OSNews

Ha, you think there is going to be a competent review of this case.

Remember what happened to the Lindows OS?

Actually, you could take them to court. But, you would need standing -- some legitimate reason why the Windows mark should be revoked.

Edited 2011-03-22 01:03 UTC

'Windows' doesn't describe what the product is. If Windows was called 'Operating System' then you would have a fair point, but there's a hell of a lot more to the Windows operating system than the windowing UI. Some would argue that's less than 1% of the product.

App Store is exactly what it is. It's like trying to copyright the term 'motor vehicle'.

Edited 2011-03-22 08:03 UTC

It's about trademark, not copyright. Learn something: A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. A Copyright protects original creative works such as books, movies, songs, paintings, photographs, websites and choreography. As a copyright owner, you can control how your work is reproduced, distributed and presented publicly.

Under your logic it's ok for all facial tissues to be called Kleenex despite the fact that competing vendors in the marketplace make facial tissues in the same style boxes and shapes. The reason that Kleenex is synonymous with the segment is due to the efforts of Kimberly-Clark, just as is the case of "Xerox" and "Sticky Note" and "Scotch Tape".

It's as though you guys believe that if something seems obvious now, it should have always been done and anyone else can just come along and use it. If you really tell the truth to yourself and even do your digging, you'll realize that Apple did indeed bring "Apps" into the current lexicon.

"It's as though you guys believe that if something seems obvious now, it should have always been done and anyone else can just come along and use it. If you really tell the truth to yourself and even do your digging, you'll realize that Apple did indeed bring 'Apps' into the current lexicon."

I'm sorry, Apps really is obvious, I even had a folder named that on my backup drive long before apple invented the iphone.

No, that's BS. The term "Apps" has been widely used within the software industry FOREVER. It's like trying to trademark the term LAPTOP.

If that's what you're used to, but for example to me "app store" means a place where I can buy applications and games. Ie. "app store" means "application store", a generic term like e.g. "hammer" means, well, a hammer.

Every OS has applications and games and a store is a store so it feels really stupid to try to claim it is somehow Apple-only.

Using your logic, Microsoft should lose their trademark Windows then. I'm all for that.

Microsoft has trademark for "Microsoft Windows", which is obviously unique enough to be trademarkable. Just plain "windows" is too generic a term to trademark.

Which is why the trademark really should be for "Apple App Store" or "iPhone App Store" or "iTunes App Store".

"App Store" is too generic. Especially considering there are "app stores" available on:
* iOS devices
* BlackBerry devices
* Windows Phone 7 devices
* Android devices
* Palm devices
* various computer OSes
* probably other systems

The "App Store" trademark should never have been granted, and should be overturned.

It has not been granted. Apple has indeed sought for the trademark, but it is still actually waiting for final decision on the matter as Microsoft has filed a complaint on it being too broad a term to be trademarked.

Soooo, Apple is suing for trademark infringement, on a trademark they don't have? The US judicial system boggles my Canadian mind. :roll-eyes:

One of the requirements of having and keeping a trademark (in the US, that is) is that you need to actively defend it and as such this could be seen as Apple trying to fulfill that requirement. But I agree, it is a stretch for suing someone over a trademark that hasn't actually yet been granted.

I'm no expert on trademark law, but is there a difference between "windows" and "Windows"?

AND as Macrat pointed in the comments on this very news:

"

"Microsoft v. Lindows.com, Inc. was a court case brought by Microsoft against Lindows, Inc in December 2001 [1], claiming that the name "Lindows" was a violation of its trademark "Windows."

After two and a half years of court battles, Microsoft paid US$20 million for the Lindows trademark, and Lindows Inc. became Linspire Inc."

Taken from the relevant Wikipedia article at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows

Ie. Microsoft actually didn't win the court case, they settled the thing and paid for Lindows for a name change.

After two and a half years of court battles, Microsoft paid US$20 million for the Lindows trademark, and Lindows Inc. became Linspire Inc."

what? lol. I am going to start a linux distro called MS Widows OS ( Miserable Widows OS). See if Microsoft will pay me 20m USD )))

Edited 2011-03-22 07:21 UTC

Microsoft's Trademarks page lists just "Windows"

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Tra...

I suppose they could be fibbing though.

Microsoft has trademark for "Microsoft Windows", which is obviously unique enough to be trademarkable. Just plain "windows" is too generic a term to trademark. "

Microsoft has a trademark for "Windows."

http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=74090419

Microsoft has trademark for "Microsoft Windows", which is obviously unique enough to be trademarkable. Just plain "windows" is too generic a term to trademark. "

Using your logic, Microsoft should lose their trademark Windows then. I'm all for that.


Microsoft has trademark for "Microsoft Windows", which is obviously unique enough to be trademarkable. Just plain "windows" is too generic a term to trademark. [/q]

Really? So that means I can create my own OS called, "Sabon's Windows" and Microsoft won't come after me because it doesn't say Microsoft in the name? Are you serious?

