Apple: an 'App Store' Is Not a Store For Apps

recoiledsnake writes "What would be your first guess about what an app store sells? Don't be fooled, Apple warns, the phrase 'app store' is not generic and can only be used to describe Cupertino's... um, app store? 'Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words "app store" together denote a store for apps,' Apple said in a Thursday filing with a California district court. All this notwithstanding that Jobs himself used the phrase generically while referring to Android app stores. We've previously discussed this ongoing legal battle."

Comments

Old news...?

[daedae]

So, how is this at all different from the way Apple has been making the same claim for the past several weeks?

Re:Old news...?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So, how is this at all different from the way Apple has been making the same claim for the past several weeks?

Slashdot needs to serve ads and Apple hasn't done anything else to bitch about.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

In politics, left or right, you must punch a hippie at least once in order to be considered a serious candidate. In a similar vein, in tech commentary, you must troll an apple user at least once to be considered a serious commentator.

Re:Old news...?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Mod parent -1 on the rag. No, seriously, on a planet w/ real violence against actual non violent protests, getting all kinds of worked up about a turn of phrase that means mocking the unworkable solutions of a bunch of utopians is at best clutching your pearls(Oh the horror inflicted upon those poor clams!). Please take your self righteous anger and go volunteer at a soup kitchen or a free clinic and do some real good rather than playing arbiter of language and its use on Slashdot.

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism implies that a person is being prejudged by an inherent physical trait which they have no control over. Being a drugged out loser is a completely rational decision that each hippie makes, and it is perfectly fair to judge them for it.

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait what? No than someone racist jokes?

You mean that you're so influenced by the PC crowd that you can't even tell racist jokes anymore? That's just sad, man.

Re:Old news...?

[hairyfeet]

As someone who actually has a scar on the back of his head from a cop that said, and I quote "Fucking niggers and God damned hippies, i don't know which I hate more' (and BTW that "fucking nigger" I was driving was a baptist minister that was doing a mini tent revival tour to raise money for the homeless, whom I was playing bass for and driving as a favor and because I believed in the cause even though I'm an atheist, which he would always counter with "Just because you don't love God doesn't mean he doesn't love you"), allow me to say, from the bottom of my heart.....please get the panties out of your ass dude.

Jokes and satire are what we use to know only alleviate some of the hasher realities of this world we live in, but to also shine a light on people's misconceptions without being ugly about it. It is like what my GF who is Cherokee says when people start talking Spanish to her, assuming because she is brown she must be a Mexican "Me no Mexican, Me Cherokee, Me scalp your ass!" and by doing so sets the record straight without any preaching or PC bullshit (and always gets a laugh out of me when I see their faces).

So please, do get the panties out your ass, the sand out yo vagina, or however it is kids put quit being a stuck up prick these days. It is all the PC bullshit that leads us down the slope where you have "victim classes" and "hate crimes " (excuse me? If someone bashes my head in it don't count as much if my head is white? WTF?) and other "sensitivity" horseshit.

Oh and since I'm an atheist Irish/Creek Indian mix, feel free to make all the Godless Heathen, Drunken Mick, and Wild Injun jokes you like. If it is a good one I'll even be passing it around so please keep all jokes GPL or PD.

Now as for TFA? Apple is one of the most lawsuit happy corps bar none, so is anyone surprised? Everyone made a stink about MSFT and TomTom while ignoring the fact that MSFT offered TomTom (who are making money with their devices, not giving them away) the same RAND pricing they offer the flash manufacturers, no discrimination because they weren't using WinCE, and in the entire history of the company they've been the instigator of a whole 7 lawsuits in the company's history. I wonder how many Apple has started? because I bet it is a hell of a lot higher.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

We can tell racist jokes. It is physically possible. It is also physically possible to eat dog shit, punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, and stab a baby. Those things are only slightly less repugnant than telling racist jokes. However, we can still tell jokes about assholes like you. Did you hear the one about the racist that got shot in the face? Yeah, that's the punchline, you are supposed to laugh now.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

Thanks, but I don't need you "defending" me by characterizing "hippie punching" as "mocking the unworkable solutions of a bunch of utopians." You are in fact hippie punching, by claiming hippies are all utopians and their solutions are all unworkable. Was Rahm Emmanuel mocking an unworkable solution when he said all leftists were "Fucking Retards?" No, he was hippie punching. We don't need any smug, smirking, "Serious" people telling us our ideas are unworkable, when the most ridiculous and proven ineffective ideas, such as "trickle down economics" are still being touted as real solutions.

You want to know some of our "unworkable" ideas? The eight hour day. Weekends. Workplace safety. Child labor laws. Minimum wage. Civil rights. Women's suffrage. Environmental protection. What ideas have you come up with that have been adopted into government policies and proven workable over the course of decades?

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Camp out for new product
2. New product is undeniably shit
3. Steve preaches to the converted
4. Profit

Apples users are so retarded that I want to kill them all on sight.

Re:Old news...?

[ThurstonMoore]

It is also physically possible to eat dog shit, punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, and stab a baby. I just figured out what I am going to do tonight.

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a baptist minister that was doing a mini tent revival tour to raise money for the homeless" Driving around a thug that uses terror (Going to hell) to get kids to believe as he does isn't a honorable thing to be doing.

Re:Old news...?

[Deus.1.01]

Or we can judge individuals on individual basis...just a thought.

Re:Old news...?

[Deus.1.01]

Only we PC'ers(whatever that means, if it means being anti-nationalist, then yes im one of them) can enjoy racist jokes.....we're the only one that can find them truly, TRULY funny.

"what would you call the flintones if they were black?"

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

"what would you call the flintones if they were black?"

The Coals?

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

You really have no idea how much that baptist minister emphasized going to hell in his sermons. Maybe he rode a skateboard and was a real cooool cat. Maybe he played guitar and sang about love and forgiveness and turning the other cheek and not casting the first stone and all that shit that Jesus supoosedly actually said, as opposed to hell, which one crazy dude on drugs wrote about much later.

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the threat of hell is a major portion of the Baptist belief I think I do. When you take the name of a group as your own you are stating your agreement with what they teach. Of course now the big Baptist thing (Southern at least) is that the Earth is 6,000 years old and you better believe it least they kick you out of seminary.

Re:Old news...?

[ThurstonMoore]

Do you really think racist jokes are worse than stabbing babies?

Re:Old news...?

[stealth_finger]

We can tell racist jokes. It is physically possible. It is also physically possible to eat dog shit, punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, and stab a baby.

What's more racist? Telling a joke about a specific group of people (doesn't have to be derogatory to be classed as racist nowadays) or being told you cant tell that joke because of the colour of your skin?

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

Sigh. That was part of the joke...

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

Oh no, you said something, someone else got offended, and they told you that they found what you said offensive. How dare they trample your right to free speech?!?!

You do see how ridiculous and hypocritical that is, right? You exercised your right to free speech, but now you want to take away our right to say how we feel about it? Fuck you, grow a pair, stop being a whiny little princess and take responsibility for the things you say and how they impact the other human beings who have to share the planet with you. You aren't the oppressed one. You aren't the victim. You want the right to put others in their place with your "jokes", without being put in yours.

Like bullies everywhere, when your victims stand up to you, YOU cry victimization. Go cry somewhere else, bully, we don't care because we don't have to. That's what you hate the most, isn't it? That's what we've taken away from you. That was the power you had, but have no longer, and that is why you cry victim. You are pathetic. And we don't have to care.

Re:Old news...?

[icebraining]

Assuming that everyone that tells racist jokes is a racist is fucking stupid. Comedy based on stereotypes are just funny; and series like Goodness Gracious Me elevate it to excellency. The fact that we are so hung up on races just shows our immaturity.

Re:Old news...?

[im_thatoneguy]

Actually Baptists are more complicated. Unlike most denominations Baptists are founded on the principle that there *is no central authority*. Yes you can choose to associate yourself with baptists or not, and yes he probably was just statistically speaking but unlike another denomination Baptism was founded on the principle that every preacher had their own authority to interpret scripture and preach the word as inspired to them.

And many Baptists hold the notion of permanent salvation. So if you at some point in your life accept Jesus then you're saved regardless of your future activity. It's more complicated than that.. but that's the general idea--at least in some baptist circles.

So yes they might kick you out of seminary... but you could just go to another "Baptist" seminary that you set up and become a "Baptist" minister that teachers Evolution. It's quite democratic and 'free market' compared to other denominations.

-Atheist w/ ex-Baptist Brother in Law w/ Baptist Preacher father.

Re:Old news...?

[hairyfeet]

Actually allow me to say the above AC is full of shit, and a racist prick on top of it for calling a damned decent human being a "thug" trying to find an excuse for a racist cop head bashing. To set the record straight not all Baptist are Southern Baptists, Charles as a matter of fact isn't affiliated with any organized baptist groups at all, and simply calls his little church Baptists because they do believe in Baptizing, but only in those old enough to understand the symbolism behind it.

The simple fact is Charles and I have been friends for years, even though I'm an atheist and have a gay son. I already wrote what he says on atheism (Just because you don't love God doesn't mean he doesn't love you) and as far as my son being gay he says (It is not up to me to decide that is good or evil, that is between him and his God. As someone who has received hatred for falling in love and marrying a white woman because I am black I know what it is like to be hated for who you love and I can't in good conscience do that to someone. The bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged" and that is what I tell folks to do) so frankly I have No problem with the man just because we have different beliefs. Considering I know his history, and how he hit rock bottom and became suicidal after losing his mom and becoming addicted to drugs trying to cope, I can respect his need to believe in something bigger, even if I don't share in those beliefs.

As for his "cool cat" as you put it? Funny story, I was stuck at one of the meetings having to play with a guitarist that could barely play more than barre chords (I ended up getting Charles to come play lead, as I originally met him in a blues band and the man can play) so out of boredom while the tent started filling up I started playing "Sympathy for the devil" just being my usual smart ass self, and when Charles said he liked the grove I should keep it up I leaned over a told him what I was playing, not wanting to cause the man any embarrassment. Instead of being bothered he just grabbed the guitar and made a cool blues rap up about loving your fellow man. I wish I could remember the words, but all I can remember is he had the "Hope you guess my name" part changed to "Just remember, to the Lord we're all the same" and then went on about how we should treat everyone as Jesus did, as we are all brothers. I thought that would count as "cool cat" under your definition.

Re:Old news...?

[im_thatoneguy]

Takes too long and is unworkable. If I had to figure out that gravity would pull me downwards I would have broken all of my legs multiple times.

We do this little thing called "learning" that teaches us to recognize situations or objects which are similar to others and we can transpose characteristics we know from past experience onto new experiences. It's the fundamental basis of our intellect and intelligence. You can look at a Ford Taurus and know that it's a car. That cars generally travel on roads. And that you shouldn't walk in front of them. If you judged each car differently then you would have to re-learn the entire traffic system to remain safe. It's untenable.

If someone looks like a hippie then they 95% of the time generally fit into hippie culture. I've never run into a conservative right wingnut who has dreadlocks and natural fiber clothes.

There are also cultures. I have a bunch of French friends. They're definitely united by a common culture. I can't easily recognize a Frenchman from an Italian on the street but I certainly have a baseline expectation for people with a French upbringing. And I from experience know how to adapt to interact best with their mannerisms. Countries and cultures have personalities. Not everyone matches one personality obviously but the range tends to be skewed in one direction.

Most people the world over are generally pretty similar at some level. Starting from species and working our way through culture, sub-cultures and ultimately individual personality you're getting progressively less insightful about the variation.

Two random hippies are probably more similar than a shy Hippie and a shy Glenn Beck aficionado.

The trouble is when you start putting unjustified qualifiers on it.

"Hippies can't came up with any practical ideas. They're useless bums.
They contribute nothing to society.
They're just leeches."

"Right Wingnuts hate poor people.
They are incapable of intelligent though.
They abhor human rights."

Often we mis-attribute motivations to people. "African Americans have higher unemployment because they're Lazy."
"Or there is another underlying social cause that's preventing them from finding employment or disproportionately eliminating the jobs that they previously had."

If you simply ignore the fact that African Americans *are* factually experiencing higher unemployment then you will never figure out why it's occurring and what can be done to fix it. It's not judgmental, since you're still operating from the basic assumption that we're all pretty much the same as far as personality goes genetically--but culturally and socially we by and large still have a notably different upbringing.

So then you have to start refining to figure out specifically which group of African Americans are disproportionately unemployed. If you go across economic lines is it affecting everyone with dark skin (implying it's purely a racial discrimination problem) or is it only affecting the poorer African Americans? Etc...

