Slashdot Mirror
Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming
eldavojohn writes "In what may be a case of trademark trolling, Apple has issued warnings to makers of other electronic devices containing the word 'pod.' Two companies have been asked to remove the word from their products. Why might this be a mean action by Apple? These two companies don't manufacture MP3 players as one would think would cause confusion. From the article:
Profit Pod is a device that compiles data from vending machines, while TightPod manufactures slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products such as laptops and MP3 players.Back in the day, if someone was calling an electronic device a 'pod,' I would have thought they were talking about Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods (which I believe have been around for a while). How come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming?"
Apple's afraid that the term ipod will become generic (genericided?). Suing random '*pod' named businesses show's they're 'actively defending' their mark.
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
No problem. TightPod can just rename their product the "TightSosumi". ;')
Also, Line 6 and Apple's iPod are both music-related; Line 6's pod products came first, so, really, Apple should be careful about the word "pod," because maybe the reason Line 6 didn't care is that the emphasis is on the i in iPod. (But, who knows, really.)
Line 6's stuff is nearly universally known among guitarists and bassists. "People who enjoy music" is simply a bigger market than "people who play guitars." Considering that, I'd say Line 6 has very good recognition (although their 'pod' products aren't as popular now as they once were... I think Zoom's cheaper copycats took care of that).
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
That's true that it often happens, and if it does the trademark is lost. This is why companies with very popular products spend so much time and money suing people and embarking on public education campaigns to get people to stop using their name generically.
All of these companies try to get people to call their product by its full name, including function, such as "Zamboni ice resurfacing machine" rather than just "Zamboni," and encourage people to call competitors' products by the actual product description ("ice resurfacing machine"). These campaigns are rarely successful, but the companies still try.
After all, genericization (that's probably not a real word) of a product name is really only the first step in commoditization of that product. After all, if you can't use your name to distinguish your product from anyone else's anymore, that product has essentially become a commodity, and that makes the competitive environment much more challenging. After all, when people buy tissues these days, how many are really loyal to the particular brand Kleenex anymore? How many people care if the personal casette player they buy is actually a Sony Walkman? Or that the copier they buy is actually a Xerox? Or the aspirin they buy is really Bayer Aspirin? And so on.
Further, the "TightPod" was clearly chosen to play of iPod, unless you ca argue with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players".)
Yeah, because things in the natural world are never enclosed in a protective pod.
The sad truth is that unless a trademark holder defends their trademark to a near insane degree courts in the last 30 years have shown a hair trigger willingness to rule that the trademark has moved into the public domain. The courts don't just take into evidence the infringement cases that a holder won but all the cases the holder filed. The courts consider the mere filing of the suit as evidence of defense of the trademark regardless of the merits of the case. Accused infringers will defend themselves by pointing out all possible cases of infringement in which the holder did not sue. As a result the trademark holder files a blizzard of suits, many if not most without strong merit, merely to demonstrated to the courts that they vigorously defend their trademark.
This is definitely a case of "don't blame the player, blame the game."
Actually, it does matter.
And trying to protect words that are used in everyday life is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone in their right mind is arguing for that. First "Windows" and now "Pod" what next, "Mouse"? "Can"? "Pen"?
Will Nintendo start warning people about using the word "Paper" because they have a successful Paper Mario franchise? This is bullshit of the highest degree, right up there with software patents.
If I want to start up a brand of frozen vegetables, I shouldn't have to worry if I wanna call them "Peas-In-A-Pod" for fear of legal issues from Apple. Next thing you know, they'll be taking Granny Smith to court because they call them "apples".
If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?
They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.
Apple's not in a good defensive, let alone offensive, position.
'' From what I have seen a typical electronics store here devotes some 5 to 10% of the digital audio player shelve space to iPods. ''
And what percentage of the cupboard space below the display shelves?
No, Apple didn't invent podcasting. In fact, they didn't even coin the term. It was a concept implemented by Tristan Louis and Dave Winer, originally referred to as 'audioblogging'.
In fact, at one point, Apple tried to snuff the first podcasting client, 'iPodder'.
So yeah. Quiet, fanboy. They didn't invent the GUI either.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1