Of course they can _try_, but as the Microsoft vs. Linspire case taught us they couldn't enforce trademark on "windows" or very similar terms.

Oh for god's sakes, why is this so difficult to understand? You are not following her logic. An operating system can be named... well, just about anything. Android, Kubuntu, Medibuntu - I guess for every letter of the alphabet you could find an OS name. Windows is just as good as any, because it's an arbitrary name for an OS. However, an app store is ... well, an app store. Trademarking appstore prevents others referring to... well, an appstore (I guess you could call it "online software shop" but it doesn't exactly roll off your toungue, does it?)by it's common term. This is equivalent of Microsoft trademarking "Operating System."


That's the problem with this lawsuit.

WereCatf,

"If that's what you're used to, but for example to me 'app store' means a place where I can buy applications and games. Ie. 'app store' means 'application store', a generic term like e.g. 'hammer' means, well, a hammer."

For me, when I think of 'hammer store' all that springs to mind is a goto place for the MC-Hammer related merchandise. I'd be quite confused to see any hardware or even pork products there.

just call it "app depot"... done.

can't...the Home Depot folks would get angry and sue

Yeah, I guess in the US anything is trademarkeable if you have enough money to lubricate people..

That was because they received a letter from MS - not an actual lawsuit. Not that that makes it right, but only to point out that WereCatF is still right: Microsoft Windows is a trademark. Windows isn't.

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/mac/apples-app-store-and-a-little-...

Seems the term "App Store" in the form "Appstore" was infact used before Apple popularized it. Ye 'ole Salesforce.com actually may have made first mention of it.

Actually, Microsoft has several US registered trademarks for the typed word WINDOWS for various goods and services. Registration 75980682 appears to be the registered trademark for operating systems and other types of software. US registered trademarks are easily searched at www.uspto.gov.

Not only that, but I think Windows itself could be a trademark. Why? Because it is an arbitrary name for an operating system. No confusion with real windows, no confusion with an other operating system. Apple is a common noun, but referring to a operating system it is unique. However, application store or app store (there is a natural tendency in English to shorten names) is... well, an app store. GOG is an app store. The android market is an app store.

Regardless of what our resident fanboy (yeah, I'm looking at you mrhasbean) says, app store is not an arbitrary name that makes app store equivalent to Apple App Store. To put it in another way, trademarking app store (which describes the functionality and purpose of the service 100%) is equivalent to trademarking webstore. Amazon is a webstore, for example (it sells stuff on the web). If Amazon trademarked Webstore, they would have been wrong, regardless of some users associating webstore with Amazon. Or another example: this is like Microsoft trademarking "Operating System" - then suing everyone who used the term.

Actually, it's more like Microsoft trademarking, "Op System."

Actually, it's more like Microsoft trademarking, "Op System." "
Yeah, I see what you mean.

[nitpicking]
However, Op can made a lot of things operation, operatives, operating - and these have all been used (ie black ops). However, unlike Op, apps became the common short for applications
[/nitpicking]

Actually, it's more like Microsoft trademarking, "Op System." "
this is like Microsoft trademarking "Operating System" - then suing everyone who used the term.

Actually, it's more like Microsoft trademarking, "Op System." [/q]

Actually - no it's not. You are just so used to seeing "Microsoft Windows" that you don't realize that "windows" is just as general as "app store".

Even if they deserve it I still don't wish for such. It would set a really dangerous precedent for future lawsuits. It's better for everyone if the court rules that such ridiculously generic terms simply cannot be trademarked and then sue others over.

Hell, if they actually did win this then expect a sudden surge in trademark requests for completely generic stuff, like the afore-mentioned hammer or a fork. "I have a trademark on Fork and you are selling forks, I'll sue your pants off!"

No, please no.

Hence the almost :-)

Or does "corner" refer to an activity I don't want to put much imagination into?

(couldn't resist. had to toss out a joke since this will get heavy enough on it's own.)

This! Before the iPhone came out I never heard any application store referred to as App Store. They were usually called something else. Considering OSX application bundles usually end with the extension .app and people call some of their applications like mail, mail.app, they may have a case. They have been using the .app extension and moniker for quite some time.

I mean does anyone here really seriously think that Amazon isn't trying to capitalize on the popularity of the name used by Apple?

That doesn't change the fact that this is a retarded trademark.

Yeap I think the main objection here from Apple is that everyone has associated Appstore with Apple, iTunes, iOS, in general the whole ecosystem and Amazon is clearly looking to capitalise on this.

Obviously the trademark system and copyright system needs a rework urgently, this is getting out of hand but until then, I don't see this as absurd. Google used Android Market, MS used marketplace, Amazon could have used something else.