Microsoft attacks the font size of Apple's App Store brief

The war between Microsoft and Apple regarding the use of the term "App Store" rages on, with Microsoft claiming that the term is generic and Apple countering that the term is short for "Apple Store." Last week, Apple filed a brief defending their use of App Store. Today, according to Geek Wire, Microsoft has filed their own motion to have Apple's brief struck from the records because it has too many pages and too small of a font.

On the surface, this argument sounds silly and desperate. On the other hand, the court puts rules in place for a reason and if a 25 page motion with 11 point font is all that is allowed to be filed, why should Apple be allowed to get away with a 31 page motion with a smaller font? Microsoft argues that this gives Apple the ability to make more arguments in defense of its trademark than should be allowed per the law and are requesting the court to dismiss the motion and require Apple to provide a new brief that "complies with the rules and does not add any new matter or arguments."

Apple maintains a complete list of terms and phrases that it owns trademarks/service marks for on its website. The company maintains that "App Store," "Apple Store" and "Mac App Store" are all registered service marks.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft support staff admits NoDo was supposed to go live on March 7

Next Story

Pwn2own 2011 day 1: Safari and IE8 fall [Update: IE9 fixed]

90 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Here is an idea, if Apple really wanted their store to be named after the company, they should have named it The 'Apple' Store, and not 'App Store'.

Microsoft doesn't name their stuff Mic, and up until Apple decided to shove a stick up Microsoft and Google's butt, Apple never used 'App' in place of 'Apple' either.

I dont get it they use a long document to argue for an abreviated word. Why couldn't they use thier own logic sumbit one page and claim it meant alot more.

I feel like saying 'app' is short for 'Apple' should be punished with immediate defeat and penalty of...um...something like the stocks. It's old fashioned and encourages participation from the peasants.

It's one of those arguments that would be funny if it was said in snark, but by a lawyer? Ugh. Fail.

App is short for Apple... So App Store is short for Apple Store, huh? Thats funny because Apple themselves have made the following distinctions:

1. App Store - iOS application store
2. Apple Store - Apple's online hardware and software store
3. Mac App Store - Mac OS X application store
4. iTunes Store - Music/Video store
5. iBooks Store - eBooks

App Store =/= Apple Store

Terrible argument, Apple Lawyers!

What I find that people have not mentioned-- App is short for application --not Apple-- However -- App Store (has been around before APPLE used it ) it is called a REPOSITORY -- Linux/Unix has been using that for years. So I am afraid -- they both fail.

Not to mention -- in the dictionary
app. - apprentice; aprpoximately; appendix; appointed

redvamp128 said,
What I find that people have not mentioned-- App is short for application --not Apple-- However -- App Store (has been around before APPLE used it ) it is called a REPOSITORY -- Linux/Unix has been using that for years. So I am afraid -- they both fail.

Not to mention -- in the dictionary
app. - apprentice; aprpoximately; appendix; appointed

Not to mention -- the dictionary I used was a 1966 and also looked in a 1990 one -- no where did it say or mention-- App is short for Apple.

You know what would be quite humorous = Is if whatever company -- I think it is IBM actually owns the trademark for the term COMPUTER- were to sue Apple for the use term Computer == That would be so funny...

That and font size in a legal brief--- is not something to argue about-- I always thought you had to read the "fine" print... lol

I dont think microsoft should need to point out to the court that the brief was too long. The court should just ignore the brief, or at least send it back to "app" and have them play by the rules.

cfew said,
I dont think microsoft should need to point out to the court that the brief was too long. The court should just ignore the brief, or at least send it back to "app" and have them play by the rules.

There is a reason they have lawyers, and also a reason why you're not one. You'd lose all your cases if you kept your mouth shut like that.

Anooxy said,

There is a reason they have lawyers, and also a reason why you're not one. You'd lose all your cases if you kept your mouth shut like that.

Thats not what lawyers are for. If the court can really be expected to be this loose in a case like this, then thats a pretty **** legal system. The court is supposed to tell right from wrong. Dont you agree?
Or should the judge also have a lawyer by his side, telling him that is ok and what not?

cfew said,

Thats not what lawyers are for. If the court can really be expected to be this loose in a case like this, then thats a pretty **** legal system. The court is supposed to tell right from wrong. Dont you agree?
Or should the judge also have a lawyer by his side, telling him that is ok and what not?

A judge just judges. It does not investigate through facts and all that. That is what lawyers are for, to point him out the facts, bring proof and witnesses. And pointing that the papers are longer than what is accepted is their job too, as long as it makes the opposition's life harder.

