Slashdot Mirror
Apple Goes After the Term 'Podcast'
Udo Schmitz writes "Earlier this year, Apple went up against companies using the word 'pod' in their product names. Now, Apple is going after the term 'podcasting'. Wired has the complete text of Apple's cease-and-desist letter to Podcast Ready." From the article: "Robert Scoble -- whose own company, PodTech, may be at risk in this witch hunt -- has weighed in on the issue by suggesting that the tech community as a whole adopt other terms like "audiocast" and 'videocast' (or alternately, 'audcast' and 'vidcast') to describe this type of content, while other folks feel that fighting Apple and generating a ton of negative press for Cupertino is the best solution. Our take? Apple should be happy that its golden goose is getting so much free publicity, and if it isn't, we know of several companies that probably wouldn't mind if zencast, zunecast, or sansacast became the preferred terminology."
I guess I won't be able to drink coffee, take photos and work on my ninja talents.
Trademarks are ridiculous when they're normal, everyday words. While I don't support trademark law, I can understand "Xerox," but pod? Come on.
I'm so glad to see them doing this. I must say the term "podcast" has to be one of the most annoying buzzwords I've ever heard.
Sony has announced it is going after the words "walk" and "man," though a couple decades late. Come on, had to make this into an anti-Sony argument. Just wouldn't feel right...
It is a generic term now and only a judge that is either mentially retarted or paid by apple to be corrupt would see it any other way.
On the other hand, is the management at apple losing their grip? they should have told the legal department to back off on things that benefit them heavily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They need to dump their lawyers. This is like trying to sue people for calling facial tissue Kleenex. So, they developed the most successful portable digital music device in the world... Of course people are going to start coining the term "pod" to mean all things MP3/digital media related. Get over it, Apple.
Hasn't the term "podcasting" officially been added to the dictionary already? If so, they haven't got a leg to stand on. You're suing people for using a term that's been coined and used by the general masses and can no longer be considered a trademark.
In response to Apple's ridiculous stand on "podcast," CBS is now referring to their "podcasts" as "netcasts."
http://www.cbs.com/netcast/
Hasn't this become a household term, just like Nintendo nearly was back in the 80's? It seems to me that the term has become generic for any sort of radioshow like recording downloadable from the internet, regardless of what format it is in. Seems like Apple is too late to keep "podcast" from becoming a generic phrase - rather than an apple specific one.
Didn't Google almost do the same thing? (I think they only made a statement of discontent with the liberal use of the 'verb', "google".) This should elicit the same response: Apple should be happy that the ever growing lexicon of the English language is practically doing their marketing for them.
Is this just a bit over the top? The wording of the cease and desist letter is vague enough that they could replace "PodCast Ready" (an LLC) any company or product name that contains the word "Pod", or any word that is "phonetically similar" to Pod. Not to mention that they have a trademark pending for the word "Pod" even though the have no product, branch, or line under the name "Pod".
It's crap like this that would make me buy a Zen and call it my "F!Pod".
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Our take? Apple should be happy blahblah blah blah blahblah!"
Jeeeshh!!
First you bitch about the baby, now you bitch 'cause we're not married! What's it gonna take to shut you the hell up...?
This can only mean one thing - there will be other "pods", like "tPod" for TV or telephones, "vPod" for video units etc.
http://vpod.edu.org/
If Apple wanted to take podcasting out of the vernacular, it should have done it a year or two ago. (I don't own an iPod, and I probably never will). I can remember when Rush Limbaugh started plugging his podcasts. That was probably 15 or 18 months ago. At the time, it seemed like a new-ish idea, though it was becoming more common for radio personalities and independent musicians to podcast their stuff. Now we all know what "to podcast" means. What good will it do to make content creators stop using the word?
Looks to me like Apple is going after companies trying to profit from their trademark. They're not going after the term Podcasting in general use, they're simply trying to stop companies from using the term in for-profit activities. The term obviously refers to iPods, so it makes sense to me that Apple would defend their trademark in this way.
Moderation: -1, Apple Fan-Boi
No sig? Sigh...
but doesn't Cupertino deserve a sarcast for this?
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
I know most of the slashdot crowd is going to deride this move on Apple's part as completely stupid. I agree to a certain extent. However, consider the fact that if a trademark holder does not vigorously defend their trademark, they stand to lose it.
SiO2
Enough is enough, the young Jedi reportedly said,I convert to the dark side of the force!
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
Wow they invented the word pod.. I did not know that. you learn something new on slashdot everyday. Pea farmers all over the world are cringing as we speak. coocoo kachoo
I guess they're worried about "iPod" becoming a generic term — if I could demonstrate that "pod" just meant "audio file" or "MP3 player", I might also be able to argue that just adding a lower-case i to the beginning of the word doesn't really make it a distinguishing mark.
But the widespread use of the (clearly generic) term "podcast" gets Apple's iPod brand plenty of credibility and exposure. By moving against a potential threat, they risk stifling a guaranteed benefit.
Mind the Gap
No offense to anyone here, but this article caught a little bit of speed elsewhere by the title, when in reality, Apple is going after the use of iPod (a registered trademark), but nowhere in the letter is it indicated that 'podcasting' is not to be used. Please read the cease and desist letter. Hopefully someone will update the headline so that the title is more reflective of what's going on here...seems like the other company involved may be trying to garner sympathy from the "big, bad" apple. Apple is perfectly within their right to protect their product's trademark.
I am not an Apple lover, nor am I an Apple hater, so I think I am well qualified to throw in my two cents here. Steve Jobs works his ass off (and is so proud) to be the industry leader in the portable mp3 market. He has made it very clear that he wants the whole world to think of "iPod" when they think of an mp3 player, and yet the second that people actually do begin to genericize the word "iPod," he flips out. Which is it? Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid, Coke etc. will tell you that it is better to be an industry leader and have people try to copy/genericize your name than to never have your name associated with a generic product. Then again, those companies won't hesitate to sue over misuse of their names either.
Wait, is this Apple, the record company, or Apple, the computer company that infringed on the record company's name? I'm so confused.
The term "podcast" was clearly a surprise to Apple. They didn't even start using the term even casually, let alone in a product, until it was already in world-wide generic use.
It's not clear to me that they have a policy of going after people who use the term "Podcast" in business. The other term, "myPodder", is clearly the kind of thing that Apple has gone after in the past. Without that, would Apple's lawyers have acted? This could simply be an attack lawyer going overboard.
Apple's just asking them not to use terms like "MyPodder" which sound a lot like iPod in the field of music playing devices. It encourages them to use the term in regards to podcasting, but not in a way that is likely to confuse consumers by implying that it's an Apple-sponsored product.
/. overreaction.
The trademark that Podcast Ready applied for conflicts with Apple's existing trademark. Apple is just asking them to ammend their application so that it no longer conflicts.
This is typical
In other news, Apple is also suing individuals and organizations who use the phrase "litigious bastards" to describe companies other than Apple. "We realize we're coming late to the game on this one," said Artie Schleibel, the head of Apple's legal department, "but we're working harder to capture that brand than any other company right now. That has to tell you something."
