Microsoft disputes Apple's 'App Store' trademark Microsoft is contesting Apple's trademark claim for the term "App Store", calling that term too generic to be granted protection. "Apple seeks to exclusively appropriate the phrase 'App Store' for use with its own store offering apps," says Microsoft's Opposition filing with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. That …
call it the .app store then
I recall using the word "app" and the expression "killer app" in the late 80s, early 90s, which given my ability to be ahead of the curve probably meant they were passe then.
The killer application for them new fangled PCs was then generally held to be Lotus 1-2-3 (or was it Visicalc?)
Yes I agree it is a generic term. But not in software / computing. Your not going to confuse someone selling Windows for your house with Windows software and at least as far as I am aware they have not gone after any makers of windows you see through..
'App Store' on the other hand is generic in the Industry it is used in.
Make sense to me.
Windows are generic in the computing industry too - GEM, Xerox, Amiga et al, all implemented WIMP systems and what does the W stand for?
Oh and Microsoft most certainly went after Lindows.
It might be interesting to ask Microsoft to remove their trademark against the word "Windows" in return for the right to use the phrase "App Store". As it's exactly the same the same point of principle I wonder which way they'd jump?
No disrepect to my transatlantic cousins as I know we in the UK get things pretty whacked out at times, but you gotta love some of these craziest examples of American Behaviour :-)
sorry, but that is utter nonsense. you could use the same argument for using the term OSX seeing as it is simply an abbreviation of Operating system 10. The word "windows" in relation to a title for an operating system is quite obviously trade-markable seeing as it isn't descriptive but nomenclative, just like linux and iOS. MS have never pursued anyone for referring to an open display are on the computer screen as a window.
The term "app store" however is descriptive and generic, just like toy store or supermarket. I seriously doubt toys-r-us can lay claim to the term toystore or wallmart to the term supermarket.
"Windows," even in computing, is first and foremost descriptive. "Microsoft Windows," "Windows 7," "Windows Vista," etc., etc. are nomenclative. However, there have been far too many windowing products in computing history, including several still in use today (X Windows, anyone?) for just the term "windows" to be definitively nomenclative among any but the ignorant or the arrogant - which, I will admit, has apparently included several courts, etc.
-d
I've been told that the UK uses the same criteria for genericity with foreign words as English ones in trademarks.
Which leads me to want to start up a consultancy containing the word "aon" in its title. I mean, seriously, do Aon really think that they can trademark a name that is nothing more than "one"?
That's always followed by the word cropping up on the next list of heinous affronts to French culture accompanied by a shiny, new French neologism from the Académie française to replace it.
Which nobody outside the snottier parts of French government and academia ever uses.
I think mircosfot is just bitter. It's wasting time and money on a frivolous, bogut tangent. When will that company ever learn to succed on merit, not obfuscation, hijackery, lies, and so on. It's mostly successful due by brute force and default installation, not because people LOVE microsoft.
I'm not an Apple products consumer (although our IT guy was dumping an old G4, and i said, "I'll take it!", probably more out of junk collecting than actually expecting to be productive, and MacBooks/Pros are woefully beyond my affordability range, and while i do like some amount of fashion sense matching my hardware, i don't cravenly put it first, nor deify the makers of my software or hardware, and even as a Linux user, I don't deify Torvalds.... so, there you have that much...)
JEEz, ms, just shut up and make a "WinAppsStore", dammit. Quit kvetching at the distraction of USPTO and other courts! They're busy enough and already corrupted enough with IT/IP shenanigans. Get over it!
Yes, "app store" is the generic term for a store selling applications, now.
But, personally, the first time I heard that term was in relation to Apple's "App Store".
Isn't this like saying that they should take away Hoover's trademark as almost everyone (in the UK at least) uses the expression "hoover" to mean vacuum cleaner?
I see your point, but it's fundamentally flawed.
"Hoover" has entered the common parlance as a generic term since becoming a trademark -- a trademark based on something that was not a "word" before, but a name.
