lgw · · Score: 1

      Kleenex (instthat actually Kimberly Clark?) has a trademark on "Pop Up". Still waiting hopefully for them to sue everyone using pop-up ads.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:uhhh by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate them, they hunt in packs!

      Just when you thought it was safe to rebuild your 20TB RAID6 array, BAM! your a dead man with no backup....

    17. Re:uhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of Pres. Bush the Second's education promise that the US would have "best educated Americans in the world."

    18. Re:uhhh by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      You missed his point. If "Kleenex" produces "Kleenex Tissue Paper", can no-one else produce "tissue paper"? Of course they can; it is a generic phrase that describes something: tissue paper. They can't call it "Kleenex" but they can call it tissue paper, because that's what it is.

      Similarly the existence of an "Apple App Store" does not prevent Amazon from creating an "Amazon AppStore". Nobody can start a computing company named "Apple", but they can create an app store and call it that, because that's what it is.

    19. Re:uhhh by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Did I miss his point or did you? One of us is misreading him, but I'm not entirely sure which. I agree 100% that your answer to your version of the question is correct, and that's basically what I said in the second half of my own post. I still think "can Klenex sue anyone for using their name" means my interpretation of the question is what the OP intended, but we may never know, and since we're agreeing with each other about the answer, whatever the question, it's probably not worth worrying about.

  2. Dear God... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the love of sanity, please let Amazon win this one. I don't know if I want to live in a country where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    1. Re:Dear God... by The13thSin · · Score: 1

      Indeed, these kind of suits are getting ridiculous... (and I don't mean the fashionable ones.)

      --
      "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
    2. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company that patented the "one-click" technique shouldn't feel that ANYTHING was too generic.

    3. Re:Dear God... by morcego · · Score: 2

      I don't know. After the "1 click" patent, I'm not sure I want Amazon to win this.

      --
      morcego
    4. Re:Dear God... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like things like "Windows" right?

      Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".

      --
      This space for rent.
    5. Re:Dear God... by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2

      Presumably the action will be on the question of whether "App" is a protectable term. I think that nobody would bother arguing that "Application Store" is trademarkable. It's clearly too generic. "App Store" may be less clear, though. Certainly Apple has done a lot to popularize the term but, at the end of the day, "App" really is just an abbreviation of "Application" that was already in pretty wide circulation before Apple starting using it.

      So at the end of the day, don't worry, I think you will probably get your wish.

      (IAAL, but IANA IP L.)

    6. Re:Dear God... by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A patent is different from a trademark...

    8. Re:Dear God... by The13thSin · · Score: 1

      How is "Windows" a generic term to describe an operating system?

      --
      "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
    9. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it hard to believe they would be able to protect something. How far back did apple start using "App"? SnapApps was using it in 1999.

      http://replay.web.archive.org/19991012191138/http://www.snapapps.com/

    10. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its better than Apple winning.
      Remember the "trashcan" and all the W,I.M.P. crap they've done in the past.

    11. Re:Dear God... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can still use the UI elements called Windows. You can still call them Windows. You can't call your operating system Windows. That's wildly different.

    12. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only know it as "the proper name of that thing" *because* Apple made it ubiquitous.

    13. Re:Dear God... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you, your explanation leaves open the possibility of me creating an app store and calling it "Apps" (tm) and successfully defending that trademark. And while I think that a store called "Apps" is more unique than one called "App Store", I still don't think it should be a trademark-able name; but that's just my opinion.

    14. Re:Dear God... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Presumably the action will be on the question of whether "App" is a protectable term.

      Don't be silly. I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store". :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    15. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, app is commonly used in lieu of "application" for many industries and has nothing to do with computers. Mostly paperwork.

    16. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X is a windowing system that has been around long before Windows. Is that not confusing? Linux runs X windows but not MS windows.

    17. Re:Dear God... by Nikker · · Score: 0

      Tell me about it next thing you know some one is going to patent a link that says "buy" to let you buy something!

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    18. Re:Dear God... by hotsauce · · Score: 1

      How do you like SQL Server?

    19. Re:Dear God... by zeroshade · · Score: 2

      Windows is an Operating System. X is a gui windowing system. I don't see the confusion. They do different things.

    20. Re:Dear God... by spun · · Score: 1

      So I decided to check on that. Turns out you are right, on the first page of results is commonapp.org, a common application for over 400 colleges and universities. Also on the first page, The Association of Professional Piercers, the Asbury Park Press, and APP pharmaceuticals. But most of the results were for application type apps, of course. Still, I wouldn't say "app" is like "windows."

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    21. Re:Dear God... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      So long as your trademark doesn't prevent people from making apps and then selling them in an App Store, I'd be fine with that trademark. But that's just my opinion.

    22. Re:Dear God... by smelch · · Score: 1

      Well the name is MS SQL Server and I don't think Microsoft has sued anybody for naming their product X SQL Server. Also, the name would be "Database" to be the same as "App Store".

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    23. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I know this isn't going to be popular, but as long as the laws are on the books that allow companies to tm English phrases, then they have the right to do so, as dumb as you or I might think that is.

      Besides, I don't think App Store together had any meaning before Apple, much like "Band Aid" had no particular meaning before becoming the de facto standard term for a bandage.

    24. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bad one, but if the trademark was "Database" or "Database Server" then it'd be a better comparison.

    25. Re:Dear God... by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      Excellent point, but given that these types of lawsuit are usually usage type specific, it doesn't really apply here.

    26. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      App + store are not the same thing as operating + system. Nobody used App + Store together to create a new meaning before Apple (unless I'm mistaken), so why not trademark it, especially when it is such an important centerpiece to their overall strategy.

    27. Re:Dear God... by smelch · · Score: 1

      Hey, why do you hide behind your pseudonym, feeb? I use my real name. You're completely pathetic.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    28. Re:Dear God... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      "app" is a generic term for an application, as "store" is a generic term for a place to buy things. There is nothing novel about Apple's supposed trademark, they are merely describing what their storefront is.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    29. Re:Dear God... by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      Just becuase you make an old phrase popular, doesn't mean you get to own the phrase. People have used the term "app" in place of "application" for a long time. Furthermore, it is natural to assume a store selling apps is an app store (much the same way one selling groceries would be a grocery store). Given that the term is older than Apple's use of it, and highly generic, there is no reason Amazon shouldn't be able to use it.

    30. Re:Dear God... by Altus · · Score: 1

      Really, because there operating systems that used windows as a major component of its interface before MS made its OS called Windows.

      I know it took my mother several years to understand the difference.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    31. Re:Dear God... by kenshin33 · · Score: 2

      And it's X Window (notice the absence of the S)

    32. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Before MS had an operating system that used windows called Windows, there was Mac OS, which also had "windows". I think windows is pretty generic.

    33. Re:Dear God... by Altus · · Score: 1

      And you can still have a store that sells applications, you just cant call it the App Store.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    34. Re:Dear God... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would teach them. Lets keep setting bad precedences, so that companies realize about Karma and start being good.

      Sarcasm, aside, this would only motivate other companies to go for such crazy patents and trademarks. Patent trolls will become interested too.

    35. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 0

      They tried. Oh gods, they tried. Looking at the last story about this one, it looks like Microsoft SQL Server is the only boxed product that includes manuals, distribution media, etc. that can be called "SQL Server".

      Read and weep.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    36. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 0

      Trash. Yes, what about it? You think it was fair for Windows to copy the UI metaphor of a trash can? I don't. Credit MS for coming up with "recycle bin"...that's so Apple (to be green and hip and all).

      You probably also have a problem with "Quit". Apple tm'd that too, which is why Windows has "Exit" and not "Quit".

    37. Re:Dear God... by brkello · · Score: 1

      Not confusing at all. Windows is the name of one OS. Linux is the name of another OS. If you know enough to be using Linux and know that it runs X as its windowing system, you already have enough sophistication that you wouldn't confuse the two.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    38. Re:Dear God... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".

      That aside, MS was going to lose their case against Lindows. Had to settle out of court and pay Lindows to drop the case.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    39. Re:Dear God... by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      bravo. i forgot about that nonsense.

    40. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are mistaken.

    41. Re:Dear God... by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      "App" and "Store" together created new meaning no more than "Auto" and "Shop" together did. Should the first guy to call his shop "Auto Shop" instead of "Bill's" or "Bill's Automobile Sales and Service" have gotten a trademark on it? No, of course not. That is why nobody was dumb enough to try.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    42. Re:Dear God... by Desler · · Score: 1

      They tried. Oh gods, they tried.

      And yet you didn't even link a single example.

    43. Re:Dear God... by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      > Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself.

      It most certainly does.

      Window is the W in W.I.M.P.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:Dear God... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      In other words, Michael Robertson sold out. More power to him, I guess. I'd probably do the same for piles of cash. I was upset because I paid for the lindows family pack (I think that's what it was called) not long before he sold out and removed the "windows support" from lindows.

    45. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      software applications are NOT "apps"

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/app

      Definition of "app":
      application 1a(3)

      First Known Use of APP:
      1987

    46. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Read this, to which I did link. Notice the (R) next to "SQL Server". I think evidence of success counts as an example of an attempt.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    47. Re:Dear God... by Radiophobic · · Score: 2

      And yet that is just as ridiculous as apple suing people for the term app store. Why are people using Microsoft's actions to justify Apple now?

    48. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, it is like a restaurant or grocery store trademarking the term "food shop"

    49. Re:Dear God... by smelch · · Score: 1

      Well, this is the first time I've ever been wrong. And yet, I'm still right. SQL Server is not a term I would use for any other database server software, not because its trademarked but because I call databases databases or RDBMSes. If I were in charge I probably wouldn't let them trademark it, but I don't think its as egregious as the App Store trademark.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    50. Re:Dear God... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      I don't see any reason to weep. I doubt if they will be able to successfully sue something called "Amazon SQL Server", although Amazon would probably call it Amazon Database Server.

      --
      This space for rent.
    51. Re:Dear God... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Before MS had an operating system called Windows no-one ever said 'I am going to buy a copy of Windows', or 'How do I install Windows', or 'Windows crashed'. The term 'Windows' was never used to refer to an operating system until MS named theirs. The term is not generic when referring to an OS. People may have said 'How do I close a window', etc but that was always in reference to either a physical window, or the UI element called a window, never an OS.

    52. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      No one is—but amusingly, Microsoft made the same complaint, and this trademark was presented as a demonstration of hypocrisy. The reality is that most, if not all, big tech companies have a lot of obscene generic trademarks in slightly less literal contexts (e.g. Word, Windows) and we shouldn't bother splitting hairs—unless you made the word up, or it's a compound term that clearly specifies your ownership ("Google Talk" versus "Word") it probably shouldn't be trademark-worthy!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    53. Re:Dear God... by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      In that sense, the bandaid example wouldn't stand up either though as it is a bandage for first aid. (Band)(Aid). It is perhaps a half step removed from app store true, but it is pretty close. That said, I agree that App Store should not be trade markable, but I'm not sure that it isn't legally trade markable.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    54. Re:Dear God... by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      For the love of sanity, please let Amazon win this one. I don't know if I want to live in a country where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.

      Do you mean a proper name line say "Amazon" or a generic name like "apple"?

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    55. Re:Dear God... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      X is a windowing system that has been around long before Windows. Is that not confusing? Linux runs X windows but not MS windows.

      Confusing has nothing to do with it. Now you bring it up please note how Microsoft has not sued anyone over the X Window System name.

    56. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sux actually.

      But does it actually serve SQL or does it serve data?

    57. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.

      Oh, no! Did Apple register trademarks for Package Manager and Software Repository ?! Those bastards! It's too bad Amazon (and Microsoft) can't possibly think up something new or different now, like, say, App Market, or Application Cafe, or the Amazon Repo, or Software Grocery. OR ANYTHING AT ALL. Amazon could call it the Shoe Store, and it wouldn't matter, we'd all know what it really was. How did Cydia come up with it's own name? HOW??!

    58. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      I see. So you'd have no problem, then, if Apache trademarked "HTTP Server" (or to hit closer to reality, httpd, but I'm not sure if that argument will work out the same way, so let's ignore it), because everyone else calls their product a web server, or hyperlinked document management system? It's still undercutting by claiming that they own the whole show.

      Moreover, I think your decision to avoid the term "SQL server" in your regular usage is probably a colloquialism. I know I personally have spoken of SQL servers when talking to clients, to refer to MySQL, Sybase, and MSSQL installations collectively. It's a term that business people recognize as jargon much more readily than the unwieldly (if precise) RDBMS, and it can be avoidable if you need to contrast an SQL-using DB with a non-SQL-based DB.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    59. Re:Dear God... by hotsauce · · Score: 1

      If that guy invented the concept of an auto shop, then why not?