From WikiPedia (If it's on the Internets, it must be true...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment
What if somebody has been replaced by a body hatched from those pods that floated down from outer space? Is Apple going to sue the pod people also? If so I'm glad because I don't like pod people.
...sort out your crazy lawyer system! How did you let all the stoopid and dangerous people get to be in charge of all you nice folks? We'd all be laughing around the rest of the world if it wasn't so stupid and also worrying, the way your legal-shark system prioritises name/IP/copyright chasing to the detriment of goodwill and common sense and energy spent on actual innovation. MacDonalds trying to prevent Scottish local butchers selling burgers they've made in their shops, Indian farmers looking over their shoulders in case they get sued off their land for growing the same Basmati rice they've grown since before Columbus sailed across the seas, sigh... you got to sort this madness out please.
....
If nothing else it means the open source projects and software are going to have even more ridiculous and unpronounceable newly constructed names
I never got the whole "podcast" BS. All a "podcast" is is a subscription to an audio stream - instead of getting a magazine or email newsletter, you get audio delivered to you. How is this not a subscription? And it isn't *ANYTHING*-cast, because you are not *sending* the information to the subscriber, he is *downloading it himself*.
Pods is a slang term meaning "testicles".
Way to kick everyone in the crotch, Apple.
The only bright side to this that I can see is MAYBE George Lucas will get sued for the term "pod racing" and all known copies of Episode I will be forced to undergo re-editing to bring the film in line with his true original vision.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Do what apple wants.
Start calling them ZuneCasts.
Leo Laporte is also floating the idea of switching the term to "netcast". Bonus advantage: helps clue people in that they don't need an iPod to listen to a "podcast" (which understandably is a common misunderstanding by those who hear the term for the first time).
probably wouldn't mind if zencast, zunecast, or sansacast became the preferred terminology
Yeah right. You wouldn't have thought Apple would be doing this either till now...
Google originated the term "google" in the context of search engines. And they do go after businesses who used the term "google" in ways that implied a connection to Google.
Apple didn't originate the term "podcast" in the context of downloaded radio programs. Here they are going after a company using it in that context... but ALSO using another term (myPodder) that's a clear infringment of the trademarks Apple has claimed.
It's not at all clear that Apple is claiming the term "podcast", and if they did they wouldn't have as nearly as strong a position as Google.
Just call it an iCast...everything else has 'i' in front of it and Apple doesn't seem to mind.
I had decided that my next machine was going to be a nice Intel Mac after 15 years of PCs. On the strength of this, I'm not sure I want to give my hard earned money to a firm who are going to start playing silly like this. I could just about forgive their last attempt but this is getting out of control. As the OP said, it's free advertising! OTOH I suppose it's also true that in the US at least a company has to be seen to try to protect a trademark otherwise they could lose it. Ah dammit, choices, choices.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Apple should be happy that its golden goose is getting so much free publicity
First off, Apple is too legally aggressive in my opinion, so this is not a defense of the company in general. However, my non-lawyer understanding here is that they may be at risk of trademark dillusion if they don't go after this kind of thing. It isn't clear cut, and different judges will rule differently, so they're erring on the side of caution. This may just be a legally prudent action to keep their trademark.
Of course, if someone with more legal experience can explain how they're not at all at risk, then sure, maybe they're just being assholes.
Cheers.
"Podcast" is in the lexicon, and Apple should be happy about it. But it would seem to me that also means they can't control what other for-profits (or anyone else) do with it - after all, it's a part of everyday speech now.
However logic rarely seems to be too involved with legal cases, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
#DeleteChrome
What about all of those Perl Documents in POD format? Prior Art! Prior Art!
Larry Wall best bring the smack down on Apple.
Flame away!
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
In related news:
/that's for real btw/, now they go after construction companies using adobe."
"Microsoft goes after people having windows in their apartments, Sun sues people that sell and drink, or talk about java."
"Google sues all massively big numbers with typos. Suggests people use smaller numbers."
"AOL sues all Americans that are On-Line, tells people to pick: either be on-line abroad, or be Americans."
"After Adobe went after people using 'Flash' based trademarks
"News Corp. sues all news media, newspapers and news bulletins in the world."
"Companies using dictionary word based trademarks go after dictionaries including their trademarks."
"Practises in trademark law threaten the Universe to collapse from a massive lapse of logic. Won't happen because Apple is suing the Universe for making use of 'Logic', a company trademark they own."
From the letter:
I'm an Apple kid. I grew up on Macs. I own an iPod or two. I'm not necessarily defending Apple in their aggressive attack on everything 'pod' ('ipod' I can understand...). However, it looks as though they're not going after the term 'podcasting.'
The problem comes in because 'pod' can be derived from both iPod and podcast.
Going against Mypodder, I can understand (just say the name out-loud). But I'm not so sure about Podcast Ready. It seems to go against the section I just quoted.
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
There goes the neighborhood. jumping on the sue happy band wagon.
It's so sad to see such a big successful company act so childish.
I brings a tear to my eye, that I'll have to wipe off with a kleenex, using the same hand that has a band-aid on it from a cut that I got while accidentally breaking a glass that I tried to pour some coke into. I broke the glass because I stumbled on my gimpy foot that's wrapped up in an ace bandage.
Well, I'm done with this story, so now I'll go googling for some travel ideas for my vacation that I will probably priceline the tickets on. After that, I'll probably check my e-mail and delete more spam. Then, I'll turn off my personal computer and go work out, listening to a new PODCAST that I just downloaded...
See the uphill battle you're facing, Mr. Jobs?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
"Who're we going to sue today Mr. Shyster?"
"I dunno Mr. Pettifogger, how about we find something to annoy all those Apple iPod fanboys?"
"Might be hard Mr. Shyster...the RIAA already has a lock on the easy stuff."
"Ooo! Ooo! I know! We'll sue the podcasters for IP infringment and copyright hijacking! That'll do it!"
"Brilliant Mr. Shyster! Simply *brilliant*! Who says we have skulls filled with mush?"
"Aye! We're thinking like lawyers now!"
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
How about paudcasts? Or pawedcasts? ;-)
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
Ah. It all fits now - the iPod is a tool of the devil.
So Apple is trying to turn podcasts into outcasts? *DUCKS*
If Apple doesn't actively defend the name pod, other hardware vendors will be able to sell their own products under the pod name. Google on fights over the names Xerox and Frisbee to see examples.
it kinda does sound like that. they dont single out the word "podcast" but they're going after the titles "Podcast Ready" and "MyPodder" specifically because they contain their pending trademark "pod" and significant parts of their trademark "iPod", and MyPodder because "mypod" sounds like "ipod".
Read the actual cease-and-desist letter.
Apple is asking the company to stop using the term "MyPodder". They explicitly state they are not asking them to stop using their company name "Podcast Ready" (see the bottom of the second-to-last paragraph, page two).
Is it too much to ask that the editors read the actual story before approving it?
#DeleteChrome
The way US trademark law is worded, if a company doesn't actively try to protect their trademark, then they lose all right to it. This includes a trademark that becomes so successful that its name is used to describe the product. This happened to Kleenex. Now anyone can use the term Kleenex anywhere and the company that makes them can't legally stop them.
