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: an 'App Store' Is Not a Store For Apps

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the do-you-read-the-words-you-write dept.

The Courts 279

recoiledsnake writes "What would be your first guess about what an app store sells? Don't be fooled, Apple warns, the phrase 'app store' is not generic and can only be used to describe Cupertino's... um, app store? 'Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words "app store" together denote a store for apps,' Apple said in a Thursday filing with a California district court. All this notwithstanding that Jobs himself used the phrase generically while referring to Android app stores. We've previously discussed this ongoing legal battle."

cancel ×

279 comments

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

Old news...? (1)

daedae (1089329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195640)

So, how is this at all different from the way Apple has been making the same claim for the past several weeks?

Re:Old news...? (3, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195756)

So, how is this at all different from the way Apple has been making the same claim for the past several weeks?

Slashdot needs to serve ads and Apple hasn't done anything else to bitch about.

Re:Old news...? (0, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195784)

In politics, left or right, you must punch a hippie at least once in order to be considered a serious candidate. In a similar vein, in tech commentary, you must troll an apple user at least once to be considered a serious commentator.

Re:Old news...? (-1, Troll)

overlordofmu (1422163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196194)

You easily joke about punching non-violent members of a anti-establishment peace movement because you aren't one and see them as not important. It is only a joke, no big deal.

I mean, I know you are joking, but do you consider how this mindset contributes to dehumanizing your fellow human beings?
And dehumanizing them is the first step into your role as monster.
Are you going to make racist jokes next? After all, they are only jokes.

Do you know any "hippies" that have been beaten by cops for nothing?
I do. Do you hear me? I said, "I FUCKING DO!"

I consider you no different than someone telling racist jokes.
You are a bigot and your bigotry is a contributor to violence.
You can deny it and refuse to accept it, but that is the case all the same.

Re:Old news...? (2, Insightful)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196322)

Mod parent -1 on the rag. No, seriously, on a planet w/ real violence against actual non violent protests, getting all kinds of worked up about a turn of phrase that means mocking the unworkable solutions of a bunch of utopians is at best clutching your pearls(Oh the horror inflicted upon those poor clams!). Please take your self righteous anger and go volunteer at a soup kitchen or a free clinic and do some real good rather than playing arbiter of language and its use on Slashdot.

Re:Old news...? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196382)

Racism implies that a person is being prejudged by an inherent physical trait which they have no control over. Being a drugged out loser is a completely rational decision that each hippie makes, and it is perfectly fair to judge them for it.

Do I sound this whacked out when I get angry? (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196472)

Ahahahaha, oh my. Seriously? You fail reading comprehension, my lefty comrade. You fail hard. And you must not be much of a leftist AT ALL, or you would know what the term means. "Hippie punching" refers not to any sort of physical violence, it refers to the fact that even on the left, politicians try to find someone to the left of them to attack.

When Rahm Emmanuel called leftists "Fucking retards," THAT was hippie punching. In fact, there was a huge shitstorm over it where just about everyone on the left was using the term "hippie punching" and accusing the White House of it. Sorry we forgot to call and tell you about all the fun.

When I was volunteering with Food Not Bombs in San Francisco and the cops threw me to the ground, stood on my shoulder blades, zip-tied my hands and pulled up HARD on my arms, that was not hippie punching. That was just plain old police violence.

See the difference? Generally, only those on the left get accused of hippie punching, because on the right, it is just par for the course. Man bites dog and all that.

Shit.

You do know I am not actually advocating biting a dog here, right?

Re:Old news...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196558)

Wait what? No than someone racist jokes?

You mean that you're so influenced by the PC crowd that you can't even tell racist jokes anymore? That's just sad, man.

Apple == EVIL (5, Insightful)

bleble (2183476) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195644)

It's nothing new from Apple. Remember that Apple always ignores everyones patents when it doesn't feel like paying for them (all the Nokia thing), but if someone else uses their patents Apple sues them. Same thing here. Apple and Steve Jobs are just being retards and think they can do whatever they want. And still MS gets blamed for being evil and Apple with its fully closed garden is some kind of white knight...

Re:Apple == EVIL (-1)

digsbo (1292334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195790)

I'm getting tired of the "X is evil" accusation. Apple is not torturing people, stealing food from children, or poisoning food supplies. What they're doing is responding to the ridiculous legal system which has made it profitable to spend time gaming the system instead of building better products. It's ridiculous, it's a nuisance, and it's non productive, and in some ways is certainly immoral or unethical (trying to increase ones' advantage through underhanded means), but I think it falls short of evil.