      Much more absurd things are trademarked in America. Including mottos that claim superiority or greatness without any basis in fact. The whole patent system is broken, and we have an entire thread complaining about one trademark of App Store?

      Only on Slashdot... and this is the day I have to be waiting for sysadmins and free to post.

    60. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      This is more of a "oh god wtf is wrong with the people at the USPTO" weeping than a "we're screwed in the long run" weeping. However, from what I've learned of the US legal system, an untested precedent is not something on which you want to gamble the risk of a lawsuit.

      There will always be judges and jurisdictions that can be selected to make the case go against all humanity and reason, in deference to "well, we authorized it in the first place, and we don't want to make the trademark guys look stupid every day."

      Crossing your fingers that this won't happen is just encouraging life to be harder for yourself. So in practice, they're name-squatting, and it's perfectly effective.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    61. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Apple did not invent the concept of an "application store", i.e. a store that sells computing applications.

    62. Re:Dear God... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      But you can have an operating systems that displays windows. And you can call them windows. You just can't call your operating system that.

    63. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea why should people be able to trademark generic terms like kleenex, zip lock or xerox. IBM was generic term for pc during the 80's and early 90's they should also lose their trademark.

    64. Re:Dear God... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      But a store that sells apps is an app store... so you can't call your store what it is? Is it like when you call a demon by its true name and it destroys itself?

    65. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it only took me a few minutes to explain it to her satisfaction, but for some reason she kept calling me back to explain it again.

    66. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If no store had used the term "food shop" before everyone else, and then they suddenly started making insane profits, why not trademark the term?

      There's no point in arguing against it because you are wrong. You might not want it to be allowable, but it is perfectly legal to trademark common phrases. Just because you don't agree doesn't make you right.

    67. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so who is going to stand up and take on Microsoft "Windows"? Any takers?

    68. Re:Dear God... by smelch · · Score: 1
      Ok, ok. I surrender! To quote myself:

      If I were in charge I probably wouldn't let them trademark it

      You already won, stop making me feel bad! There's something about App Store that seems worse than SQL Server, but that is probably, as you pointed out, specific to me in that I prefer the terms database, Non-relational database and RDBMS over SQL server.

      Incidentally, I thought I didn't get your sig so I googled for it and found the answer in a conversation you were having about data formats (kicking people's ass along the way it seemed, from my skimming). Turns out I did get it, and you're just a lot nerdier than I am to find it funny. I think that's a compliment. Wait, it was supposed to be funny right?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    69. Re:Dear God... by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>>I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store". :-)

      Your joke is not as funny as you believe. Amazon was sued in the mid-90s for calling itself "the world's largest bookstore". Barnes&Noble claimed that it isn't a store, therefore should not use that term, and the idiotic courts agreed, forcing amazon to drop the label. (In my opinion, a place where you store books, food, widgets, et cetera can call itself "a store".)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    70. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      But the band-aid example does stand up because band-aid is trademarked.

    71. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are all of you people who think Apple created the term "app" paid shills, or just so fucking stupid you can barely remember how to breathe?

    72. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      It's not about inventing something or not. That's what patents are for. Apple is profiting off the combination of the terms App + Store and therefore have trademarked it so that others can't just come along and benefit from Apple's diligence/creativity/dumb luck.

      I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is.

    73. Re:Dear God... by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      Well... no. Linux is only the kernel. The userland is mostly GNU. I know it's nitpicking and usually irrelevant, but if we're talking about what is what... Plus Windows wasn't a full-fledged operating system in its earliest incarnations. It was exactly a windowing system for DOS.

    74. Re:Dear God... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I love these posts. There is a bigger issue than X, therefore it's absurd to complain about X.

      We have millions of kids in the world dying of hunger and you're complaining about the patent system?! Preposterous!

    75. Re:Dear God... by treeves · · Score: 1

      but how many times has Johnson&Johnson sued someone for using the name Band-Aid for something other than J&J's product?
        I'm really curious, because I suspect it is never. Maybe because J&J knows that it isn't hurting their profits. Yes, I know that using the name and using the name for a competitive product are two different things.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    76. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I, um, forget. Google only returns a FreeBSD mailing list post, and I'm pretty sure I haven't read that particular post before. If you're feeling hopeless, the land of GNU maintains a large site of similar humour, which is one of several things I wish they would stop including in emacs's etc directory.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    77. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I don't know how many times they've sued, but I'd say they have the right to sue every single time a competitor calls their bandage product a Band-Aid.

    78. Re:Dear God... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Common phrases? Yes. Descriptive phrases? No.

      A descriptive mark is a mark that directly describes, rather than suggests, a characteristic or quality of the underlying product (e.g. its color, odor, function, dimensions, or ingredients). For example, "Holiday Inn," "All Bran," and "Vision Center" all describe some aspect of the underlying product or service (respectively, hotel rooms, breakfast cereal, optical services). They tell us something about the product. Unlike arbitrary or suggestive marks, descriptive marks are not inherently distinctive and are protected only if they have acquired "secondary meaning." Descriptive marks must clear this additional hurdle because they are terms that are useful for describing the underlying product, and giving a particular manufacturer the exclusive right to use the term could confer an unfair advantage.

    79. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I did find this on wiki, though:

      "Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox for photocopiers, Plexiglas for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex for facial tissues, Band-Aid for adhesive bandages, and others.

    80. Re:Dear God... by Quirkz · · Score: 1
      I'm gonna make a place where it's great to buy things. It's so great, it'll be the best. Then I'll proudly tell everyone to come to my store for the Best Buy.

      I never really thought about it before, but that's a pretty weird name for a store.

    81. Re:Dear God... by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Steam predated it by roughly five years, and I'm sure there were earlier ones.

    82. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      You mean like things like "Windows" right?

      Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".

      You are incorrect. Prior to Apple using the term, it did not exist (and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise). But more importantly, App Store is generically both a package manager and a software repository. "App Store" is no more a generic term than "Kleenex," or "Laundromat."

    83. Re:Dear God... by rsimpson · · Score: 1

      Meh, it makes little difference really. Amazon win the right to call themselves an "AppStore" and they carry on business as usual. People continue to trust the idea of an "AppStore"

      Amazon lose their right to call themselves an "AppStore", and they are forced to rebrand themselves as "X" and launch a large PR campaign to push the brand "X" that distuinghes themselves from the old and tired "AppStore". People become interested in the new hotness of "X" and start looking into it.

      Amazon winning the "AppStore" lawsuite means they continue as is, which is riding on the coattails of Apple. Them losing gives them a chance to re-invent themselves as something shiny and new. And Amazon have to money and drive to back it up.

    84. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      "App" and "Store" together created new meaning no more than "Auto" and "Shop" together did. Should the first guy to call his shop "Auto Shop" instead of "Bill's" or "Bill's Automobile Sales and Service" have gotten a trademark on it? No, of course not. That is why nobody was dumb enough to try.

      You are incorrect. The generic for "Auto Shop" is mechanic. "Auto Shop" is a term that has entered into the common vernacular, however, had a mechanic first called his business "The Auto Shop" he would have had every right to trademark it, and to protect that trademark. The fact that no one tried is not evidence that it could not have been trademarked.

    85. Re:Dear God... by russotto · · Score: 1

      No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all.

      Of course it is. You've got your web browser windows, your word processor windows, your alert windows, etc. Calling the operating system "Windows" is synecdoche; it's at best descriptive, but IMO generic. And before Microsoft Windows there was X Windows, which makes a strong argument for the term being generic.

    86. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 2

      No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."

      You are attempting to replace the true generic term for a specific term. In this instance, the generic term for "app" is software, and the generic for "App Store" has always been and can only be software repository . Had Apple attempted to trademark "software repository" then Amazon would have a case. But what Apple did was coin a term never used before and then market it massively. Other companies should not get to benefit for free from the work Apple has done to create this branded market identity.

    87. Re:Dear God... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      App store is the very definition of a generic trademark, and so should have very little protection.

      But then again, I thought trademarking footlong (tm) sandwiches should be impossible (descriptive trademark), so maybe our legal system IS broken, I dunno.

    88. Re:Dear God... by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)"

      So is that 16,000,000 bytes or 16,777,216 bytes?

    89. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      How is "Windows" a generic term to describe an operating system?

      You may have a valid point. But how is "App Store" a generic term to describe a software repository or a package management system? Once recognized for what it actually is, clearly "App Store" is a specific brand of either or both of those generic terms.

    90. Re:Dear God... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I can't recall the context at all. I just thought it was worded in an awesome way, mostly because I think that the "new" units of measurement sound like some kind of baby talk, and if we must have new units for expressing computer space that we should come up with better names.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    91. Re:Dear God... by nadavwr · · Score: 1

      MS Windows has been "only" a windowing system long before it became an operating system.

      If the original trademark applied to "the windowing system called Windows" then the situation would be comparable to app store.

    92. Re:Dear God... by ProfMobius · · Score: 1

      Because you get the whole thing in reverse ? These are trademarks which became generic names, not the opposite...

      --
      EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
    93. Re:Dear God... by spun · · Score: 1

      No, Apple did not coin the term "app." It was in common use well before the copycats at Apple got hold of it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    94. Re:Dear God... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      A mechanic is one that repairs cars; but I understand "auto shop" as a place that sells cars or parts.

    95. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      No, Apple did not coin the term "app." It was in common use well before the copycats at Apple got hold of it.

      First of all, you are completely wrong. "App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store. Second of all your point is a straw man argument. Is Apple suing Amazon over their trademarked term "App?" No, because they didn't trademark "App," they trademarked "App Store." Amazon is welcome to use the term "App" but prevented from using Apple's trademarked brand "App Store."

    96. Re:Dear God... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      ...the generic term for "app" is software

      No, the generic term for "app" is "application", which has been used to describe computer programs for a very long time, e.g. Application Programmer Interface.

    97. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Greeting Dragonslicer. I'd like introduce you to my good friend, the Transitive Property of Logic, and his pal, the subset. Now that you are aware of each other, I am sure you will all get along swimmingly.

    98. Re:Dear God... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      According to TESS, "SQL Server" is only counted if the manual comes with it. A database product with no manual called "SQL Server" does not infringe. How's THAT for confusing?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    99. Re:Dear God... by knotprawn · · Score: 1

      Best sig I've seen in a while

    100. Re:Dear God... by spun · · Score: 1

      But as you admit, app was in use, in the relevant field, well before Apple tacked "store" on the end. Apple simply took a term that was in common (yes, common) usage, a simple abbreviation for "application," and tacked "store" on the end. Anyone can own an App Store, just like anyone can own a gas station. I don't support corporate thought police restricting my use of a common word.

      Are you a fan of the brand? I've never understood that. I can understand liking certain products, but corporations are inherently sociopathic entities, liking them or their brands regardless of quality is just stupid. Apple is, like all large corporations, as evil as a serial killer at heart. That isn't something one should like.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    101. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      The use of the word "app" was uncommon. If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store," then I will concede to that particular, and unrelated, point. However, it is still a straw man argument. You took my argument (that "App Store" was a reasonable trademark brand) and replaced it with a similar but different argument (that "app" cannot be trademarked).

    102. Re:Dear God... by sootman · · Score: 1
      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    103. Re:Dear God... by narcc · · Score: 1

      It serves SQL, like a slave serves his master.

      It serves data like a bartender serves beer.

    104. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Okay, so who is going to stand up and take on Microsoft "Windows"? Any takers?

      Really? After all these discussions there is still someone who doesn't realise that the 'App Store' is an 'app store' but Microsoft's 'Windows' is an 'operating system' and not a 'windows'.

    105. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"

      Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.

    106. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Before MS had an operating system that used windows called Windows, there was Mac OS, which also had "windows". I think windows is pretty generic.

      It is not generic in the context of operating systems, it *is* a generic term in the context of the openings in walls or the UI element and nothing stops you from referring to those entities as such, you just can't call your operating system 'Windows'. Apple is a generic term too, there are various different kinds of fruit that are apples, but it is not generic in the context of being a company.

    107. Re:Dear God... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Application" that was already in pretty wide circulation before Apple starting using it.

      It was? I think the Mac is what got people using the term 'application', and I'm not even sure if that's from 1984 or later.

      Before that, people just called them programs.

    108. Re:Dear God... by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      I don't know! But I'm happy to take your word for it. My knowledge of Apple doesn't go much further back than the release of the iPod. But for TM law it doesn't actually matter...if it becomes generic, you lose it and in the case of "application" I think it clearly has.

