saying that ipod means protable music player. is like saying back in the 90's that palm ment a PDA.
It's kind of funny that you bring up PDA:
Apple is the company that coined the term PDA in the first place (Reference - ironically, that paragraph also goes on to state that "Palms" often generically referred to PDAs as well, even bringing up the point of genericized trademark that Apple wants to avoid with iPod, which is exactly why it's defending the mark)
Nice job making my point, and making yourself look like a fool.
Um, no. In fact, I've said in quite a number of my posts that it is NOT THE ISSUE whether or not someone would confuse a Profit Pod or TightPod with iPod.
What the ISSUE is, is if some entity in the future is able to successfully argue that Apple didn't defend its trademark in all of the cases of "infringement" it could have or should have. All it takes is one to make that argument successfully, and Apple could potentially lose rights to protect a mark that is worth literally billions of dollars to them. Or it could get mired in appeals for years, with other entities being able to capitalize on (and dilute) the "iPod" mark in the meantime.
This is the way US trademark dilution law works, and it's not surprising that the more well known a mark is, the more important and profitable a mark is to a company, the more aggressively and broadly they will protect the mark. Because if ONE person can even marginally successfully argue that they didn't adequately defend it, the results could be devastating.
Does it suck for everyone else involved? Yup. But you'd need to look at trademark dilution law for a reprieve, not Apple. It's not Apple's responsibility to decide, "well, this trademark law is overly broad, so we won't do everything we need to do under the law to protect ourselves just to be the nice guy."
It doesn't matter whether I think Apple Records should or shouldn't have won.
The point is, Apple Records was defending their mark, the way Apple is now. They lost. Apple might too, if it came to court. The little companies don't have the resources to fight, you say? Irrelevant to the argument.
Profit Pod is a small electronic device with an LCD screen. Like an iPod. (No, I am NOT saying any sane person would confuse them. Stay with me here.)
TightPod makes protective cases for electronic devices, including portable music players.
Apple is defending its mark, possibly overly broadly, because it is an extremely important trademark to the company. It is widely known, its brand recognition and association is important, and it is highly profitable. The more profitable and important a mark is, the more aggressive its owner will (and has to) be in protecting it - because it's more likely people will try to ride on the coattails of the mark's success, possibly by capitalizing on an association with the name.
Apple isn't worried people will confuse a Profit Pod with an iPod.
They're worried some other entity in the future will be able to use a case like that to argue that Apple didn't vigorously or adequately defend its mark against infringement. If even one of those arguments is successful, or gets mired in appeals, that could be all it takes to devastate the mark and begin commoditization of the term. And once that happens, it's hard for the original owner to compete, and it could lose its value to the tune of hundreds of millions - or billions - of dollars. See Kleenex and Xerox for examples.
Ya rly: "while TightPod manufactures slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products such as laptops and MP3 players."
From TFA itself, no less!
Also, it doesn't really matter: the point is that for such a ubiquitous product, and one that is so important to Apple, current trademark dilution law is so broad in scope that it encourages companies - especially ones who own the really, really huge trademarks like iPod - to be overly broad in defense of the mark, lest some entity in the future successfully assert that Apple didn't adequately protect it. All it takes is one. And yeah, it sucks, but that's exactly why Apple is doing what it's doing, not just to be pricks for the sake of it,
This was an entirely tangential discussion: the article said:
Back in the day, if someone was calling an electronic device a 'pod,' I would have thought they were talking about Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods (which I believe have been around for a while). How come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming?"
I noted, correctly, that Line 6's products are nowhere near as well known as iPod, so I don't even know why that was brought up, and that, additionally, it's up to Line 6 whether or not it warns on trademarks - it apparently didn't feel there was a problem with iPod. Or maybe it did, but felt it didn't have the resources to "fight" Apple. In either case, its status as a lesser known, more niche product is part of both of my points. And the most important point is that since it already chose to not defend for several years, the whole issue of Line 6 in this discussion is moot and utterly irrelevant.
Further, because iPod is so well known and universal - and hugely profitable and important as a product to Apple - that likely plays into Apple's decision to vigorously defend, since there are a lot more people out there who would love to capitalize on associations with "iPod" than there likely are with Line 6's products: the broader brand/name recognition is central. There are also a lot more people who might take a shot at arguing that Apple didn't adequately defend the trademark if it meant (eventual) money in the bank for them.
