TheBookPolice wrote:Prof. Wagstaff wrote:TheBookPolice wrote:If someone says "App Store," the response is either "Apple" or "I don't know." Not "a place where one procures applications."
As someone who can honestly remember using the term "app" for computer applications as early as the late '80s, and who also has never owned or used an Apple or any kind of app-using phone, I gotta respectfully disagree. I know what an "appstore" is because I'm not a dummy, not because I'm loyal to any particular brand or product.
I'm surprised that you appear to feel you're representative of the general American populace in this respect.
Huh? I'm surprised (and a little offended) that you think I'm incapable of saying what I mean. The quote above is very clearly intended to only represent me personally. "I know what an appstore is..." I wrote, not "everybody knows..." As is clear from your original quote, it was YOU who claimed to know what was representative of the general populace. You suggested there were only two answers to your question, I merely provided a third.
But good job ignoring the universally applicable (am I allowed to use that word?) part of my post so you could attack the part that was just about me personally. Do you really not see that "Appstore" is equivalent to "photocopy", not "Xerox"?
Absolutely. I understand why Apple is doing what they're doing, I just don't understand why we let anyone do it. If you want to come up with a unique brand name then do it -- but if you're just making compound words, I don't understand why we should legally protect your utter lack of creativity.mrak wrote:Seems to me any objection to this is more about the workings of trademark law and how trademarks must be defended.