Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:20 UTC
Legal This make me a sad little facepalming unicorn. Apple has just slapped the open source home server project Amahi with a cease and desist letter about the project's use of the term 'app store' - stop using the term, or face Cupertino's army of lawyers. Note: Please help me find out what 'Mac App' is, a supposed Apple product from 1985 - the first citation of the term 'app' in the Oxford English Dictionary. Another note: Okay I should've guessed that publications from that time could still correct company's horrid camel case spelling without unleashing the wrath of fanboys - it's MacApp, not Mac App. Gra├žias, guys!
Order by: Score:
In the meantime...
by Tuxie on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:47 UTC
Tuxie
Member since:
2009-04-22

call it "A** Store".

Reply Score: 10

RE: In the meantime...
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:04 UTC in reply to "In the meantime..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

call it "A** Store".

+1000

Looks absolutely perfect ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In the meantime...
by Radio on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: In the meantime..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

I second that.

Bonus : http://www.amahi.org/invaders

Time to start the buzz.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In the meantime...
by somebody on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 16:30 UTC in reply to "In the meantime..."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

might be a problem, although Apple doesn't hold the trademark, they are definitely synonym for A**holes

Reply Score: 5

Two candidates
by lemur2 on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:52 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

The Amahi Home Server website already apparently has several candidate alternative names.

App Joint
http://www.amahi.org/

and App Market
http://www.amahi.org/apps

and App Mall
(click refresh)

Apps, iStore, Appalog, Amahi Apps, Web App Market ... there are apparently potentially hours of amusement to be had here. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Rename it to...
by Fennec_Fox on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:54 UTC
Fennec_Fox
Member since:
2006-10-30

"Appl-i-Store" - short for "Appl-i-cation" ;) See if Apple likes it better that way ;)

Reply Score: 6

Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:56 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

"Why Amahi? Why pick on such a small target when there are so many people using the app store term? Amahi is a Open Source startup, and is not even in the mobile space. We may never know," the Amahi team writes, "We're still trying to determine what is the best course of action, however, this looks like a rather heavy handed move. Amahi being literally nothing next to Apple (sigh) we do not have the resources to fight this battle."

There's the answer. If Apple are trying to prove that they defend their 'trademark', then it makes more sense to target a smaller company where they are guaranteed to win than a larger organisation which will entangle Apple in yet another drawn out legal batter.

Reply Score: 8

I submitted my entry
by ronaldst on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 12:57 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

The "SaintSteve Store". Just when are people gonna stop oppressing Apple? Jebus, just the name App Store is Apple innovation right there!

Reply Score: 6

:D Apple Sucks like always
by JOKe on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:07 UTC
JOKe
Member since:
2005-10-27

Application Store.. ? ;)
they cant say anything about it

Reply Score: 2

RE: :D Apple Sucks like always
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:31 UTC in reply to ":D Apple Sucks like always"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yeah, but it's not catchy ;) Too many syllabes...

Reply Score: 1

ANother suggestion
by dulus on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:13 UTC
dulus
Member since:
2006-07-14

Let's call it Appl eStore !

Reply Score: 6

RE: ANother suggestion
by Kochise on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 18:09 UTC in reply to "ANother suggestion"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Apple Store ? Ooops, typo...

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

WTF Apple?
by MacMan on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:31 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

This time, I'll agree with Thom's Apple criticism.

This is a ridiculous copyrighting of a generic English term of App Store. I don't know much about copyright/trademark law, but how could you copyright such generic and common english words of app and store. I could see trademarking something like 'iStore', which is original, stupid, but original, but freaking app and store???

What next, trademark common English words like 'windows'... err wait.

Reply Score: 5

RE: WTF Apple?
by WereCatf on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:11 UTC in reply to "WTF Apple?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

What next, trademark common English words like 'windows'... err wait.


The trademark is actually 'Microsoft Windows', not just 'Windows.' This same thing has been said already a hundred times here on OSNews in comments section on various stories and every time people have to point out this thing.

It's simply not the same as Apple going after 'App Store.'

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by MacMan on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

The trademark is actually 'Microsoft Windows', not just 'Windows.''


Remember "Lindows" who is not Linspire I think. "Lindows" sounds like "Windows".

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: WTF Apple?
by WereCatf on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WTF Apple?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"The trademark is actually 'Microsoft Windows', not just 'Windows.''


Remember "Lindows" who is not Linspire I think. "Lindows" sounds like "Windows".
"

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

Basically, Microsoft couldn't win the court case and ended up paying Linspire to change their name.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: WTF Apple?
by Mellin on Sun 26th Jun 2011 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WTF Apple?"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

And MikeRowSoft

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by rhavyn on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"What next, trademark common English words like 'windows'... err wait.


