4 ms·
To be fair, they already have an Apple Store: store.apple.com (it's marketed as "Apple Store"). Also, they do put a pretty prominent Apple logo on each device:
by michael_miller 14y ago
To be fair, they already have an Apple Store: store.apple.com (it's marketed as "Apple Store"). Also, they do put a pretty prominent Apple logo on each device: notebooks with nothing but a glowing logo on the back, iPhones / iPads with a reflective metallic logo, heck, even the power chargers have an embossed logo on them.
I'm not sure whether Apple should be able to patent the name "App Store," but it certainly does raise a question of what a brand is. Surely, before the iPhone, people off the street would be confused by the term "App Store". Yet, after the iPhone (iOS >= 2), you could pull someone off the street and they would say something like "oh yeah, that's where you buy apps for the iPhone." So I don't think it's reasonable to dispute that Apple popularized the term "App Store," essentially invented it in the public eye. That said, it is a store to buy applications, which Apple did not invent, even in the public eye.
There are lots of terms / brands which encode the product in the name in a fairly obvious manner. Should American Airlines be allowed to use that as their brand? Or is it too generic, given that there are many airlines based in America? Should a brand like KitchenAid be able to patent their name? Or is it too obvious of a name, given that the company produces aids in the kitchen? Should uniqlo be able to patent the term heattech, or is it obvious given that it's a technology designed to preserve heat? It's a very difficult distinction to make, and I'm not sure which side is right.
- Firehed 14y agoNitpick: these are all trademark issues, not patent issues. Less of a nitpick: because these are trademark issues, the holders of the mark must attempt to defend them, or they are lost. While I happen to agree with the judge and feel that App Store is too generic to be upheld as a trademark (and agree with you about Apple Store, though mostly because most of the products there are made by Apple, unlike the App Store), I don't at all blame them for going after Amazon here - and I say that as an AMZN shareholder (AAPL too). It's probably in Amazon's best interest to rename simply because App Store is so firmly associated with iOS, never mind shutting up the lawyers and letting both companies focus on more important stuff. Interestingly, the article mentions this was a suit over false advertising and copyright. I don't know if its wrong or our court system is that backwards, since that's very clearly not the actual issue at hand here. But then again, most of the Apple/Samsung battle should have been waged trademark grounds rather than patents too (analogy: knock-off handbag manufacturers are sued by the original designers under trademark laws too, which makes sense when you consider the concept of a trademark)
- smackfu 14y ago>, the holders of the mark must attempt to defend them, or they are lost. OTOH, a pretty good way to lose them is to sue people and have the case go against you.
- Mordor 14y agoAny law which fails to be clear needs to be rewritten so that the judge and his court can maintain their integrity as the arbiter of right and wrong. You can't punish wrongdoing if popular opinion is divided.
- michael_miller 14y agoWhat do you think is a reasonable law, in this case?
- Mordor 14y agoNo law at all, it would certainly be more exciting. More creative. More competitive.
- miahi 14y agoThis sounds good until you realize that "exciting" means that the "Coca-Cola" can you just bought has something else inside (maybe seawater), because they cannot defend the brand so everyone can use the name and the color to sell their own product.
- sneak 14y ago> I'm not sure whether Apple should be able to patent the name "App Store," I don't mean to condescend, but please leave the discussion of IP issues to those that know what the hell they're blathering on about.