Judge Not At All Impressed By Apple's Lawsuit Against Amazon Over 'App Store' Name

from the you're-going-to-lose dept

Thu, Jun 23rd 2011 12:42pm — Mike Masnick

Even as Apple continues to threaten anyone else for using the phrase "app store" to describe an app store (sorry, Steve, it's generic), the judge in the lawsuit between Apple and Amazon has made it clear that she's not buying Apple's claim here. She refused to issue an injunction blocking Amazon and said that Apple will "probably" lose the case itself -- in large part because Apple failed to demonstrate any form of consumer confusion. The judge is still going to review some filings, but the chances of Apple winning here are remote, at best.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: app store, trademark
Companies: amazon, apple

75 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:01pm

But keep in mind nobody stood up to Lucas when he shortened "android" to "droid" (Damn, if only Philip K. Dick hadn't used the more annoying option - "andy")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re:
I think Lucas actually has the popularity of Star Wars going for him and the fact that, as far as I know, droid was specifically coined for Star Wars and still hasn't become a generic term for an android.

The app abbreviation has been used for decades and was generic before Apple started using it in the phrase "app store." Jobs didn't coin the term and no one realistically thinks it's short for apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fushta, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:36pm

No confusion here
I'm certainly not confused by "Apple App Store" vs. "Amazon App Store." Apple probably creates the confusion by referring to itself as the generic "app store."
"App Store" is no different than "Gas Station."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:38pm

apple store
if apple thinks app store means apple store. then they should change their damn name to apple store
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCL, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re:
I didn't realize till I read your comment that it could be short for apple. It never occurred to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TechnoMage (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:41pm

what else can I say...
but... GOOD, this is silly on all fronts...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wulfman (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm

Rotten Apple Store
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chupacabra, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:54pm

popularized vs invented
Regardless of the fact that you can find a few individuals out there who called applications "apps" before the iPhone came along, the VAST majority of people, including computer savvy individuals, did not.

I've worked in the industry for oh, before many of you were born probably, and I can state confidently that Jobs popularized the term "app" well beyond any idea of chance.

No, Jobs and Apple did not "invent" the term, but neither did Gates invent the word "Windows" and he defends that quite vigorously. History is replete with examples of words that have been in heavy use for decades before being appropriated as a trademark for a company, and I would argue, as I have just done, that this word wasn't even in heavy use.

Anyone who claims that the word was generic and well used to mean "application" is either ignorant of the actual usage, or being willfully deceptive.

I don't really care one way or the other whether Amazon, or the Android marketers use the term. I just think that Apple is right to fight for this, because they made it popular.

Just like every single smartphone company out there is working double-time to create something derivative of the iPhone instead of actually innovating in the market, they are also preying on the use of the word "app" to assist their marketing efforts (or lack thereof).

Mark my words: If Apple had decided to call their little applications "Tweaks"... They'd be fighting every mobile device company out there for use of the phrase "TweakStore" right now.

The only real innovator in the market right now is Apple. Everyone else is just picking their nose and waiting for the next Apple product/idea to copy.

For those who choose to avoid Steve's products: Enjoy your second-rate knock off.

Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Nuh uh. Apple is teh sux. Neener!

Rabidly retardulous fanboi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:07pm

Re: popularized vs invented
I know at least in the late 90's/early 00's that "apps" (or "appz" or "@ppz") was in frequent use in place of "applications," especially when it came to warez. How many operating systems were referred to as "windows?" So either you're too young to know wtf you're talking about or being willfully deceptive. Or (most likely) you've had too much of the koolaid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:11pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Oh yeah, also, DIAF fanboi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Thanks I was going to post the same. Have been using and heard apps since the early 90's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:38pm

Re: popularized vs invented
*Steve stomps his feet*
I made the word popular mommy and now THEY are using it!

If it doesn't stop soon I will NEVER be prom queen!
*Steve crys*

*Mommy pats steves head*
Don't worry baby. Mommy will make sure those bad girls stop using "Your" word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Lorrie, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
The stating of a specific does not prove the generalization false, does it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:50pm

Re: popularized vs invented
"Anyone who claims that the word was generic and well used to mean "application" is either ignorant of the actual usage, or being willfully deceptive."