I don't respect Apple's actions in this matter, but I think the problem is that the legal system has been so horribly twisted by bad law, bad judges, and parasitic lawyers that it is incentivizing this sort of behavior. And I think to avoid this kind of ridiculousness in the future, you really need to overhaul the legal system, wipe out many precedents, and radically reform the way laws are made (both from activist judges who legislate from the bench, and from legitimate legislative entities such as Congress). I would also add that I think intentionally warping the legal system might qualify as evil behavior. But as far as a I know, Apple doesn't have a specific lobbying arm in DC (yet).

All that said, I have no idea how this could be accomplished. It seems there is little hope for getting a decent Congress that's not bought by the highest bidders, and the judges usually aren't much better.

Re:Apple == EVIL (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195880)

So what you're saying is that Monsanto is the biggest evil on this planet.

Re:Apple == EVIL (2)

digsbo (1292334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195962)

Yeah, that I would largely agree with. Lobbying so that farmers have to pay you a royalty because you engineered crops which will naturally spread their DNA through normal, natural means would qualify in my book as evil.

Re:Apple == EVIL (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196000)

Apple tries to control what you can do with the device you bought, insist on getting money every time you want to do something with that device. The abuse the legal system, and twist contracts even if they have to 'shop for judges'

So, yeah, evil.

Could the be more evil? sure.

" activist judges"
I see the republican meme has gotten fully into your brain.

Re:Apple == EVIL (0, Troll)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196122)

XBox 360, Nintendo Wii, Sony PS3 all impose similar restrictions.

A phone is not a computer in the general sense. You really don't want rogue software on a mobile device. This week at work someone had put their Android device on our network via Wifi. It was harvestingWindows logins and trying to login with them. Such things don't happen with a policed application store.

Apple has a walled garden, but the Android app stores are full of weeds and there's landmines under the lawn.

Re:Apple == EVIL (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196434)

insist on getting money every time you want to do something with that device.

Say again? Are you on crack or some other drug? Methinks you are taking something and mis-applying it something fierce here.

Re:Apple == EVIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196468)

Stop being a drama queen.

I have a Macbook pro and an iphone. I paid Apple one single time for each of them, and that is it. I have at least a dozen software packages install on each device and I haven't paid Apple of any of them. At no time has Apple contacted me and demanded payment prior to allowing me to make a phone call, or post this post, or the like.

I used to have an ipod and, same deal, I filled it with music without paying Apple a dime.

The fact is that with some Apple devices, at the time they sell it to you, they've provided no means to install additional software other than through their store. They make no attempt to conceal this fact. If you ask them about they will tell you.

I don't see how you can call that 'control what you do with a device you bought' with a straight face. If people are buying those Apple products that are so provisioned, and then surprised at those facts, I have a hard time feeling bad for them.

EVIL != KILLING BABIES (0)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196232)

evil is not limited to torture, stealing food, poisoning, etc.
Apple does, however, torture people with their shennanigans (e.g. you're not holding it correctly), steals intellectual property, and poisons the english language (e.g. what "app store" means).
The faults with our legal system does not lie with Apple, but they are definitely in the forefront where all of the twisting and wiglling is occuring.

Re:Apple == EVIL (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195806)

It's nothing new from Apple.

And no matter how you spin it, turn it upside down and examine it, try to put the most positive face on it, it is also hostile toward consumers.

Re:Apple == EVIL (-1, Troll)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195832)

Remember that Apple always ignores everyones patents when it doesn't feel like paying for them (all the Nokia thing),

Wow. Apple did not ignore the patents. In fact, Apple was licesning the patents. Except Nokia was evil and wanted to be greedy. Seeing that Apple owns some patents that Nokia wants to license, Nokia makes it a so that if Apple wants to license Nokia's patents, Apple would have to license Nokia those touch screen patents.

Except, Nokia previously agreed to license everyone ELSE (under RAND terms) those same patents Nokia accuses Apple of violating. The "ND" part stands for "non-discriminatory" which means Apple should pay the same price that everyone else. Not the same price AND patent licenses. It also means that all Apple has to do is pay the fees, and Nokia has to suck it up.