    109. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid the shit is your meal... you have provided a perfect example of AppStore (not "App Store," but beside the point) being a specific trademark and NOT some generic form of an idea. It is unfortunate for salesforce.com that they did not bother to register or claim their trademark. Sucks for them... because it now belongs to Apple.

    110. Re:Dear God... by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      "not App Store"?? Just wow!

    111. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"

      Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.

      Are you really that inept that you can't think of anything relevant to post other than off topic remarks just to attempt a personal attack? I have a 9-inch cock. Please try again, Tiny.

    112. Re:Dear God... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You lose it *if you don't fight for it*.

    113. Re:Dear God... by sys_mast · · Score: 1

      Please clarify. You state that a place that stores books/etc is a store, ok I agree with that. But amazon does store books and stuff(etc) They just don't let you walk in there. So are they a store? I have my opinion, but what are you saying?

      --
      Those who can, do.
    114. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"

      Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.

      Are you really that inept that you can't think of anything relevant to post other than off topic remarks just to attempt a personal attack?

      It's quite obvious you don't understand the term 'relevant' as this is entirely relevant given that it's incredibly easy to find the information you're requesting that proves wrong your assertion that 'app' was not a widely used term before apple used it. So you've made that incorrect assertion without even the slightest bit of the most basic research you could possibly do - and so of course i'm asking if you are lazy or just inept - and yet you STILL request that someone else do it for you.

    115. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument? Your ad hominem attack was irrellivant. Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.

    116. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I take it you can provide us with a shitload of links to sites that used the generic term "app store" way before Apple marketing staff started using it?

    117. Re:Dear God... by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Either way actually. These are two different ways to lose a trademark: by allowing infringing uses OR by it's becoming generic. Whether you fought for it or not, you're probably screwed if your product name starts showing up in dictionaries. (Whether or not you've tried to stop your name from becoming generic can be evidence of whether it is, in fact, generic. But for the most part, as I understand it, this it mostly a factual inquiry about whether, in fact, consumers think that, say, "cellophane," refers to a specific product made by a particular company, or whether it just means "plastic wrap.")

    118. Re:Dear God... by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      Then you understand wrong. The place where you buy a car is a dealership.

      In the case of an auto shop, shop doesn't mean a place to buy, it means a place to work on stuff.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    119. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument?

      The obviousness of how false it is, you've made a statement that is so easily proven false by the most basic and simple research method. You might as well post [citation required] when someone asserts that 'water is wet'.

      Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.

      So even though the most basic and rudimentary search technique would prove you wrong you still decide to refute the comment. All that shows is not only do you have no idea what you're talking about but you also seem incapable of using a common tool to check your argument before you post it.

    120. Re:Dear God... by The13thSin · · Score: 1

      True, but "App Store" can obviously be translated to "Application Store" which both of these stores are. The only claim Apple can possibly make is that they introduced the word "App" thereby making "App Store" their intellectual property / trademark... and since "App" has been an abbreviation of "Application" for quite some time (though maybe not as widespread), I'm thinking they'll have a hard time getting this one to stick. (A lot harder than Microsoft would have litigating if another operating system came out with the word "Windows" in it anyway.)

      --
      "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
    121. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 0

      Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument?

      The obviousness of how false it is, you've made a statement that is so easily proven false by the most basic and simple research method. You might as well post [citation required] when someone asserts that 'water is wet'.

      Again, you are harping on some irrelevant statements you made. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along). So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument? Clearly, you have no argument, and you are a troll, for even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.

      Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.

      So even though the most basic and rudimentary search technique would prove you wrong you still decide to refute the comment. All that shows is not only do you have no idea what you're talking about but you also seem incapable of using a common tool to check your argument before you post it.

      Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree. You would be wise not to insist that others prove a negative. It is a ridiculous claim.

    122. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along).

      Then why did you make such an obviously false argument?

      So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument?

      Because why would anyone believe anything you say if what you say is so obviously wrong which you would have found out if you did a basic search.

      even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.

      If it's irrelevant then why did you refute it at all?

      Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree.

      On what basis are you disagreeing with him? The obvious thing to do would be - if you don't know and are incapable of searching - to ask, rather than just disagree.

    123. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along).

      Then why did you make such an obviously false argument?

      We here in the civilized world call that speaking hypothetically. In this instance, even if we grant you your unproved assertions, your point is irrelevant.

      So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument?

      Because why would anyone believe anything you say if what you say is so obviously wrong which you would have found out if you did a basic search.

      Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..

      even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.

      If it's irrelevant then why did you refute it at all?

      Because I take glorious pleasure in correcting your nonsense, to show you that even if you were correct, your point is irrelevant and nonsensical.

      Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree.

      On what basis are you disagreeing with him? The obvious thing to do would be - if you don't know and are incapable of searching - to ask, rather than just disagree.

      I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.

      Any more questions, troll?

    124. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Because I take glorious pleasure in correcting your nonsense, to show you that even if you were correct, your point is irrelevant and nonsensical.

      But i didn't even make the initial comment, so if you really believed the initial comment to be irrelevant you wouldn't have replied to it much less refute it, yet you did.

      Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..

      Then why did you bother to comment at all?

      I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.

      On what basis is his statement false? I did a basic date range search and that showed he was right and you are wrong. If the burden is on the person making the assertion to prove it then given you're making the assertion that he's wrong you should prove him wrong, but you can't because even a basic date range search shows that you are wrong.

    125. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      But i didn't even make the initial comment,

      Yes, you did. You've been blathering on about internet searches for some time now.

      Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..

      Then why did you bother to comment at all?

      Its quite simple. The OP was incorrect. I humbly corrected him. There is no mystery here.

      I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.

      On what basis is his statement false? I did a basic date range search and that showed he was right and you are wrong. If the burden is on the person making the assertion to prove it then given you're making the assertion that he's wrong you should prove him wrong, but you can't because even a basic date range search shows that you are wrong.

      His statements were false on their face. OP made a claim that was incorrect. I cannot prove that he is incorrect by showing the results of an empty search: that proves nothing. Furthermore, no one is disputing the word "app." Anyone in the world is legally allowed to use the term for any reason. It has no trademark. If you can prove with internet search results that "App Store" was a term that was in common use,, globally, prior to 2008, as a generic term that is equivalent to software repository (because that's exactly what it is), then I'd like to see you try.

      Either you will respond with proof of such instances of App Store in common generic use prior to 2008, or you will STFU. In either of those cases, you will be praised for your diligence. If, however, you post again with nonsense, as you have since you have joined the thread, then you will continue to be a troll doing what you do... trolling, and the reader will be left to wonder if you are indeed borderline retarded, or that you just think that you are clever or funny by being an annoying troll. Let's see which it is.

    126. Re:Dear God... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      His statements were false on their face. OP made a claim that was incorrect. I cannot prove that he is incorrect by showing the results of an empty search: that proves nothing.

      What was the search you did that yielded no results then?

      Furthermore, no one is disputing the word "app." Anyone in the world is legally allowed to use the term for any reason. It has no trademark. If you can prove with internet search results that "App Store" was a term that was in common use,, globally, prior to 2008, as a generic term that is equivalent to software repository (because that's exactly what it is), then I'd like to see you try.

      Why would i try to do that? I didn't dispute that, i responded to this comment made by you regarding the term 'app':
      The use of the word "app" was uncommon. If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store," then I will concede
      He stated that the term 'app' was common use - admittedly without basis - you refuted it - without basis - and a google search using the date range feature shows that he is correct. Even webster's dictionary has it defined and dating back to 1987.

      If, however, you post again with nonsense, as you have since you have joined the thread, then you will continue to be a troll doing what you do... trolling, and the reader will be left to wonder if you are indeed borderline retarded, or that you just think that you are clever or funny by being an annoying troll. Let's see which it is.

      This coming from the guy who attempted to brag about his small rooster.

    127. Re:Dear God... by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm not real happy about supporting MS against I4I either, but, well: "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing less, nothing more."

      Just because they happen to be right doesn't mean I have to like them.

    128. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ape Store much?

    129. Re:Dear God... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      You mean like things like "Windows" right?

      Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".

      You are incorrect. Prior to Apple using the term, it did not exist (and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise). But more importantly, App Store is generically both a package manager and a software repository. "App Store" is no more a generic term than "Kleenex," or "Laundromat."

      Here is something with a timestamp from 1999. It's not my first choice since Archive.org is refusing to cooperate. This is not an "early" use by any means. BBS systems from the 80s featuring warez (among other things) also featured the term "App".

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    130. Re:Dear God... by Rizimar · · Score: 1

      I can see them claiming that "App" is short for "Apple" as well, unfortunately.

    131. Re:Dear God... by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1

      It will be settled quietly most likely. People are forced to defend their trademarks, else void them due to allowing it to be used when they already had knowledge of it.

      --
      "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    132. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should really stick to consumer protection with trademarks. Profit protection doesn't belong in something that doesn't expire.

    133. Re:Dear God... by Toam · · Score: 1

      You use the App store to buy App[lication]s, not App[le]s, so it is obvious an abbreviation of application in that context.

      I will be very disappointed if Apple win this.

    134. Re:Dear God... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      "App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store.

      Huh? I've been calling applications "apps" for some time, at least since 2005, if not earlier. I remember this because, ironically, it was rather common in the Apple community, and that is when I was still trying Macs. Actually, come to think of it the application section on one of my old warez BBSs (in the early 90's) called is application section "apps". "Apps" has been short for "applications" for some time, long before Apple glommed onto it... Actually, why did Apple pick the term "app" in the first place, if no one ever knew what it meant?

      As for "app store", they might have a case, but they probably shouldn't. "App" is a generic term and preexists, and has nothing to do with, Apple. "Store" is also a completely generic term. Its like trademarking "book store", basically.

      I'm not terribly invested, Amazon or Apple winning really doesn't benefit me as a consumer either way, and I really don't care about either company enough to care. I don't mind Amazon's App Store, but I don't understand the point of its existence. On the otherhand, I can't stand Apple's App Store, but thats mostly because Apple wants to be my nanny. I trust neither, and neither has earned my loyalty. Let them sue each other to oblivion for all I care.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    135. Re:Dear God... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      But how is "App Store" a generic term to describe a software repository or a package management system?

      Well, its a store selling apps, perhaps? Any store selling applications is an "app store", since "app" is (and has been for a long time) a common slang for "applications"

      It wouldn't be generic for any package management system, or repository, just for ones that are predominantly "stores".

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    136. Re:Dear God... by jhdsl · · Score: 1

      "App" is nowhere on that page. Appz is, but that is another thing entirely.

    137. Re:Dear God... by catmistake · · Score: 0

      I have no trouble believing the word app had been used far earlier than 1987 and never doubted its meaning, so I had no reason to look it up in the dictionary. Also, I made no Internet search. I stand by my two assertions: 1) you are an insatiable troll and 2) prior to the App Store, the term app was NOT in wide use. I know these things to be true from personal experience. There is no Internet search or dictionary definition that can prove otherwise. Your pathetic attempts to reason and then attempt to back up your baseless irrelevant claims by appealing to my oversized penis will fail.

    138. Re:Dear God... by Whalou · · Score: 2

      "App" really is just an abbreviation of "Application" that was already in pretty wide circulation before Apple starting using it.

      The term application might have been used quite a bit but I think historically Mac OS X is the OS that used it in it's implementation.

      On Unix and variants software has been mostly referred to has executables (in the chmod +x sense) or binaries (stored in */bin directories).
      On Windows software was referred has executables (.exe files) or programs (stored in C:\Program Files).
      However on Mac OS X, software is stored in /Applications.

      So Android stores should be called Bin Stores and WP7 stores Prog Stores :).

      * Note: I was just playing devil's advocate. Even though I own some iOS devices, I don't care what the store is called or if there are other stores with the same name. iOS device owners know that iTunes is the one-stop-shop for all that is iOS.
      If anything, the use of "App Store" for android stores might drive some Android phone owners to buy apps from Apple's App Store because they're confused and see that store has having a better selection of apps :-)

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    139. Re:Dear God... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You already won, stop making me feel bad! There's something about App Store that seems worse than SQL Server, but that is probably, as you pointed out, specific to me in that I prefer the terms database, Non-relational database and RDBMS over SQL server.

      Well, an "SQL server" is a bit more specific than a "database server" because it specifically refers to a database using SQL.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    140. Re:Dear God... by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

      And it's X Window (notice the absence of the S)

      Linux runs X windows, for nonnegative values of X.

      --
      In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
    141. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not close at all - the US being the only english speaking country where it's in use - and that's only because it's a sodding trademark over there. In fact I never knew exactly where the the phrase came from before today - first aid in the UK usually refers to CPR, setting bones etc. something substantially more technical than sticking a plaster* on you.

