Steve Jobs isn’t our Dad
blog.getjar.com
blog.getjar.com
> "GetJar has been using the term “App Store” in press releases and in it’s positioning with consumers, trade, analysts and press since early 2009 and it’s only now that Apple has decided to send us a C&D."
Is it just me, or is this actually a good argument /for/ Apple owning the term "App Store"? People keep making the claim "it is an obvious name", but apparently it wasn't for GetJar: it wasn't until Apple gave that term meaning by applying it to their product that GetJar decided to use the term.
> "In conclusion, GetJar won’t be subject to this kind of bullying. We’re not going to “Cease & Desist”. We were here long before Steve & Co. We were built by developers, to help developers."
As for this statement... I don't know... this entire article somehow makes it sound like Apple is telling them to stop running their service, when in fact all Apple is doing is asking them to stop using the term "App Store".
I mean, seriously: my full time job is complaining about Apple being a closed ecosystem, but there's something about this blog post that is off-putting and misses the mark; in fact, I don't even see how Apple being a closed ecosystem is relevant to this specific argument.
What i dont get is why apple doesn't just rename their store to something distinctive, since it's obvious they are going to create lots of confusion by using 2 words that have been extensively used in the same business and similar contexts in the past, and they'll keep stumbling with that application. It's not like their new name won't become a household name within a month (given the extensive media coverage they get).
To be consistent. They're not out to get Amazon. They're out to own the term "App Store" and are proving it by going after anyone who tries to use it. So in court they can say that it isn't just the big guys that are infringing but also smaller players.
The idea is that the case does not seem obvious enough and important enough to stop Amazon from using the term /before/ Apple wins the lawsuit (which is what would make this a "preliminary" injunction), but the judge actually went ahead and claimed that Apple seemed to have at least some merit to their argument.
It's a good argument for the term "app store" being original with Apple. However, being the first one to use a term, does not mean you "own" it.
Under the law, one can register a trademark, which gives one exclusive rights to the term under certain restricted conditions. However, as the article points out, Apple did not get a trademark free & clear.
So if Apple want to own "App Store", they also ought to go after everyone calling them "Apps". If "App" is generic, so should "App Store".
Re-read the second half of the whole blog post (Specifically at the paragraph that starts with "Second, ...'), he kind of explains how it's all connected.
This is the blog post of a company (a fairly large one, actually, that has in thr last 7 years it is operating become the default marketplace for some entire carriers) that is trying to use a confusing twist of logic to avoid talking about the actual trademark dispute, and instead focus on one of Apple's weak PR points.
They may as well be making an argument through "social justice" to "sustainability" in order to invoke the "Apple ships their products using ecologically unfriendly packaging" card: it would sound about the same. They should stick to the issue at hand, and try to win on the merit of their points.
We took a different spin - an HTML5 parody videogame[1] and a name-the-store contest[2].
EDIT: here is our response http://bit.ly/amahi-apple-whoa
[1] http://www.amahi.org/invaders [2] http://www.amahi.org/name-the-store
Their response seemed fine to me. I don't see what's so offputting about standing up to threats from someone that doesn't even own the trademark they're threatening you over.
Maybe I'm going off topic, but dev can choose their billing solution, distributing their apps outside android market that is not part of AOSP (Android Open Source Project) (as Gmail app to cite another one)
> Or does Apple care more about the fact that we’re trying
> to give apps away for free to consumers?
> We were built by developers, to help developers.
> Not to help sell handsets or search results.
app store are too general words to forbid people use them
Anyway I did a Google search on app store -apple. There are a lot of 'App Stores'. Apple will be busy sending letters.
They should have been much more concise, clear and confident (consequently also a lot shorter). This is just awful writing.
Edit: citation added :) "App Store" is considered a "Service Mark" trademark fwiw
Edit 2: another citation listing Apple as the *applicant
Edit 3: correction, apparently Apple cannot "own" the trademark until it becomes a (R) registered trademark? Nonetheless it seems they can still dispute the use of it as is currently happening with Apple v Amazon.
Edit 4: "The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand."[3]
[1] http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html [2] http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:6r... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
2) The citation is just the application. If you look at the TARR record, the application is stuck.