The point here is that it doesn't matter if the word "pod" has been around, or that Line 6's products have been around. The word issue is something that has been beaten to death, and wasn't being discussed here. But Line 6 being brought up just seemed to be utterly irrelevant: no matter how well or little known they are overall, if they chose not to defend their mark against iPod for whatever reason, bringing it up is irrelevant. The point is that Apple IS defending its mark against products that have been released after the iPod. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for the companies, especially if they intended no infringement (especially for Profit Pod). But if, as others have correctly noted, Apple needs to vigorously defend even in cases where the product might have nothing to do with an iPod in order to ensure it maintains the mark, I'd say that's a problem more with broad trademark dilution law than Apple. Some might say Apple could choose to be the "good guy", but to what end? Would they announce "Hey, we could have filed a complaint against these guys, but we chose not to"? How would anyone ever know? Some might further say that the point isn't to "know", it's just that Apple shouldn't do it. Well, what happens if there's a real likelihood, no matter how small, that Apple's mark could be challenged by someone else claiming they didn't adequately defend it (which is EXACTLY why Apple is doing what it's doing - it's not just doing it to be a bunch of pricks)? Wouldn't you agree that the iPod, its name, and so on, is something that is quite important to Apple?
The funny thing is that many people here seem to think I'm assuming that Apple doing this is the greatest thing ever. If you'll look at some of the other highly-moderated comments to this story, they note this isn't really an Apple problem, this is a problem of the way US trademark law works: if it can ever possibly be shown you didn't vigorously defend, you can lose a whole broad scope of rights. I agree with you about trademarks and common words. But the fact is that Apple has an extremely profitable, well known, and widely used product (at least in the market we're talking about here, which is the US). If Apple doesn't use a broad brush in aggressively defending against infringement, real or perceived, there is a very real chance that someone - or many "someones" - could come along and (successfully) claim that Apple didn't defend its mark in every instance is should have or could have. When so much is at stake, my only point was: is it any surprise Apple is doing this given the popularity of iPod and its importance to Apple, in the context of the current way US trademark dilution law works?
Way for multiple people to say the same thing to my post, and you know that people will see them if they're not responded to and think "Gee, how insightful!" when it's actually totally unrelated to the point at hand.
Fine, but you still haven't answered the central point:
Do you think that there was zero consideration for "iPod" in any context when that name was chosen?
If they wanted to capitalize on the name association with iPod in even the smallest way, even if no one ever "confused" the products, that could constitute infringement, no matter what the word "pod" means, in the dictionary or in nature.
The fact of the matter is, you could be correct in your assertion, but if there was any intent to play off of capitalize on the iPod association, even in a small way, it could be technically construed as infringement.
Sorry. Same argument applies to Microsoft in terms of defending its mark.
The guy's *name" was Mike Rowe, but he obviously chose "Mike Rowe Soft" as a cute play on Microsoft, not just because he coincidentally chose to call his company/website that. Now, I'd be the first to agree that will probably never in anyone's wildest dreams be confused with Microsoft, just as Profit Pod will likely not be confused with iPod. But that's not the point: the point is someone, somewhere, at some point in the future, possibly being able to make a successful argument that Apple or Microsoft or whoever did NOT vigorously protect their mark in a certain instance of infringement when they should have. And for companies that have as much, comparatively, riding on names, brands, and trademarks as Apple and Microsoft, the reasons they do this should be pretty obvious.
Incorrect assumptions - it's what's for dinner for you, apparently.
I didn't claim to know what their motives were. I just said they apparently chose to not "warn" or defend against iPod; the grandparent was making it out to be some huge deal that he did some "research" and, egad, found that Line 6's products were around before the iPod (duh), and then went on to ridiculously say that Apple should be sending itself C&D's. Huh? It's up to trademark owners to decide when they do and don't defend their mark, just as Apple is doing against these other "pod" products here, whether you agree with it or not. I'm not sure how you got what you posted out of my comment. The only point I've made in my posts is that if it can ever be successfully argued by anyone that you didn't vigorously defend your trademark against infringement under all circumstances, you could lose it - and lose associated rights to defend it against legitimate threats. It's much more likely that people would choose to go after - or capitalize on - a product as universally well known and profitable as iPod.
So, you are arguing with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players", then?
And yes, that's a serious question: you think that there was zero consideration for "iPod" in any context when that name was chosen?
iPods are well known by nearly everyone, even those who don't own one.
(And no, I'm not saying that some 95 year old might know what an iPod is, but the point is that people who know what an iPod is are almost universal in comparison with Line 6 pods. Even if you want to still call it a "market", the iPod's "market" is likely orders of magnitude, literally, larger than Line 6's, in terms of sheer numbers of people who know what each product is.)
Um, it's not up to Apple to defend other peoples' trademarks against itself.
If those other companies wanted to defend their marks, that was up to them. They chose not to. End of story.
Apple IS defending ITS mark against new products that came out long after the iPod mark was established. And the iPod is far, far, far more popular and universally well known than any of the other products you cite.
I'm amazed that you're even remotely surprised by this, or of all of what I noted above and here really does escape you.
Yes, some people who have music players that aren't iPods answer, "Yes," when asked "Do you have an iPod?" because it's universally known and simpler than saying "Yes, well, no, I do have a music player, but it's not an iPod, it's something else. I wanted an iPod, but I guess my parents got suckered into the wrong thing at Walgreens."