If you put too great of an emphasis on individual analysis starting from a completely blank slate you'll spend an eternity just getting to the interesting distinguishing factors.

For instance I would describe my dad as a "University philosophy teacher who lives to paint." There are only four descriptive words in there, but I think if you decompressed the sub-cultures and connotations you would probably be able to extract a relatively accurate caricature. It certainly lacks nuance but you would be about 95% right.

I can nearly very accurately describe myself in even less characters: ENTP. If you start from that assumption you would not be far off in your assumptions about me.

Re:Old news...?

[Filip22012005]

Such an insightful reply ending with the pseudo-science of Myers-Briggs. Why is that such bad psychology in this case? Instead of appreciating that traits are normally distributed, MB-types assume a bimodal distribution. Such black-and-white reasoning is much worse than your own reasoning in this post.

Re:Old news...?

[drinkypoo]

Minimum wage IS unworkable in our current system, but it would work fine if you also cracked down on illegal immigration. Actually, I give a shit about illegal immigration, it's illegal hiring that has to change.

If you really wanted to fix the "problem" we'd have to stop shitting directly on Mexico, but barring that you go after the people doing the hiring. Unfortunately, those profiting most can hire lobbyists. THERE is your "trickle down" effect, though; as long as Big Agriculture is hiring illegals there will be lots of them in the country for your neighbor to hire to dig a ditch instead of someone who lives in this country and needs the money.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

I just hope the AC reads this. Mostly, I don't feel the need to defend the religious because they aren't really an oppressed minority. But on Slashdot they are. And I had a feeling this guy you were talking about wasn't your average baptist preacher.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

Exactly what a bully would say. You can tell your side, but It's my fault that I get offended, so I should shut up and get over it. Free speech is only a privilege for bullies, eh?

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

Go cry somewhere else, bully, we don't care because we don't have to. That's what you hate the most, isn't it? That's what we've taken away from you. That was the power you had, but have no longer, and that is why you cry victim. You are pathetic. And we don't have to care.

My first point. By making that long comment, u betray your own words. If u didn't care u, wouldn't have been so fired up. Like your definition of racism, and your reading comprehension, your idea of not caring is incomplete. i find people screaming "I dont care" at the top of their lungs to be humorous.

i didnt see that in his comment. He said telling someone they cant say something because of color of their skin, which is the very definition of racism, is just as bad as telling a outright racist joke. example: Take the word "nigger". Lets get a random collection of races and creeds. I(white person) make a joke with nigger implying black people are lazy. Every gets up in arms because i am racist and i said a racist joke. If a black guy makes the exact, word for word, joke it would be ok. no one seemed to care and a lot found it quite funny. this is actually something me and some of my friends have played around with(being from Alabama ignorance is rampant here). The reactions are almost universally the same. The only difference is color of our skin. how is this not racist? now racism according to webster: racial prejudice or discrimination. HMMMM.....interesting.

No one ever said u couldn't voice that the comment is offensive to you. He said u should be able to tell him that he cant say it because he is of a certain color. Quit using racism to hide behind while being one of the worst kinds of bigots. At-least the KKK admits to their racism instead of hiding behind words like Progressive. The people who scream about this, the vast majority of times, are not looking for equality. They want to be on top. So they are for racism just not against their race.

anyways this is way offtopic. Back to what matters: Apple blows. Trendy doesnt make better, and usually streamlined means easier to use with less functionality. Yet the apple cult still thinks because they paid 5 times more for their product, it is better. I refer you to the humancetipad episode of southpark:)

Re:Old news...?

[Deus.1.01]

Look all that is irrelevant, and when you meet somebody or when we talk about somebody...bringing up such inductive logic is pretty irrelevant in most settings.

Re:Old news...?

[icebraining]

I never said (nor even implied) you should shut up, mr. Strawman. And yes, it is your fault that you get offended.

Re:Old news...?

[RockDoctor]

So, how is this at all different from the way Apple has been making the same claim for the past several weeks?

Slashdot needs to serve ads and Apple hasn't done anything else to bitch about.

Slashdot serves ads? Oh yes, I remember seeing them when I access the site on client's systems. At least, until I've logged in. Then I find the little "Ads Disabled ... Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!" disply in the top corner.

Perhaps if you made more, highly-ranked comments and submissions, you too wouldn't be troubled by adverts?

Regardless, Apple still exist ; isn't that enough to bitch about?

Re:Old news...?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So let me see if I understand... you think that whe you click the disable ads feature, that you have turned off all the ads on the sight.... right? Dumb shit.

Re:Old news...?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Out of kindness for a fellow human being, I will graciously accept your silence as an acknowledgement of your error and as an apology for charging ahead despite your ignorance of how advertising works. You are forgiven, have a nice weekend. :)

Re:Old news...?

[RockDoctor]

Out of kindness for a fellow human being, I will graciously accept your silence as an acknowledgement of your error and as an apology for charging ahead despite your ignorance of how advertising works.

Out of contempt for a GenZ-er, I'll point out that some of us have work to do, most likely in different time zones to you, and that my silence is indicative of having something more important to do than jacking off onto Slashdot.

I don't see adverts as big blocks of colour, so I cease to give a shit. I don't pay for the bandwidth at this location, and I don't have Admin rights for this system, so I give even less of a shit about their IE not allowing me to blacklist advertising sites. (Their choice ; let their IT sort out the problems when I'm at the next client at the next location, next week. I'm not hired to do IT.)

If you're referring to "Slashvertisement" etc, well how the fuck is that different from how the entire "news" publishing industry has worked for the last several centuries? Not in the slightest.

You are forgiven, have a nice weekend. :)

You too are forgiven. The weekend has 2.5 hours to run, and I've 10 hours more on my shift, then a day of maybe or maybe not being able to get home.

Re:Old news...?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...and that my silence is indicative of having something more important to do than jacking off onto Slashdot.

You found time during your extremely busy weekend to do it twice, now.

I don't see adverts as big blocks of colour, so I cease to give a shit.

Right. You also cease to understand how advertising on Slashdot works and how it relates to sensationalism, then you make stupid comments like the one you did.

If you're referring to "Slashvertisement" etc, well how the fuck is that different from how the entire "news" publishing industry has worked for the last several centuries? Not in the slightest.

I wasn't. Funny that you mention it anyway, though, since it further answers the question I was answering.

Since you are unsure of what I'm talking about, you should consider learning how to use the question mark on your keyboard.

he weekend has 2.5 hours to run, and I've 10 hours more on my shift, then a day of maybe or maybe not being able to get home.

I hope you get home and I hope you don't work as many hours a week as I tend to. Have a nice end-of-your-work-week.

Re:Old news...?

[hairyfeet]

Oh I can't stand the fire and brimstone types, I got my fill of those when I was a teen. true story I had become friend with this guy whose sis I was sleeping with, I didn't know what his dad did for a living, just that there was this big funky glass and steel building right by their house that his sis had keys for (and which we screwed in A LOT) .

So I stay the weekend with the guy (I get a two for, visit my bud and a booty call, can't beat that!) and on Sunday right after we both took some killer acid he tells me we gotta make an appearance at his dad's "job". little shit gave me NO warning, and BTW I was wearing my favorite Rush 2112 shirt (I'm sure you know the one). so he and I walk in the door right in the middle of a freaking sermon and his dad takes one look at me and says "look at that! A reason why the youth of today are GONNA BURN!" talking about my shirt. I tried to hold it in, I swear I did, but I just bust out laughing my ass off and walked out the door. it didn't really help that while this douchebag was screaming about fire and brimstone his son had the best smoke in the county and I had boned his baby less than 12 feet from where he was standing. Needless to say I was NOT invited back. If he only new his baby insisted that we do right where he had stood and called me out the next Saturday! HA HA!

So yeah, really got no time for fire and brimstone types. But I knew Charles before he became a preacher, and he has always walked the walk. he don't judge anybody and uses any profits for the homeless and food kitchens. He also don't waste time trying to convert my ass, so it all works out. To this day if that man is in a jam and needs a bass player to cover his butt I'll be there, simply because no matter what his beliefs he does good work.

BTW my mom actually knows the above story (heard it from my sis after it got out all over town, I was looked at like a God for laughing at Mr fire and brimstone while secretly doing his daughter) and she insisted on telling my GF that story "to let her know what she was in for". Brenda just looked at me, who had a cat ate the canary grin, and said "you know, he can act all nice and meek but I KNEW he was a wild one!" and that was that. Nice thing about having a Cherokee GF, she don't buy into all the fire and brimstone BS either. She follows the great spirit of her people which she says doesn't discriminate against wild asses like me,LOL

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't the sane Baptists start fighting back against those doing evil in their name? They use the word Baptists but then sit silently by while they scare kids into joining their sect. This is wrong. Telling an 8 year old that he is going to goto hell because he knows the Earth is more than 6,000 years old is wrong. But how often do you see the sane Christians out fighting this? Very very rarely. Put another way being nice while being in the Klan still means you are in the Klan.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

So what if people call you a racist? That is their right. You exercise free speech in telling a joke, they exercise free speech by calling you a racist. How come your joke is legitimate, but their commentary on your joke is not? No one is preventing you from saying anything. You can say 'nigger' all you like, and if someone punches you for saying it, THEY are breaking the law.

But that's not good enough for you. You want to prevent anyone from complaining about your speech. You want to return to the days of white privilege, when a white man could say whatever he liked, and everyone else was too cowed to complain. You are absolutely and without a doubt, a racist. As long as you keep engaging in racism, we will keep calling you a racist. You don't have the power to stop us from speaking.

Does it burn, knowing you are powerless to stop us from telling you how we feel about you? I hope it burns.

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

Wow u missed the point completely. let me see. first, u butchered the example. It wasnt about people speaking up, but about the fact that for a black person to say the word, it isnt racist, but for a white person, it is, regardless of context. That is a social situation dictated solely on color of ones skin, also known as racism. Secondly, u seem to think i do this, or i was relating something that happened to me. i dont, and i wasnt. See thats why its called an example. It doesnt have to apply to a real life scenario that i went through, but is based off observation and used to (i thought) help you grasp the point i was attempting to make.
  the parent i responded to was attacking his parent on something the comment didnt say. I am not a racist, and dont use "nigger" in daily speech out of respect, but that doesnt stop me from seeing a blatant duel standard when it comes to the word. Black = social acceptable to use it. White = not social acceptable to use it. That is racism. im not saying anyone has to change it, but i am saying that you shouldnt be ignorant of the fact that its there, and if u perpuate it, u are a hypocrit of the worst kind. Regardless i wont be using it regularly. i want people to attack my speech and reasoning. Its the basis of free speech, which is one of the few things i feel very strongly about. But if u are going to attack me, atleast have a clue as to what my comment says. infact i even said what u said in my comment.

"No one ever said u couldn't voice that the comment is offensive to you." - one of the many lines u must have skipped in my comment.

TL:DR i dont use the word in everyday speech and am not racist, but if you use the word continually or have no issue with a black person saying it, but a white person says it and you get riled up, you are a racist, no way around it. If its ok for some, it should be for all. thats equality, not what exists in our current society.

yea it burns, but the good kinda burn. Like a hot tub on a frigid night burn.....hmmmmm......hottub.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

That's not right. It isn't that the word is "racist" when used by one group, and not racist when used by another. It is that it is insulting when used as an insult and not when it is not, and white people don't have the cultural background to use it as anything but an insult. I have friends that I sometimes insult in a joking fashion. They do it to me as well, and we find it amusing and endearing. But if we used the same language with a stranger, it would be insulting. Is that a double standard? Is that unequal? No. Grow up. White people aren't oppressed. White people do not suffer from ANY reverse racism. There is no such thing. White people are the dominant culture in America.