While this hasn't happened with Apple yet with the Ipod, if Apple doesn't try to fight it they could loose all rights to that trademark.
I think a lot of you are misunderstanding this.
If the word "podcast" becomes a generic term, Apple will lose its rights to the word "pod".
This is why Google are trying to stop the term "googleling".
It has nothing to do with "being childish". You cannot keep a trademark on a word if it becomes a generic term. This happened with "biro" and "walkman". It's extremely dangerous to brands like Google and iPod.
I did read the C&D and it claims that "PODCAST READY" and "MYPODDER" contain most of Apples iPOD trademark and all of their "POD" trademark. They are in fact objecting to the words podcast and mypodder directly because they contain the letters "P", "O", and "D" in that order.
I guess we'll have to go back to calling it streaming audio, Internet radio, or audio files. I guess netcast it is. What a shame, netcast doesn't sound anywhere near as stupid as podcast, and it doesn't even focus on one music player that probably won't be anywhere near as trendy in 20 years when people will realize idiots tied a technology with the trademark of someone's product. Kleenex, anyone?
I wonder, will Apple totally lose it and come gunning for EvE-online for letting us play pod-pilots?
Yes, Apple will fight for the term Podcast now that there is some competition from Microsoft
No, Apple will not stop more than a token handful of Podcasters, and then only if they don't get enough press
Yes, this is all about advertising that the iPod is where Podcasting originated
No, we have nothing to fear from fruit-flavored PC companies.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Actually, they have to defend it. IANAL, but I think you have to enforce your trademarks in this manner, otherwise you might risk loosing them.
I don't agree with this at all, but anyone who called it "podcasting" was a complete moron to begin with.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
That is exactly correct. This is a completely boneheaded maneauver and runs counter to taking care of 'every little detail'. One 'little detail' they missed is what leash length their rabid legal department should have.
This is going to bite them in the ass.
Apple is now suing the estate of Stanley Kubrick and trying to extradite Sir Arthur C. Clarke for their abusive use of the term "pod" in 2001: A Space Odyssey. After being served papers Clarke responded "Any sufficiently rapid litigation is indistinguishable from Evil."
RTF headline
Why can't submitters at least RTFS&DL.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
I know what Apple can use, asscast = Apple Simple Syndication cast.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
For example, lets say Microsoft starts pushing out the term "Zunecasting". More and more people start using such term and associating it with Microsoft's new DAP. At the same time, maybe Apple will be slightly humbled and stop suing everyone in sight. I know the "podcast" suings have not started yet, but they will trust me.
I strongly agree with your point of view, but logic didn't stop the NFL from doing exactly the same thing by trademarking the term "Superbowl" TM. So now only 'officially sanctioned' products and broadcasters are able use the word without express written permission. One local radio station here hosts a 'Super Block Party' every year to watch the game because they aren't allowed to use the term "Superbowl" TM. Seems to me like they're losing an awful lot of free publicity by doing this. The only thing I can think of is that they must already be rolling in so much money that they don't care.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Thats the only thing that can explain lawyers killing free publicity.
Remember that trademark law does not protect the manufacturer from unauthorized use of words. Leo Stoller wishes it did, but it does not. Trademark protects from confusion that results when a protected word is used in conjunction with products similar to what the manufacturer offers.
This -- I think -- is an interesting case where confusion is probably demonstrable (you would only need to find people who thought that a "podcast" was somehow-related to an iPod) but also probably beneficial to the manufacturer. That is to say, if people think an iPod is required in order to listen to podcasts Apple will fetch more sales, not less.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
If they can no longer congregate in pods, this is the perfect opportunity to rethink their cutesy, hippie persona. A murder of whales sounds much more sinister.
As of iTunes 7, I can still subscribe to "podcasts".
Whales around the world have been sent a cease and desist letter for using the term pod to define their communal living arrangements.
It hardly seems that Apple is cracking down on the word "Podcast" in general, since they explicitly state that THEY ARE NOT. They just don't particularly like what they see as confusion created by this particular use of the term. Is this reasonable? I'll leave that debate for someone with a longer attention span than me.
Shades of Grayden
I think the AppHoles should shut their mouths and be happy that someone digs their products enough to turn putting content on them in to urban dictionary verbs.
After years of insane overprice and self market strangling I really thought the AppHoles had started to get their act together with minis and OSX. Turns out they still suck loud and clear over the hardware/software improvements. That's it! Microsoft! Apple! Fight to the DEATH!!!!!!!11 (we can only win, and if we're really lucky they'll knock each other off!)
When are people going to understand that, under the current law, that's what it takes?
ascii art
But some problem could be that /. has a funny understanding of editing. Here's my original submission:
While news are out that Apple wants to stop companies from using terms like "podcast" or "pod", Wired has the complete text of Apple's cease-and-desist letter to Podcast Ready. Obviously Apple is under the delusion that people call their iPods not, well "iPod",but instead just "Pod". I suggest all /.ers write a nice and polite letter to Apple pointing out that iPods are still referred to as iPods.
If Zonk didn't like my wording he could have stripped my name too :-/
in an earlier debate, i have defended that this issue would be increasingly damaging to the point that it would even hamper DAILY speech.
some people flamed me. they said such cease & desists can only happen in commercial arena. i told them what is commercial and what is not is not clear in our age, and there was nothing barring anyone from hampering people in that way.
so ? what happens today ? now you are not going to use term 'pod' in web broadcasts. then whats next ? the sci-fi movies that uses "pod" word anywhere are going to be sued.
in the end you will have to watch out while singing in the shower, lest you may use the word 'pod' in the song. because shitty apple needs shitty money, and this word is its property.
Read radical news here
Dear Apple,
Don't be a dick. Especially about stupid things.
Sincerely,
A potential consumer.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
the dolphins, sue the dolphins, they live in pods
this is why my mp3 player is not an idud
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Harry Podder may soon be in trouble with the folks over at Apple. He may have to use one of the magic spells he learned at Hogjowls to get out of this one!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Come on, had to make this into an anti-Sony argument. Just wouldn't feel right.
/*pod*/ or /^i*/.
I'd be happy to oblige...
Sony, in fact, HAS vigourously defended its "walkman" trademark right from the beginning (right from the beginning, not "a couple of decades late"--I remember when Sony went after a Canadian electronics store for advertising a sale on "personal stereos" made by Sony's competitors as a "Walkman Sale" back in the mid 1980s). Sony is amongst the most agressive defenders of trademark in the world, and unfortunately it seems Apple is following in its footsteps and threatening a world of hurt for anyone naming their handheld products
I understand why Apple defends their industrial designs as they are tangible characteristics of Apple products and a lot of time, effort and money is put into the look, shape and usability features. It seems really unfair that Apple should spend so much time making a Mac look like a Mac just to have some goofily-named Taiwanese plastics company barf out replica cases jury-rigged to accomodate generic PC motherboards. But claiming ownership of the word "pod" or the 9th letter of the alphabet? That is just petty and greedy. Compete on the merits of your product, not on some silly brand name, and let the fledgling market for accessories to your products thrive. Sure brand dilution is a valid concern, but lets be realistic--Xerox is still around even as its coporate marque bacame a noun and verb in the dictionary. Kimberly-clark continues to make a lot of money with Kleenex even though everyone calls all sorts of other tissues Kleenex out of habit and Google continues to thrive even as its identity has come to mean "search the internet" in general.
