Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Sues Amazon.com Over App Store Trademark

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-amazon-has-more-than-one-button dept.

Software 285

tekgoblin writes "Apple is suing Amazon.com over the use of Apple's trademarked App Store name in their mobile software developer program. Apple filed the suit back on March 18th, which detailed the trademark infringement and unfair competition which Apple felt was happening. Apple's statement in the suit reads: 'Amazon has begun improperly using Apple's App Store mark in connection with Amazon's mobile software developer program.' Apple also said, 'We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers.'"

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

you know what confuses me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567766)

Vaginas. Why do they smell so bad yet feel so good?

Re:you know what confuses me? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567840)

Frankly, I'm surprised you can recall your birth experience so vividly.

Re:you know what confuses me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567974)

Don't forget anuses. And I am not limiting the conversation to human anuses, either.

Re:you know what confuses me? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568016)

Barney Frank, is that you? Thanks for causing the housing market crash, you jackass.

Re:you know what confuses me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568074)

Well done, sir, well done. The beer and mucus that squirted from my nose will take hours to remove from my keyboard.

Bring it on. (5, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567782)

hey Amazon, want to reconsider that one-click patent?

Re:Bring it on. (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567826)

Exactly. Not that I'm in Apple's corner on this whole "App Store is so unique we need to prevent users from getting confused because they can't buy stuff for their iOS devices that will work from the wrong stores anyway, but that doesn't really mater ..."

Re:Bring it on. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568226)

The average apple customer is an idiot, and wouldn't know better. The fact that they spend $2000 on $800 "PC" hardware proved that ages ago.

"app store" is generic though. I have used the word "app" or "apps" for more than a decade to refer to computer software. It's like trademarking "supermarket" as a type of grocery store.

Re:Bring it on. (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568298)

Supermarkets and grocers are different.

Re:Bring it on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568114)

Great! More lawyer expenses which adds to the prices of these idiot companies products so less people buy them!

Re:Bring it on. (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568174)

Trademark != patent.

Appholes (5, Insightful)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567788)

Seriously, they added "store" to a word we've been using in the industry for decades. Surely there's no merit in this...

Re:Appholes (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567814)

Maybe they're going to claim 'apps' is short for apples or some crap like that.

Re:Appholes (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568018)

Yeah, like apples are something new that they invented.

Apple, the fruity computer.

Re:Appholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568234)

It will start with laying claim to "apps" as well as "apple", - but very soon they will own the letter "A".

Re:Appholes (-1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567844)

Seriously, they added "store" to a word we've been using in the industry for decades. Surely there's no merit in this...

Ah, I can see you're already quite knowledgeable about what trademarks are! Let's talk about how they work next, since that's an entirely different matter.

Re:Appholes (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568106)

"Let's talk about how they work next, since that's an entirely different matter."

One you're apparently not aware of, since you're very obviously not a business owner that has had to enforce trademark and copyright in court, like myself.

Re:Appholes (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568186)

I'm quite aware of them, their worth, and how they work. I wouldn't get rid of them or suggest they're as broken as patents or the like. Can't a guy just make a snarky comment for fun sometimes though? ;)

Re:Appholes (1)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568300)

And do you need to be at the gym in 26 minutes?

Re:Appholes (0)

mewshi_nya (1394329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567888)

Obviously, my department at work should sue Apple for using "Apple Store" -- we sell apples (among other things) so we could be considered an apple store, as well.

The thing here is that this is not a unique phrase. App has been around for decades, as you pointed out. By this logic, I can sue the local bakery if I open a place called "Bread Store" or something, right?

Re:Appholes (3, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568204)

Trademarks have the concept of a domain in which they are valid. People tend not to mix up produce with personal electronics very often, so you'd have a tough sell at court for your Apple Store idea, especially so since they'd have a tough time registering a trademark in the electronics domain since Apple Inc. would already have a claim there. That said, two different stores, each selling programs for mobile devices, could easily be mistaken if they share the same name.

Re:Appholes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568042)

Only problem is NeXT ( and Apple ) were the first company to call their binaries "Apps" officially.
Previously we called them "exe"s and "binaries" and "programs"... and the Mac called themmm...... Applications!
Prior to this, "applications" were not considered things in themselves, but a description of what you used the program for.

And then some years later, NeXt called their binaries .app and referred to them as "Apps" .

Sure it's a natural abbreviation ... but no one really called it that before Apple/NeXT.