The trademark is actually 'Microsoft Windows', not just 'Windows.' This same thing has been said already a hundred times here on OSNews in comments section on various stories and every time people have to point out this thing.

It's simply not the same as Apple going after 'App Store.'
"

You've claimed this before (http://www.osnews.com/thread?467304) and it's simply not true. Microsoft has a trademark on the word Windows: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&sno=74090419. Please educate yourself and stop repeating incorrect information.

Reply Score: 2

RE: WTF Apple?
by Mexicali100 on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:28 UTC in reply to "WTF Apple?"
Mexicali100 Member since:
2009-10-15

How soon we forget. Before Apple's app store, we used to call this stuff programs, software, and sometimes (but rarelyu) applications. Did the term "app" exist before Apple coined it? I don't recall ever using the term app prior to Apple's use of it. Not defending Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by WereCatf on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

How soon we forget. Before Apple's app store, we used to call this stuff programs, software, and sometimes (but rarelyu) applications. Did the term "app" exist before Apple coined it? I don't recall ever using the term app prior to Apple's use of it. Not defending Apple.


I remember using the term regularly as far back as '96, so yeah..

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: WTF Apple? - "apps" is a common short form
by jabbotts on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Before apple, it was very common to call "applications" "apps" for short. "What apps you got installed?"

For things like the java "apps", it would be short for "applets" since they are applet bundles that run inside a given sandbox. Android applets, Iphone applets, java applets.. all commmonly shortened to "apps"

Maybe it's ok to have "apps" just so long as you don't have a "store" from which users download said apps lest you step on the toes of the blatantly obvious "app store" trademark.

Since the potential defendent is an OSS project, they could see about help from the Freedom Law Center (thin that's the correct FSF affiliate). It'd be nice to see case law invalidate Apple's "app store" trademark.

Reply Score: 5

Mexicali100 Member since:
2009-10-15

So you used "apps" when referring to iphone apps, android apps, smart phone apps ? You're not proving your point with that explanation. But from other's comments it looks like some people from the developer community have used the term. The rest of the world actually did hear it from Apple.

Reply Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

First; the use of "apps" refering to "applications" which are "programs" well before Apple's Istuff.

Second; the use of "apps" refering also to "applets" including "Java applets" and smartphone applets. This actually goes back to the PDA days on handtop devices and "Java applets" commonly used on desktops long before Apple's Istuff.

We can go back even further to find references to "Appz, Gamez, Pics".

It is hardly a term that began with Apple.

Edited 2011-06-22 18:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

The term "app" was being used to refer to computer applications at least a decade and a half before the Apple app store: http://www.osnews.com/thread?478249

Also, someone has shown in this thread that the term "app" made it into the Oxford Dictionary in 2001. So, the term had to be in widespread use at least six years prior to the Apple app store.

Yet another thing that Apple did not invent (nor "popularize"). Sorry, fanboys.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by molnarcs on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I definitely used apps back when Apple was being bailed out by Microsoft. It's shorter than either programs or applications - I even have an old CD labeled APPS from the end of the 90s. It's a Kodak CD and it still works - back then CDs were expensive but were built to last. And store is a store is a store. So yeah, they are trademarking the most straightforward way to name a place where you can buy thousands of apps.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by molnarcs on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

The Oxford Dictionary has a pretty strict criteria for letting new words in. Usually they wait for about 5 years to see that it will stuck or just disappear. And obviously, the word must have a wide-spread use.

I just checked. The word app entered the Oxford Dictinary in 2001.

http://www.oed.com/page/update0109/September+2001+Update

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Mexicali100,

"Did the term "app" exist before Apple coined it?"

Yes, the term "App" is not only an obvious abbreviation for application, but it was in use prior to apple's campaign.

I regularly burned "app backup" CDs back in the 90s.

On a commercial level, it's rather difficult to search yesterday's web using today's search engines, however there still are some records of the term being used generically as an abbreviation for application.

I did a search on the internet archive, and I came up with lots of hits for the term "app" used in the marketing for all kinds of software including palm software from the 90s.


http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_207109_App_Optimizer

http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_207277_Default_App

http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_34184_App_Hack

http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_32458_App_Switch

http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_33545_LCPQA_Left_Coast_Punk_Q...

http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_54393_TeeMaster_Wireless_Golf...

Apple's use is clearly not original, and frankly if we could go back and search the internet as it was a decade ago, I'm sure we could come up with a lot more examples.

It's ridiculous for apple to sue others over such a generic term, especially when jobs himself was caught using the term generically.

Still, given how brazenly corrupt US courts have become, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up selling out public interests again. All hail the corporate overlords.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: WTF Apple?
by David on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF Apple?"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

People have been using the term "killer app" since the eighties. So the word app as abbreviation for application has been around a while.

