It's Apple vs. Amazon Over "Appstore"

[Steve the Pocket]

So it's apparently okay to claim ownership over the SUN (something necessary for almost all life on Earth) but the moment Apple wants to claim ownership of the name "Appstore" for their store that sells Apps everybody throws a hissy fit?

Except Sun doesn't go around suing people who try to sell products that have to do with the actual sun, any more than Apple is going to sue your grandma for selling apple pies. And yet, that is pretty much exactly what Apple is doing here. Except it's more like they too sell apple pies and are trying to use trademark law to prevent other people from doing the same.

 

[BabyRaptor]

So it's apparently okay to claim ownership over the SUN (something necessary for almost all life on Earth) but the moment Apple wants to claim ownership of the name "Appstore" for their store that sells Apps everybody throws a hissy fit?

That lady was of questionable mental health, the validity of her claim is up for debate and there's no way possible she could do anything about it if it WAS legal.

This is a different kettle of fish. Apple has the money (and apparently the desire) to sue anyone who uses what they think is theirs. And they might possibly win.

They are both equally stupid, however.

 

[A Sad Soul]

Funny, I just downloaded Angry Birds: Rio, on my iTouch. Legally. Well that's odd.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

Copyrighting "App Store" is like copyrighting "Restaurant". It just can't, or shouldn't, be done.

However they got it done apperntly

 

[Emergent]

It isn't hard to file for a copyright. So many thousands are filed every day that the entire process is automated now. The issue is what copyright claims are held up in court.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Tell apple to call it the iAppStore and shut up. The one thing they don't sling the letter "i" on and they want to complain? Apple might as well trademark trollface.jpg.

But seriously, trademarking the term "app store?" What else does one call a store for applications? Then again, what else does one call a group of whales?

 

[Onoto]

I'm going to brave the waters of conflict and say that I think Apple is fine, and should protect its intellectual property, just as everybody should protect what's theirs. It's hardly a frivolous lawsuit when their name is being used by a direct competitor.

As far as the more basic gripe, they've got a perfectly reasonable claim to exclusionary rights. Now, that claim is being disputed (also reasonably, I suppose), but it's not outrageous to claim ownership over a term for a service you essentially invented. The only reason the term feels SO generic is because it set the bar for the field. We would all be calling them program hubs, no questions asked, if Apple had decided to call it the Pro Hub.

 

[KidTheFat]

They have no base for the suit. The "confusion caused to customers" simply doesn't exist. You reach the App Store for Apple on an iGadget made BY Apple. You reach the AppStore for Amazon on an Android based device. By the time people have time to get confused, the decision's already been made for them. Also, I think the damages are something around 0, so there's that too. If this is ruled in favor of Apple, it will be on a BS technicality and Amazon will probably be ordered to change the name and pay Apple $1, kinda like what happened when Google "trespassed" for Google Earth Street View.

 

[The Madman]

Hard to believe once upon a time Apple prided themselves on being the scrappy underdog.


Ah, how things change, how things change indeed!

As far as the more basic gripe, they've got a perfectly reasonable claim to exclusionary rights. Now, that claim is being disputed (also reasonably, I suppose), but it's not outrageous to claim ownership over a term for a service you essentially invented. The only reason the term feels SO generic is because it set the bar for the field. We would all be calling them program hubs, no questions asked, if Apple had decided to call it the Pro Hub.

It's a store that sells computer applications, often called apps. It's an App Store. Clever on Apples part, what with App also being in their name, but still so damned vague and self-explanatory that any attempt to copyright the name is just plain mean-spirited.

 

[GeorgW]

That term is too generic and Apple wil lose the trial. But that won't help Amazon, who might be in trouble. What I'm most interested in is that Amazon is starting an app store and that it seems to have some really nice content.

 

[Subject7]

Dear Apple,

Love your computers. But you're all d**ks.

Sincerely,
Subject7

 

[beema]

Screw Apple. I'm so sick of their smug, money-vacuuming douchebaggery. Especially this new "if you don't have an iphone" ad campaign. Good lord those commercials make me want to vomit. Instead of trying to advertise the goodness of their product, they are now just straight up calling you a loser if you don't have one. Assholes. Maybe I don't f'ing want an iphone. Maybe I love my Android.

I suppose the iPhone did popularize the use of the word "app," but applications were around long before apple started marketing them.

There is some irony in my words, since I'm typing this on a macbook, but I bought this a couple years back. I feel like Apple has become progressively worse with each year. I'm hesitant to ever buy another product from them.

Please let Amazon win! (although I do have my own issues with Amazon's outsourced customer support )

learned olles

 

[Thedutchjelle]

I think Apple is in the right in this one. Before they started, the word 'app store' wasn't used at all. So they claimed it. And now people say it's generic? Obviously that means Apple's marketing machine works, but that shouldn't mean other companies can just copypasta the term. They can try to come up with their own names.

Some people come up with 'I can't explain it without using the word'. How about 'Store for applications' ? Or perhaps "An utility you can buy other programs through" ? Apple claimed Appstore, not Application store. Instead of going for a different wording, Amazon had to go use the exact same wording as Apple.

But I suppose everybody is going to hate Apple because that is cool to do anyway.

For the record, my only cellphone is ancient and can not run all that newfangled application crap. It's a phone.

I'm going to brave the waters of conflict and say that I think Apple is fine, and should protect its intellectual property, just as everybody should protect what's theirs. It's hardly a frivolous lawsuit when their name is being used by a direct competitor.

As far as the more basic gripe, they've got a perfectly reasonable claim to exclusionary rights. Now, that claim is being disputed (also reasonably, I suppose), but it's not outrageous to claim ownership over a term for a service you essentially invented. The only reason the term feels SO generic is because it set the bar for the field. We would all be calling them program hubs, no questions asked, if Apple had decided to call it the Pro Hub.

Glad there's someone with me in this