> "We started formally distributing free apps in early 2005 and are among the pioneers of the modern direct-to-consumer (D2C) app store distribution space when the iPhone was just an R&D project in Steve Job’s head."
> "GetJar has been using the term “App Store” in press releases and in it’s positioning with consumers, trade, analysts and press since early 2009 and it’s only now that Apple has decided to send us a C&D."
Is it just me, or is this actually a good argument /for/ Apple owning the term "App Store"? People keep making the claim "it is an obvious name", but apparently it wasn't for GetJar: it wasn't until Apple gave that term meaning by applying it to their product that GetJar decided to use the term.
> "In conclusion, GetJar won’t be subject to this kind of bullying. We’re not going to “Cease & Desist”. We were here long before Steve & Co. We were built by developers, to help developers."
As for this statement... I don't know... this entire article somehow makes it sound like Apple is telling them to stop running their service, when in fact all Apple is doing is asking them to stop using the term "App Store".
I mean, seriously: my full time job is complaining about Apple being a closed ecosystem, but there's something about this blog post that is off-putting and misses the mark; in fact, I don't even see how Apple being a closed ecosystem is relevant to this specific argument.
> Is it just me, or is this actually a good argument /for/ Apple owning the term "App Store"? People keep making the claim "it is an obvious name", but apparently it wasn't for GetJar: it wasn't until Apple gave that term meaning by applying it to their product that GetJar decided to use the term.
It's a good argument for the term "app store" being original with Apple. However, being the first one to use a term, does not mean you "own" it.
Under the law, one can register a trademark, which gives one exclusive rights to the term under certain restricted conditions. However, as the article points out, Apple did not get a trademark free & clear.
Obviously, I mean in the restricted area of "term used to describe a software product or service", and "under the law" you don't need to successfully register a trademark for that (although trying and actively failing to register the mark will make your life very difficult in court); also, I feel like you are putting too much emphasis on the word "own" here as if I was going for some technical definition, as opposed to "when people think of that word, they immediately associate with Apple's App Store" (which really is all that trademarks really come down to: whether there would be viable confusion in the market if other people co-opted the name).
They presumably started calling it an App Store after people started referring to mobile software as "Apps" (which seems to have started with the iPhone). If a piece of mobile software is called an "App", then calling the place you got it an "App Store" is pretty natural.
So if Apple want to own "App Store", they also ought to go after everyone calling them "Apps". If "App" is generic, so should "App Store".
> .. but there's something about this blog post that is off-putting and misses the mark; in fact, I don't even see how Apple being a closed ecosystem is relevant to this specific argument.
Re-read the second half of the whole blog post (Specifically at the paragraph that starts with "Second, ...'), he kind of explains how it's all connected.
That paragraph kind of thrashes around trying to find a point, and then certainly doesn't lead to the "In conclusion..." paragraph, which simply looks to be a non-sequitor. :(
This is the blog post of a company (a fairly large one, actually, that has in thr last 7 years it is operating become the default marketplace for some entire carriers) that is trying to use a confusing twist of logic to avoid talking about the actual trademark dispute, and instead focus on one of Apple's weak PR points.
They may as well be making an argument through "social justice" to "sustainability" in order to invoke the "Apple ships their products using ecologically unfriendly packaging" card: it would sound about the same. They should stick to the issue at hand, and try to win on the merit of their points.
This will turn out to being a strong argument for Apple that they pioneered the use of App Store to describe a store for mobile applications. If someone can find prior at least one prior instance of the phrase App Store being used in the context of software, GetJar, Amazon, and other users of the phrase might have a case of it being a common term. (standard disclaimer: IANAL)
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).
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.
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??
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.
>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.
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.
We got a C&D letter for App Store too. These guys at GetJar confuse the mark with the activity. And yes, there is something offputting about their response.
We took a different spin - an HTML5 parody videogame[1] and a name-the-store contest[2].