Reply Score: 2

Amahi app store just changed to "App Deli"
by MacMan on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:35 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

Now, that sounds cool, I like App Deli!

At least Amahi got some publicity, and came up with an original, cool sounding name like App Deli.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The names rotate.

Reply Score: 1

My Vote
by fretinator on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:35 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

AppShizzles

Reply Score: 2

RE: My Vote
by MacMan on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:36 UTC in reply to "My Vote"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

AppShizzles

+1 vote

Reply Score: 2

Apple are douche
by werfu on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 13:49 UTC
werfu
Member since:
2005-09-15

Apple are douche... Avahi should just ask MS & Amazon to make a joint counter claim for that trade mark to be broken. Non-distinct wording can't usually stand as trade mark. As such App Store shouldn't stand.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple are douche
by dvhh on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:04 UTC in reply to "Apple are douche"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Apple are douche


No, this name is too long ;)

Reply Score: 3

yeah!
by UglyKidBill on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:04 UTC
UglyKidBill
Member since:
2005-07-27

Nothin'like taking a lil' kid's lunch to make you feel like a big tough man... ooh yeah!!

Reply Score: 8

Fuck you Apple
by diegoviola on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:24 UTC
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

Glad I never bought anything from you and I never will.

Reply Score: 15

Silly name of the day
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:27 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

App Shop

Because trademarks based on common English words suck, but synonyms are a good method of self-defense.

Edited 2011-06-22 14:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Huh.
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:30 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I wonder what would happen if OSNews offered a hello world application through its own store, and called it 'app store'.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Huh.
by jgagnon on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:57 UTC in reply to "Huh."
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

I think the best thing that could happen is for EVERYONE to open their own "App Store" and call it exactly that. Would Apple try to sue everyone? This whole thing reminds me of the "netbook" incident a few years ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Huh.
by WereCatf on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think the best thing that could happen is for EVERYONE to open their own "App Store" and call it exactly that. Would Apple try to sue everyone? This whole thing reminds me of the "netbook" incident a few years ago.


I was actually thinking about this earlier today: I am unemployed so I cannot afford a lawyer and thus if I got sued the court would appoint me one. Thus, it wouldn't matter how long the court case would take since I wouldn't be paying the bills anyways and thus I wouldn't have the incentive of just dropping the case or settling with Apple; I could take it all the way to the end. And atleast here in Finland courts are sensible enough that I don't believe for a second that Apple would win.

So, Apple could sue me and lose in court, or they could ignore me and... well, they'd be losing their trademark anyways for not defending it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Huh.
by bert64 on Fri 24th Jun 2011 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

The free court appointed lawyer would generally not be a very good one, certainly not as good as the expensive ones apple will have...
Apple could just keep it in court, hanging over you for years.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Huh.
by cmchittom on Fri 24th Jun 2011 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh."
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

I was actually thinking about this earlier today: I am unemployed so I cannot afford a lawyer and thus if I got sued the court would appoint me one.


Finnish courts will appoint lawyers for indigent parties in civil lawsuits? It's not that I disbelieve you; I'm just unaware that they (or anyone) did such a thing. If you have a citation for that information, I'd appreciate it (largely because I think doing such a thing might be a Good Idea, and with a citation I can say "Look, the Finns do it!").

Reply Score: 1

Spelling fix
by phoudoin on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 14:41 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

App*s* Store.

Problem solved, and with a funny bonus.

Reply Score: 2

(Off Topic)Just one thing...
by senshikaze on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:31 UTC
senshikaze
Member since:
2011-03-08

"This make me a sad little facepalming unicorn"

...wtf are you smoking?

That is all. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: (Off Topic)Just one thing...
by olefiver on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 17:29 UTC in reply to "(Off Topic)Just one thing..."
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

Found a paparazzi shot of Thom as he was writing this article:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RK2dju7OZ6w/TNx1FEpGKXI/AAAAAAAABMY/pRVB-...

Edited 2011-06-22 17:34 UTC

Reply Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Found a paparazzi shot of Thom as he was writing this article:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RK2dju7OZ6w/TNx1FEpGKXI/AAAAAAAABMY/pRVB-...


...epic.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by martijn
by martijn on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 15:36 UTC
martijn
Member since:
2010-11-06

Ap Store ?
@pp Store ?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Lazarus
by Lazarus on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 16:04 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Screw Apple. "App store" is about as generic a name as they come.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by andih
by andih on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 16:30 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

http://www.amahi.org/apps

Lol, each time I refresh page a new name is set on their app store. A few funny ones too ;)

Apple is being ridiculous as always, I hope they'll suffer!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by andih
by vodoomoth on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 08:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by andih"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Thanks for pointing out the name changes. That's probably the best middle finger they could give Apple.

