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."

Comments

There goes my week!

[dada21]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[garcia]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[ari_j]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[conigs]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[cfulmer]

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?

Re:There goes my week!

[rjcarr]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[sammy baby]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

How about "portacast"?

Reminds me of portapotty.

Hmm. How about "portapoddy"? (-:

Re:There goes my week!

[akahige]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[dirty]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[soliptic]

No. Making POD == "Personal on demand" was a lame backronym invented by Creative, trying to crowbar themselves into the picture when its quite obvious the "pod" in "podcast" refers to an iPod.*

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:

Creative are talking rot. The pod in 'podcast' was obviously and blatantly meant to refer to the iPod. The accusation that I'd use such a clumsy acronym invites another one: stfu, kthxbye.

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...)

Re:There goes my week!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:There goes my week!

[Firehed]

After a series of battles, the two firms agreed to live and let live, but the controversy flared up again when Apple Computer went into the music business with iTunes. I'm not sure where it stands now

Apple won.

About Time

[joshetc]

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.

Re:About Time

[tomstdenis]

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

Not to be outdone...

[richdun]

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...

Good luck apple.

[Lumpy]

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.

CBS is using "netcasts" now

[rwven]

In response to Apple's ridiculous stand on "podcast," CBS is now referring to their "podcasts" as "netcasts."

http://www.cbs.com/netcast/

Letest News: Feds confiscate Anakin's Podracer

[Dr. Hok]

Enough is enough, the young Jedi reportedly said,I convert to the dark side of the force!

Ummm...no they're not. Read the Cease and Desist

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Is Apple actually going after "Podcast"?

[argent]

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.

Summary is WRONG

[93 Escort Wagon]

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?

RTFA extract

[bidule]

RTF S&D letter

While Apple, of course, has 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 cannot allow marks that go beyond this legitimate use and infringe on Apple's rights in POD and IPOD.

RTF headline

Now, Apple is going after the term 'podcasting'.

Why can't submitters at least RTFS&DL.

They're not going after the term podcast

[sokoban]

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.

Apple is not objecting to use of Podcast

[d0n quix0te]

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