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."
Didn't Apple basically ignore "podcasting" when it first started? Why would they bother to chase down people who are creating content that makes iTunes Store more attractive for those of us that couldn't give a shit about DRM music?
I use iTunes for playing music and podcasts but I haven't visited the Music Store before iTunes 7 in a *long* time. Now that they are really pushing podcasting content on there, I'm all about finding free media.
Don't piss off your userbase Apple, you should know better.
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.
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).
They're not going after peopel who create podcasts. They're going after Infostructure Solutions LLC and Podcast Ready Inc. over the terms 'Mypodder' and 'Podcast Ready' which were recently filed for trademarks.
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
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
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 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
This is not a Cease and Desist order. It's a polite request to withdraw a trademark filing application. Didn't you bother to read TFA? Of course, the /. editors didn't bother to do that before posting the story, and the guys who wrote the Wired blog entry don't seem to understand the letter, either. All they did was see the words "Apple" and "IPod" and recognize that the letter is from a law firm and instantly work themselves into a tizzy.
To sum up for those that can't be bothered: Apple owns the trademarks "IPOD" and "POD". These people filed a trademark application which incorporates those existing trademarks in their proposed trademarks. Apple would like them to withdraw the application. It's all part of the process. No harm, no foul. That's why you don't instantly get trademarks -- they go through this sort of review and examination process.
This whole thing is stupid. Did anyone even read the article? Apple is trying to block two trademarks from being issued that they feel are likely to cause confusion with the iPod. The letter even states that Apple has no intention of trying to block the use of the term "podcast." Trademark law requires this kind of behavior. Trademarks must be defended or else they can be lost.
-matt
The "inventer" of the word (apparently a Ben Hammersley, not Adam Curry, but... meh) actually responded to Creative on this point in one of the funniest putting-corporation-in-its-place responses I have seen: Source: here
(* I am listening to my beloved Zen as I type this, and I don't like or own any Apple goods, so I'm not being a fanboy, I just genuinely think that was a lame thing for Creative to try...)
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.
Apple didn't come up with this word, so what the hell are they playing at?
Sigh. Podcast is obviously derived from iPod. Apple is cool with that. Go ahead and call it Podcasting. The problem is when some company decided to trademark "Podcast ready" which includes the derivative term from iPod. I think any company would be more than a little worried about such a thing. In fact, it might lead to their losing their trademark on the term iPod and then Microsoft and Sony could release their own products called iPods, confusing and misleading customers. Apple basically said, "don't try to trademark common terms that refer to terms we've already trademarked."
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.
FTFA:
Another wonderful example of Slashdot taking the bit between the teeth and bolting headlong into the wrong conclusion.
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?