"App Store" has already entered the common parlance prior to the granting of a trademark, coupled with the fact that it is composed of two words already in common usage (I concede that "app" was more common in the IT arena, but store is ubiquitous).
Common sense dictates that it's too late.
To follow your analogy, it would be similarly too late for Hoover to turn around and trademark "vacuum cleaner" (not that they even invented it, but I digress).
That said, I could only speculate as to often common sense informs USPTO decisions.
Xerox very nearly did lose their trademark because it became a popular phrase to describe photo-copying: "to xerox something".
Having said that, Hoover and Xerox are hardly generic words / terms (they became generic through use), where as App Store, it could be argued, started off using a generic phrase, and is being used more and more as a generic term (I suspect by the media and Mr Jobs himself, more than the end user).
I think it's correct to challenge the trademark. If MS can keep "Microsoft Windows" (which I personally disagree with), then Apple should have "Apple App Store". But not just "Windows" nor just "App Store".
The rest will follow. Stoopid stoopid patent trolling begets ridiculous counter claims.
In this case, I actually think Apple do have a leg to stand on. They created the whole App store thing and everyone else jumped on the band wagon. Before 'Apps, I'm sure they were called programmes and applications that were either, freeware, shareware or licensed.
Microsoft's beef is they didn't think of it first. Perhaps their store should be called 'Malware' because as any fool knows, microsoft = malware.
For clarification, this is more a question than an assertion. I don't recollect ever hearing the term "App Store" or even "App" prior to Apple's use of them with the iPhone. There were Applets and Applications, and MS seems to like the term "Programs". It seems to me that the terms "Apps" and "App Store" really only appeared (and came into common use) with the iPhone.
If this is the case, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that Apple should have some rights with respect to these terms. No doubt MS and others desperately want a piece of the "App" and "App Store" action, but I recall a time when they were all laughing at Apple's attempts (Hi Steve Balmer). I'm not impressed that they now claim these same ideas should be considered commonplace.
But if the terms "App" and "App Store" were already in use, and Apple merely popularised them, it would be ludicrous for Apple to make claims on them. Can anyone pinpoint prior examples?
"App store" was an Apple coinage, but it was coined in a generic way.
As others have already stated, "app" and "store" were both generic terms. More importantly, the pattern <something> store is a very common generic pattern.
MS's main argument is that showing a generic word into a generic pattern gives a generic result.
Imagine someone invented a hoverboard (like in Back to the Future 2). What term would you use to describe a place that sells them? "hoverboard store" (US) or "hoverboard shop" (UK). You wouldn't expect the first place that sells hoverboards to get that as a trademark, would you?
That merely leads to goldrushes, not genuine innovation or creativity.
'App' was in common usage way before 'Web' or 'Internet' were. Finding an old reference online could be a bit tricky, but here's an article from 1990.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=rFAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT91&lpg=PT91&dq=%22killer+app%22+dos&source=bl&ots=95hxw4m418&sig=7YCEbS1PmHS0cj41ZEOZx6OR9po&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22killer%20app%22%20dos&f=false
Theres software called:
Lotus
Excell
Opera
Snow Leopard
Pidgin
etc etc etc
All these are generic words but they are trademarks because they are completely out of context of the original word. A trademark covers you for your domain only. You can't make a webbrowser called Opera or an OS called Windows but you can write an Opera called The Opera.
App Store in its original context is a store where you buy applications (any applications for any platform). It is not innovative at all. Just like Microsoft couldn't have called Windows "Operating System" and prevented reuse of the phrase.
they don't manufacture glass panes and frames. They are in a different industry where Windows is unique, if they had called it "Operating System" and tried to prevent everyone else from using that then I'm sure Apple would complain about having to call their OS "Apple Hardware Management and Software Platform X" or something.
but if a word/phrase enters common parlance doesn't it become impossible to TM it?
IIRC Google were getting nervous about the fact people used the word 'Google' as a synonym for Search, even if they were using different search engines.