Reply Score: 2

ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

By the way, Apple sending a "cease and desist" letter to amahi created a lot of noise around this project, and that's very positive thing; actually, because this article in OSnews I learned amahi exists ;)

Reply Score: 3

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

By the way, Apple sending a "cease and desist" letter to amahi created a lot of noise around this project, and that's very positive thing; actually, because this article in OSnews I learned amahi exists ;)


That's true. lol

Thank you, Apple, for introducing us to Amahi.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, I'm actually intrigued by it. Might give it a whirl.

Reply Score: 1

bbright Member since:
2009-12-25

I would also like to thank Apple for introducing me to this project. "Any press is good press". Keep it up Apple. All you're doing is driving away customers like me to Android products.

Reply Score: 1

v How dare Apple
by theantithom on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 17:59 UTC
RE: How dare Apple
by Adurbe on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 18:15 UTC in reply to "How dare Apple"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Quite sure that's not the same.

Opening "osnewss" would cause confusion to the end user thinking they were going to "!osnews" (note the new !bang ;) )

I think Thom might want to defend against. Mind you without the people it would never compete ;-)

In my view this is not the same as defending the word "app". This is a common word to us IT types which we don't equate to a single brand or company.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How dare Apple
by Jennimc on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE: How dare Apple"
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Quite sure that's not the same.

Opening "osnewss" would cause confusion to the end user thinking they were going to "!osnews" (note the new !bang ;) )


To be fair I think it could be argued that "app store" would cause confusion too



In my view this is not the same as defending the word "app". This is a common word to us IT types which we don't equate to a single brand or company.


But this isn't about the word app but rather the words "app store"


Opening "osnewss" would cause confusion to the end user thinking they were going to "!osnews" (note the new !bang ;) )


Again, to be fair I think it could be argued that "app store" would cause confusion too

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: How dare Apple
by Adurbe on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How dare Apple"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I consider 'app store' as generic as 'computer store' or 'super market'. I think this is where our views diverge.

An App Store, to me, is a store that sells apps therefore is open for generic use.

This is Different in my view from say the 'iTunes Store' as this is a brand store which is someone else were to use they would have the right to protect.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How dare Apple
by tupp on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 18:48 UTC in reply to "How dare Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

How dare Apple protect a term they coined, promoted and invested money and resources into.

Steve Jobs coined the term "app" -- one of his many amazing achievements, like when he invented the mouse!

Fanboys... please.

The term "app" was being used to refer to computer applications at least a decade and a half before the Apple app store.

Here is the listing for the term at the Online etymology dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=app Note that the listing shows an origin of 1992.

Here are the listings at Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app Note that in the first listing, the origin of "app" is shown to be "1985-1990."

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: How dare Apple
by Jennimc on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: How dare Apple"
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

Steve Jobs coined the term "app"


No, it was "app store"


one of his many amazing achievements, like when he invented the mouse!


not necessarily amazing however legitimately theres and something not to be copied... or is only Apple's trademarks allowed to be copied as far as this site is concerned. I forget.


The term "app" was being used to refer to computer applications at least a decade and a half before the Apple app store.

But the term isn't app but rather "App Store"

By your logic, the OSnews name should be available for everyone to use as they see fit as the words OS and News were around long before this site's creators used it in their name.

Edited 2011-06-22 21:12 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: How dare Apple
by kompak on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How dare Apple"
kompak Member since:
2011-06-14

By your logic, the OSnews name should be available for everyone to use as they see fit as the words OS and News were around long before this site's creators used it in their name.


I don't know about US but atleast here in Finland you would have zero chance defending a trademark like OSnews. You can't trademark anything describing your products or line of business. In example Windows is trademarkable because Microsoft is a software company. If it would be a window manufacturer then they couldn't get such a trademark for their products.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 19:10 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Okay guys, I need some help from people older than me. I have access to the full Oxford English Dictionary, and the oldest citation in there is from InfoWorld, 1985, 29 July:

"One step in that direction is Apple's recent beta testing of the new programming tools called Mac App."

What is this Mac App? Nor DDG, nor Google, nor Wikipedia have any mention of this. I'm at a total loss here. What is this? I'm sure we have some readers from that era - help me!

Reply Score: 1

RE: MacApp
by xdev on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 19:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
xdev Member since:
2005-11-11

MacApp (properly written in PascalCase without space) was the first object-oriented application framework on personal computers:

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

Adobe did re-engineer much of it, by the way, when they first ported Photoshop to Windows. As did I, when I had to lift a large customer project from classic Macs to Carbon on Intel. We figured out it was cheaper to completely re-do MacApp 3.1 in a cleanroom procedure than to touch the huge and messy application code base in any way. I own the rights to that port, but didn't release any of it (yet) to not upset Apple's lawyers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: MacApp
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: MacApp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

DUH I could've known the actual product name's camel case would be properly corrected as Mac App in a publication at that time.