( And even if you don't buy this argument, if you don't think tacking a random word onto the end or beginning of another word makes for a defendable trademark, you need to talk to "CDbaby", "e-bay", "Facebook", or "Word", "powerpoint"... you get the picture.

Re:Appholes (3, Informative)

dwywit (1109409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568108)

Actually, "application" has been used for some time to differentiate user-type software, from operating system-type software - I heard it used in that context back in the eighties, when I first started messing around with an AS/400.

Re:Appholes (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568288)

The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.

Rediculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567800)

Apps has been known as a shortened version of applications for many years.
This would be no different to suing a company for using the name "phone store".

Re:Rediculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567940)

Apps has been known as a shortened version of applications for many years.

Proof so some iTard doesn't claim Apple invented it.

(Google)
site:slashdot.org daterange:1997-2000 +app | +apps [google.com]

About 320 results

Re:Rediculous (4, Insightful)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568222)

This is not about the word app -- it's about the phrase App Store (or appstore, or any permutation involving spaces between the two words and capitalization).

Modifying your own query, we get zero results for "app store" [google.com] in the given date range, but 18,000+ [google.com] results if we're not date-restricted.

This is not the first time a company has trademarked or otherwise branded a simple phrase. What if Budweiser used, "Good to the last drop" as their motto (it's Maxwell House's motto)?

Personally, I do think Apple's being pretty juvenile, but they were the first ones to use the phrase App Store with real success.

App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOTS!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567810)

Stick to giving eachother AIDS, fags.

Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT (0)

patch5 (1990504) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567876)

Friends don't let friends drink and Slashdot.

Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT (4, Funny)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567980)

Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.

Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568076)

Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.

Oh, well played!

Oh dear (0)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567816)

'We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers.'

Translation:

'We feel that our customers are too fucking stupid to realize that an "App Store" run under the Amazon banner and site has nothing to do with Apple, and that our customers are not smart enough to understand the difference in context.'

Of course Apple might have a point (it's not like computers are well understood by a lot of people even today), but it doesn't particularly bode well for what Apple things of the intellect of its users.

Re:Oh dear (5, Insightful)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567890)

Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced. Apple may very well think suing Amazon over this is as stupid as everyone else, but the law says they have to do it anyway, else lose their rights to the trademark altogether.

Re:Oh dear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568080)

Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced. Apple may very well think suing Amazon over this is as stupid as everyone else, but the law says they have to do it anyway, else lose their rights to the trademark altogether.

ummmm...no...then everyone else with store in their has to sue. are you an apple user? apple is just assholes

Re:Oh dear (1)

WitnessForTheOffense (1669778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568130)

They should lose their trademark altogether. That's the point. It's already too generic.

Re:Oh dear (1, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568144)

'Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced."

Too bad Apple is SEVERAL years late to the game.

http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2006/12/061212-1.jsp [salesforce.com]

Trademark made INVALID as it has existed in that particular ecosystem well before Apple filed.

Hey, Jobs, tell your lawyers to back off before I fuck up yet a FOURTH lawsuit for you in my amicus.

Re:Oh dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568248)

If they think it's stupid, could they just get a pittance license fee from amazon? They don't have to worry about dilution and Amazon doesn't have to pay the cost of a lawsuit? Or is there still problematic even if use of the trademark is under license?

Re:Oh dear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568254)

Which begs the question, should Apple in fact been granted the rights to that particular trademark?

Two different market spaces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567822)

How can there be customer confusion? Does Amazon sell apps for the iPhone? Does Apple sell apps for any phone other than the iPhone? Seems to me that they are operating in two different market spaces.

generic; prior usage (3, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567834)

The term "application shop" [google.co.uk] was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995 [google.com] .

You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world [chinadaily.com.cn] . Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.

What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive [ezinearticles.com] as far as UK registration eligibility goes.

Re:generic; prior usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567860)

Maybe Amzon can just re-name it the 'Apple Store'

Re:generic; prior usage (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567992)

With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)

Re:generic; prior usage (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568066)

Correction: Microsoft Windows[TM].

There is a subtle distinction, can you spot it?

Too bad Apple didn't trademark "Apple App Store"...

Re:generic; prior usage (0)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568256)

Oh, well then surely I can just go any make my own operating system and call it Mike's Windows(tm), eh? Shouldn't have any trouble with that!

Re:generic; prior usage (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568068)

Surely you mean Microsoft Windows (tm).