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

ahh my poor ignorant friend. White people have suffured racism just like everyone else. My personal make up is roughly 1/8th native american, 1/8th irish, 1/4 german and the rest is pretty mixed up. So native american, yep very many racist actions against them. Irish(they are white btw): O this is a good one. Did u know when the irish came to america fleeing the patato famine, they were not permited to work or eat in the vast majority of establishments. If fact there are many stories of people taking their food outside so they could eat infront of a starving Irishman.

white people don't have the cultural background to use it as anything but an insult = racist comment. DUH. It is a comment making a generalization based on nothing other than race. What do u think racism means.
You said essentially the word offensiveness is based on context. This is funny. Context has nothing to do with it, i could say "the word nigger is a horrid word, and shouldnt be use" and the mass majority of american society go, "ewwww he said a bad word." but dr. dre says "[Snoop] Bitch niggaz (bitch niggaz)..
Bitch niggaz (bitch niggaz)..
Bitch-ass niggaz (beotch)..
[both] BITCH NIGGAZ (bitch niggaz)..
[Snoop] Yeah I'm talkin about you (beotch)..
[Dre] Bitch niggaz
[Snoop] and you too (beotch).."and noone bats a eyelash.
  "White people do not suffer from ANY reverse racism. There is no such thing. White people are the dominant culture in America." Correct and incorrect: You can definately say white people are the dominate culture, but that is why there is reverse racism. Reverse racism exists, thats not something up for debate. Its show able and provable. recent studies actually show that a poor white man is the least likely to get a job if every race and creed with equal experience applies. This is due to the fact that most companies have a required number of black, female, arab, and other races they must employ. There is one group left out of EVERY affirmative action law: White males.

Affirmative action is reverse racism(good or bad for society i am not arguing, but it is racist because it is based on race exclusively) it isnt you have to higher so many black males if they are better qualified than your other applicants. Ifa white man has 6 master degrees 5 years experience and he could lose out on a job to a man who has never held a steady job and has an associates degree, because the company isnt at its Aff Action numbers for black employees. How is that not racist?

But if we used the same language with a stranger, it would be insulting. Is that a double standard? Is that unequal? No.........umm yes it is, is it a wrong double standard? maybe maybe not, but it most definitely is 2 separate standards of behavior, one for friends one for strangers. Do u not read your comments beforehand to check for basic logic fallacies. here is the difference, (both of these men are strangers using the same tone in identical situations) if a black man says, "fuck you nigger" u focus on the fuck you, i truely doubt anyone even makes a comment about the nigger word being used, replace that with a white man and the final word makes all the difference and is the focus of the comment, not the fuck you part. It has nothing to do with context. Comedians, Chris Rock did several jokes involving the word and was praised as comedic genious(dave chappelle is another who definitely used it in a negative light) but if they were white and made the same joke, it would have destroyed their careers.

i leave you with one of the best quotes i have heard when refering to racism. plz watch the vid and think about what he says. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d2SzRZvsQ

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

No, there is ONE standard of behavior: don't be a dick. When I slap my wife's ass, pull her hair and call her a dirty slut, I'm not being a dick, because she likes that. If I did the same exact thing to a different woman, without her consent, that would be a dick move, wouldn't it?

Affirmative action is not racism, it is an attempt to reduce the inherent,unfair, and unearned advantages whites have in the workplace.

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

but what constitutes being a dick is different based on the color of your skin.Aff action is racism. its effects arent all bad, and it was once needed but it is what it is. jennifer gratz case. it was proven there that affirmative action led to a more qualified white girl losing her slot at college solely because she was white. The racial biases are getting fewer and fewer however there is a rise of economical bias. I think alot of those get interpreted as racial due to a there being more african americans in the lower end. The reason for this is due to the racism of the past but isnt enforced by racism of the current day. It is Rich families desire to keep the money in the family. So they exploit the poorer equally without bias, In other words, without aff action, a poor white man would have equal difficulty moving upward in economic status as a black man of the same standing. Stop focusing at racism and see the real problem. Then fix it. After that the numbers would become much more even.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

And what constitutes being a dick depends on the consent of the parties involved. If you say it is an insult, it is, to you, and I, not being a dick, won't insult you any further unless I have good reason to want to make you mad. If someone said "broccoli" was an insult to them I would not say "brocoli" around them because I don't want to insult them.

What you want is the privilege to say whatever you like, without others being able to say how they feel about the things you say. You want white privilege. You may not realize it, but you are a racist of the worst kind, the kind that believes HE is the oppressed one, and therefore absolutely justified in his racism.

As for affirmative action, correcting a racism is not racism. Reducing white privilege is not racism. It is the opposite, it is a reduction of racism. It only looks like racism to you because your unfair advantages are being reduced. A poor white man has far more opportunities than most minorities, and that is born out by economic data.

Re:Old news...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Treating people differently because of their race is absolutely racism, regardless of why it is done or who it is done to.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

But this isn't treating people differently because of race, it is (in the case of language) treating people the same, i.e. not insulting them, and, in the case of affirmative action, treating them differently based on the fact that they are an oppressed minority, it has nothing to do with color of their skin.

You do realize this is a story from days ago, right? I mean, I understand someone who was already in this thread responding later, but it just looks suspicious when an anonymous coward pops up in a days old story to mirror the racist comments of another poster.

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

I never said i want noone to be able to object to what i say. infact i have said the exact opposite in the most blatant terms i can think of. Silly strawman, you keep either quote mining, or just outright ignoring whole sections of my arguments. It isnt correcting racism(which i said in my comment) it is institutionalizing it. I never said i was oppressed. That word has lost its meaning since the likes of you have used it. I can be a victim of racism and still succeed. Not all racism is debilitating. You completely ignored my example of when Aff action is blatantly racist, as determined by a court of law. You havent been oppressed either btw.
  A poor white man has far more opportunities than most minorities, and that is born out by economic data. - show me where this data is, i have never heard of one experiment done in recent history that concluded this yet several that said the other way.

i post under my name and couldnt care less if someone agrees with me so the Anon below isnt me, nice try tho.

if me saying we should be judged on our abilities and merits rather than color of our skin makes me a racist, u really need to look at your reasoning.

U seem to believe its only racist when whites do it and when blacks do it evening the score. 2 wrongs dont make a right and the people being wronged now, and the ones who are benefiting arent even the ones involved in the original wronging. There are huge groups of black people who i know who laugh at the thought of me being racist so u arent shaking my confidence there. shame you think throwing race out is a bad idea.
your as bad as a fundamentalist creationist when it comes to saying i said things i came nowhere near saying.
fact is u want handouts and thats it.

HERE YOU GO. I FEEL ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT. I love how u say white people arent culturally able to say something but black people are. U have no clue how i live, the people i see, what i do, essential you dont know a thing about my culture. To say all white people are culturally equivalent is a racist generalization, If a black man is raised by a white family in the burbs, is it ok for him to say it? Yes, then culture aint got nothing to do with it. No, then your comments where incorrect statements based on race, making them racist comments. is it really that hard to grasp, if u use race to decide, its racist, regardless of the issue or event.

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

but we arent discussing the definition in language, but the practice as it is done in our current age. which is companies are mandated to hire so many blacks/hispanics/women regardless of the workpools qualifications. the case with Jennifer Gratz that you dont want to acknowledge shows this in its purest form.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

Okay, fuck off with the damn affirmative action crap, the discussion was never about that it was about not being a racist, insulting asshole and you tried to side track the debate because you are LOSING.

Re:Old news...?

[spun]

Fuck off and die, racist scum, conversation over. You lost, and I'm bored.

Re:Old news...?

[lostthoughts54]

lol lost, u never even countered one thing i said, just picked a word or two from each comment ad stuck it regardless of context. Enjoy the narrow worldview while u enjoy handouts. i pefer to work for what i have,

Apple == EVIL

[bleble]

It's nothing new from Apple. Remember that Apple always ignores everyones patents when it doesn't feel like paying for them (all the Nokia thing), but if someone else uses their patents Apple sues them. Same thing here. Apple and Steve Jobs are just being retards and think they can do whatever they want. And still MS gets blamed for being evil and Apple with its fully closed garden is some kind of white knight...

Re:Apple == EVIL

[PopeRatzo]

It's nothing new from Apple.

And no matter how you spin it, turn it upside down and examine it, try to put the most positive face on it, it is also hostile toward consumers.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Radiophobic]

Only the most zealous apple fanboy seems to try to deny that apple is evil by now.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that Monsanto is the biggest evil on this planet.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[digsbo]

Yeah, that I would largely agree with. Lobbying so that farmers have to pay you a royalty because you engineered crops which will naturally spread their DNA through normal, natural means would qualify in my book as evil.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[geekoid]

Apple tries to control what you can do with the device you bought, insist on getting money every time you want to do something with that device. The abuse the legal system, and twist contracts even if they have to 'shop for judges'

So, yeah, evil.

Could the be more evil? sure.

" activist judges"
I see the republican meme has gotten fully into your brain.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

MS made a string of crappy products while apple made a string of good ones. The term evil is a misnomer for either but what it comes down to is if you make a good product people want and don't feel like they're being forced to buy then they cut you slack. If you don't then you get a hysterical waving of hands and followed by being called evil. A rational person would soon realize neither crappy products nor legal strategies equal evil but hey it's hared to find rational folk on slashdot.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[bleble]

Except, Nokia previously agreed to license everyone ELSE (under RAND terms) those same patents Nokia accuses Apple of violating. The "ND" part stands for "non-discriminatory" which means Apple should pay the same price that everyone else. Not the same price AND patent licenses. It also means that all Apple has to do is pay the fees, and Nokia has to suck it up.

Except that Apple is not part of that and doesn't want to be, because that would mean they also would have to license their patents to everyone else at fair price. Apple can't just expect to get the good things (RAND terms) while avoiding the "bad" things (having to go by those RAND terms too).

Re:Apple == EVIL

[gilesjuk]

XBox 360, Nintendo Wii, Sony PS3 all impose similar restrictions.

A phone is not a computer in the general sense. You really don't want rogue software on a mobile device. This week at work someone had put their Android device on our network via Wifi. It was harvestingWindows logins and trying to login with them. Such things don't happen with a policed application store.

Apple has a walled garden, but the Android app stores are full of weeds and there's landmines under the lawn.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[goombah99]

Hmmm.

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)

It seems to me that apple winds on many grounds.

the term application has many meanings so it's use in the narrow term for an application on a computer is similar to the narrow usage of the generic words Apple or Amazon as company names in their fields not as fruit or rivers. Apple would probably get in trouble if they opened a store in the amazon basin and called it the Apple Amazon store.

So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Snarky McButtface]

Here is an interesting article on the BBC about Apple fanboys.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[toriver]

insist on getting money every time you want to do something with that device.

Say again? Are you on crack or some other drug? Methinks you are taking something and mis-applying it something fierce here.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being a drama queen.

I have a Macbook pro and an iphone. I paid Apple one single time for each of them, and that is it. I have at least a dozen software packages install on each device and I haven't paid Apple of any of them. At no time has Apple contacted me and demanded payment prior to allowing me to make a phone call, or post this post, or the like.

I used to have an ipod and, same deal, I filled it with music without paying Apple a dime.

The fact is that with some Apple devices, at the time they sell it to you, they've provided no means to install additional software other than through their store. They make no attempt to conceal this fact. If you ask them about they will tell you.

I don't see how you can call that 'control what you do with a device you bought' with a straight face. If people are buying those Apple products that are so provisioned, and then surprised at those facts, I have a hard time feeling bad for them.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[toriver]

Um, Nokia wanted access to NON-mobile patents held by Apple. I.e. patents that were totally unrelated to the technologies involved in the mobile space. Which Apple obviously refused to give them. Why should different rules apply to Apple and Samsung for instance?

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Culture20]

Apple with its fully closed garden is some kind of white knight...

Black knight at the moment. White knight is unavailable until six months after black knight release due to technical difficulties with the light sensors.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[dcollins]

Absolutely NONE of those things are "copyrighted". Try again.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

app has been used to describe applications long before Apple decided to also.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[wiedzmin]

apple made a string of good ones

I fail to see superiority of a first-generation iPhone over first-generation Windows 7 Mobile phone (let's compare apples to apples here... pun intended). Neither had copy-paste. Regardless, saying that term "app store" is proprietary is ridiculous. Some other companies that are not evil have allowed their trademarked company name to become a verb in the dictionary, you know...

I'm waiting for Sony Ericsson to claim ownership of the term "smartphone"...

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that Monsanto is the biggest evil on this planet.

OMFG YES!

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Golddess]

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

I'm curious what you mean by that, because in the end, all words were "invented".

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Troed]

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT

My 1985 Atari ST with GEM used .app as extension for applications (and .prg for programs. Apparently there was a difference).

"start GEM and run INSTALL.APP"

http://www.retroarchive.org/cpm/archive/unofficial/gemworld.html

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to earth, dude. Everybody is evil if it's profitable.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Splab]

Yahoo is a trademark, Xerox lost it's trademark on xeroxing since they weren't actively protecting it until it was too widely used.

Same goes for the term "googling it", not copyrighted, nor trademarked (and doesn't fall under the trademark google) since it became a generic term before google tried to protect it.

