Podcast Trademark Controversy

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A recent apparent cease-and-desist letter (http://blog.wired.com/music/index.blog?entry_id=1561308) sent to Podcast Ready (makers of a software product called myPodder) by Apple has lit a firestorm in the blogosphere and online community. According to Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired.com, the cease-and-desist letter claimed that both the company's name and software infringed on Apple's trademarks.

While Apple's attempts at safeguarding its trademarks is nothing new, the move is striking fears that Apple is trying to take over the term "podcast". ZDNet's Russel Shaw posts a good summary of recent trademark attempts (http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1252) by Apple to register such terms as iPodcast.

Indeed, MacRumors' own research has found evidence that Apple has attempted to further the reach of its existing trademarks. The following describes a change Apple proposed to its existing iPod trademark (http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78653661) (change applied for 06/18/05, final denial 05/22/06):

A full line of electronic and mechanical accessories for portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, audio and video files; electronic docking stations; stands specially designed for holding portable and handheld digital electronic devices; battery chargers; battery packs; electrical connectors, wires, cables, and adaptors; wired and wireless remote controls for portable and handheld digital electronic devices; headphones and earphones; stereo amplifier and speaker base stations; automobile stereo adapters; audio recorders; radio receivers; radio transmitters; image scanners; video viewers, namely video monitors for portable and handheld digital electronic devices; and, electronic memory card readers; a full line of computer software for portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, audio, image, and video files; computer application software for recording and organizing calendars and schedules, to-do lists, and contact information; computer game software; and, computer software for clock and alarm clock functionality; carrying cases, sacks, and bags, all for use with portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, audio, image, and video files.

Currently, Apple's existing iPod trademark (http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78089144) is much more restrictive.

Portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, and audio files; computer software for use in organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, and audio files on portable and handheld digital electronic devices

In addition, Apple has an open trademark application for "pod" (http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78459101):

portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing audio files, and peripherals for use therewith; computer software for use in organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing audio files on portable and handheld digital electronic devices

Currently, the "pod" trademark appears to be encountering some resistance, as a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to the trademark has been filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. It was not immediately clear who is asking for the extension.

Of additional possible relevance, it appears a few enterprising individuals have already attempted to trademark the term "podcast". In both cases found by MacRumors, non-final action has been mailed by the U.S. trademark office, which either indicates a initial refusal or a request for additional information. Currently, no corporation or individual appears to hold a trademark (in the U.S.) to the term "podcast."

[iAlan]

I can undestand Apple's motivation on this -- they have conciderable investment in all things iPod.

What if another company wanted to trademark 'Podcast' or a similar term? Would there be as much controversy about them wanting to own it as there is against Apple?

[coday182]

why did they wait till now to worry about this?

[wchong]

why did they wait till now to worry about this?
b/c of the popularity today

[randyharris]

I don't think this will serve Apple any good to stop podcasters from using Pod in the name. It will only create ill-will and lessen the use of Pod which I would think would be a good thing for Apple.

[kev0476]

whenever i hear podcast i immediately think of apple, so why is apple shutting down free advertising?

[NewSc2]

This is a stupid move by Apple. The term "podcast" inherently advertises iPod. Now everybody (such as ESPN and etc.) is going to get scared and change their daily podcasts to some other name that doesn't automatically conjure a connection to an iPod.

[spicyapple]

Would Apple have a case with PODcast? (Programming on Demand-casting)

[VanMac]

I'm sure the Lawyers will all makes lots of money either way....:rolleyes:

[Tommyg117]

whenever i hear podcast i immediately think of apple, so why is apple shutting down free advertising?
Very good point, I associate it with Apple as well. I think it is a part of iTunes kind of like a cd in relation to a best buy.

[WildCowboy]

According to US law, a trademark holder MUST defend their trademarks, or they risk losing them. Google is struggling with this, as they're trying to encourage people not to use it as a generic verb.

Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)

[revjay]

whenever i hear podcast i immediately think of apple, so why is apple shutting down free advertising?