I didn't think this misinformation was still going on wrt the Nokia-Apple patent suit.

And if Apple was ignoring other's patents, you'd think everyone else in 3GSM would be suing by now seeing as how the iPhone has pretty much claimed a large majority of the profits in the mobile sector. (Hint: Nokia did not invent all of GSM)

Re:Apple == EVIL (1)

bleble (2183476) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196104)

Except, Nokia previously agreed to license everyone ELSE (under RAND terms) those same patents Nokia accuses Apple of violating. The "ND" part stands for "non-discriminatory" which means Apple should pay the same price that everyone else. Not the same price AND patent licenses. It also means that all Apple has to do is pay the fees, and Nokia has to suck it up.

Except that Apple is not part of that and doesn't want to be, because that would mean they also would have to license their patents to everyone else at fair price. Apple can't just expect to get the good things (RAND terms) while avoiding the "bad" things (having to go by those RAND terms too).

Re:Apple == EVIL (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196486)

Um, Nokia wanted access to NON-mobile patents held by Apple. I.e. patents that were totally unrelated to the technologies involved in the mobile space. Which Apple obviously refused to give them. Why should different rules apply to Apple and Samsung for instance?

Re:Apple == EVIL (2)

Radiophobic (1973144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195844)

Only the most zealous apple fanboy seems to try to deny that apple is evil by now.

Re:Apple == EVIL (1)

Snarky McButtface (1542357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196244)

Here is an interesting article on the BBC about Apple fanboys. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Apple == EVIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196018)

MS made a string of crappy products while apple made a string of good ones. The term evil is a misnomer for either but what it comes down to is if you make a good product people want and don't feel like they're being forced to buy then they cut you slack. If you don't then you get a hysterical waving of hands and followed by being called evil. A rational person would soon realize neither crappy products nor legal strategies equal evil but hey it's hared to find rational folk on slashdot.

Re:Apple == EVIL (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196190)

Hmmm.

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)

It seems to me that apple winds on many grounds.

the term application has many meanings so it's use in the narrow term for an application on a computer is similar to the narrow usage of the generic words Apple or Amazon as company names in their fields not as fruit or rivers. Apple would probably get in trouble if they opened a store in the amazon basin and called it the Apple Amazon store.

So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

Re:Apple == EVIL (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196566)

Apple with its fully closed garden is some kind of white knight...

Black knight at the moment. White knight is unavailable until six months after black knight release due to technical difficulties with the light sensors.

I wonder what would happen (4, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195646)

if they simply ignored Apple? If someone came around to shut them down, they'd say "Really? You think our app store is confusingly called an App Store? Go away and grow some common sense."

Re:I wonder what would happen (4, Informative)

tknd (979052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196096)

Actually the populace can reduce the effectiveness of a trademark by genericizing it [wikipedia.org] . If everyone from your grandmother to your 5 year old nephew began using "app" and "app store" as everyday jargon, the trademark would be genericized and has reduced legal protection.

So if you want to annoy Jobs and co, all you have to do is start referring to any software as an "app" and any outlet that sells software as an "app store" regardless of if it is or is not owned or run by Apple.

Some examples of companies that suffered from this effect are the term "googling" instead of "searching" and use of "kleenex" instead of "tissue".

Re:I wonder what would happen (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196164)

Hoover up that mess will you!

Re:I wonder what would happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196166)

These are bad examples. Both of these companies have profited greatly by their products entering everyday jargon.

Some examples of companies that suffered from this effect are the term "googling" instead of "searching" and use of "kleenex" instead of "tissue".

Re:I wonder what would happen (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196236)

Bandaid as another example. One could reasonably argue that the term "app store" is already pretty generic. I was calling my applications "apps" in the production environment of a company I worked for about 6 years ago. Every mobile device on the planet now has an online market or "store" through which you can buy or download applications or "apps."

Re:I wonder what would happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196480)

if they simply ignored Apple? If someone came around to shut them down, they'd say "Really? You think our app store is confusingly called an App Store? Go away and grow some common sense."

Yes, but Apple has gone to court and filed a lawsuit.

Ignoring a lawsuit is generally not a good idea - you tend to lose by default. Even if Apple is being idiotic and has no legal case.

It's similar to Donald Trump trying to get a trademark on the phrase, "You're fired!"

Any lawyer would tell you that the phrase, "You're fired!" in the context of firing someone isn't trademarkable. The entire thing was a publicity stunt.

Trademark law (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195660)

If Apple doesn't defend their trademark, they lose it. Thank our wonderful legal system for this stuff.

Re:Trademark law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195716)

True. But does it matter? Why do they NEED this Trademark? It's the only App store on iPhones/iPads, and no one is going to assume that the app store on android is run by Apple. I don't understand the logic that Everything Must Be Trademarked!

Re:Trademark law (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196126)

Apple wants to make sure that no other company calls there store an "app store". Or if they do, they had to pay apple for the right.

Re:Trademark law (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195718)

Post hoc justification for the win. I mean, instead of shooting for a reasonable, defensible trademark, now they are forced into defending this highly provocative trademark. Poor them. Especially considering all the free advertising this is getting them in the press.

Anyway as the owner of Program Files (tm), I take exception to something called the "App Store", since in fact my directory can also be used to store apps. And I have a far larger market share than apple, rofl.

Re:Trademark law (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195872)

Yes, because somehow Apple could possibly achieve more mindshare through advertising.

Free advertising is only helpful if you are not the most valuable brand name in america (according to a study a few weeks back).

Re:Trademark law (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196352)

Is that why I don't ever see Apple ads on TV and in magazines, because they don't need them? Someone tell the shareholders that they are wasting money on useless ads. Their mindshare comes from and is maintained with publicity, not all of it explicit, but all of it necessary.

Re:Trademark law (4, Informative)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195744)

Well, yeah. However, this isn't a "defend your patent or lose it," case where a patent-holder is forced to defend their trivial feature even though they don't really care to; Apple applied for the "AppStore" trademark exactly for this eventuality. They don't want anyone else to be able to use the phrase "App Store" to refer to a place where you can buy apps.

Re:Trademark law (4, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196340)

They don't want anyone else to be able to use the phrase "App Store" to refer to a place where you can buy apps.

Although, Jobs himself used the term generically. From the legal filing (excerpted from The Register [theregister.co.uk] ):

"Apple further admits that its CEO, Steve Jobs, in October 2010 called the APP STORE service 'the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone'."

While IANAL, I take the phrase "easiest-to-use, largest app store" to imply that there are others - presumably, smaller, harder to use - but, hey, that's just me, parsing English... Further quoting The Register article and filing - and this seems funny to me (emboldening mine):

Case in point: the filing also concedes that the Oxford English Dictionary defines an app as "[a]n application, esp. an application program," and that a store is, indeed, "a retail establishment selling items to the public: a health-food store."

These statements would seem to admit the obvious: that an app store is a store that sells apps. Apple, however, argues the opposite."Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," the filing reads.

About what other possible meaning the words "app store" might have, the Cupertinian oracle is silent.

Re:Trademark law (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196124)

It's an invalid trademark. It's entirely generic and deserves no protection whatsoever.

Sounds a bit odd. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195662)

Black is white, down is up, right is left, and an App Store is not an App Store.

Riiiight.

Re:Sounds a bit odd. (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195910)

Down is up, right is left, B, A, B, A, Start.

Wait, what?

Re:Sounds a bit odd. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196068)

Yay Sonic Super Powers!

Re:Sounds a bit odd. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196384)

Down is up, right is left, B, A, B, A, Start.
Wait, what?

Ask your girlfriend, next time you go down on her... :-)

Re:Sounds a bit odd. (1)

MaxBooger (1877454) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195926)

And then for an encore man proved black is white and was killed at the next zebra crossing.

Oh no! Steve? Steve?!?!?

Re:Sounds a bit odd. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196006)

Why was he standing in the way of a bunch of zebras?

Re:Sounds a bit odd. (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196184)

Cos God no longer existed.

Well, it's obvious (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195664)

"App store" is short for "Apple store"! Of *course* nobody else can use it! Not even if they're selling actual fruit!

Re:Well, it's obvious (2)

thelenm (213782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195742)

Yes, we wouldn't want anyone to upset the app cart.

Re:Well, it's obvious (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196092)

Nah; the app cart is patented by Amazon.

Re:Well, it's obvious (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196396)

No - that's the 1-Apple Cart. Wait. No, that's not it...