And same goes for all you examples I guess - but you seem to have trademark and copyright confused.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[goombah99]

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT

My 1985 Atari ST with GEM used .app as extension for applications (and .prg for programs. Apparently there was a difference).

"start GEM and run INSTALL.APP"

http://www.retroarchive.org/cpm/archive/unofficial/gemworld.html

Which is a good point. THey could lose too. The point I was trying to get across is that copyrighting or trademarking something seemingly already out there or easily derived is not a reason to say they don't have a case. But if the term was already in use for the specific meaning and in the same manner it will be hard sleding.

So while you point out that .app was not original, the rest of the argument I made still is standing for now. "app" used in the context of a store name, may still be accepted. It might not be. It's just not as obvious as people seem to think. Just like Windows, .net, xerox, and yahoo were allowed.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - way to be a moron and mix up a whole bunch of copyright / patent / trademark info and lump them all under "copyright" - Windows is not a copyright. It is a trademark, their code is copyrighted and some techniques used may be patented. This is just one quick example of the differences for you - now reread what you wrote and figure out what else you said that might be moronic.

We'll wait for an edited version...

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, First of all, this lawsuit is about trademarks, not copyright.

see: http://www.gimmelaw.com/strong-trademarks-vs-weak-trademarks

The argument here is about the word "app". Is "app" a generic term for "applications" or more to the point, "mobile applications"? If yes, than at best Apple has a weak trademark. At worst, it is unenforceable and void.

And yes, Google and Yahoo are trademarks. Don't try to start a search engine company with the name "gooogle". Bottom line, if you are trying to confuse Google's customers with a name that is very very similar, to the point were someone could get confused, you are infringing.

Take for example Apple computers. No problem if all they sell are computers and software. But what happens if they start building multimedia systems or worse, music? At that point (and it did happen) Apple Records might have a thing to say about it. In the case of Apple Records vs. Apple Computer, I believe they settle out of court... twice.

So, good trademarks, like "Kodak" are unique name for a product.

Bad trademark, like "car", would never fly if you tried to trademark "car dealer". How they got from "automobile" to "car" I don't know, but by now,the term "car" is generic.

So Apple wants to remove the term "app" from the dictionary. Amazon is saying its way to late for that.

And the fact that even Apple's CEO used the term generically doesn't help Apple's cause. That is going to be a tough one for Apple to get over. Apple computers that is.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[_avs_007]

So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

Actually, MS did not bar Lindows, they ended up settling because they almost lost that one. And for the record, "Windows" does not describe what it is, "An operating system", however "App Store" is precisely that, "A store that sells Apps".

Further, Apple did not invent "App", as even the mark "AppStore" was registered back in 1998 by another company.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Google started using the word App in 2006 for Google Apps (well before the Apple trademark application in 2008).

App was a buzzword in 2002 for Microsoft 95/98 application development.

Numerous references exist for making an "app" in various perl and php forums around 2000.

A killer app for computer chat published in the Economist in 1999.

Article titled "The Killer App" published in the Harvard Business Review in 1998

App Launcher software patcher circa 1998.

"DOS App" used on uunet in 1994...

And that is just from a few minutes of googling...

Apple did not invent the term "App" as a word.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[RazzleFrog]

First, Microsoft doesn't have a trademark (which is what you are talking about - not copyrithgs) on .Net. Windows was a graphical interface for DOS and was originally going to be called interface manager. No matter what they weren't sell windows based on the commonly held definition of a window at the time.

Xerox may be based on Xerography but as long as the name of their company wasn't Xerography they are fine. And their trademark is still valid by the way. You don't buy a Canon Xerox machine. You buy a Canon copier.

Yahoo doesn't sell Yahoos and that should be pretty obvious.

Apps were called apps before apple started a store to sell them. Apple shouldn't be able to trademark that name but unfortunately, like many other things with the USPTO, things don't always make sense. After all the Container Store sells containers and has a trademark.

What I'd like to see is for it to completely backfire and completely invalidate the trademark on all these other companies at the same time.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[jon_doh2.0]

Something has been done to them, they are pod-people. English people do not behave like that. We do not whoop.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[jon_doh2.0]

Lack of copy/paste is a head-scratcher, but lets be fair, by the time win-phone7 came to market that function in high-end phones had been long established and its absence was embarrassing.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf!?

This cannot be real, people cannot sink that low...

really...

WTF?

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

what came first? the slang "app" or the term "app store". If it's the former, Apple doesn't have a ground (IMO). If it's the latter, they can TM it.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Kitkoan]

This week at work someone had put their Android device on our network via Wifi. It was harvestingWindows logins and trying to login with them. Such things don't happen with a policed application store.

Great story there... you do know there are packet sniffers and other such programs for the iPhone? They are just a jailbreak away...

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Although you keep saying copyright, you mean trademark so responding as such:

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Xerox was not a common term before they started using it

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

The term app predates NeXT even if the file extension does not.

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

dot net is not a common term in the API space. While it is common in the internet domain space, that is not the space where this is trademarked.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)

While there is some confusion about "Opening windows" or "Starting windows" with existing terms. There isn't really any confusion in the market when referring to the actual window manager. So that makes it trademarkable.

the term application has many meanings so it's use in the narrow term for an application on a computer is similar to the narrow usage of the generic words Apple or Amazon as company names in their fields not as fruit or rivers. Apple would probably get in trouble if they opened a store in the amazon basin and called it the Apple Amazon store.

The term application is well established in the computer software field. The shortened form "app" is also well established in the computer software field. Once a term is already established, it cannot be trademarked. Apple was not a common term in the computer hardware or software business at the time it was trademarked. Amazon was not a common term in books or retail at the time it was trademarked.

So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

App is in common use in the field in question before it was trademarked. Xerox was not.

Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.

Common usage makes it not trademarkable.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

Yahoo was not a common term in the search or portal industry before it was trademarked.

Basically it all comes down to the fact that "app" has been a common term in the field in question for longer than their trademark. Thus their trademark is invalid.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[im_thatoneguy]

Except Xerox is a unique word, that was uniquely created by Xerox for the express purpose of their machines.

App dates back *AT LEAST* to 1989 and even then it wasn't trademarked by Apple and was considered a generic term for an "application" or "program". Nobody called a "Killer Prog".
http://books.google.com/books?id=uTAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q=app&f=false

Not the generic--non Apple implication usage of "Killer App". In reference to OS/2 no-less.

Apple has never defended the word "App" as a trademark. It's been used extensively in print and by corporations the world over. "Killer App" "Mobile App" "Web App". It's been in use for well over 2 decades.

So if we can conclude that the word "App" is generic and indefensible then combining it with a descriptor for the place where one buys apps as a store-- it's no less generic.

App (Generic) + Store (Generic) == Generic.

If however Apple had decided to name its iPhone apps something new and unique as a term for an app like... "Dot" then they could trademark it. "Dot, a trademarked term to name Applications for the iOS." They could then call it a Dot Store and limit its usage to computer software and be safe.

Apple chose the word "App" because that's what everybody already called Apps. We called them apps when they were on windows ce, palmOS, Windows, Linux, OS9, the web... the world over when you said "App" to someone who used a computer knew what you were talking about. And they weren't thinking of something that only ran on a Mac or was trademarked by Apple.

Here is a webpage that in 2003 thought Windows CE appplications were called "Apps"
http://web.archive.org/web/20030409022106/http://www.freefunfiles.com/software/pda/windowsceapplications/index.html

Just to beat your head with the obvious some more, here is a webpage updated in September 1999 talking about Windows CE "Apps"
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/bcox/windowsdna.html

It could be a single-user app running under Windows CE on a 3Com Palm Pilot.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[fermat1313]

Hmmm, So many issues, so little time.

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Xerox isn't a shortening of the term Xerography, it's an entirely different word created using the same prefix.

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

Doesn't mean they own the trademark to the word. "App" as an abbreviation for application has been used well before Apple coined the name App Store. I remember references to the term "killer app" since the early 90s.

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

You don't know what .Net is, do you?

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

You seem to miss the point. The company Xerox made up that name. Apple did not make up the word app. It's a general-use term used both in and out of computers.

copyright

copyrighted

copyright

copyrighted

This is a lawsuit about Trademark, not copyright. They are very different concepts with different goals, different histories, and different legal applications.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Sean Hederman]

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Umm, no. In fact the original term was "Electro-photography". Xerox strenuously objected to the usage of "xerography" when it first surfaced in 1965 (13 years after Haloid became Xerox).

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

Nope, they've trademarked "Microsoft .NET". I'd balk at calling it a network centric API as well.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows

Nope they've trademarked "Windows", and it's most likely an indefensible trademark which is why they're so damn careful to say "Microsoft Windows" everywhere.

So if Windows can bar Lindows

By "bar" you mean "buy for US$20 million", right? MS paid that money because the court was going to invalidate the "Windows" trademark on the grounds it was too generic, so they decided to settle.

Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon

No, if it was in the Amazon I suspect they would not be able to bar this.

slang can't be copyrighted

Please, please, please read up on the differences between trademarks and copyright.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

It's TRADEMARKED!, and it's trademarked for specific purposes.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

ALL words are invented. However you're not supposed to be able to trademark common parlance, especially in the context in which it's used. I guess I could go and trademark "App Store" for my coffee bar. It's not common parlance for a coffee bar, and might be okay. It could cause confusion though, which is something a trademark is not allowed to do. Apple is trying to enforce a trademark for a common term in it's usual context in a manner which could cause confusion. They will probably lose.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[sjames]

Actually, it is. People barely used the word xerography before the copier company (though it was a word) and nobody called it xerox at all, so it was unique. While the computer field had 'windows', nobody actually called the os or shell itself 'windows' until MS. In both of those cases, their naming wasn't a natural generic language pattern.

However, people have called applications apps since the '80s and the generic phrase x store where x can be any noun that might be sod at a store (grocery store, hardware store, shoe store, book store) has existed for quite a long time. So we have the generic short term for an application being sold in a store.

If They want Apple App Store or iApp store or App iStore, it's all theirs, but they don't get to claim a generic part of the natural language as their exclusive property. It's so natural, in fact, that Jobs himself has used it to refer to a store that sells Android apps, even while they're busy trying to call it their own unique phrase.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[mattventura]

I think what he was referring is the cut that Apple takes from App store purchases.

I don't see how you can call that 'control what you do with a device you bought' with a straight face. If people are buying those Apple products that are so provisioned, and then surprised at those facts, I have a hard time feeling bad for them.

You just completely skirted around the actual point. Apple DOES tightly control what you do with the device you paid for. You tried to justify it, but the point still stands.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Copyright != Trademark

2) Xerox was trademarkable as it wasn't a term in common use within its field; The full term was, but the shortened for was not. Think 'British Gas' or 'General Electric' - these are also trademarks made up of common words, yet they're valid because they weren't used in those forms at the time they were filed for.

App has been used as shorthand for an Application for nigh on twenty years; 'App Store' was generic in its field even before the application was filed. It's invalid precisely because it was *already* generic within in the field of computer software, and therefore would cause confusion within that market. It should not have been issued on that basis.

Basically, it's the same as me going out and getting a trademark on 'Car Park' ('Parking Lot', if you prefer),'Room Service' or 'Desktop PC' and then suing other businesses in those markets.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm.

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Xerox isn't a shortening of Xerography. Its a bit of a play on it but definitely not a shortening.

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

And? .app mean application, ie. Paint.app would be the application called Paint...

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

Irrelevant. .Net (referred to as dot net) is used to refer to the application framework. Microsoft hasn't (afaik) tried to sue any websites in the net TLD for using .net. Heck, they haven't even sued Paint.Net.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)

They almost lost the "Windows" trademark (its not copyrighted) in the Lindows case. They settled rather then chance it.

It seems to me that apple winds on many grounds.

Huh? How does Apple win or lose with this list? Is it a competition about who has the most trademarked words? Remember that Apple will sue anyone who uses iSomething to refer to a computer related product and they will sue anyone who tries to market a device which may look similar to their devices.

the term application has many meanings so it's use in the narrow term for an application on a computer is similar to the narrow usage of the generic words Apple or Amazon as company names in their fields not as fruit or rivers. Apple would probably get in trouble if they opened a store in the amazon basin and called it the Apple Amazon store.

I don't know what you are trying to say here but trademarked terms are relevant only to their particular niche. I could open a cafe down at the local shopping centre and call it "Amazon" without getting into a trademark dispute with the Amazon online media company as long as I didn't try to fool people into thinking I was related to them.
The term application is a generic term regarding computers. It has been in use for at least 10-20 years to refer to a program or set of programs. It cannot be trademarked due to this. App is a common contraction of application.