Me thinks you don't have enough rings on your innards young sapling. Early 90's to present day in the computer industry and this was one of the first terms I learned!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
wtf is this supposed to even mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
i'm saying "apps" was ALL OVER the internet before the internet even remotely resembled what you're used to, kid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg G (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's why Apple are idiots and apparently are the only ones actually confused by Amazon or Android, et al, using the term "app store."

And uh oh.. double whammy: if you use a droid phone to access the app store Lucas and Jobs will be hunting you down by sending Sith Lords armed with iPad and/or iPhone lightsabers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Queazy Art, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:01pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
The use of the word fanboi and its spelling indicates a person under the age of 30, who might also suffer from emotional challenges.

The problem with being under 30 (for some)is that they are in the unenviable position of being born *after* Apple began. Since a person in this position has low self esteem, they think that the only good things are things that came along *after* they were born. They suffer from an irrational need to validate their own experiences relative to their birth date. Hence the fascination with anything non-pre-them.

It's really quite common.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Lorrie, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
No, it wasn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
screech, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:05pm

Re: popularized vs invented
"Mark my words: If Apple had decided to call their little applications "Tweaks"... They'd be fighting every mobile device company out there for use of the phrase "TweakStore" right now."

Hmm. I hadn't thought of it that way. I think you're right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
j4rh34d (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:06pm

Re: popularized vs invented
I first heard 'app' used with VisiCalc on the Apple ][ a "few" years back. It was also used with WordStar and Lotus 1-2-3.

So, although 'app' WAS associated, sort of, with Apple:

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. - I. Montoya
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:08pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Back in the 90's, a buddy of mine always talked about "killer apps." He was a coder, so he was always on the lookout for the "killer app" to give him new ideas for markets to look into. He was always ahead of the curve of Java, XML & XSLT, vbscript, C#, etc. Bear in mind this is the 90's, and in 1996-7 XML and vbscript were fresh from being a white paper. Killer apps were his holy grail, always looking into these new languages as they might finally allow him to have that one killer app that no one could do without.

Guess he was ignorant of the actual usage as he wasn't aware that Turtleneck-boy was going to "popularize" the term "app" in the 00's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Thomas, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:09pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Ha!

No doubt this is true.

I wonder if I should trademark the term TweakStore right now!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
And if they had used tweak store, there would be no argument against it, because people don't call applications "tweaks" for short, they call applications "apps" for short.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griff, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:18pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Until someone comes up with something better, and the iPhone passes into history.

Remember when the RAZR was the king of the hill? Yeah. Most have forgotten that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:24pm

Re: popularized vs invented
So, aside from the completely transparent Apple shilling, do you have even one source of data to support your single, false claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ItsJustChuck, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:25pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Wow bro you actually think you're hot shit. Everything has it's pros and cons. Screw Steve for trying to sue for the 'app store' name. It's a childish lawsuit. Everyone needs to focus on what's important. mac and pc not so different, has the same guts. Just because you are in love with Steve doesn't mean everybody elses shit sucks. That's all I'm saying and it's wrong to come on here and assume you've got it figured out. I sure don't and probably never will. What's wrong if people generalized app as application..that is what an app is. If it was apple store then you would buy every type of apple product and not just apps. Open your eyes and stop being so prejudice to everything that doesn't have a bitten apple on it. From you're words you seem to be younger than most of the people that post here but I can see you being as old as you claim just still immature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chupacabra, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
This is my point. The market currently has their nose so far up Apple's ass that they would have appropriated the term "tweak" if Apple had used it instead of app.

This is what the market is doing with every other aspect of Apple's design ethic, I think this would be the same story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:28pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Killer application

"A killer application (commonly shortened to killer app), in the jargon of marketing teams, has been used to refer to any computer program that is so necessary or desirable that it proves the core value of some larger technology, such as computer hardware, gaming console, software, or an operating system. A killer app can substantially increase sales of the platform on which it runs."

