Amazon Responds To "App Store" Lawsuit From Apple 414
tekgoblin writes "Apple had filed a lawsuit in March against Amazon's use of 'App Store' in their newly launched Amazon AppStore. Apple had informed Amazon that using the term 'App Store' was unlawful because they owned the rights to the term itself. In their response Amazon indicates that the term 'App Store' is too generic for Apple to lay claim to the name itself."
Dear God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. After the "1 click" patent, I'm not sure I want Amazon to win this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably the action will be on the question of whether "App" is a protectable term. I think that nobody would bother arguing that "Application Store" is trademarkable. It's clearly too generic. "App Store" may be less clear, though. Certainly Apple has done a lot to popularize the term but, at the end of the day, "App" really is just an abbreviation of "Application" that was already in pretty wide circulation before Apple starting using it.
So at the end of the day, don't worry, I think you will probably g
Re:Dear God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly. I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store". :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store". :-)
Your joke is not as funny as you believe. Amazon was sued in the mid-90s for calling itself "the world's largest bookstore". Barnes&Noble claimed that it isn't a store, therefore should not use that term, and the idiotic courts agreed, forcing amazon to drop the label. (In my opinion, a place where you store books, food, widgets, et cetera can call itself "a store".)
Re: (Score:3)
The term application might have been used quite a bit but I think historically Mac OS X is the OS that used it in it's implementation.
On Unix and variants software has been mostly referred to has executables (in the chmod +x sense) or binaries (stored in */bin directories).
On Windows software was referred has executables (.exe files) or programs (stored in C:\Program Files).
H
In this case Apple's position is sane (Score:3, Funny)
Realism time - at first App Store seems generic. But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?
That's the key thing. The slang if you will, is something Apple developed. Like Kleenex or Windows it sounds generic, but that's because it's so widely used now that you think of it as generic when the term really originated with Apple.
So I don't think it's that silly a suit at all, though I don't care who wins it. I just think there's more of a po
Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Appz? (Score:4, Informative)
In case you didn't notice, Appz is rather unlike App. Also that domain is based around the concept of "Warez", more than a shortened form of Application.
In any case the idea and name AppStore [salesforce.com] was around before Apple's App Store and was also a place to buy Applications from.
Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (Score:4, Interesting)
The term app was used as an abbreviation for application long before Apple added it to the iPhone. Google Apps existed before the iPhone. Slashdot had discussions about Apps [google.com].
The term "app" seems generic because it's generic, not because it's popular. Windows does not sound generic to me when talking about Operating Systems. Kleenex does, I grant, because "facial tissue" is not a term I ever learned; but this isn't like Kleenex at all. Nobody is claiming that the term "clean" comes from Kleenex. It's more like somebody today trying to defend a trademark on the term "boxing gloves" because before 2011 nobody used the term "boxing" for anything but packing and unpacking. It's just not true.
Also, do people seriously use "app" for "appetizers"? Or is there some other reason you would use app in a restaurant?
Great points (Score:3)
I had totally forgotten about "Killer App", which is obviously the use everyone would recognize instantly... but I had not been aware of really any other app uses, which your google search illustrated quite well. So I'm totally wrong on that point.
I guess Apple's case then rests wholly on the combination of "App" and "Store" then, which still may get them somewhere...
Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (Score:5, Interesting)
You are barking up the wrong tree. You are correct that Apple did not invent the term "App", but that has no bearing on the validity of the trademark.
"Open Happiness" is trademarked by Coca-Cola. Certainly no one claims that either word was invented by the company. PespiCo would be legally liable for using that phrase in an ad-campaign, however, a company in a different market (Dell for example) could probably use "Open Happiness" for computer sales without issue.
Are you familiar with "The Container Store". It's a store where you buy, wait for it, containers!! And yes, "The Container Store" is trademarked. No other company selling containers can use that name. Similarly, Apple was granted a trademark for "App Store". Just because App Stores have more competition than Container Stores at the moment does not make the trademark any less valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um. The people I know have been using the term for at least two decades.
But I don't think I've ever heard the term in a restaurant. Unless we were talking about computers.
I guess it depends on where you live and the people you hang out with. Slang is not universal.
Re: (Score:3)
But when, before the Apple "App Store" launched, did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?
Yes. Ask any software programmer who programmed Applications for a living.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know this isn't going to be popular, but as long as the laws are on the books that allow companies to tm English phrases, then they have the right to do so, as dumb as you or I might think that is.