So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.

As before, Microsoft was running the risk of losing its trademark on windows in the Lindows case which is why it got settled rather then fought out in court. Apple could not call one of their stores Apple Amazon because it would create confusion about whether the store was a Apple store or a Amazon store.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

But you said before that Xerox was just a contraction of Xerography not a invented word (even though it is actually a invented word which was not in use).

Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.

It's trademark not copyright and it cannot be trademarked if it is a generic term. It has been in use for years before Apple thought of using it. People have been telling people to "open the paint app" or "start the app then..." for years. It is a pure contraction of application.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

It is not. It is trademarked. Goto United States Patent and Trademark Office and search for Yahoo. It will tell you what field the term is trademarked in.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[dutchd00d]

Consumer? Consumer? I'm not a "consumer", I'm a valued member of the Apple family!

</sarcasm>

Re:Apple == EVIL

[walshy007]

Why should different rules apply to Apple and Samsung for instance?

Perhaps because samsung was one of the companies that helped create the standard? RAND was for companies involved in the creation of the bugger. Coming late to the game with nothing to give (or refusing to give) creates a different situation and therefore a different outcome.

It makes sense that those who help make it get better terms.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[perryizgr8]

Lack of copy/paste is a head-scratcher, but lets be fair, by the time iphone came to market that function in high-end phones had been long established and its absence was embarrassing.

ftfy.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[perryizgr8]

apps existed on nokia smartphones years before iphone was a glimmer in jobs' eyes.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[LordVader717]

Xerography was a fanciful neologism for a process invented by Xerox's founder.

Microsoft has a trademark on .Net (pronounced dot-net) as a fanciful name for a particular product.

They also have a Trademark for Windows as an OS, but that doesn't stop anyone using the term for the UI elements in their OS's.

The "App Store" is a descriptive term for two very generic concepts: An online store for computer applications.

Notice that Apple doesn't make the (rediculous) claim of exclusivity over the term "App", since they only started using it very recently.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[jon_doh2.0]

Fair cop guv.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[SEE]

The use of the word "apps" to mean "computer applications programs" dates back to at least December 3rd, 1983.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Lack of copy/paste is a head-scratcher, but lets be fair, by the time iphone came to market that function in high-end phones had been long established and its absence was embarrassing.

ftfy.

What you ignore, or simply don't know, is that "Smartphones" needed copy and paste for simple things that the iPhone did much easier.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

app has been used to describe applications long before Apple decided to also.

So? Apple didn't even try to trademark "app".

And while we're at it, why does Apple regularly get attacked on Slashdot for raping the English language by using the "app" instead of "application", if what you say is "Informative"?

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only patents, but trademarks too. They've released multiple products with the same names as products other companies have (the most recent was IOS) and just don't give a shit. They do whatever they can get away with, including some of the most anti-consumer stunts ever pulled by companies, yet people still praise them. The recent articles comparing them to religions are spot on.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[DrEldarion]

Both of the examples in your post are still valid trademarks. If you googled it (def: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about, you'd quickly find this out.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[digsbo]

Who forced you to buy into the Apple ecosystem? Nobody.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of copy/paste is a head-scratcher, but lets be fair, by the time iphone came to market that function in high-end phones had been long established and its absence was embarrassing.

ftfy.

What you ignore, or simply don't know, is that "Smartphones" needed copy and paste for simple things that the iPhone did much easier.

Like transferring text from one document to another, oh yeah the iphone couldn't do that.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[exomondo]

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

But they haven't.

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

And many people used that term before that, what's your point?

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

No they didn't.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)

Windows is not a windows, it was a window manager, now an operating system. Whereas apple's App Store is an app store.

Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

I don't think you know what copyright is.

Re:Apple == EVIL

[exomondo]

And while we're at it, why does Apple regularly get attacked on Slashdot for raping the English language by using the "app" instead of "application", if what you say is "Informative"?

Probably because those attacking apple are morons who don't know the origins the word 'app'. The obvious response is to direct people to one of the many uses of 'app' prior to Apple's use of it.

I wonder what would happen

[plover]

if they simply ignored Apple? If someone came around to shut them down, they'd say "Really? You think our app store is confusingly called an App Store? Go away and grow some common sense."

Re:I wonder what would happen

[tknd]

Actually the populace can reduce the effectiveness of a trademark by genericizing it. If everyone from your grandmother to your 5 year old nephew began using "app" and "app store" as everyday jargon, the trademark would be genericized and has reduced legal protection.

So if you want to annoy Jobs and co, all you have to do is start referring to any software as an "app" and any outlet that sells software as an "app store" regardless of if it is or is not owned or run by Apple.

Some examples of companies that suffered from this effect are the term "googling" instead of "searching" and use of "kleenex" instead of "tissue".

Re:I wonder what would happen

[tom17]

Hoover up that mess will you!

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Anonymous Coward]

These are bad examples. Both of these companies have profited greatly by their products entering everyday jargon.

Some examples of companies that suffered from this effect are the term "googling" instead of "searching" and use of "kleenex" instead of "tissue".

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Reverand Dave]

Bandaid as another example. One could reasonably argue that the term "app store" is already pretty generic. I was calling my applications "apps" in the production environment of a company I worked for about 6 years ago. Every mobile device on the planet now has an online market or "store" through which you can buy or download applications or "apps."

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Anonymous Coward]

if they simply ignored Apple? If someone came around to shut them down, they'd say "Really? You think our app store is confusingly called an App Store? Go away and grow some common sense."

Yes, but Apple has gone to court and filed a lawsuit.

Ignoring a lawsuit is generally not a good idea - you tend to lose by default. Even if Apple is being idiotic and has no legal case.

It's similar to Donald Trump trying to get a trademark on the phrase, "You're fired!"

Any lawyer would tell you that the phrase, "You're fired!" in the context of firing someone isn't trademarkable. The entire thing was a publicity stunt.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Intropy]

The term "googling" is a bit different because when used as a verb it means "searching with Google" not just "searching." A person uses a Puffs branded kleenex to wipe his nose. You can xerox a document on a machine made by Brother. But nobody googles around her house for her car keys or even googles for a website on Yahoo.* * Ok, I have encountered someone who claimed to be googling with Yahoo, but that was a case where she didn't realize there even were different search engines and thought she was using google.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[RazzleFrog]

Actually - Puffs sells Facial Tissues. Nowhere on their product does it say "Kleenex" and if they did they would be sued. Same goes with Hoover, Band Aids, etc. You will never see a trademark being used legally by another brand.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[DarkVader]

See: Aspirin

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Anonymous Coward]

You will notice, however, that Kleenex, Xerox, and Google retain their trademarks. All you need to do to prevent loss of a trademark is prove that you're making an effort to discourage generic use as they are doing. Whether or not it's right is another question.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[RazzleFrog]

Bayer lost their Aspirin trademark in 4 countries as part of World War I reparations. I would hardly count that as a glowing example. It's still trademarked in many countries. Curiously enough they also had and lost a trademark on heroin.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[T Murphy]

I'll agree that Apple would suffer from genericizing here, as I don't think of Apple when I hear "app" or "app store" (I had no idea the relation between Apple and "app" was any different than Barnes and Noble and "book"). Even so, I wouldn't always consider genericizing as something that is "suffered", such as in the case of Kleenex or Xerox or Google (just watch the parody Bing launch video for a demonstration why).

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Anonymous Coward]

#appz has been a channel on efnet since the 1960's man :P

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Intropy]

That's a valid point, accurate and pertinent to the article. But when I said "a person" I was referring to common usage rather than trade usage. Contrast the case of Kleenex where you would hear an individual in a private circumstance saying "Could you hand me a kleenex?" and pointing to a box of "Puffs Facial Tissues" against something like "I lost my wallet. Help me google it."

Re:I wonder what would happen

[drinkypoo]

So if you want to annoy Jobs and co, all you have to do is start referring to any software as an "app" and any outlet that sells software as an "app store" regardless of if it is or is not owned or run by Apple.

And, amusingly enough, Apple called programs APPLICATIONS back in the System days (as opposed to the OSX days), their type was APPL. They were APPS and Apple named them such.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[drinkypoo]

Curiously enough they also had and lost a trademark on heroin.

Not really curious but somewhat interesting. I believe it's Merck that has the patent on MDMA... And WWII was the first major war on drugs, Methedrine vs. Benzedrine.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[perryizgr8]

Bandaid as another example. One could reasonably argue that the term "app store" is already pretty generic. I was calling my applications "apps" in the production environment of a company I worked for about 6 years ago. Every mobile device on the planet now has an online market or "store" through which you can buy or download applications or "apps."

my decades old palm device had apps, nokia smartphones have had apps since forever, dumbphones of every manufacturer had java apps. 'app' was common much before apple decided to use it.

Re:I wonder what would happen

[slashgrim]

So if you want to annoy Jobs and co, all you have to do is start referring to any software as an "app" and any outlet that sells software as an "app store" regardless of if it is or is not owned or run by Apple.

You mean like everyone I know has done since the 90s?

Re:I wonder what would happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, give Google 10 years and Google probably will be able to tell you where your lost wallet is. I'm not even sure if I am joking with that. But anyway, I don't think it is odd to use the verb google as a generic term for a web search, it is just that 90% of people use Google for their web searches anyway.

Trademark law

[danbuter]

If Apple doesn't defend their trademark, they lose it. Thank our wonderful legal system for this stuff.

Re:Trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But does it matter? Why do they NEED this Trademark? It's the only App store on iPhones/iPads, and no one is going to assume that the app store on android is run by Apple. I don't understand the logic that Everything Must Be Trademarked!

Re:Trademark law

[Dunbal]

Post hoc justification for the win. I mean, instead of shooting for a reasonable, defensible trademark, now they are forced into defending this highly provocative trademark. Poor them. Especially considering all the free advertising this is getting them in the press.

Anyway as the owner of Program Files (tm), I take exception to something called the "App Store", since in fact my directory can also be used to store apps. And I have a far larger market share than apple, rofl.

Re:Trademark law

[Ruke]

Well, yeah. However, this isn't a "defend your patent or lose it," case where a patent-holder is forced to defend their trivial feature even though they don't really care to; Apple applied for the "AppStore" trademark exactly for this eventuality. They don't want anyone else to be able to use the phrase "App Store" to refer to a place where you can buy apps.

Re:Trademark law

[ustolemyname]

Yes, because somehow Apple could possibly achieve more mindshare through advertising.

Free advertising is only helpful if you are not the most valuable brand name in america (according to a study a few weeks back).

Re:Trademark law

[Hatta]

It's an invalid trademark. It's entirely generic and deserves no protection whatsoever.

Re:Trademark law

[BlackSnake112]

Apple wants to make sure that no other company calls there store an "app store". Or if they do, they had to pay apple for the right.

Re:Trademark law

[fahrbot-bot]

They don't want anyone else to be able to use the phrase "App Store" to refer to a place where you can buy apps.

Although, Jobs himself used the term generically. From the legal filing (excerpted from The Register):

"Apple further admits that its CEO, Steve Jobs, in October 2010 called the APP STORE service 'the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone'."

While IANAL, I take the phrase "easiest-to-use, largest app store" to imply that there are others - presumably, smaller, harder to use - but, hey, that's just me, parsing English... Further quoting The Register article and filing - and this seems funny to me (emboldening mine):

Case in point: the filing also concedes that the Oxford English Dictionary defines an app as "[a]n application, esp. an application program," and that a store is, indeed, "a retail establishment selling items to the public: a health-food store."

These statements would seem to admit the obvious: that an app store is a store that sells apps. Apple, however, argues the opposite."Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," the filing reads.

About what other possible meaning the words "app store" might have, the Cupertinian oracle is silent.

Re:Trademark law

[arose]

Is that why I don't ever see Apple ads on TV and in magazines, because they don't need them? Someone tell the shareholders that they are wasting money on useless ads. Their mindshare comes from and is maintained with publicity, not all of it explicit, but all of it necessary.

Re:Trademark law

[toriver]

The same should then hold for e.g. Windows.

Except Microsoft were so defensive over the name that they sued Lindows.

Re:Trademark law

[Macthorpe]

Who cares about Windows? That's not what's under discussion here.

Re:Trademark law

[ustolemyname]

Precisely this. They are sufficiently saturating public perception that they are not in need of "free advertising" from a trademark dispute. They have such a positive vibe in the market that I do not think one could say the news from a trademark dispute could bring them any notable benefit. Certainly since it is not free (lawyers tend to cost more than marketers).