      *Plaster - the generic term for an adhesive bandage in the UK.

      App however is literally just a shortening of the whole word (application) - it doesn't compare to slang comprised of multiple words on the same theme, which would at least require a little bit of creativity.

      This is akin to someone trying to trademark 'sticky note' - no idiot would try that, they come up with something like 'Post-it note' instead.

    142. Re:Dear God... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      The trouble is that McDonalds's can trademark "I'm lovin' it" or Coca Cola "it's the real thing" and they're just combinations of very ordinary day-to-day words.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    143. Re:Dear God... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I did find this on wiki, though:

      "Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox for photocopiers, Plexiglas for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex for facial tissues, Band-Aid for adhesive bandages, and others.

      I'm not that bothered about stupid companies and their stupid trademarks, but I would just like to say that whoever first used the word "genericization" should be put to death, very slowly and very messily.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    144. Re:Dear God... by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Why is it better?

    145. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple-ites are just like that, not even worth discussing with them; soon they will loose their leader and will finally go back into oblivion; let's hope they take with them the most bloated pieces of junk code ever seen

    146. Re:Dear God... by drb_chimaera · · Score: 1

      Before MS had an operating system called Windows no-one ever said 'I am going to buy a copy of Windows', or 'How do I install Windows', or 'Windows crashed'. The term 'Windows' was never used to refer to an operating system until MS named theirs. The term is not generic when referring to an OS. People may have said 'How do I close a window', etc but that was always in reference to either a physical window, or the UI element called a window, never an OS.

      Of course they did - I remember the release of Windows 3 and 3.1 being big news (I remember news broadcasts about the release on TV) and they were windowing environments on top of DOS *not* an OS in their own right.

    147. Re:Dear God... by spun · · Score: 1

      Thank you both for that entertaining exchange, it really made my morning.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    148. Re:Dear God... by Rizimar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but only [App]le device [App]lications

    149. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      "Shop" is no more nor less descriptive than "mechanic". One of the definitions of "shop" is a place where things are repaired/crafted. Hence you have plenty of businesses with a "shop" where metal work, or carpentry, or painting, or any number of other repairs/crafts are performed.

      By the same logic if someone had first called his business "The Auto Mechanic" nobody else could have used the phrase "auto mechanic". And then somebody could trademark "Auto Repair". And someone could trademark "Auto Shop". And someone could trademark "Auto Service". And pretty soon there'd be nothing left to descriptively call a business that does work on automobiles, because of idiots giving trademarks to any idiot who files for a generic phrase.

    150. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      "Kleenex" has no intrinsic meaning. It obviously has something to do with "clean", but it does not intrinsically mean "a tissue paper with which to clean".

      "Laundromat" is more border-line because it is the combination of "laundry" and "automatic", and it came into general use before someone was able to trademark it. However, a phrase like "Suit Cleaners" or "Tux Rental" would be obviously much too generic to be trademarkable. Similarly "App Store" is simply a store that sells apps and no one company can prevent other companies from calling their stores that sell apps "app stores".

    151. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Why a shitload? One is enough. Here:

      December 12, 2006 — Salesforce.com [NYSE: CRM], the technology and market leader in on-demand business services, today announced its AppStore vision and monetization strategy for the AppExchange marketplace.

      So: dear Apple, no, sorry, you cannot trademark "app store". You can't create a "Salesforce AppStore", but you can create an "Apple App Store" or an "Amazon AppStore" or any other sort of app store called an "app store".

    152. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Oh, and just to be clear, I didn't dig that up; I'd give credit where credit is due, but Anonymous Coward came up with that so I can't. But I don't take credit for finding it.

    153. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Really, no mention of "It's not a Yo-Yo if it isn't a Duncan"?

    154. Re:Dear God... by Desler · · Score: 1

      So basically you were just making shit up. Good to know.

    155. Re:Dear God... by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      I've been using the term "app" as a short version for "application" long before Apple came up with its "App Store" or the term "app" for those applications.

      And as I'm a non-native English speaker, I didn't come up with it myself, but learned it from others, who must have used it before.

      Here's a Google search for just one single domain (a programming language's forum), showing the usage of the term "app".

    156. Re:Dear God... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Did Duncan trademark the term Yo-Yo?

    157. Re:Dear God... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You should really not be such a jerk. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the trademark is here, and mentions quite clearly that SQL Server is a trademark applicable to a distributed and RDBMS and a manual sold in a box. That implies MS tried to get the directly relevant mark (on just the software) but could not. That's not a leap of logic.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    158. Re:Dear God... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Odd, I see it. Appz is a "leet" plural of App which is itself a shorthand form of application. Another example on that page is warez, which is a "leet" shorthand plural form of software.

      Merriam Webster definition of App which points at 1987 being the first use (I'm sure it was used before that).

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    159. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Owned it, yes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo#1960s_resurgence

      Declining sales after the Second World War prompted Duncan to launch a comeback campaign for his trademarked "Yo-Yo" in 1962 with a series of television advertisements. The media blitz was met with unprecedented success; thanks in great part to the introduction of the Duncan Butterfly, the yo-yo was more accessible to the beginner than ever.

      This success would be short-lived, however, and in a landmark trademark case in 1965, a federal court's appeals ruled in favor of the Royal Tops Company, determining that yo-yo had become a part of common speech and that Duncan no longer had exclusive rights to the term.

      Another resource: http://yoyowiki.org/wiki/Duncan

    160. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      But Microsoft doesn't have any right to claim the acronym SQL. They just created their own flavor of SQL which they wrote a server to implement.

    161. Re:Dear God... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      First of all, you are completely wrong. "App" had been used, however, it was not in wide use until Apple revealed the App Store.

      Yeah, no big-name companies like Google had used it in any well-known products like Google Apps... oh wait, they did.

    162. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet nobody calls Steam an App Store.

    163. Re:Dear God... by Troed · · Score: 1

      The term application might have been used quite a bit but I think historically Mac OS X is the OS that used it in it's implementation.

      1984 or so:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager

      GEM AES (Application Environment Services), provided the window management and UI elements

      "apps": http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/72215061_445ba4a777.jpg

      And if I remember correctly, while most programs used the extension .prg, .app was also available and used.

    164. Re:Dear God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because being able to trademark "App Store" is just fucking stupid, if they win it sets a bad precedent, no-one should be able generic descriptive names like that.

  3. they owned the rights to the term itself by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    You mean like 'Apple'?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Imagine a company selling apples trademarking the term 'apple' and then suing other companies for calling their products apples. That is similar to what is happening here, not using Apple to sell music or computers.

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure they don't sell Apples. Trademarking your recording company Apple is fine. Trademarking your computer company Apple is fine. Trademarking your stand that sells fruit "Apple Store" and hence not letting anyone else who sells apples call them self an "Apple Store" isn't (well ok, shouldn't be, who knows what the courts will decide...)

    3. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      (well ok, shouldn't be, who knows what the courts will decide...)

      That's the most terrifying part of the whole thing!

    4. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by Super_Z · · Score: 1

      If the company referred to their apples as "apps" and created "App Store" for the purpose of selling these apples then trademarking "App Store" seems reasonable.
      As an aside, Apple has trademarked "Apple Store".

    5. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Except that Apple did not create the term App, it has been used for decades to refer to pieces of software.

    6. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by treeves · · Score: 1

      'app' has been around for a long time, but 'App' has not. (?)

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:they owned the rights to the term itself by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Except apps was used by others long before Apple used it to refer to things running on their iphones/ipadsd/iwhatevers.

      Here's "app" used to refer to computer software in 1989: http://books.google.com/books?id=uTAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q&f=false

      "Java App" (as opposed to an applet) was a common term back when I did java, here's one such usage from 1999: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/1999-07/01-qa-applet.html

      And "Apple Store" is fine for Apple to trademark. But it applies to a technology store and not to a fruit store.

  4. Other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    App shop, App mart, App mall, App stand, Apptorium, Appmania, App warehouse.

    1. Re:Other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      App Emporium, App Haus, App Boutique, App Five and Dime, App Outlet, App City, Shecky's App Paradise

    2. Re:Other names by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Apps'R'Us

    3. Re:Other names by chill · · Score: 1

      That one would probably get you sued. I believe "Toys 'R' Us" claims *ALL* forms of 'R' Us and has sued over this before.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:Other names by CarlDenny · · Score: 1

      AppleAsEville?

    5. Re:Other names by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      ... App warehouse.

      I prefer App whorehouse.

    6. Re:Other names by CyberDruid · · Score: 1

      Corporations are too bland. I would have liked it more if it was called "Honest Bezos' App Bazaar" or something.

      --

      Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

    7. Re:Other names by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That one would probably get you sued. I believe "Toys 'R' Us" claims *ALL* forms of 'R' Us and has sued over this before.

      WeBeApps?

    8. Re:Other names by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      There is a "Computers 'R' Us" opening up down the road from my office. I kid you not...

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    9. Re:Other names by Flyerman · · Score: 1
    10. Re:Other names by treeves · · Score: 1

      App Hole.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    11. Re:Other names by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Other names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I am *NOT* clicking that. :-)

    13. Re:Other names by matazar · · Score: 1

      I vote for this or Apptorium.

    14. Re:Other names by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      One more. Appholes.

    15. Re:Other names by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      App Amazon. Or maybe even Appazon.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    16. Re:Other names by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Apple Core..oh, wait.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. one-click purchasing by JoelisHere · · Score: 1

    and the idea of one click purchasing isn't too obvious. You license us a patent and we'll license you a trademark.

    1. Re:one-click purchasing by aepurniet · · Score: 1

      this would only add credibility to both. but good call, both these companies have patented / trade marked something real stupid.

  6. Research by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Why don't people try to find if a name is already owned by someone else before they use it? Why are we continually subjected to news about such clownishness?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Research by tekgoblin · · Score: 1

      Amazon knew that Apple used the "App Store" name and also knew that they could not lay claim to that generic phrase. Apple sued them when Amazon used it and now Amazon responds saying the word is too generic now the decision rests in the judges hands.

    2. Re:Research by chispito · · Score: 1

      Because this is the equivalent of claiming that "Bob's Toy Store" infringes on your trademark for "Toy Store." You shouldn't have to check first on something so generic.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Research by brkello · · Score: 1

      So because one store calls itself a grocery store, all other stores that sell groceries should come up with unique names to do the same thing? No, it's stupid.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    4. Re:Research by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      More importantly, Amazon knew "App Store" was used by Apple and is trying to piggy back off its success. That's what makes Amazon wrong, not the fact that Apple is trying to trademark a phrase.

    5. Re:Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Just... No. Not at all.

    6. Re:Research by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      More importantly, Apple knew that "App" was already a generic, commonly-used term and was trying to piggy back off its success.

    7. Re:Research by sycorob · · Score: 1

      Why does that make them wrong? Apple is stupid for using a generic term for their product, then trying to trademark it. If Apple had called it something else, they could have trademarked it, and then marketed the hell out of it. Instead, they trademarked extremely common words and now they're potentially paying the price.

      It was wrong for Amazon to get the 1-click patent, but I can't fault them for trying. But Amazon is still on the right side of this.

    8. Re:Research by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They did you dimwit. The point is App Store is too generic, so no one should own it.

      This is what it takes to get a trademark canceled.

    9. Re:Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm convinced that computer science and consumer computing are parts of human history that will never mature. Never. Not Ever.

      We're gonna see this circle-jerk renaming, rebranding, swapping things around and calling them "ZOMG!!NEW!!" for a long time. Heck, we even need patents on "adding things" in the computer realm. It's like we never got out of preschool.

    10. Re:Research by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Actually this is the equivalent of claiming that "Bob's Toys R Us" infringes on the trademark for "Toys R Us". "App Store" was not generic and not in general use prior to Apple naming their online software store.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    11. Re:Research by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      There was no success with the phrase "App" to piggy back off before Apple started using it. That's why Apple is allowed to trademark the term.

    12. Re:Research by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      It makes Amazon wrong for trying to financially benefit off the concept of another company's trademarked term. That's the whole point of trademarks. It doesn't matter if you or I think it's a dumb trademark, only that it is a trademark.

    13. Re:Research by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I plan to name my business "4f32f081-6d59-4666-a910-16698939a307"(r).

    14. Re:Research by chispito · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. Apple did not coin the word "app." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App

      You buy things in a store.

      That Apple didn't name it something more unique before popularizing it doesn't mean they have rights over the basic terms.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    15. Re:Research by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It makes Amazon wrong for trying to financially benefit off the concept of another company's trademarked term.