References:
Scannell, Ed (February 20, 1989). "OS/2: Waiting for the Killer Applications". InfoWorld (Menlo Park, CA: InfoWorld Publications) 11 (8): pp 41�45. ISSN 0199-6649. Early use of the term "Killer Application".

Please lie more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chupacabra, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Sure, it has to happen eventually. But don't hold your breath.

And, then again, who's to say that the thing that replaces the iPhone won't be invented by Apple anyway.

You can't argue with the fact that Apple is eating everyone's lunch. C'mon... I can understand you having a preference, but your preference is what? A poor copy of an Apple design? That is what every mobile device out there essentially is.

Apple will continue to eat everyone's lunch if everyone continues to get in line behind them and follow their lead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
It doesn't take a genius to get tired of saying "application" (or "computer application"), a word (phrase) whose meaning was fixed long ago, and start saying and writing "app" much more frequently. I don't know how many text books use that abbreviation, but it's common among more than just a few software developers and users speaking about this or that app.

A little bit of googling:

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20001205184203324

"How to compile a UNIX app for X UNIX"
"Dec 05, '00 06:42:03PM"

"[Editor's note: Please see the comments for some useful suggestions]

"I have been having some nagging difficulties compiling c code into X ... Can any one explain the full path to doing this this successfully ?

"I mean this must be one of the most appealing aspects of OS X, the ability to run any shell based unix app.....if you could get it to actually work.... :-( "

"unix apps on osx"
"Authored by: rjzak on Dec 08, '00 06:23:52PM"

"does does this mean i can run/compile GAIM, KDE, XFree86, or some other popular unix app under OSX?"

[the macworld example probably came up high on the search results because Apple/macs is associated with both app and unix]

Then there was this from 2004:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/jdzions/archive/2004/01/17/59825.aspx

"Turning a Unix App into a Web Service using SFU and .NET - Part 1"

Going back to InfoWorld Dec 4, 1995, pg48:

"McAfee brings antivirus app to NT and Win95"

Going back to InfoWorld Sep 14, 1992, pg51:

"Financial analyst sees a bleak future for the PC industry"

"Well, aren't Windows apps doing well?"

"Yes, but it's hard to tell whose, which is my major point -- Windows apps all look alike"

"Whose brand is reassuringly on both the Windows operating system and on its Windows apps? The only Windows apps doing well are Microsoft's"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:42pm

Google search results for "job app"
Google search results for "eye ointment app"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Jun 2011 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
So, confident Chupacabra, had I been born yesterday, I might still find it difficult to believe that this expression "app" was not popular many years ago when you consider that a main stream print magazine like InfoWorld had it sprinkled over articles going back at least to 1992.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lucas doesn't have a problem with you using a Droid. He gets a pretty penny from licensing the Droid trademark to Motorola.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:06pm

1987 says m-w
googling .. http://www.nfais.org/page/51-morris-goldstein-1995

*****
"Killer Apps"

1995 Miles Conrad Memorial Lecture
NFAIS Annual Conference
February 28, 1995

Morris Goldstein, Chief Executive Officer, Information Access Company

ABSTRACT

For decades, the information industry has relied on traditional designs for information delivery. Typically these designs are dependent upon techniques and skills that have become limiting factors in their usage. With the dawning of an information enabled society, it is incumbent on our industry to develop comprehensive solutions to information problems and move beyond our traditional markets. We are an industry that is well positioned to create "killer applications."
...

This KILLER APP was a killer app because it was able to solve information inquiries without knowledge of anything but the question! InfoTrac was so sophisticated that it made usage simple. In 1983, most A&I applications were delivered to libraries in print form.
*****

From InfoWorld Dec 28, 1992 - Jan 4, 1993, pg38:

"I can't tell you what killer apps are going to ignite the object-oriented AI multimedia wildfire, but I bet it involves networking -- probably ATM."

Finally, it appears "app" goes back at least to 1987.

From Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary 11th edition copyright 2003
By Merriam-Webster, Inc:

"killer app n (1988): a computer application of such great value or popularity that it assures the success of the technology with which it is associated"

On page 17a it explains that the date in parenthesis refers to the oldest date of usage in the English language as far as [m-w] could determine.