While I do think they are correct that maintaining "App Store" as a brand is valuable to them as part of their marketing scheme, and thus engaged in this legal battle to protect the value of that asset, I do not think anybody at Apple thinks the legal battle thinks it's good marketing to be engaged in a legal schism that simply makes them look silly.

Re:Trademark law

[LordLucless]

You don't have to "defend your patent or lose it". That's trademarks. Really, the whole "IP" concept is stupid. There are more differences between copyright, trade marks, patents and trade secrets than there are areas of commonality.

Re:Trademark law

[RazzleFrog]

That would make sense if Microsoft was actually selling windows like Anderson and not an operating system. Same would be true if Apple was a fruit vendor or Yahoo selling rednecks.

Re:Trademark law

[Ruke]

Ah. You're absolutely right, I'm not sure what I was thinking; it is trademarks which you have to defend or lose.

Re:Trademark law

[icebraining]

Windows is not generic nor descriptive in the context of Operating Systems.

Re:Trademark law

[abhi_beckert]

You are getting patents and trademarks mixed up.

A trademark must be enforced, or it is no-longer valid. If even one other person is using your trademark for any length of time, your trademark is automatically invalid.

A patent does not need to be enforced. You can have a patent and decide whether or not you want to sue someone, it's up to you. It's quite common for patent holders to wait until their patent has been infringed on for a decade or two, and there are many companies around who's entire business depends on the patent, and *then* they go in and sue for patent infringement.

Re:Trademark law

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft did, effectively, lose that suit (it paid money to Lindows in a settlement, though the latter agreed to transfer their trademark to MS).

Re:Trademark law

[squiggleslash]

Yes, but it's questionable it was a valid trademark to begin with.

Look, you know all those stupid Slashdot threads where people just post stuff like "Oh yeah? Well I'm going to patent patenting, hahaha, I'm so funny, nobody's ever thought of that joke before", or "I'm going to copyright the wheel", or "I'm going to trademark 'searching'"?

Well, this is a trademark just as stupid as the examples above, except that Apple's being serious. People are coming up with the most bizarre justifications, including the utterly bizarre claim that "App" hasn't been in common usage for about 20-30 years (it most certainly has!), but in the real world, app store is an obvious, natural, generic way of describing the consumer interfacing side of a vendor of computer software, the kind of combination of words that people have naturally used many years before Apple did what it did without even thinking about it.

Apple kinda knows that already. They didn't call their music store the Music Store or even the Tunes Store, they originally called it the iTunes Music Store and then shortened it to iTunes Store once it became more generic in usage. It wouldn't take a lot to fix this, they're just being assholes.

Re:Trademark law

[marcosdumay]

Well, Microsoft paid quite a big sum for Lindows to settle.

Re:Trademark law

[marcosdumay]

How not so? What do you call those rectangular shaped floating things where the programs run?

Re:Trademark law

[icebraining]

That's not an Operating System, that's a component of it.

If MS Windows didn't exist and I asked you "what windows do you use?" would you think about Linux, MacOSX, etc? I bet that most people wouldn't.

Re:Trademark law

[toriver]

Since Microsoft is one of the parties that complained about the trademark: It indirectly is.

Re:Trademark law

[exomondo]

Apple wants to make sure that no other company calls there store an "app store".

But steve jobs himself called android's store an "app store".

Re:Trademark law

[exomondo]

The same should then hold for e.g. Windows.

Just because it's a generic word doesn't make it invalid, it's about what that word is used to refer to. Windows refers to an 'operating system' or 'window manager', not a 'windows'. Unlike 'App Store' which refers to an 'app store'.

Re:Trademark law

[exomondo]

How not so? What do you call those rectangular shaped floating things where the programs run?

Are you just being obtuse? That's not what Microsoft's 'Windows' is, in the same way that the company Apple is not a fruit.

Re:Trademark law

[marcosdumay]

Except that the GUIs were already named as windows (like X-windows, but this one came later, I don't remember the name of the Xerox prototype), by that time, because of those elements.

Sounds a bit odd.

[sethstorm]

Black is white, down is up, right is left, and an App Store is not an App Store.

Riiiight.

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[Yvan256]

Down is up, right is left, B, A, B, A, Start.

Wait, what?

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[MaxBooger]

And then for an encore man proved black is white and was killed at the next zebra crossing.

Oh no! Steve? Steve?!?!?

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[h4rr4r]

Why was he standing in the way of a bunch of zebras?

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[bennomatic]

Yay Sonic Super Powers!

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[tom17]

Cos God no longer existed.

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[fahrbot-bot]

Down is up, right is left, B, A, B, A, Start.
Wait, what?

Ask your girlfriend, next time you go down on her... :-)

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[russryan]

Sometimes an App is just an app -- S. Freud

Re:Sounds a bit odd.

[drinkypoo]

Ask your girlfriend, next time you go down on her... :-)

girlfriend codes have less uppercase Bs and more lowercase Is and Ls

Well, it's obvious

[Chris Mattern]

"App store" is short for "Apple store"! Of *course* nobody else can use it! Not even if they're selling actual fruit!

Re:Well, it's obvious

[thelenm]

Yes, we wouldn't want anyone to upset the app cart.

Re:Well, it's obvious

[Em Adespoton]

Nah; the app cart is patented by Amazon.

Re:Well, it's obvious

[_Sprocket_]

No - that's the 1-Apple Cart. Wait. No, that's not it...

Re:Well, it's obvious

[Netshroud]

Sounds like Apple vs. Woolworths with their logo dispute.

So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"?

[elrous0]

If the "App" is short for "Apple" (as they're presumably arguing), then that means that they're calling their online applications store the "Apple Store," which seems to conflict with their physical hardware-oriented stores of the same name. Methinks that would indicated that "Apple" was not what they meant there.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to the Beatles on the Apple record label. Of course, in that case, Apple argued that "Apple" was a generic term. I guess things have changed.

Re:So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"?

[Lemming42]

This strangely echoes the fight between MCA and Nintendo over the name "Donkey Kong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.

MCA claimed that Donkey Kong infringed on their "King Kong" trademark, Nintendo won the battle when they showed that MCA had previously argued (and won) that King Kong and its characters were already in the public domain.

Re:So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"?

[tool462]

Maybe it stands for Applecation Store.

Re:So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to the Beatles on the Apple record label. Of course, in that case [wikipedia.org], Apple argued that "Apple" was a generic term. I guess things have changed.

Trademark law generally doesn't consider two uses of a word to conflict if they are clearly in different fields. That said, Apple Computer eventually bought out all of the Apple Records trademarks, and then selectively loaned/leased them back to Apple Records for use in selling Beatles, etc., recordings.

The other companies that want to use the term "App Store" here, want to use it in almost precisely the same way that Apple does.

boo hoo

[Kaenneth]

Maybe Apple needs a Kleenex(tm) to cry into and a Band-Aid(tm) to make it all better...

Re:boo hoo

[socz]

+1

Re:boo hoo

[fuck.your.politics]

or do like Eddie Murphy says... have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

Re:boo hoo

[xero314]

or do like Eddie Murphy says... have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

It was actually Richard Prior that said that, Eddie Murphy was just quoting him. Never mind that it would work better if it was Microsoft and not apple since the whole quote is "Tell Bill to have a coke and a smile, and shut the fuck up."

Re:boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh. And then use some Aspirin(tm) for the headache.

Re:boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps a Tampon(tm) to shove in their hole.

Re:boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

-1

If you agree with the parent, show it by either using mod points, writing something that adds to the discussion or shutting the frak up.

I actually laughed out loud when I read

[Anonymous Coward]

...the headline. Doesn't happen every day.

Imagination?

[cpct0]

Funny how on Mac it always was Applications, on Win it was always Programs, on Lin it was always Software, and then you got all the different variations for all the platforms everywhere. Some use Ware, some use Soft(pedia for example).

Then Apple starts using Apps, coins the App Store to go there, gets the most talked about platform, and somehow it now has become "common sense" to use Apps for everything, and the only place to get an App is on the App Store.

Imagination, people ... come on! It's a freaking term, coin your own! Soft Store, Get-A-Ware, don't know what. And although I understand Apple in their stance, I find it funny and ridiculous. It reminds me of Microsoft Bookshelf.

Re:Imagination?

[moronoxyd]

I don't know in what world you're living, but I have been using the term "app" for applications/programs/software years before the iPhone was released.
Just because you might never have heard the term except in the context of Apple doesn't mean it wasn't used elsewhere.

And by the way, when taking about linux I hardly ever use the word 'software'. The simple world where everything fits nicely into a drawer doesn't exist.

Re:Imagination?

[Sylak]

Part of the difference between Apps and Applications as soon as Apps made it into the mainstream Macintosh OS not just i[Phone] OS, was that Apps are trusted pieces of software through the App Store, while Applications were dirty malware ridden software you got off of the internet that isn't trusted and signed by Apple. To allow App to mean a shortened version of Application again means for it to be okay to download software that Apple doesn't approve of.

Also, if you ask some people, it has always been "Executable Binaries" on *nix systems based on different terminologies used between UNIX falvors and Kinuix distros, and occasionally just to be contrary and start a fight.

Re:Imagination?

[medv4380]

You're ether poorly trying to communicate sarcasm or your a deliberate troll.

Just in case you're not a troll and really are this miss informed about those words your throwing about as Mutually Exclusive when they really are Generic Terms. Here is a News Paper Scan from the now about-to-be-abandoned scan archive. See the Date Feb 27, 1997 along with office 97 all highlighted for you.

Re:Imagination?

[Jakester2K]

Awesome!

The ExBin Store!

You heard it here first folks, so it's mine... all mine !!

Re:Imagination?

[Anonymous Coward]

i wonder if i can still get that digital cellular deal from bell...$25/mo for 25min sounds great!

Re:Imagination?

[aristotle-dude]

You're ether poorly trying to communicate sarcasm or your a deliberate troll.

Just in case you're not a troll and really are this miss informed about those words your throwing about as Mutually Exclusive when they really are Generic Terms. Here is a News Paper Scan from the now about-to-be-abandoned scan archive. See the Date Feb 27, 1997 along with office 97 all highlighted for you.

You might not be aware but besides Apps on OS X being stored in the /Applications directory, every app on OS X has had the .app extension whereas programs on dos/windows had the extensions of either .exe or .com. Given that Apple's desktop OS was using the .app extension to denote user facing Application packages/launchers, I would say that Apple has the strongest claim to "App" and "App store".

Re:Imagination?

[VortexCortex]

Then Apple starts using Apps, coins the App Store

Yeah, just like they "coined" the term "podcast" and only then did podcasting get popular....</sarcasm>

As if I hadn't been making "Web Apps" for the Century previous to their filing... before that, BBS Apps, such as my ASCII Tetris & pong apps, and the "ANSI-APP" series of DOS-to-Win95 era text-GUI programs that ran locally or remotely via my text-only "compositing" window manager (using ANSI + ASCII w/ CP437). Note esp: "ANSI-APP" because 8 (dot) 3 file names were the norm at the time. (We abbreviated fn-every.tng back then.)

Just because the mainstream public is ignoant of a term's use doesn't mean it's not in use and/or a popular term among many.

The fact that Apple was allowed to trademark "podcast" even though that medium was well established without their input should be a clue that the "App Store" trademark is bullshit. After Apple's clone of the iRiver, the iPod, became popular they ran around trademarking all iXxxx and podXxx names, esp. names with any popularity that were already in use. Now they're doing the same thing with App because that's a popular term.

Should this be allowed? No.

Is it proof that the USPTO is full of inept lawyers? Yep.

( For fuck's sake -- The same group that granted Apple the "App Store" trademark also let someone patent swinging on a swing! -- Of course the courts need to be involved, the PTO is full of morons; They're so out of touch with today's world, the only things that exist to them are what's in their databases.)

Re:Imagination?

[BlackSnake112]

I have been calling the software that does stuff applications (on any platform) since 1984. I believe 1984 predates the iphone by a few years. I know that the computer makers called them different things over the years, but I have been calling software "applications" or "apps" for years before the iphone came out. I can remember many people calling software apps in 1990-1991. This was by people who had to ask how to turn on the computer. They also used programs or applications. It did not matter what computer they were going to use. My sister used all three terms when referring to software on a mac or a pc. The pc was a new 486 and the mac was her mac she got for college in 1990. The term app has been used by people for years before the app store came out. The whole idea that only since the iphone do people call software "apps" is wrong.

Re:Imagination?

