Slashdot Mirror


Apple, Startup Go To Trial Over 'Pod' Trademark

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "Apple is scheduled to go to trial with a startup to fight over a three-letter word: Pod. The trademark battle centers on independent entrepreneur Daniel Kokin, founder of startup Sector Labs, and his video projector in development called Video Pod. Apple had previously filed oppositions against Kokin's usage of 'Pod,' alleging that it would cause customers to confuse it with Apple's iPod products. ... Names that have come under fire include MyPodder, TightPod, PodShow, and even Podium. Sector Labs is the only company to go to trial with Apple over using the 'Pod' branding. Ana Christian, Kokin's lawyer, says the fight is about more than allowing small businesses to use 'Pod' in their product names. She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words."

294 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. WIth all due repsect by oldhack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I say this with all due respect:

    Fuck Steve Jobs.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:WIth all due repsect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IN THE ASS!

    2. Re:WIth all due repsect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      With a donkey.

    3. Re:WIth all due repsect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why be so mean to donkeys?

    4. Re:WIth all due repsect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I say this with all due respect:

      Fuck U.S. intellectual property laws, and the American legal system for condoning the litigious tendencies of those wanting to bully or extort money from others. Apple's suit is disgusting, yet almost any other U.S. company would pursue the same suit if in the same position; hell, we've had a car company both sponsor and send legal threats to the same web site (with no significant changes to the site).

      I'm getting ready to release a software application I've worked on full-time for the better part of two years, but one very big issue I have yet to deal with is how to protect myself from frivolous lawsuits (under which I include software patents, which is my main concern). I tend to move around a lot, so the typical defense of forming an LLC is a major burden to me. It doesn't help that my prior location (CA) and current location (NYC) both have ridiculous requirements for LLCs, even if they're just single-person companies run out of a bedroom -- e.g., I'd have to contract out the garbage service, even though my work is entirely computer-based and generates no physical waste. This entire headache would be avoidable if not for corrupt lawmakers who don't want to fix the system because they're paid off by lawyers and mega-corps who want to strangle out any new competitors, whether via patents or trademarks.

    5. Re:WIth all due repsect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Set up your company abroad then. You are allowed to have multiple mailing and corporate addresses you know.

    6. Re:WIth all due repsect by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Delaware. Haven't you learned ANYTHING about corporations in your short time on Earth? Delaware has the most corporate friendly laws in the nation. I never actually LOOKED in a Delaware phone book, but I'll bet the yellow pages have a separate listing for "Scuzzy Lawyers (corporate startup specialists)" You may have to rent a broom closet in some skanky former office building so that you have a "corporate presence" in Delaware - but "Scuzzy Lawyer" can fill you in on all the details. In fact, Scuzzy probably has a brother or cousin who can rent the broom closet to you!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:WIth all due repsect by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      With alternate emphasis:

      Fuck! Steve Jobs.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    8. Re:WIth all due repsect by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I suspect Jobs will have to go fuck himself. After all, thousands of podiatrists and chiropodists have a prior claim...

    9. Re:WIth all due repsect by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This reminds me of a fortune cookie I've seen:

      In "King Henry VI, Part II," Shakespeare has Dick Butcher suggest to his fellow anti-establishment rabble-rousers, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." That action may be extreme but a similar sentiment was expressed by Thomas K. Connellan, president of The Management Group, Inc. Speaking to business executives in Chicago and quoted in Automotive News, Connellan attributed a measure of America's falling productivity to an excess of attorneys and accountants, and a dearth of production experts. Lawyers and accountants "do not make the economic pie any bigger; they only figure out how the pie gets divided. Neither profession provides any added value to product."
      According to Connellan, the highly productive Japanese society has 10 lawyers and 30 accountants per 100,000 population. The U.S. has 200 lawyers and 700 accountants. This suggests that "the U.S. proportion of pie-bakers and pie-dividers is way out of whack." Could Dick Butcher have been an efficiency expert?
      -- Motor Trend, May 1983

    10. Re:WIth all due repsect by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      IN THE ASS!

      With a donkey.

      ...redundant? :)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:WIth all due repsect by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't blame the lawyers for doing the bidding of the biggest corporations.

      When you've got a system that so biased in favor of the rich, they're just going to continue pressing their advantage until you're a serf with a MasterCard.

      Whenever there's a regulatory law passed, there's over a billion dollars an hour spent trying to bend it to their advantage. The starting salary for any congressional staffer who's making the jump to lobbying is $750,000.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:WIth all due repsect by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The idea of the president of a company called "The Management Group, Inc." whining to "business executives" about how parasitic lawyers and accountants are ... strikes me as sadly hilarious. Pot, kettle. Mote, beam. Etc.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    13. Re:WIth all due repsect by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you mean recursive?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    14. Re:WIth all due repsect by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      Govt cannot monitor day-to-day illegal & immoral activities of big corporations.
      It is better to breakup these corporations into smaller entities to promote competition and solve unemployment crisis.

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    15. Re:WIth all due repsect by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Must have been a very large cookie.

    16. Re:WIth all due repsect by daveime · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's time the /. idiot filter was updated ... I mean, why would any *genuine* post need more than a couple of hyperlinks ?

    17. Re:WIth all due repsect by darkfire5252 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck U.S. intellectual property laws, and the American legal system for condoning the litigious tendencies of those wanting to bully or extort money from others. Apple's suit is disgusting, yet almost any other U.S. company would pursue the same suit if in the same position; hell, we've had a car company both sponsor and send legal threats to the same web site (with no significant changes to the site).

      The lawsuit is a direct consequence of the American trademark laws. From http://www.answers.com/topic/trademark :

      The owners of registered trademarks can lose their rights in a number of ways. When a trade or the general public adopts a trademark as the name for a type of goods, the mark is no longer distinctive and the rights to it are lost. The owner of trademark rights must be vigilant to ensure that this does not occur.

      The general idea is that, if Apple allows the practice of calling a small electronic device a 'pod' to continue without objection, I can sell my ePod and directly claim that it is 'a better Pod than the iPod!'. Apple has no recourse, because 'pod' can be argued to be a common term applying to handheld electronics, and not anything particularly referring to the 'iPod' or any Apple product...

      The general message: blame the legislation and legal precedent. Don't blame Apple for vigilantly defending its trademarks; Apple has to do this or else face losing any trademark rights that it has...

    18. Re:WIth all due repsect by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Where he breathes

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    19. Re:WIth all due repsect by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Protecting the trademark doesn't require a lawsuit. You can, for example, grant the other company a license to use the trademark in certain situations for a nominal fee. If Apple granted them a perpetual license to the iPod trademark specifically in the context of the Video Pod, for $1 then the iPod trademark would be protected, it would cost the startup $1 and Apple about half an hour of lawyer time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:WIth all due repsect by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      Reentrant?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    21. Re:WIth all due repsect by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      In other news a pod of dolphins is disbanded upon receipt of a 'cease and desist' letter from Apple.

    22. Re:WIth all due repsect by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Honestly, as much of a douchebag as he is, I have to admit he is largely responsible for the current awesome state of the smartphone and media player market. Without Jobs, chances are none of us would be carrying around smartphones with awesome UIs loaded with dozens of great apps.

    23. Re:WIth all due repsect by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Camel, eye of needle?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  2. News @ 11 by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nothing new to see here.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:News @ 11 by icebike · · Score: 5, Funny

      Open the pod bay doors Hal.

      I'm sorry Dave, YOU can't do that.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:News @ 11 by flowsnake · · Score: 5, Funny
      sudo open the pod bay doors Hal

      OK

    3. Re:News @ 11 by thephydes · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean " open the pod PAY doors Hal"

    4. Re:News @ 11 by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      win!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:News @ 11 by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      if only Dave had known basic UNIX commands, he could have completely pwned Hal, I think.

      "Beat me at chess will you?!"
      fdisk /dev/hdd1

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    6. Re:News @ 11 by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe Dave can't, but iCan.

      --
      Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
    7. Re:News @ 11 by EricX2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dave is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.

    8. Re:News @ 11 by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Bravo!

  3. What a typical waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how much money is wasted everyday by these useless unethical corporate bullshit lawsuits. Clearly, things are completely out of control when people waste money fighting over common usage of common words. Hey Mr. Jobs, are you proud about all the money you waste?

    1. Re:What a typical waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you're aware of a trademark issue you have to defend it or you loose it. The trademark laws are setup so lawyers keep getting paid.

    2. Re:What a typical waste by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case, I think it's justified. Using a media device called a Video Pod could indeed be confused with the Apple Trademark, which is the entire point of a trademark. Words such as Podium wouldn't be of course, but in this case, I would think it's warranted.

      If Apple were to release some new gadget and call it "iDroid", you can bet Google would be all over their ass, and with good reason. Borrowing another's trademark with the intent to leverage another's success is a perfect example of trademark infringement.

    3. Re:What a typical waste by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really, Pod has been used in that fashion for a really long time. Or at least way longer than Apple has used the word as a part of its trademark.

    4. Re:What a typical waste by schon · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you're aware of a trademark issue you have to defend it or you loose it.

      No, you don't.

    5. Re:What a typical waste by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Irrelevant if Apple was the one to trademark 'iPod' with their media player, and they made it a common household name. Showing a reference to a word in a dictionary isn't going to get this start-up anywhere either. No one said that using the word 'pod' is a trademark violation, and it doesn't meet the definition of a trademark infringement.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

      The fact that they have a media projector called a 'Video Pod' makes the case relevant as it takes on a whole new meaning.

      Not really, Pod [reference.com] has been used in that fashion for a really long time. Or at least way longer than Apple has used the word as a part of its trademark.

    6. Re:What a typical waste by perlchild · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As PART of their trademark. That's the part that's problematic right there. If they had tried to trademark pod, they would have lost(or at least, the other companies wouldn't have tried). Having a trademark apply to partial words is what makes it gaming the system.

    7. Re:What a typical waste by koyote-eliot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Adding to the confusion here; Current TV has been using the term video pod for years now. While they have moved away from calling the short form documentaries that comprise most of their programming "pods" of late, their usage is closer to the "video pod" name that Sector Labs is using as well. Not to mention a quick search that shows the term videoPod typically refers to video content designed to play on portable, iPod like devices.

      Given how many uses the term has already accrued, it seems that Sector Labs would be better off coming up with a more distinct name.

      --
      A point in every direction is the same as no point at all. -- Harry Nilsson
    8. Re:What a typical waste by unity100 · · Score: 1

      all this faulty stupid logic of yours fails, when word 'car' is transplanted and tried in place of 'pod'.

      both are nouns, and describe a general class of objects.

      claiming that there could be a 'right' of ownership to generic group names, is the stupidest thing a human can come up saying. lets see some examples :

      plane
      boat
      computer
      bird
      planet
      ..........

      any more needed to make a point ? i think not .

    9. Re:What a typical waste by MurphyZero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that Apple has used the 'i' in their product names, mean that Video Pod is unlikely to dilute the Apple trademark. No one would confuse Video Phone with the Apple product, I say likewise for the word Pod. These cases should be quickly tossed out. Not associated with the legal system as I don't what little reputation I do have to suffer greatly.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
    10. Re:What a typical waste by Redlazer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, I don't think it's very likely to confuse a "Video Pod" with an "iPod". Perhaps if it was called a vPod, or the iPod was called a Music Pod, I would understand.
      It's close enough, I suppose, to necessitate a court appearance over, but I don't think Apple deserves a patent as broad as that - especially since the Video Pod is not a music player.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    11. Re:What a typical waste by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really. If you try to trademark something within the same industry (i.e. as a competitor) and with a name that either conflicts with or at least threatens to dilute your market image through confusing similarities, that's a viable trademark dispute. It's one of the very basic guidelines you have to read up on when figuring out whether or not you have a chance of getting a trademark; it helps to evaluate incidents of prior art. Someone marketing a media device called a Video Pod in the same market sector as Apple's media device, the iPod, looks a lot like trademark dilution to me. You may not like Apple, but they've got grounds to argue here.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    12. Re:What a typical waste by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      This isn't a patent issue... this is a trademark issue.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    13. Re:What a typical waste by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Droid was licensed from LucasFilm for use with phones running AndroidOS. So not only do you exhibit a complete lack of knowledge of trademark law, as demonstrated in your post, but you also don't even understand that 'Droid' has it's own set of restrictions and would technically be a licensing violation if LucasFilm didn't get a kickback for allowing it's usage. But by all means, sperg out about Apple while Star Wars and Droid (2 of Slashdot's favorite things) play the same game.

    14. Re:What a typical waste by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      but Apple in particular has a practice of picking VERY generic names... like iPhone when somebody ELSE already had that name and Apple camped the trademark office on a technicality to even contest the name.

      Better yet, how about Apple's blatant grab for the term "ping"... even Microsoft wasn't stupid enough to go for that big of a grab and chose "bing" instead.

    15. Re:What a typical waste by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, problem with what you said is that it's not in the same market sector. It's a video projector not a media player.

      Second, "pod" is an actual word. Just because they've slapped an i on the front of it doesn't mean they're allowed ownership over an entire word. Replace the word "Pod" with Plane, sandwich, whatever and it makes just as much nonsense.