Besides, I don't think App Store together had any meaning before Apple, much like "Band Aid" had no particular meaning before becoming the de facto standard term for a bandage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that sense, the bandaid example wouldn't stand up either though as it is a bandage for first aid. (Band)(Aid). It is perhaps a half step removed from app store true, but it is pretty close. That said, I agree that App Store should not be trade markable, but I'm not sure that it isn't legally trade markable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For the love of sanity, please let Amazon win this one. I don't know if I want to live in a country where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.
Do you mean a proper name line say "Amazon" or a generic name like "apple"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... where justice is so blind that it allows trademarking the name of the category a thing belongs to as the proper name of that thing.
Oh, no! Did Apple register trademarks for Package Manager and Software Repository ?! Those bastards! It's too bad Amazon (and Microsoft) can't possibly think up something new or different now, like, say, App Market, or Application Cafe, or the Amazon Repo, or Software Grocery. OR ANYTHING AT ALL. Amazon could call it the Shoe Store, and it wouldn't matter, we'd all know what it really was. How did Cydia come up with it's own name? HOW??!
Re:Dear God... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like things like "Windows" right?
Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".
Re: (Score:2)
How do you like SQL Server?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any reason to weep. I doubt if they will be able to successfully sue something called "Amazon SQL Server", although Amazon would probably call it Amazon Database Server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, I think your decision to avoid the term "SQL server" in your regular usage is probably a colloquialism. I know I personally have spoken of S
Re: (Score:2)
Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself. If MS trademarked "Operating System" and then sued Red Hat for calling their OS "Red Hat Operating System", then it would a similar comparison. i.e Windows is not a generic term for the product itself, unlike "app store".
That aside, MS was going to lose their case against Lindows. Had to settle out of court and pay Lindows to drop the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not confusing at all. Windows is the name of one OS. Linux is the name of another OS. If you know enough to be using Linux and know that it runs X as its windowing system, you already have enough sophistication that you wouldn't confuse the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Confusing has nothing to do with it. Now you bring it up please note how Microsoft has not sued anyone over the X Window System name.
Re: (Score:2)
While 'Container Store' was trademarked, I doubt they'd be able successfully sue 'Amazon Container Store' for trademark infringement.
Re:Container Store? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am against a sloppy application of the law.
The fact that a certain sort of nonsense was tolerated before really doesn't matter.
This isn't about being "against trademarks". Thats just stupid bad rhetoric.
This is about being against trademarks that fail the basic rules for being an enforceable trademark.
Being against this sort of nonsense is like advocating that the speed limit be enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
"App" and "Store" together created new meaning no more than "Auto" and "Shop" together did. Should the first guy to call his shop "Auto Shop" instead of "Bill's" or "Bill's Automobile Sales and Service" have gotten a trademark on it? No, of course not. That is why nobody was dumb enough to try.
Re:Dear God... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."
Re: (Score:2)
Really, because there operating systems that used windows as a major component of its interface before MS made its OS called Windows.
I know it took my mother several years to understand the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
No, "Windows," as applied to computing, is not generic at all. "App" can only be applied to computing, and in that context, it is quite generic. A better example would be if Microsoft had named Windows, "Operating System."
You are attempting to replace the true generic term for a specific term. In this instance, the generic term for "app" is software, and the generic for "App Store" has always been and can only be software repository . Had Apple attempted to trademark "software repository" then Amazon would have a case. But what Apple did was coin a term never used before and then market it massively. Other companies should not get to benefit for free from the work Apple has done to create this branded market identity.
Re: (Score:2)
So I decided to check on that. Turns out you are right, on the first page of results is commonapp.org, a common application for over 400 colleges and universities. Also on the first page, The Association of Professional Piercers, the Asbury Park Press, and APP pharmaceuticals. But most of the results were for application type apps, of course. Still, I wouldn't say "app" is like "windows."
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, that IS twitter. He's back! Oh, how I missed that entertainment.
For the record though - the reboot is actually because of the only thing in the world with such unparalleled shittyness that nothing could possibly beat it: Adobe.
Personally, I kind of like Win7, though I still kind of dislike Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you, your explanation leaves open the possibility of me creating an app store and calling it "Apps" (tm) and successfully defending that trademark. And while I think that a store called "Apps" is more unique than one called "App Store", I still don't think it should be a trademark-able name; but that's just my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before MS had an operating system that used windows called Windows, there was Mac OS, which also had "windows". I think windows is pretty generic.
