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/
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...
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.
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)
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
"Open the pod bay doors, Hal."
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Steve Jobs won't let me."