So "killer app" goes back to 1988, and this almost implies "app", as a natural abbreviation of "application", goes back further. Specifically, to 1987:

"app n (1987): APPLICATION"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joshy, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:23pm

I'm confused everyone is arguing whether "apps" comes from the word application. But if the fan boys want to argue that Jobs popularized the term App and he invented the word app then Then what would they propose the stores or "Apps" be called??? Remember if you argue that apps doesn't come from applications then it cannot be called an application store.

So fill in the blank I downloaded a ________ today for my phone. From a spot that allows me to download all sorts of different_________ for my phone. Would Angry Birds be considered an application or a game or a non-Apple copyrighted term of_______________???

If he is so worried about the confusion why not change it to the iapp store? Full of iapps that only work on an iphone or ipad???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:25pm

Re: popularized vs invented
1999 was my first year in college (computer science) and I still have photocopied notes from the professor with the words "app development".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:35pm

Re: popularized vs invented
I think justice took a wrong turn ever granting words like windows and apple as trade marks to begin with. Maybe we are seeing a reversal of this now? I think that would be great! Every Day words and appreviatations should not become defendable terms. Theses companies only chose those words because they had already a great connotation.
Overall I smell lawyers making money out of hot air here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fattyboombatty, 23 Jun 2011 @ 4:45pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
you're replying to your own posts with a different user name, agreeing with yourself?

You really are dense there snowflake...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Yes, it was.

Neener.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Love how you've posted under 6 different aliases. Your split personalities are quite entertaining...except they're all the same.

You should at least get a rabid clown in there, somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:33pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
...sigh.

For the last time, Apple and Windows trademarks are perfectly legitimate. Name one other Apple brand hardware or software company. How about Windows?

Just because they're generic words, does not mean they're generic names. They tell you PRECISELY which company your products are created by WITHIN THE MARKET THAT THEY'RE SPECIFIED TO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:39pm

This Flies In The Face Of The Whole �Trademark DIlution� Concept
Thank bloody goodness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Win95 Was Mean to Me, 23 Jun 2011 @ 5:45pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Dude, I'm a techno-MO-ron and even I'd heard of app short for application in the ancient early 90s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casey Bouch (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 6:32pm

Re: apple store
Does Apple even need to be abbreviated? It's short enough already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casey Bouch (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 7:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
But the problem is you said that Jobs was responsible for making the term popular and therefore has rights to the word or at least a sound argument.

The rest of us just agree he's crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 7:29pm

Re: popularized vs invented
"I've worked in the industry for oh, before many of you were born probably, and I can state confidently that Jobs popularized the term "app" well beyond any idea of chance."

Wow, you've never had to work an apps dev team?

I still remember my first day on a new help desk (back in the 90's) when I was introduced to "the apps guys" over the other side of the floor.

"Anyone who claims that the word was generic and well used to mean "application" is either ignorant of the actual usage, or being willfully deceptive."

Where's this ignorance and willful deception you speak of I wonder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 9:09pm

It is useful to keep in mind that the term "app" is not what has been filed by Apple as a trademark.

The trademark being sought is "App Store", a combination mark.

The application has issued and in now available for opposition by those who believe the trademark "App Store" is not a valid trademark under US law. Apparently, one or more companies are or have file notices of opposition.

It is also useful to keep in mind that the lawsuit relatively new, and that the proceeding at this stage involves solely a request by Apple for a preliminary injunction. In order to secure such an injunction, one of the requirements is that the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that it will likely succeed on the merits of its lawsuit. If this is not met, then such an injunction is denied and the case proceeds along just like any other lawsuit.

Importantly, this does not mean that Apple has a loser of a case, as some seem inclined here and on other sites to suggest. What it does mean is that Apple will now have to proceed with discovery, as will Amazon, and at its conclusion either a summary judgement (if requested by motion) will be awarded to one of the parties or the case will proceed to trial.

In other words, this article describes a preliminary skirmish, and nothing more. Just because Apple may not win the skirmish by no means means the war is lost.

