“Any secondary meaning or fame Apple has in ‘App Store’ is de facto secondary meaning that cannot convert the generic term ‘app store’ into a protectable trademark. Apple cannot block competitors from using a generic name. ‘App store’ is generic and therefore in the public domain and free for all competitors to use.”

– Microsoft appeals to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny Apple’s application to trademark the term “App Store

Certainly it doesn’t take a big leap to imagine Myte as a name for the the next iteration of the Palm Pixi, which is rumored to be smaller than its predecessor–perhaps even “the smallest smartphone ever.”

And Veer and Gyst? Who knows. Maybe HP’s branding team has been reading a bit too much Chaucer lately.

The decision is an important one not just for Microsoft, which now has a chance to challenge the judgment, but for patent law as well. In considering the company’s appeal, the court will examine the current legal standard for determining the validity of a patent, which presumes a patent is valid because it’s been approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Microsoft argues that standard is far too low. And supporters including Apple, Google, Intel and most likely anyone else who’s raised an eyebrow over a dubious USPTO patent approval agree.

“We are gratified by the Court’s decision,” David Howard, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel for litigation, said in a statement. “It’s a clear affirmation that the issues raised in this case are critical to the integrity of our patent system.”

Given the breadth of NetAirus’s patent, it’s hard to disagree. As best I can tell “Wireless Handset Communication System” describes all smartphones and ultraportables. From the patent abstract:

A small light weight modular microcomputer based computer and communications systems, designed for both portability and desktop uses. The systems make use of a relative large flat panel display device assembly (2), an expandable hinge device (10), battery power source (9), keyboard assembly (16), and wireless communications devices (32, 51). The systems are capable of bi-directional realtime communications of voice, audio, text, graphics and video data….

An objective of this invention is to provide for full Internet access on a wireless mobile platform, where the user can access the World Wide Web and execute most of the available Internet browser functions and plug-ins. The computer system would be capable of performing most of the Internet data access, download, upload and conferencing functions.

Quite the blanket description, no? How a patent so overly board could have made it through the USPTO is beyond me. The agency’s mandate is to protect and promote innovation, isn’t it?

Two days after winning a $105.75 million jury verdict against the software giant, VirnetX has filed a new complaint claiming Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 infringe those patents as well. Those products hadn’t yet been released when VirnetX first went after Microsoft, so the company is now circling back, hoping to collect damages for their alleged infringement.

“This is a tactical and procedural post-trial action to ensure and protect our property rights as we proceed to final resolution with Microsoft,” Kendall Larsen, VirnetX president and CEO, wrote in a March 18 statement.

Microsoft (MSFT) has vowed to appeal the first verdict, which it described as “legally and factually unsupported,” and took a similarly dim view of the latest VirnetX assault. “Microsoft respects intellectual property, and we believe our products do not infringe the patents involved,” Microsoft flack Kevin Kutz told the Seattle Post Intelligencer. “Moreover, we believe those patents are invalid. We will challenge VirnetX’s claims.”

To that end, the company has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine the VirnetX patents, evidently with some success. In a preliminary review, the USPTO has found all but one of the VirnetX claims invalid. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be rejected, but for Microsoft, it’s a step in the right direction.

And that’s a conclusion that makes perfect sense, as cloud computing consultant Sam Johnston notes. Said Johnston, “… Few of us think ‘Dell’ when we think of ‘cloud computing’, even in this context.”

And that’s a conclusion that makes perfect sense, as cloud computing consultant Sam Johnston notes. Said Johnston, “… Few of us think ‘Dell’ when we think of ‘cloud computing’, even in this context.”