Sometimes a little brand dilution can be a good thing. Yes, I understand Apple wants to make sure some cheap-ass purveyor of junky accessories doesn't pretend to be affiliated with Apple but there are other approaches to take. For example licensing terms could be kept relaxed and Apple could have a little "Apple approved" logo for 3rd party manufacturers (like "intel inside" or the "VHS logo" or "Designed for Windows"). Consumers would then know it was a 3rd party product but that it met Apple's quality standards...and forget about fighting the junky stuff unless they fraudulently use the "Apple approved" logo. Done right this can work quite well--it helped VHS beat Beta for example. Let "Podcasting" and "iThingy" and "PodPouch" and whatever other pod-wannabes and i-philes survive and thrive.
In the abcense of common sense though, let me propose an alternative to the word "podcasting". "Audcasting" and "vidcasting" are even dumber sounding and limiting (it implies only moving video or sound, not a combination of media). "Zunecasting" just helps Microsoft marketing and MS needs none of our help there. So, how about PEERCASTING. The term BROADCASTING covers all sorts of media distributed from one central point to widespread areas simultaneously, so PEERCASTING would be an apt description of what we call podcasting now--distribution of media from one point to other, individual points on-demand. Peercastig is already used by a few people to refer to distribution via BitTorrent or other P2P networks and podcasting isn't THAT far off in overall concept.
This is one of those /. stories that all too predictably garner hundreds of replies from people who wouldn't know IP law from a hole in their own anatomy.
IANAL, but you have to realize that Apple (or Jobs) is not "deciding" to eradicate the term 'pod, nor are they too stupid to understand the power of contagious verbal branding.
What they are doing is defending against the dilution of their trademark not because they don't want anybody using the word fragment 'pod but instead so that, if they are called upon to defend the crown jewels at the heart of their trademark, they can demonstrate an effort to establish their usage as unique, commercial, and controlled. What they're preparing for is an instance when they might have to say "See? We did try. You can't accuse us of encouraging the dilution of the term."
I believe the technical term for this is "being prepared."
Is it an ugly, ugly IP world out there? It is. But Apple has to live and work in that world. They didn't make the rules.
These stories are free but worth money.
Okay, IPod I can buy as a product unique to Apple. However other unique words using the "pod" is a completely different matter. To be frank I don't think Apple can pull this one off unless they had trademarked Podcast as well. Reason: "Pod" is an English dictionary word. If Apple hasn't put in every concieveable use of the word "Pod" in their trademark they (which they cannot because a "pod" is an organic object which existed long before Apple ;-)) they cannot prevent others from innovating on a preexisting word. The case of Sony trying to own "Walk" and "Man" as separate words just further supports my view that Intellectual Property laws have to either be dropped or completely rewritten. I know the concept of contributing to society without maximum financial gain is a new concept to many but come on! If the English language could be owned legally it should be the property of ENGLAND (go figure) and all words therin including "pod", "casting" and "trademark". While were at it, can we find the decendents of the those who created LATIN, from where English (and Italian, French and probably a dozen other languages) is derived and pay them royalities for every variation?
As Sony has demonstrated, Apple has started something that will backfire in their greedy attempts to own any innovation stemming from a word they themselves don't actually own.(again was a word before this company was ever concieved) This is just one in a series of legal actions by Apple that has backfired in the area of PR. This one its probably going to backfire legally as well not only for themselves, but for everyone trying to justify the IP (intellectual property) law sector which has spiraled way out of control. The fact is, once something has been circulated in the world for a certain amount of time, its free for all. That is the NATURAL way of things: Genetic code, minerals, you name it. This naturally leads to innovation, leading to improvements we all would like to enjoy. All this is part of evolution. Thought and ideas are no different and history has proven it. If anyone of you have been to China, you know that every city/village has a different dialect. India is similar. Put a royality/tax on speech and that is what you will have in North America (maybe this is why Europeans, Chinese and Eastern Indians have a more enlightened prospective on the whole IP issue). If the music of the great composers had been treated in a similar manner years ago, polyphony could NEVER have been conceived because it would be too EXPENSIVE to innovate on what you heard. IP laws are not only unnatural but detremental to innovation. Let's wake up and smell the espresso people. You cannot own innovation or evolution for that matter.
Based on the likelihood of confusion and dilution
Apple's Lawyers are concerned about MYPODDER because it fonetically sounds very close to iPOD and that makes sense too. About "Podcast Ready", they are ok as long as they don't use it for "Portable listening devices".
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
What about the Pod People? They were around way before iPods!
Why can't you guys see that "audio file + rss feed + support for chapter art and hyperlinks" is a combination that makes use easier in the same way that http made it easier than to manually ftp all the files on a website, and now rss makes it easier than http to check for changes?
Ok, let's take your assertion to it's logical conclusion.
If HTTP is to FTP as Podcasting is to manualy fetching MP3s from links, then it should follow the same type nomenclature transformation... but oh wait, *there was none*. You download files from FTP, you also download files from HTTP. So why is it when you download files with RSS instead of downloading them manually we get to come up with a new buzzword?
Answer? Marketing. Podcast is very "Web-2.0ish" AKA total bullshit PR fluff.
I would think they'd want Apple to come before Podcast, as in Apple Podcast(TM).
sic
They have no problem with 'Podcast' but have issues with 'Pod'. Essentially, they want to eat their cake.
If owning word is important to you, you live a sad life.
From Wikipedia:
While they may be defending against that, one term 'podcasting' is no threat to their xPod trademark. Podcasting is already part of the public consciousness. When I hear it, I don't actually think of Apple. Do you? This is a pr blunder and is going to bite them in the ass.
Vidcast? Why not vodcast? It stands for video-on-demand, and it doesn't imply a relationship with the iPod (except maybe a bad pun).
"Microsoft Announces: It's Okay to Say Zunecast or Zune It"
Can I bum a sig?
Portable On Demand Storage? I think companies should have registered trademarks on every word ever used to describe a product. Then any advertising agency wanting to be in print or create a audible slogan will have to pay a royalty for using the English language. This will greatly reduce the number of annoying billboards and commercials.
No corporation worth a piddle lets lawyers make this sort of decision. Apple lost any claim to "podcast" at least two years ago. You can find remarks by Steve Jobs in which he refers to podcasts in general as podcasts--as iTunes certainly does. When Apple's own, flagship product uses "podcast" as a generic term, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Some Internet advocacy group should sue Apple, getting a court order that it end this harassment and getting their legal costs paid. Money will open Apple management's eyes to what their lawyers are doing.
Countries should never let their generals (or, even worse, their hysteria-prone press) make foreign policy. Corporations should never let their lawyers decide corporate policy.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
Not even a moron in a hurry would be confused by ipod vs podcast.
Way to piss off your customers Apple!
This reminds me of the fake Apple banner that said "Products so cool we don't need customers"!
Of all the things that a supposed "technology" company has on its to-do list...