Re:generic; prior usage (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568084)

I thought the trademark was "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows"

Re:generic; prior usage (2)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568184)

In the UK, they have "Windows", as ridiculous as that is. Hence the wxWindows rename to wxWidgets.

Re:generic; prior usage (4, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568270)

With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)

Well given that the App Store is an app store and Windows is an Operating System (not a windows), i don't see an issue.

Re:generic; prior usage (4, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568026)

Just because someone once used a similar phrase in the past it doesn't mean it can't be trademarked today. We're not talking about patents. Acorn certainly isn't using it anymore, and there would be little confusion between an iPad and an Acorn OS machine. Besides, to my knowledge Acorn never actually used "App Store". As for Symbian, I'm sure they're safe from Apple's lawyers with their "application shop"-- in fact they can probably trademark that one themselves.

Apple has historically used "Application" as its descriptive term for this stuff. MacOS's place to put programs is called the "Applications" folder, while Windows used "Program Files". When the iPhone came around, they just shortened it to App, and the phrase became immediately descriptive for what it was-- a tiny application that ran on an embedded device. So an App is a little Application. And a store is where you buy them. But *the* "App Store" is Apple's place to sell iOS apps, and no one else was using that particular phraseology that I know of before them.

If anything, Apple's biggest challenge is going to be to prove that they themselves didn't ever use it generically, since they were brought rather reluctantly into the proprietary app business when developers refused to use HTML as the way to make iPhone software.

Re:generic; prior usage (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568218)

Go work for the defense. You probably could get a decent pay check for it.

App is generic (1, Redundant)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567842)

Apple's stance has little ground. "App" is not specific to a brand, it's not specific to an operating system, it's not specific to a class of hardware. "App" is short for application, that's all. Any computer program is an app. It's a completely generic term.

Re:App is generic (4, Insightful)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567906)

Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.

Re:App is generic (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567950)

You can call your operating System

"Apple" which is a fruit
"Macintosh" which is a surname
OS which is short for "Operating System"
X which is means "10" or is a letter
"Snow leopard" which is an animal.

If you wanted to. But then you can't sue the local greengrocer can you? Linux refers to 'windows' all the times. Its allowed as its clearly not talking about the OS.

Re:App is generic (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567998)

But then you can't sue the local greengrocer can you?

Why not? You can sue anyone for anything for any reason. But yes, you will lose because trademark law is also quite explicit about those cases.

Re:App is generic (3, Informative)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567952)

Windows is a generic term in certain uses. You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'. You cannot call your OS Windows. That's not the same. You're comparing Apples and Oranges (pardon my pun).

Re:App is generic (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568072)

You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'.

You can, but you'd be wrong. The X Window system is not a window, it is a window manager.

Re:App is generic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567954)

Windows when used to refer to an operating system is not generic. When someone says "Windows" when referring to an OS, you know what they mean. No one calls Linux or OS X a "Windows."

Re:App is generic (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568014)

Exactly. And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple. It doesn't matter if your Android phone has an app that provides a storefront for downloading software.

Re:App is generic (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568086)

Exactly. And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple.

Er no. I don't know that, and I would be willing to testify in court.

Re:App is generic (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568182)

No. If someone said "app store", I'd simply assume it's an online software store. I wouldn't assume it is Apple's app store unless it was specified, or if the context made me realize so.

Re:App is generic (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567972)

Microsoft settled in Microsoft vs. Lindows because they were quite worried that Windows would be ruled a generic termthat wasn't trademarkable. IIRC the Judge they appeared before raised serious questions about the term, and so they paid millions for the Lindows name and settled.

Re:App is generic (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568064)

Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.

You really aren't able to tell the difference between an operating system and the windows in your house? or an operating system and a window manager concept of a window? Next you'll be trying to a Mac from your green grocer.

Re:App is generic (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568180)

I buy Macs from my greengrocer all the time.

Mac [wikipedia.org]

Re:App is generic (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568238)

Oh no! Now you're going to have Apple's tech support line flooded with calls wondering why their Mac [wikipedia.org] isn't starting up ;)

Re:App is generic (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568156)

"Windows is a generic term too"

MICROSOFT Windows is not. Can you spot the difference, like any other 5 year old?