Thanks!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: MacApp
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MacApp"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

If you truly understood how and why of trademarks, you'd realize your search is stupid and worthless when it comes to that: it's completely different for the realm it goes into, and, besides that, as old as it is, and that it had never been trademarked and holds none, is completely irrelevant.

Many different types of businesses can and do use the same set of letters/words for trademarks, as long as they are different types of businesses. However, if someone is possibly using the same mark and is doing the same sort of thing, you're legally required to defend it as Apple is doing, and, indeed, like any trademark owners must do to keep them. It isn't at all about Apple going after the little guy because they're little: it's Apple defending their marks (what you think about it means zilch, I know you'll not agree) claimed and/or registered, and they need to do it, regardless of the size of the entity, if they're using or attempting to use them in the same realm.

This is how it's done, this is how the law works, all over the world. You don't have to like it, but you don't have an awful lot of power to change it by yourself, and these laws exist for good reason to not only protect consumers but businesses as well, despite all your hype that you think otherwise should be the case. History is not on the side of your viewpoint, and the future isn't looking too bright, either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: MacApp
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MacApp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And you know already that the article will focus on whether or not the term "app store" is trademarkable or not? Such clairvoyance!

I'm actually not interested in that. I just want to write about the history of the term 'app', since my interest is language-related, since that's what I'm actually educated in. I actually already have the paragraph ready where I state that my search into the history of 'app' is not relevant to the current court cases.

Of course, you jumped right into your usual anti-Thom stance. I don't blame you for it though, much like you can't blame a dog for licking its own balls in public ;) .

Although I must say I find it fascinating that someone with whom I've had good times making fun of large companies - including Apple - back when we still hung out in #haiku, is now defending Apple threatening a small open source project with lega action. How the times change once you get into the business of iOS development, ey? ;)

Edited 2011-06-22 21:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: MacApp
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MacApp"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

If I'm interpreting your statements correctly, you seem to think I'm all for Apple and that I've sold my soul to the devil, that I can't have fun making fun of large corporations like in the past. Well, no, that's not how it is. Do I own Apple hardware? Yes. Do I own only Apple hardware? No. Do I only use Apple OS'es? No. Am I against the little guys, like the Haiku project, or this one? No. Am I against unfair competition? Yes, and there's actually zero conflict with my stance on this issue, despite what you want to paint it as. For formal employment, before you were online and present in any meaningful way, I worked for a subsidiary of Sony, in the CD-ROM premastering department, from 92-96. You likely wouldn't recognize their name, but wholly owned by Sony they are. What can I say? It was gainful employment. They certainly didn't do everything in an "ideal" way, but I felt at the time, at least they tried.

I've had some other employers you've never heard of, and likely never will. <shrug>. I've worked for other large, well-known employers, as some combination of full-time and contract you certainly have heard of, in this order, with me completing the contract for the latest one on Monday of this week: Yahoo!, Amazon.com, and Microsoft. They all have their issues. As long as they do things the legal and moral way, I don't have a problem working for them. I'm not overly concerned with the possible prestige involved with working at any of them: I'm interested in the work I do, as to whether I find it interesting for me to do, and that it pays my bills, and I learn something valuable from it, because let's remember, employment should be mutually beneficial for everyone: the employer, the employee, the customers, and society at large. If a company isn't all of those, I'm not interested in working there, and the money involved isn't relevant, because I can always go elsewhere, even if it pays very little, as long as I make ends meet.

But this whole silly thread you blogged about is all about making fun of a huge corporation (Apple) putting the legal screws on some small OSS project. Therefore, because Apple is some huge company, you think that them doing this is somehow unfair and wrong, because of who/what they're going after legally, and you act as though Apple is all out of line, and is the big evil corp for doing this. It seems you think this isn't fair for competition. But, I argue that you don't see the big perspective about trademarks, defending them, and their reason for being: they were created a very long time ago precisely to protect businesses from unfair competition by their rivals that deceive customers as to what they're really getting, and protect customers from those deceptive businesses, too, and the law is setup such (with good reason) that to maintain trademarks (the identity of a product/service (well, there's also service marks, which are the same thing for services) and their creators/owners) that to maintain their identity, they are legally required to fight for them, and the size of their opponent is 100% irrelevant. A large part of why it is irrelevant (and logically it must remain that way) is because those that ride on the coattails of others (infringing on marks) often grow unfairly at the expense of those that have the marks: they're parasites in a business sense. This is the heart of the matter, that trademarks exist and must be vigorously protected for the good of all, however ugly it gets. There's no such thing as a free ride for infringers, or at least there shouldn't be.