Besides, wouldn't the ubiquitous-ness of a brand word be more helpful to a company rather than locking the verbiage down so tightly you can't let slip a syllable for fear of a lawsuit? For example, where would Apple be if Xerox had patented the word 'mouse', or 'desktop'?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
The classic slashdot post, thank you!
Vauge incorrect legal claim? Check!
Followed by disclaimer that poster is not a lawyer? Check!
Flagrant mispelling of 'lose'? Check!
Modded up? Check!
Apple's Lawyers lost out on a big chunk of dough when Jobs decided to buy off Creative's lawsuit instead of letting it drag on (much to their lawyer's dismay). It was more cost effective to pay $100 million than keep the lawyers billable hours up.
Now the lawyers have to come up with more billable hours, so they're scrambling to find people to intimidate and charge Apple for it. I, too, have never heard ANYONE refer to their iPod as a Pod, and there are thousands around me everyday (college campus). Podcasting is now a verb in the modern languange and in common use. Although it's roots are related to the iPod, most everyone associates it with iTunes. I don't own an iPod, but love Podcasts and Podcasting.
This sounds more like a lawyer trying to make partner in a firm than Apple leveraging it's will.
What about "paudcast"?
Nah, sounds too much like "Oddcast".
Hey, did you read the letter? It clearly states that the term "podcast" is fine to use, they are after products which MAY infringe on their trademarks.
This bold word there, contains worlds in itself. What "may" or what "may" not, is entirely dependent on their preferences.
Read radical news here
Apple didn't come up with this word, so what the hell are they playing at? The whole thing reminds me of that Dilbert cartoon, where Dogbert is called to the rescue when Microsoft wants to patent the ones and the zeroes. Apple needs to remember that customers make money for a company, not lawyers. Lawyers take money.
I had no idea there was any connection between the terms 'iPod' and 'Podcast' - beyond the word 'pod' sounding cool. I actually thought Apple were the ones who had taken a previously established public term for their iPod.
I'd also be happy to testify that in court.
How many people think everything 'Pod' derives from the original 'iPod'? Or would associate 'Podcast' with Apple?
However, consider the fact that if a trademark holder does not vigorously defend their trademark, they stand to lose it.
However it is probably better to MANAGE your trademark rather than DEFEND it. It is in Apple's best interest to promote the use of the word "podcast" and the incorporation of the word "pod" into the names of 3rd party accessories and even companies riding on Apple's coattails. If some software is called "pod"something, or a site has "podcasts" for audio blog entries, or some company called "AutoPod" markets music player cradles and those "earphone-to-FM radio" adapters it turns the "pod" name from a mere "trademark fragment" into a whole industry (remember, Apple's trademark is iPod, NOT the word pod or the related podcasting). Not only that, if these companies relly play up the "Pod" name people will think their products and services are meant to work with only iPods even when they work with all portable media players.
I'm looking at the "podcastready.com" website and Apple's iTunes website. They bear virtually NO visual resemblance to one another (the podcastready.com website actually has a more microsoft XP-ish look and feel to it IMHO). They have a SOFTWARE product called "mypodder". They prominently display that it "works with ALL your digital devices"...furthermore they have the claim "now with iPod support!" by the download link, implying that at one point that not only was it NOT limited to working with iPods, it in fact DIDN'T originally work with iPods at all!. Only a TOTAL MORON would look at that site and be fooled into thinking it was affiliated with Apple.
Apple IS going too far. The iPod is a shiny little media player with a circle thingy on the front and an apple-ish GUI on a little screen. Mypodder is a piece of software for finding, downloading and sharing media files. The names BARELY rhyme (you have to chop off the "er") and the products are completely different and podcastready.com is not only not trying to mislead its customers, it is *actively differentiating* itself from apple. It uses "pod-related" words becasue of the simple fact that the technology is now most commonly referred to as "podcasting" (yes, other terms are used but they are far less popular). Apple is just being greedy. If ithis was a case of Apple protecting its brand identity then Apple would've trademarked the word "podcasting" right off the bat, or otherwise pursued legal action. IT DIDN'T--it trademarked "iPod". IIRC Apple didn't even invent the term, and if it had issues with the term they've had A COUPLE YEARS to deal with it. THEY DIDN'T. They let the term become so common as to be used generically before taking issue with how it is used.
It isn't like Podcast Ready introduced a portable player, with a funky touch-thingy interface and work-alike embedded software and decided to call it the "MyPodder". They introduced SOFTWARE with that name, and marketed it in a way that clearly indicated it is independent of Apple and interpoerable with all brands of portable devices. Steve, call off your legal dogs now!
Open the pod bay door HAL! Open the pod bay door HAL!
Good thing Kubrick is not still around.
We must have courage, faith and chocolate fudge cake
It seems they're only going after usages that are not "goods and services offered in the podcasting field".
Seems like people shouldn't be too concerned about this right now.
1. Let the market use the term for a while for free advertising in order to sell more iPods.
2. Profit!
3. After market saturation, decide that you don't want the term iPod to be used like the term kleenex. Sue everybody...
4. Profit again!
I know this is slashdot and nobody will RTFA, but they are going after a company that is (it seems) trying to associate itself with the iPod in order to gain credibility. Their trademarked software is called "myPodder" and they are also applying for a trademark for "podcast ready". I tried out their program for a while and it basically works like the podcast features in iTunes, but not quite as nice. Personally, I don't think that myPodder is a very good name for the software. This software has little to do with the 'Pod' part of podcasting, but everything to do with the casting part. I think something like "myPodcaster" would be a better name as it more accurately describes what the software does and further differentiates it from Apple's offerings. The "podcast ready" thing is kind of lame IMO. It doesn't seem to really step on Apple's toes too much, but they're all up in arms about it, and it seems like a kind of silly thing to attempt to trademark. The readiness of software or hardware to deal with the RSS/audio of a podcast is not unique to any program, nor IMO, the company should change the name of their software, but still be able to use the term "podcast ready" without it being trademarked.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
I think the C&D is clearly valid. Apple is not objecting to the use of the word podcast in general. They only want to stop PodTech from trademarking 'Podcast Ready'. If PodTech manages to trademark 'Podcast ready' then they could have ask Apple to stop using the term podcast since it is a derivative term.
-S
I'm just wondering if something similar to this happened to Apple with Hypercard and the Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Hypertext is a concept dating back to the early seventies, but I don't believe it was a trademarked product at the time.
This is legal blackmail; Apple has little basis on which to claim trademark rights for terms containing "pod". Even if Apple were to have had a trademark on the term at some point, it has clearly become generic by now.
Apple's motto is evidently "we are evil, but our products are so sexy that you can't resist buying them anyway".
FUDcasts.
Automatic downloading of audio to mobile devices is important enough that it should have a name that's independent of any particular manufacturer or product.
So, I think it's a good thing if Apple goes on a legal campaign making sure that anything "pod"-related only is used in conjunction with their proprietary products. The rest of the world can and will find non-proprietary language and terms to refer to portable audio and video, and Apple's dominance of this market will become a dim memory.
Those are all Apple iApps, so why not go after people using those terms too?
I ask you to cease and desist use of the trade mark 'ucking' and any words that may be phonetically similar to it, as I have a trade mark pending.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Didn't Google just try to go through this fight? What is the big deal? Ask Coke or Kleenex or Band Aid if the genericizations of their names has hurt their brand.