So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"? (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195712)

If the "App" is short for "Apple" (as they're presumably arguing), then that means that they're calling their online applications store the "Apple Store," which seems to conflict with their physical hardware-oriented stores of the same name. Methinks that would indicated that "Apple" was not what they meant there.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to the Beatles on the Apple record label. Of course, in that case [wikipedia.org] , Apple argued that "Apple" was a generic term. I guess things have changed.

Re:So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"? (4, Informative)

Lemming42 (931274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195868)

This strangely echoes the fight between MCA and Nintendo over the name "Donkey Kong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd [wikipedia.org] .

MCA claimed that Donkey Kong infringed on their "King Kong" trademark, Nintendo won the battle when they showed that MCA had previously argued (and won) that King Kong and its characters were already in the public domain.

Re:So they maintain that App is short for "Apple"? (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196540)

Maybe it stands for Applecation Store.

boo hoo (4, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195722)

Maybe Apple needs a Kleenex(tm) to cry into and a Band-Aid(tm) to make it all better...

Re:boo hoo (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195900)

+1

Re:boo hoo (1)

fuck.your.politics (2085920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195972)

or do like Eddie Murphy says... have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

Re:boo hoo (1)

xero314 (722674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196318)

or do like Eddie Murphy says... have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

It was actually Richard Prior that said that, Eddie Murphy was just quoting him. Never mind that it would work better if it was Microsoft and not apple since the whole quote is "Tell Bill to have a coke and a smile, and shut the fuck up."

I actually laughed out loud when I read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195724)

...the headline. Doesn't happen every day.

Imagination? (0)

cpct0 (558171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195760)

Funny how on Mac it always was Applications, on Win it was always Programs, on Lin it was always Software, and then you got all the different variations for all the platforms everywhere. Some use Ware, some use Soft(pedia for example).

Then Apple starts using Apps, coins the App Store to go there, gets the most talked about platform, and somehow it now has become "common sense" to use Apps for everything, and the only place to get an App is on the App Store.

Imagination, people ... come on! It's a freaking term, coin your own! Soft Store, Get-A-Ware, don't know what. And although I understand Apple in their stance, I find it funny and ridiculous. It reminds me of Microsoft Bookshelf.

Re:Imagination? (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195830)

I don't know in what world you're living, but I have been using the term "app" for applications/programs/software years before the iPhone was released.
Just because you might never have heard the term except in the context of Apple doesn't mean it wasn't used elsewhere.

And by the way, when taking about linux I hardly ever use the word 'software'. The simple world where everything fits nicely into a drawer doesn't exist.

Re:Imagination? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196656)

agreed, I remember back in the days of dialup and AOL, we had "apps" that would add function to the clients. So I can say I remember the term "app" from 96, im sure there are some others who have known the term longer.

Re:Imagination? (2)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195850)

Part of the difference between Apps and Applications as soon as Apps made it into the mainstream Macintosh OS not just i[Phone] OS, was that Apps are trusted pieces of software through the App Store, while Applications were dirty malware ridden software you got off of the internet that isn't trusted and signed by Apple. To allow App to mean a shortened version of Application again means for it to be okay to download software that Apple doesn't approve of.

Also, if you ask some people, it has always been "Executable Binaries" on *nix systems based on different terminologies used between UNIX falvors and Kinuix distros, and occasionally just to be contrary and start a fight.

Re:Imagination? (2)

Jakester2K (612607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195944)

Awesome!

The ExBin Store!

You heard it here first folks, so it's mine... all mine !!

Re:Imagination? (4, Informative)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195884)

You're ether poorly trying to communicate sarcasm or your a deliberate troll.

Just in case you're not a troll and really are this miss informed about those words your throwing about as Mutually Exclusive when they really are Generic Terms. Here [google.com] is a News Paper Scan from the now about-to-be-abandoned scan archive. See the Date Feb 27, 1997 along with office 97 all highlighted for you.

Re:Imagination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196222)

i wonder if i can still get that digital cellular deal from bell...$25/mo for 25min sounds great!

Re:Imagination? (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196230)

You're ether poorly trying to communicate sarcasm or your a deliberate troll.

Just in case you're not a troll and really are this miss informed about those words your throwing about as Mutually Exclusive when they really are Generic Terms. Here [google.com] is a News Paper Scan from the now about-to-be-abandoned scan archive. See the Date Feb 27, 1997 along with office 97 all highlighted for you.