      The term should not have been allowed to be trademarked in the first place, not only is 'App' a well-known and widely used (prior to apple's use) abbreviation for 'Application', but apple didn't come up with 'AppStore' either.

    16. Re:Research by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      There was no success with the phrase "App" to piggy back off before Apple started using it.

      Bullshit. "Google Apps" has been around since 2006. Apple's "App Store" only debuted in '08.

    17. Re:Research by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point and dwelling on only half the issue. It's not about the word "App" (unless there's something in the TFA I missed). It's the use of App + Store in the paradigm of dishing up products that Apple has had success with, not the word Apps. I've been using the word apps since probably around 1990, but I'd never claim Apple can't use App + Store because I've been calling a program an "application shortened to app" for 20 years now.

    18. Re:Research by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      It's not about the word "App" (unless there's something in the TFA I missed).

      This part, I think.

      Based on their common meaning, the words “app store” together denote a store for apps, such as the app stores operated by Amazon and Apple. The American Dialect Society, a leading group of U.S. linguists, recently voted “app” as the “Word of the Year” for 2010, noting that although the word “has been around for ages,” it “really exploded in the last 12 months” with the “arrival of ‘app stores’ for a wide spectrum of operating systems for phones and computers.”

      "App" is a commonly-used word, and a store that sells apps is an app store. Letting someone trademark "App Store" is about as stupid as letting someone trademark "Rental Car". Or "Chinese Restaurant". Or "Car Wash". Or "Plumbing Service". Or any other combination of two purely descriptive words that together mean no more nor less than the combination of their meanings individually.

    19. Re:Research by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I could trademark two common words, say, "finger joint", if I had some sort of iPhone app that did something cool and I wanted to call it "finger joint". Then it becomes really popular, so I trademark it, to enjoy the financial benefits and protections that come with that. Replace "finger joint" with "angry birds" and you start to see my point.

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

      That's actually a good example, because "Angry birds game" would be too descriptive to be trademarked.

      However "Angry birds" by itself is not descriptive enough to prevent it from being trademarked specifically when referring to a game. They would not, however, be able to use that trademark to claim that a sports team with an "angry bird" mascot was infringing.

      "App store" is too descriptive to be trademarked.

  7. Android is the real target by Gearoid_Murphy · · Score: 0

    The only thing Apple is pissed about is the fact that Amazon is using the App Store to market Android apps. It's specifically mentioned in item 23 of the lawsuit . This is how monopolies are maintained with the blessing of the state, through the use and abuse of stupid patents.

    --
    prepare the survey weasels.
    1. Re:Android is the real target by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      through the use and abuse of stupid patents.

      You do realize that this is about Trademarks and not Patents, right?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Android is the real target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google should re-brand their store as the "App Market" That will throw them all off.

    3. Re:Android is the real target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is almost as stupid as a "one click" patent to have somebody take your order "on the Internet" I believe Amazon sued Apple for a lot of money... If Amazon was to give it all BACK plus some legal fees and interest Steve might back off?

      It's entertaining... At least until we get giant robot fighting!

    4. Re:Android is the real target by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Amazon is using the App Store to market Android apps

      Well Amazon couldn't use the term "Android Market" to sell Android apps, because then Google would sue them.

      I think they should use "Android Program Emporium, Selling High-quality Internet Technologies", it has a nice ring to it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Android is the real target by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      That's mainly because Google has a trademark on the name Android and using it implies that the product is certified by Google.

  8. Remember One Click? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone? Anyone?

  9. Cookie store? by greatpatton · · Score: 1

    In a country where Cookie Store is a trademark to sell cookie, I think that Amazon doesn't stand a chance...

    1. Re:Cookie store? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because there is a trademark doesn't mean it's enforceable. Bob's Cookie Store might well win if sued by The Cookie Store.

  10. Jobs has out Gatesed Gates. by Beer+Drunk · · Score: 1

    Like the Russian revolution was co-opted by the communists and the French by the montagnards, the information revolution has been hijacked by the megalomaniacs. Of course the fanboys and girls will still worship Jobs even if he sues them for using his products in some way he doesn't approve.

  11. In this case Apple's position is sane by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    Realism time - at first App Store seems generic. But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

    That's the key thing. The slang if you will, is something Apple developed. Like Kleenex or Windows it sounds generic, but that's because it's so widely used now that you think of it as generic when the term really originated with Apple.

    So I don't think it's that silly a suit at all, though I don't care who wins it. I just think there's more of a point to it than most here would credit.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      People have been using the term "app" as an abbreviation for "application" for years and years. The term in no way originates with Apple.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Realism time - at first App Store seems generic. But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      Obviously, yes. I'm surprised that any slashdot poster doesn't remember this. People were using the term 'app' before the Mac even existed; possibly before you were born, considering how little you know of the computer industry prior to 2004.

    3. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by smelch · · Score: 1

      App is used as a breev for an application as in job application. I've heard (and detested) the use of the word app to refer to software by teachers as far back as 1998. I'm pretty sure its common enough that there is no case at all.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    4. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The term app was used as an abbreviation for application long before Apple added it to the iPhone. Google Apps existed before the iPhone. Slashdot had discussions about Apps.

      The term "app" seems generic because it's generic, not because it's popular. Windows does not sound generic to me when talking about Operating Systems. Kleenex does, I grant, because "facial tissue" is not a term I ever learned; but this isn't like Kleenex at all. Nobody is claiming that the term "clean" comes from Kleenex. It's more like somebody today trying to defend a trademark on the term "boxing gloves" because before 2011 nobody used the term "boxing" for anything but packing and unpacking. It's just not true.

      Also, do people seriously use "app" for "appetizers"? Or is there some other reason you would use app in a restaurant?

    5. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      I have a copy of Halo for X-box. It pre-dates the app store. Right on the front of the box it says: "The killer app for X-Box!". That's just an example using an item I am looking at in this room. Give me time and I'll have a mountain of examples.

    6. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domain appzplanet.com

      Date Registered: 2002-7-29

    7. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no it isn't. App has been shorthand for application since the mid eighties. Even outside of software, the phrase "Killer App" short for "Killer Application" has been in wide use to describe any new game-changing service. Slang usage of App is in no way attributable to Apple.

    8. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a "breev"?

    9. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by steveg · · Score: 1

      Um. The people I know have been using the term for at least two decades.

      But I don't think I've ever heard the term in a restaurant. Unless we were talking about computers.

      I guess it depends on where you live and the people you hang out with. Slang is not universal.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    10. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by smelch · · Score: 1

      The abbreviated form of the word abbreviation.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    11. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, SuperKendall, not to call you a fanboy, but can Apple EVER do ANYTHING wrong, in your eyes?

    12. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He didn't say they coined it - just developed the brand. Now Amazon is trying to take advantage of the brand image that Apple created.

    13. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a restaurant? Aren't you confusing app with menu?

    14. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      *Ahem* Apple DID NOT invent the term "App" meaning "application(s)"..

      People have been using that term for probably close to 20 years now (I feel a bit older suddenly ;)

    15. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows" as a term and a concept pre-dates microsoft's product anyway (e.g. Macs and X-Windows system)

      App goes back decades. nothing to do with Apple

    16. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Fozzyuw · · Score: 2

      But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      Yes. Ask any software programmer who programmed Applications for a living.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    17. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me again: Seriously how young are you? AppStore was invented with the IPHONE which is like 5 minutes old in the scheme of things. Java has had "Applets" from day 1 showing the term in earlier usage. you seriously think nobody shortened it to "App" before the Iphone? Seriously???

    18. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by treeves · · Score: 1

      Never seen that abbreviation before. A breve, OTOH, is a double whole note, in music.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    19. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the Sage Networks and Salesforce.com earlier applications for the phrase "appstore"...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      Ever heard of the expression killer app?

      I'm afraid you lose

    21. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately your parent shows the ignorance of the masses and how Apple invented 'everything'

    22. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      since at least 2005:
      http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2005/09/050912-1.jsp
      http://replay.web.archive.org/20060206053832/http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1855410,00.asp
      http://replay.web.archive.org/20051102030832/http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2142408/salesforce-builds-app-swap-shop
      http://replay.web.archive.org/20061020201028/http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/45981.html

      hell. apple wasn't even the first to use the damn 'app store' term:
      http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2006/12/061212-1.jsp

      now that's realism

    23. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      I assume he meant "appetizer," though I have never heard that shortened to "app."

    24. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence from 1996:

      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-lib/msg02558.html

    25. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by alostpacket · · Score: 2

      Jeeze, someone really struck a chord.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    26. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what apple is more pushing for is that the app doesn't stand for application but "apple" store. sounds retarded I know, but it is Apple after all

    27. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed that's true, it's been an abbreviation far longer than apple has used it. Everyone likes to pretend apple invented apps and mp3 players and touchscreens, but they simply did not. They just popularize things.

    28. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows doesn't make any sense with regard to computing except when referencing a specific product. On the other hand, App is an abbreviation for Application, a very common term in the computing field. Regardless of whether Apple used the shortened version first (very unlikely), it is still a generic name.

    29. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, do people seriously use "app" for "appetizers"? Or is there some other reason you would use app in a restaurant?

      Thankyou! I was racking my brain trying to figure out wtf that douchebag could possibly mean. That sounds plausible...thanks.

    30. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true apple fanboy. Forget logic, just blindly defend mr. jobs. (Yes, the lack of capitalization IS intentional)

      Frivolous patent suits, people facing jail time for link-sites (Brian McCarthy), and thousands of other examples (many from the movie and music industry) proves that not only is this world getting crazier by the day, but also that laws are now decided by who has the most power and influence, not by what's right and wrong.

    31. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by asynchronous13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are barking up the wrong tree. You are correct that Apple did not invent the term "App", but that has no bearing on the validity of the trademark.

      "Open Happiness" is trademarked by Coca-Cola. Certainly no one claims that either word was invented by the company. PespiCo would be legally liable for using that phrase in an ad-campaign, however, a company in a different market (Dell for example) could probably use "Open Happiness" for computer sales without issue.

      Are you familiar with "The Container Store". It's a store where you buy, wait for it, containers!! And yes, "The Container Store" is trademarked. No other company selling containers can use that name. Similarly, Apple was granted a trademark for "App Store". Just because App Stores have more competition than Container Stores at the moment does not make the trademark any less valid.

    32. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Realism time - at first App Store seems generic. But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      Yes.

      That's the key thing. The slang if you will, is something Apple developed.

      No they didn't, they didn't even come up with AppStore.

    33. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Realism time - at first App Store seems generic. But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      That's the key thing. The slang if you will, is something Apple developed. Like Kleenex or Windows it sounds generic, but that's because it's so widely used now that you think of it as generic when the term really originated with Apple.

      So I don't think it's that silly a suit at all, though I don't care who wins it. I just think there's more of a point to it than most here would credit.

      Exactly, and Kleenex came to my mind too. Microsoft is especially silly in trying to fight this, with how inarguably generic the term "Windows" is (nobody questions that, or it just so happens there's not another company like Microsoft who wants to ride the name). Apple established the term's popularity, that's the real word that should be used to describe it, and "the term is too popular" does not hold up against trademark laws.

      It's irrelevant that people have abbreviated the term before, just like it's irrelevant that the word "store" has existed for even longer. It doesn't matter that I've been referring to my "windows" long before the operating system was conceived. They released a product named "Windows" and they appropriately trademarked the term in that context. If someone opened up a retail chain called "App Store" and trademarked the name, and then someone else wanted to come in and open their own retail chain called "App Store," it wouldn't fly, and that's why it shouldn't fly here.

      It's too bad that Microsoft and Amazon, as big as they are, can't come up with another term. The argument that it's crippling their ability to compete is bullshit, and irrelevant. The inability to title a new sci-fi franchise "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" inhibits one's ability to compete in that market. Too. Fucking. Bad. George and Gene beat you to it.

      It doesn't matter that "people have been using this word (or another) before." And in this particular case (unlike Windows) it's not even about a word, it's about a phrase. They can use App Shop, Prog Store (sure, that sounds awful), Application Store, or any combination otherwise, but "App Store" is taken. Someone also referenced "Band Aid" further down, and that's absolutely what this is. These laws are in place so that you can't compete by simply stepping into the market and doing the same thing. You have to do something different.

    34. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Realism time - at first App Store seems generic. But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?

      That's the key thing. The slang if you will, is something Apple developed. Like Kleenex or Windows it sounds generic, but that's because it's so widely used now that you think of it as generic when the term really originated with Apple.

      So I don't think it's that silly a suit at all, though I don't care who wins it. I just think there's more of a point to it than most here would credit.

      yes, I've been using the term "app" for applications since my Amiga days, early 90's. I'd store all my Applications in the App directory.

