Apple Legal Rampage; Threatens GetJar over "App Store"; Files 2nd Infringement vs HTC

[debdroid1a]

[quote]

If Lucas can copyright "Droid" why can't Apple copyright "app store"? I mean all tissues are called "Kleenex" informally but that doesn't mean Wal mart can sell equate brand "Kleenex" they sell tissue.... Post it notes and white out are the same thing.

QUOTE]

But Apple didn't copywrite or trademark App Store (did they? I could be wrong). They trademarked, copywrited iTunes or iTunes Music Store. That's what it's been until this year. Everywhere I've been I would see iTunes icon to download something. Now it's Apple App store icon.
The term "Droid" is something Lucas came up with, before that it was Android or robot.

I use tissue, copy on a copy machine (actually at work it is an actual Xerox machine), use liquid paper, etc.

Oh here's a fun little article to read
They Own WHAT? Nine Tech Patent and Trademark Oddities -- including about the Droid name

[UNC]

[quote=debdroid1a;1633615]

The term "Droid" is something Lucas came up with, before that it was Android or robot.

I use tissue, copy on a copy machine (actually at work it is an actual Xerox machine), use liquid paper, etc.

Apple does have a copyright on "App Store" and if shortening "android" to "droid" is sufficient for a copyright, why wouldn't shortening "Application store" to "App Store"?????

Anyway, you may use "tissue", copy on a "copy machine", and use "liquid paper" (Which is also copyrighted) as YOUR generic terms, but you must admit that many people call them; "Kleenex", "Xerox" and "White out"....

[debdroid1a]

[quote=UNC;1633844]

The term "Droid" is something Lucas came up with, before that it was Android or robot.

I use tissue, copy on a copy machine (actually at work it is an actual Xerox machine), use liquid paper, etc.

Apple does have a copyright on "App Store" and if shortening "android" to "droid" is sufficient for a copyright, why wouldn't shortening "Application store" to "App Store"?????

Anyway, you may use "tissue", copy on a "copy machine", and use "liquid paper" (Which is also copyrighted) as YOUR generic terms, but you must admit that many people call them; "Kleenex", "Xerox" and "White out"....

Source? Link? To where it shows Apple has the copyright to the term App Store, please. (Apple site not acceptable. )

And people don't use the term Xerox, I work in an office. Even with our digital imager (copier, scanner, FAX) they use the term they're using it for. For example, they want to FAX something, they don't ask me about our Xerox machine but about the FAX machine or just about faxing. Even with copying.
Xerox machines are not as popular, even the one we have, so the term isn't used as much anymore. I haven't heard it used forever in an office to mean "copy".

And I have a coworker who prefers Puffs with Lotion over Kleenex. So she says the name Puffs with Lotion. I just buy the generic tissue.


Sent from my Droid 1 using DroidForums

[Bear in NM]

Nobody should ever sue to protect what they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing and marketing.... It's not right.....

UNC,


Absolutely Apple or any other company should takes steps to protect what is legally theirs. I think in the case of this thread, the OP made decent points about this going beyond what is legally prudent, although it appears from previous suits the matter is not legally settled.

By this I mean, take me for example. I do not really have much of an opinion on Apple products, as my Droid phone was my first. When I go into our only real supplier of phone goodies,the local Walmart, all they carry is Iphone/Pad/Pod goodies. And there are tons of them. I usually look them over and actually think it would be so much easier to just switch to Apple, as I do love my accessories. I am sure their phones would do what I ask of a phone, by and large.

But, I am aware of all the things that Apple has been doing regarding lawsuits, and it does tend to shade me a bit. For the average consumer much of this is not known or obvious, but for me it tends to make me pause and ask at what point does it become silly and counter productive to their overall financial picture and what they spend on actually making a better product. App Store, Application Store? Is it about using the term App or only in conjuction with Store? In my unlegal eyes, application is a term much like software. Some pretty fine lines here.

And also in my case, the work that I do is technically copyrighted (land surveying and plat preparation). I could spend lots of hours trying to keep folks from making copies of my plats, which are recorded at our courthouse. And play that game, trying to control every aspect of my final product. But, I made the calulations and decided that the amount of ill will that would be heaped on possible clients would not only be a waste of my time, but could actually produce less revenue in the long run. I know of one other Land Surveyor who plays this game, and clients tell me they do not want to use him for anything because he is so difficult to deal with.

So back to the op, I think it is more than sueing at every possible turn because it is the right thing to do, but evaluating what is the right thing to do. And not just the legal system, but evaluating the marketing side. I think the op was pretty clear about this.

Craig

If Lucas can copyright "Droid" why can't Apple copyright "app store"? I mean all tissues are called "Kleenex" informally but that doesn't mean Wal mart can sell equate brand "Kleenex" they sell tissue.... Post it notes and white out are the same thing.

Just admit that Android is the pirate of OS's, stolen patents from MS, Apple and Oracle!!! T
HTC is more than happy to pay MS $10-15 per Android device sold because of infringed patents, I'm sure Apple rightly feels they are owed as well. Samsung and HTC are foreign corporations stealing from an American brand and you guys are all ok with that. Sad.

UNC,

I am only suggesting that perhaps there comes a point where doing so may be counter-productive to the long range productivity of a company, as was mostly discussed in the op. I have zero problem with companies protecting what is legally theirs, quite the opposite.

What is largely broken here is the government side of the equation, the Patent Office. I think what I have heard from folks who practice this for a living is that it is too easy to patent/trademark anything. I am a big proponent of less government, but in the case of patents/trademarks, this governmental function is at the core of our free market system, and I feel that more government involvement and financial commitment would be a good thing. Yes, even going after foreign companies who "steal" things. perhaps the government needs to spend a little less money on parenting or "global warming", and focus on what is the proper role of a government in a free market society (or sort of one). So I am in agreement about proper legal recourse, I only commented on the bigger picture and more specifically about marketing. I am arguing a finer point, please do not make assumptions about the larger legal picture.