Anooxy said,

A judge just judges. It does not investigate through facts and all that. That is what lawyers are for, to point him out the facts, bring proof and witnesses. And pointing that the papers are longer than what is accepted is their job too, as long as it makes the opposition's life harder.


I agree, if the court cant do its job right, of course microsofts lawyers should address the issue.

Apple-a-Day said,
Well ... Apple has allways used a Application folder .. and hasnt MS used Programs?
ProStore... mmmmmm

Before Apple used Application Folder-- Win 2.0 - Win 3.1 Microsoft used it-- in the Program Manager a folder called Application.

surely apple would have used the argument that the App Store is named so because all mac applications are...
mail.APP
steam.APP
Photobooth.APP

and so on

So MS can have the 'exe store'

Although it sounds nonsense but Microsoft does have a point here because of the the requirement of filing clearly states how many pages and font size. Remember you write paper in your class?? If you exceeds requirement, you actually get less grade even what you write is more specific and thorough.

So it makes sense to say Eve ate the App in the garden of Eden? Like comparing Apps and oranges? ... According to Apple... Uh.. App.

Did anyone look at that apple list of trademarks? It's a bit crazy...

Apparently Apple own the trademark on Aqua... as in water, Bonjour... as in hello, and Capitals... as in letters, or main cities, just to name a few.

I think the Apple legal department must be drinking the funny juice in the Apple Juice fountain...

CrimsonBetrayal said,
Did anyone look at that apple list of trademarks? It's a bit crazy...

Apparently Apple own the trademark on Aqua... as in water, Bonjour... as in hello, and Capitals... as in letters, or main cities, just to name a few.

I think the Apple legal department must be drinking the funny juice in the Apple Juice fountain...

You mean the App Juice fountain.

KavazovAngel said,

You mean the App Juice fountain.

Haha, thanks for the correction!

Now excuse me while I get a glass of Aqua and say Bonjour to some french people while I contemplate Capitals to visit... maybe France...

CrimsonBetrayal said,
Did anyone look at that apple list of trademarks? It's a bit crazy...

Apparently Apple own the trademark on Aqua... as in water, Bonjour... as in hello, and Capitals... as in letters, or main cities, just to name a few.

I think the Apple legal department must be drinking the funny juice in the Apple Juice fountain...


Please learn how trademark law actually works. They don't own the trademark of the words themselves but in the context of what they're used for. Bounjour = networking protocol, Aqua = user interface, etc. Same with Microsoft Windows. You can't create an OS named Windows but you can create a cleaning product called Windows.

However, in my opinion they shouldn't be allowed to trademark App Store, because it describes exactly what it is, although abbreviated. It's a generic word and completely different from the Bonjour, Aqua cases.

floopy said,

Please learn how trademark law actually works. They don't own the trademark of the words themselves but in the context of what they're used for. Bounjour = networking protocol, Aqua = user interface, etc. Same with Microsoft Windows. You can't create an OS named Windows but you can create a cleaning product called Windows.

A good way to tell when a law is worthless tripe is when it's defended with an "argument" like the above.

CrimsonBetrayal said,
Did anyone look at that apple list of trademarks? It's a bit crazy...

Apparently Apple own the trademark on Aqua... as in water, Bonjour... as in hello, and Capitals... as in letters, or main cities, just to name a few.

I think the Apple legal department must be drinking the funny juice in the Apple Juice fountain...

Shouldn't that be the App iJuice fountain instead?

Tech Greek said,
Question: Why is there a rule for font size on this whenever they can advertise on TV with a 2 PT font for "fine print"?
Last I remember, a TV isn't a courtroom. (Not that I agree with the possibility).

stablemist said,
If Microsoft has this much effort fighting Apple they should at least fix WP7 first.

Not sure if it matters but they are preparing an UPDATE to WP7 to make it better. Is that what you're talking about?

stablemist said,
If Microsoft has this much effort fighting Apple they should at least fix WP7 first.

Right. I'm sure the whole wp7 Software development team double as lawyers to fight this case in court. /s

stablemist said,
If Microsoft has this much effort fighting Apple they should at least fix WP7 first.

Absolutely, its stupid that they havent pulled all lawers from all cases they're currently involved with, trained them up in software dev, brought them into the windows phone 7 team and used them to quicken up the massively delayed (2 days now) 1st update to a brand new platform - stupid microsoft! /s

Microsoft who will not allow Mike Row in Canada have his software companies website named MikeRowsoft.com and now wants to use App store which is clearly apples first come invention and registered trademark and we should all bowl to the generic defense when microsoft is also a generic name and so is windows. How about dos. as in dos and don'ts. How about if i started marketing my software and called it micro soft. Since i am a small company and its software and claim that their name is generic. Too generic at that! Microsoft needs to be put in their place.

enocheed said,
How about dos. as in dos and don'ts. How about if i started marketing my software and called it micro soft. Since i am a small company and its software and claim that their name is generic. Too generic at that! Microsoft needs to be put in their place.