Techy types and most people who read and post to slashdot would consider it ridiculous to call something that's not an iPod an iPod, but yes, it has gotten that universal in some circles. My point, however, is that in some markets, like the US, it's actually hard to find people who have portable music players that aren't iPods (again, the slashdot crowd is far more likely to contain people who would immediately say "Not true! I have XYZ Music Player running Linux, and blah blah blah."
I didn't want to mention this in my original post, because the slashdot music-y types - which there are probably a lot more of here than in the general population - would think it was trolling or flamebait, but no: Line 6's products are NOWHERE NEAR anywhere as well known as "iPod". I'm sure they're very well known in guitar circles. I'm sorry to report that is a MUCH smaller market segment than that of "everyone else". Walk down the street and ask people "Do you know what a Line 6 Bass Pod is?" and then ask "Do you know what an iPod is?" and you know just as well as I do that the difference will be stark. Just because creative musician types around slashdot know what it is doesn't invalidate the truth of that point.
Also, it doesn't really matter if Line 6's products came first: they clearly didn't do anything to defend the mark in the context of the iPod mark, period, so the point is moot.
...because "Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods" were even remotely anywhere near the ballpark of being as well, universally, and ubiquitously known as "iPod", either "back in the day" or now.
...
As to "how come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming"; sounds like a fallacious point to me, since the answer is pretty clear: they apparently chose not to "warn" anyone. Also, see the previous point above.
The iPod is practically on the cusp (if not already) of being one of those universal words that is synonymous with "portable music player" - and, in this case, not even because of the same reasons as Kleenex and Xerox, but because nearly all - over 92% - of all hard drive-based portable music players actually are iPods.
So when Apple vigorously protects a mark of a product that is so well known and universally popular and desirable (yes, it is "desirable" to most people - that's why there are so many of them, at the price of entire entry level computer systems, no less), even when individual instances could be deemed questionable by others, is it any surprise?
Also, both of these products - Profit Pod and TightPod - are new products, released long after the iPod has been established; while it might be questionable that the former is could be mistaken for an iPod, the latter is an accessory for portable music players. And regardless, Apple needs to defend the mark against real or perceived threats, lest an entity in the future claim that Apple wasn't vigorously protecting it from even possible infringement.
For a mark and product as important as iPod, is it surprising that a company would be very thorough in protecting it? (Does this suck for smaller companies who might not have intended infringement, like Profit Pod? Yep. But if there is a possibility of non-defense in that instance ever being used against Apple as an argument that the mark wasn't properly defended, well, I'm sure you can at least understand the reasoning. Further, the "TightPod" was clearly chosen to play of iPod, unless you ca argue with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players".)
You know what they say about trademarks: protect them, or lose them - especially in an environment where someone might claim the owner didn't protect it.
Something like this could be easily used in conjunction with vulnerabilities like the recent Atheros 802.11 wireless device driver exploit. Of course, many wireless attacks like this will still be targeted, and won't be widespread, because of one huge reason: proximity. Even the co-discoverer of the Atheros driver vulnerability, David Maynor, said:
The thing to keep in mind here is that this really isn't a problem yet. You won't see any WLAN viruses' base on driver level exploits any time soon for one very important reason, proximity. We wanted these issued raised and fixed before the distance of a wifi connection for your average user will be measured in kilometers instead of the meters it is today.
Don't go rip your wifi cards out just yet, but you should always adhere to good security techniques. Even without a driver level exploits man-in-the-middle attacks over wifi networks are a threat that you can mitigate by doing things like verifying the SSL certs for things you can connect to and don't do anything you want to remain personal or private over clear text on these access points. Also, for things like instant messaging, grab something like Adium X that supports encrypted IM conversations across multiple platforms. I know iChat does as well, but I am a big fan of something called OTR (http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/) which Adium supports.
And no, this wasn't a "Mac OS X"(-specific) or "MacBook" vulnerability; it is a vulnerability in the Atheros driver code, which, according to the presenters themselves, is exploitable on other platforms, including Windows and Linux. Mac OS X was chosen to prove a point, and unfortunately the "point" that many ordinary people ended up getting was that all "MacBooks" and only "MacBooks" were vulnerable to some kind of scary 802.11 attack, and worse, that setting the machine to not auto-associate with access points would solve the problem (it doesn't). Some interesting points from a SecurityFocus mailing list about the Atheros exploit:
* The exploit is running in kernel space and can do _anything_ it wants. It's not running as root because that would involve running under the kernel. In Intel terms, this is ring 0 stuff.
* Firewalls, "preferred networks" and other OS-level mitigation is worthless. The packets don't have to contain any IP data, they are pure 802.11{b|g} frames. The OS doesn't see the packet because it would have to get past the (exploited) device driver.
* The exploit doesn't require associating to an AP, being associated to an AP, anything. It just requires the wireless device to be on.