You might not be aware but besides Apps on OS X being stored in the /Applications directory, every app on OS X has had the .app extension whereas programs on dos/windows had the extensions of either .exe or .com. Given that Apple's desktop OS was using the .app extension to denote user facing Application packages/launchers, I would say that Apple has the strongest claim to "App" and "App store".

Re:Imagination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196510)

"App" is the single most obvious abbreviation of the word "application" in English. The term "application" in regards to software is entirely generic. Feel free to look it up in a dictionary and see if Apple is mentioned. Turns out they aren't. Further, an "X store" that sells "X" is probably one of the most commonly understood concepts in the English language.

An application store that is abbreviated in a customary way should not be a legitimate trademark even if you capitalize it.

Re:Imagination? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196242)

Then Apple starts using Apps, coins the App Store

Yeah, just like they "coined" the term "podcast" and only then did podcasting get popular....</sarcasm>

As if I hadn't been making "Web Apps" for the Century previous to their filing... before that, BBS Apps, such as my ASCII Tetris & pong apps, and the "ANSI-APP" series of DOS-to-Win95 era text-GUI programs that ran locally or remotely via my text-only "compositing" window manager (using ANSI + ASCII w/ CP437). Note esp: "ANSI-APP" because 8 (dot) 3 file names were the norm at the time. (We abbreviated fn-every.tng back then.)

Just because the mainstream public is ignoant of a term's use doesn't mean it's not in use and/or a popular term among many.

The fact that Apple was allowed to trademark "podcast" even though that medium was well established without their input should be a clue that the "App Store" trademark is bullshit. After Apple's clone of the iRiver, the iPod, became popular they ran around trademarking all iXxxx and podXxx names, esp. names with any popularity that were already in use. Now they're doing the same thing with App because that's a popular term.

Should this be allowed? No.

Is it proof that the USPTO is full of inept lawyers? Yep.

( For fuck's sake -- The same group that granted Apple the "App Store" trademark also let someone patent swinging on a swing! -- Of course the courts need to be involved, the PTO is full of morons; They're so out of touch with today's world, the only things that exist to them are what's in their databases.)

Re:Imagination? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196266)

I have been calling the software that does stuff applications (on any platform) since 1984. I believe 1984 predates the iphone by a few years. I know that the computer makers called them different things over the years, but I have been calling software "applications" or "apps" for years before the iphone came out. I can remember many people calling software apps in 1990-1991. This was by people who had to ask how to turn on the computer. They also used programs or applications. It did not matter what computer they were going to use. My sister used all three terms when referring to software on a mac or a pc. The pc was a new 486 and the mac was her mac she got for college in 1990. The term app has been used by people for years before the app store came out. The whole idea that only since the iphone do people call software "apps" is wrong.

Re:Imagination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196470)

Funny how on Mac it always was Applications, on Win it was always Programs, on Lin it was always Software

Yeah, that explains why the term "killer app" [wikipedia.org] is only used to describe software that runs on Macs. Oh wait, no. That's complete bullshit, and "application" is a generic term used by almost every platform ever (even extending into game consoles).

ApplStore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195774)

They should call it 'ApplStore' as to avoid any confusion with app store.

Re:ApplStore (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195946)

Why? It's not a store where they sell APPL shares. /duck

Re:ApplStore (1)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196256)

That would be the Aapl Store >.>

I don't like the word app anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195786)

I'm I the only one who hates calling programs and applications "apps"? I never call the programs on my Mac apps. It just sounds stupid to me....

Seen this before (1)

Stone2065 (717387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195798)

Am I getting old and senile, or didn't Microsoft try something like this and get shot down when they tried to trademark the word "windows"? It was allowed in reference to an operating system, but not across the board for all thigs that were or could be a window... Yeh, I'm probably senile.

Microsoft did win the Windows trademark... (1)

0x537461746943 (781157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195894)

You didn't get the memo? We call regular windows light orifaces now. An example. Jack lost his ball when it went through sally's light oriface popping the virgin oriface and hitting Sally's baby on the head.

Re:Microsoft did win the Windows trademark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196048)

N.B. 0x537461746943 is hexadecimal for "troll-school dropout".

Re:Microsoft did win the Windows trademark... (1)

Stone2065 (717387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196090)

Copy that. :) Feel free to forward the memo to me at your earliest convenience.

They didn't name it - people named it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195824)

It's generic - if they wanted something non-generic they should have named it something like "The iPhone App Store" or "Apple's App Store" - but coming back afterwards and say you own "app store" is like my trying to say I own "red ball" because I said so... Ludicrous...