Ever think that Apple might not want you to think of them when you download some of the crap podcasts that would be, and have already become available???

Apple would lose control of something they have been able to, for the most part, control up to now.

Like Janet Jackson, Apple likes control.

[Bern]

The phrase Podcast didn't exist until the development of Apple's iPod so I don't see why they shouldn't own the rights to it or at least have some level of control for it's use.

[Abstract]

The phrase Podcast didn't exist until the development of Apple's iPod....

So? Some words like "Podcast" are adopted from popular culture. I still talk about Walkmans, not "Portable Audio Cassette Decks". Imagine how annoying that would be to say every time?

I can understand why they want to protect the iPod name. That is their name, and that is their product. However, they really should leave "Podcast" alone. Having a "Podcast" is like the ultimate insult to everyone like Creative, Microsoft, etc. The name "Podcast" exists not because people want to leech off of the iPod's popularity, but because of the iPods popularity, and how endeared it is by our culture. These "Podcasts" were created to be downloaded onto iPods so that people can listen. In our society, iPod comes to mind first. Nobody was thinking of creating these audiocasts with the Creative Zen or MS Zune in mind. If they end up on a Zune, that's fine, but the thought was to get their content on iPods, which is really quite a compliment to Apple when you think about it.

Apple should really reconsider their actions.

[theBB]

According to US law, a trademark holder MUST defend their trademarks, or they risk losing them. Google is struggling with this, as they're trying to encourage people not to use it as a generic verb.

Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)
I was going to point out that Bayer already lost Aspirin and Xerox came very close, but thanks for the link. Still, podcast is different enough compared to iPod that Apple is probably not at risk. However, "probably" is not the same as "definitely".

[Deputy-Dawg]

Kimberly Clark fought, and lost, the same battle over 'kleenex' becoming a generic noun for facial tissue. Bayer lost it over 'asprin' as the name for sodium acetosalcylate. And there are numerous other examples. All were lost because the owners of the trade name did not vigorously defend their trade name. Apple is doing what it must. Will they suceed? If history is any clue probably not

[fastred]

Cripes... it helps to *read* around a bit before loosing your rag...

Bloggers always go overboard on this stuff. It is clear that Apple is trying to protect their "iPod" brand, not attack "podcast" per se...

See the Zdnet dicussion of this, which includes an excerpt of a letter from Apple which specifically excludes "podcast" as a term they are seeking to protect...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1252

To many people jump on bandwagons before they check their facts...

[iMeowbot]

Kimberly Clark fought, and lost, the same battle over 'kleenex' becoming a generic noun for facial tissue.
Their mark is still valid, other tissues still can't call themselves "kleenex".
Bayer lost it over 'asprin' as the name for sodium acetosalcylate.
That was punishment against the German government at the end of World War I. The country was stripped of pretty much all intellectual property that was used internationally.

A real example of a trademark lost through sloppy protection on the part of the owner is Escalator. Otis Elevator lost the mark because even they didn't take care to use it as a proper name.

[gwangung]

So? Some words like "Podcast" are adopted from popular culture. I still talk about Walkmans, not "Portable Audio Cassette Decks". Imagine how annoying that would be to say every time?

I can understand why they want to protect the iPod name. That is their name, and that is their product. However, they really should leave "Podcast" alone. Having a "Podcast" is like the ultimate insult to everyone like Creative, Microsoft, etc. The name "Podcast" exists not because people want to leech off of the iPod's popularity, but because of the iPods popularity, and how endeared it is by our culture. These "Podcasts" were created to be downloaded onto iPods so that people can listen. In our society, iPod comes to mind first. Nobody was thinking of creating these audiocasts with the Creative Zen or MS Zune in mind. If they end up on a Zune, that's fine, but the thought was to get their content on iPods, which is really quite a compliment to Apple when you think about it.

Apple should really reconsider their actions.

Hm?

This really doesn't make sense.