What this really illustrates is that when you let third-party, proprietary, unaudited code into a privileged capacity on an OS, it could indeed be an avenue for attack.
And now that attack can come from a dedicated device running in someone's pocket.;-)
(Personally, I see no reason why hardware device makers should keep driver code proprietary, much less the hardware specifications needed to produce an open source driver. After all, isn't their bread and butter the hardware itself?)
This device could also associate with a wireless access point normally, and launch penetration tests against any hosts reachable on the network as well. TFA notes that the device is also equipped with ethernet and USB connectivity as well. Sounds like a neat little device, that could have other functionality as well.
As I said, I had no idea how that actually applied in this context. But are you telling me that there are no circumstances where there is legal responsibility - even responsibility that could be transferred to an estate after death - on the part of a person that owns or is otherwise legally responsible for a property, service, or item? I understand that you're saying this is (or may not be) the case with an internet connection. Since I am not involved in this area day-to-day, would you mind telling me if it is in fact the case that this has been firmly established with case law that there is NO responsibility on the part of the person who pays the bill in the context of an internet connection? If it has been, is the RIAA continuing legal action in these cases in hopes of a settlement? Also, isn't it generally accepted that many of these people (or members of their family) have indeed committed the violation(s) that the RIAA alleges? Being in the central IT organization at a major university, I can say that we routinely get abuse requests from the RIAA and MPAA for sharing of copyrighted materials, and in nearly all of those incidents, it's quite easy to quickly and easily determine the infringing machines. Sometimes they're "owned" (much more common on networks where machines are running all manner of things like web applications, are exploitable via various channels, and are behind no firewalls), but many other times, some identifiable person (e.g., a resident of the student housing) is actually deliberately sharing that content, and admits it. Do they have no culpability?
So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.
Just because someone is a prick doesn't make them incorrect.
I'll agree that it's not the best way to Win Friends and Influence People, however.
So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?
This is actually a very interesting argument.
However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".
I'm sure we can both agree that there should be some level of laws and order in a civilized society. This isn't about Big Brother, fascism, or a totalitarian regime. It's about content owners of property that is intangible in a certain sense being able to ensure that it's paid for. I'm not making any value judgments on how much money should be involved, and so on. The problem is that members of a society based marginally on rule of law and on the intrinsic value of the work and property of others making their own decisions about what they will and won't pay for, and deciding to take what they don't feel is worth the price, and this on what are essentially luxury items at that (no, I don't believe commercial music and movies are a necessity to human survival, and I realize all of the artistic and cultural arguments that may be intertwined there).
To say that I'm making an "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument unfairly distills this argument down to a situation where we should apparently have no laws. I can understand thinking a "law" is unfair, and I can even understand people who think (erroneously, in my opinion) that taking copyrighting materials without paying for them is an act of civil disobedience. What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied. Like it or not, there is a LOT of money that goes into making a lot of this content. And if it's crap (like Britney Spears or the next worthless "blockbuster"), then don't be a part of it. My only point is how often people seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth, decrying the latest pop princess while simultaneously downloading (and not buying) some other artist on a subsidiary of that same label. If you don't support that business model, or think it's "dying", I simply can't understand why people would want to consume its content. Even if they like the content, why don't they come to the realization that it was that very system that produced the content they enjoy, and they'd better work to improve themselves in whatever stage of life they're at so they can afford to purchase and support the nice things they want.
As to DRM, I think it's in some forms a necessary evil. I DO NOT like DRM. It is a tool for control, and too often, some want to use it to roll back consumer rights that have been long since won (such as the Broadcast Flag, in the context of time shifting television). As long as it is unobtrusive as physically possible and doesn't roll back rights that we already have, I don't think it's a problem, because it does prevent casual, en masse, copyright infringement. Yes, yes, anyone and their brother can download any number of programs that strip all sorts of DRM, but the simple truth is that this escapes the capabilities of most people, and such tools will ALWAYS be relegated to the fringe because their use will be illegal in some jurisdictions. That pr
1. Wrong, my entire argument is not a straw man. Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case. Good job avoiding my points, though.
2. I really don't care whether the RIAA was right or wrong in this one particular case. The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.
3. In this case, the father (the dead man) was probably the one legally responsible for the internet connection and was likely also a legal guardian of his stepson. Whether you agree with it or not, there can certainly be legal culpability on the part of someone who is legally responsible for a particular item (such as an internet connection). I have literally no idea how this holds up in the context of music sharing; just pointing out that fact.
4. Again, fabulous job ignoring the rest of my post by writing it off as a "straw man".
Slashdot Mirror
are you a fan boy, or an employee?
Neither.
saying that ipod means protable music player.
is like saying back in the 90's that palm ment a PDA.