So if the press are calling everything an 'App Store', could this qualify?
FWIW I'm sure I heard people talking about 'Killer Apps' long before the iPhone and it's bretheren appeared.
Could you trademark 'Binary Boutique' do you think? I like the ring it has to it!
well actually, thats why a lot of this trademark stuff goes on, because Hoover DID lose a lot of rights by not protecting its name (or maybe not protecting it well enough) when people used to use the term generically, .. It's now a 'generic trademark' ( according to wiki)
others are aspirin , heroin and lino ( however that's spelt).
And as for '.exe' shop, I'm guessing this is from the 'nothing was invented before steve' school of thought, application is the generic term and predates things like .com or .exe or .app or .bat or (etc). You would typically have system software and application software.
I may be harping on a bit but it bugs me that they can call anything that sells you a clone of something they ultimately get to keep a store. A traditional store has overheads to deal with - stock control, managing supply and demand, dealing with staff. You buy something and they have to do something about the resulting empty shelf space. Somehow the metaphor seems to break down in this context.
agreed - goddamn Americans! Normally the American terminology of "store" for a shop is good because really all most shops are doing is storing goods made by others. However, in this online software reselling sense the British "shop" definitely makes much more sense!
Indeed, people have most certainly been referring to these online app stores as "app stores" (indeed, I just did it there - what other term is there?)
It did occur to me that "App Store" should be untrademarkable, as it's a pre-existing generic term to describe what it is. Generic words can be used as trademarks, but only if they're not describing the same kind of thing you're selling.
So a company called "Apple" selling computers is one thing. A company that sells apples calling themselves "The Apple Shop" - even if the existing Apple never existed - is another matter.
It's like opening a supermarket and calling it "The Supermarket". No, you don't get a trademark. Or at least, I hope not.
Additionally, even if there was an argument that the trademark was once valid, this should no longer be the case due to the term now being generic.
(Microsoft previous encountered this problem themselves when it came to the Windows vs Lindows case, and the judge ruled against MS. The problem wasn't "window" meaning a piece of glass in a wall - the problem was that "window" was already a term used in computing used to refer to the GUI item.)
The full list that Apple claims ownership is at http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html .
Another one that stands out is "Multi-Touch" - Apple claim to own that?
Someone unimportant should release a load of products using common words prefixed with "i", and then what when Apple try to use someone else's trademark :) (Or wait, are they going to claim they trademarked the process of putting "i" in front of words?)
And those people comparing to Windows are missing the point - as I say in my other comment, the court *did* rule against MS. If someone challenged them, it's quite possible that they would lose that trademark. Yes, maybe MS are being two-faced, but in terms of what trademarks should be, it's entirely consistent here. App Store shouldn't be trademarkable - saying "But Windows is generic too" is no argument, as that shouldn't be trademarkable either.
"Isn't this like saying that they should take away Hoover's trademark as almost everyone (in the UK at least) uses the expression "hoover" to mean vacuum cleaner?"
Yes, it is like that. Companies lose rights over the trademarks if they become generic ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm ).
However, "app store" did not simply become generic - both "app" and "store" were also pre-existing terms that described their product, and the pattern of "X store" to describe something is also generic. (Just because the media didn't give hype and free advertising to them before Apple came along, doesn't change anything.) This is different to "Hoover", which was AFAIK entirely made up by them originally.
Here in the UK, "shop" seems a bit more common than "store". Now there's a thought - can I trademark "App Shop"?
After MS has delisted more Apple Tosh maybe it should turn it's lawyers loose on those two orchard farmers words apple and the cultivar with red and green skin, a tart flavour, and tender white flesh called McIntosh Red (or McIntosh, popularly 'the Mac').
This strain of apples was discovered in 1811 by John McIntosh on his farm in Dundela, a hamlet near Morrisburg, in Dundas County, Ontario, Canada.
Definitely not Californian or 20th Century. There Jobs goes plagiarising yet again.
