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 478256
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: MacApp
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:20 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: MacApp
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 21:39 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 Parent Score: 1