Seriously, that's just stupid. Apple has no right to the word, pod. Hell, they STOLE it.
The term POD has been used for well over a decade, in the TV & radio industry. Hell, even dictionay.com has pod listed as a slang radio/tv term.
I guess if you have enough money to pay enough lawyers to fight enough frivelous lawsuits you can steal just about anything. Even a word.
Pathetic.
Keep it up Apple, you're going to sue yourself out of business. I can tell you neither I, nor any of my friends will be buying another product associated with Apple.
The english language is the property of the people. So, from my view, you're trying to steal from me too. In TFA, it is advised we seek new words to describe the endeavours our generation has sought. (IE audiocast, audcast, etc..) I say screw that. It's OUR word to begin with. Where the hell do you think Apple got the idea from? Just mysteriously decided to give pod a new meaning? Hell no, they took an already widely spoken, common knowledge term, and applied it to their product. Now they are trying to claim rights of ownership to a word they didn't even come up with themselves?
Jesus.
I for one will vote with my dollars. And by God, if I can think of something else I can do to injure Apple's campaign to steal the english language - I will.
In other news,
Apple is preparing to sue every company who has released a product name beginning with a lower case 'i'.
honestly, I expected better...
If I correctly follow their logic here, the Pod is unique to the iPod that they coined. Does that mean they will also want to own the word "Life"? Last time I checked, common words cannot be owned. Sure, I can't use Coca Cola in my own materials, but if I want to, soda should be fair game. Isn't there also something called "fair use"?
Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
Its like Kleanex(R) Brand facial tissues suing everyone on TV, in the press, in books, and on the streets using the term "Kleanex(R)" instead of using the term "facial tissue."
They basically have free advertising by anyone using "pod" anywhere in their blog, company, press, etc. And more importantly, if they lose even one of these battles because of some company who happened to have the word "pod" in use before the iPod(TM) was introduced, then they stand to lose complete control over the use of the word pod. Right now they basically control the word Pod by virtue of the fact that so many people know about them.
No matter how you look at it, this is just a foolish control freak attitude, which I believe shows the true nature of the Apple beast. If Apple gets as big as Microsoft, then I'll bet you a doughnut they'll be just as evil.
Apple needs to grow up and let go. They've created a concept which they can't control, no matter what they do, why waste money proving that point?
Raydude
(Funny my confirmation word for this post is "tyranny," heh)
I was a bit upset at first. Then I read the Engadet article and read between the lines. I don't think this has anything to do with podcasting or Apple trying to go after the rights to the word or act of podcasting. I think they're going after the "myPod" thing, which is probably a legit concern, and this company issued a press release trying to equate it with podcasting. This is just a stinky pile of FUD.
You must be new here. This is Slashdot, where NO ONE reads TFA, not even the editors, and certainly not the submitters.
"Open the pod bay doors, Hal."
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Steve Jobs won't let me."
Pod:
* the dryish fruit of some plants, contains one to many seeds and usually flattened
* a group of whales.
* Developed ovary or fruit.
* with animals such as whales, dolphins, or porpoises, the term describes a family or social group that stays together; roughly equivalent to a flock or school.
We went through this with Windows. Just because Microsoft was stupid enough to name an OS after a commonly used word doesn't mean we all have to stop using that word. We routinely continue to use the word with respect to a clear piece of hardware on the exterior of our dwellings, and we even talk of "windows" in a generic sense as user interfaces elements.
Why Apple chose the word "pod" I don't know, but I'm sure that the world's podiatrists aren't about to desecrate their diplomas and substitute "foot doctor".
This move can only be bad for Apple, and the timing couldn't be better for Microsoft for us to pick another word that doesn't remind us of the device that got detachable music devices into almost every American household (even thought they were far from being the first such device).
This is the sort of thing, common in Apple's history, where 10 year hence hindsight will have them saying "What were we thinking?!"
Apparently, they never learn.
It isn't an easy habit to kick; the CBS netcast page still uses the word 'Podcasting' when they say: "Here are several free or commercial Podcasting applications available for download" even though they did have a graphic artist create a "NETCAST PLAYERS" graphic (called netcast_player_title.gif )
It's obvious that Burger King is the next target.
Take a look at this. I'm surprised the lawyers aren't aready dancing around.
Not only is it a better word, it's been around longer. The only problem is, it's too generic -- a webcast could be audio, video, or some bastardization. My parents give "webcasts" that are Powerpoint presentations, converted to Flash and synced with what they're actually presenting to a live audience, with their voice being streamed.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Open to interpretation...
;)
Check this out. Here's the ACTUAL cease and desist letter.
Apple merely wants them to stop using the MUCH less generic term, MyPodder. This is wholeheartedly understandable! They explicitly state they are not asking them to stop using their company name, Podcast Ready. See the bottom of the second-to-last paragraph, page two.
I wish that the editors would check what they're submitting before they do. Especially with that last dupe about the supercapacitors
If Apple does not want to be inherently associated with one of the largest movements in our culture today then uhm, ok. How about we call it WalkmanCasting or MicroCasting? I doubt Sony or BillCo would mind the extra publicity.
Just a question: didn't the term come into common usage first? If so, you shouldn't be able to claim a common word as your own afterwards. (Yeah, Microsoft eventually managed it after many tries with Windows, and I still feel -- my opinion -- they bought off someone along the way.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Pretty much, yeah. Though this almost makes Microsoft look smart for discouraging use of the term "podcast" on campus last year. (Almost.) According to that article, they were using the term "blogcast" internally.
Apple is one of many companies that have gone mad over terms that they belive are theres. Why do they belive this. Becose this companyes have greedy attitude and feel that they need to control everything that resembels there own products names.
I hearby make a move that you can only trademark proper nouns. usually they begin with CAPITAL letters. iPod = Proper noun podcast = common noun and verb in some cases. iPood = the act of telling it like it is.
Help me get a new laptop - http://nocreditcard.yourgiftsfree.com/?id=3012
Texting is perhaps the worst example. They call it "texting" so kids will forget that it's just much clumsier IM-ing, only it costs money now.
No, I think the problem is that we don't have a required course in oldspeak. We still require our kids to learn things like algebra, which isn't necessarily ever used in real life -- addition, subtraction, multiplication maybe, for calculating change and tax, but algebra? We require driver's education before you can get a car, and that makes sense, too. But we should have more courses in things like common sense. A course in basic computer skills, so we have less morons saying "Why would anyone want to hack me?", and of course, basic understanding of marketing newspeak.
Sadly, we may have to stoop to their level -- we may have to say "Newspeak doubleplus ungood!" or whatever the modern equivaent is. Kind of like the solution to AOL-speak.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
furthermore, the more they do this, the more they chance repeating the great Stitch 'n' Bitch controversy.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
What is protected? The ability to name things 'pod'. That is useful for a certain amount of time an no longer.
You imply the law and the name 'pod' is what is important to Apple. What is important to Apple is selling their products, and, ultimately making money. How people spend their money and what they think is more important here than the law. If you think 'lawsuit' when you hear pod, rather than music players and downloading stuff from iTunes, Apple's ass is bitten.
