Although my previous comment invalidates your assumption – and your arguments dependent on that assumption – that ‘app’ wasn’t a generic term (it clearly was), I thought I’d comment on your other points as well.

- Others (not ‘Every other’) haven’t used the term pending the outcome of the dispute. It’s not a de facto acknowledgement
- I kind of agree with your point that Jobs could reasonably refer to other app stores using the lingo of his own organization, however…
- Steve Jobs doesn’t represent Apple?!!? you’re not serious!

@ Tony Valentino: ho hum, just another troll from another Apple fanboy/Microsoft hater

@Bolt: Flawed logic. Are you saying that because Apple used iLife and iWork that they now also own Life and Work? Note that the issue isn’t that Apple wants the term iApp, but App… 2 completely different terms

@Morris Turek: Completely agree on the equivalency of store for pets and store for apps.

“Can you even name the widespread usage of the term app before 2008?”

Yes, “app” has been a generic term for years. Here’s one example (of many)… This one actually fairly popular:

http://portableapps.com/node/200

Note the 2005 date.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the outcome of this case. It may be a couple of years though.

Because of the ascendency and innovations of Google and Apple, Microsoft finds
itself in a position where it can’t bully, litigate, or spend it’s way into relevancy in
the current mobile technology revolution.

Microsoft as a company will have to shrink at least by one third.
Because of the IPad, ( which they are a year behind in trying to copy),
along with cloud computing, Windows and Office sales will plummet.

Senior product, and device managers are leaving the company in droves.
Better to leave now and cash in the stock options while they still have some value.

Let’s say since they lawyered up on this app store issue they win.
Now what?
You don’t even have a tablet, a willing developer ecosystem to develop apps for it,
or the new Windows Phone 7.

For all their hubris, bullying and il – gotten gain over the last 30 years
Microsoft is finished, and they were beaten on merit by the innovations of Apple and Google.

No calvary of lawyers, or motorcade of Brinks trucks can save them this time.

SENT FROM MY IPAD (LOL……..)

With all due respect your pet store analogy is weak because pet is a real word; app, by contrast, did not enter the public lexicon until Apple used it in reference to the iPhone and the App Store. Furthermore, if the persons who invented the first grocery store centuries ago had the foresight or the ability to trademark the term they might well have been granted the trademark.

Every other smartphone provider has made a concerted effort not to use the term “app store”, acknowledging that Apple has de facto ownership over the term. Furthermore, the fact that Steve Jobs made reference to other app stores is relatively meaningless for two reasons: 1) his words could be understood to use the term app store as a reference to the fact that other smart phones are copying Apple’s idea, and 2) he does not solely represent the publicly traded company.

To my mind Apple’s claim is no different than Facebook trademarking the term facebook. Facebook is not a unique term – it refers to a literal book of faces with contact information used in colleges in the United States in the 1990s and early 2000s. Facebook in terms of a social network is understood to refer to one company. This is, of course, the basis of Facebook’s claim to “book” and “face” trademarks for social networks, as well.

The term “App Store” is understood to refer to one company in the smart phone marketplace space. Whether or not it implies a generic “application storefront” is irrelevant because “app store” was not a generic term, and it is still not a generic term. It is widely understood to refer solely to Apple’s product. That’s the basis of the claim and likewise why it ought to be granted.