Re:They didn't name it - people named it... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195960)

As long as it's not Plaid.

Re:They didn't name it - people named it... (2)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196264)

Not Plaid. iPlaid.

Groklaw now has someone new to follow (2)

alinuxguruofyore (1117973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195836)

I sure hope that Groklaw keeps us informed about Apple's litiguous behavior. Next thing you know is that Apple will tell us is that Ivey never heard of the IBM Simon when coming up with the iphone touch interface.

Re:Groklaw now has someone new to follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196074)

Sorry, but Apple (alongside IBM) are the corporations that can Do No Wrong in the eyes of Groklaw. Since Apples' behaviour couldn't possibly be justified in this case, instead expect a deathly silence as any mention is censored in the best interests of groupthink.

Apologies to Lewis Carroll... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195888)

"When I use a word," Steve Jobs said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

appz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36195896)

apps & appz should have been added to the dictionary before the verb google.

Paypal isn't a bank, and Ebay isn't an auction (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36195998)

They're just creative ways to get around laws restraining these things locally.

Nutters (1)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196010)

OK. I'm a fan but this is just a matter of marketing and legal doing a circle jerk. I find it hard to picture a more offensive scenario but those are the hard facts of business.

Douche Store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36196198)

Also, in related news....
the term "Bag of Douche" is not used to refer to the collective Apple culture....
As in ... "See those hipster doucebags waiting in line at the Apple store? That is one huge Bag of Douche

Back to your regularly scheduled douchebaggery from Steve Jobs and his steaming pile of douche.

It's a good thing IBM Compatible PCs beat Apple (1)

Timmy D Programmer (704067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196272)

Otherwise a low end PC would cost thousands, parts would only be available from Apple, and cost a premium and innovation would have been stunted.

Also I Sincerely doubt Steve Jobs is going to give much of his fortune away to make the world a better place, like Bill Gates is.

Re:It's a good thing IBM Compatible PCs beat Apple (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196650)

Apple's goal with the Mac was to create a cheap machine, though they somewhat failed at that. But at the time, IBM PCs were expensive beasts, and until the Phoenix reverse-engineered BIOS, so were the clones. "Innovation"? PCs were formulaic, and when Gates had stopped scofffing at GUIs and made Windows, it was a derivative of the Mac UI (licensed, though). Macs had proper(ish) networking while Microsoft ignored that (or rather left it to third parties like Novell).

Not sure where you picked up your worship of Mr. "to get discount, pay us for DOS on all machines even those you sell with a different OS" Gates, though,.

Really? (1)

fangmcgee (1716754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196408)

Really, Apple? REALLY? Who are you trying to fool? Google?

Battery Store (1)

Flector (1702640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196420)

Now that sounds like an insanely great idea.

kids arguing over a toy (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196474)

let's just let them have it and soon they'll be bored with it. In the meantime we can find something else to play with. If they've cornered to market on Apps, let's start calling our widgets 'Lications. "Check out all the downloadable content on Amazon's new 'Lication Station."

They're right, in a way... (1)

GerbilSoft (761537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196542)

The "App Store" isn't a store for "apps"; it's a store for crApps (crappy applications). They're mostly shitty programs that don't have much functionality and/or are simply wrappers around WebKit that only allow access to a single website.

Missing the point (1)

That's What She Said (1289344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196572)

Well... It's obvious -- not from the effing article, but from reality -- that when Apple patented the term "App Store", the competition didn't give a damn.

Now that Apple got success with their "app[lication] store" and with phrases like "there's an app for that", competition wants to downplay that. They say: we also have "apps", not just Apple.

My point is: it's not about the term being generic; it's about what Apple intended when they started using the term "app" for marketing purposes and patented the derivative term "app store". It's about Apple defending their strategy. The "app store" patent is important for that and the patent was granted, so they have to enforce it.

In the end, all of this only proves that patents are ridiculous. Apple themselves used the "Windows" trademark as an example...

Insanely Obvious (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36196584)

I know it seem insanely obvious now, but the term didn't really gain traction until Apple came out with the iPhone around 2007. Don't believe me, then believe Google Trends [google.com] .

I'm pretty sure others (like MS) were using terms like marketplace, download center, central, etc. before they decided to jump on the App Store band wagon

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?