>And yes, there is something offputting about their response.
Their response seemed fine to me. I don't see what's so offputting about standing up to threats from someone that doesn't even own the trademark they're threatening you over.
> "Android was supposed to be FREE and open; yet developers can’t choose their billing solution"
Maybe I'm going off topic, but dev can choose their billing solution, distributing their apps outside android market that is not part of AOSP (Android Open Source Project) (as Gmail app to cite another one)
> Or does Apple care more about the fact that we’re trying
> to give apps away for free to consumers?
Hardly. Apple also give apps away for free to consumers, if developer chooses to distribute it for free.
Apple still makes money from selling hardware not ads.
What'g getjar business model? Oh, yes:
> We were built by developers, to help developers.
> Not to help sell handsets or search results.
No mention about selling ads? Will having more free stuff attract more visits? Will it give more
opportunities to show ads?
Just call it an App Market and avoid the controversy/drama. There is also something unprofessional about their response altogether, "Steve Jobs isn't our dad!!"
Watch out Google might already own App Market. With all these shitty trademarks pretty soon you'll be limited to Place Where You Can Exchange Money For Computer Applications®
Completely agree with this. This has nothing to do with closed or open. Its a business and is trying to protect its trademark. We don't have to go into the ethics of it. Fact is everyone is calling their store App Store only after the iOS made it popular. They want to use the term "App Store" because they know that's what people will be looking/Googling for. They should just have gone with close sounding but different name.
Getjar are hardly good guys themselves. They knocked my mobile web directory mjelly.com off their index a while ago even though it had been listed in there for years. This was because they claimed it was a competitor to getjar. They recently did the same with Opera.
So why can't you guys just call it "Download Center" or something like that? What are you gaining by fighting a company with that much cash, other than free publicity (which might turn out to be not free at all if they decide to come after you, even if they lose in the end)? Is this really a battle worth picking? I'd urge you to think this through with a cool head and try to apply some common sense.
They claim they already own and have owned it[1][2]. The legal proceedings have yet to conclude on the matter so we don't yet know if that claim will be honored by law.
Edit: citation added :) "App Store" is considered a "Service Mark" trademark fwiw
Edit 2: another citation listing Apple as the *applicant
Edit 3: correction, apparently Apple cannot "own" the trademark until it becomes a (R) registered trademark? Nonetheless it seems they can still dispute the use of it as is currently happening with Apple v Amazon.
Edit 4: "The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand."[3]
1) Everyone who applies for a mark can use the (TM) or (SM) labels to identify the mark is under registration during the registration period. It does not mean the trademark has been registered (which would be indicated with an (R).
2) The citation is just the application. If you look at the TARR record, the application is stuck.
Are you claiming that ownership, in trademark and service mark law, is defined by registration? That is not my understanding. While registration does secure ownership, ownership itself is defined by use, and registration is not a prerequisite for the commencement of legal proceedings over claimed infringement.
> "GetJar has been using the term “App Store” in press releases and in it’s positioning with consumers, trade, analysts and press since early 2009 and it’s only now that Apple has decided to send us a C&D."
Is it just me, or is this actually a good argument /for/ Apple owning the term "App Store"? People keep making the claim "it is an obvious name", but apparently it wasn't for GetJar: it wasn't until Apple gave that term meaning by applying it to their product that GetJar decided to use the term.
> "In conclusion, GetJar won’t be subject to this kind of bullying. We’re not going to “Cease & Desist”. We were here long before Steve & Co. We were built by developers, to help developers."
As for this statement... I don't know... this entire article somehow makes it sound like Apple is telling them to stop running their service, when in fact all Apple is doing is asking them to stop using the term "App Store".
I mean, seriously: my full time job is complaining about Apple being a closed ecosystem, but there's something about this blog post that is off-putting and misses the mark; in fact, I don't even see how Apple being a closed ecosystem is relevant to this specific argument.