On 7/9/2011 12:15 AM, nospam wrote:
In , tony cooper
wrote:

That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
door.

wrong horse.

the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
that didn't work.

since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,
and they only lost an injunction so far. it's not over yet. the actual
trial is scheduled for 2012.


You remind me of the baseball fan whose team is losing by 8 runs, with
two out in the last of the ninth, who is still rooting for his team to win.

In IP cases the decision to grant an injunctions is based largely upon
likelihood of success and weighing of potential harm. (Yes there are
other factors) In this case the court found little likelihood of success.

--
Peter