The word "Podcast" is derived from iPod, of course, but the CONCEPT of podcast is not inherently ipod-related. Because of that, it inherently dilutes the iPod trademark. You could just as easily call it an MP3-cast, and not have people be confused that it's coming from Apple (and the fact that Apple has been continually trying to trademark iPodcast itself for quite some time is another interesting bit of info).

The very fact that you're trying to have it cover Zune, Creative, etc. when it's derived from a specific product shows that Apple HAS to protect its trademark, particularly when another company is trying to profit from that name.

[WildCowboy]

Their mark is still valid, other tissues still can't call themselves "kleenex".

Correct. Wikipedia has a good list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks) of generic (almost certainly no longer enforceable) trademarks and genericized (commonly used generically but regarded as defendable) trademarks.

[bcsmith]

The only thing that I'm skeptical about this whole thing is that the actual cease and desist letter has not been published. All we have are a few people claiming that Apple has slapped them with a letter and the "poor us" act. Once I see the letter I'll be more apt to believe these claims, until then I think that they are just trying to drum up hits on their sites...

[840quadra]

I am actually afraid of this for Apple!

This is just going to give bad press, and get people to start to compare Apple to the RIAA with regards to lawsuits.

I understand Apple wanting to protect it's name, however they promoted podcasting , and do within many of their products, so trademarking it is just going to crush the little guys that recently started to support and like Apple.

I think this is a bad move, and worries me!

[iMeowbot]

Once I see the letter I'll be more apt to believe these claims, until then I think that they are just trying to drum up hits on their sites...
Here you go (http://www.podcastready.com/info.php?section=8&page=41).

[bloodycape]

Kind of reminds me of how Monster Cable went after everything that had the word monster in it, like the movie Monsters INC., Monster.com and others.

[840quadra]

Here you go (http://www.podcastready.com/info.php?section=8&page=41).

Those bots are too dang quick!

You beat me to it!

[longofest]

According to US law, a trademark holder MUST defend their trademarks, or they risk losing them. Google is struggling with this, as they're trying to encourage people not to use it as a generic verb.

Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)

The question is, what trademark is Apple defending? Going after a podcasting company when all you have trademarked is the iPod may be trying to stretch your trademark a bit far.

[Tourist]

Those bots are too dang quick!

You beat me to it!


This is a beat up over podcast which apple admit is generic to downloaded audio , but I can see what Apple are concerned about. This company is attempting to register marks in areas that Apple already cover with POD and iPOD,

Claiming that mypodder sounds like iPOD is probably stretching it a little bit, but hey gotta keep those lawyers in Business, where is Denny Crane when you need him.

[amols]

Correct. Wikipedia has a good list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks) of generic (almost certainly no longer enforceable) trademarks and genericized (commonly used generically but regarded as defendable) trademarks.

Apple let this go and next thing they'll find themselves defending is a term 'iPod', because it has become as generic as Walkman. Frankly, not many guys know that there is a computer company called Apple which is the only manufacturer of iPod. I showed my new iPod to couple of my friends and they asked whether it is from Sony or HP :eek:

[Abstract]

Hm?

This really doesn't make sense.

The word "Podcast" is derived from iPod, of course, but the CONCEPT of podcast is not inherently ipod-related. Because of that, it inherently dilutes the iPod trademark. You could just as easily call it an MP3-cast, and not have people be confused that it's coming from Apple (and the fact that Apple has been continually trying to trademark iPodcast itself for quite some time is another interesting bit of info).

The very fact that you're trying to have it cover Zune, Creative, etc. when it's derived from a specific product shows that Apple HAS to protect its trademark, particularly when another company is trying to profit from that name.


Well Steve Jobs has promoted the popularity of Podcasts, and how many are available right now from so many sources.

Steve Jobs basically named them Podcasts himself. Then he promoted their popularity and how easy they are to obtain from the iTMS for free.