I've got a Mcculloch Pro Mac Chainsaw which massively pre-dates the Mac Pro computer, a stupid person might read too quickly and get them confused.
Imagine suing Apple because you got confused and invalidated the warranty by trying to fell a tree with your laptop!!!!
Well I thought it was amusing
How about google apps, launched before the iphone existed? And they wern't the first either.
Maybe if YOU haven't heard of a common IT term before Apple then you are not the best person to judge on IT related trademarks.
Also the generic term for what windows is was a 'window manager' not a 'windows'. And microsoft have not stopped makers of other OSs describing a window in their OS as a window. So it is not a similar case at all.
I suggest all the Apple fanboys crawl back under the rocks that they came out from.
There are quite a few comments regarding never having heard of the term "App" before Apple popularised it. I presume they are from people new to the industry - last decade or so, maybe?
Having started in IT in the mid-1980's I can categorically state that, especially in the early days, "App" was in very regular usage. Not as popular as "software" but more so than "program" as that way we could avoid the inevitable arguments over the spellings back then (program/programme, disk/disc etc).
"Having started in IT in the mid-1980's I can categorically state that, especially in the early days, "App" was in very regular usage. "
I think they were called programmes back then. Yes, with, that BBC spelling too. That's why they were called programmers and not Applicators or Application Consultants.
I started in IT in the late 1980s.
My first job was as an apps developer in the Application Development department.
Of course, back then, an application was usually a suite of programmes all packaged together to create a large functional area (such as our customer management system) , whereas these days they tend to be small monolithic programmes for catapulting birds etc.
Just because YOU didn't hear the term back then doesn't mean it wasn't in use.
Officially there's no such thing as "X Windows". It can legally be called "X" or "The X Windowing System"... MS threatened them...
Other people can talk about interfaces that use "windows", but can't use "Windows" as part of their system title (even though at the time X was lauched "Windows" wasn't the household name it is today - DOS was still king, and MS Windows was hardly out of beta).
"App Store" is common parlance now, but three years ago the term was new, and popularised by Apple.
Should other people be allowed to have an "app store"? Yes.
Should they be able to describe it as an "app store"? Yes
Should they be allowed to call it their "App Store"? No.
When I was first messing with VOIP a few years back I got a USB handset called "i phone" long before an Apple device appeared with a confusingly similar name - although I note apple don't have a space between i and phone and they capitalise Phone.
(Mine is labelled "i phone" on the front and "i Phone" on the back).
Does that invalidate any Apple claim to the name on the basis of "prior art"?
Btw the "i phone" didn't work very well, anyone want it?
So much talk about 'app'. Yes the word predates the iPhone. Get over it. And as others have pointed out, NeXT/OpenStep/OSX executables have the .app suffix, rather than .exe. which is not insignificant. (I often imagine that .exe is short for "execrable"). Also the Mac has always had an 'Applications' folder, whereas Windows has always had 'Program Files'.
OK, that's that but AFAIK there was no in-device software 'store' before the app store.
Best you could do before iPhone apps was go to one of those woeful and scary looking handheld-software review sites, with some kind of e-commerce thing bolted on. They always had the impression of being run by eastern european gangsters and riddled with malware, and often seemed to offer endless opportunities of carrying you into some kind of link-farm labyrinth.
Making a piece of software which strictly controls the process of buying and installing software which runs on the very device where the software will eventually run, and calling it a 'store' is something innovative.
Granted it's not like discovering gravity, or inventing free market capitalism, but it *is* an innovation. IMNSHO this gives Apple good reason for laughing Microsoft's petty dispute out of court.
As for 'Windows', it's a name which has always made me nauseous because it implies that other OSen don't have windows, or that Microsoft invented the concept, whereas Windows was very much the catch-up windowing GUI tech in the mid 1980s. Rather hilariously, the 'windows' in Windows version 1 could not overlap and could not be dragged around the screen. Nobody these days would recognise such a GUI element as a 'window' today.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