      In fact, I still do. You'll find all non OS, non Driver, non Games, and whatever i left out in my /store/apps directory, and in all my dvd backups, you'll find the same thing.

      And I got this breakdown from probably aminet or some of the file archives on the internet before the app store was around, early 90's.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    35. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by scot4875 · · Score: 0

      Of course you don't think it's silly; you're a huge Apple fanboy.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    36. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The term app was used as an abbreviation for application long before Apple added it to the iPhone. Google Apps existed before the iPhone.

      The idea that the term "app" was applied by Apple first with regard to the iPhone is misguided. Apps were the standard end user programs on NextStep, which was purchased by Apple and made into OS X. The ".app" ending was the file extension for the bundles. This goes as far back as 1995, at least.

    37. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows does not sound generic to me when talking about Operating Systems."

      Are you 10? The X11 Window System existed long before Microsoft figured out an operating system was more than a file loader. All of us who had a nickel to get a real computer were already referring to those rectangular work areas as windows. I can't think of a more generic name.

    38. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Web Apps have always been copying the iPhone. And the App key on a standard Windows keyboard went unused because noone knew what an App was for until Apple enlightened us.

    39. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      coining a word is creating a word...

      --
      ...
    40. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click on his name and just look at his comments on other stories. To answer your question, no, Apple can never do anything wrong in his eyes.

    41. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't help that the application bundle that Apple's OS uses are folders that end in .app, or the term 'application software' isn't a new one, or that iOS Store or iTunes Store or iApp Store is a better description of what Apple is offering.

    42. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      First off, I'm responding specifically to the question "did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?", and thus it is you who is barking up the wrong tree.

      But anyway, I have never heard of "The Container Store". I guess that's a a US thing? I'm not American. I don't think it should have a trademark. Whether it can legally have one is a separate question. A quick search suggests that "The Container Store" can only become a trademark after everybody associated the generic term "the container store" with this specific business, so presumably Apple would have to show that just about everybody thinks specifically of Apple's App Store when they hear the term "App Store".

    43. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      How many Dry-cleaning establishments are there that use the term dry-cleaning. i.e. Jefferson's Dry Cleaning, Juan's Dry Cleaning etc. or places with just the name "Dry Cleaning". Surely if one place trade marks their dry cleaning chains name it doesn't preclude all other dry cleaning places from using the term dry cleaning in their name.

      My apologies for any grammar/punctuation mistakes - it's late.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    44. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by qubezz · · Score: 1

      Usenet:

      "app store" was used a decade ago for buying pc games online

      Alternately, way before Apple in 1998, Palm had apps

    45. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Kashgarinn · · Score: 2

      Even though IANAL, I know enough to know you're confusing the issue.

      "The container store" - is a company, and its name is trademarked as a company. You can own a store with a different name with containers and reference it as a container store, but it won't be "THE" container store.

      If apple had called its app store "The apple store" - no one would have touched it. Apple though is stupid in thinking that trademarking a generic term means they own the term, and they don't.

      If they rename themselves to "app store" or "the app store" - Amazon would still be able to reference their store as an app store because they're referencing to what the store contains.

    46. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The term "app" seems generic because it's generic

      The term "App Store" is not generic, so they would certainly have a case. Even a casual search will link "App Store" to Apple, either directly or referring to them.

      So they certainly do have a case. If they win it or not I don't know.

    47. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "Killer App" goes back at least to the introduction of Lotus 1-2-3 on the IBM PC, so mid 1980s, just off the top of my head.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Neither had I, but it was still pretty obvious what it meant...

    49. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by KevinKnSC · · Score: 1

      Also, do people seriously use "app" for "appetizers"? Or is there some other reason you would use app in a restaurant?

      Yes, but it's usually only internal. That is, the waiter won't ask you if you'd like an app, but if you order an appetizer he'll ask the cook if the app is ready yet.

    50. Re:In this case Apple's position is sane by Seidoger · · Score: 1

      And even VisiCalc

  12. How Sad... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

    The sad part is that no matter how silly these lawsuits are it doesn't inspire enough people to walk away from a company that uses it as a tactic to squash competitors or bring in revenue.

  13. Container Store? by hotsauce · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but this is common practice in America.

    One of my favorite places to get a drink is called Gin Joint.

    If you're against trademarks, fine. If you're against a very specific type of trademark (generic term for the product itself) then be prepared to battle a long list of precedent, and also be prepared to point to a dictionary that shows app store to be common usage before Apple trademarked it. But you're in America, where I can trademark the slogan Best Programmer in the World (tm) without any proof of it and attach it below my name, so forgive respondents if they think you're just picking on Apple.

    BTW, trademarks do provide consumer protections by helping identify things. When I bought a car for instance, I really did want the one manufactured in Ingolstadt.

    1. Re:Container Store? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      While 'Container Store' was trademarked, I doubt they'd be able successfully sue 'Amazon Container Store' for trademark infringement.

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:Container Store? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am against a sloppy application of the law.

      The fact that a certain sort of nonsense was tolerated before really doesn't matter.

      This isn't about being "against trademarks". Thats just stupid bad rhetoric.

      This is about being against trademarks that fail the basic rules for being an enforceable trademark.

      Being against this sort of nonsense is like advocating that the speed limit be enforced.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Container Store? by trb · · Score: 1

      I think the Apple lawsuit is frivolous. But there are many large American companies with generic-sounding names. For example, there is an aftermarket car air conditioning company called Factory Air, an electric utility called National Grid, and a bedding company called The Company Store. How does the law deal with these cases of companies claiming common phrases as corporate identities?

    4. Re:Container Store? by brainzach · · Score: 1

      For example, there is an aftermarket car air conditioning company called Factory Air, an electric utility called National Grid, and a bedding company called The Company Store.

      None of those examples are generic descriptors of the stores. It is different than an air conditioning company called Air Conditioning Company, an electric utility called Electric Utility or a bedding company called The Bedding Company.

    5. Re:Container Store? by Altus · · Score: 1

      What about the Container Store.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  14. Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

    Yeah, the term "App store" is pretty generic, however, in the context of what Amazon's looking to do with the term, it's pretty blatant that they'd choose that name to sell mobile applications on branded equipment, particularly when Apple has stuck it's neck out in such a way that it may in fact cause some confusion for non-tech minded folks.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Screw amazon. by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      Based on the way amazon's appstore is set up, it's clear that they hope to offer apps on other platforms in the future (naming assets includes abbreviations for android. If they planned to only ever do android, that would not be the case).
       
        sell mobile applications
       
      sell... applications... store for applications... store for apps... app store. How is that such a stretch for you?

    2. Re:Screw amazon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree that it would cause confusion only if Apple had an android app store, or if Amazon had an app store on iOS.

    3. Re:Screw amazon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Amazon should use "Mobile Equipment Software and Application Depot" -- now THAT'S catchy!

    4. Re:Screw amazon. by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      "MESAD?" Why so sad? :(

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    5. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      Nontech person a: I got this great game on the App store! *waves iPhone around*

      Nontech person b: my app store doesn't have it. Are you sure you got it off the app store? *waves around phone with Amazon appstore*

      The next 30 minutes are spent trying to figure out what's wrong.

      We're in a world where non-techies are using tech. Besides, it's pretty blatant that Amazon wants to ride Apple's coattails in terms of visibility and brand recognition. It's why Cola is a generic term but Coca Cola isn't. Or Coke.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Screw amazon. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm pretty sure that most of even the least-technical users would know that iPhones and Androids have different apps, even if you get them both from the "app store". Buying an app for the Mac OS at Micro Center doesn't always mean that you can buy the same app for the Windows OS from Micro Center; why should you be able to buy the same app for two different phones just because both phones have "app stores"?

    7. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Uh, you'd be pretty wrong.

      I've seen non-technical users do absurdly amusing things with technology.

      Besides, you're missing the point that Amazon's basically trying to ride Apple's free publicity on the term, "app store."

      Prior to the iPhone's app store, I can't think of one instance where that term was ubiquitous among non-techheads. Actually, come to think of it, I can't think of any instance where it was ubiquitous among techheads.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    8. Re:Screw amazon. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Prior to the iPhone's app store, I can't think of one instance where that term was ubiquitous among non-techheads. Actually, come to think of it, I can't think of any instance where it was ubiquitous among techheads.

      What - the word "app"? or the phrase which means "a store which sells apps"? Because the one was certainly in common use, and the other is obviously no more or less than descriptive, and so obvious that Apple wasn't even the first to use it.

    9. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I know Apple wasn't the first to use it, but they were the first to ride big time success with it. It's pretty blatant that Amazon isn't even bothering to be clever with their own branding.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    10. Re:Screw amazon. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      How clever is "app store"? It's a store that sells apps. And Amazon's is called Amazon AppStore so it can't possibly be confused with the iTunes App Store, just like a QuikTrip gas station can't be confused with a Shell gas station. They're both app stores, but operated by different companies. It's that simple.

    11. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Pretty clever, compared to say, Ovi Store. :)
      (in Finnish, ovi means door.) Or Media Mall, or whatever AT&T was trying to bundle, or VCast, or....

      Apple's fighting this because they don't want their brand and marketing to be genericized.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    12. Re:Screw amazon. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Pretty clever, compared to say, Ovi Store. :)
      (in Finnish, ovi means door.) Or Media Mall, or whatever AT&T was trying to bundle, or VCast, or....

      I can't figure out what any of those are from their names alone. Except maybe "Ovi Store" and that's only because you told me that Ovi means "door" in Finnish...

      When it comes to an "app store", it's pretty blatantly obvious what it is.

    13. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      But that's my point, prior use of the phrase, "App Store" wasn't that ubiquitous, and prior attempts to create online markets for mobile applications never used that term until now.

      I don't think Amazon's got a leg to stand on, it's clear that they're out to lazily infringe on Apple's trade mark and marketing.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    14. Re:Screw amazon. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I don't think Amazon's got a leg to stand on, it's clear that they're out to lazily infringe on Apple's trade mark and marketing.

      Between copyright, trademark, and patents, you can't just blatantly rip off someone's idea; but if an idea isn't a process that can be patented, anyone else is free to use it. Your implementation can be copyrighted, but they can still design their own implementation. That leaves trademarks as the only thing left to allow you to come up with a distinctive name that sets you apart from the competition, but a trademark has to be distinctive; "app store" is descriptive, not distinctive.

    15. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      "Anime Expo", as an abbreviation of Anime Exposition, would fit your definition of "Descriptive, not distinctive." However, AX has won in the past over it's trademark of Anime Expo.

      You're wrong. It is possible to trademark something that sounds descriptive, as long as it is also unique. Prior to Apple's foray into mobile applications, there were no stores using the term, "App store."

      In your interpretation of trademark law, trademarking simple, descriptive names would be impossible.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    16. Re:Screw amazon. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Prior to Apple's foray into mobile applications, there were no stores using the term, "App store."

      Incorrect. I already posted the link; go back up and find it.

    17. Re:Screw amazon. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Salesforce's model is based around large corporate application purchasing. Hardly close to the context of consumer facing mobile applications.

      I am still correct. No one was selling mobile applications online via anything called an "AppStore" prior to Apple.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  15. App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by Morgaine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is it that companies seem to think that they can cordon off words from the natural language wordspace and treat them as private "property"? The fact that their governments give them a piece of paper confirming ownership merely shifts the question, because governments don't have any inherent rights over the wordspace either.

    The phrase that Apple might rightly consider theirs in the US market is "Apple App Store", but even that should not be treated as exclusive if Apple Records or Apple Corps or some other Apple ever wanted to open an app store.

    When you adopt a generic term as part of the your product name, you have to live with the consequences of non-exclusivity.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      They think that they are above the law. There are plenty of willing peasants to defend them.

      You could have seen the same thing 500 years ago. Replace Steve Jobs with King Henry.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by sycorob · · Score: 1

      We give this right to the government to help commerce along. Honestly. It's good that Amazon can trademark "Amazon" and keep others from using it. They can spend years working on delivering great service, improving their offerings and so on, and not worry about somebody opening "Amazon Shopping" and ripping people off, destroying their good name. Imagine if you could open a "Pizza Hut" right next to an actual Pizza Hut, same colors and everything, but with even less concern for quality. As a consumer, how can you tell what's the real deal? When you tell your friends that Pizza Hut sucks, which one do you mean?

      But yeah, there should be limits. Other pizza joints can have "pizza" in their name, just not "Pizza Hut." The argument is whether or not "app store" - together, not each word - counts as something you can trademark. I don't think so, there were other app stores before Apple, although not as popular. And I don't think anybody is confusing the Amazon App Store with the Apple App Store - they don't even sell the same thing. Overall, lame.

