All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
11 Jul 2011
Mobile application provider GetJar has hit back at Apple after the company threatened the firm with legal action for using the term 'app store'.
Apple sent a cease and desist order to GetJar on 22 June, but Apple has not been in touch since it lost an injunction attempt to stop Amazon using the same term.
Patrick Mork, chief marketing officer at GetJar, claimed that the company will not be bullied and will continue to use the term in light of the ruling against Apple.
"We're not going to ‘Cease & Desist'. We were here long before Steve and Co. We were built by developers, to help developers. Not to help sell handsets or search results. In the words of Twisted Sister: 'We're not going to take it!' Steve Jobs isn't our Dad," he said on the GetJar blog.
"As a matter of fact, we're hereby starting a Facebook Cause called The Open And Free App Movement (#OFAM) to encourage every pissed off developer, startup, carrier, OEM or NGO who is fed up with this crap to make their voice heard."
Mork also told V3.co.uk that GetJar will defend itself because the term 'app store' is widely used and because of the ruling in the case between Apple and Amazon.
"Apple has not been in touch with us since it failed in its bid to get a preliminary injunction. We will be keeping a close eye on the Amazon situation and believe we have a good case going forward," he said.
"GetJar has been distributing apps since 2005, and for Steve Jobs to tell us to stop using the term 'app store' is like Sainsbury's asking Tesco to not use the word ‘supermarket'."
GetJar claims to be the world's largest free app store, and has clocked up over two billion downloads to date. The firm distributes over 150,000 mobile applications across various operating systems, including Android, BlackBerry, Java, Symbian and the mobile web.
The GetJar app store also points iPhone users in the direction of Apple's App Store, and will continue to do so, Mork confirmed.
Apple's belief that it has exclusive rights to the term 'app store' was dealt a major blow last week when when US district judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that the term is "more descriptive rather than distinctive".
The judge refused to grant Apple a preliminary injunction and a trial is set to begin in October.
Latest stories from Hardware
Related videos
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
V3 examines the key strengths and weaknesses of Samsung's latest iPhone killer
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Java, J2EE Agile Senior Developer, Warrington, Cheshire...
Location: Geneva Client: A well established world...
Location: Geneva Client : A well known company Job...
Location: Lausanne Client: A well established world...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
"App Store" IS a generic term, and has been...
Steve Jobs is a narcissistic paranoid with a compulsive control disorder and believes that anything Apple decides to market is theirs and theirs alone. Even the idea of Pad (god forbid I put the lower case letter in front) computer goes back to at least 2 companies that I can think of; Motion Computing, and Palm. Now Apple is going to try and patent the Stylus for their Pads and Phones, but anybody older than about 35-40 yrs old knows these technologies cannot be patented due to prior work. All Apple can hope for is to license the existing Stylus patents and only patent the improvements (if they are not obvious and/or prior art), but with the $$$$ and Lawyers (another $$$$) behind them Apple will probably raid the offices of all current patent holders, remove all computing equipment, documents, and then find some bogus charges to place the patent holder in the brink overnight just to FORM a story about how Apple was wronged. Been there, seen that.
Posted by: Fred Dunn 12 Jul 2011