[Snarky McButtface]

Killer apps 1995

Re:Imagination?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how on Mac it always was Applications, on Win it was always Programs, on Lin it was always Software

Yeah, that explains why the term "killer app" is only used to describe software that runs on Macs. Oh wait, no. That's complete bullshit, and "application" is a generic term used by almost every platform ever (even extending into game consoles).

Re:Imagination?

[Anonymous Coward]

"App" is the single most obvious abbreviation of the word "application" in English. The term "application" in regards to software is entirely generic. Feel free to look it up in a dictionary and see if Apple is mentioned. Turns out they aren't. Further, an "X store" that sells "X" is probably one of the most commonly understood concepts in the English language.

An application store that is abbreviated in a customary way should not be a legitimate trademark even if you capitalize it.

Re:Imagination?

[ganjadude]

agreed, I remember back in the days of dialup and AOL, we had "apps" that would add function to the clients. So I can say I remember the term "app" from 96, im sure there are some others who have known the term longer.

Re:Imagination?

[bloodhawk]

Soooo your saying that someone comes along 10 or 20 years AFTER the term has been commonly used in its generic sense for that period of time and they suddenly have a stronger claim to it then anyone else in the industry? Do you realise how fucking dumb that sounds?

Re:Imagination?

[Troed]

.app in 1985: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2173906&cid=36196908

Re:Imagination?

[RazzleFrog]

In my company our software development group is referred to as App Dev and has been since long before the app store.

Re:Imagination?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I remember participating in an "application development contest" (where "app" was used quite often as a shortened version of "application") for Texas Instruments calculators early last decade.

Re:Imagination?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a collection of "Executable Binaries" and "Libraries" and "Configuration Files" == ..... an "Application". We normally shortened that to "Executables", "Libs", "Configs" and "Apps".

Re:Imagination?

[drinkypoo]

Given that Apple's desktop OS was using the .app extension to denote user facing Application packages/launchers, I would say that Apple has the strongest claim to "App" and "App store".

The problem with your notion is that before Apple even existed, programs which existed to perform a task were already called "application programs". Also, if you REALLY had anything to contribute to this conversation you would have known the type(1) of pre-OSX MacOS applications and mentioned it, because OSX inherited "apps" from NeXTStep, which inherited them from Apple because much of what NeXT did was a direct copy of Apple (though most of it was an improvement.)

(1) Wow it took me a long time to find a nice citation for that. All my searches got a lot of crap with .app in it.

ApplStore

[Anonymous Coward]

They should call it 'ApplStore' as to avoid any confusion with app store.

Re:ApplStore

[Yvan256]

Why? It's not a store where they sell APPL shares. /duck

Re:ApplStore

[lostmongoose]

That would be the Aapl Store >.>

I don't like the word app anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm I the only one who hates calling programs and applications "apps"? I never call the programs on my Mac apps. It just sounds stupid to me....

Seen this before

[Stone2065]

Am I getting old and senile, or didn't Microsoft try something like this and get shot down when they tried to trademark the word "windows"? It was allowed in reference to an operating system, but not across the board for all thigs that were or could be a window... Yeh, I'm probably senile.

Re:Seen this before

[bloodhawk]

They tried and they lost. They did however get the trademark for "Microsoft Windows"

They didn't name it - people named it...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's generic - if they wanted something non-generic they should have named it something like "The iPhone App Store" or "Apple's App Store" - but coming back afterwards and say you own "app store" is like my trying to say I own "red ball" because I said so... Ludicrous...

Re:They didn't name it - people named it...

[Yvan256]

As long as it's not Plaid.

Re:They didn't name it - people named it...

[lostmongoose]

Not Plaid. iPlaid.

Re:They didn't name it - people named it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well plaid.

Groklaw now has someone new to follow

[alinuxguruofyore]

I sure hope that Groklaw keeps us informed about Apple's litiguous behavior. Next thing you know is that Apple will tell us is that Ivey never heard of the IBM Simon when coming up with the iphone touch interface.

Re:Groklaw now has someone new to follow

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but Apple (alongside IBM) are the corporations that can Do No Wrong in the eyes of Groklaw. Since Apples' behaviour couldn't possibly be justified in this case, instead expect a deathly silence as any mention is censored in the best interests of groupthink.

Re:Groklaw now has someone new to follow

[maxwell demon]

But ... iBM is clearly an Apple trademark! It starts with i! :-)

Re:Groklaw now has someone new to follow

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an IBM Simon. Don't be jealous--unfortunately, it's hard to get a signal with an analog cell phone.

Re:Groklaw now has someone new to follow

[Chaonici]

> Sorry, but Apple (alongside IBM) are the corporations that can Do No Wrong in the eyes of Groklaw.

Evidence?

Re:Groklaw now has someone new to follow

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the irony that censorship is the removal of evidence.

This is an opinion. I've been reading Groklaw since it started following the SCO case, and in that time have observed that any post critical of IBM or Apple gets variously shouted down en masse, and the posters labelled trolls and ultimately ostricised or banned if they continue to express an opinion contrary to that of the group. It's no secret that posts are removed, or left visible only to the original poster - behaviour that was written into Geeklog specifically for Groklaw. On the one hand, yes there are always trolls and griefers, and abusive behaviour. On the other, branding anyone with a differing view a troll and banning them is intellectually weak and an easy out on a forum that you control if your own arguments don't hold water.

The standard response to pointing this out on Groklaw of course gets precisely the same behaviour directed at you. You should now guess that I have tried - calmly and rationally, and yes, predicabtly enough I've had the group come at me full on in the face, with insinuations of being a troll, a shill for Microsoft, or a sock puppet for some Florian Mueller like character. Yet I'm just a reader of the site, I'm not affiliated with anyone who's ever been discussed on there, or indeed posting on behalf of anyone but myself.

Apologies to Lewis Carroll...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I use a word," Steve Jobs said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Microsoft did win the Windows trademark...

[0x537461746943]

You didn't get the memo? We call regular windows light orifaces now. An example. Jack lost his ball when it went through sally's light oriface popping the virgin oriface and hitting Sally's baby on the head.

Re:Microsoft did win the Windows trademark...

[Anonymous Coward]

N.B. 0x537461746943 is hexadecimal for "troll-school dropout".

Re:Microsoft did win the Windows trademark...

[Stone2065]

Copy that. :) Feel free to forward the memo to me at your earliest convenience.

appz?

[Anonymous Coward]

apps & appz should have been added to the dictionary before the verb google.

Paypal isn't a bank, and Ebay isn't an auction

[CrazyJim1]

They're just creative ways to get around laws restraining these things locally.

Nutters

[johnjaydk]

OK. I'm a fan but this is just a matter of marketing and legal doing a circle jerk. I find it hard to picture a more offensive scenario but those are the hard facts of business.

Douche Store

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, in related news....
the term "Bag of Douche" is not used to refer to the collective Apple culture....
As in ... "See those hipster doucebags waiting in line at the Apple store? That is one huge Bag of Douche

Back to your regularly scheduled douchebaggery from Steve Jobs and his steaming pile of douche.

EVIL != KILLING BABIES

[mschaffer]

evil is not limited to torture, stealing food, poisoning, etc.
Apple does, however, torture people with their shennanigans (e.g. you're not holding it correctly), steals intellectual property, and poisons the english language (e.g. what "app store" means).
The faults with our legal system does not lie with Apple, but they are definitely in the forefront where all of the twisting and wiglling is occuring.

Re:EVIL != KILLING BABIES

[digsbo]

Yeah, but no one is FORCING consumers to buy Apple products. Someone who gives you a bad deal that you know about ahead of time isn't necessarily evil. Someone who takes a bad deal they know about ahead of time is foolish.

It's a good thing IBM Compatible PCs beat Apple

[Timmy D Programmer]

Otherwise a low end PC would cost thousands, parts would only be available from Apple, and cost a premium and innovation would have been stunted.

Also I Sincerely doubt Steve Jobs is going to give much of his fortune away to make the world a better place, like Bill Gates is.

Re:It's a good thing IBM Compatible PCs beat Apple

[toriver]

Apple's goal with the Mac was to create a cheap machine, though they somewhat failed at that. But at the time, IBM PCs were expensive beasts, and until the Phoenix reverse-engineered BIOS, so were the clones. "Innovation"? PCs were formulaic, and when Gates had stopped scofffing at GUIs and made Windows, it was a derivative of the Mac UI (licensed, though). Macs had proper(ish) networking while Microsoft ignored that (or rather left it to third parties like Novell).

Not sure where you picked up your worship of Mr. "to get discount, pay us for DOS on all machines even those you sell with a different OS" Gates, though,.

Re:It's a good thing IBM Compatible PCs beat Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's goal with the Mac was to create a cheap machine, though they somewhat failed at that.

Apple's goal was not to create "a cheap machine" (as in undercutting the Apple II or the IBM PC). It was to "create a machine with a GUI that is cheap compared to other machines with GUIs, such as the Apple Lisa ($10,000) or the Xerox Star ($20,000+?)." (Raskin's goal may have been to build a very cheap and less functional machine, but that wasn't Apple's goal once Jobs took over the project.)

Even though the Lisa had a multitasking OS and the Macintosh did not, the difference between the Lisa's price of $10,000 and the Macintosh's price of $2,500 was sufficiently compelling that before too long, Apple was loading the Macintosh OS onto rebadged Lisas and selling them as "Macintosh XL"s for $3,500.

Really?

[fangmcgee]

Really, Apple? REALLY? Who are you trying to fool? Google?

Battery Store

[Flector]

Now that sounds like an insanely great idea.

Do I sound this whacked out when I get angry?

[spun]

Ahahahaha, oh my. Seriously? You fail reading comprehension, my lefty comrade. You fail hard. And you must not be much of a leftist AT ALL, or you would know what the term means. "Hippie punching" refers not to any sort of physical violence, it refers to the fact that even on the left, politicians try to find someone to the left of them to attack.

When Rahm Emmanuel called leftists "Fucking retards," THAT was hippie punching. In fact, there was a huge shitstorm over it where just about everyone on the left was using the term "hippie punching" and accusing the White House of it. Sorry we forgot to call and tell you about all the fun.

When I was volunteering with Food Not Bombs in San Francisco and the cops threw me to the ground, stood on my shoulder blades, zip-tied my hands and pulled up HARD on my arms, that was not hippie punching. That was just plain old police violence.

See the difference? Generally, only those on the left get accused of hippie punching, because on the right, it is just par for the course. Man bites dog and all that.

Shit.

You do know I am not actually advocating biting a dog here, right?

kids arguing over a toy

[WillgasM]

let's just let them have it and soon they'll be bored with it. In the meantime we can find something else to play with. If they've cornered to market on Apps, let's start calling our widgets 'Lications. "Check out all the downloadable content on Amazon's new 'Lication Station."

They're right, in a way...

[GerbilSoft]

The "App Store" isn't a store for "apps"; it's a store for crApps (crappy applications). They're mostly shitty programs that don't have much functionality and/or are simply wrappers around WebKit that only allow access to a single website.

Missing the point

[That's What She Said]

Well... It's obvious -- not from the effing article, but from reality -- that when Apple patented the term "App Store", the competition didn't give a damn.

Now that Apple got success with their "app[lication] store" and with phrases like "there's an app for that", competition wants to downplay that. They say: we also have "apps", not just Apple.

My point is: it's not about the term being generic; it's about what Apple intended when they started using the term "app" for marketing purposes and patented the derivative term "app store". It's about Apple defending their strategy. The "app store" patent is important for that and the patent was granted, so they have to enforce it.

In the end, all of this only proves that patents are ridiculous. Apple themselves used the "Windows" trademark as an example...

Re:Missing the point

[shutdown -p now]

You can't patent a term, you can only trademark it.

The reason why competition didn't give a damn back then was because they didn't have their own application stores (though the concept itself was not unknown). You're right that Apple is the one that made it mainstream. That doesn't make them entitled to an inherently generic trademark like that.

Re:Missing the point

[That's What She Said]

Yea, you're right: it's a trademark.

So, like I said, the patent system (USPTO is also responsible for registering trademarks) is a failure. Apple can register "app store", Microsoft can register "Windows", etc.

Since the patent/trademark system keeps existing and working, Apple is in their right to enforce the trademark that was granted to them. If the term was generic, the USPTO shouldn't have granted the trademark in the first place.

And not to mention that there are synonyms for "app store" or that one can come up with different ideas, like Google. They call their application store "Android Marketplace" and it's doing well without "app store" in its name, AFAIK.

Re:Missing the point

[That's What She Said]

Sorry! I meant "Android Market".