Ultimately, trademark cases come down to a single issue, and that is "likelihood of confusion". It is not at all hard to imagine scenarios where companies like Amazon may use the term "App Store" in such a way that likelihood of confusion may tilt in favor of Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
taoareyou (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 9:24pm

Re: popularized vs invented
Popularizing a generic term does not equal innovation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
taoareyou (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 9:30pm

Re:
It's not hard to imagine lots of things. Unfortunately for Apple, the case won't be decided on what their lawyers can "imagine".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:25pm

Re: popularized vs invented
"The only real innovator in the market right now is Apple. Everyone else is just picking their nose and waiting for the next Apple product/idea to copy."

LOL.

A company known for taking other people's ideas and making them white and shiny? Innovator?

LOL

Enjoy paying a 30% profit margin so you can have a white, shiny toy to look cool at Starbucks with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Nope. It's a term that's been in use since the first PC clones hit the market too.

A LOT of people shortened "application" to "apps". I know the circle of people I hang with has been doing it for over 20 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:18pm

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
It goes back to even before that, Boeing was using it to refer to Apps on its 747 computer systems (as was most of the Aeronautical/Space Industry), most Avionics manuals of the day referred to the 'apps' used for testing purposes on most avionic equipment whether Field testing or Bench testing.

Apps were used under OS400, VMS, CMS, and MVS Mini Computing way back in early 80's and before with mainframes.

Though the term 'app' might not be known generically as referring to 'applications' by the public at large nowadays and instead might be construed as meaning "phone apps by apple" the trademark class that Apple are wanting to use the trademark as, has fully and for a long prior history used the abbreviation in a generic sense meaning any programme for a specific application for what it is designed for. And that community is where the trademark falls down on the grounds that it does NOT distinguish the trademark from other commonly known uses in the class, and is likely to deceive or cause confusion within its class.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 24 Jun 2011 @ 12:04am

How About �Appy Appy Joy Joy Store�?
R&anp;S flashback FTW!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:19am

Re: popularized vs invented
why should anyone get the rights to any word - made up or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:59am

Re: Re:
It does create brand confusion though! An 'android' is a robot that is shaped or looks like a man/human and is usually intelligent - so something like C-3PO might count as one. But a 'droid' as Lucas uses it is any robot - so he's really coining a new term for 'robot' - maybe the distinction is in size, intelligence or mobility versus production robots like in car plants?

So if an 'android' looks like a human - what do you call a robot that looks like some of the other Star Wars aliens?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 3:01am

Re: Re: apple store
It's not like they can argue that 'app' is a natural or common contraction for 'apple'. "Can I get a pound of 'apps' and 'bans' please" they seem to think you say at the greengrocers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 3:12am

Re: popularized vs invented
Your argument is fail on so many levels. 'Windows' is a decriptive term for a specific product, and a full non-contraction. In the same way, 'Apple' in computing refers to a certain company (and it wasn't like they had a free ride getting that either). 'App' on the other hand could be a valid contraction of numerous other words - and 'app' for 'application' has been around for donkey's years. So 'app store' is hardly a unique identifier.

Apple may finally be innovative (and pardon me, I remember the days of the piddly Mac Classic versus decent PCs) but they aren't /that/ innovative - a lot of 'features' of their products were around long before they packaged them up nicely (I'll give them that).

I remember when iPhones first came out, picking up my smartphone (HTC Tytn) and thinking that I already had everything except the pinchy screen - and I had 3G and all the connectivity that the iFail didn't - and it didn't cost me a penny either (free with contract).

iPods are just glorified mp3 players - hardly special there, and since they are locked down to their store, less useful than a generic mp3 player.

Just because a bunch of Apple fanbois and tech newbies never heard the word 'app' before (too busy at the Kool-Aid cooler?) doesn't mean that anyone who was already paying attention to technology and associated the word 'app' with 'application' has a valueless opinion. You can't trademark a word for a common use when it is in common use. If Windows weren't already a trademark, no-one could come along and trademark it now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 3:14am

Re:
They could call them 'Applets'...

... oh wait!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 3:14am

Re: Re:
or Bites... or bits... or...

naaaah :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 3:18am

Re:
The combo mark still has to be sufficiently distinctive and uniquely associated with that company for that to work. "Apple Store" would be a cinch - but "App Store", given that 'app' is a generic word and therefore an 'app store' would in common sense apply to any marketplace for 'apps', does not seem to pass any bar for distinctiveness or originality.