It's kind of funny that you bring up PDA:
Apple is the company that coined the term PDA in the first place (Reference - ironically, that paragraph also goes on to state that "Palms" often generically referred to PDAs as well, even bringing up the point of genericized trademark that Apple wants to avoid with iPod, which is exactly why it's defending the mark)
Nice job making my point, and making yourself look like a fool.
Um, no. In fact, I've said in quite a number of my posts that it is NOT THE ISSUE whether or not someone would confuse a Profit Pod or TightPod with iPod.
What the ISSUE is, is if some entity in the future is able to successfully argue that Apple didn't defend its trademark in all of the cases of "infringement" it could have or should have. All it takes is one to make that argument successfully, and Apple could potentially lose rights to protect a mark that is worth literally billions of dollars to them. Or it could get mired in appeals for years, with other entities being able to capitalize on (and dilute) the "iPod" mark in the meantime.
This is the way US trademark dilution law works, and it's not surprising that the more well known a mark is, the more important and profitable a mark is to a company, the more aggressively and broadly they will protect the mark. Because if ONE person can even marginally successfully argue that they didn't adequately defend it, the results could be devastating.
Does it suck for everyone else involved? Yup. But you'd need to look at trademark dilution law for a reprieve, not Apple. It's not Apple's responsibility to decide, "well, this trademark law is overly broad, so we won't do everything we need to do under the law to protect ourselves just to be the nice guy."
http://ipodbatteryfaq.com/
It doesn't matter whether I think Apple Records should or shouldn't have won.
The point is, Apple Records was defending their mark, the way Apple is now. They lost. Apple might too, if it came to court. The little companies don't have the resources to fight, you say? Irrelevant to the argument.
Profit Pod is a small electronic device with an LCD screen. Like an iPod. (No, I am NOT saying any sane person would confuse them. Stay with me here.)
TightPod makes protective cases for electronic devices, including portable music players.
Apple is defending its mark, possibly overly broadly, because it is an extremely important trademark to the company. It is widely known, its brand recognition and association is important, and it is highly profitable. The more profitable and important a mark is, the more aggressive its owner will (and has to) be in protecting it - because it's more likely people will try to ride on the coattails of the mark's success, possibly by capitalizing on an association with the name.
Apple isn't worried people will confuse a Profit Pod with an iPod.
They're worried some other entity in the future will be able to use a case like that to argue that Apple didn't vigorously or adequately defend its mark against infringement. If even one of those arguments is successful, or gets mired in appeals, that could be all it takes to devastate the mark and begin commoditization of the term. And once that happens, it's hard for the original owner to compete, and it could lose its value to the tune of hundreds of millions - or billions - of dollars. See Kleenex and Xerox for examples.
Ya rly: "while TightPod manufactures slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products such as laptops and MP3 players."
From TFA itself, no less!
Also, it doesn't really matter: the point is that for such a ubiquitous product, and one that is so important to Apple, current trademark dilution law is so broad in scope that it encourages companies - especially ones who own the really, really huge trademarks like iPod - to be overly broad in defense of the mark, lest some entity in the future successfully assert that Apple didn't adequately protect it. All it takes is one. And yeah, it sucks, but that's exactly why Apple is doing what it's doing, not just to be pricks for the sake of it,
Ah, yes, perhaps I did misunderstand you.
This was an entirely tangential discussion: the article said:
Back in the day, if someone was calling an electronic device a 'pod,' I would have thought they were talking about Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods (which I believe have been around for a while). How come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming?"
I noted, correctly, that Line 6's products are nowhere near as well known as iPod, so I don't even know why that was brought up, and that, additionally, it's up to Line 6 whether or not it warns on trademarks - it apparently didn't feel there was a problem with iPod. Or maybe it did, but felt it didn't have the resources to "fight" Apple. In either case, its status as a lesser known, more niche product is part of both of my points. And the most important point is that since it already chose to not defend for several years, the whole issue of Line 6 in this discussion is moot and utterly irrelevant.
Further, because iPod is so well known and universal - and hugely profitable and important as a product to Apple - that likely plays into Apple's decision to vigorously defend, since there are a lot more people out there who would love to capitalize on associations with "iPod" than there likely are with Line 6's products: the broader brand/name recognition is central. There are also a lot more people who might take a shot at arguing that Apple didn't adequately defend the trademark if it meant (eventual) money in the bank for them.
The point here is that it doesn't matter if the word "pod" has been around, or that Line 6's products have been around. The word issue is something that has been beaten to death, and wasn't being discussed here. But Line 6 being brought up just seemed to be utterly irrelevant: no matter how well or little known they are overall, if they chose not to defend their mark against iPod for whatever reason, bringing it up is irrelevant. The point is that Apple IS defending its mark against products that have been released after the iPod. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for the companies, especially if they intended no infringement (especially for Profit Pod). But if, as others have correctly noted, Apple needs to vigorously defend even in cases where the product might have nothing to do with an iPod in order to ensure it maintains the mark, I'd say that's a problem more with broad trademark dilution law than Apple. Some might say Apple could choose to be the "good guy", but to what end? Would they announce "Hey, we could have filed a complaint against these guys, but we chose not to"? How would anyone ever know? Some might further say that the point isn't to "know", it's just that Apple shouldn't do it. Well, what happens if there's a real likelihood, no matter how small, that Apple's mark could be challenged by someone else claiming they didn't adequately defend it (which is EXACTLY why Apple is doing what it's doing - it's not just doing it to be a bunch of pricks)? Wouldn't you agree that the iPod, its name, and so on, is something that is quite important to Apple?
