Slashdot Mirror
IMAX Tries To Censor Ars Technica Over SteamVR Comparison
Cutting_Crew writes: An article published last week at Ars Technica looked at the SteamVR virtual reality headset created by Valve. Contained in the article is a quote from game designer Alex Schwartz, who said in reference to the device, "The jump between a regular game and playing a room scale VR experience is X times 100. It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house.' It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup." Now, for that single quoted reference, IMAX has sent a trademark complaint to Ars and demanded that they take the story down. "The company said our story required a retraction because it included a brief reference to IMAX—included without IMAX's permission. 'Any unauthorized use of our trademark is expressly forbidden.'"
If you look at the letter from IMAX (PDF), you'll see they think the reference to IMAX is "misleading to readers." They further request that "all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark." Apparently, IMAX has never heard of the Streisand Effect. Update: 06/19 19:26 GMT by S : IMAX has apologized.
If you look at the letter from IMAX (PDF), you'll see they think the reference to IMAX is "misleading to readers." They further request that "all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark." Apparently, IMAX has never heard of the Streisand Effect. Update: 06/19 19:26 GMT by S : IMAX has apologized.
Apparently the submitter has never heard of the Streisand Effect. either. The Streisand Effect. is where one does not want publicity, but their efforts to suppress it increase the publicity. IMAX is not trying to hide from any publicity, they just don't want their name used in conjunction with some else's product. And preventing confusion about products is the whole point of trademarks.
"I object to our brand being used to describe ultra-high quality."
Now if the VALVE said that, they would have a case, as it would be appropriation--they would need to work a deal to get an endorsement, but to censor an article for making the comparison (especially when used in such a positive light), is just plain stupid, whether or not they have a case.
You are allowed to use a trademark. You can say, "I like IMAX theaters." You can say, "Ibuprofin is generic Advil." You can even say, "VR is like having an IMAX theater in my house." A trademark doesn't prevent people from using the word, which is why the letter is a lawerly request, not a cease and desist notice or threat to sue. IMAX can't really do anything more to stop this use of the word.
Trademark prevents people from doing business under a given word (or phrase). So if I start a company and name it "IMAX VR," then I can be sued out of existence because it would mislead people to believe that IMAX was selling VR. If I start a grocery store and name it Malmart, then Walmart would need to sue to protect their trademark.
Trademark is a way to protect consumers, to prevent imposter companies from doing business as someone else. Using the trademark in normal speech (or writing) is not going to cause problems.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's non-sense. It's more complicated than this. For one this is a clear freedom of speech issue. It was a quote at that. And it all comes down to brand confusion anyway and there is no brand confusion here. You'd have to be the dumbest person on the planet to argue there is. Obviously the *lawyers are*. There also isn't a requirement that you threaten every person/entity of the trademark. That would be absurd. Think about it for a moment. How many sites that you don't control contain your trademark? There is no way you could target every one of them or even a significant percentage of them.
Given that /. is a for-profit website, why is it permissible for them to run this story if what you're saying is true? For that matter, how can any story that mentions any brand ever be run on any news site, of which almost all are run as for-profit enterprises?
Your claims don't even meat a basic standard of common sense, so even not knowing the laws surrounding trademarks, that you could make such a claim at all boggles the mind.