Believe it or not, I'd just as vigorously defend Samsung or some other Android-promoting company, or whatever, when it comes to defending of trademarks, or whatever, or the smaller companies suing the big ones, too, for that matter: it's not a matter of size, it's not a matter of what's profitable to me from the POV of (WHATEVER) but a matter of what's right and fair and just. But you seem to want to steal the IP rights, and the right to choose to make a living via developing IP, away from whomever you want via fiat, and I'm opposed to that asinine line of thought you keep on promoting, because you would steal the rights of people to work on what they want, on the terms they want, just to give it to others that want it: it seems you'd like to make of yourself a Robin Hood of IP, as it were, and you think everyone that creates IP of any kind should be forced to work in ways you proscribe as being legal, moral, ethical, convenient to you, because you refuse to see that everyone has the right to work towards their own welfare in their own way, on their own terms with the world. In other words: you claim the way things are done when it comes to creators and sellers of IP is generally evil and wrong, for them to set terms that they want to go by. Well, if you don't want to deal on the terms of the creators and owners, just don't partake of their works, and go and create your own, but you have zero moral, legal or ethical standing to dictate how others must earn their living. THIS is what I'm so vehemently pissed at you and your "ideals" about. Trademarks actually fit perfectly into this whole discussion, and are part of this whole IP thing. A name and identity is a very important and powerful part of any entity, and always has been.

Meanwhile, you want to go and compare others that have viewpoints violently opposed (and yes, your viewpoint that creators must work on YOUR terms instead of theirs is nothing less than slavery of a class of people) to yours as to those of a dog licking their balls in public. Well, pull your head out of the sand and see it from the POV of people that do what they do because they love to, need to, want to, and don't want to be subjected to the tyranny of Thom Holwerda and his ilk, just because he wants something that he (you) has not earned himself.

Now, does that mean I'm all on the side of RIAA, etc.? No. There's such a thing as going too far. I can agree, copyright terms should be shorter, nobody should be able to pass on the ability to make money from a single work long after the creator is dead. Copyright is still a very valuable thing to all involved, including society, but too long of terms dilutes that. I can agree (at least partially), a lot of the software patents are patently ridiculous, and are rather obvious (LODSYS comes to mind immediately). I'd say if you don't implement or cause something to be implemented within a finite, reasonable amount of time from an idea you patent (either via licensing or directly doing it yourself), well, tough luck, you should get nothing, because an unimplemented idea is just another random thought, be it software or other type. I'm all for fairness, based on the balance of the creator's rights, versus the contribution to society at large: you perhaps see yourself as also being for fairness, but it seems a bit more selfishly oriented towards yourself and society at large, at the price of the creators first. The US grew out of their horrible period of enacting legal slavery: seems it's taken a different form, and a different class, one that's not so easily pointed out on the street "Hey, there goes our slave!" but it hasn't changed in some conceptual ways, there are people out there like you that want a form of slavery, just with a different class of slaves doing a different, specialized form of work. And that's why I've turned against you and your ideals: you've gone off the deep end, and seek to overthrow the rights of creators everywhere to your whims of legal, moral and ethical expectations. Well, as I've said earlier: the name and identity is vitally important to all entities, and I, for one, am identified by my work as much as anyone, and I'm a creator. For the most part, you want to be a user, and it seems, on your terms only. I'm having none of it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: MacApp
by Alfman on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: MacApp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JonathanBThompson,

"But this whole silly thread you blogged about is all about making fun of a huge corporation (Apple) putting the legal screws on some small OSS project. Therefore, because Apple is some huge company, you think that them doing this is somehow unfair and wrong, because of who/what they're going after legally...."

tl/dr

Maybe there's a point somewhere in there, however you are wrong that the criticism weighed against apple is due only to it's size. We are in fact judging apple by it's actions. This is but one incident for which apple is incurring a reputation as a corporate bully.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: MacApp
by JonathanBThompson on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: MacApp"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

I'm sad to see you didn't read and comprehend what was stated in there in regards to the history and reason trademarks are what they are: they're that way for good reason, and like it or not, Apple is doing what they legally need to do, it's nothing personal, and if the tables were turned, the small entity/person would do the same thing, and needs to do the same thing. It's not being a "bully" to do what you are legally required to do: that's merely considered "business" and is a required action for protecting your business and rights. Whether or not the trademark for "App Store" is something you agree with as being valid means nothing: it's been granted to Apple, legally, as they filed for it and got it. It's been used in the past for a trademark, a couple times, by previous entities: they let it lapse. Thus, the government powers-that-be clearly decided it was suitable to trademark: once something is trademarked and registered, it's legally required for the owner to vigorously defend it, or they lose it. There is nothing related to size of entity on either end of the situation, either the one vigorously defending their mark, or the one that would use it when it's not theirs, in the same/too close line of business/services. Once again... this is business, and that's all it is, and this is how business has been legislated over a period exceeding our lifetimes that it must happen.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: MacApp
by old_git on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MacApp"
old_git Member since:
2011-06-23