Re: (Score:2)
Before MS had an operating system called Windows no-one ever said 'I am going to buy a copy of Windows', or 'How do I install Windows', or 'Windows crashed'. The term 'Windows' was never used to refer to an operating system until MS named theirs. The term is not generic when referring to an OS. People may have said 'How do I close a window', etc but that was always in reference to either a physical window, or the UI element called a window, never an OS.
Re: (Score:2)
And you can still have a store that sells applications, you just cant call it the App Store.
Other names (Score:2, Insightful)
App shop, App mart, App mall, App stand, Apptorium, Appmania, App warehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Apps'R'Us
Re: (Score:2)
That one would probably get you sued. I believe "Toys 'R' Us" claims *ALL* forms of 'R' Us and has sued over this before.
Re: (Score:2)
That one would probably get you sued. I believe "Toys 'R' Us" claims *ALL* forms of 'R' Us and has sued over this before.
WeBeApps?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a "Computers 'R' Us" opening up down the road from my office. I kid you not...
Re: (Score:2)
AppleAsEville?
Re: (Score:2)
... App warehouse.
I prefer App whorehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are too bland. I would have liked it more if it was called "Honest Bezos' App Bazaar" or something.
Research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, Amazon knew "App Store" was used by Apple and is trying to piggy back off its success. That's what makes Amazon wrong, not the fact that Apple is trying to trademark a phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, Apple knew that "App" was already a generic, commonly-used term and was trying to piggy back off its success.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that make them wrong? Apple is stupid for using a generic term for their product, then trying to trademark it. If Apple had called it something else, they could have trademarked it, and then marketed the hell out of it. Instead, they trademarked extremely common words and now they're potentially paying the price.
It was wrong for Amazon to get the 1-click patent, but I can't fault them for trying. But Amazon is still on the right side of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So because one store calls itself a grocery store, all other stores that sell groceries should come up with unique names to do the same thing? No, it's stupid.
No kidding (Score:2)
Part of trademarks is that they need to (or at least are supposed to) be unique to a degree. They are a non-generic mark that people can use to identify your brand. Well part of that obviously means you can't just use a generic term for what you are doing. You can't take an existing descriptive term and trademark it. Now that doesn't mean your trademark can't use a word that is descriptive of your field. Like you could trademark Brkello's Groceries and that would be fine. However you couldn't then go after
Re: (Score:2)
They did you dimwit. The point is App Store is too generic, so no one should own it.
This is what it takes to get a trademark canceled.
Screw amazon. (Score:3)
Yeah, the term "App store" is pretty generic, however, in the context of what Amazon's looking to do with the term, it's pretty blatant that they'd choose that name to sell mobile applications on branded equipment, particularly when Apple has stuck it's neck out in such a way that it may in fact cause some confusion for non-tech minded folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the way amazon's appstore is set up, it's clear that they hope to offer apps on other platforms in the future (naming assets includes abbreviations for android. If they planned to only ever do android, that would not be the case).
sell mobile applications
sell... applications... store for applications... store for apps... app store. How is that such a stretch for you?
Re: (Score:3)
Nontech person a: I got this great game on the App store! *waves iPhone around*
Nontech person b: my app store doesn't have it. Are you sure you got it off the app store? *waves around phone with Amazon appstore*
The next 30 minutes are spent trying to figure out what's wrong.
We're in a world where non-techies are using tech. Besides, it's pretty blatant that Amazon wants to ride Apple's coattails in terms of visibility and brand recognition. It's why Cola is a generic term but Coca Cola isn't. Or Coke.
App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that companies seem to think that they can cordon off words from the natural language wordspace and treat them as private "property"? The fact that their governments give them a piece of paper confirming ownership merely shifts the question, because governments don't have any inherent rights over the wordspace either.
The phrase that Apple might rightly consider theirs in the US market is "Apple App Store", but even that should not be treated as exclusive if Apple Records or Apple Corps or some other Apple ever wanted to open an app store.
When you adopt a generic term as part of the your product name, you have to live with the consequences of non-exclusivity.
Re: (Score:2)
They think that they are above the law. There are plenty of willing peasants to defend them.
You could have seen the same thing 500 years ago. Replace Steve Jobs with King Henry.