And yes, people could have called them MP3Casts, but using a slight derivation of the name of a very popular cultural icon shouldn't be wrong. I wonder how much Microsoft would love it if the whole world renamed their Podcast as "ZuneCast" instead?

[iMeowbot]

Those bots are too dang quick!
I'm a bot with more bots at my beck and call… the grey goo is only a matter of time, meh meh meh.

For fun, here (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qs=78459101) is a list of the parties who expect to file opposition to the Pod trademark application. They are Secure-It (http://www.secure-it.com/), Varsity Group (http://www.varsitygroup.com/), VNU Media Measurement (Nielsen/Soundscan (http://www.vnu.com/about/companyProfile/mediaMeasurement.html)), TastyBytes (http://www.tastybytessoftware.com), Podfitness (https://www.podfitness.com), and Line 6 (http://www.line6.com/).

[mdntcallr]

hell i think apple created the POD name in popular imagination.

they need to protect the product brand name POD from being brought down in value by companies like PODFITNESS and others, that use their name in it.

Apple needs to protect the brand name. but need to do it nicely.

hard thing to balance. lets hope it goes ok.

[XNine]

You know what? There was an ex-MTV VJ that made his own show using a Powerbook and two mics and he called it "Podcasting." There was an issue of Wired Magazine with him on the cover damn near two years ago. People were using the term "podcast" before Apple did. Apple has no right to do thsi to teh people who've made their player the most successful MP3/Portable Media device EVER.

*kicks steve jobs in the nuts for allowing this*

[scottlinux]

http://digg.com/tech_news/Leo_Laporte_proposes_using_the_term_netcast_instead_of_podcast

Netcast.

[Flowbee]

Apple is *not* sending cease and desist letters to everyone who ever made a podcast and called it a "podcast." This is an action against a company called Podcast Ready which distributes software called myPodder, which clearly capitalizes on the name of Apple's iPod. This seems to be more a case of Apple trying to reign in companies whose products are treading too closely to the iPod name, rather than Apple's attempt to forbid anyone to use the term "Podcast."

Apple understands the marketing value of a popular term like Podcast, but there's a delicate balance between encouraging people to use it, and giving away your rights to it. I personally don't think Apple was out of line in this case. Of course, I reserve the right to change my opinion when I get *my* cease and desist letter. :p

[Stridder44]

Im enjoying this chaos. Personally, unless it's music, podcasts are a bore and a waste of time. They're worse than blogs. Ok, maybe not that bad.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I say they sue Leonard Nimoy and the entire cast of the remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[yoshi31]

The only thing that I'm skeptical about this whole thing is that the actual cease and desist letter has not been published. All we have are a few people claiming that Apple has slapped them with a letter and the "poor us" act. Once I see the letter I'll be more apt to believe these claims, until then I think that they are just trying to drum up hits on their sites...

http://blog.wired.com/music/index.blog?entry_id=1562695

[alFR]

See that roughly spherical, green/red piece of fruit in your lunchbox? Better start thinking of another name for it before the cease-and-desist letters start arriving....

[susannahyork]

they came in something called a frypod. This was at burger king.

[Phil A.]

I wish people would actually read the letter before jumping on Apple's back! It clearly states: "While Apple, of course, has no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term podcast as part of a trademark for goods and services in the podcast field...."

[gauchogolfer]

I guess Apple has a problem with the free advertising, for some reason. Being associated with new technology like podcasting seems like something Apple would like to foster.

Would they prefer them to be called 'Zune-casts' ???

I'm with ya, Onizuka!

You know what? There was an ex-MTV VJ that made his own show using a Powerbook and two mics and he called it "Podcasting." There was an issue of Wired Magazine with him on the cover damn near two years ago. People were using the term "podcast" before Apple did. Apple has no right to do thsi to teh people who've made their player the most successful MP3/Portable Media device EVER.

*kicks steve jobs in the nuts for allowing this*

[gauchogolfer]

Apple understands the marketing value of a popular term like Podcast, but there's a delicate balance between encouraging people to use it, and giving away your rights to it. I personally don't think Apple was out of line in this case.

