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!
Thread beginning with comment 478255
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: MacApp
by xdev on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 19:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Member since:

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

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 Parent Score: 1

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

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.


Reply Parent Score: 1

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

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 Parent Score: 2