Re:App is generic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568200)

The first version of the Microsoft Windows GUI began development in 1981 as "Interface Manager" and was official retitled to "Windows" in November 1983. Before the release of the the Apple Macintosh (1984), but after the release of Apple's LISA computer (January 1983). And also much later than the inspiration of all GUI environments, the Xerox Alto (1973).

TLDR; Microsoft called it Windows before their was a "Macintosh", and before Linux existed. Your house is not likely to be confused with an Operating System.

Re:App is generic (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568202)

Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Microsoft has been denied trademark on "Windows" time and time again.

Re:App is generic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568228)

I think the MS trademark is "Microsoft Windows". Other software exists that uses the "windows" term but is not "Microsoft Windows", for instance X-Windows. "Microsoft Windows" is not generic.

Re:App is generic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568246)

Anyone wants to visit my Prog Store?

If you don't want your trademark used ... (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567846)

Then don't name it something obvious and generic. App Store is a short name for "Application Store" which is the very definition of the service they provide. They essentially named it The "App Store" Application Store. It's like naming something the "Oil Comp" Oil Company, or the "Soft. development" Software development company. They are using a generic term, so fuck them. Be more creative and stop trying to ban language.

Google did the same shit, they named theirs "Market". I mean, come on!. What is it? A Market. Who owns it? Google. What is it called? Google Market TM. FUCK THAT. Call it SuckingCocksthroughagardenhose TM or Bazinga TM and then we'll all support you when someone tries to infringe on your trademark. Actually, if you call it something original, no reasonable company will try to infringe on your trademark.

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567878)

This.

I mean really, if Apple were concerned about this they could have named theirs the "Apple iApp iStore for iPhones where iPaid" or some such crap. As it is, a reasonable person would tell them to get lost. Its too bad that case law and trademark law don't necessarily need to conform to any reasonable person's expectation though. It would sure be nice if there were some way to have a trustworthy "reasonable person" test that stands between suites like this and the court. If it doesn't pass, there is no suit. However, that idea fails as how could we be sure that person wasn't biased?

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (2, Interesting)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567946)

Actually, "app" is the file extension NeXT chose for application bundles. Since OS X and iOS are NeXTStep derrived, they too use the app extension. When you visit the App Store, you really are buying "app"s. Microsoft opening an EXE Store would be a better example of another company doing something similar.

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568088)

This justification does not work, as iOS devices use the extension ipa for their bundles.

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568148)

The .ipa is just a zip file. Uncompress it and you'll find your .app inside. Try it!

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568166)

Nice try dumbass, but you're actually buying .ipa (iPhone application) files on the App Store. The '.app' is an embedded technicality (like the .text section).

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (2)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568192)

The .ipa is just a compressed distribution package (it is a zip file). The .app file is contained within. I guess you could argue that OS X doesn't use .app either because software is typically distributed via .dmg or .pkg files, but I'm not sure what is to be gained.

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567948)

You mean like by naming your oil company "British Petroleum" or naming your software company "Microcomputer Software"?

AC because I can't be bothered logging in.

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568170)

Can't perform the few keystrokes it takes to log in versus the far more numerous keystrokes it took to type that statement?

Pretty damned sad.

Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (3, Interesting)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568000)

I was always under the impression it was called the iTunes App Store. Although I realize my opinion has no weight in the larger scheme of things, I'd see a problem if Amazon called it the aTunes App Store or something...but App Store in the American vocabulary does not mean iTunes App Store. My mom calls the Android Market the app store. I don't see anyone getting confused, as most people call any application distribution platform an app store.

And by the way, Google's app store is called the Android Market, which is very specific, and leaves no confusion about what it is. Amazon can open a 'market' or an 'amazon market' but they can't open an Android Market.

Want to Sue Your Competitor? (5, Funny)

Mirrim (1560587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567854)

There's an App for that!

Re:Want to Sue Your Competitor? (3, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568206)

Actually, there isn't, because it competes with Apple's offerings.

Trademarking a general term is stupid! (1)

JayRott (1524587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567862)

I'm going to go trademark "grocery store" now. Piss off, Apple!

Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567936)

This was the exact point I was just about to make. Every IGA store across the country should be suing Kroger, WalMart, Food City, Publix, etc. for calling themselves grocery stores if this suit goes through. Whoever was the first gas station chain should be able to sue any other gas station with those very words in their names. Roadrunner Market should probably sue Google too. I got so confused when I signed in to the Google Market and couldn't buy Doritos and a Grandaddy Sandwich. And while we're at it, my grandfather should sue Roadrunner Markets. I got confused when I asked my sandwich for sagely advice and only found lettuce.

Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567944)

How about Groc Store?

could be a place to sell complex code???

Re:Trademarking a general term is stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567990)

Is it a general term if almost no one used it before Apple? The only time I'd heard the term "app" before the App Store was a shorthand for appetizers in the movie "Beautiful Girls" -- and even then, it was a joke that the guy saying it was showing off with the jargon he knew since taking over a bar. I think another software company did use it (as mentioned in a comment to a previous /. story) which may be enough if true, but claiming it was a general term is really stretching the truth. You could say it was related to a general term, but if they had named it the Soft Store I don't think anyone would argue that was a general term for a software store.

General Store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567872)

I am going to open a General Store and call it General Store. I shall sue anyone who dare call themselves, "General Store".

Re:General Store (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568140)

Colonel Store best hope he doesn't get promoted then.

To all you iPad fans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567874)

To those folk who keep telling me how "magical" your iPad is: it's your money that's funding this suit.

To anyone that has ever bought an Apple product: it's your money that's funding this suit.

How'd you like them apples now, boy?

Cost of innovation Cost of litigation (1)

JimboG (1467977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567892)

I'm assuming from all the litigation against competitors by large U.S. technology/software firms, it is cheaper and easier for them to sue than to come up with new products and ideas for their customers.

Amazon is either smart or stupid (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567930)

The "App Store" (TM) application store by Apple is trademarked. The trademark is 3 years old now, and hasn't seen any real enforcement. Of course, we all know it's a non-unique descriptive that is, by trademark rules, untrademarkable (like "Windows" (TM) to refer to an operating system distinguished because applications run in windows, when the phrase "windows" to refer to the method of display pre-dates the OS in question).

So, either Amazon doesn't know Apple has an App Store (TM) that they were infringing against, or they did know, recognize it's invalid, and purposefully infringed it to start the legal battle to strip Apple of the trademark that should never have been awarded in the first place. I'm guessing they aren't that stupid. And the pros hint that if Microsoft ever tried to enforce their Windows trademark, that they'd fail as well. So it seems to be a good time to get in the trademark challenges if you want to. I always wonder how the Stealth (TM) guy is doing. Last I heard, he's still suing everyone.

Re:Amazon is either smart or stupid (4, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568120)

the trademark that should never have been awarded in the first place.

Trade marks aren't awarded. They are claimed, and sometimes registered to strengthen that claim.

Newsflash: Obama embraces Bush doctrine! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35567942)

Wow, that was fast. I never thought I'd see the day that Obama would go to war under the pretense of spreading democracy. "The circle is now complete!"

Hoping this backfires on Apple (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35567982)

and some judge breaks it off in Apple's rear end for wasting his time with a frivolous lawsuit

Re:Hoping this backfires on Apple (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568098)

They were issued a trademark and trademark law says you must defend your mark or lose it. You can dispute the merits of them being issued the mark, but the law itself compels them into this suit or they lose their mark.

which is it ? (0)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568020)

Is the "appstore" tag on this story referring to the Apple Appstore, or the Amazon Appstore... ?

There's an "apple" tag - so I pondered it for a bit, and for a moment, assumed it to be the "Apple Appstore".
But then this big old "amazon" tag came out of nowhere and muddied (by which i mean diluted (tm) the waters !

So now I'm confused.... which is it ?

Apple sues Sunnyside Day Care (4, Funny)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568232)

In related news, Apple has sued the Sunnyside Day Care pre-school for allowing one Benjamin Turner, age 4, to bite into an apple in such a way as to result in a mark that too closely resembles Apple's trademarked logo. Apple states that they are "in favor" of children eating healthy snacks, particularly apples, but that they are compelled to protect their intellectual property, lest another child mistakes Turner's apple for Apple's logo and attempts to eat the industry giant's products, website or marketing materials. Turner was napping and unavailable for comment.

It's obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35568240)

App is the first three letters of Apple, clearly Apple owns this forevermore.

In related news.. (0)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568262)

.. Kotex is suing apple for copyright infringements on the maxipad.

Come on, how blatant is that, the new ipad even bleeds through [macrumors.com] on the edges!

It's not even the same word... (2)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35568308)

Amazon is calling theirs the Amazon "appstore". One word. Lower case.
Apple's is the Apple "App Store". Two words. Capitalized.
How can there be any confusion?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?