Actually the term App has been used for years as a shorthand for application and apple and approximately surprisingly.
Used in computing particularly LISP for some reason as a shorthand.
There was also datasoft's app-L-Lisp for the apple II circa 1981 (winder if apple sued datasoft)
There is also the book The Forest of App (circa 1984)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tupp on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Here is page 112, from Computerworld Sep 13, 1982: http://books.google.com/books?id=69kEbmHHmggC&pg=RA1-PA112&dq=apps&...

If you look carefully, you will see three job listings with the word "apps" highlighted in yellow. One is in the "SYS MANAGER" listing for Hartford. Another is in the "IMS PROG LEADER" listing for Boston. The third one is in the "BURROUGHS 6800 P/A" listing for Providence.

In September of 1982, the term "apps" was widely used to describe computer applications, with no reference to Apple computer.

Edited 2011-06-22 20:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wow that's fascinating. Thanks!

And yes, I'm thinking about writing an article about the history of the word 'app'. Just gathering some data. whatever you find, feel free to post it here or mail me at thomholwerda@osnews.com

Edited 2011-06-22 20:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tupp on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

It might be worthwhile to search earlier books and magazines in Google Books. I think I limited my search to magazines after January, 1982.

By the way, there does seem to be a connection between this early use of the term "apps" and Apple computer -- after all, these listings were located the "Jobs" section of the magazine.

Edited 2011-06-22 20:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by malxau on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

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

(Edit: looks like this was already answered many times...my fault for not switching to whole thread view. Sorry for the spam. Would delete if I could.)

Edited 2011-06-22 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by KirkMcPike on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
KirkMcPike Member since:
2011-06-22

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

"MacApp was Apple Computer's primary object oriented application framework for the Mac OS for much of the 1990s. First released in 1985, it is arguably the first such system to be widely used, notably on a microcomputer platform. Microsoft's MFC and Borland's OWL were both based directly on MacApp concepts."

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by brandnew on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 22:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
brandnew Member since:
2011-06-22
RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by brandnew on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 22:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
brandnew Member since:
2011-06-22

30 seconds of Googling finds http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MacApp, as well as an article in InfoWorld (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wFAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq...).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by cavewoman on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 01:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
cavewoman Member since:
2009-10-27

In fact it has to be spelled MacApp (without the space)

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

If you search "Inside Macintosh" + MacApp you will probably find some old pages talking about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by old_git on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
old_git Member since:
2011-06-23

Seems to be an application development framework
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=...
This article examines one specific application framework for the Macintosh, MacApp--The Expandable Macintosh Application from Apple. The average end user does not generally use or even know about application frameworks. They are tools for developers who design the software for end users. In theory, and application framework can be developed for any personal computer. However, they are especially useful on those with a well-defined user-interface specification.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by brianpward on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
brianpward Member since:
2011-06-23

Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacApp - MacApp was Apple Computer's primary object oriented application framework for the Mac OS for much of the 1990s. Hope this helps...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by ron.bannon on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 02:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
ron.bannon Member since:
2011-06-23
RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by kovacm on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 07:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Not sure for Mac App but on Atari ST from 1985 executable files had .prg (program) or .app (application) extension...

///

InfoWorld from 1985: http://books.google.com/books?id=LjwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq=o...

search for "Mac app"

Edited 2011-06-23 07:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by SK8T on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 08:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
SK8T Member since:
2006-06-01

you're sure you don't mean this one?

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

Reply Score: 2

alright fine
by Mexicali100 on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 20:09 UTC
Mexicali100
Member since:
2009-10-15

So you've all been using the term Apps since the dawn of time. Which brings me to my next point. DIBS on "Grocery Store" Yeah baby! mine.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Reply Score: 1

RE: alright fine
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 20:39 UTC in reply to "alright fine"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Mexicali100,

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

I know what you're saying, but can we hate other players when they get special favors and are not bound to the same rules as the rest of us?

Apple are being bullies. Sure we can turn the other way every time it happens, but it's incredibly hard to deny.