Re:Missing the point

[shutdown -p now]

Apple can register "app store", Microsoft can register "Windows", etc.

The reason why Microsoft was able to register "Windows" as a trademark for the OS is because the OS is clearly not a window. Similarly, Apple could register "Doors" as a trademark for their app store, because it's not an obvious term for such a store. Of course, the scope of such trademark is limited to the product type in question (i.e. software named "Windows" would infringe, but not much else).

Even for software, the applicability of Windows trademark was largely dismissed in Microsoft v. Lindows, where the judge has ruled that, since Microsoft themselves have used the term "windows" generically in the context of software long prior to filing for the trademark, they cannot claim its exclusive use. This is almost identical to the present situation with "app".

Since the patent/trademark system keeps existing and working, Apple is in their right to enforce the trademark that was granted to them. If the term was generic, the USPTO shouldn't have granted the trademark in the first place.

Yes, they should not have. Nonetheless, they make mistakes, and that's why we have the procedure of figuring out whether a trademark is generic or not - in a court. Personally, I think that it clearly is. The fact that Apple is so desperate as to say what's quoted in TFA (that "app store" does not mean "application store") hints that they also don't think they have much of a case here.

And not to mention that there are synonyms for "app store" or that one can come up with different ideas, like Google. They call their application store "Android Marketplace" and it's doing well without "app store" in its name, AFAIK.

They can, but why should they have to? If someone tries to trademark "grocery store", I shouldn't have to rename mine into "food market".

Re:Missing the point

[exomondo]

Microsoft can register "Windows", etc.

So Linux is a windows? OSX is a windows? Irix is windows? Windows is windows? No, they are all operating systems. Just as the Apple that makes iDevices is a company, not a kind of fruit.

Insanely Obvious

[thestudio_bob]

I know it seem insanely obvious now, but the term didn't really gain traction until Apple came out with the iPhone around 2007. Don't believe me, then believe Google Trends.

I'm pretty sure others (like MS) were using terms like marketplace, download center, central, etc. before they decided to jump on the App Store band wagon

Re:Insanely Obvious

[LBArrettAnderson]

Whether or not "app store" was widely used is irrelevant. The fact is that "app" was widely used years and years before this to refer to programs/software/applications. Where does one sell "apps?" An app store. If that isn't obvious, I don't know what is.

This has implications elsewhere...

[MrWin2kMan]

This would mean that if Safeway trademarked the term 'Grocery Store', then Kroger, Albertson's, A&P et al would not be able to call themselves grocery stores. Apple needs to be slapped down on this one. Steve Jobs needs to slap someone on the inside down, too. 'App store' may or may not have been used prior to Apple's usage, but the concept has been around as long as updating over the Internet has been feasible. 'iTunes App Store' can be trademarked, 'app store' cannot.

Re:This has implications elsewhere...

[abhi_beckert]

the difference is the term "grocery" has been in use for many many years.

Apple and Mac developers are the only niche in industry who uses the term "application" to refer to software, Everyone else calls it software, or programs.

Apple was the first company in the world to start really pushing the term "App" and they registered a trademark for it on day one, always planning for it to be their own term that no-one else can use. Just like "Coke" is a term no-one else is allowed to use. Now someone else is trying to use the term they registered, and they are required to sue, or they'll loose their trademark.

So apple has three choices:

  * sue amazon
  * stop using the term "app" and start using some other name
  * give up on the idea that they have their own branding for their store

Re:This has implications elsewhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple & Mac weren't the only ones to do this. Just go read some of the other posts. Applications isn't some term that was made up in a single company or two and later learned by others. It is learned academically. Unless Apple trained their own SEs from infancy the same type of people who went to go work for Microsoft, IBM, SCO and so forth went to Apple. And those other companies used "Apps" too.

I can't believe this is even a discussion point at Slashdot.

Re:This has implications elsewhere...

[shutdown -p now]

Apple and Mac developers are the only niche in industry who uses the term "application" to refer to software, Everyone else calls it software, or programs.

Are you serious? The term "application" has been used for ages, very actively even in the DOS era. Heck, I vividly remember writing "applications" in FoxPro 2.0 for DOS - they even compiled into files with .app extension!

Or going back even before that, ever heard about OSI model? The one that has "application layer" on top? That dates back to 1984.

Or here is a Google Groups search for "application" in Usenet archives, limited to posts before 1990. On the very first page, 8 out of 10 links use "application" to mean "software".

Re:This has implications elsewhere...

[exomondo]

the difference is the term "grocery" has been in use for many many years.

that's not a difference at all, the term "app" has been used for many many years, long before Apple used it. Just because you didn't know that doesn't make it true.

Well, actually "App Store" is Apple slang for..

[Anonymous Coward]

App Store, according to Apple's trademark list, is a 'service mark' (meaning it's note even a registered trademark as of yet) . The generic term, according to their list of trademarks is 'online store'.
You can view their application here.

Re:Well, actually "App Store" is Apple slang for..

[maxwell demon]

But an online store is any store that sells things online, like e.g. Amazon. It's not specifically a place where I can buy apps.

MacApp

[Anonymous Coward]

To allow App to mean a shortened version of Application again means for it to be okay to download software that Apple doesn't approve of.

Like MacApp?
Object Pascal development framework on the Macintosh, circa 1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacApp

Re:MacApp

[Sylak]

Just because i'm spewing Marketing's reasoning doesn't make it sound =P

Right up there with there being no Windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right up there with there being no Windows in any other OS.

"Coined" in TM law

[tepples]

"Coined" the top rung of the distinctiveness ladder in trademark law. (The others are "arbitrary", "suggestive", "descriptive", and "generic".) As I understand it, it denotes a word created by the producer of a good or service specifically to be the distinctive mark for that service.

Let's sing: "One more game, one more app"

[tepples]

Copyrighted? It appears you've fallen victim to confusion between different exclusive rights under the umbrella term "intellectual property". This is one of the arguments against saying "intellectual property". Richard Stallman wrote more about this.

Xerox can [trademark] a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

But where did the second X come from? That's a big part of what makes it a coined term.

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

As have distributors of warez, in the "appz" section. Compare the refrain of "The Warez Song" by Test of Time, released on MP3.com in either 1999 or 2000: "One more game, one more app, one more serial, one more crack, warez are the only thing for me."

So if Windows can bar Lindows

Microsoft settled with Lindows because Lindows had too much of a chance to win the lawsuit and prove "windows" generic or descriptive at most. Small-w windows had been part of operating systems since the X Window System if not Mac OS before it.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

No, it's trademarked. The term was invented by Jonathan Swift to refer to a fictional human society lacking in effective hygiene, found on the island of the Houyhnhnms in the 1726 satiric novel Travels into Several Remote Nations. Like Apple and Amazon, the Yahoo! mark is arbitrary, which one step below an original coinage. But "app" was used generically for computer programs long before iOS 2, and the dispute here is whether "app store" has acquired a strong enough secondary meaning associated with Apple Inc. A jury will probably have to decide that.

Re:Let's sing: "One more game, one more app"

[drinkypoo]

No, it's trademarked. The term was invented by Jonathan Swift to refer to a fictional human society lacking in effective hygiene, found on the island of the Houyhnhnms in the 1726 satiric novel Travels into Several Remote Nations.

If you turn out NOT to be part of Skynet I am going to be very disappointed.

Since we're all telling jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you hear the one about the nigger with a job?

Me neither.

How do you know that you have a Jew living next door?

Your land and water is stolen, while your neighborhood association is bribed to look the other way.

What's the difference between a Zionist and a Nazi?

50 years.

Confused?

[pipelayerification]

I'm confused. Can I still punch a hippie or did you explain away my justification for it?

Re:Confused?

[spun]

You can still punch a hippie but you need a new justification. I'll give you the all purpose justification: we don't punch back. Use that one at your own risk though. Some of us do.

It Seems To Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of garbage is why I think corporations should have a limit on the number of lawsuits they can inflict in a year. On customers who tinker with their product OS's, small businesses who didn't follow the AUP, etc. That would make them think before they go throwing frivolous fodder suits around like this. Sony's just as guilty. People are lawsuit happy because there's no threat if they're only 'mistaken' on the matter. And corporations PAY people to find things to sue over. So they're several times worse. Put a cap on the number of lawsuit cases they can make in a 365 day period and even Sony's legal department will turn a blind eye on some guy in Missouri with a voided console if they hear rumors that Microsoft might be planning to make a 'Play Station' named product at the end of the year.

In other news...

[Hairy1]

In other news coming to hand, "Free Software" doesn't mean the software is free of cost.

Apps = Appetizers

[merchant_x]

Duh.

http://video.adultswim.com/frisky-dingo/guys-nibblies.html

Apple is not exclusive here

[Anonymous Coward]

I have prior art of what an app is. I also have prior art of what a store is. An app store is where you get apps, usually to buy although the word store is a short version of the word storage, with its own, long held definition. In the vernacular of computing, an app is a small application, and an application is a computer program a user uses usually with a graphical user interface to achieve some purpose, that purpose being whatever the application was designed to do. Apps vary from larger programs in that they are usually very single-purpose, unable to produce a wide variety of outputs based on a wide variety of inputs. Apple does not hold a patent or otherwise on what an app is (remember what I said about prior art). If they have a piece of paper that says otherwise, I will go out of my way and make their paper worthless (and it won't take very long or be very hard either).

It's a what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Always thot the word "app" was an abreviation for application. Never dawned on me it was short for apple. (if it ever was) Silly me. Ok, so just add the period. Make it app. Case over.

In other words

[drb226]

Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words "app store" together denote a store for apps

In other words, Apple denies the basic constructs of the English language. *facepalm*

Re: No "Windows" in other OSes...

[James_Rolevink]

Right up there with there being no Windows in any other OS.

If Apple lose, then Microsoft should be worried...

It's all clear to me.

[formfeed]

Unlike a cheese store, that sells cheese, an app store is not a store for apps.
An app store might be an apple store. With app for apple. Like iHeadache which means icecream headache.

That sounds reasonable. App Store is short for "apple store". We see similar abbreviations with words like "potential head".

app store
crack whore
pot head
ding bat

fish and chips

[luk3Z]

an 'App Store' Is Not a Store For Apps Yeah, this app store is also for fish and chips.

What to call it?

[mark-t]

FTA:

This, of course, begs the questionâ"if Apple wins this fight, what should Amazon, Microsoft, and others be calling their non-app stores?

Appl stores.

Don't worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

When they go out of business AGAIN. They won't have to worry. Acts like this show desperation and fear, because change is here. Google has brought the sword of reckoning by buying the coolest crap and giving it away for free in exchange for placing ads all over. Apple will fail miserably by investing solely in hardware, and removing the user from the equation. It's completely backwards that everything starts with "I". It should all start with "Job" hahaha... Job-Pad, Job-Phone. For someone who thinks he makes stylish devices the guy dresses really badly. Come on man, u only got a turtle neck and jeans in your closet or what?

Meh ...

[lennier1]

And car dealerships don't sell cars either .... oh wait

Of course it isn't obvious, nor is it generic

[StephenBrannen]

A recent story posted to AllThingsD includes a nifty Google trend line for the words "app" "application" and "app store." I only wish they had included program or software.

The term many here are trying to claim is obvious and generic didn't exist until Apple trademarked and implemented it's App Store in 2008. Even the term "app" had little to no usage until then.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110512/microsoft-apple-word-war-spreads-to-europe/

If the term is obvious it would have been used before. Plenty of vendors sold applications and programs through stores. Cellphone providers had their named stores to buy overpriced crap for you phone. Palm had a store available on its Palm Pilots.

But they never sold "apps." They sold games, ringtones, images, and applications. Apple sells apps. It's the difference between drinking a cola and drinking Coca-cola.

This entire thing just feels like sour grapes to me. Apple trademarked a term they themselves created and popularized, and now their competitors are upset they can't get away with violating Apple's trademark. Amazon should just call it the Amazon Application Store (a generic term) and be done with it.

Why not use a different name?

[MMC Monster]

Let's shorten Application Store.

AppStore is apparently taken.

How about ApplStore?

one word comment

[Anonymous Coward]

sad n, when good engineering comes second to labels

APPle owns APPstore

[RavenManiac]

It's part of APPle. Naturally.

They can convince iPhone and iPad owners to pay too much for their devices AND advertise for Apple without payment every time they send a message.

Everything Apple says is true. Because. They said it. Naturally.

Re: No "Windows" in other OSes...

[exomondo]

why? MS doesn't have any trademarks for any product that is the GUI element called a 'window'.