Additionally, if the Almighty Jobs Himself has referred to other stores as 'app stores' - even as a Freudian Slip - it rather invalidates the uniqueness argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 5:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
No, my point was app is short for application and people have been using it as such for yars. Tweak is short for nothing.

And then there would be no argument because tweak isn't short for anything else, like app is short for application. So maybe they would be all over apples ass, but the reason people are all over app store is because its a natural progression. Even pencil-neck generalized it himself. People would be all over tweak store to ride the fame.

They are all over app store because that's descriptive, not inovative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 24 Jun 2011 @ 6:10am

Re: popularized vs invented
CMP EAX, [LOL]
JE .AppleAppStore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 7:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
BLASHEMERS!!!? STEVE JOBS, MAY HIS NAME BE PRAISED FOREVER - AMEN, USED THE WORD APP STORE IN HIS MOTHERS WOMB. IT IS ONE OF OUR SACRED WORDS TO BE USED ONLY BY THE BROTHERHOOD OF APPLE FANBOIS!!!>!>?!?!?

YOU DESEEECRETE THE HOLY NAME OF JOBS BY ALLOWING YOUR FILLTHY MOUTH HOLE TO TAINT OUR GLOURIOUUS WORD!!!?!?!?!!!!

Isn't Apple the same company that made the commercial 1984? I wonder how much they paid George Orwell. I'm guessing it was nothing since he was long dead but he popularized the year 1984. See how stupid it sounds when you apply tard logic to these kinds of ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 7:44am

Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
The word fanboy has been in use since 1919.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
indieThing (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 8:10am

Re: Re: popularized vs invented
Why are you arguing with yourself ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Jun 2011 @ 8:22am

Re: Re: Re:
Robot, in the context in which it was coined by Karel Capek in Rossum's Universal Robots, was originally a humanoid creation more akin to a golem or basically just a human made by other means and materials rather than the modern meaning of a mechanical/electronic automaton. So even the term robot didn't keep its original specific meaning. Therefore, the fact that the term droid comes from android which etymologically means 'man-like' or 'in the form of a man' is completely irrelevant for the use of the term droid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Jun 2011 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
The conclusion that "the use of the word fanboi and its spelling indicates a person under the age of 30, who might also suffer from emotional challenges" indicates a person who makes a lot of assumptions and feels the need to tell other people who they are and what their problems are with very little information to go on. But I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jenningsthecat (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 9:57am

...the chances of Apple winning here are remote, at best.
"The chances of Apple WHINING here are EXCELLENT, at WORST."

There, fixed that for ya!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:00am

Re: popularized vs invented
told you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: popularized vs invented
nah--it just means that the author of that post is over 30 and feelin' it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 11:03am

Why did Apple pick the term 'App Store'? Why does it call the programs that run on an iPhone 'Apps'?

Because app is and was the common abbreviation for application. They can't pick a term because of its existing definition, and then later pretend they coined it themselves. If they had called it the 'tweak store', they could certainly trademark it; but, they would also have had to give up the advantage of capitalizing on their customers' pre-existing knowledge of what an app was.

And the idea that it's short for 'Apple', of course, is ridiculous enough to be ignored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 1:20pm

Re: Re:
"Imagine" is not evidence. Evidence presented will determine the outcome. It is not, however, very difficult to "imagine" the type of evidence Apple will need to prevail, and such type of evidence being produced is not at all difficult to find when litigation involves two well-heeled competitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2011 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re:
Distinctiveness is the hallmark of a good trademark/service mark. However, even marks that are anything but distinctive still may qualify for trademark protection under Title 15, known as the Lanham Act. The primary difference between the two is that the former are typically afforded strong protection by the courts, whereas the latter receive significantly less (and in many cases none at all).

What I do find a bit curious about Apple's registration is that it specifically disclaims the word "store" when used in conjunction with anything other than "App Store", but does not do the same for the word "App". Why this is the case is known only to Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]