The funny thing is that many people here seem to think I'm assuming that Apple doing this is the greatest thing ever. If you'll look at some of the other highly-moderated comments to this story, they note this isn't really an Apple problem, this is a problem of the way US trademark law works: if it can ever possibly be shown you didn't vigorously defend, you can lose a whole broad scope of rights. I agree with you about trademarks and common words. But the fact is that Apple has an extremely profitable, well known, and widely used product (at least in the market we're talking about here, which is the US). If Apple doesn't use a broad brush in aggressively defending against infringement, real or perceived, there is a very real chance that someone - or many "someones" - could come along and (successfully) claim that Apple didn't defend its mark in every instance is should have or could have. When so much is at stake, my only point was: is it any surprise Apple is doing this given the popularity of iPod and its importance to Apple, in the context of the current way US trademark dilution law works?
Way for multiple people to say the same thing to my post, and you know that people will see them if they're not responded to and think "Gee, how insightful!" when it's actually totally unrelated to the point at hand.
Fine, but you still haven't answered the central point:
Do you think that there was zero consideration for "iPod" in any context when that name was chosen?
If they wanted to capitalize on the name association with iPod in even the smallest way, even if no one ever "confused" the products, that could constitute infringement, no matter what the word "pod" means, in the dictionary or in nature.
The fact of the matter is, you could be correct in your assertion, but if there was any intent to play off of capitalize on the iPod association, even in a small way, it could be technically construed as infringement.
Man, you're a good troll.
;-)
You know just as well as I do that the NAME iPod, both in terms of public recognition, and its status as a trademark, are inextricably intertwined.
I'd think you could at least think of a logic troll for me, wmf.
Sorry. Same argument applies to Microsoft in terms of defending its mark.
The guy's *name" was Mike Rowe, but he obviously chose "Mike Rowe Soft" as a cute play on Microsoft, not just because he coincidentally chose to call his company/website that. Now, I'd be the first to agree that will probably never in anyone's wildest dreams be confused with Microsoft, just as Profit Pod will likely not be confused with iPod. But that's not the point: the point is someone, somewhere, at some point in the future, possibly being able to make a successful argument that Apple or Microsoft or whoever did NOT vigorously protect their mark in a certain instance of infringement when they should have. And for companies that have as much, comparatively, riding on names, brands, and trademarks as Apple and Microsoft, the reasons they do this should be pretty obvious.
Incorrect assumptions - it's what's for dinner for you, apparently.
I didn't claim to know what their motives were. I just said they apparently chose to not "warn" or defend against iPod; the grandparent was making it out to be some huge deal that he did some "research" and, egad, found that Line 6's products were around before the iPod (duh), and then went on to ridiculously say that Apple should be sending itself C&D's. Huh? It's up to trademark owners to decide when they do and don't defend their mark, just as Apple is doing against these other "pod" products here, whether you agree with it or not. I'm not sure how you got what you posted out of my comment. The only point I've made in my posts is that if it can ever be successfully argued by anyone that you didn't vigorously defend your trademark against infringement under all circumstances, you could lose it - and lose associated rights to defend it against legitimate threats. It's much more likely that people would choose to go after - or capitalize on - a product as universally well known and profitable as iPod.
So, you are arguing with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players", then?
And yes, that's a serious question: you think that there was zero consideration for "iPod" in any context when that name was chosen?
Line 6 pods are well-known in their market.
iPods are well known by nearly everyone, even those who don't own one.
(And no, I'm not saying that some 95 year old might know what an iPod is, but the point is that people who know what an iPod is are almost universal in comparison with Line 6 pods. Even if you want to still call it a "market", the iPod's "market" is likely orders of magnitude, literally, larger than Line 6's, in terms of sheer numbers of people who know what each product is.)
It's a good thing that these are US-based trademarks being defended against US-based and -marketed products, then.
Um, it's not up to Apple to defend other peoples' trademarks against itself.
If those other companies wanted to defend their marks, that was up to them. They chose not to. End of story.
Apple IS defending ITS mark against new products that came out long after the iPod mark was established. And the iPod is far, far, far more popular and universally well known than any of the other products you cite.
I'm amazed that you're even remotely surprised by this, or of all of what I noted above and here really does escape you.
