[markkoberlein]

"In the end, it really doesn't matter, because in Apple's little App Store world, they don't even need to pretend they have a trademark. They've given themselves every legal right to pull an app for no reason at all."

Crazy yes, shocking no. They did the same with the "Pod" in iPod. If you develop for Apple's devices you play by their rules. I wish Apple would embrace developers and their apps because they are the reason why people have stayed with the iPhone.

[tuxychandru]

What makes this worse is the fact that "pad" is a very commonly used word both within and outside technology circles. Notepad, Launchpad, Scratchpad, etc.

This makes me wonder how they can even claim rights on a term so widely used already in the same domain. As the article notes they don't list "pad" as a trademark in their own web page!

[biafra]

What makes it even "more worse" is that the app was accepted but the update was rejected.

[markkoberlein]

I agree, I don't think that Apple will go after products that have nothing to do with the iPad. Unless you make an accessory or app for the iPad I think your safe.

However, it would be fun to watch Apple go after Notepad and ask Microsoft to change the name because they now own "Pad".

[tuxychandru]

That would be funny and indeed is of very low probability. But my point was how can a company claim rights on a term already in wide use within the same domain/industry. Trademarks and patents are getting weirder everyday.

[Vivtek]

They don't have a trademark on the word "pad". What they have is the ability to deny people access to the only market available for the iPhone. The language they use is slanted towards making that seem legitimate, but in the end, this is not a "trademark" issue in the legal sense, it's Apple owning the company store.