Really?

enocheed said,
Microsoft who will not allow Mike Row in Canada have his software companies website named MikeRowsoft.com and now wants to use App store which is clearly apples first come invention and registered trademark and we should all bowl to the generic defense when microsoft is also a generic name and so is windows. How about dos. as in dos and don'ts. How about if i started marketing my software and called it micro soft. Since i am a small company and its software and claim that their name is generic. Too generic at that! Microsoft needs to be put in their place.

Crawl back into your troll box and leave the intelligent comments to others.

enocheed said,
Microsoft who will not allow Mike Row in Canada have his software companies website named MikeRowsoft.com and now wants to use App store which is clearly apples first come invention and registered trademark and we should all bowl to the generic defense when microsoft is also a generic name and so is windows. How about dos. as in dos and don'ts. How about if i started marketing my software and called it micro soft. Since i am a small company and its software and claim that their name is generic. Too generic at that! Microsoft needs to be put in their place.

Desparately trying not to laugh ;-|

Seriously? The point of the article is that Microsoft complained that Apple's brief was more pages than it is supposed to be and that it was in a small font too, which means that if it was in the regular sized font it would've been several more pages than it is now which is currently too many pages. It's just too much, they want to protect their asses to the nanometer lol.

Apple is the one that screwed up thinking they can own the most common words in the dictionary... You are doing nothing more than trolling here...

enocheed said,
Microsoft who will not allow Mike Row in Canada have his software companies website named MikeRowsoft.com and now wants to use App store which is clearly apples first come invention and registered trademark and we should all bowl to the generic defense when microsoft is also a generic name and so is windows. How about dos. as in dos and don'ts. How about if i started marketing my software and called it micro soft. Since i am a small company and its software and claim that their name is generic. Too generic at that! Microsoft needs to be put in their place.

DOS is just "two" in Spanish. How do you format a dos tacos?

Anyway, Microsoft means Apple anyway. Everyone knows that.

App = Apple...whatever. People have been using the term app for applications before apple started using it. Apple didnt follow the rules here and it looks like they were clearly stated. Apple just tried to sneak one past.

Would be nice if you read the article first:

On the other hand, the court puts rules in place for a reason and if a 25 page motion with 11 point font is all that is allowed to be filed, why should Apple be allowed to get away with a 31 page motion with a smaller font?
So tell me, why should Apple get away with more pages and smaller fonts?

Sure its a silly rule, but it's a rule. If other companies follow it, Apple should too.

/- Razorfold said,
Would be nice if you read the article first:
So tell me, why should Apple get away with more pages and smaller fonts?

Sure its a silly rule, but it's a rule. If other companies follow it, Apple should too.

Well here is the dilemma. Did or is the rule specify font size? If not then apple totally should get away with it since it is a genius way around the rule. The court has no excuse but to except it. In all fairness if you are dumb enough to make a rule and not specify font size then by all means the thing should be excepted. Also we talk about freedom and then have page limit? Why even have that rule? What the judge will pass out if he reads more? Or have we became that illiterate to now be able to read passed 25 pages? Why is there such a rule?

sexypeperodri said,
Fighting because of font size, reminds me of high school.

Would be like handing in court documents which are important though half the information is unreadable from bad photocopier or printer running out of ink - it's certainly a plausible case if they write rubbish in 8 point or lower font which requires a 20/20 vision human to need a magnifying glass.

/- Razorfold said,
Would be nice if you read the article first:
So tell me, why should Apple get away with more pages and smaller fonts?

Sure its a silly rule, but it's a rule. If other companies follow it, Apple should too.

Yup, rule was put in place to give everyone an equal amount of room/time to state their case.

enocheed said,

Well here is the dilemma. Did or is the rule specify font size? If not then apple totally should get away with it since it is a genius way around the rule. The court has no excuse but to except it. In all fairness if you are dumb enough to make a rule and not specify font size then by all means the thing should be excepted. Also we talk about freedom and then have page limit? Why even have that rule? What the judge will pass out if he reads more? Or have we became that illiterate to now be able to read passed 25 pages? Why is there such a rule?

Umm, yes, it's a rule. 37 CFR §2.126(a)(1): A paper submission must be printed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced, with text on one side only of each sheet; and 37 CFR §2.127(a): [...]The brief in support of a motion and the brief in response to the motion shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and a reply brief shall not exceed ten pages in length.[...]

As to why it's a rule? Probably so companies can't submit pages that are 4pt big within the page limit, and they probably have a page limit so they don't submit a flipping novel for their brief.

enocheed said,

Well here is the dilemma. Did or is the rule specify font size? If not then apple totally should get away with it since it is a genius way around the rule. The court has no excuse but to except it. In all fairness if you are dumb enough to make a rule and not specify font size then by all means the thing should be excepted. Also we talk about freedom and then have page limit? Why even have that rule? What the judge will pass out if he reads more? Or have we became that illiterate to now be able to read passed 25 pages? Why is there such a rule?

Yeah, difficult that reading malarkey ey?

"On the other hand, the court puts rules in place for a reason and if a 25 page motion with 11 point font is all that is allowed to be filed, why should Apple be allowed to get away with a 31 page motion with a smaller font?"

enocheed said,

Well here is the dilemma. Did or is the rule specify font size? If not then apple totally should get away with it since it is a genius way around the rule. The court has no excuse but to except it. In all fairness if you are dumb enough to make a rule and not specify font size then by all means the thing should be excepted. Also we talk about freedom and then have page limit? Why even have that rule? What the judge will pass out if he reads more? Or have we became that illiterate to now be able to read passed 25 pages? Why is there such a rule?

Its called a brief for a reason as well, if this rule want in place then companies could abuse the system and submit huge 'briefs' - dragging out the whole process even more and costing more money.

Gibwar said,

Umm, yes, it's a rule. 37 CFR §2.126(a)(1): A paper submission must be printed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced, with text on one side only of each sheet; and 37 CFR §2.127(a): [...]The brief in support of a motion and the brief in response to the motion shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and a reply brief shall not exceed ten pages in length.[...]

Ha! They said nothing about kearning, leading, or margins!

Is anyone sincerely dumb enough to believe that "App" is short for "Apple" not "Application"?

Who among us has ever abbreviated "apple" to "app"?

App pie? App juice? App sauce?

Really?

giantpotato said,
There's an Apple for that

Exactly, they use the same abbreviation for app store as they do for their slogan, surely MS can point that out?

smot said,
Is anyone sincerely dumb enough to believe that "App" is short for "Apple" not "Application"?

Who among us has ever abbreviated "apple" to "app"?

App pie? App juice? App sauce?

Really?


It appears that we've been abbreviating it wrong.

smot said,
Is anyone sincerely dumb enough to believe that "App" is short for "Apple" not "Application"?

Who among us has ever abbreviated "apple" to "app"?

App pie? App juice? App sauce?

Really?

So there are thousands of apples available for the iPhone?

smot said,
Is anyone sincerely dumb enough to believe that "App" is short for "Apple" not "Application"?

Who among us has ever abbreviated "apple" to "app"?

App pie? App juice? App sauce?

Really?

an app a day keeps the doc away

I am on the side on microsoft with this, Apple is exaggerating... If it was iStore then ok to trademark it, but "app store" is something generic.... well, microsoft trademarketed Windows which is so generic, but.....

all this trademark issue, and patents, are there just to make troubles

ramik said,

an app a day keeps the doc away

I am on the side on microsoft with this, Apple is exaggerating... If it was iStore then ok to trademark it, but "app store" is something generic.... well, microsoft trademarketed Windows which is so generic, but.....

all this trademark issue, and patents, are there just to make troubles


Windows is not a generic IT term. Plus the name Windows is based on the appliation windows, not an actual house window

If there is a limit, and it is broken, well that is wrong. It seems very silly, but rules are rules. That is how we have order.

ObiWanToby said,
If there is a limit, and it is broken, well that is wrong. It seems very silly, but rules are rules. That is how we have order.

Amazingly, order arises from cooperation motivated by mutual self-interest. This is true even in cases where no rules exist.

Neb Okla said,

Amazingly, order arises from cooperation motivated by mutual self-interest. This is true even in cases where no rules exist.


Not entirely true, as the Western World was Order and Chaos in one. Took 2 world wars and 400 years before we western world brought order from cooperation.

Panda X said,
Fighting over a generic name and complaining about the font size? Come on...

Maybe you should read Digitalx's post cause you clearly don't understand whats going on!

If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then why can't Microsoft have "App Store" and say it's short for "Application Store"? Especially given that "App" being short for "Apple" is highly irregular.

Solid Knight said,
If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then why can't Microsoft have "App Store" and say it's short for "Application Store"? Especially given that "App" being short for "Apple" is highly irregular.

cause just like using lower case i prefix apple would sue them for similarity and all sorts of nonsense crap why they shouldn't be given this because it's not intellectual property or copyright at stake here it's just apple abusing a failed law because they can.

Digitalx said,

cause just like using lower case i prefix apple would sue them for similarity and all sorts of nonsense crap why they shouldn't be given this because it's not intellectual property or copyright at stake here it's just apple abusing a failed law because they can.

You said it perfectly and thats exactly why Microsoft is trying to stop Apple from doing this. I wonder if all the other companies are supporting Microsoft or just keeping quiet figuring Micorsoft can fight the fight on their own on the industry's behalf?

Solid Knight said,
If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then why can't Microsoft have "App Store" and say it's short for "Application Store"? Especially given that "App" being short for "Apple" is highly irregular.

It's Apple being, well APPLE!!

On the list the have - MacApp - I suppose they would argue that it's short for "Macintosh Apple"

NPGMBR said,

You said it perfectly and thats exactly why Microsoft is trying to stop Apple from doing this. I wonder if all the other companies are supporting Microsoft or just keeping quiet figuring Micorsoft can fight the fight on their own on the industry's behalf?

This law is affecting everyone. From WebOS to Blackberry. Android to WP7.

Solid Knight said,
If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then why can't Microsoft have "App Store" and say it's short for "Application Store"? Especially given that "App" being short for "Apple" is highly irregular.
MS is dead right on this one.

Digitalx said,

cause just like using lower case i prefix apple would sue them for similarity and all sorts of nonsense crap why they shouldn't be given this because it's not intellectual property or copyright at stake here it's just apple abusing a failed law because they can.

+1

If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then WTF is "Mac App Store"... "Mac Apple Store"? ROFLLLLL!

Apple are suck petty ******s. Infact they're just plain liars. It was never "Apple Store" until it was convenient to pretend so. Man I'm so over Apple and their bull****...

noleafclover said,
If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then WTF is "Mac App Store"... "Mac Apple Store"? ROFLLLLL!

Apple are suck petty ******s. Infact they're just plain liars. It was never "Apple Store" until it was convenient to pretend so. Man I'm so over Apple and their bull****...

what?

Solid Knight said,
If "App Store" is short for "Apple Store" then why can't Microsoft have "App Store" and say it's short for "Application Store"? Especially given that "App" being short for "Apple" is highly irregular.

I always thought "App Store" stood for "Apparition Store" like the containment unit in "Ghostbusters". I ain't 'fraid of no ghosts!

NPGMBR said,

You said it perfectly and thats exactly why Microsoft is trying to stop Apple from doing this. I wonder if all the other companies are supporting Microsoft or just keeping quiet figuring Micorsoft can fight the fight on their own on the industry's behalf?


Most let MS fight battles on their own, even tho many of those battles have been for the good of the industry, not specificly for MS.
MS is comparable to the US beeing the world police, MS is the IT police.
You can hate them if you want, but we all damn well know MS is what brought up this industry and what has kept this industry alive and in a way we all benefit from it.

MS shouldnt've never bailed out Apple

Shadowzz said,

MS shouldnt've never bailed out Apple

No I wound't go that far. Micorsoft got lazy and it needs the competition from Apple to keep them on their toes. If it wasn't for MS saving Apple we might still be using WinMO as primary smartphones and clunky portable PCs instead of light and easy to uese devices like the iPad.

NPGMBR said,

No I wound't go that far. Micorsoft got lazy and it needs the competition from Apple to keep them on their toes. If it wasn't for MS saving Apple we might still be using WinMO as primary smartphones and clunky portable PCs instead of light and easy to uese devices like the iPad.

But Microsoft doesn't seriously think of Apple as competition.

It is a fun joke, but has no relevance to how Microsoft does business, or they would have stopped making Microsoft Office for Mac a few years ago and could have done a lot of things that would have decimated Apple. (Just going back on the patent and copyright fights is a bit stupid for Apple to be fighting Microsoft, as Microsoft legitimately has the original technologies and patents that could get OS X and even Macs pulled off the market. -This is not hyperbole.)

Apple is trendy and hip, but their product sales are tiny, making them irrelevant to what Microsoft does.

WP7 is not an answer to the iPhone, as Microsoft didn't give a crap about the iPhone. WP7 is a response to Android, which is an OS that runs on a mixture of hardware, which is what Microsoft does well. (aka Windows)