Yes, some people who have music players that aren't iPods answer, "Yes," when asked "Do you have an iPod?" because it's universally known and simpler than saying "Yes, well, no, I do have a music player, but it's not an iPod, it's something else. I wanted an iPod, but I guess my parents got suckered into the wrong thing at Walgreens."
Techy types and most people who read and post to slashdot would consider it ridiculous to call something that's not an iPod an iPod, but yes, it has gotten that universal in some circles. My point, however, is that in some markets, like the US, it's actually hard to find people who have portable music players that aren't iPods (again, the slashdot crowd is far more likely to contain people who would immediately say "Not true! I have XYZ Music Player running Linux, and blah blah blah."
I didn't want to mention this in my original post, because the slashdot music-y types - which there are probably a lot more of here than in the general population - would think it was trolling or flamebait, but no: Line 6's products are NOWHERE NEAR anywhere as well known as "iPod". I'm sure they're very well known in guitar circles. I'm sorry to report that is a MUCH smaller market segment than that of "everyone else". Walk down the street and ask people "Do you know what a Line 6 Bass Pod is?" and then ask "Do you know what an iPod is?" and you know just as well as I do that the difference will be stark. Just because creative musician types around slashdot know what it is doesn't invalidate the truth of that point.
Also, it doesn't really matter if Line 6's products came first: they clearly didn't do anything to defend the mark in the context of the iPod mark, period, so the point is moot.
It's a good thing they're warning US companies about a US trademark for (mostly-)US-marketed products, then. ;-)
...
As to "how come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming"; sounds like a fallacious point to me, since the answer is pretty clear: they apparently chose not to "warn" anyone. Also, see the previous point above.
The iPod is practically on the cusp (if not already) of being one of those universal words that is synonymous with "portable music player" - and, in this case, not even because of the same reasons as Kleenex and Xerox, but because nearly all - over 92% - of all hard drive-based portable music players actually are iPods.
So when Apple vigorously protects a mark of a product that is so well known and universally popular and desirable (yes, it is "desirable" to most people - that's why there are so many of them, at the price of entire entry level computer systems, no less), even when individual instances could be deemed questionable by others, is it any surprise?
Also, both of these products - Profit Pod and TightPod - are new products, released long after the iPod has been established; while it might be questionable that the former is could be mistaken for an iPod, the latter is an accessory for portable music players. And regardless, Apple needs to defend the mark against real or perceived threats, lest an entity in the future claim that Apple wasn't vigorously protecting it from even possible infringement.
For a mark and product as important as iPod, is it surprising that a company would be very thorough in protecting it? (Does this suck for smaller companies who might not have intended infringement, like Profit Pod? Yep. But if there is a possibility of non-defense in that instance ever being used against Apple as an argument that the mark wasn't properly defended, well, I'm sure you can at least understand the reasoning. Further, the "TightPod" was clearly chosen to play of iPod, unless you ca argue with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players".)
You know what they say about trademarks: protect them, or lose them - especially in an environment where someone might claim the owner didn't protect it.
Something like this could be easily used in conjunction with vulnerabilities like the recent Atheros 802.11 wireless device driver exploit. Of course, many wireless attacks like this will still be targeted, and won't be widespread, because of one huge reason: proximity. Even the co-discoverer of the Atheros driver vulnerability, David Maynor, said:
;-)
The thing to keep in mind here is that this really isn't a problem yet. You won't see any WLAN viruses' base on driver level exploits any time soon for one very important reason, proximity. We wanted these issued raised and fixed before the distance of a wifi connection for your average user will be measured in kilometers instead of the meters it is today.
Don't go rip your wifi cards out just yet, but you should always adhere to good security techniques. Even without a driver level exploits man-in-the-middle attacks over wifi networks are a threat that you can mitigate by doing things like verifying the SSL certs for things you can connect to and don't do anything you want to remain personal or private over clear text on these access points. Also, for things like instant messaging, grab something like Adium X that supports encrypted IM conversations across multiple platforms. I know iChat does as well, but I am a big fan of something called OTR (http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/) which Adium supports.
And no, this wasn't a "Mac OS X"(-specific) or "MacBook" vulnerability; it is a vulnerability in the Atheros driver code, which, according to the presenters themselves, is exploitable on other platforms, including Windows and Linux. Mac OS X was chosen to prove a point, and unfortunately the "point" that many ordinary people ended up getting was that all "MacBooks" and only "MacBooks" were vulnerable to some kind of scary 802.11 attack, and worse, that setting the machine to not auto-associate with access points would solve the problem (it doesn't). Some interesting points from a SecurityFocus mailing list about the Atheros exploit:
* The exploit is running in kernel space and can do _anything_ it wants. It's not running as root because that would involve running under the kernel. In Intel terms, this is ring 0 stuff.
* Firewalls, "preferred networks" and other OS-level mitigation is worthless. The packets don't have to contain any IP data, they are pure 802.11{b|g} frames. The OS doesn't see the packet because it would have to get past the (exploited) device driver.
