3 ms·

I believe they are overreacting, but on the other hand, if they don't cease, the cost of a litigation by apple might hurt them significantly. What i dont get i

I believe they are overreacting, but on the other hand, if they don't cease, the cost of a litigation by apple might hurt them significantly. 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).

amalcon 15y ago
They have already spent many marketing dollars on "App Store". They are probably just hesitant to write that off.
- ignifero 15y ago
  they did the same for apple TV, i dont see it as a big deal.
  - amalcon 15y ago
    Oh yes, I'm sure they will if push comes to shove. It only makes sense (from a business perspective) to try to avoid that write-off, at least while the costs are low.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    They changed iTV to AppleTV before the product launched, not after three years.
bakbak 15y ago
Also Federal Judge rejected Apple's bid for injunction against Amazon for using the term "App Store".... So why are they after the small people like GetJar??
- cshenoy 15y ago
  >So why are they after the small people like GetJar?? 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.
  - shareme 15y ago
    but they lost that right with the Amazon judgement, the original question remains why now go after anyone using Appstore words combination?
    - 0x44 15y ago
      The Amazon judgment only denied the preliminary injunction, it didn't resolve the ownership of the trademark (if any). The case is still on-going and Apple may introduce additional evidence as the case continues.
- saurik 15y ago
  Lest your comment cause any confusion, it should be made clear that the court denied their request for a /preliminary/ injunction (which seems to be very common, but you request it anyway); but, as far as I understand the situation, the judge agreed to hear the case and, after all arguments are weighed, Amazon could still well lose. 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.

amalcon 15y ago

They have already spent many marketing dollars on "App Store". They are probably just hesitant to write that off.

ignifero 15y ago
they did the same for apple TV, i dont see it as a big deal.
- amalcon 15y ago
  Oh yes, I'm sure they will if push comes to shove. It only makes sense (from a business perspective) to try to avoid that write-off, at least while the costs are low.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  They changed iTV to AppleTV before the product launched, not after three years.

bakbak 15y ago

Also Federal Judge rejected Apple's bid for injunction against Amazon for using the term "App Store".... So why are they after the small people like GetJar??

cshenoy 15y ago
>So why are they after the small people like GetJar?? 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.
- shareme 15y ago
  but they lost that right with the Amazon judgement, the original question remains why now go after anyone using Appstore words combination?
  - 0x44 15y ago
    The Amazon judgment only denied the preliminary injunction, it didn't resolve the ownership of the trademark (if any). The case is still on-going and Apple may introduce additional evidence as the case continues.
saurik 15y ago
Lest your comment cause any confusion, it should be made clear that the court denied their request for a /preliminary/ injunction (which seems to be very common, but you request it anyway); but, as far as I understand the situation, the judge agreed to hear the case and, after all arguments are weighed, Amazon could still well lose. 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.