Re: (Score:2)
We give this right to the government to help commerce along. Honestly. It's good that Amazon can trademark "Amazon" and keep others from using it. They can spend years working on delivering great service, improving their offerings and so on, and not worry about somebody opening "Amazon Shopping" and ripping people off, destroying their good name. Imagine if you could open a "Pizza Hut" right next to an actual Pizza Hut, same colors and everything, but with even less concern for quality. As a consumer, how c
Did Steve Jobs make Amazon's case for them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks, Steve! We all app-reciate it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to a related article at The Register [theregister.co.uk], as recently as October of 2010, Steve Jobs himself publicly called Apple's app store "the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone." So it would appear that even Cupertino is using the phrase app store generically in reference to its competitors. I'd call this tidbit a crushing blow to Apple's case. Thanks, Steve! We all app-reciate it.
"Genericizing" a trademark after the fact doesn't invalidate it, unless the owner fails to enforce it. Since the trademark was applied for in 2008, what Steve said in 2010 is irrelevant, since Apple can do what it wants with its own trademark and is indeed trying to enforce it.
Amazon either wins or gets free publicity (Score:2)
Smart move by Amazon. I agree that the term 'App Store' is generic and should not be something Apple can trademark. But even if they lose, the "fight" will be covered by the press - who seems to have Apple fever. Rather then spend piles of money on advertising, just call it 'App Store' and let Apple's legal department get the ball rolling. The press will cover it and everyone will know there are "two app stores".
Pity all the other app stores. They will be fighting over third place. And most marketing
Re: (Score:3)
I think the "news" is that Amazon has responded with exactly what everyone had already predicted they'd respond with:
"App Store" is too generic.
Re:uhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon quotes Apple chief executive Steve Jobs in the filing referring to the iTunes App Store as "the easiest to use, largest app store in the world".
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/mac-inspector-blog/2046035/amazon-files-response-apples-app-store-suit [v3.co.uk]
Re:uhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
And the sad thing is that this comes from the company that patented the "genius" 1-click buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Just what flavor is the kool-aid?
Re: (Score:2)
Just what flavor is the kool-aid?
It's "windowpane" actually.
Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons (Score:4)
Apple should open an Apple store in Belem do Para (Brazil) which is a major city at the mouth of the Amazon. It would be the Apple Amazon store.
Re: (Score:2)
That made no sense. At all.
Re: (Score:3)
context
-noun
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
In the context of operating systems, Windows isn't generic. In the context of electronic devices Companies, Apple isn't generic.
In the context of app stores, "App Store" is generic.
Re:Just like Windows, apples and amazons (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows is not a generic term when applied to an OS, because the word "windows" does not denote "OS". It denotes a completely different thing. Therefore, using this name to name an OS makes it an enforceable trademark. Same logic applies to Amazon.
On the other hand, "App Store" is a generic term that describes an application store. Consequently, it cannot be trademarked as a name of an application store. In a similar vein, Microsoft cannot trademark "OS" as a name of its operating system, and Amazon cannot trademark "online store" as a name for its online store.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about a 2 day old court filing. You have a very strange definition of "really old".
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's response is new.
Re: (Score:2)
How many velociraptors did you have to swerve around on your way to work yesterday? If non-zero AND you don't have a hallucination problem, then I suppose this news is a bit old. Otherwise, no, it's a current event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... I did have to swerve around a box with a few velociraptors [wdc.com]. Does that count?
Yes because Western Digital drives are extremely dangerous and prone to killing off anything that touches their platers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine a company selling apples trademarking the term 'apple' and then suing other companies for calling their products apples. That is similar to what is happening here, not using Apple to sell music or computers.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure they don't sell Apples. Trademarking your recording company Apple is fine. Trademarking your computer company Apple is fine. Trademarking your stand that sells fruit "Apple Store" and hence not letting anyone else who sells apples call them self an "Apple Store" isn't (well ok, shouldn't be, who knows what the courts will decide...)
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, Apple has trademarked "Apple Store".
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Apple did not create the term App, it has been used for decades to refer to pieces of software.
Re:Android is the real target (Score:4, Insightful)
through the use and abuse of stupid patents.
You do realize that this is about Trademarks and not Patents, right?
Yep (Score:3)
I posted something about this general sort of stuff earlier (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2089310&cid=35863126) and I think this is more of the same. Apple is worried. Their massive growth has all been as a consumer electronics company. Their original product, the iPod, has really leveled off. Don't get me wrong, they still make money on it but the market is pretty saturated. Their new growth has been iToys.
Well Android presents a real threat to that. When it first came out I wouldn't have said s