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."
In response to Apple's ridiculous stand on "podcast," CBS is now referring to their "podcasts" as "netcasts."
http://www.cbs.com/netcast/
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
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.
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.
How about "recording."
I mean we had cassette players in the 70s and 80s that were portable. We called what was on them "recordings."
Why is this so hard?
Podcasting is a term used by retards who think they invented something new. OMG A PORTABLE COPY OF SOMEONES NOISE HOLE!!!!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Just call it an iCast...everything else has 'i' in front of it and Apple doesn't seem to mind.
Didn't Adam Curry more or less "invent" the term podcast? It was always my understanding that it stood for Personal On Demand Broadcast. Sure, not a great definition and a suspicious use of the term "pod", but justification nontheless. And how can apple complain now that they've host all sorts of third-party podcasts in iTunes for a while, and they clearly use the term "podcast". Doesn't seem like they are consistent at all.
When I first heard the term "podcast" I immediately thought it had something to do with the iPod. I thought it was some thing that iTunes did in in conjunction with an iPod to broadcast music on the internet (or maybe to your stereo). Sure, I eventually learned that this was not the case, but the poitn is that my initial thought associated podcast with the iPod. I would not be surprised if there are still a lot of people who haven't gone past that kind of initial reaction. I'm sure many people not "in the know" just assume that one uses an iPod to create a podcast. It makes sense at least on a superficial level, doesn't it?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
No, but if you started a major fast-food chain called MacDonalds, you could still be found to have infringed McDonalds' trademark. There's much more to trademark law than the precise, literal infringement of an exact mark.
the word "podcast" was first used back in early 2004, now how can Apple claim that this term hasnt already become part of the general vocab. I think this might be muddy. If they didnt want people dubbing thier works podcasts then apple should have jumped on it back in early 2004 when it started not over 2 years later.
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
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.
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