Good. take the damn word. I never liked it anyway. It's just a stupid buzz word meaning "RSS feed that links you to an mp3" and was touted as this brand new revolutionary thing. I for one welcome podcast's new apple overlords.
I kinda think this is dumb. But legally, Apple must do this if it is to main it's copyrights to "iPod." Historical examples: Zerox, Band Aid, and Keenex.
I agree fully with Apple on this one. but i think that no one ever should have called a Pod Cast a PODCast unless they were using their iPod directly to send the data over the stream. i had a buddy with a SoundForge radio staion and he called the a Pod Cast. i told him that is in no way a Pod Cast. no way! he doesnt even own an iPod (nor does any one i know hehehe). We all have Archos and Apitek products.
I think that "normal" people are so out of touch with PCs and understanding what is going on with their PCs and all this is becasue of Mac making it easy enough for a 2 year old to use a PC. so adding names like Pod to things that got with your iPod makes since to me beacsue normal people are to dumb to understand it if it didnt have the Pod in the name.
Jay Jennings
The confusion over the pod term has led many people to think that iPods are the only portable MP3 players. I still deal with people shocked to find out there are other (cheaper, better) brands. I myself stayed away from podcasts at first cause I assumed they were only for iPods. Why on Earth would they not want that kind of identification out there? Seems like their legal department needed something to do and they didn't think to consult with marketing. But then given how bright marketing folks tend to be, perhaps they did. Plus, doesn't Walter Wanger Productions Inc. have dibs on the whole POD term anyway?
...has weighed in on the issue by suggesting that the tech community as a whole adopt other terms like "audiocast" and 'videocast' (or alternately, 'audcast' and 'vidcast')...
Actually, let's uses acast and vcast.
On second thought, a and v...
[does hand gestures to indicate audiocast and videocast]
... that used Sagan as a codename for a project, was sued over it. Won! And still changed the project name to BHA ("Butt-Head Astronomer")...
I've got no points today ... Earlier comments wheezing on and on about how evil Apple is and telling everyone to use "netcast" or whatever should be modded down. These RTFA comments at the bottom should be all that's left at +5.
One simple rule for its versus it's
Laurel: "We're just like two peas in a pot".
Hardy: "Not pot. Poooooooo'D".
Laurel: Looks at the camera with bewildered expression.
I haven't read all the posts, but I ran across this blog which gives some details about why Apple is getting pissy about the "podcast" term right now.
Interesting read.
First, it isn't actually true that you have to defend a trademark in every possible instance in order to avoid losing it. A trademark is a source identifier, first and foremost. If someone else's use of the mark isn't harmful to the markholder, then there's simply no need to do anything about it. Going further is typically only done either out of ass-covering, or an attempt to expand the trademark further than it can legitimately go.
Second, I predict that this will fail. As I said, a trademark is basically a source identifier. That is, goods or services marked with the mark must originate from the same source. For example, cans marked as 'COCA-COLA' all ultimately come from the Coke company; you can rely on it, and can assume a consistent level of quality (whether good or bad). (n.b. it doesn't matter if you know who the source is, just that there's a particular source) But cans merely marked with 'SODA' could come from anyplace, and differ significantly. If a mark doesn't serve as a source identifier, it's not a mark. What's important is the perception of the market. If people think the mark doesn't function identify a particular source, and that the marked good can come from any old place, then they end up being right. This is how a good mark becomes generic: it describes the good, which can be from any source, rather than a good from a particular source. E.g. if all photocopiers are xerox machines, regardless of who made them, the XEROX mark is lost.
Here, we're considering the term 'PODCAST.' Does anyone think that they must be involved with Apple? The mere use of 'POD' isn't enough. What matters is the connection that people draw. AFAICT, no one thinks that it's anything but generic, nor does anyone use it in a nongeneric fashion. It doesn't endanger the IPOD trademark, because who really thinks that iPods don't come from Apple based on podcasts? They have their own problems with the threat of genericide, with people calling all portable mp3 players iPods, but that's not the issue here.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
this thing, "article"... sounds strange and possibly terrifying.
-pyrrho
Here, I'll help you out. http://blog.wired.com/music/index.blog?entry_id=15 62695/.
At the bottom there, it specifically states that it is not asking Podcast Ready to stop using its company name, as the "services description indicates the mark will be used for podcasting-related services." (last part of sentence plagiarized from Mac Rumors.)
A bit of googling (er, web searching), and class 9 is for computer software. Class 38 is for providing communications services. Apple is protesting the class 9 but not the class 38. Class 38 is appropriate for a company name.
They're not going after Podcast Ready, as long as the mark relates to podcasting, and is not intended as something broader. They are going after myPodder because of the mark's similarity to iPod, targeting iPod-related markets, and related dilution issues.
I imagine they'd go after Snapple as well if Snapple got into computing devices. Seems reasonable.
It's an "mp3 radio show" or a "blogcast" as I've heard it called - an "audiocast" isn't a bad name either.
I'll be damned if I'm calling them "podcasts" - that's product specific which gives me the shits, when I'm listening on my sandisc mp3 player it sure as shit isn't a podcast then, or is it?
As for apple not even coining the term but still suing, wtf? please.
Isn't this the same Apple that had legal problems with co-opting the name of Apple records?
Et tu, Apple Computers?
The very title of this news item is hyperbole. The C&D letter clearly states it does not target primary use of podcast (i.e., Podcasting is the method of distributing multimedia files, such as audio or video programs, over the Internet using syndication feeds, for playback on mobile devices and personal computers.)[1] There's even a web site that uses "podcast" in its URL.[2]. Apple is zealously protecting its registered trademarks from a company that pre-loads and resells iPods, which creates an impression on some of a relationship between Apple and that company.
Everybody needs to step away from the keyboard and think things through before they start stammering about how an evil corporation is trying to trademark and deny use of commonly used words. A Trademark is a relationship between the consumer and the company that represents the goodwill fostered by the company. A consumer should expect that an item with a given trademark will be what they expect, and not some two-bit knockoff.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting
[2]: http://www.podcast.net/
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Ohh oh, Apple is looking at lawsuits for revenue. Microsoft first is going after verb conjugation http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/05/23 44247 and now Apple is going after people just using the word "pod". Are we going to license the whole english language? This is a getting dangerous and our first admendment rights are being stomped on. What about peas in "pod", a "pod" of whales/dolphins, or engine "pod" on a airplane.
Dear Mr./Ms. ThomsonsPier:
We represent Apple Computer, Inc. in intellectual property matters.
Apple recently learned of your attempt to coin a new idiomatic word, Apple-thetic, presumably an adjective meaning "having or showing little or no emotion with regards to Apple Computer, Inc."
As you may be aware, Apple has used its APPLE mark since at least as early as 1977. Since that time, the APPLE trademark has become quite famous. The APPLE mark indicates to consumers that goods and services bearing that mark and marks similar thereto originate from or are sponsored or endorsed by Apple.
Apple owns U.S. Trademark registration No. 2273661 for its Apple mark, as well as registrations covering more than fifty international jurisdictions. In sum, Apple has expended a great deal of time and money to build up worldwide recognition and goodwill in its APPLE mark.
