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!

Amazon Responds To "App Store" Lawsuit From Apple

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the make-up-your-own-name dept.

The Courts 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."

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

uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956014)

Isn't this "news" really old?

Re:uhhh (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956050)

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 (3, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956366)

And the sad thing is that this comes from the company that patented the "genius" 1-click buying.

Re:uhhh (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956054)

It's about a 2 day old court filing. You have a very strange definition of "really old".

Re:uhhh (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956056)

Amazon's response is new.

Re:uhhh (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956300)

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:uhhh (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956496)

Well... I did have to swerve around a box with a few velociraptors [wdc.com] . Does that count?

Re:uhhh (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956594)

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:uhhh (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956602)

Can Klenex sue anyone for using their name when referring to Tissue Paper to blow your nose?

Dear God... (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956026)

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.

Re:Dear God... (1)

The13thSin (1092867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956066)

Indeed, these kind of suits are getting ridiculous... (and I don't mean the fashionable ones.)

Re:Dear God... (-1, Troll)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956070)

You mean like things like "Windows" right?

Re:Dear God... (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956116)

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:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956250)

X is a windowing system that has been around long before Windows. Is that not confusing? Linux runs X windows but not MS windows.

Re:Dear God... (2)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956318)

Windows is an Operating System. X is a gui windowing system. I don't see the confusion. They do different things.

Re:Dear God... (2)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956458)

And it's X Window (notice the absence of the S)

Re:Dear God... (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956500)

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:Dear God... (1)

hotsauce (514237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956286)

How do you like SQL Server?

Re:Dear God... (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956350)

Well the name is MS SQL Server and I don't think Microsoft has sued anybody for naming their product X SQL Server. Also, the name would be "Database" to be the same as "App Store".

Re:Dear God... (0)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956494)

They tried. Oh gods, they tried. Looking at the last story [slashdot.org] about this one, it looks like Microsoft SQL Server is the only boxed product that includes manuals, distribution media, etc. that can be called "SQL Server".

Read and weep [microsoft.com] .

Re:Dear God... (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956582)

They tried. Oh gods, they tried.

And yet you didn't even link a single example.

Re:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956360)

That's a bad one, but if the trademark was "Database" or "Database Server" then it'd be a better comparison.

Re:Dear God... (0)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956372)

App + store are not the same thing as operating + system. Nobody used App + Store together to create a new meaning before Apple (unless I'm mistaken), so why not trademark it, especially when it is such an important centerpiece to their overall strategy.

Re:Dear God... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956570)

You are mistaken.

Re:Dear God... (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956572)

"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.

Container Store? (0)

hotsauce (514237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956380)

I'm sorry, but this is common practice in America.

One of my favorite places to get a drink is called Gin Joint.

If you're against trademarks, fine. If you're against a very specific type of trademark (generic term for the product itself) then be prepared to battle a long list of precedent, and also be prepared to point to a dictionary that shows app store to be common usage before Apple trademarked it. But you're in America, where I can trademark the slogan Best Programmer in the World (tm) without any proof of it and attach it below my name, so forgive respondents if they think you're just picking on Apple.

BTW, trademarks do provide consumer protections by helping identify things. When I bought a car for instance, I really did want the one manufactured in Ingolstadt.

Re:Container Store? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956436)

While 'Container Store' was trademarked, I doubt they'd be able successfully sue 'Amazon Container Store' for trademark infringement.

Re:Dear God... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956510)

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:Dear God... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956610)

In other words, Michael Robertson sold out. More power to him, I guess. I'd probably do the same for piles of cash. I was upset because I paid for the lindows family pack (I think that's what it was called) not long before he sold out and removed the "windows support" from lindows.

Re:Dear God... (0)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956604)

> Please, stop making absurd comparisons. "Windows" doesn't really describe the product itself.

It most certainly does.

Window is the W in W.I.M.P.

Re:Dear God... (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956122)

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:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956232)

Actually, app is commonly used in lieu of "application" for many industries and has nothing to do with computers. Mostly paperwork.

Re:Dear God... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956324)

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:Dear God... (1)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956364)

Excellent point, but given that these types of lawsuit are usually usage type specific, it doesn't really apply here.

Re:Dear God... (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956448)

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:Dear God... (1)

The13thSin (1092867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956142)

How is "Windows" a generic term to describe an operating system?