Reply Score: 3

iStore for lulz
by foregam on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 20:33 UTC
foregam
Member since:
2010-11-17

iStore seems to be the most popular suggestion at the moment. I wonder what Appl* would do if this name is accepted. Sue Amahi for daring to use 'i' prefixed to a word from the dictionary?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Jennimc
by Jennimc on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:11 UTC
Jennimc
Member since:
2011-06-22

It's important for all to recognize that what's at issue here is not the word "app" but rather the full use of Apple's phrase, "app store"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Jennimc
by Shkaba on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 23:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Jennimc"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

It's important for all to recognize that what's at issue here is not the word "app" but rather the full use of Apple's phrase, "app store"

Eventhough I find it a waste of time to try and reason with a fanboy such as yourself I couldnt resist, so here it goes.

"app store" is a general english phrase! Not a specific Apple (as in company and not as in fruit) phrase! Had they "branded" with the use of say AppStore, one might have a case. But they didn't. Note that even "Apple Store" is not enforcable as apple (as in fruit) superceedes apple (as in rotten fruit ... ooops, my bad)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Jennimc
by Jennimc on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Jennimc"
Jennimc Member since:
2011-06-22

"app store" is a general english phrase! Not a specific Apple (as in company and not as in fruit) phrase!"


Its the combination of the two words that make it unique and thus legally securable as a trademark. This is basic legal stuff you guys... stuff that everybody should really understand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Jennimc
by Shkaba on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Jennimc"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Again, you are skewing reality. Combination of two words is a simple sentence in English (or any other language for that matter. "I am" is such an example. Had they, as I stated earlier, gone for AppStore they would have a case. As it is this just an idiotic attempt to monopolize portions of English language (which btw is not my native language) ... *off topic* how does "Apple shit-ore" sound (shitore-store in my native language)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Jennimc
by Delgarde on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 00:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by Jennimc"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

It's important for all to recognize that what's at issue here is not the word "app" but rather the full use of Apple's phrase, "app store"


Yeah, but "app store" is just a description... an online store where you buy apps. Never mind "protect it or lose it", this was already a generic term when they trademarked it...

Reply Score: 2

Just as a slap in the face
by drcoldfoot on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:39 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

I'd just call it "Apps Store"

Reply Score: 1

My vote:
by FishB8 on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 00:18 UTC
FishB8
Member since:
2006-01-16

The "Fuk-Ahpel Store"

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 05:54 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

the project owner should do nothing until the police come to his door. when they do, he should have someone else on the project rename their "app store" to application store." profit.

Reply Score: 2

Welcome to the....
by KLU9 on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 10:59 UTC
KLU9
Member since:
2006-12-06

A.P.P.S.T.O.R.E. (O.T.T.A.S.)

Apple Preposterously Purport Some Theory Of Restricted Exploitation (of the term App Store)

OR

Apple Pompously Propound Serious Trademark Or Rights Encroachment

Edited 2011-06-23 11:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Moot Point?
by codejockey on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 11:03 UTC
codejockey
Member since:
2010-12-31

Hopefully this will make Apple back off...
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/06/22/judge-likely-to-deny-apples-bid-to-h...

Reply Score: 1

Why doesn't Apple sue Cisco?
by n0b0dy on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 13:23 UTC
n0b0dy
Member since:
2009-09-03

After all Cisco is using IOS (GASP!!!) for their switch routers...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why doesn't Apple sue Cisco?
by _txf_ on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 16:35 UTC in reply to "Why doesn't Apple sue Cisco?"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Can't tell you're being sarcastic or not.

But ios was the name for the cisco router operating system long before apple decided to make the iphone os ios.

Not that iphone was also trademarked by someone else (was it cisco?). I believe that they chose the name and when somebody complained they paid them off ( I think the situation was the same in ios... or was cisco paid off in advance? ).

Now there is iCloud. I would never confuse the two (iClouds) but it is exactly the same situation we're currently discussing but in reverse.

So Apple has it's own problems with trademarks. Unfortunately they have money so they can make it go away.

Reply Score: 2

What about
by korpenkraxar on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 17:48 UTC
korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

... the App Trap :-)

Reply Score: 2

In this case, Apple = bully
by Finalzone on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 19:02 UTC
Finalzone
Member since:
2005-07-06

Classic example of a bully attacking a small targets knowing it cannot win against an equal or superiour opponents.
Why did Apple not simply name "Apple App Store" (short for AAS")?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Liskat
by Liskat on Fri 24th Jun 2011 00:17 UTC
Liskat
Member since:
2011-06-11

Just childish.
What's next? Microsoft sueing someone for using 'Critical Updates'?

Reply Score: 1

Amerika...
by twitterfire on Fri 24th Jun 2011 19:12 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

[quote] It's sad that they have to go through this, but I fully understand them in not being willing to take on Apple in court.[/quote]

In the country of so called "freedom" and "democracy" everybody should be able to defend themselves in the court, even against big corporations. And they should win if they are right.

Being afraid - and having real reasons to be afraid - has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

Reply Score: 2