We note that your new word, Apple-thetic, consists in substantial part of Apple's APPLE mark and contains Apple's APPLE mark in its entirety. Your word appears to have been chosen intentionally to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of Apple's mark. Moreover, your word is clearly an attempt at being clever to the point of insanely great, identical to the goods and services offered by Apple under the APPLE mark and covered by Apple's extreme and totally utter awesomeness. This clearly highlights the overlap with our client's goods and services. Consumers, therefore are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe your word is associated with Apple, infringing Apple's trademark rights.
As we are sure you can appreciate, Apple, as a trademark owner and nearly exclusive purveyor of cool, has a duty to protect its valuable intellectual property. While Apple, of course, has no general objection to proper use of the term "Apple" in references to veritable perfection and completely insane greatness, it cannot allow words that indicate indifference to such supremacy as the company provides. Based on the likelihood of confusion and dilution, therefore, we must insist that you limit all future use of the mark to those that would indicate the indisputable spectacularity of everything Apple related.
Apple hopes that this matter can be resolved amicably and expeditiously. We ask that you contact us by October 5, 2006 to let us know whether you will comply with Apple's requests. Apple notes that an alternative definition of your word could be "not interested or concerned; indifferent or unresponsive towards Apple" and sincerely hopes that you don't even go there, girl! Of course, nothing in this letter should be construed as limiting Apple's rights or remedies, because IAAL and I assure you, we can see to it that you have some passion of some kind about Apple before this is done, if ya get my meaning.
Very truly yours,
TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND YET ANOTHER TOWNSEND AND OUR CREW, LLP
Apple, in my opinion, is shooting itself in the foot here. Regardless of the legal rationale and basis, another company's use of a derivation of "pod" for it's own product will not harm them in any way - in fact quite the opposite. Furthermore, I seem to remember a few new words that hit the official Webster dictionary this past year, with podcast being one of them. Once words become part of the public domain like that, doesn't fair use kick in?
Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
How about dellcasting. That would show 'em.
and later that same day, their lawyers faxed cease and desist notices to whales around the world. "We don't want them calling themselves pods," remarked Jobs. "What's wrong with a 'gang' of whales or how about a 'tail' of whales? That's catchy." pirx
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1252
Sorry about that.
FTFA:
Another wonderful example of Slashdot taking the bit between the teeth and bolting headlong into the wrong conclusion.
Myself, I found the term tremendously confusing when it was first being spread around -- at first I thought it really was some new technology, e.g. a way of distributing a playlist so that the player would automatically buy a copy from itunes if you didn't have that track already.
Pretty much everyone has to, or no one will know what you're talking about, but myself I would try to avoid it. There are already other terms that are clear enough: "steaming audio", "audio archive", and so on; and I dislike the feeling that I'm advertising someone's product every time I use the term.And, to quote you again: "Apparently, you didn't RTFA either". Now, in your defense I was a little confused on first reading also. But the letter is clearly referring to two different uses of the term "podcasting".
The first: "... we must insist that your clients withdraw both Int. Cl. 9 applications for PODCAST READY
and the second: "Please note that we have not requested abandonment of Pocast Ready, Inc.'s Int. Cl. 38 application for PODCAST READY because the services description indicates the mark will be used for podcasting-related services; if that assumption is incorrect, please let us know."
While IANAL, it seems pretty clear that they are referring to two different applications, or different parts of the same application. And yes, I think this is a legitimate defense of their trademarks and not simple bullying. And no, I, like most of the public, could give two shits about Apple defending its trademarks as it is required to by law (or risk losing them).
Inaccuracy of information, however, does hack me off.
So Apple doesnt want people to make podcasts? ... Or do they only want to allow people to make podcasts by officially going through itunes?
I dont get it really. What does Apple what? Podcasts are a term, just like surfing, browsing, file, linking, downloading, audio clip. It's just a term we use to commonly describe something so that we all understand what we are refering to.
So again.. what does Apple what? Do they want us to stop refering to downloadable audio shows as podcasts all together? I'm not sure apple would want that... yet that is what they seem to.
I'm sure someone else would gladly invent a cooler term and allow it to virally infect the thought process of us users, thus redefining their own brand, and giving them the same free publicity that Apple and its Ipod have been lucky to receive.
Lets call it Down Casting... or DLcasting, or just DL. I caught it on the DL. Sure it has its other slang uses but thats what people do when they need a term to commonly refer to something... they just use it, cause its easy... and thats what people do when they refer to downloadable audio shows as Podcasts...
Apple get over it.
The fine folks at DAP Review suggested "dapcast" (for Digital Audio Player) several months ago to emphasize you don't need an Apple product to play the audio/video.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
That is exactly because of this type of behaviour that sometimes I think that Apple is no different than M$.
/., but people are only conscendant to Apple because of their
I now I'll get bashed by all the Apple fans in
market share.
So some people might support their trend of cease and desist letter, because Apple needs to maintain their
market share. But if they were something like M$ in market size, then everyone would be complaining like we
usually do on M$'s case.
In the end all corporations are the same if given enough market share.
This is to the authors of the innumerable articles flaming about Apple without actually bothering to find out what's going on. Like the one two or three articles below this.
You didn't read the fucking letter. You didn't even read the comments RIGHT HERE that point out Apple is NOT going after "podcast". They have 'no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term "podcast" as part of a trademark for goods and services offered in the podcasting field'. It's right there in the letter. Can't you people read?
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
Apple's letter to podcastready.com does not contain the words cease or desist. They opened a dialog regarding the user of that site's term mypodder and related domains. Basically, they're phonetically stealing the trademark and not paying the licensing fee.
The OP is patently false and spreading FUD.
Move over "Body Snatchers", here come the "Apple Pod People" -- walking around with blank looks on their faces; seeming to be in another world. Sometimes body parts are noted to twitch or spasm in weird, yet rhythmical, patterns, etc.
Or, maybe in locking down the phrase "pod-casting", they have intentions to do their own type of pod-casting, as in "They Live", or the short series, "Threshold"?
The pods cover a critical mass of the general population, then : an inaudible alien signal that will usher in some bizarre new "reality"...
|
Pod
FREE DEAL OF THE WEEK
FREE 30GB iPod VIDEO [Black/White]
Offering Site : Flashipods4free.com
Offering Company: TRAINN - Transcedent Innovations
30GB Video iPod
How to Complete the Offer
1) Sign Up at FlashiPods4Free.com; look on the bottom right for the signup box.
READ THIS! IMPORTANT!
At signup, you are presented with a choice of a referral account or point account. The difference is, once you complete an offer, you will either refer friends to sign up or complete offers for more points. Once you finish points or finish your referring, you will receive your iPod regardless. Its a matter of personal choice. Referral or points!
2) CompleteONE offer; the easiest current offer is Stamps.com, which is free if you cancel within 28 days. It is also listed as INSTANT Credit. Over 50 different offers are also available!
3) Start referringonly 5ofyour friends to do this! Or if you signed up for the points option, complete more offers until you satisfied the amount of points needed.
4) Once the offer has been approved and your friends have signed up for an offer, a Free iPodWILL BE recieved!