Re:Dear God... (4, Insightful)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956170)

You can still use the UI elements called Windows. You can still call them Windows. You can't call your operating system Windows. That's wildly different.

Re:Dear God... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956196)

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:Dear God... (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956330)

So long as your trademark doesn't prevent people from making apps and then selling them in an App Store, I'd be fine with that trademark. But that's just my opinion.

Re:Dear God... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956466)

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:Dear God... (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956470)

And you can still have a store that sells applications, you just cant call it the App Store.

Re:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956072)

The company that patented the "one-click" technique shouldn't feel that ANYTHING was too generic.

Re:Dear God... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956132)

A patent is different from a trademark...

Re:Dear God... (2)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956090)

I don't know. After the "1 click" patent, I'm not sure I want Amazon to win this.

Re:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956150)

Its better than Apple winning.
Remember the "trashcan" and all the W,I.M.P. crap they've done in the past.

Re:Dear God... (0)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956498)

Trash. Yes, what about it? You think it was fair for Windows to copy the UI metaphor of a trash can? I don't. Credit MS for coming up with "recycle bin"...that's so Apple (to be green and hip and all).

You probably also have a problem with "Quit". Apple tm'd that too, which is why Windows has "Exit" and not "Quit".

Re:Dear God... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956482)

Yeah, that would teach them. Lets keep setting bad precedences, so that companies realize about Karma and start being good.

Sarcasm, aside, this would only motivate other companies to go for such crazy patents and trademarks. Patent trolls will become interested too.

Re:Dear God... (1)

berwiki (989827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956542)

bravo. i forgot about that nonsense.

Re:Dear God... (2)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956120)

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 get your wish.

(IAAL, but IANA IP L.)

Re:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956144)

I find it hard to believe they would be able to protect something. How far back did apple start using "App"? SnapApps was using it in 1999.

http://replay.web.archive.org/19991012191138/http://www.snapapps.com/

Re:Dear God... (4, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956224)

Presumably the action will be on the question of whether "App" is a protectable term.

Don't be silly. I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store". :-)

Re:Dear God... (1)

MichaelKristopeit418 (2018864) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956126)

trademarking of what name of what category? software applications are NOT "apps"... "apps" is NOT a proper name... anyone that tells you otherwise is an ignorant marketeer trying to sell you on snacks before your main course.

Re:Dear God... (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956396)

Hey, why do you hide behind your pseudonym, feeb? I use my real name. You're completely pathetic.

Re:Dear God... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956632)

software applications are NOT "apps"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/app

Definition of "app":
application 1a(3)

First Known Use of APP:
1987

Re:Dear God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956188)

You only know it as "the proper name of that thing" *because* Apple made it ubiquitous.

Re:Dear God... (1)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956422)

Just becuase you make an old phrase popular, doesn't mean you get to own the phrase. People have used the term "app" in place of "application" for a long time. Furthermore, it is natural to assume a store selling apps is an app store (much the same way one selling groceries would be a grocery store). Given that the term is older than Apple's use of it, and highly generic, there is no reason Amazon shouldn't be able to use it.

Re:Dear God... (0)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956262)

Tell me about it next thing you know some one is going to patent a link that says "buy" to let you buy something!

In this case Apple's position is sane (2, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956342)

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 point to it than most here would credit.

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (3, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956390)

People have been using the term "app" as an abbreviation for "application" for years and years. The term in no way originates with Apple.

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956612)

Domain appzplanet.com

Date Registered: 2002-7-29

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956438)

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?

Obviously, yes. I'm surprised that any slashdot poster doesn't remember this. People were using the term 'app' before the Mac even existed; possibly before you were born, considering how little you know of the computer industry prior to 2004.

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956462)

App is used as a breev for an application as in job application. I've heard (and detested) the use of the word app to refer to software by teachers as far back as 1998. I'm pretty sure its common enough that there is no case at all.

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (3, Interesting)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956592)

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?

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956608)

I have a copy of Halo for X-box. It pre-dates the app store. Right on the front of the box it says: "The killer app for X-Box!". That's just an example using an item I am looking at in this room. Give me time and I'll have a mountain of examples.

Re:In this case Apple's position is sane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956616)

No, no it isn't. App has been shorthand for application since the mid eighties. Even outside of software, the phrase "Killer App" short for "Killer Application" has been in wide use to describe any new game-changing service. Slang usage of App is in no way attributable to Apple.