* The exploit doesn't require associating to an AP, being associated to an AP, anything. It just requires the wireless device to be on.
What this really illustrates is that when you let third-party, proprietary, unaudited code into a privileged capacity on an OS, it could indeed be an avenue for attack.
And now that attack can come from a dedicated device running in someone's pocket.
(Personally, I see no reason why hardware device makers should keep driver code proprietary, much less the hardware specifications needed to produce an open source driver. After all, isn't their bread and butter the hardware itself?)
This device could also associate with a wireless access point normally, and launch penetration tests against any hosts reachable on the network as well. TFA notes that the device is also equipped with ethernet and USB connectivity as well. Sounds like a neat little device, that could have other functionality as well.
Hello,
As I said, I had no idea how that actually applied in this context. But are you telling me that there are no circumstances where there is legal responsibility - even responsibility that could be transferred to an estate after death - on the part of a person that owns or is otherwise legally responsible for a property, service, or item? I understand that you're saying this is (or may not be) the case with an internet connection. Since I am not involved in this area day-to-day, would you mind telling me if it is in fact the case that this has been firmly established with case law that there is NO responsibility on the part of the person who pays the bill in the context of an internet connection? If it has been, is the RIAA continuing legal action in these cases in hopes of a settlement? Also, isn't it generally accepted that many of these people (or members of their family) have indeed committed the violation(s) that the RIAA alleges? Being in the central IT organization at a major university, I can say that we routinely get abuse requests from the RIAA and MPAA for sharing of copyrighted materials, and in nearly all of those incidents, it's quite easy to quickly and easily determine the infringing machines. Sometimes they're "owned" (much more common on networks where machines are running all manner of things like web applications, are exploitable via various channels, and are behind no firewalls), but many other times, some identifiable person (e.g., a resident of the student housing) is actually deliberately sharing that content, and admits it. Do they have no culpability?
Um, the AC you are replying to is definitely not me, for the record. In fact, it might be this person, exactly as that person signed the post.
So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.
Just because someone is a prick doesn't make them incorrect.
I'll agree that it's not the best way to Win Friends and Influence People, however.
So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?
This is actually a very interesting argument.
However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".
I'm sure we can both agree that there should be some level of laws and order in a civilized society. This isn't about Big Brother, fascism, or a totalitarian regime. It's about content owners of property that is intangible in a certain sense being able to ensure that it's paid for. I'm not making any value judgments on how much money should be involved, and so on. The problem is that members of a society based marginally on rule of law and on the intrinsic value of the work and property of others making their own decisions about what they will and won't pay for, and deciding to take what they don't feel is worth the price, and this on what are essentially luxury items at that (no, I don't believe commercial music and movies are a necessity to human survival, and I realize all of the artistic and cultural arguments that may be intertwined there).
To say that I'm making an "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument unfairly distills this argument down to a situation where we should apparently have no laws. I can understand thinking a "law" is unfair, and I can even understand people who think (erroneously, in my opinion) that taking copyrighting materials without paying for them is an act of civil disobedience. What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied. Like it or not, there is a LOT of money that goes into making a lot of this content. And if it's crap (like Britney Spears or the next worthless "blockbuster"), then don't be a part of it. My only point is how often people seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth, decrying the latest pop princess while simultaneously downloading (and not buying) some other artist on a subsidiary of that same label. If you don't support that business model, or think it's "dying", I simply can't understand why people would want to consume its content. Even if they like the content, why don't they come to the realization that it was that very system that produced the content they enjoy, and they'd better work to improve themselves in whatever stage of life they're at so they can afford to purchase and support the nice things they want.
As to DRM, I think it's in some forms a necessary evil. I DO NOT like DRM. It is a tool for control, and too often, some want to use it to roll back consumer rights that have been long since won (such as the Broadcast Flag, in the context of time shifting television). As long as it is unobtrusive as physically possible and doesn't roll back rights that we already have, I don't think it's a problem, because it does prevent casual, en masse, copyright infringement. Yes, yes, anyone and their brother can download any number of programs that strip all sorts of DRM, but the simple truth is that this escapes the capabilities of most people, and such tools will ALWAYS be relegated to the fringe because their use will be illegal in some jurisdictions. That pr
1. Wrong, my entire argument is not a straw man. Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case. Good job avoiding my points, though.
2. I really don't care whether the RIAA was right or wrong in this one particular case. The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.
3. In this case, the father (the dead man) was probably the one legally responsible for the internet connection and was likely also a legal guardian of his stepson. Whether you agree with it or not, there can certainly be legal culpability on the part of someone who is legally responsible for a particular item (such as an internet connection). I have literally no idea how this holds up in the context of music sharing; just pointing out that fact.
4. Again, fabulous job ignoring the rest of my post by writing it off as a "straw man".