    16. Re:What a typical waste by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Apple seem to believe their customer base would confuse the word podium with an Apple product, it really shows how much faith they have in their customers intelligence.

    17. Re:What a typical waste by mcvos · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think it's entirely the same game. The word "pod" existed long before the iPod did. But I think the word "droid" was actually invented by George Lucas, so it makes perhaps slightly more sense that he owns it and people need a license if they want to name their products "Droid".

      Of course if "droid" was an existing dictionary word before Star Wars was made, LucasFilm wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and anyone could name their products Droid. At least as long as nobody else in the same market was already using that name.

    18. Re:What a typical waste by daveime · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well it's obvious it isn't an Apple product just by looking at it.

      Not shiny, less than $1000, not portable enough to take in the Starbucks ...

      And most importantly, doesn't start with a fucking letter *i* !

    19. Re:What a typical waste by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      you may be correct, but that doesn't mean apple won't win, i think they had a similarly stupid run in with apple records a while ago...

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    20. Re:What a typical waste by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      i think they had a similarly stupid run in with apple records a while ago...

      But in that case the trademarks are identical, also Apple computer was sued by Apple corps. There is a bit of history between the two on trademark issues.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

    21. Re:What a typical waste by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I wish I could go back in time to trademark the (very non-common) word AppleIBMfoxfiremicrosoftatariactivisionsonygamestop.

      As a bonus you can sue the Australian arm of the RIAA because your trademark contains the string "aria".
      http://www.aria.com.au/

    22. Re:What a typical waste by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      How would intel fare with the i3, i5, i7 line of processors I wonder?

    23. Re:What a typical waste by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      This whole thing is a waste of Apple's money. First, a projector and a personal media player are not likely to be confused in the market, even if they have the exact same name. Second, the word "Pod" is a common word, and you simply can't trademark those.

      Third, this litigation is FANTASTIC marketing for the little guy, which can put out press release after press release to get free earned media until it looks like they are going to lose. Then they simply change names, sign a "we won't do it again" agreement with Apple, and enjoy more free press.

      --
      -- $G
    24. Re:What a typical waste by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      If I had a product I personally would not want the word pod in the name people hear the word pod and they just think of Apple. I would just change the name to 1 settle the lawsuit and 2 I don't want my product confused with Apples product.

    25. Re:What a typical waste by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      That is the point. If you did a search for video ipod, you may end up with hits on video pod as well. In addition, if you are presented with a list of 10 products, and one of them looks and sounds familiar, you may be more likely to choose the one more familiar to you (this effect is also common during voting season when choosing names from a list. People are more comfortable with the 'familiar').

      If a company purposely names their product similarly to another product, with the intent to profit off of that similarity, then it meets the basic definition of trademark infringement.

      The two products do NOT have to be the same in form or function. This seems to be where many people get confused about trademarks. Although the more common infringement cases revolve around similar or identical products, that is not always the case.

      I doubt Apple will pursue the 'similar products' tack as it doesn't seem like a strong case. Although both devices present video the consumer, they would be difficult to confuse. I believe they will most likely pursue this on the 'branding' side of things, which has no requirement that products are similar.

      Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

      Where the respective marks or products or services are not identical, similarity will generally be assessed by reference to whether there is a likelihood of confusion that consumers will believe the products or services originated from the trademark owner.
      Likelihood of confusion is not necessarily measured by actual consumer confusion, though normally one of the elements, but by a series of criteria Courts have established. A prime example is the test announced by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in AMF, Inc v Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (C.A.9) 1979. The Court there announced eight specific elements to measure likelihood of confusion:
      Strength of the mark
      Proximity of the goods
      Similarity of the marks
      Evidence of actual confusion
      Marketing channels used
      Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
      Defendant's intent in selecting the mark
      Likelihood of expansion of the product lines

    26. Re:What a typical waste by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Car is not a trademark. Your logic would only work if someone else had been using car as a trademark to describe something other than an automobile. No one was using 'pod' to describe portable media players before Apple - when it launched, I remember people saying it was a stupid name (what does it even mean? It's the place where I keep peas?).

      Trademark law is not just about the word, it's about the context. A good example for geeks is VAX. This was a brand of minicomputers from DEC and a brand of vacuum cleaners from a British company. Because minicomputers and vacuum cleaners are entirely different markets, there is no possibility of confusion, so there is no trademark infringement (although the adverts saying 'Nothing sucks like a VAX!' didn't do DEC much good in the UK).

      Portable media players and portable video projectors, however, are very similar markets. I would expect a future generation iPod to include a picoprojector, and there was an iPod Video, so calling something a Video Pod is likely to confuse buyers, making it a trademark issue.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re:What a typical waste by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It would be like them trademarking "Apple Computers" and then preventing anyone else using the word "computer" in their product name, despite the fact that the word was in common usage for many years before their trademark.

      Or like Microsoft trademarking Windows, when the window concept was a generic term in the computer industry.

    28. Re:What a typical waste by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Either you have a short memory, or you've only been paying a healthy amount of attention to Apple products. The fifth generation iPod was marketed as the 'iPod Video'. I think there's a lot of potential for confusion between 'iPod Video' and 'Video Pod,' especially given how frequently consumers seem to reverse words in trademark names in everyday conversation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:What a typical waste by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      When you're aware of a trademark issue you have to defend it or you loose it.

      Trademarks have been loose for a very long time.

    30. Re:What a typical waste by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      It is on the books as a feature of the iPhone 6.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    31. Re:What a typical waste by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple did not Trademark "pod" they trademarked "iPod"

      This does not mean they can harass any and all manufacturers who have the word pod in their product names or ones who prefix other words with i-

      Only if there would be confusion in the marketplace about who's product it is can a claim be made
      the original Trademark was for a portable MP3 player, that now also does video.... Daniel's Video Pod is not portable, does not play MP3's is a projector .....

      Not really a lot in common ....Apple does not need to have noticed but there are already products named almost all of [a-z]pod that they have not yet sued ..

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    32. Re:What a typical waste by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I still think Bing's name came about as an inside joke among the developers at Microsoft, carefully not mentioned among the marketers or executives. After all, Bing is not Google.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    33. Re:What a typical waste by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Droid is owned by Lucas I believe, so I think Google would have much less to stand on in this case. If Lucas licensed the use out to Apple I'm not sure Google would have any recompense. Probably one of the reasons phones are being named Droid and not Android in the first place. Your example would be better I guess if you used iAndroid.

    34. Re:What a typical waste by flinkflonk · · Score: 1

      Actually (about that link of yours, which links to twitter's behaviour towards the term tweet) a fellow named Bobby Day might have a word or two to say about prior art. Well, except he's been dead for a while...

      Rockin' robin (tweet, tweet, tweet) :P

    35. Re:What a typical waste by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      As PART of their trademark. That's the part that's problematic right there. If they had tried to trademark pod, they would have lost(or at least, the other companies wouldn't have tried). Having a trademark apply to partial words is what makes it gaming the system.

      Tell that to McDental or McSleep, both of which were found to infringe McDonald's unregistered family mark.

    36. Re:What a typical waste by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a complete lack of understanding over what I just wrote.

      "'Droid' has it's own set of restrictions and would technically be a licensing violation if LucasFilm didn't get a kickback for allowing it's usage."

      In case you don't understand common English the terms "licensed the use out to" would typically infer a kickback to Lucas.

      "But by all means, sperg out about Apple while Star Wars and Droid (2 of Slashdot's favorite things) play the same game."

      Again, isn't this basically what I said? That is why I suggested the switch to the term Android, because using the term Droid would bring Lucas into this, not Google. You seem to be agreeing with me, but insulting me for it. It's just plain odd.

    37. Re:What a typical waste by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      both are nouns, and describe a general class of objects.

      ...but only one is trademarked.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    38. Re:What a typical waste by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Windows...

    39. Re:What a typical waste by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      Yes, like Kleenex. If they let people just say Kleenex instead of Kleenex Brand Facial Tissue, it can become a generic word and they lose it. That's what happened to the word zipper. That's why they changed the song from "I am am stuck on Band-Aid" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid Brand."

      So if Apple doesn't defend against other uses of the word pod, the word pod could be declared a generic term, a word in it own right.

      Oh wait...

      --
      This space available.
    40. Re:What a typical waste by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Second, "pod" is an actual word.

      So is "coke", but good luck using it as part of the name of your beverage without conjuring a flock of HFCS-fueled Nazgul.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    41. Re:What a typical waste by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      Cisco had the trademark on 'iPhone' long before the fruit(cake) phone launched, later the 2 companies came up with an agreement.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    42. Re:What a typical waste by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Another good example: "Orbitz" is both gum and a website.

      But you chose the right example for Slashdot.

    43. Re:What a typical waste by unity100 · · Score: 1

      american again.

    44. Re:What a typical waste by suutar · · Score: 1

      If Apple were to release some new gadget and call it "iDroid", you can bet Google would be all over their ass, and with good reason. Borrowing another's trademark with the intent to leverage another's success is a perfect example of trademark infringement.

      Actually, Lucasfilm would be all over them. Google licenses the term 'droid' from them (and puts blurbs in their TV ads saying so).

    45. Re:What a typical waste by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Trademark law was originally a consumer protection mechanism. The concept was that the customer should not be tricked into buying something under the false belief that it was manufactured by someone it was not.

      Imagine I started a company called "Red Rose Glassware", and made drinking glasses and bowls and stuff. I made a good reputation, and my products became more desirable than my rivals. A rival starts a company called "Roses Glassware"- I can legitimately complain that they've done that just to trick customers and leech off of my good reputation.

      The mitigating factors are always supposed to be
      1) That the names are in direct competition or are used for comparable products, and
      2) That there is a real possibility of the newer company's products being mistaken for the original's.

    46. Re:What a typical waste by daveime · · Score: 1

      Tell me which part of my post ISN'T true then ?

      Oh, that's right you can't. You were just behaving like a typical religious fanatic when someone criticizes your precious God.

       

    47. Re:What a typical waste by unity100 · · Score: 1

      what something was 'originally' doesnt help now.

    48. Re:What a typical waste by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Droid originated from Star Wars but it is simply derived from the word android. Pod existed prior, however Apple made an empire around the word Pod when associated with media devices. Why should someone be able to create a media playback device with the word "pod" in it? Furthermore, what is their motivation? Be honest with yourself, it is obvious that anyone creating a media playback device with pod in the name is LOOKING for the subliminal association, and that is why these rules exist. It is the same market, and the word although having prior usage, has specific brand associations in the field.

      There are plenty of examples of real words being acquired as a brand name within their field, and yes, this does preclude their usage by others in the same field.

  4. So call it the UnPod or UnIPod by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Anyone familiar with the cola wars will get it - that like 7Up, it's fresh, new, clear ...

    ... and the UnPhone/UnIPhone, and the UnPad/UnIPad, and UnWindows (oops - already taken for an X Windows screen reader for low-visibility users).

    Let's face it - an all-in-one smartphone called the UniPhone would be cool. Opps - too late again!

  5. This is just lawyers making work for themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago, beer companies in Canada were suing each other over thinks like putting photos of water droplets on their boxes, and using really common plain language terminology. Utterly pointless and all it did was buy BMWs for the lawyers on retainer.

    The defendant should submit Invasion of the Body Snatchers as prior art.

    1. Re:This is just lawyers making work for themselves by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      The defendant should submit Invasion of the Body Snatchers as prior art.

      Or Pod People.

    2. Re:This is just lawyers making work for themselves by ysth · · Score: 1

      Or POD.

  6. If they win it, by Bjecas · · Score: 5, Funny

    will they go for iKea?

    1. Re:If they win it, by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      No, but I hear Tai restaurants are shaking in their boots over some noodle dishes...

    2. Re:If they win it, by Ecuador · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only after they're done with iRan and iRaq...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:If they win it, by Bjecas · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Jobs may be a risk taker, but I don't see him starting a war that will take who knows how long, for who knows what gain, at who knows what cost...

    4. Re:If they win it, by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I thought Thai restaurants steamed their boots, and served them with the noodles.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:If they win it, by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Only after they're done with iRan and iRaq...

      You forgot iTaly.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:If they win it, by jasen666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My god, these countries have no respect for American IP laws at all do they?!

    7. Re:If they win it, by c0lo · · Score: 1

      My god, these countries have no respect for American IP laws at all do they?!

      You have no iDea how low it can be ;)
      And this include iReLand.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    8. Re:If they win it, by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      iStanbul, too? ... Too late?

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    9. Re:If they win it, by clickety6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, the two cases are very similar. You might say they're as alike as peas in a...in a.... in a somewhat elongated, two-valved seed vessel !

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  7. What's the big deal? by SupremoMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just change your product from Pod to Pad, and Apple will leave you alone.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Bjecas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at least then you could hope for Always or Kotex to join you in the fight.

  8. Re:iCapitalLetter by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, but Apple stole that from the iPaq, so they don't have a leg to stand on there.

  9. Podium? by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

    They went after Podium?
    grep -i pod /usr/share/dict/words
    Hmm, I bet they'd sue over "chiropodist" too.