    3. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like "Windows"?

    4. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If your business sells windows, you can call them Windows, because that's what they are. The trademark is for the OS.

      In this case, Apple is saying that Amazon cannot call their service and application that is all about selling apps an "app store".

    5. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Um. Go to your phonebook and look at the number of people with McDonald as their surname. Now imagine how many McDonalds in the US (Just to limit the scope) are restaurateurs. McDonald (not including MacDonald) being a pretty generic Scottish surname did not prevent Richard and Maurice McDonald from trademarking their surname as a name of a restaurant.

      There are also company names that have one or more generic english words in their title. This did not prevent them from holding a trademark. The idea behind a registered trademark is to create some regulation on the use of that word or phrase to describe a product, service, or entity. When you go to a "McDonald's" restaurant in the US, odds are pretty damn good that you are going to an official franchise of the McDonald's Corporation. If it wasn't then McDonald's Corporation would have the legal right to ask for a cease and desist order to be issue that would force the unaffiliated store from continuing to use that name.

      The phrase "App Store" was not in use as a name of a product nor considered generic when Apple filed for and was granted trademark protection for the term "App Store". Apple has spent millions developing the brand "App Store" and I can see where Amazon's naming their app "Appstore for Android" will cause confusion, since it misleads the consumer into believing they will have access to Apple's App Store on their Android device.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is claiming ownership over the actual words. This is about the name of a trade marked service. The PTO makes the call. It's their job and who do you assume they are too dumb to do it exactly??

      Is Slashdot too generic for a website name? Should I be able to print a magazine and a new website using this name? I mean really, slashes and dots have been around since the first runic languages right? It's madness, right? I guess I'll go off and start my new SlashDot (different because I capitalized it) news site then!

    7. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Originally, this was designed to protect consumers. If you bought a Ford car, you knew who you were buying it off - nobody else could whip up a car, whack Ford on it, and flog it to customers who thought they were getting an actual Ford.

      Since then, it's changed. Personally, I think trademark law should be changed, so that only consumers can bring suit against violators.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mcdonalds filed a lawsuilt against MacAllan's hotdog stand in Denmark and lost, because the term Mac(Mc) in relation to food were too generic. And there were no chance(different design etc) that consumers would get confused.

    9. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see where Amazon's naming their app "Appstore for Android" will cause confusion, since it misleads the consumer into believing they will have access to Apple's App Store on their Android device.

      I think you're misleading the consumer into thinking they need something from your app store.

    10. Re:App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious by volpe · · Score: 1

      Why is it that companies seem to think that they can cordon off words from the natural language wordspace and treat them as private "property"?

      You mean words like "apple" and "amazon"?

  16. patent pending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will apple just go and patent the word computer already?

  17. Let the 1-Click Button Company Win? by rolfwind · · Score: 0

    I'd rather see both fucking companies impoverish themselves fighting this shit out in court.

    1. Re:Let the 1-Click Button Company Win? by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      And let the lawyers win instead?

  18. Did Steve Jobs make Amazon's case for them? by Dialecticus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to a related article at The Register, as recently as October of 2010, Steve Jobs himself publicly called Apple's app store "the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone." So it would appear that even Cupertino is using the phrase app store generically in reference to its competitors. I'd call this tidbit a crushing blow to Apple's case.

    Thanks, Steve! We all app-reciate it.

    1. Re:Did Steve Jobs make Amazon's case for them? by Yakasha · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to a related article at The Register, as recently as October of 2010, Steve Jobs himself publicly called Apple's app store "the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone." So it would appear that even Cupertino is using the phrase app store generically in reference to its competitors. I'd call this tidbit a crushing blow to Apple's case. Thanks, Steve! We all app-reciate it.

      "Genericizing" a trademark after the fact doesn't invalidate it, unless the owner fails to enforce it. Since the trademark was applied for in 2008, what Steve said in 2010 is irrelevant, since Apple can do what it wants with its own trademark and is indeed trying to enforce it.

    2. Re:Did Steve Jobs make Amazon's case for them? by Skythe · · Score: 1

      He's also referred to Android as having "four or more app stores" when discussing the alleged "confusing consumer experience" (which as most probably know, while it is possible to install other "app stores", Android Market is nearly on every device and the most dominant by leaps and bounds.

    3. Re:Did Steve Jobs make Amazon's case for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to let the courts decide that, no? I am sure this will be a consideration.

    4. Re:Did Steve Jobs make Amazon's case for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it can in fact, which is why Google hate people using the term google as a verb to mean "do a web search", if it becomes a generic word they can lose their trademark, or at the very least the scope of it will be reduced.

  19. I don't particularilly like Apple's stance, but by ajclements · · Score: 1

    Amazon saying a legal reservation on a idea is too generic is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. I seem to remember that Amazon patented everything they came up with for a long period, and most of that was so obvious no one else would have considered patenting it. UserFriendly covered that a long time ago.

  20. Missing the most damning quotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article is missing the real damning part of the filing, where Amazon quotes Steve Jobs as indicating there are multiple App Stores. It is pretty hard to convincingly argue that a term isn't generic when your CEO uses it in a generic fashion.

    Here's the quote:
    In press releases, Apple has claimed that its app store is 'the largest application store in the world.' In October 2010, Apple's CEO Steve Jobs called Apple's app store 'the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.'

  21. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Part of trademarks is that they need to (or at least are supposed to) be unique to a degree. They are a non-generic mark that people can use to identify your brand. Well part of that obviously means you can't just use a generic term for what you are doing. You can't take an existing descriptive term and trademark it. Now that doesn't mean your trademark can't use a word that is descriptive of your field. Like you could trademark Brkello's Groceries and that would be fine. However you couldn't then go after anyone with "groceries" in their name.

    App store is extremely generic. "App" has long been a term for an application and of course a store is just a place that sells things. Hence trying to say that "App store" is a unique term for a store that sells apps is bullshit.

  22. Just like Windows, apples and amazons by goombah99 · · Score: 0

    Amazon and Apples are both objects, and thus generic terms right? Windows is obviously too generic. But, as Lindows found out, the judges have ruled that it's not generic to the field of operating system names. I think Amazon would make the same argument about Amazon not being generic when it comes to online stores.

    Apple should start a new store and call it the Apple Amazon store.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by flatt · · Score: 1

      Just what flavor is the kool-aid?

    2. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by goombah99 · · Score: 3

      Apple should open an Apple store in Belem do Para (Brazil) which is a major city at the mouth of the Amazon. It would be the Apple Amazon store.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    3. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      That made no sense. At all.

    4. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Just what flavor is the kool-aid?

      It's "windowpane" actually.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by icebraining · · Score: 2

      context

      -noun
      the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

      In the context of operating systems, Windows isn't generic. In the context of electronic devices Companies, Apple isn't generic.
      In the context of app stores, "App Store" is generic.

    6. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by meerling · · Score: 1

      Should the staff be all females that practice archery?

    7. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows is not a generic term when applied to an OS, because the word "windows" does not denote "OS". It denotes a completely different thing. Therefore, using this name to name an OS makes it an enforceable trademark. Same logic applies to Amazon.

      On the other hand, "App Store" is a generic term that describes an application store. Consequently, it cannot be trademarked as a name of an application store. In a similar vein, Microsoft cannot trademark "OS" as a name of its operating system, and Amazon cannot trademark "online store" as a name for its online store.

    8. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by serbanp · · Score: 1

      yes, but they have to agree to the mastectomy too...

    9. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by akahige · · Score: 1

      You're saying that it's udderly ridiculous?

    10. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh....... It's late and your mom is looking for you. Go home.

    11. Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      erm, microsoft didn't win that lawsuit, they were going to *lose* the windows trademark and paid out lindows to drop the case and change their name.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  23. Stallman by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Richard Stallman sues Apple, says it should be called "Gnu/App Store". Gnu/Apple and Gnu/Amazon both call him a Gnu/idiot.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  24. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    I posted something about this general sort of stuff earlier (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2089310&cid=35863126) and I think this is more of the same. Apple is worried. Their massive growth has all been as a consumer electronics company. Their original product, the iPod, has really leveled off. Don't get me wrong, they still make money on it but the market is pretty saturated. Their new growth has been iToys.

    Well Android presents a real threat to that. When it first came out I wouldn't have said so. The initial Android offerings weren't bad, but they weren't the same level of consumer friendly and as good a toy as iOS. That has changed. New Android devices, particularly those with the Sense UI, are easy to use, good looking, powerful, etc, etc. It is a real threat to Apple, so they are lashing out.

    Same shit with the app store. If they can squash Amazon's use of it that puts them in a strong position to go after Google's use of it. Try to make Apple the only platform that has a "app store".

  25. Amazon either wins or gets free publicity by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

    Smart move by Amazon. I agree that the term 'App Store' is generic and should not be something Apple can trademark. But even if they lose, the "fight" will be covered by the press - who seems to have Apple fever. Rather then spend piles of money on advertising, just call it 'App Store' and let Apple's legal department get the ball rolling. The press will cover it and everyone will know there are "two app stores".

    Pity all the other app stores. They will be fighting over third place. And most marketing races boil down to the market leader and the best alternative. Did Amazon just leap past Google with even offering a phone?

    --
    Place nail here >+
  26. Too generic? by khb · · Score: 1

    Too generic like "windows" ( M$); "Reality", "English" (Microdata versions of PICK OS and programming language) and McDonalds going after Mc* etc. ?

    Indeed the usual Legal advise is to keep a Trademark one needs to aggressively enforce it.

    So far both sides appear to be following the textbooks. So nothing newsworthy. Not that the system seems sensible but it is what is is.

    1. Re:Too generic? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Too generic like "windows"

      No, I hate to be Captain Obvious but it seems you actually need this pointed out for you:
      'Windows' is an 'operating system', not a 'windows'.

  27. Re:M$ astroturfers always support M$ by spun · · Score: 1

    Awww, issum sad little troll? Please, trollio, tell us how I support Microsoft in my post above. Saying the term "Windows" is not generic is not supporting Microsoft, you fucking twit. You need to get a new hobby, one that doesn't involve you looking like an ass.

    For the record, Microsoft sucks. Windows sucks. Why must I reboot you to install a fucking PDF reader, Windows? Twitter is an idiot. You are an idiot. And your mother grunts like a donkey when she's taking it up the ass. Just FYI, that is the noise you hear when you are masturbating in her basement: me, sticking it to her good.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  28. App Store a category? by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    "But here's what's really going to cook your noodle..."

    Was App Store a category of a thing before Apple invented it?

    1. Re:App Store a category? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Anywhere you could buy (as in, a store) apps would have been an app store. The fact that there was no such establishment (to my knowledge) doesn't change the fact that it would have a generic term thrown around before Apple came to the party.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:App Store a category? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Handango has been around since ~1999, and was THE app store back in the day, as it had WinMo, Symbian, Palm, and BlackBerry apps for you to purchase and download. Still is the best place to get apps for those platforms, too!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:App Store a category? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never noticed stores that sold applications prior to Apple? You're deliberately obtuse.

    4. Re:App Store a category? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple didn't invent it.

      When I was a young man, we had two app stores in the mall -- a Waldensoft and an Egghead. Since there were two I've personally been in before Apple even thought of the ridiculous iShit branding, plus (as I understand) scores more in those chains, and many independent operations as well, I think it's safe to say it was indeed a category of thing.

      Also, my lawn. You know what to do.

  29. Great points by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I had totally forgotten about "Killer App", which is obviously the use everyone would recognize instantly... but I had not been aware of really any other app uses, which your google search illustrated quite well. So I'm totally wrong on that point.

    I guess Apple's case then rests wholly on the combination of "App" and "Store" then, which still may get them somewhere...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Great points by sseaman · · Score: 0

      Still, I don't believe products were marketed as "apps" before Apple.

      Google searches ignore polysemy -- when I think "app," I don't think Photoshop or Microsoft Excel, I think "a program for a smartphone." If you do too, then that's because Apple cultivated that word usage via the App Store.

      "App" can mean a job application, a computer program (although typically non-entertainment), a great computer program (including entertainment) when following "killer," or a smartphone program. They're slightly different meanings. But while few people regularly referred to Microsoft PowerPoint as an "app," nearly everyone calls all smartphone applications "apps." More and more, the word "app" is synonymous with smartphone programs, and fewer and fewer people will use it outside of that context. Including me, and I don't have a smartphone--I've just seen many advertisements Apple made and paid to run.