My guess is the bulk of consumers have no knowledge nor care about any of this, but there are some number of folks who do have feelings, strong enough to sway purchase decision.

Craig

[UNC]

UNC,


Absolutely Apple or any other company should takes steps to protect what is legally theirs. I think in the case of this thread, the OP made decent points about this going beyond what is legally prudent, although it appears from previous suits the matter is not legally settled.

By this I mean, take me for example. I do not really have much of an opinion on Apple products, as my Droid phone was my first. When I go into our only real supplier of phone goodies,the local Walmart, all they carry is Iphone/Pad/Pod goodies. And there are tons of them. I usually look them over and actually think it would be so much easier to just switch to Apple, as I do love my accessories. I am sure their phones would do what I ask of a phone, by and large.

But, I am aware of all the things that Apple has been doing regarding lawsuits, and it does tend to shade me a bit. For the average consumer much of this is not known or obvious, but for me it tends to make me pause and ask at what point does it become silly and counter productive to their overall financial picture and what they spend on actually making a better product. App Store, Application Store? Is it about using the term App or only in conjuction with Store? In my unlegal eyes, application is a term much like software. Some pretty fine lines here.

And also in my case, the work that I do is technically copyrighted (land surveying and plat preparation). I could spend lots of hours trying to keep folks from making copies of my plats, which are recorded at our courthouse. And play that game, trying to control every aspect of my final product. But, I made the calulations and decided that the amount of ill will that would be heaped on possible clients would not only be a waste of my time, but could actually produce less revenue in the long run. I know of one other Land Surveyor who plays this game, and clients tell me they do not want to use him for anything because he is so difficult to deal with.

So back to the op, I think it is more than sueing at every possible turn because it is the right thing to do, but evaluating what is the right thing to do. And not just the legal system, but evaluating the marketing side. I think the op was pretty clear about this.

Craig

If Lucas can copyright "Droid" why can't Apple copyright "app store"? I mean all tissues are called "Kleenex" informally but that doesn't mean Wal mart can sell equate brand "Kleenex" they sell tissue.... Post it notes and white out are the same thing.

Just admit that Android is the pirate of OS's, stolen patents from MS, Apple and Oracle!!! T
HTC is more than happy to pay MS $10-15 per Android device sold because of infringed patents, I'm sure Apple rightly feels they are owed as well. Samsung and HTC are foreign corporations stealing from an American brand and you guys are all ok with that. Sad.

UNC,

I am only suggesting that perhaps there comes a point where doing so may be counter-productive to the long range productivity of a company, as was mostly discussed in the op. I have zero problem with companies protecting what is legally theirs, quite the opposite.

What is largely broken here is the government side of the equation, the Patent Office. I think what I have heard from folks who practice this for a living is that it is too easy to patent/trademark anything. I am a big proponent of less government, but in the case of patents/trademarks, this governmental function is at the core of our free market system, and I feel that more government involvement and financial commitment would be a good thing. Yes, even going after foreign companies who "steal" things. perhaps the government needs to spend a little less money on parenting or "global warming", and focus on what is the proper role of a government in a free market society (or sort of one). So I am in agreement about proper legal recourse, I only commented on the bigger picture and more specifically about marketing. I am arguing a finer point, please do not make assumptions about the larger legal picture.

My guess is the bulk of consumers have no knowledge nor care about any of this, but there are some number of folks who do have feelings, strong enough to sway purchase decision.

Craig

Allowing Samsung to create a near clone of the iOS desktop is more risky to Apple's bottom line than pissing off a few thousand people that weren't going to buy their stuff anyway.

I agree that it could turn some people off, but not enough to hurt their sales in any way. MS has been doing it for a few decades, and have in fact already settled with HTC with other OEM's on the way, yet I don't see anyone's anger about that!!!

[debdroid1a]

Fun short article since we're talking about copywrite and trademarks...
25 Words You Might Not Know Are Trademarked

And I just looked at the correction fluid we use at work. Liquid Paper.

[UNC]

Fun short article since we're talking about copywrite and trademarks...
25 Words You Might Not Know Are Trademarked

And I just looked at the correction fluid we use at work. Liquid Paper.

That's why when you said liquid paper as a "generic" term earlier I chuckled..... You basically backed up completely what I was saying with that.

And yes, Apple did FILE to have "App Store" copywritten that's why they're fighting over it now.

Either way, Apple was the first to use "App Store" and they definitely filed for a copyright on it. If they didn't they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in filing the suit and it would've been dismissed...

I think they should be allowed to own the name "App Store" Apple and their partners have already advertised so many things as being available on the "App Store"... having another store named "App Store" could confuse consumers into thinking apps are available on other platforms and cost Apple sales!!!!!



I know this app is on the Android Market now, but at the time the commercial came out it was for iOS only... See how at the end it says "Download on the App Store"... NVM......

[Asperity]

Source? Link? To where it shows Apple has the copyright to the term App Store, please. (Apple site not acceptable. )

Trademark number: 77525433

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

[UNC]

Source? Link? To where it shows Apple has the copyright to the term App Store, please. (Apple site not acceptable. )

Trademark number: 77525433

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

Thank you. That's it!!!

[Stelv]

So what I want to know is of Apple successfully kills Android...does that mean we will all have phones that get zero support and no big fixes? Are we forced to use a device that is limited in some way from what are use to? Who will Apple try to kill next? BTW I have 2 MAC computers and am not biased against Apple, but I think thier mobile devices are very limited and I think they are a little sue crazy right now.

sent from my inc2