  10. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Funny

    US patents, trademarks, gun laws, drug laws. When is the stupidity going to stop?

    When we can have the utter perfection of both the government and economic systems that Europe, Canada, Asia - especially Japan - have achieved.

    After all, they live in a utopia, don't they?

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  11. The Law by cappp · · Score: 5, Informative
    We're talking about Trademark dilution here so it's probably a good idea to have some idea about what the law says. So here we go

    (2) DEFINITIONS- (A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

    (i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
    (ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
    (iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.

    And the test

    (B) For purposes of paragraph (1), `dilution by blurring' is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

    (i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
    (ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.
    (iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.
    (iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.
    (v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.
    (vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

    Don't forget that the whole point of the thing is consumer protection - your average person being able to buy a thing with a reasonable sureness about its origins. As in all things tech related the mom-test is probably best: If your mom was out shopping and found a VideoPod on the shelves would she assume it was an Apple product and make her purchasing choice accordingly.

    1. Re:The Law by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are limitations, and in this case Apple is in essence trying to claim ownership of an English word which has been in existence for hundreds of years. A VideoPod is quite simply a Pod for videos, or basically just a container for videos. Considering that the special thing for Apple is using generic terms and declaring them to be trademarked by virtue of attaching an i to the front, I don't think they have any right to pretend like they own the word "pod."

    2. Re:The Law by cappp · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well thats what the court is going to have to decide - if Apple has so successfully marketed the term "pod" as to have developed some kind of legitimate stake in its use. This seems a pretty fair way to go about it, essentially denying companies the chance to ride on the advertising expenses of others. I did a little digging and found that

      Apple’s total advertising budget for 2008 came to $486 million. You can find the figure hidden in plain sight in Apple’s Nov. 5 10-K filing on page 62... For what it’s worth, Apple’s 2007 ad budget was $467 million; ad spending in 2006 was $338 million.

      That's a lot of money Apple has been throwing into making the public familiar with the "pod" brand, even if we only assume a small portion of it was going specifically into the iPod range. Apple has spent over a billion dollars over that three year period selling people an idea about what Apple products are, and more importantly, linking the idea of Apple products to a specific naming convention - the "i" and the "pod". Does that stand up to the requirements of the law? The court will decide after a lot of appeals I'm sure. More importantly, is it a fair question to ask? Most certainly yes.

    3. Re:The Law by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the whole point of the thing is consumer protection - your average person being able to buy a thing with a reasonable sureness about its origins.

      Ideally. Unfortunately, trademark holders too often ignore this and instead use trademarks as anti-competitive tools. Not too long ago "Victor's Little Secret" was ruled not to infringe upon the "Victoria's Secret" trademark, which prompted corporations to have the law changed in their favor and thus prevent such decisions in the future.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    4. Re:The Law by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      It would also help if we could see a picture or a marketing description of this "video pod". If it's made to look exactly like an iPod, then I would have some concerns. Otherwise, the terms 'space station pod', 'escape pod', 'podcast', and/or 'video podcast' have already been in common use for so long, it would be really hard to take Apple's side on this one.

    5. Re:The Law by ExploHD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a lot of money Apple has been throwing into making the public familiar with the "pod" brand,

      But Apple has not developed a "pod" brand, they've developed an "iProduct" brand. There is the iPod, iMac, iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and iTunes. I'm certainly not familiar with any other of their brands that are called "productPod"

    6. Re:The Law by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of money Apple has been throwing into making the public familiar with the "pod" brand, even if we only assume a small portion of it was going specifically into the iPod range. Apple has spent over a billion dollars over that three year period selling people an idea about what Apple products are, and more importantly, linking the idea of Apple products to a specific naming convention - the "i" and the "pod".

      And that's different from Phone, Tunes, Photo, etc... how? They are all generic words and - by your logic - should not be available for use by other companies in their branding.

    7. Re:The Law by Polumna · · Score: 1

      Let me see if I'm following you here. You're effectively saying we should ask if one rich guy can give a lot of money to other rich guys and thereby purchase a word out from under the rest of us by virtue of the other rich guys shoving the word in our faces for the benefit of the first rich guy.

      Okay, no stupid questions. I guess we could go with that being a fair question to ask. I'll answer it: No. No no. N-n-n-n-no. Didn't even have to pay me $300/hr for that.

    8. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not to mention the following trademarked generic words: All, Cheer, Dial, Dove, Pert, Suave, Mustang, Focus, Fusion, Crossfire, Tabasco, Oracle, Dell, Windows, Vista, Outlook, Entourage, Office, Access, Logic, Aperture, Flash, Adobe, Apple...

    9. Re:The Law by cappp · · Score: 1

      Awesome. Sadly however, as you were neither wearing a black robe nor wielding a gavel, we're going to have to disallow your answer.

    10. Re:The Law by koyote-eliot · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the following trademarked generic words: All, Cheer, Dial, Dove, Pert, Suave, Mustang, Focus, Fusion, Crossfire, Tabasco, Oracle, Dell, Windows, Vista, Outlook, Entourage, Office, Access, Logic, Aperture, Flash, Adobe, Apple...

      Tabasco has never been a generic term, although over time it has become like xerox, kleenex, or chorox, synonymous with its product. In this case, a vinegar based pepper sauce. The other usage is the Mexican state that gave the sauce its name.

      --
      A point in every direction is the same as no point at all. -- Harry Nilsson
    11. Re:The Law by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The difference of course being that they don't make a product called a 'pod'.

    12. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the special thing for Apple is using generic terms and declaring them to be trademarked by virtue of attaching an i to the front, I don't think they have any right to pretend like they own the word "pod."

      Especially when this was around long before Jobs even thought of getting into portable music devices.

    13. Re:The Law by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The article says that it's a video projector, the company's web page for suggests this too. I don't know where you get the idea that it's a container for videos.

      I don't see where Apple is claiming they own the word "pod", except when it involves electronic media, which the Video Pod projector could conceivably be infringing that category. Apple doesn't seem to be chasing non-electronic, non-tech uses of pod. For example, PODS storage has been around for a long time and Apple hasn't tried suing them.

    14. Re:The Law by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      I don't think peoples issues are with the fact of brand dillution, the point is pod is a commonly used term and existed prior to any apple related product. To then trademarked an english language word that has a valid meaning for MANY products is ridiculous in the extreme. If apple was so concerned about product dillution then they should have chosen a name that would not be easily confused with existing uses of the word.

    15. Re:The Law by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      ...
      tl;dr

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    16. Re:The Law by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It's iPod, not Pod that they're advertising. Looks similar but makes a big difference phonetically.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:The Law by arose · · Score: 1

      There have been no less than seven different product names with the word "iPod" in it:. iPod, iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod Mini, iPod Shuffle, iPod Photo. So yes, Apple has developed a "iPod" brand, like it or not.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    18. Re:The Law by delinear · · Score: 1

      Because everyone loves to buy technical products from a company that's likely to be sued into oblivion, leaving said customers without recourse if the product breaks... I think perhaps your logic is flawed.

    19. Re:The Law by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      If in the case the defendant of this lawsuit was not in the technology sector, then using pod would be something within their rights.

      This is a case where they are selling the brand pod in the same trade industry as Apple selling their ipod products. Apple is not trying to change the English language, as some of the comments would lead you to believe. Simply, they own that trademark in that industry.

      Ana Christian, Kokin's lawyer, says the fight is about more than allowing small businesses to use 'Pod' in their product names. She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words."

      Yeah. It's a trend in any industry. Ordinary words, given proper context, become a trade mark. There are laws describing whats aloud and not. If she's putting up a fight for this reason, then she's putting up a fight for trademark reform. Personally I think right now, this is the best system to have for consumers.

    20. Re:The Law by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      It's iPod, not Pod that they're advertising. Looks similar but makes a big difference phonetically.

      Because Microsoft wouldn't care if you came out with an operating system called Indows, right?

    21. Re:The Law by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Trademark dilution is even stronger than the "mom" test. It's not if the average person would confuse it. That's for regular trademark law. For dilution the test is "would they even think of the trademark". For example, if you name your family restaurant after your own last name, and you last name happens to be McDougal, you will lose to McDonalds even if you can show that every single person in your entire state is aware that it's not the same company. You could name it "Monolith Burger" straight from Space Quest, and if your name is in yellow with a really big M, you will STILL LOSE. Absolutely nobody would think it's the same company, but that's not the test. The test is if the famous mark holder would even enter their minds.

      So, the test here is, would your mom see "Video Pod" and even THINK iPod. Doesn't matter if she thinks it's a different product, just if she even thinks iPod at any point. This is why no coffee shop can have "Bucks" in it, or "Star". This is why nobody can have "i" in their name. Note that nothing in your list of things to consider says the target being sued can't have their own trademark predating Apple's. Sure, the whole "We had it first" negates (v) since they probably didn't go back in time with intent to infringe apple's mark. But that's only one part of it! They did, after all, successfully take the iPhone trademark away from the company that was making already making an iPhone product, with a mark that predates the iPod.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    22. Re:The Law by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Trademark dilution does not consider the market. Apple can sue anybody who uses "i" or "Pod" in their name anywhere, in any market.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    23. Re:The Law by nametaken · · Score: 1

      in this case Apple is in essence trying to claim ownership of an English word which has been in existence for hundreds of years

      Eerily like... "windows"

    24. Re:The Law by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Should have thrown this in...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows

      I'd say there's a good chance Apple gets trounced on this.

    25. Re:The Law by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. Jeez, I always mix up the ipod and the pod, like which one does what? SOOOOOO confusing. Line 6 should sue Apple. So many guitarists have mistakenly bought the ipod and then burst into tears of frustration upon relaizing that it just isn't compatible with a quarter inch jack.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  12. Re:Will apple sue apple picking places with apple by EEPROMS · · Score: 2, Informative

    Will apple sue apple picking places with apple in there name?

    Dont laugh, Apple has already tried and lost ie stop a supermaket selling vegetables using an apple shaped logo.

  13. Open the pod bay doors by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They'll have a tough time proving that "pod" is a valid trademark when it's been a part of the English language for several centuries before the existance of anything remotely resembling a portable recorded music player. They'll also have a tough time arguing that "pod" is seen as equivalent to "iPod", regardless of the context. And lastly, they'll need to explain why if "pod" is a trademark they haven't gone after all those obviously infringing gardening suppliers with their seed pods, or the PODS moving equipment company, or the Pipeline Open Data Standard (code for managing oil and gas lines), or the gazillions of other uses of the word that they've failed to defend.

    My guess is there's another reason for this suit, perhaps that the defendant refused to sell an invention of his to Apple.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Open the pod bay doors by jabbathewocket · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its also written into law that if you do not "rigorously defend" trademarks/service marks, they can be ruled in the public domain ..

      You also to pass a reasonability test... first off PODS storage is *not* actually called or branded as such, they are an acronym for Portable On Demand Storage (a side business of Public Storage iirc).. secondly its not "pod" as a unique name, its about Pod as part of a name in context of consumer electronics devices..

      Regardless of how long the video pod device has been in gestation or internally named as such, the fact of the matter is that Apple has spent billions promoting the iPod in that market, and as such any newcomer to market has to adapt.. not the other way around..

      For case studies on Copyright/Trademark defense you should look up Kleenex, Xerox, Lexis-Nexis vs Toyota(Lexus), Infinity vs Nissan (Infinity branded cars) for some of the history (from both sides of the argument as well as "equal vs equal" battles in the case of the Infinity trademark.

      Its *reasonable* to state that a consumer seeing a VideoPod in a consumer electronics store would assume it to be related to iPods in some way.. that same reasonable assumption cannot be said regarding Pipeline management, Moving supplies or seeds (though I think you are reaching very firmly into ludicrous land when you grabbed at that one)

      its not again about seeing "any use of the generic syllable pod in a product name.. " but rather the appending of pod to a product name in such a way that it implies a relationship to iPod/etc

      Your guess is very wrong, the defendant in this suit is coming out with a product 10 years after billions of advertising have been spent on ipod/ipad/etc and trying to ride coat tails.. and using this as "free advertising" for a product that has not made it to market despite 12 years of work on it.. remember naming is not like patents.. even if he had INTERNALLY named the product VideoPod years before apple filed its first use of the iPod trademark.. the fact that he was not in fact using it in any way and had not defended it means he loses it

    2. Re:Open the pod bay doors by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They don't own pod, but they do own iPod, which they will probably argue is similar in name and general industry as they product that they allege trademark violation against. I think they may have marketed one of their older iPods as a video iPod when it first got the video capabilities, so it might be fairly easy to say that a consumer might be confused. As for why they don't go after the other companies, it seems fairly obvious from the name and description that these companies aren't releasing anything similar to a PMP. Brand confusion is much less of an issue in these cases.

      I don't think Apple will win this one, but it's probably not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Also, companies have to defend their trademark or they risk losing it. I'm surprised Apple's legal team has time for this considering that they've been suing or getting sued by several other companies in the last year or so.

    3. Re:Open the pod bay doors by znerk · · Score: 1

      the defendant in this suit is coming out with a product 10 years after billions of advertising have been spent on ipod/ipad/etc and trying to ride coat tails.. and using this as "free advertising" for a product that has not made it to market despite 12 years of work on it..

      ... wait, so you're saying that the product in question actually predates apple's product by 2 years?

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    4. Re:Open the pod bay doors by delinear · · Score: 1

      And if you actually read up on the success rate for those two well known companies, you'll see that the courts have largely thrown out their frivolous claims and have mostly only upheld claims where either the defendant was not acting with clean hands (i.e. it was clear they were trying to piggy-back on the well known brand for their own benefit) or where there was otherwise genuine opportunity for customer confusion. Any company can be trigger happy with trademarks, it doesn't mean they're guaranteed to win.

    5. Re:Open the pod bay doors by jabbathewocket · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter when it was incepted, this is *not* about patents or creation date.. this is about trademark/service marks.. which are by definition generic terms that are attached to specific products and marketed (the company using them creates the value attached to them)

      But yes apparently the videopod has been in development for the last 12 years which predates the release and marketing of iPod..

      Of course there are cases where people cannot use their own name due to it being trademarked (in some cases 30-50 years prior to their birth heh)

    6. Re:Open the pod bay doors by jabbathewocket · · Score: 1

      There is a reason your tagged flamebait, and it has alot to do with ignorance and inability to read and comprehend.

      but Lemme spell it out for you so you can be educated..

      P.O.D.S. is the actual branding for that company, it is an acronym for Portable On Demand Storage..

      The Logo and Service Mark are eseentially the 4 letters done in block format white on red background.. which is all designed to reinforce the fact that this is in fact an acronym and not a word.

      So yah despite your apparent inability to read lemme give you some links to basic info on the various subjects presented:

      Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

      The pertinent issue here is summed up as follows :

      Maintaining rights

      Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is designed to prevent owners from continually being tied up in litigation for fear of cancellation. An owner can at any time commence action for infringement against a third party as long as it had not previously notified the third party of its discontent following third party use and then failed to take action within a reasonable period of time (called acquiescence). The owner can always reserve the right to take legal action until a court decides that the third party had gained notoriety which the owner 'must' have been aware of. It will be for the third party to prove their use of the mark is substantial as it is the onus of a company using a mark to check they are not infringing previously registered rights. In the US, owing to the overwhelming number of unregistered rights, trademark applicants are advised to perform searches not just of the trademark register but of local business directories and relevant trade press. Specialized search companies perform such tasks prior to application.
      All jurisdictions with a mature trademark registration system provide a mechanism for removal in the event of such non use, which is usually a period of either three or five years. The intention to use a trademark can be proven by a wide range of acts as shown in the "Wooly Bull" and "Ashton v Harlee" cases.
      In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. If a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.
      For examples, see trademark distinctiveness.
      Unlike other forms of intellectual property (e.g., patents and copyrights) a registered trademark can, theoretically, last forever. So long as a trademark's use is continuous a trademark holder may keep the mark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by filing Section 8 Affidavit(s) of Continuous Use as well as Section 9 Applications for renewal, as required.
      Specifically, once registered with the U.S. Patent and Trade

    7. Re:Open the pod bay doors by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      They don't have to argue that the consumer will be confused. Trademark is to protect a corporation's good name, not the consumer. Consumer confusion is what corporate PR calls trademark law. The actual test for trademark dilution (something that's similar to another mark, but not actually a copy) is if a consumer would even think of the other mark. For example, lets say your name is Mark and you have Mark's Coffee Hut. If you say that your brand of coffee is "Markbucks" you can be sued. Everybody knows it's a play on words and you're not really Starbucks. Doesn't matter. They don't have to prove that the average person would be confused. In fact, your defense that "Everybody knows it's just a play on words" would work against you, as you've basically just proven their case for them! That the average person would think "Starbucks", which is actually what they have to prove, not that the average person would actually be confused.

      But at least it's better than trademark laws in Europe. In Europe, the police could arrest Mark's customers too! In Europe trademark is very seriously about protecting a corporation's good name, you see. To the point that if you take your Honda Civic and you write "Ferrari" on it, you would end up on trial for counterfeiting and your car would be seized and sold as scrap. Because you'd be associating them with a cheap car, and that's what trademark is there to protect. Not the consumer, but the good name of the corporation.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  14. If they get Pod... by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they also get Phone, Tunes, Photo, Sight, Movie, Book, Life, Chat, DVD, Web, Work, and Pad?

    I'll give them Mac, but what does that mean for Shakespeare's Macbeth? Or MacLisp? Or Emacs?

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    1. Re:If they get Pod... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I'll give them Mac, but what does that mean for Shakespeare's Macbeth?

      Lay off, Macduff, I've had enough!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:If they get Pod... by syousef · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll give them Mac, but what does that mean for Shakespeare's Macbeth? Or MacLisp? Or Emacs?

      I wouldn't give them Mac, and I don't think the Scottish people would like to either. MacDonalds might have something to say about it, too. I won't give them Pod - or even Podcast. The whole company can go to hell. They sell themselves as some sort of supplier for the stylish literati, and the evolved artist. They just sell substandard junk with a kiddie interface to brainwashable marketting prone snobs.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:If they get Pod... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      For what its worth, its McDonald's not, MacDonald's, if we're talking about the crappy burger joint.

    4. Re:If they get Pod... by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Good on ye for the reference, but if I 'ad to bet my pence, Apple will nought to cry first.

    5. Re:If they get Pod... by lennier · · Score: 1

      Especially since running Emacs on eMacs isn't that hard...

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    6. Re:If they get Pod... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      McDonald's loves suing business with Mc in the name. Oh, charities too.

      http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/01/26/McDonalds-sues-teen-over-McFest/UPI-33901264537338/

    7. Re:If they get Pod... by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "They just sell substandard junk with a kiddie interface to brainwashable marketting prone snobs.

      I'm confused - would this be the 'substandard junk' hardware that a reasonable proportion of the /. audience feels is worth buying specifically to run Linux on? Or the 'kiddie interface' OS that another reasonable proportion of the /. audience wishes would run on commodity PC hardware, and sometimes hacks to do so?

      Obvious troll is obvious. No mods for you!

      "I won't give them Pod - or even Podcast.

      FWIW, I wouldn't give them 'Pod' either - but I would give them 'Podcast'. Nobody cared about downloading 'digital media files (either audio or video) that are released episodically and often downloaded through web syndication' when they were called 'webcasts'. It wasn't until someone - not Apple, btw, but a Guardian columnist - linked them with the iPod that the term 'podcast' came into fashion.

      Now, strictly speaking that's not trademark dilution - but it's bloody close. If the iPod had instead been called a 'Chazzwazzer', we'd be downloading 'chazzcasts' now...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    8. Re:If they get Pod... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      If they think they can have MacGyver, they can go fuck themselves.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    9. Re:If they get Pod... by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the iPod had instead been called a "Chazzwazzer," we'd be downloading "Windows Mobile Media Player Live Broadcasts" now.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    10. Re:If they get Pod... by syousef · · Score: 1

      I'm confused - would this be the 'substandard junk' hardware that a reasonable proportion of the /. audience feels is worth buying specifically to run Linux on? Or the 'kiddie interface' OS that another reasonable proportion of the /. audience wishes would run on commodity PC hardware, and sometimes hacks to do so?

      It'd be both. There's better and cheaper hardware for running Linux. Everyone knows the origins of Apple's OS is BSD.

      Obvious troll is obvious. No mods for you!

      There's no troll here - just a strong opinion on Apple's product. Slashdot moderration is bogus and is regularly hijacked by fanbois. I've had plenty of posts yo-yo and then get defeated because the fanbois are more persistent.

      FWIW, I wouldn't give them 'Pod' either - but I would give them 'Podcast'. Nobody cared about downloading 'digital media files (either audio or video) thahttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1799986&cid=33706608#t are released episodically and often downloaded through web syndication' when they were called 'webcasts'.

      So now you're claiming Apple invented the webcast too and that anyone else who was putting up digital media is irrelevant? They may have created the term but podcasts were never exclusively Apple nor exclusive to iPods otherwise they wouldn't have ever taken off. And you've got the balls to call me a troll? Have fun. Bye.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:If they get Pod... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I think the guys who make Macintosh raincoats, or grow Macintosh apples, might get a little pissy about that.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:If they get Pod... by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Phone, Tunes, Photo, Movie, and Book were already terms that had meaning and common usage in the fields for which iPhone, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and iBook function. Therefore it wouldn't be reasonable to give Apple any exclusivity to these terms because they didn't create the usage...they chose those words specifically because they were already used in that field.

      I'm not familiar with the the other "i" products (except Pad) you referred to, so I can't comment on them (though Chat, DVD, and Web sound like they'd be the same scenario). iPad is a bit different. The closest you can come up with is a pad of paper, but that's not really the same thing as what an iPad does. I don't think I'd lump this one in with the others, though I suppose you could stretch it a bit.

      Pod, on the other hand, is a word which (as far as I'm aware) has absolutely no previously existing meaning in the field for which the iPod operates, which is media playback.

  15. Trademarks by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1, Insightful

    She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words.

    Um, hate to break it to you, Ms High Priced Layer, but that thing you're describing there is called "trademarks" and is a practice that can be found in many industries and is not exclusive to the tech industry nor large corporations.

    I'm just sayin'.

    1. Re:Trademarks by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Is a High Priced Layer the goose that lays the golden egg?

      Nope. Another name for his classy hooker. I can understand that it's difficult keeping up with lingo.

      --
      .
  16. Not the intent.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trademark law was not designed to give power to corporations to forbid competition, rather it was to prevent misleading claims. I don't see how this misleads consumers in any way.

    The scenario that trademark law was designed to prevent is people walking into a store and walking out with a product that isn't what they expected. In none of these cases were people expecting to get an iPod and ended up not getting one.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Not the intent.... by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Trademark law was not designed to give power to corporations to forbid competition, rather it was to prevent misleading claims. I don't see how this misleads consumers in any way.

      OTOH, I fail to see how any form of competition, so what's your point of bringing that up?

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    2. Re:Not the intent.... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Trademark law was not designed to give power to corporations to forbid competition, rather it was to prevent misleading claims. I don't see how this misleads consumers in any way.

      The scenario that trademark law was designed to prevent is people walking into a store and walking out with a product that isn't what they expected. In none of these cases were people expecting to get an iPod and ended up not getting one.

      "'Video Pod', huh? Must be a new video-based iPod from Apple, right? I'll buy that, because I know that Apple is a good manufacturer!"

      There. Evidence of confusion.

    3. Re:Not the intent.... by Bjecas · · Score: 1

      There's more to trademark than customer protection. When you invest heavily in promoting your brand, it's reasonable to expect protection against a competitor that wants to take advantage of your advertising by putting out a similarly named product. Even if someone rolled out a music player named "aPod", I have serious doubts anyone would genuinely mistake it for an iPod, but that doesn't mean the name should be allowed.

      That being said, I share the opinion that Apple is going way too far with this lawsuit.Everyday they remind me more and more of Microsoft. Actually, as alike as two peas in a ***.

    4. Re:Not the intent.... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Except after about 30 seconds of looking at it, and realizing that it doesn't play music, or anything like that, but is actually a projector means that anyone thinking it's actually an iPod variant should be manditorily euthanised.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    5. Re:Not the intent.... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Except after about 30 seconds of looking at it, and realizing that it doesn't play music, or anything like that, but is actually a projector means that anyone thinking it's actually an iPod variant should be manditorily euthanised.

      If it takes 30 seconds, that's significant evidence of confusion.

    6. Re:Not the intent.... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The scenario that trademark law was designed to prevent is people walking into a store and walking out with a product that isn't what they expected. In none of these cases were people expecting to get an iPod and ended up not getting one.

      Look up "initial interest confusion". Trademark law is also trying to prevent the scenario of a customer seeing "New Apple (colored) Video Pod! Works with your iPod! Buy now!" and being directed to a site or store. The classic example is a person driving on a highway who is thinking about lunch and sees a large billboard that says "Burger King - take next exit, 1 mile on right," gets off the highway and drives a mile and sees a McDonald's. He's not misled at the point of sale - he doesn't purchase a Big Mac and believe it's made by Burger King - but his initial interest is based on being misled. And once off the highway and a mile down the road, he'll probably buy the Big Mac rather than returning to the highway to look for a Burger King, so McDonald's is taking advantage of that initial interest confusion.
      It doesn't even have to be the exact mark on the bill board. If the sign said "Burger Thing" or "MacDonald's" or something confusingly similar, that creates initial interest confusion, and is infringement.

    7. Re:Not the intent.... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      And copyright law was not meant to give power to corporations to forbid competition, but rather to prevent misleading claims "Here's a legit copy of so-and-so book," for an example of what would be a misleading claim, rather than preventing someone from writing a book that's obviously meant to appeal to the same buyers.

      Look how the fuck well THAT turned out.

      --
      This space available.
  17. The law is broken by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The point isn't about the origins but the actual product. It shouldn't matter if your mom thought that VideoPod was made by Apple or not, what should matter is whether she thought a VideoPod was an iPod video. THAT is the point of trademarks, not to give corporations the power to change the English language. If something was called a VideoPod and was a generic MP3 player, Apple might have a case, but if it was something like... a VHS player you hook up via USB to rip your old VHS tapes into a digital format, it doesn't matter what the name is, Apple has no offering similar to it so the name should stay.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:The law is broken by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      A video player that can output to a TV and a video projector are similar enough for trademark infringement.

      Consider that Apple used product differentiation to get out of infringing on Apple Music's trademark to continue as Apple Computers. But when they started making iTunes and selling MP3s, they went to settle with Apple Music first, despite being a music seller not a music label.

    2. Re:The law is broken by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The point isn't about the origins but the actual product. It shouldn't matter if your mom thought that VideoPod was made by Apple or not, what should matter is whether she thought a VideoPod was an iPod video. THAT is the point of trademarks, not to give corporations the power to change the English language. If something was called a VideoPod and was a generic MP3 player, Apple might have a case, but if it was something like... a VHS player you hook up via USB to rip your old VHS tapes into a digital format, it doesn't matter what the name is, Apple has no offering similar to it so the name should stay.

      That's almost entirely backwards. Trademarks go back more than a thousand years and were marks used in trade that a manufacturer would put on his or her goods to identify them as being from that manufacturer: for example, iron bars were stamped with a seal that was a mark of the manufacturer; jewelry was stamped or etched; etc. The point wasn't to identify the bar as being iron - that was obvious. The point was to identify the manufacturer of the bar to the consumer, to trade on that manufacturer's good will: if a customer has bought from Gimli's House of Iron previously, and had a good experience - good quality iron bars that aren't below weight or contain impurities - the customer will want to buy from Gimli again. The mark identifies the bars as being Gimli's bars as opposed to someone else's, whom the customer may not know and respect. It's not about the actual product, it's solely about the origin.

      Furthermore, you suggest that the name should reflect the product. Ever heard of the phrase "arbitrary or fanciful mark"? What's an acura? How about a zune? Or a xerox or an escalator? We all know what apples are... those things you eat and run Photoshop on, right?

      No, marks identify origins. It's right there in the Lanham Act. If your mom thinks a VideoPod is a new offering from Apple, then the name infringes Apple's mark.

    3. Re:The law is broken by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Company A cannot trade on Company B's name by using product markings that would cause confusion as to whether it was, in fact another product in Company B's line. Even things like product color scheme are sometimes protected (so you can't make an el-cheap-o drill that looks, on the shelf, like a DeWalt.

      Now, this makes the most sense and works best when all of a company's products carry a single distinctive mark (such as the Apple logo), and that mark is what gets protection. I'd be happy with a system where that was the only approach allowed; but that isn't the system we have.

      As it is, not only distinctive logos, but also words that are distinctive within an industry (even if they are "common English words" in other contexts) have been given protection. There have been some limits established - there's a reason the Pentium wasn't just called a 586. Yet the word Apple is a valid trademark in both the computer and music industries. Something like an "i" prefix or the word "pod" in an audio/visual product are in a grey area.

      Laws that create grey areas are not as good as laws that keep it simple, which is why I'd be happy to have a simple "distinctive logo only" system of trademark protection. I'm sure people could lobby for this, and I'm sure other people would lobby against it with all sorts of cases where it wouldn't work so well (and some of those might be valid and need to be addressed)... But what you're doing is simply stating that how you want it to be is how it is; at best that does nothing and at worst it costs someone foolish enough to listen to you some money.

  18. Prior art goes to... by capt_zilog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stanley Kubrick and 2001... "Open the pod bay doors, HAL" Sounds like ol' Stan's in for a buttload of money!

  19. Re:Will apple sue apple picking places with apple by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Don't forget about a certain board game.

  20. Sue groups of whales and dolphins too by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Porpoises, etc ... Or come up with a different collective noun. Shoals? No, that's fish.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  21. paradox? by xate · · Score: 1

    If apple can patent any word with a lowercase i infront of it, AND that implies copyright on the original word... Couldn't they patent every noun and verb in the dictionary?

    1. Re:paradox? by sitharus · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the summary? This isn't a patent case, and you can't patent words. This is a trademark case, and you are obliged to sue anyone who might infringe and let the courts decide if they do.

      Wait, did that sign say _don't_ feed the trolls? Whoops.

      --
      --sitharus
  22. Sosumi is now by wen1454 · · Score: 5, Funny

    aisuyu.

    1. Re:Sosumi is now by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Gesundheit!

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  23. iPad? by formfeed · · Score: 1

    They'll just sue you over the ipad - and that thing doesn't even have wings.

    1. Re:iPad? by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, 'cause they'd have to also sue Microsoft for Notepad and WordPad.

  24. TLT (The Lawyer Tax) by jimpop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is known as TLT (The Lawyer Tax). Lawyers, not having any technical competency nor skills, want a piece of the action^Wmoney from the high tech industry. So the lawyers devise rules, regulations, and guidelines, that force Apple to pursue any and all things that the lawyers feel necessary to, well, protect the lawyers. It's a vicious cycle, the lawyers feeding themselves lawyers. In the end it's the human consumer who loses.

  25. Re:Will apple sue apple picking places with apple by stimpleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The logo is here for comparison. According to the article, it sounds like standard due diligence was done by apple. I dont think they wheeled in the lawyers. But who knows. I guess the secondary issue was of more interest. Many New Zealanders took it as another "attack" by a US corporation. A david and goliath media portrayal. Keep in mind NZ is anti-nuclear and forbids nuclear weaponeed ships ins its waters(for which the US despises us for). So really it was a storm in a tea cup.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  26. Re:TLT (The Lawyer Tax) by Guerilla+Antix · · Score: 1

    Lawyers inform their clients of the legal options available to them. Lawyers may file and try the case but I assure you the decision to do so rests with Apple (aka: Steve Jobs).

  27. What's next... by exomondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...Apple going after people using the word 'Phone', because it might be confused with their iPhone products?

    1. Re:What's next... by koyote-eliot · · Score: 1

      Cisco Systems owned the iPhone trademark. Apple bought it from them after Cisco sued them.
      http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/update_on_ciscos_iphone_trademark/

      --
      A point in every direction is the same as no point at all. -- Harry Nilsson
    2. Re:What's next... by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      (call to apple tech support) sooo hey i bought a iPhone from verison for 50$ but when i opened it, it was blue about the same size but it didn't come with apple headphones and the screen is very unreponive

      --
      warning pointless sig
    3. Re:What's next... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Cisco Systems owned the iPhone trademark. Apple bought it from them after Cisco sued them. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/update_on_ciscos_iphone_trademark/

      And that's relevant how?

    4. Re:What's next... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Apple going after people using the word 'Phone', because it might be confused with their iPhone products?

      Or 'pretentious technically-illiterate fashion-victim hanky-wanker' in case it might be confused with their customers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  28. Re:TLT (The Lawyer Tax) by jimpop · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope. Steve honestly had no choice in this. His hands are tied by the BoD and the Shareholders, for which (wait for it...) the lawyers define the operating guidelines and goals.

  29. Double Trouble by rueger · · Score: 2, Funny

    I say go for broke and call it "Olympic Pod." Trademark Madness

  30. Don't blame Apple... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words."

    .
    Very true. Look how 3M Corporation stole the name Scotch® Tape, or how Chesebrough-Ponds stole the name Q-Tips®.

    1. Re:Don't blame Apple... by Bjecas · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you group those as a trend, then it's a very long trend, stretching all the way back to the '30s... In any case, no one can take ownership of an ordinary word. One of the conditions for registering a trademark is that it is distinctive (see trademark distinctiveness).

      Regarding Scotch tape and Q-tip (and others, like band-aid), they were surely distinctive when originally created (ok, "scotch" is a dubious one), but have seen been widely adopted as a generic name for those products, and are likely subject to being challenged in court, just like aspirin was (aspirin is no longer a Bayer trademark, but instead a generic name for acetylsalicylic acid).

    2. Re:Don't blame Apple... by edjs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note the "Arbitrary marks" section of the entry specifically notes that ordinary words can be registered marks, if the use of the word is unrelated to its common meaning. I don't recall pod being used for media players/consumer electronics before Apple started using iPod, in which case there's a case for pod not being a descriptive or generic word in that space.

    3. Re:Don't blame Apple... by Bjecas · · Score: 1

      As there's a case for the word actually being descriptive, referring to the compact, slick enclosure.

      Electronic components in a housing have certainly been called "pod" before.

    4. Re:Don't blame Apple... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I was expecting my post to be marked "funny". I meant it tongue in cheek.

    5. Re:Don't blame Apple... by Bjecas · · Score: 1

      I got a +1 informative only because there's no "-1 failed to notice irony". :)

  31. Re:Will apple sue apple picking places with apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, we just despise you for your redundant prepositions.

  32. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by mkiwi · · Score: 1

    I go to French conversation table at our local university, and I was struck by this event:

    A young man said, "I'm going to move to Europe when I graduate. I don't like all the racism in the United States... I'm going to move to France where there's no racism."

    *facepalm*

    Does anyone in the US actually stop to think about what people in other countries are going through, or do we all just sit and complain about our situation from our perceived moral high ground, not realizing just how much we take for granted?

  33. Re:The Law - Something to consider by cappp · · Score: 1

    Fair points all, although I would point out that the term "podcast" is said to be derived from ipod's "pod" and therefore probably works against your argument.

    As for I-Carly - Trademarks are not protected against Fair Use. I imagine Apple hasn't got the stomach to go against Viacom over a children's program that is most problably perfectly permitted.

  34. Bod Pod measures body volume using air pressure by mrcaseyj · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    LMI claims to have introduced the Bod Pod body fat measurement pod in 1994. You sit inside the egg shaped bod pod while a loudspeaker increases and decreases the volume of the pod. The change in pressure inside the pod as the volume of the pod is changed, determines the airspace remaining inside the pod after your body fills the pod up part way. The less airspace left inside the pod, the faster the pressure will rise as the loudspeaker pushes into the pod. The airspace remaining in the pod minus the volume of the pod gives the volume of your body. A scale determines your weight. Your weight and volume determine your density, and that is used to estimate your body fat. Fudge factors have to be used to account for the varying characteristics of the air in your lungs and the layer of warm air near your skin and especially trapped between your clothes or bathing suit or hair. This system is less trouble than the traditional method of determining body density by weighing a person while under water. See bodpod.com

  35. Re:Will apple sue apple picking places with apple by ooshna · · Score: 1

    Really I thought it was just all the hillbillies jealous for their over over abundance of sex toys, I mean sheep.

  36. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Yes, because the grass is all "the same color" in France... :)

  37. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    I'll go with choice B - we all just sit around and complain. And, almost 99% of the time, we complain without thinking. It's simply amazing that being aware that France, Belgium, England, Russia, and every other nation on earth has their problems with bigotry, taxes, gangs, immigration, and all the other problems we have in the US sets a person apart from the masses. Ooops - I meant "ignorant masses".

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  38. Whats next? by froggymana · · Score: 1

    The next they are going to want to do is go to trial over anything that starts with 'i". Sooner or later all of the iPolice are going to be coming to knock on your door to insure that you still believe in Lord Jobs.

    --
    "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
  39. And voila - first claim of ownership of a word by unity100 · · Score: 1

    in usa.

    they tried to claim the letter 'i' in australia before. some said it was an overboard decision by apple's local execs. and now apple claims a WORD in usa.

    is there any fool who still can come up and defend trademarks, patents still ? or, will you wait to change your mind until simple logic operators like 'and' and 'or' is claimed by some corporation ?

  40. excuse me but by unity100 · · Score: 1

    no amount of money thrown into marketing can award a company or a person ownership of a generic group name for objects, like pod, or pad, or plane, or car, or tool or chair.

    anyone claiming otherwise, are either brain dead, or witless.

  41. ironically by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    all the examples you gave, are AMERICAN brands. america, the place in which ownership of words, even, recently, basic logic axioms are allowed.

    america's stupidity and faults, do not make a justified case for letting people own GENERIC names for objects. its morondom.

  42. Re:TLT (The Lawyer Tax) by pipedwho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The lawyers are also in a position where they have the expectation of 'expert knowledge' in the area of law. So, when the lawyer recommends that they must pursue a lawsuit or the company risks losing the trademark, the company executives will generally follow their recommendation. It's not as if Steve Jobs is going to study up on the intricacies of every legal case that Apple is involved with and override his own legal department.

    It may have happened when certain design decisions were being weighed up against the engineering ramifications (eg. the iPhone 4 antenna issue), but I doubt he'd risk his company's trademark(s) so Apple could feel a little bit more community loving.

  43. In other news by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Fearing litigious douchebaggery, the farming industry has voluntarily renamed the "Bean pod" to "Bean hammock". Rumours surfaced that Apple was designing a new pointless touchscreen gadget named "iHammock", as well as a smaller and more useless variant "iBean".

    The Cupertino-based designer of the "iSue" declined to comment.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  44. IANAL by schizz69 · · Score: 1

    Though, with this number of frivolous lawsuits, I'm missing out on big bucks!!!!!