    2. Re:Great points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it did it would just further prove that the entire patent system is in need of serious reform with reform being the name of an angry robot with a sledgehammer.

      It is a store that sells apps; app is a generic abbreviation for application, and store is a place where you buy stuff.

      If app sore (an obvious linking of what you want to buy, and where you want to buy it) is allowed to be trademarked then I shall go out and register 'Book Store' as a US company, and then sue Indigo, barns and noble, and whoever else sells books in there store.

    3. Re:Great points by swillden · · Score: 1

      But while few people regularly referred to Microsoft PowerPoint as an "app,"

      I disagree. I know I heard many discussions about, for example, which was the best "word processing app" back in the days when it was unclear if MS Word was going to have any luck unseating WordPerfect. "App" has been used as a shorthand for application for 20 years, if not more.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Great points by justforgetme · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter if now more people use it more than they did twelve years ago in this context. The fact is that app has been used to refer to the computer application context for decades now.

      Hell, I can remember an 1998 IRC chat on reencoding mp3 on which I replied "there's an app for that" spurring a vigorous discussion on how wrong the term 'computer application' was so obviously there is and has been for some time prior art.

      --
      save all your youTubes

      --
      -- no sig today
    5. Re:Great points by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of portableapps.com?
      It's about portable Windows programs, and it's definitely older than the iPhone.

    6. Re:Great points by Omestes · · Score: 1

      If you do too, then that's because Apple cultivated that word usage via the App Store.

      So what? I'm going to quickly rebrand the word "coffee" to mean "only the products I make from beans of the genus Coffea that I make and serve in my cups", and then sue every "coffee shop" to oblivion. Obviously I spent some dollars on the term, so I should get paid.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    7. Re:Great points by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Still, I don't believe products were marketed as "apps" before Apple.

      Google Apps is older than the Apple App Store.

    8. Re:Great points by sseaman · · Score: 1

      But would you call WordPerfect an "app" today? Would you refer to Word as an "app" in an official document? I'm sure smartphone developers refer to their products as "apps" in official documents.

      Perhaps more than polysemy, the concept of semantic drift is relevant. I suspect Apple has been the driving force behind that semantic drift, with their incessant (and obnoxious, IMHO) "there's an app for that" ads.

      That said, I'm not sure if this is legal ground, but I do think Apple deserves some credit for the semantic drift that has taken place, for better or worse. I choose worse.

    9. Re:Great points by sseaman · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing this gives Apple any legal ground at all (it's not a case I'd like them to win), but I think their role in changing our use of the word "app" to mean "smartphone program," and increasingly only "smartphone program," shouldn't be ignored.

      The case is a bit different than your example, because they branded a subset of the application market (perhaps the original "app") as "app," a subset that previously hadn't been very profitable or popular. For example, if I decided to sell an emerging, but not original coffee product as "java," (bad example, I know) and called my marketplace "The Java Store," if another company, seeing my success, decided to create its own "Java Store" that sold the special kind of coffee product I had been selling, it would be painfully obvious they were trying to ride my coattails because I, through painstakingly precious and irritating marketing, built the associations between "Java" and some silly little coffee product, instead of coffee at large. The fact that some competitors may have tried to use "Java" to describe their somewhat different coffee products (i.e., Google and "Google Apps") but failed to brand that connection in our collective lexicons, to some extent demonstrates that my marketing was special (because it turns out Apple is "cooler" than Google) and I deserve credit for that.

      But again, I don't think that should have a legal basis, but I think we all do know that Apple has changed how we can use the word "app," at least for the time being. If you tell your boss "I'm thinking of developing an app for brewing coffee" s/he is going to think "new $0.99 (I have no idea how much they cost) smart phone program," not "big Windows application." At least that's my hunch. Especially for the kind of people who will make most use of this new "app store."

    10. Re:Great points by swillden · · Score: 1

      But would you call WordPerfect an "app" today? Would you refer to Word as an "app" in an official document?

      Sure I would. I'd call it a desktop app, as opposed to a web app (which is the common nomenclature for web-based applications, and the engines that run them are usually called "app servers"). I've also been hearing a lot of discussion lately about cloud apps -- though the truth is that they're generally just web apps.

      App is widely used to refer to any application software package, in many contexts, and has been for decades.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  30. I didn't know by carpefishus · · Score: 1

    I didn't know tha Amazon had an App Store. Now I do.

    --
    Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  31. Yellow (TM) by neoevans · · Score: 1

    I have a yellow wood axe (can't recall the brand off hand) with the following imprinted on the handle: "The color Yellow is trademarked..." to whatever company it was. It is absurdities like this that make the world a ridiculous place. But I suppose since none of this capitalist BS means anything outside of our puny little planet, I guess it doesn't have to make sense.

    --
    "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
    1. Re:Yellow (TM) by brainzach · · Score: 1

      If the trademark is absurd, then it will easily be challenged in court. The system works.

      Amazon used the term Appstore because it knew it could get away with it because Apple doesn't have a strong case.

  32. GroceryStore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trademarking it! profit!

  33. Simple Test: by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Is "App" widely understood by the public to mean an iOS Application specifically?

    No.

    Is tacking Store on to the end of anything enough to create an original trademark?

    Never.

    Do people identify the term "App Store" as being specifically Apple?

    No.

    This fails any reasonable test from a member of the publics point of view, that counts for a lot I'm sure. Amazon has a good chance of winning and they are right to seem confidient.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  34. In related news, Ford sues Chevy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for using the word "dealer" to describe an establishment authorized to distribute their product.

  35. They don't even own "Apple" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't even have exclusive rights to the word "Apple", except in certain contexts, how can they have ownership of every abbreviation. App Store only started in 2008 anyway.

  36. Generecized Trademark by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Generecized Trademark, according to wikipedia:

    A trademark typically becomes "genericized" when the products or services with which it is associated have acquired substantial market dominance or mind share such that the primary meaning of the genericized trademark becomes the product or service itself rather than an indication of source for the product or service to such an extent that the public thinks the trademark is the generic name of the product or service.

    Apple for the win?

    1. Re:Generecized Trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not relevant. App Store isn't a once-valid trademark that has become generic; that would be something like 'Xerox'. App Store is a descriptive term, and Amazon is arguing that it was already generic from the very first time Apple used it.

      And Amazon's right. "App Store" is as invalid a trademark as "Program Store" or "Software Store" would be.

  37. It's simple by slapout · · Score: 1

    Amazon should rename their store: The iApp Store.

    Problem solved.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  38. Pretty good find by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That use of AppStore, even though not separated, seems like it would totally bury Apple's claim that the exact wording was unique. It's in almost exactly the same context

    It kind of makes you wonder if Salesforce.com is not eyeing Apple now and the big pile of money they have collected...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  39. Re:Dear God... Freeware by Yakasha · · Score: 1

    You mean like things like "Windows" right?

    No, this is slashdot. He must have meant Freeware. The clever combination of "Free" and "Software".

    Start packing...

  40. Re:Appz? by zarzu · · Score: 1

    Riiiight, because the z isn't used as a 'cool' substitute for s and apps isn't the plural of app. Clearly nothing at all to do with app.

  41. Name it A.P.P.L.E. instead! by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    the Application Procurement Program for Licensed End-users

    That should avoid any further lawsuits.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  42. Re:M$ astroturfers always support M$ by Kalriath · · Score: 2

    Dude, that IS twitter. He's back! Oh, how I missed that entertainment.

    For the record though - the reboot is actually because of the only thing in the world with such unparalleled shittyness that nothing could possibly beat it: Adobe.

    Personally, I kind of like Win7, though I still kind of dislike Microsoft.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  43. Re:Appz? by exomondo · · Score: 3, Informative

    In case you didn't notice, Appz is rather unlike App. Also that domain is based around the concept of "Warez", more than a shortened form of Application.

    In any case the idea and name AppStore was around before Apple's App Store and was also a place to buy Applications from.

  44. Jerk Store by istartedi · · Score: 1

    One or the other should change their name to Jerk Store. They might have to license it from NBC; but it would fit either way and I don't think anybody is using it.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  45. Hey Steve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Steve, how is your liver doing? Are you going to steal one more? That was so cool you did there. Do you have enough fanbois to suck your dick? If not, you can take a look at /., you will find plenty.

    Bye.

  46. The Law groked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that in a nutshell is exactly how genericity in patent law is supposed to work. IAAL.

    Another way to think about it is that words, or combinations of words, which competitors in a particular market would generally wish to use to describe their goods and services should not be patentable.

    Now lets see if the courts agree on this particular set of facts.

  47. Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone notice all the Apple ads that reference the "Appstore" ("If you dont have an iPhone, then you don't have the AppStore...")? Well, that's exactly how anyone can "cordon off words from the natural language wordspace and treat them as private "property". This is just how trademarks work: all you need to do is convince enough people/consumers to associate "appstore" and "apple" and you're done, because trademarks are at their heart consumer protections to prevent confusion in the marketplace.

    In this case, Apple will run enough ads that this becomes the case (and they probably already have a healthy start), then will commission a survey of a typical american/comsumer/smartphone user/other target demographic chosen for the purpose that shows exactly this fact. Amazon might try to counter with ads and surveys of its own, but given Apple's mindshare/marketing clout, Amazon is at a significant disadvantage. Long before this lawsuit ever gets to trial, Apple will present its survey findings to Amazon, who will then capitulate and settle because they know they would lose.

    1. Re:Ads by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice all the Apple ads that reference the "Appstore" ("If you dont have an iPhone, then you don't have the AppStore...")? Well, that's exactly how anyone can "cordon off words from the natural language wordspace and treat them as private "property".

      That sounds very similar to the Duncan campaign "If it's not a Duncan, it's not a yo-yo". Incidentally, Duncan lost their "Yo-yo" trademark because the court ruled that the name of the toy had entered general use. Trying to "cordon off words" doesn't always mean you'll succeed.

  48. Fuck Apple by Bigashnigg · · Score: 0

    Apple is so fucking shitty, they ruin every1, take every1 to court, try to sue anything that breathes. Those are the kinds of people ruining this country. Apple has always, and will always, be my least favorite company out there, I refuse to buy any product for them or use anything with their name/logo on it. I do not understand why so many people still love them.

  49. The sad thing about all this... by margeman2k3 · · Score: 1

    I think the saddest thing about all this, is that if I started a store that sold apples (the fruit), I couldn't call it an apple store without being sued.
    Apple Store, no. Apple Mart, no. Apple Shop, no.

    It's the same thing with Amazon. They want a name that reflects the purpose of the store.
    They sell apps. It's an app store.

    Then again, Apple did sue someone for using the word "pod" in their product name, so we can hardly be surprised by this (link)

    1. Re:The sad thing about all this... by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      TM's only apply to the market they are in. There is absolute no problem with making a store that sells apples, (the fruit,) and calling it Apple Store. You can even get an Apple computer as your cash register if you wanted.

    2. Re:The sad thing about all this... by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      Also, Apple only purse cases where they company using "pod" in reference to an iPod, mp3 player, itunes, or something related to them.

    3. Re:The sad thing about all this... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I think the saddest thing about all this, is that if I started a store that sold apples (the fruit), I couldn't call it an apple store without being sued.
      Apple Store, no. Apple Mart, no. Apple Shop, no.

      Apple Market, yes...

  50. App Store vs appstore by the_one_wesp · · Score: 0

    Well... from the looks of Amazon's logo, they don't use the term 'App Store', which I would agree, for the sake of software distribution platforms, shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked. They do however use the entirely different label of 'appstore' which isn't in any of my dictionaries, nor are any of its words abbreviations for words that are in my dictionary. Sounds like Amazon has a more trademark-able title than Apple does.

  51. I'm ready to call it. by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

    Amazon will loose. "App Store" is a valid trademark. A key distinction is that "App Store" is not actually a store at all. There is no merchandize, they don't buy and sell goods. They run a brokerage. You can call a brokerage "App Store". It is the same as if you ran a tutoring service and called it "Tutor Store". You aren't selling tutors your selling tutoring services. I can find precedence in US trademarks that agrees with this; there is a nightclub called "Liqueur Store".

  52. Re:I hate Apple +4, Helpful by intheshelter · · Score: 1

    I don't agree. You're just trying to be cool by joining the anti-Apple fanboy herd with comments like this.

  53. Re:M$ astroturfers always support M$ by spun · · Score: 1

    One coworker has constant problems with his mouse in Win7, another suffers blue screens fairly often, but I've had no problems. I still dislike Microsoft, but the fact is, they are becoming less and less relevant. They aren't the one and only 800 pound gorilla in the room anymore. It's much less fun to hate on a company that looks and acts like it is slowly dying.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton