... someone else will. We have a first to file situation here. This is RIDICULOUSLY dumb on Intel's part. A nice sentiment, better executed by stating, "All fruits of this research must be patented by this foundation we've set up, which allows open, free licensing to anybody and everybody." Defensive patents are the only security you have; non-patent clauses just guarantee somebody other than your allies will patent! Ask Google, specifically whomever wrote the $12.1 billion check to acquire defensive patents from Motorola.
The US is not first to file, it's first to invent. So you don't lose defensive capability just because you don't file, becuase your work will be considered prior-art, which will invalidate any filings made after your research.
So if Windows can bar Lindows and Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon since they are in the same field why can't Apple bar amazon from re-using it's coined app term.
Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.
Actually, MS did not bar Lindows, they ended up settling because they almost lost that one. And for the record, "Windows" does not describe what it is, "An operating system", however "App Store" is precisely that, "A store that sells Apps".
Further, Apple did not invent "App", as even the mark "AppStore" was registered back in 1998 by another company.
Mod this informative! If a company like Cisco has a known trademark and Apple can just march in and use the same name for a similar product, then what is the bloody point in all this? To protect the rich, but screw over the less rich?
It get's worse... If you read this article from Cisco, it says Apple even approached Cisco to try to license the trademark "iPhone", but couldn't reach an agreement, and came out with their phone and named it "iPhone" anyways.
Isn't that willful infringement?
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek