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 478325
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: MacApp
by Alfman on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 04:26 in reply to "RE[7]: MacApp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JonathanBThompson,

"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."

I (we) understand trademarks more than you give us credit. This is an illegitimate generic trademark we're talking about here, not something referring specifically to apple products. Apple should not be entitled to generic english terms any more than anyone else is.

Apple has a history of trademark abuse - they really don't care about trademark law, they act as though they are above it. It's time someone put them in their place and judge them by the same rules as everyone else.

Edited 2011-06-23 04:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: MacApp
by vitae on Fri 24th Jun 2011 04:27 in reply to "RE[7]: MacApp"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

it's legally required for the owner to vigorously defend it, or they lose it.


I think the point was that Apple doesn't really need the trademark in the first place, and other people using it is not going to make a difference to their sales. So if they chose not to defend it, even if it meant losing it, what would be the big deal?

Reply Parent Score: 2