  45. And in further news by whychevron · · Score: 1

    and in further news Apple lawyers have asked The Dept. of Agriculture to destroy all vegetables that grow in a group covering and The Dept. of Wildlife to disband any Killer Whales from gathering in a group .

  46. Re:Will apple sue apple picking places with apple by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

    "it sounds like", "I don't think", "who knows", "I guess" - for such an ignorant man, you came up with "So really it was a storm in a tea cup" pretty fast. Amazing how drinking the kool-aid can purge you of all the ignorance in no time!!

  47. Re:There's a joke about POD PEOPLE in there somewh by PPH · · Score: 1

    Redundant: We're already discussing Apple.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  48. Steve better not be coming for my POD XT by edremy · · Score: 1

    I don't know when Line6 put out the first POD guitar amp/effects modelers, but they have an entire line of music-related products that use the POD name. More recent versions can attach to computers via USB even. The name and shape (red kidney bean) are pretty iconic in the guitar world- even the people who hate them will recognize them instantly. No idea why Steve isn't suing them, unless it's because Line6 used the name first.

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:Steve better not be coming for my POD XT by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      I love my Pod Pro XT guitar effects unit and refuse to record my guitar without it. I also run my bass through a Bass Pod Pro. Apple better not mess with Line 6, the guys who made these, because that will seriously piss me off.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    2. Re:Steve better not be coming for my POD XT by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a guitar expert, or anything, but I expect they could go after Tenacious D and the Pick Of Destiny too

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    3. Re:Steve better not be coming for my POD XT by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      Line 6 released the first POD in 1997... at least 4 years before Apple released the iPod. Now that you can plug your guitar into your iPod to do modeling, maybe Apple should just keep their mouths shut...

      iRig Guitar Modeling Interface

    4. Re:Steve better not be coming for my POD XT by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      If you think ANY amp simulator is good, your opinion is of little weight.

      Dude, you're way off-topic, but I have to ask... what is your definition of good? If your point is that no simulator is ever going to make some kid in his bedroom playing an Epiphone LP Junior through a Fender Frontman sound like Steve Vai playing Evo through a Carvin Legacy... (or Tommy Emmanuel playing a Maton MS500 through an AER, if that's the way you sling)... well, you have a point. Otherwise, not so much...

      BTW, lots of very discerning guitarists endorse many different modellers... why should we respect the weight of your opinion?

  49. ThaiPad by penguinchris · · Score: 1

    Do you think Apple would go after someone who renamed the Pad Thai in their restaurant ThaiPad?

    1. Re:ThaiPad by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I thought Lenovo made those.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  50. ipod by AJWM · · Score: 1

    If I ever write an autobiography about my time as Programmer On Duty way back when at Concordia University, I'm going to have to title it "I, POD".

    Or not.

    --
    -- Alastair
  51. Why would they want POD? by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm throwing away all my moderations to post this but no one said it: why would anyone want to call their device the Video Pod? Google Video Pod and all you get is iPod Video and Video Podcast references, how difficult would it be to knock all those links out of google?

    Guy's wasting his money, even if he wins he loses because no one will ever be able to find his product online, and "Video Pod" is a horrible name for a video projector. He claims "it took us years to go from prototype to funded" and now he's wasting that funding on fighting Apple? If I was one of his investors I'd pull my funding immediately because he's wasting money.... unless he's doing all of this to get publicity and he's planning on backing out the last minute. I did that ten years ago, chose a similar name to a famous existing product and was sued. I even had a story that ended up on slashdot and sales shot through the roof.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  52. I got pods... by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    I hope they don't come after me and my pseudopod.

  53. What will photographers do now? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    Without their tripods?

    This suit has about as much merit as McDonald's suing a scottish business some time back for use of the name "McDonnalds".

    1. Re:What will photographers do now? by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Correct spelling: TriPod

      ftfy.

  54. Re:The Law - Something to consider by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an aside, I personally dislike those that use such words as "podcast" and "blogosphere" it is saddening that their use has become so prevalent among the young.

  55. Apple Trying to Have it Both Ways by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    Earlier there was a dust up because Apple claimed it own the iPhone brand name because although there were other phones, they weren't iPhones.

    Now it claims rights over the marketing of iPod, claiming that it is the stem "pod" is attached. The defendant's lawyers are going to have a field day with Apple, probably with damages for being forced to hire lawyers to defend themselves against a frivolous lawsuit

    This is what happens when you have lawyers on retainer and they haven't got anything useful to do to remind their employers of why they need to pay them more..

    1. Re:Apple Trying to Have it Both Ways by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      As a recap, Cisco owned (and continues to own) the iPhone mark.

      What's funny is that both the Cisco and Apple iPhones, are, of course, phones. Back then, Apple (and fanbois) argued that since the Apple iPhone was a completely different kind of phone (cell vs. cordless), there'll be no consumer confusion at all. And any attempt to stop Apple is just pure corporate greed trying to prevent benevolent Apple from distributing unicorns and rainbows through the land.

      Now, however, expect fanboys to argue that a portable audio player and a theater projector are in the same category.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  56. Me too? My logic analyzer has pods by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    I think they cannot win this one (Apple that is). There are pods all over the place. For mere money one can be placed on your driveway. I have a number of logic analyzers that have what I call USB pods from which many wires emit. It is clear that iPod means something in particular, and can be protected, but what is next, Suing GOD about the seed pods in plants?

  57. Re:1995: Johnny Mnemonic used term "iPhone" by retchdog · · Score: 1

    it has none.

    Anyway, I think that was an "eye phone", which I guess was a combined HUD and ... phone? Well it doesn't make any less sense than the rest of the movie. It was a fun cheesy movie though.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  58. Re:The Law - Something to consider by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Podcast is used as a generic term though so selling a product and advertising it as "plays podcasts" would not be trademark infringement. If Apple wanted to avoid that they should have killed the podcast term.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  59. What about the online grocery store? Peapod. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Peapod founded in 1989 by Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, both of whom are still executive officers. Its original name was IPOD for Information and Product on Demand, but as they were creating their business cards they changed it to Peapod on a whim. Before 1996, it provided an on-line grocery shopping service in partnership with Jewel in Chicago and surrounding towns; Safeway in San Francisco, California; Randall's in Houston, Texas; and Kroger in Columbus, Ohio.

    In 1996, it launched its website and became one of the earliest internet start-ups; the company made the Inc. 500 list of fast-growing privately held US companies. It parlayed this success and good press into an IPO on NASDAQ. Between 1997 and 2000, Peapod expanded into Boston and Watertown, Massachusetts, Long Island, New York, and Norwalk, Connecticut in partnership with Stop & Shop. In late 2000, they entered Washington, DC and surrounding towns with Giant Food.

    The year 2000 also saw a fundamental change in Peapod's corporate structure. Worldwide grocery giant Royal Ahold bought 51% of Peapod's shares in June 2000. In August 2001, Royal Ahold bought out the entire company. As a result, Peapod cancelled its contracts with all grocery companies except for Royal Ahold's two main American chains, Stop & Shop and Giant Food. This caused Peapod to abandon San Francisco, Houston, and Columbus entirely, but the company maintained service, albeit with some interruptions and inconveniences, everywhere else.

    The iPod in comparison was launched in 2001.

    1. Re:What about the online grocery store? Peapod. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Until Apple makes projectors, Video Pod should win. It's a matter of if they can hold out. This isn't a trademark failure, it's a judge failure. Were I the judge, Apple would be paying Video Pod for their troubles and kissing some butt. It's time for judges to throw out stupidity.

  60. Correct by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why there can be a Firebird database, and also a Firebird automobile. Same name, but nobody is going to confuse one for the other. Nobody is going to say "Man, I thought I was going to get a car but it turns out I have a database server instead."

    While both products in this case are technology, that seems to be where the similarities end. The iPod is, of course, an MP3 player. The Video Pod looks like it is going to be a digital cinema projector. Not really that similar. Also, Apple's branding has been around the "i" thing. Their iPod is their only "Pod" thing so saying someone is trying to create confusion by calling a projector a "Video Pod" is a real stretch.

    While anything can happen in court, I can't see Apple winning this if it is properly litigated. A trademark doesn't mean you own any and everything relating to the mark. It means companies can't try and use a mark or one like it to confuse people. this does not at all seem confusing.

    1. Re:Correct by delinear · · Score: 1

      The difference there was that Facebook were specifically going after a social networking website (i.e. the same product they offer) that also used the same naming convention of book. In this case, the product is not even similar to the product that is trademarked (a video projector versus a portable digital music device), nor does the product borrow the naming convention of a single word starting with a lower case letter followed by an upper case letter (i.e. they've not used "vPod" or even "videoPod" but "Video Pod"). Add to that the fact that "pod" was a common word relating to digital music (and perhaps video - I can't remember if the iPod predates the first video podcasts or not) before Apple ever registered it, while -book was not common to social networking websites prior to Facebook and hopefully you'll see that comparing the two is like comparing appl... I mean... bananas and oranges (better safe than sorry).

    2. Re:Correct by boxwood · · Score: 1

      nope, the word podcast came directly from iPod. People didn't use pod when describing mp3 players before the iPod came out.

      But yeah if its only a video projector I suppose Apple doesn't have much of a case. Maybe Apple is planning on making a video projector system that you can plug your iPod into?

      It is a stupid name though, I've googled for "video pod" and all the results I can see are about iPods playing videos. If I was in the market for a video projector I wouldn't buy it because I'd never be able to find any reviews on it.

    3. Re:Correct by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      While both products in this case are technology, that seems to be where the similarities end. The iPod is, of course, an MP3 player. The Video Pod looks like it is going to be a digital cinema projector. Not really that similar.

      Consumers aren't required to investigate the product in determining likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement. That's called "initial interest confusion".

      Also, Apple's branding has been around the "i" thing.

      iMacMini? iAppleTV? iOSX? iSafari?
      Some of Apple's branding has been around the "i" thing, but not all. And the "i" thing has been used by other manufacturers, too, (iLok, iPaq, etc.) so Apple neither has a lock on the letter nor are they restricted to it.

      Their iPod is their only "Pod" thing so saying someone is trying to create confusion by calling a projector a "Video Pod" is a real stretch.

      The 5th Generation Classic iPod was the first to have a color screen and include video playback, and the model was widely referred to as a "Video iPod". Drop one letter, and there you go.

      While anything can happen in court, I can't see Apple winning this if it is properly litigated. A trademark doesn't mean you own any and everything relating to the mark. It means companies can't try and use a mark or one like it to confuse people. this does not at all seem confusing.

      This seems quite likely to be found to infringe. Let's look at the statutory factors for dilution: (i) The degree of similarity between the mark and the famous mark - quite similar, even if not identical.
      (ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark - "iPod" is a fanciful mark, or at least suggestive, so it has a lot of inherent distinctiveness. It's certainly acquired enough to be considered a famous mark.
      (iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark - very high degree of exclusivity.
      (iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark - worldwide, people know what an "iPod" is.
      (v) Whether the user of the mark intended to create an association with the famous mark - it's certainly possible that the makers of the "Video Pod" were using the name to jump on the association with "iPod" and take advantage of Apple's good will and recognition. (vi) Any actual association between the mark and the famous mark - and this would just require a survey asking people who they think the manufacturer of a product called a "Video Pod" is.

      All six statutory factors lean towards Apple. I can't see Apple losing this if it's properly litigated.

    4. Re:Correct by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Consumers aren't required to investigate the product in determining likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement. That's called "initial interest confusion".

      And that is why the law is broken. This is a video projector it doesn't mean crap if it uses a similar name to an iPod, a consumer should be able to figure it out. Trademark law is to protect consumers, not to stop idiots who think they are the same.

      For example, a company selling a white game console as a Vii with a logo to make it look like it was a Nintendo Wii is trademark infringement because it was trying to mislead consumers. But if it was a TV called a Vii there was no misleading.

      If we keep looking at the status quo, we don't get progress. Trademark, copyright and patent law all need reforming, fast.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Correct by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      Their iPod is their only "Pod" thing so saying someone is trying to create confusion by calling a projector a "Video Pod" is a real stretch.

      Let's see - iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch. Only the iPod Shuffle and the iPod Nano currently qualify as "mp3 players". The other two are most definitely also video players, and one of them also happens to be a handheld computer. I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to consider the possibility that the Video Pod somewhat dilutes the iPod brand, particularly for those members of the general population on the left hand side of the bell curve. The Video Pod's name is close enough to Apple's brand that it can very likely benefit from a halo effect of the popularity of the iPod brand. Whether or not that's enough for Apple to be (legally) in the right I can't say.

      As an aside, I googled "video pod" sans quotes, just to see exactly what the "infringing" device was (I can't tell if it's intended as a portable video projector, or what) and I stumbled upon this link from 2005 explicitly referring to the then newly released (fifth generation) iPod as the "Video Pod," (though this site is clear to point out that iPod Video was never it's official name, and I'm pretty sure that "Video Pod" wasn't either, though the first link shows a fairly clear example of an argument to be made in favor of brand dilution in this particular case).

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    6. Re:Correct by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      The iPod is, of course, an MP3 player.

      So is my laptop, but in neither case is that all each device can do. I doubt I use my iPod Touch for playing music more than 5% of the time.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Correct by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Consumers aren't required to investigate the product in determining likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement. That's called "initial interest confusion".

      And that is why the law is broken. This is a video projector it doesn't mean crap if it uses a similar name to an iPod, a consumer should be able to figure it out. Trademark law is to protect consumers, not to stop idiots who think they are the same.

      If you're going to argue against initial interest confusion and why something that has been the law for 40 years, you're going to have to provide a better argument than "but it's broken! And people are idiots!"

      Here's the argument for the doctrine (cribbed from Wiki's description of Brookfield v. West Coast Entertainment), which you need to refute: West Coast Video’s competitor, Blockbuster Video, puts a billboard on a stretch of highway advertising a West Coast Video at an upcoming exit. In reality, there is no West Coast Video at this exit; it is a Blockbuster Video instead. The consumer, expecting to find a West Coast Video store, sees the Blockbuster Video and decides to patronize the suitable replacement. Even though the confusion has been dispelled, Blockbuster is still misappropriating the acquired goodwill of West Coast Video’s trademark. For example, a company selling a white game console as a Vii with a logo to make it look like it was a Nintendo Wii is trademark infringement because it was trying to mislead consumers. But if it was a TV called a Vii there was no misleading. You're still stuck in point-of-sale confusion rather than initial interest confusion. Your argument is irrelevant, because it doesn't address the other potential area of infringement.

      If we keep looking at the status quo, we don't get progress. Trademark, copyright and patent law all need reforming, fast.

      ... because you say so and people are idiots? Again, this is not a highly persuasive argument. At most, you've proven that one person is an idiot.

    8. Re:Correct by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      However, sometimes US trademark lawsuits cross the asinine into the surreal, like with the Sunrider controversy.
      Summary - LucasArts created a Star Wars Expanded Universe character called Nomi Sunrider, who featured in a few comics and novels, and was to have appeared in the Knights of the Old Republic game. Jeep sued them for trademark infringement because they make a Sunrider range of soft top vehicles, and obviously their customers can't tell the difference between a fictional character and a vehicle. Thanks to the lawsuit, LucasArts had to discontinue use of the character, and we got Bastila Shan in KOTOR instead.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    9. Re:Correct by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Initial interest confusion is very, very, minimal when it comes to the internet. It takes what? 10 seconds to determine that VideoPod is not an iPod video online. Blockbuster should have been sued not for trademark infringement but for false advertising, it shouldn't make a difference -what- it was that Blockbuster was advertising, if it doesn't exist and they didn't have good faith to believe it existed (for example, a billboard still advertising a store that had gone out of business but the billboard was put up before the store was closed) should be charged with fraud and misleading advertisement rather than anything to do with trademark infringement.

      The thing is, VideoPod didn't advertise to be like an iPod video, they simply have similar names. That is the only similarity. VideoPod isn't packaged like an iPod video, VideoPod doesn't make commercials that look like Apple's commercials, VideoPod isn't made by a company with a name similar to Apple's, etc.

      The idea that initial interest confusion can occur without misleading advertisements is laughable, if you search for VideoPod online, or ask someone to see a VideoPod and they show you it, it takes all of 2 seconds to determine it is not an iPod video.

      Trademark law should be about protecting consumers not about letting corporations be dicks to people with vaguely similar names.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re:Correct by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Initial interest confusion is very, very, minimal when it comes to the internet. It takes what? 10 seconds to determine that VideoPod is not an iPod video online.

      Top hit for "VideoPod" on Google:
      "Apple's New Video Pod".

      Apparently it only takes 10 seconds if you already know that the VideoPod isn't an iPod. Someone who doesn't know would easily be confused.

      Blockbuster should have been sued not for trademark infringement but for false advertising, it shouldn't make a difference -what- it was that Blockbuster was advertising, if it doesn't exist and they didn't have good faith to believe it existed (for example, a billboard still advertising a store that had gone out of business but the billboard was put up before the store was closed) should be charged with fraud and misleading advertisement rather than anything to do with trademark infringement.

      "Charged with"? This isn't criminal - using that term makes you sound like you have no idea what you're discussing.

      But you really don't have any idea what you're discussing: who has standing to bring a claim for false advertising? The consumer. Who has standing to bring a claim for trademark infringement? The trademark owner. That's why the suit was trademark infringement, not false advertising.

      The thing is, VideoPod didn't advertise to be like an iPod video, they simply have similar names.

      Go look at the trademark act and tell me where trademark infringement requires an advertising campaign for the infringer that's similar to one used on the registered product.

      That is the only similarity. VideoPod isn't packaged like an iPod video, VideoPod doesn't make commercials that look like Apple's commercials, VideoPod isn't made by a company with a name similar to Apple's, etc.

      It's branded as a "personal cinema". That's quite similar to the way Apple has marked the iPod as a personal media player.

      The idea that initial interest confusion can occur without misleading advertisements is laughable

      It's the law. Perhaps you should read the decisions that discuss this and refute them, rather than merely saying "it's laughable". "It's laughable" is a conclusion, not an argument. Where's your argument?

      if you search for VideoPod online,

      See above - first hit on Google for "VideoPod" is the iPod.

      or ask someone to see a VideoPod and they show you it, it takes all of 2 seconds to determine it is not an iPod video.

      Consumers aren't required to personally examine the product. In fact, that's the point of trademarks - by associating a product with a known manufacturer, a consumer can make assumptions about the product's quality, sight unseen. This increases market efficiency.

      Trademark law should be about protecting consumers not about letting corporations be dicks to people with vaguely similar names.

      It is about protecting customers. In this case, it's protecting customers who hear "Video Pod" and think "iPod for Video? New widescreen iPod? iPod with a built-in pico-projector?" Etc.

  61. War of the Worlds by drej · · Score: 1

    Next up: Suing the estate of H.G. Wells, because his Tripods are giving Apple bad publicity.

  62. Re:The Law - Something to consider by mpe · · Score: 1

    Mind you "Micky Mouse" is a trademarked character of Disney. Not "Mouse". And Disney wouldn't bother wasting money to try to claim that common word. Even-though they could try to get money from all the computer companies because of their peripheral devices. The word is commonly used to describe a household pest or reptile food (Rodent). Likewise a comic book company failed to obtain a claim on the word "Omega" because it is a letter of an alphabet, a universal symbol, and commonly used.

    On the other hand Paramount was at one point claiming trademarks on lots of things to do with Star Trek. Including character and ship names.

  63. Invasion of the Pod People by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

    How long until they start suing whichever studio made this movie? Either that, or until they make their own version: "Invasion of the iPod People"

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  64. Ping by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Now that Apple has an internet web-related / social networking product named 'Ping'..... I wonder how long before they start going after software such as fping, and Smokeping, or World Wide Web / Web2.0 / Blogging products such as Ping-O-Matic, or Pingler

    And some OSes even include a command called ping. Think of all the settle to get $$$ and licensing / additional stream of revenue opportunities.....

    1. Re:Ping by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      I'd pay money to see an Apple Vs. Microsoft Vs. Unix-in-all-its-flavors lawsuit

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    2. Re:Ping by Wovel · · Score: 1

      I can not think of a desktop or server os released in the past 10 years that does not have a ping command. I am sure it is there. We should identify it.

    3. Re:Ping by mysidia · · Score: 1

      MS DOS 8.0 from Windows ME?

      Some people are still using that crud in DOS mode on 10 year old hardware, to run ancient applications on the desktop.

      Mostly niche computers / small businesses who have a single use for their computer system whose idea of networking (if any) is a Netware 2.x file server w/ computers connected using 10Base2 coax technology.

  65. Stop by lemmis_86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop fucking with small startups. Patents are founded as a - protection - for small startups against the big corporations. That is not however the case today (as a patent may cost several millions...). Patents today - limits - innovation for the small inventor, and brings big money for the big corporation, which is the opposite of the original intent with the founding patents.

  66. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    compared to u.s., europe does indeed live in an utopia.

    Not really. I live in Europe, and while I wouldn't want to visit the US because of their recent draconian limitations to civil rights, things have been going seriously downhill over here too.

    Maybe I'll move to Sweden some day. They seem to be taking civil rights and freedom pretty seriously over there.

  67. Pod people are going to be screwed by tonique · · Score: 1

    This is bad news for pod people :(

    1. Re:Pod people are going to be screwed by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      No Steve Jobs claims the ultimate prior art. He is a pod person.

  68. Just like peas in a pod by fantomas · · Score: 1

    US business and lawyers - just like peas in a pod. Better sue the Oxford English Dictionary while you're at it.

  69. Re:iCapitalLetter by daveime · · Score: 1

    iPedantry

  70. Why Pod? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    "Pod" isn't the part of the brand I associate with Apple. It's the preceding "i" (lower-case) which is the defining characteristic.

    iPod
    iPhone
    iMac
    iTunes

    It they released the PodPhone, or PodMac, or PodTunes I'd have a little sympathy, but I can't help but think that he's gotten this one all backwards.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  71. Re:The Law - Something to consider by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

    Why apple hasn't sued Disney over I-Carly is beyond me.. as it's apparent to me anything I-"name" is supposed to be from Apple. .

    I guess Apple must be afraid of Intel as well (i7, i5, i3), or have they come to some sort of agreement?

  72. But there can't be a firebird web browser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But there can't be a firebird web browser...

    People STILL want to forget firebird (the database) being complete dicks over this, but I won't let them.

    1. Re:But there can't be a firebird web browser... by boxwood · · Score: 1

      how were they being dicks? They had the name first and mozilla naming it firebird did cause confusion. I myself typed apt-get install firebird and got a database installed when I wanted a browser.

      Really it was mozilla being ignorant and stepping on the toes of an already existing open source project. They could have done a quick google and found someone else was using the name, and not only that but an open source project, which meant you'd end up with two unrelated pieces with the same name in all the Linux distros.

  73. Re:The Law - Something to consider by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    >As an aside, I personally dislike those that use such words as "podcast" and "blogosphere" it is saddening that their use has become so prevalent among the

    Ha. The war is lost on that front.

    If you used "video multicast" or "web log" talking to somebody, there'd probably be quite a few confused looks.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  74. Nice work Video Pod! by diskofish · · Score: 1

    Nice work. I'd never heard of you before Video Pod, but seeing as now Apple is suing you..

  75. Trademarks are not patents. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    This is about trademarks not patents. Could you provide a source for your assertion that '[p]atents are founded as a - protection - for small startups against the big corporations'. Thanks.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:Trademarks are not patents. by lemmis_86 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't, because I "mistyped". What I intended to say was that patents are often described in the media as protection for small inventors, but that is clearly not the case at all. To register and create a patent you'll need lots of money, which no startup certainly has. You'll also need to be ready to cross-license/patent something if a bigger company demands it, which may end up costing you a fortune. The patents are good for big companies, and they can milk lots of money out of it, even though media often displays patents as something good for a small inventor.

  76. You laugh, but Maclisp was a "serious" problem... by alispguru · · Score: 1

    ...back in the day when MacBasic, MacPascal, MacForth, etc., were the expected names of compilers, and MacLisp was by-Ghod already taken!

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  77. Re:The Law - Something to consider by imakemusic · · Score: 1

    And what about iRiver that was founded two years before the first iPod was released?

    --
    Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  78. Re:Not Enough Bits by tonique · · Score: 1

    The English alphabet has 26 letters, mind you, giving 26^3 = 17576.

    There could be more! Eg. the Estonian alphabet has 32 letters (including "foreign ones"), thus 32768 combinations. For more, you could mine Chinese characters. A dictionary called "Yitizi Zidian" is said to contain 106230 characters, giving 1198785674367000 three-character sequences.

    (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character#Number_of_Chinese_characters )

  79. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    So all the idiotic stuff you have in the US is OK because nowhere's perfect?

    Great argument.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  80. This happened to us years ago.... by rclandrum · · Score: 1

    We do scanning and imaging work and called an early product "Pixel Perfect". Oops, wrong name - Word Perfect (bigger at the time than they are now) came down on us like a ton of bricks. To be fair, they weren't total dicks about it, they simply strongly suggested that we find a name that didn't lead people to think this was a product that *they* had put out. We carefully evaluated the likely size of their bank account against the known size of our testicles, and this comparison somehow seemed to open the doors to wisdom and we were able to quickly come up with what we felt was a much better product name :-)

    If you got the money and you got the lawyers, you can get what you want. Scrotal size just doesn't enter into the equation much. ...and truth be told, the only reason we picked Pixel Perfect to begin with was the prior existence of a popular software product that used the word Perfect in its title. Lesson learned. Do your research a pick your product names carefully.

  81. Are these guys next? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    www.pods.com

    They have NOTHING to do with audio or video, and I'm sure they predate the iPod.
    Their product is "Portable On Demand Storage" (of your physical crap, not data).

  82. It's nineteen-dickety-two all over again! by hockpatooie · · Score: 1

    "My story begins in nineteen-dickety-two. We had to say dickety because the Kaiser had stolen our word twenty. I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles."
    --Abe Simpson

    Just substitute "Steve Jobs" for "the Kaiser" and "pod" for "twenty", and there you go! History repeats itself.

