5 ms·

This is especially delicious, coming from a company whose trademarks include "Word", "Office", "Access", "Publisher", and "Outlook". http://www.microsoft.com/a

This is especially delicious, coming from a company whose trademarks include "Word", "Office", "Access", "Publisher", and "Outlook". http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/Office.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...

tvon 16y ago
That's just the Office suite, see also: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...
kenjackson 16y ago
The problem is the genericity of the term. For example, would you say, "Apple's Word product" Or "Google's Outlook client"? No, unless you were actually referring specifically to the MS branded versions of the product. This is actually why enforcing your trademarks is important. Everyone uses the term "app store" to refer to "app stores". As the complaint notes, even Steve Jobs referred to "Android App Stores". If you asked someone if Chrome had "Word" people wouldn't say, "Yeah it does." Thinking you meant a word processor in general. But if you asked if Android had an "app store" people would say yes. They wouldn't say, "No. Apple hasn't ported the App Store to Android, and likely won't".
asynchronous13 16y ago
The most egregious of Microsoft's trademarks is "windows". At one point, Microsoft sued Lindows for trademark infringement. During the trial, it became apparent that Microsoft might not just lose the case, but might end up having their "windows" trademark declared generic. So they quickly settled out of court, with Microsoft paying several 10's of millions to purchase the Lindows mark.
- unexpected 16y ago
  "Windows" was only deemed too generic because Microsoft had been using it for 3 years to demonstrate GUI's to the public. To be clear, it's not because the name "Windows" is inherently bad and generic.
tomlin 16y ago
So, Apple AND Microsoft are both wrong. Trademarking a name like "Food Store" for a grocery store would be ridiculous. Just as "App Store" is equally ridiculous.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- allwein 16y ago
  Um, I don't find "Food Store" to be a ridiculous trademark at all. Have you heard of The Container Store? They'd definitely argue that their trademark isn't ridiculous. And in my city, there's a burger restaurant called Burger and a drinking establishment known as Bar.
  - thomasz 16y ago
    You can call your food store "Food Store", your bar "Bar" and your burger restaurant "Burger", but you can't claim exclusivity.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    You'll be able to dig up thousands of ridiculous name-claims, I never really doubted that. They'd definitely argue that their trademark isn't ridiculous. Yes, so would Apple and Microsoft. The same logic/idea apply here as well.
- jbrennan 16y ago
  In Ontario, there is "The Beer Store", so I wouldn't say it's that ridiculous.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    It's less ridiculous since, in Ontario, the government runs the only beer store in the province. Additionally, the franchise is not found outside of Ontario. On another note, you didn't mention whether "The Beer Store" was a trademark, just that it existed.
unexpected 16y ago
Word, Office, and Publisher I'll give you - but Outlook and Access? A Trademark isn't intended to be a made up word - it can be a common word as well (see Apple). A trademark isn't supposed to be descriptive, it's just supposed to be unique. In Access and Outlook's case - imagine they didn't exist - I'd be hard-pressed to to think of how they could conceivably relate to databases and email.
halo 16y ago
If you view their trademark list (http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...), they haven't listed Word, Publisher or Office. The page you linked likely refers to the use of "Microsoft Word", "Microsoft Publisher" and "Microsoft Office", which are fairly uncontroversial. Access and Outlook don't seem particularly egregious.
cobralibre 16y ago
My parent comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but as others, such as kenjackson and unexpected, have pointed out, the issue is in fact more complex than my comment implied.

tvon 16y ago

That's just the Office suite, see also: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...

kenjackson 16y ago

The problem is the genericity of the term. For example, would you say, "Apple's Word product" Or "Google's Outlook client"? No, unless you were actually referring specifically to the MS branded versions of the product. This is actually why enforcing your trademarks is important. Everyone uses the term "app store" to refer to "app stores". As the complaint notes, even Steve Jobs referred to "Android App Stores". If you asked someone if Chrome had "Word" people wouldn't say, "Yeah it does." Thinking you meant a word processor in general. But if you asked if Android had an "app store" people would say yes. They wouldn't say, "No. Apple hasn't ported the App Store to Android, and likely won't".

asynchronous13 16y ago

The most egregious of Microsoft's trademarks is "windows". At one point, Microsoft sued Lindows for trademark infringement. During the trial, it became apparent that Microsoft might not just lose the case, but might end up having their "windows" trademark declared generic. So they quickly settled out of court, with Microsoft paying several 10's of millions to purchase the Lindows mark.

unexpected 16y ago
"Windows" was only deemed too generic because Microsoft had been using it for 3 years to demonstrate GUI's to the public. To be clear, it's not because the name "Windows" is inherently bad and generic.

tomlin 16y ago

So, Apple AND Microsoft are both wrong. Trademarking a name like "Food Store" for a grocery store would be ridiculous. Just as "App Store" is equally ridiculous.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
allwein 16y ago
Um, I don't find "Food Store" to be a ridiculous trademark at all. Have you heard of The Container Store? They'd definitely argue that their trademark isn't ridiculous. And in my city, there's a burger restaurant called Burger and a drinking establishment known as Bar.
- thomasz 16y ago
  You can call your food store "Food Store", your bar "Bar" and your burger restaurant "Burger", but you can't claim exclusivity.
- tomlin 16y ago
  You'll be able to dig up thousands of ridiculous name-claims, I never really doubted that. They'd definitely argue that their trademark isn't ridiculous. Yes, so would Apple and Microsoft. The same logic/idea apply here as well.
jbrennan 16y ago
In Ontario, there is "The Beer Store", so I wouldn't say it's that ridiculous.
- tomlin 16y ago
  It's less ridiculous since, in Ontario, the government runs the only beer store in the province. Additionally, the franchise is not found outside of Ontario. On another note, you didn't mention whether "The Beer Store" was a trademark, just that it existed.

unexpected 16y ago

Word, Office, and Publisher I'll give you - but Outlook and Access? A Trademark isn't intended to be a made up word - it can be a common word as well (see Apple). A trademark isn't supposed to be descriptive, it's just supposed to be unique. In Access and Outlook's case - imagine they didn't exist - I'd be hard-pressed to to think of how they could conceivably relate to databases and email.

halo 16y ago

If you view their trademark list (http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualPrope...), they haven't listed Word, Publisher or Office. The page you linked likely refers to the use of "Microsoft Word", "Microsoft Publisher" and "Microsoft Office", which are fairly uncontroversial. Access and Outlook don't seem particularly egregious.

cobralibre 16y ago

My parent comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but as others, such as kenjackson and unexpected, have pointed out, the issue is in fact more complex than my comment implied.