Wow! Microsoft sounds like it's getting an inferiority complex.

As ever, all things come back to The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/microso…

I agree, Goldy, that terms like Word, Office and Desktop, etc., are generic for those applications, but "Windows" for a computer operating system was an arbitrary mark at the time - like "Apple" for computers.

Do they have trademarks on those?

"Office" is not used to refer to a physical room where you work. It's used in connection with a bundle of programs and, therefore, is not a generic use. Regardless, I see only that Microsoft's registered trademark is for "Microsoft Office," and they disclaimed "Office."

"Word" is used in connection with word processing software, so it is probably a descriptive use, or perhaps a suggestive use.

And so on.... Anyway, those aren't generic uses.

However, there's a decent argument that "App Store" is generic; it is being used to refer to an online store where you can buy applications. You know, an "app store."

Every time I hear someone say "App" I want to kick them.

Just me?

Let's just ignore the fact that Microsoft is 100% right in that assessment, everybody. Great, thanks.

I'm confused. Microsoft tried to trademark what could be called common terms, and was fought every step of the way by Apple and others, but now that Apple tries it, Microsoft should just step aside? How does that make sense?

Logic fail. Also, what Foggen @7 said.

Hope they win. Apple products, while they have a shiney designer case, will fail just as much as the competition. To have them claim a lock on anything with a lowercase i or claim to App Store, is shameless.

Its almost like companies will do what they can to benefit themselves and diminish the competition. Nah, thats crazy talk.

Warning - appreciation of this post requires the reader be profoundly ignorance of trademark law or an Apple fanboy.

"This from the company that set the standard for trademarking conversational English?"

You forgot "shit".

seandr @11,

No, all you need to appreciate this post is an appreciation for language.

@11 it's pronounced "fanboi" - please be advised.

Or "enlightened one".

Here's a list of pretty much every MS trademark:

http://bit.ly/bHDEgb

Of the terms that Goldy lists, only "Windows" is on the list. Not even "Microsoft Office" is there, just the logo.

To the extent that Microsoft tried to trademark these common terms, *they lost*. How is it in the least bit unfair for MS to try to hold Apple to the same standard?

Glad you remember poor, dumb Bob.

@2 FTW.

To sort of latch onto California's remarks:

Think of trademark protection as a continuum. On one end of that continuum is the merely descriptive trademark, which is entitled to no protection (App Store, Flight Simulator). On the other end is the arbitrary one, which is entitled to great protection on the premise that the company that originally forged the mental association between the arbitrary moniker "Clorox" and bleach is entitled to reap the commercial benefit of the brand recognition it invested so heavily to create. Between these poles is the "suggestive" trademark.

So, oddly enough, both Office and Windows are entitled to some protection, since they are not merely descriptive. And the trademark which you seem to deem most preposterous -- Bob -- is the most entitled to protection.

Neither Microsoft nor any commercial entity is obliged to maintain a consistent legal posture from one case to the next. In the universe of corporate misbehavior, this is hardly worthy of note.

On the merits, Microsoft should win this case.

@17 is correct.

Anyone watch that Onion sports news show - wow ...

@18 Thats my understanding as well. The protection is also generally limited to the sort of product that it is used for by the holder. So I could not make an OS called Windows, but I am more than free to sell actual windows and call them as such. Microsoft does not own the word Windows, but they do own the right to use it to brand and OS.

@20: Apple knows this better than most. They've been sued by Apple Records something like four times now -- once at their founding, again when they added a MIDI chip to the Apple II, a third time when they included a sound clip in Mac OS, and a fourth time when they opened the iTunes Music Store.

@15 and @18 own it. Goldy, your post is cute but not particularly factual or well-considered...just reads as reflexive anti-Microsoftness.

@2 - Thanks! That was funny!

What #5 said.

"Apple" is pretty generic.

Geez guys, lighten up. I'm not making any legal judgments. I just find it ironic to see Microsoft of all companies complaining about another company seeking generic trademarks.

It might indeed be ironic, if Microsoft's tendency to use English words in trademarked product names was somehow unique.

@26 it would be ironic if Microsoft used generically descriptive names, as others have pointed out. If Microsoft was a window company, naming their product "Windows" would not be trademarkable. But they make software, not windows. If they had named their operating system "Operating System", again, not trademarkable.

Similarly, Apple's name is a generic piece of fruit. Surely they can't use a piece of fruit as a trademark, right? Well, yes, they can, so long as they're not an apple producer. If they produced apples, named themselves Apple, and called their product Apples, they would have no trademark protection at all. Thus, building an app store and naming it App Store is not trademarkable, and there's nothing ironic about Microsoft fighting this.

It's all marketing for the "hatchlings", a term I coined for media drones hatched daily anyone can "program" to act exactly like they want them to by pressing the right button (sound + storyboard = subliminal action).