  83. Uh oh... by cepler · · Score: 1

    I really hope that Apple doesn't come and take away my TRI Pod... :(

  84. Re:There's a joke about POD PEOPLE in there somewh by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

    California voters are likely to legalize and tax small amounts of pod at this november's election, polls say.
    How about iRack, iRan,iCecream? Are those within the scope of apple's trademark?

  85. Nah. Fuck Steve Jobs' lawyers. by crovira · · Score: 1

    There is no idea stupid enough to deter a lawyer, an accountant or a two year old.

    Listening to and reading about this kind of "NO! MINE, MINE, MINE!" petulance over the ownership of sounds is very much like listening to two year olds debate over who owns a gun, never mind the facts that it doesn't belong to them and that they didn't create it.

    Its language folks. NOBODY OWNS WORDS! It defeats the purpose of language when anybody own a word. It then becomes something that only initiates can "grok"(1), for "Chthlu"(2) sake.

    In fact, and this should delight them, lets require that ALL legal documents the world over be embossed in copper/aluminum alloy sheets in Kligonee (and set in that typeface too,) to differentiate any legal scribblings from any earth language.

    This would make learning of Klingonee mandatory for all lawyers. (Trekkies would have a leg up on taking over.)

    I would also not be averse to strength trials where "two men enter, one walks out" types of legal debates (complete with batleths as arguments.)

    Accountants at least know how to do arithmetic. But they should not be allowed to make any decisions.

    Two year olds should be spanked when they refuse to STFU.

    1) Contributed by Robert Heinlein. (3)
    2) Contributed by H. P. Lovecraft. (3)
    3) This is not a primer on etymology. Dig up where, when why and by whom the words were created yourselves.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  86. I, Zod by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Did the maker of polo shirts with alligators on them sue Warner Bros. Pictures over Superman II?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  87. iProjector by cl0s · · Score: 1

    If it was iProjector, maybe. But Video Pod? Apple has no other Pod products, and no video projector.

  88. Apple learned early by rcharbon · · Score: 1

    How many of you young'uns remember when the Beatles sued Apple?. Jobs learned his lesson early - the wrong lesson

  89. Sounds like the Ironman scenario by bru.db · · Score: 1

    World Triathlon Corp has been successfully defending its Ironman tradmark (which is actually leased from Marvel Comics) for years against any and all Iron+gender and Iron+anything products regardless of the type of industry (i.e. Iron Woman Tea brand). http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/The_trademark_272.html

  90. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    things are going 'downhill' there, due to the pressure u.s. centered groups are putting on your governments through subsidiaries they own in your own countries. however still, had you really been there, you would know what kind of utopia you are living in, still, even in this state.

    sweden is also in europe by the way.

  91. wrong. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    with your logic, if i start using the word car in a 'flying car' brand i generate, and spend marketing on it, this will associate the word 'car' with my flying car brand, and then will award me the rights to the word 'car'.

    it doesnt matter what do you use to describe, an existing word, is an existing word, period.

  92. Tea? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Senna pod tea, anyone?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  93. Taking the i away by slapout · · Score: 1

    So if someone makes a product called "Video Phone" will Apple sue? After all, they have a trademark on "iPhone". What about "Video Tunes"?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  94. Invasion of the PhanBoi Snatchers by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

    The pods have already been distributed. They're waiting the signal to activate.

  95. eyepod by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    there goes my multimedia sunglasses idea

    --
    ...
  96. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    sweden is also in europe by the way.

    It is, but not all of Europe is like Sweden. Most of it isn't.

  97. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    indeed it isnt. but if you put sweden, norway, finland, denmark, netherlands together, they pretty much make a huge percentage of europe.

  98. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    I'm not convinced Netherland is in the same league. It's where I live, and I tell you: we're headed towards hell in a hand basket here. Just take a look at the new government coalition they're forming here.

    I have similar doubts about Denmark, but I know too little of Danish politics. Or Norwegian or Finnish, for that matter. But Sweden keeps sounding better and better.

  99. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you wont see the difference until you live in some other place in the world.

  100. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by yyxx · · Score: 1

    Yeah, those nations are really nice to live in if you happen to be a member of the preferred ethnicity and culture; otherwise, you're an outsider that's politely tolerated but never accepted. Many of those governments are also quite intrusive and restrictive. And with those nations, you picked off the handful of best examples in Europe, it's downhill from there, down to active and violent ethnic and religious conflicts in many parts of Europe. Even that kind of Europe only exists because the US spent trillions defending it against the USSR. Some utopia indeed!

  101. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    irrelevant. it is totally the opposite. you have much easier time and approval if you are ethnic in those countries. maybe this can be counted as a handicap.

    the 'handful' you speak of constitutes at least 5 countries in entire europe. even if the situation declines from there, it is not as horrible as usa.

    and, us got that trillions which it used for 'defending' europe from ussr by exploiting and monopolizing everything in the countries it was 'defending' during the cold war. through pressure, it killed local industries and exported american goods. from aircraft to cars. my country has only recently been able to establish an auto industry, for example, because it was being used as a colony for american industry, through military (thanks, soviet threat) and political pressure. and even gladio.

    not to mention 12+ puppet dictators america installed around the world in 3rd world countries, who have committed worst crimes against humanity in the last 60 years.

    excuse me, but, you are still in the hands of brainwashing propaganda.

  102. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by yyxx · · Score: 1

    it is totally the opposite. you have much easier time and approval if you are ethnic in those countries. maybe this can be counted as a handicap.

    Being an ethnic curiosity is not the same as tolerance, approval, or acceptance.

    the 'handful' you speak of constitutes at least 5 countries in entire europe. even if the situation declines from there, it is not as horrible as usa.

    Even according to the UN development index that you linked to, the EU as a whole is doing worse than the US, and the EU represents only the most developed nations of Europe as a whole.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

    my country has only recently been able to establish an auto industry, for example, because it was being used as a colony for american industry, through military (thanks, soviet threat) and political pressure. and even gladio.

    So what? You whine and complain as if America owes you anything. If you're not willing to do what it takes to defend yourself, don't complain when the people that do attach strings.

    not to mention 12+ puppet dictators america installed around the world in 3rd world countries, who have committed worst crimes against humanity in the last 60 years.

    So what? America's politicians are elected to ensure the safety and protect the interests prosperity of the American people, nothing more. Most of the time, the US prefers to help countries democratize and develop, because that's the cheapest and most effective strategy. But if that's not feasible, the US will install dictators if it is vital to US interests, no apologies.

    Furthermore, European nations have done and still do the same things if it suits them: massive weapons shipments, deals with undemocratic regimes, and holding on to colonies until near bankruptcy.

    excuse me, but, you are still in the hands of brainwashing propaganda.

    No, you are in the hands of brain-washing propaganda. Europeans like you have eaten up the same propaganda of supposed European moral, intellectual, and educational superiority for centuries, all the while they were slaughtering natives around the globe, bleeding other nations dry, and killing each other at home over religion and ethnicity. Free yourself from the propaganda you have been subjected to all your life in your ideologically biased, government-controlled educational system and media and start actually learning something about the world beyond your borders.

  103. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1
    holy cow. all you have done has been producing excuses.

    you have said that america was the 'best', or, at least 'next best' country to live on earth.

    it turned out there are THIRTEEN countries topping america, and almost all of them are the countries you have said to have 'tradeoffs'. doesnt matter whether they are smaller in population, or larger. you cannot go changing the criteria if it doesnt fit your argument. united nations considers those nations at the top, and that's that.

    thirteenth place is not 'the next best', first being 'canada'. thats american morondom to believe that. its your own self-produced propaganda. moreover, you dont know shit about the situations of ethnic minorities in those 13 countries you speak of. had you know, you would be crying how you were being treated in us as a us citizen.

    Furthermore, European nations have done and still do the same things if it suits them: massive weapons shipments, deals with undemocratic regimes, and holding on to colonies until near bankruptcy.

    there are 2 european nations which employed puppet dictators in the last 60 years. you dont know shit about history, dont make up. in the thirteen counted there, there is only one of them.

    about american peoples's interests; fuck them. if you take creating secret organizations to assassinate, kill, remove political opponents, install puppet dictators, kill industries, bribe people 'democratization', fuck you too. read the below about 'democratization' and 'defense'.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    So what? You whine and complain as if America owes you anything. If you're not willing to do what it takes to defend yourself, don't complain when the people that do attach strings.

    excuse me, i didnt know i was discussing with an 12 year old brainwashed moron that has the word 'whine' to use in serious discussions in his vocabulary. that would be my mistake.

    yes, america owes A LOT of countries a lot of things. enslaving people directly and enslaving people indirectly through usage of a 'democratic' storefront behind which organizations like Gladio go rampant, along with installing puppet dictators, and then profiting for 50 years over that and then shamelessly coming up and talking about 'american people's interests', and 'defense' and 'democratization' ....

    this is why the world hates america. and they are right. with your self centered bigotry, you have just added to that animosity. thankfully, america is basically a bankrupt chinese puppet now, with 2 other superpowers to offset its military dicta.

    i wont be replying to a bigoted moron like you any longer. if you want to be taken seriously, drop that shitty ignorant nationalism and your right wing bigotry, and talk like an enlightened person. 'good day'.

  104. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by yyxx · · Score: 1

    "Furthermore, European nations have done and still do the same things if it suits them: massive weapons shipments, deals with undemocratic regimes, and holding on to colonies until near bankruptcy."

    there are 2 european nations which employed puppet dictators in the last 60 years. you dont know shit about history,

    Non-sequitur. It's the democratic European governments that have been massive weapons exporters and supporters of undemocratic regimes. Democratic European governments tried to hold on to their colonies with massive military spending and democratic European governments created the messes in the Middle East and Asia.

    Of course, over the last 60 years, there were dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, and Greece, a massive civil war and genocide in Yugoslavia, half of Germany and most of Eastern Europe was governed by (sometimes vicious) communist regimes. Etc. Nice little continent you have there.

    thankfully, america is basically a bankrupt chinese puppet now, with 2 other superpowers to offset its military dicta.

    Indeed, deploying its troops around the world is bankrupting the US and can't go on. So, get ready for when Russia and China start calling the shots. The just have such a soft spot in their hearts for Europe given the tender mercies Europe has bestowed upon them in the past, and how can they not be anything but happy to slow down their own economic development to make sure that European seniors get the large pensions and health care they deserve!

    this is why the world hates america. with your self centered bigotry, you have just added to that animosity

    Good! Translate that animosity into action to kick those evil American bastards out of Europe and start fending for yourself already!

  105. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    'good day'.

  106. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    im not european. and arrogance, ignorance, are found in your earlier posts. to the extent of having 'whine' in your vocabulary.

  107. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by yyxx · · Score: 1

    So why are you so ashamed to admit where you are actually from? What is the track record of your glorious nation on human rights, tolerance, and peace?

  108. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    would the track record of my country change the track record of america ? unfortunately my country hasnt been able to dominate the world, installing 12 direct puppet dictators, and setting up gladios in 20 other countries and instigating coups, assassinations and industry takeovers.

  109. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by yyxx · · Score: 1

    unfortunately my country hasnt been able to dominate the world, installing 12 direct puppet dictators, and setting up gladios in 20 other countries and instigating coups, assassinations and industry takeovers.

    Yes, that's quite unfortunate for you. I'm glad my country has the power to do this when it is necessary to protect itself and others.

    I see no alternative to installing puppet dictators when a nation threatens the US and has been incapable of forming a peaceful democracy; what's your bright idea for how to deal with such nations?

    would the track record of my country change the track record of america?

    It would mean that you take responsibility for your own country, history, and citizenship, instead of blaming others and being evasive.

  110. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's quite unfortunate for you. I'm glad my country has the power to do this when it is necessary to protect itself and others.

    I see no alternative to installing puppet dictators when a nation threatens the US and has been incapable of forming a peaceful democracy; what's your bright idea for how to deal with such nations? It would mean that you take responsibility for your own country, history, and citizenship, instead of blaming others and being evasive.

    despicable bullshit. justifying drug dealing by cia, genocides, assassinations, violation of democracy, dictatorship, infecting locals with diseases deliberately.

    and it is being dubbed 'responsibility'. nauseating.

    that kind of rotten mind is the reason this planet is in knee deep shit. right wing indoctrination, nothing else. not to mention that your country doesnt have the power to do any of that anymore, bankrupt and isolated. good for everyone.

    probably for the first time in /. history, i will put someone in foe list. hopefully the system wont show droppings from your rotten mind afterwards.

  111. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you cant let go of me, and come back for more, arent you. however, i had enough. 'good day' for the last time.

  112. Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. by yyxx · · Score: 1

    probably for the first time in /. history, i will put someone in foe list

    More fabrications; you already have half a dozen people on there.

    that kind of rotten mind is the reason this planet is in knee deep shit

    This planet is a lot better off, in large part because the US first fought fascism, then rebuilt Europe, and staved off communism. Mistakes come with the territory; you show me a superpower in world history that has done better.

    despicable bullshit. justifying

    Americans don't have to justify anything to a nitwit like you who won't even come clear on what totalitarian hellhole he escaped from.