Comments on bulbulistan: app

Nice article, thanks for the information.

2011-03-02T15:46:44.677+01:00

Nice article, thanks for the information.

I don't have my BlackBerry in front of me (can...

2011-02-08T20:52:38.939+01:00

I don't have my BlackBerry in front of me (can't bring it into the office), but I'm pretty sure it has "apps".

You really need to change that line: "we didn...

2011-01-27T15:43:10.189+01:00

You really need to change that line: "we didn't come up with "app". Apple did, some time in 2008", since you've agreed that it's not true. According to Google News, "app" was in common use by 2002, with a meaning that I'd say is the same as today - only the devices have changed - and the phrase "killer app" was being used back in 1991, if not earlier.

2011-01-15T17:18:10.955+01:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Trademarks aren't just one big flat list of st...

2011-01-14T19:15:48.275+01:00

Trademarks aren't just one big flat list of strings. They are partitioned in two different ways, at least in the U.S.:

First, every trademark is applicable only to a certain subject area, and trademarks in different subject areas don't collide even if they are identical. For many years, Apple Computers and Apple Records (the publishers of the Beatles) used the same term "Apple" without a problem, because they were in different subject areas. However, when Apple Computers started to sell music, Apple Records sued — and Apple Computers ended up paying out a hefty sum to license the "Apple" trademark in connection with music.

Second, every proposed trademark is classified as fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, or descriptive. The distinctions between the first three groups are merely technical; it's the last group that's important here. Descriptive marks merely describe the trademarked object, and as such are inherently not trademarkable (examples: "Fast" modems, "104-key" keyboards, "Tubeless" computer monitors), unless they have acquired in the minds of consumers the function of indicating the source of the goods.

Most computer operating systems provide windows nowadays, so "Windows" is a descriptive mark, and it is only protectable because Microsoft has gone to a lot of trouble to insure that when people see the word "Windows" in connection with computers, they think of Microsoft. Such trademarks are always shakier than the other types. When Lindows Inc. started to sell a Linux-based operating system to compete with Windows, Microsoft sued, and they had to change their company name and product name to Linspire — but it was Microsoft who paid Lindows $$$$$ in the settlement, as well as giving them some rights to use Microsoft patents, now unfortunately expired.

Hey, where did John Cowan's comment go? I swea...

2011-01-14T18:33:56.957+01:00

Hey, where did John Cowan's comment go? I swear it was right here this morning. Stupid Google...

John disagreed and said: For one thing, I have been using app 'application (program)' for a very long time, probably since the mid-1990s (my first Windows was 2.0 in 1988). The phrase "Windows apps" currently gets half a million Google hits. A second's googling finds this 2007 article titled "40+ Free Windows Apps For You", and very shortly thereafter this 2004 Steve Yegge post called "Scripting Windows Apps". So app is not in any way an Apple or 2008 invention."
All very true. And yet, there's an app and there's an app. I certainly don't dispute that the word "app" was used as a shortened form of "application" before 2008 and probably still is. What I'm saying is that the "app" in "app store" and in general usage as of January 2011 is a different word or a word with different meaning - a specific type of software application for a specific device. On this, even Microsoft sort-of agrees. In their Motion for Summary Judgment, they say
"“App” is used in the trade, by the press, by relevant consumers, by Apple’s competitors and by Apple as the name for software applications, especially applications for
mobile devices."

Licia,
what a remarkable coincidence indeed :)
The whole case is full of interesting linguistic material and so is the entire USPTO website. My favorite so far has been this case with the Armenian word "lavash" at the center.

BTW, the exhibits brought forward in Microsoft's motion make for some interesting linguistic reading on the matter. Here is a quote on the American Dialect Society's choice for Word of the Year 2010, which makes one wonder about the timing of the motion!

« […] indeed, the arrival of app stores by Apple’s competitors was cited by the American Dialect Society as of the reasons it chose “app” as its Word of the Year for 2010, even though it was not a new word. Linguist and American Dialect Society representative Ben Zimmer noted:

App has been around for ages, but with millions of dollars of marketing muscle
behind the slogan “There’s an app for that,” plus the arrival of ‘app stores’ for a wide spectrum of operating systems for phones and computers, app really exploded in the last 12 months. »