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.
In response to Apple's ridiculous stand on "podcast," CBS is now referring to their "podcasts" as "netcasts."
http://www.cbs.com/netcast/
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
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...
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...
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.
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).
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.
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."
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
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.
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)
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.
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 :-/
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.
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 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
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.
"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.
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.
...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]
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
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?