Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Goes After the Term 'Podcast'

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the lots-of-frustrated-casters-out-there dept.

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."

27 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. There goes my week! by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:There goes my week! by AddressException · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't want to alienate anyone, nor do they want the free publicity to end. All they want to do is keep their trademarks--hence the C&D letters.

    2. Re:There goes my week! by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that "podcasting" comes directly from the iPod name and confuses a vast majority of consumers. Unlike possibly a pod of whales, here the term actually is confusing and misleading. You would think that Apple would like the public thinking that podcasting is dependent upon (or has anything to do with) iPods, but I think their fear is that the term commoditizes iPods. They don't want iPod to become the next pliers, band-aid, or other generic term that was once a trademarked brand name. Moreover, they don't want people who ask for iPods for Christmas to get their competitors' products.

    3. Re:There goes my week! by cfulmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dispute the second half of your premise -- I haven't found anybody who is both (1) familiar with the term and (2) associates it with Apple.

      I'd argue that the word "podcast" is already generic -- are there any audio blogs that don't call themselves podcasts?

    4. Re:There goes my week! by sammy+baby · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think you've just argued Apple's point for them. The word "iPod" is clearly and appropriately associated with Apple, and they have a trademark on it. The word "podcast" comes directly from "iPod," and yet isn't associated with them. A lawyer could easily argue that this is dilution of trademark.

      (Warning: IANAL)

      Another thing to remember: trademark isn't like copyright. Copyright requires no special action for you to initiate: your works are copyrighted to you, unless you sign those rights over to someone else, and copyright notices only serve to notify the people of your right. Trademarks, on the other hand, need to be registered and filed, often in multiple countries if you're a big company. In the US, if you get a trademark and don't defend infringements upon it in court, the courts can hold that your trademark has been invalidated.

      So in other words: if Apple doesn't do this, they may risk losing the trademark on the word "iPod." I think you can understand why they'd consider this bad.

      I'd argue that the word "podcast" is already generic -- are there any audio blogs that don't call themselves podcasts?


      Uh - yes.
    5. Re:There goes my week! by xigxag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder how useful this kind of aggressive C&Ding is in actually protecting one's market share? I mean, let's say Apple lost trademark protection over the word "iPod," and it becomes a generic term. They're still the Apple iPod. They've still got the ipod.com domain. They can still call themselves "The Original iPod." They've still got iTunes and their proprietary DRM. And they still have control over the lion's share of the market. As long as they still have their product design and logo trademarked, nobody will mistake a knock-off iPod with the real thing, and any company that starts calling its player an iPod is just setting itself up for a poor comparison with the real thing, and at best anonymity, at worst, disrepute.

      For a contrast, look at what happened to Xerox. They once had a commanding lead in photocopies, so much that their name nearly became verbed. They no longer suffer that threat, thanks to their efforts to protect their trademark. But neither do they have their commanding lead any more.

      Hmm, looks like someone else wondered about this before I did.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    6. Re:There goes my week! by saddino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trademarks are ridiculous when they're normal, everyday words.

      Tide
      Crest
      Dove
      Dawn

      these don't bother you?

    7. Re:There goes my week! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple is a trademark whore. They seem sue anybody using a term that might be related to thier products even if the term itself is not trademarked. But they don't concern themselves at the onset. They wait to see if something actually becomes popular to send in the wolves.

      Bullshit. Apple likes the fact that the term podcast is popular and based on their existing brand. It is as though everyone started calling modding pickups for racing toyotafizzing. Toyota would be cool with that too. The problem is when another company or companies apply for trademarks that include your trademark and try to lock down terms to that only they can sell things in that market. If some company tried to trademark the term "Toyotafizzle" to use in their aftermarket mods of all trucks, not just Toyotas, you can bet your sweet ass Toyota would send them a nasty letter in short order too.

  2. About Time by joshetc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:About Time by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean we had cassette players in the 70s and 80s that were portable. We called what was on them "recordings."

      And this is a bit offtopic, but the same really goes for "blog." Most blogs are opinion pieces, essays, meditations, etc. Why couldn't they just be called what they are? Did we have to make up a name for them?

      I think this is part of a general trend where one generation or group tries to separate itself from the previous generation or other groups via their "lingo." The current tech-trendy generation has to listen to their "podcasts" because to say "I'm listening to a recording" makes them sound like they are sitting at home around the Victrola with little Jimmy winding the hand crank.

      Of course, the idea that Apple is going to sue over this is just ludicrous, because they ignored it for so long the term became ubiquitous. No use crying over it now.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:About Time by lubricated · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >> I was a Beatles fan before I was into any sort of 80s/90s pop music. You think the average 15 year old gives two shits about the 70s or 80s?

      I don't think you realize it but you were the weird one. Do you realize that the Beatles were just a pop band like any other? It's just that lately(1996 is the year cd sales started to decline), pop bands got worse. As bad as the Beatles lyrics were(before the breakup) at least they could play and sing worth a damn.
      The average kid at your time didn't give a shit about 50's 60's or whatever.
      When I was 15 I certainly didn't give two shits about crappy music from the past, and few others did. Those that did were thought of as weird.
      And what makes your parents generation any more special than the generation before them, or even before that, or after for that matter.

      >> My parents talked to me about their lives before I was born,

      I get what you're saying, but the first time I read this I was like "WTF, kind of crazy parents are that. You can't possibly remember any of that."

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  3. Good luck apple. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Again with the fight against neologisms... by Veetox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Again with the fight against neologisms... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      google owns the rights to the word google while apple doesn't own the rights to the term podcast.

  5. So? by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  6. Devil's Advocate by SiO2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Devil's Advocate by teh+loon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This seems to be similar to what Google was doing a while ago.
      However, I don't think podcast is an actual apple trademark, so I'm not too sure if one can treat this case like the Google's case.

  7. Which Apple? by Ratbert42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, is this Apple, the record company, or Apple, the computer company that infringed on the record company's name? I'm so confused.

  8. How about "Subscription" ?!?! by brunes69 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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*.

  9. Not the same. by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Ummm...no they're not. Read the Cease and Desis by dr_d_19 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple is perfectly within their right to protect their product's trademark.


    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.
  11. Re:mod parent up by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, If they don't make an effort to protect their trademark then they may lose it. I don't think that Apple would want to lose their iPod trademark.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  12. You're right by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They don't subject to the term "podcasting". I read that somewhere, but didn't check it.

    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 :-/

  13. OK, I'll bite by WebCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Come on, had to make this into an anti-Sony argument. Just wouldn't feel right.

    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 /*pod*/ or /^i*/.

    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.

  14. This is sounding like a lot of FUD by Aurostion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. The summary is poorly written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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 ;)

  16. Rule number one: Jobs is always right by doom · · Score: 2, Insightful
    vimh42 (981236) wrote:
    Apple is a trademark whore.
    Ah, but you appear to have missed the elementary principle of the computer business: Jobs is always right. Closed architecture machines... Look and feel law suits (they own the "garbage can" image, remember?)... The latest proprietary fork of the BSD code base... DRM audio formats... if any of this is disturbing you, you must report to the re-grooving center to have your reality warp field adjusted.