Re:Dear God... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956358)

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:Dear God... (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956410)

"app" is a generic term for an application, as "store" is a generic term for a place to buy things. There is nothing novel about Apple's supposed trademark, they are merely describing what their storefront is.

Let the 1-Click Button Company Win? (0)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956638)

I'd rather see both fucking companies impoverish themselves fighting this shit out in court.

they owned the rights to the term itself (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956030)

You mean like 'Apple [applerecords.com] '?

Re:they owned the rights to the term itself (1, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956078)

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:they owned the rights to the term itself (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956094)

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:they owned the rights to the term itself (1)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956442)

(well ok, shouldn't be, who knows what the courts will decide...)

That's the most terrifying part of the whole thing!

Re:they owned the rights to the term itself (1)

Super_Z (756391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956522)

If the company referred to their apples as "apps" and created "App Store" for the purpose of selling these apples then trademarking "App Store" seems reasonable.
As an aside, Apple has trademarked "Apple Store".

Other names (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956052)

App shop, App mart, App mall, App stand, Apptorium, Appmania, App warehouse.

Re:Other names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956148)

App Emporium, App Haus, App Boutique, App Five and Dime, App Outlet, App City, Shecky's App Paradise

Re:Other names (1)

CyberDruid (201684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956540)

Corporations are too bland. I would have liked it more if it was called "Honest Bezos' App Bazaar" or something.

Re:Other names (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956228)

Apps'R'Us

Re:Other names (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956274)

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:Other names (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956554)

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:Other names (1)

CarlDenny (415322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956340)

AppleAsEville?

Re:Other names (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956512)

... App warehouse.

I prefer App whorehouse.

one-click purchasing (1)

JoelisHere (992325) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956080)

and the idea of one click purchasing isn't too obvious. You license us a patent and we'll license you a trademark.

Re:one-click purchasing (1)

aepurniet (995777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956244)

this would only add credibility to both. but good call, both these companies have patented / trade marked something real stupid.

Research (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956136)

Why don't people try to find if a name is already owned by someone else before they use it? Why are we continually subjected to news about such clownishness?

Re:Research (1)

tekgoblin (1675894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956178)

Amazon knew that Apple used the "App Store" name and also knew that they could not lay claim to that generic phrase. Apple sued them when Amazon used it and now Amazon responds saying the word is too generic now the decision rests in the judges hands.

Re:Research (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956536)

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:Research (1)

chispito (1870390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956192)

Because this is the equivalent of claiming that "Bob's Toy Store" infringes on your trademark for "Toy Store." You shouldn't have to check first on something so generic.

Re:Research (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956518)

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.

I hate Apple +4, Helpful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956204)

1984 IS Apple.

Everyone who agrees please comment in this thread.

Yours In Samara,
Kilgore Trout

Android is the real target (0)

Gearoid_Murphy (976819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956208)

The only thing Apple is pissed about is the fact that Amazon is using the App Store to market Android apps. It's specifically mentioned in item 23 of the lawsuit [tekgoblin.com] . This is how monopolies are maintained with the blessing of the state, through the use and abuse of stupid patents.

Re:Android is the real target (3, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956282)

through the use and abuse of stupid patents.

You do realize that this is about Trademarks and not Patents, right?

Remember One Click? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956246)

Anyone? Anyone?

Cookie store? (1)

greatpatton (1242300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956268)

In a country where Cookie Store is a trademark to sell cookie, I think that Amazon doesn't stand a chance...

Re:Cookie store? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956578)

Just because there is a trademark doesn't mean it's enforceable. Bob's Cookie Store might well win if sued by The Cookie Store.

Jobs has out Gatesed Gates. (1)

Beer Drunk (1059846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956280)

Like the Russian revolution was co-opted by the communists and the French by the montagnards, the information revolution has been hijacked by the megalomaniacs. Of course the fanboys and girls will still worship Jobs even if he sues them for using his products in some way he doesn't approve.

How Sad... (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956376)

The sad part is that no matter how silly these lawsuits are it doesn't inspire enough people to walk away from a company that uses it as a tactic to squash competitors or bring in revenue.

Screw amazon. (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956468)

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.

App generic, Store generic, App Store obvious (2, Interesting)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35956552)

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.

patent pending (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35956576)

will apple just go and patent the word computer already?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?