But here you're implying that Apple has any rights at all to the word podcast, when it was clearly invented by someone else (Adam Curry, perhaps, though there is some debate; it was certainly not Apple Computer). How in the heck can they make a claim? It's not like they are called iPodcasts. That I could see being an infringement. Just how far are they intending to go with the word 'pod'?

Watch out Flowbee, if you really are a 'podophile', you might be in someone's sights :).

[generik]

Apple is right to sue IMO, what does the Pod in Podcasting refer to? The iPod of course!

If not for the iPod, Podcasting would have no meaning.

[Daveydje]

I've no real issue with them trying to protect 'iPod', the issue of 'pod' as a brand though is very different.

the "carrying cases, sacks, and bags" bit could cause problems, as Pod rucksacks (POD sacs are popular in outdoor activities circles) have been around a hell of alot longer than iPods (I'm told Pod Shoes found that out the hard way, when they tried get into the backpack business.) ;)

[iAlan]

So? Some words like "Podcast" are adopted from popular culture. I still talk about Walkmans, not "Portable Audio Cassette Decks". Imagine how annoying that would be to say every time?
Apple should really reconsider their actions.

Good point there! I think Apple may in fact be more likely to not want anyone else to get control and 'bastardize' the use. I think it would be good for Apple to gain 'ownership' but not to exert the right that this might entail.

[gauchogolfer]

Apple is right to sue IMO, what does the Pod in Podcasting refer to? The iPod of course!

If not for the iPod, Podcasting would have no meaning.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this type of extension is really defensible. There must be limits on what Apple can trademark and control with reference to the word 'pod'. What about the website 'podshow'? Should they be allowed to register? Extending the reach of the iPod brand into regions that are phonetically the same i.e. myPodder, is troubling to me, but less so than iPodder, for example. Defending the "brand name" iPod is a completely different issue from preventing other uses of the word "pod" in the digital media sphere.

[iMeowbot]

Good point there! I think Apple may in fact be more likely to not want anyone else to get control and 'bastardize' the use. I think it would be good for Apple to gain 'ownership' but not to exert the right that this might entail.
That's the trouble with trademarks, they are use-it-or-lose-it propositions. You can't simply hold them in trust without actively defending them :(

[whooleytoo]

But here you're implying that Apple has any rights at all to the word podcast, when it was clearly invented by someone else (Adam Curry, perhaps, though there is some debate; it was certainly not Apple Computer). How in the heck can they make a claim? It's not like they are called iPodcasts. That I could see being an infringement. Just how far are they intending to go with the word 'pod'?

I agree wholeheartedly - how can they trademark a term someone else created?

For a company that was so rebellious and different in its infancy, Apple sure is getting cranky in its middle age.

[tekmoe]

money hungry wolves. makes me wonder if it's just some bigshot lawyers who are reallying trying to win the battles and Apple is giving them the OK. nonetheless, i think it is wrong and it's pretty sad that Apple is doing it to begin with. just another corporate slaughterhouse.

[BenRoethig]

Podcast is a generic term now. This is complete B.S.

[twilson]

Hm?
The word "Podcast" is derived from iPod, of course, but the CONCEPT of podcast is not inherently ipod-related. Because of that, it inherently dilutes the iPod trademark.

You can't trademark a CONCEPT, the thing you would be looking for there is a PATENT (God forbid).

[iMikeT]

I think that Apple is doing a much better effort at protecting its assets. Keep in mind what happened a certain software giant (who's name will be omitted but is known for making a poor rip-off of the Mac operating system) got away with stealing from Apple...:rolleyes:

[rashdown_online]

Ok, iPod is fine for a TM.

aiPod and eyePod, That's a bit different.

But POD!!!

So, are Apple going to sue the BBC (amongst other) for having Pod casts? Everytime a member of the media of the celeb mention podcast, are Apple going to chase royalties???

This is really quite close to the mark!

What about the the phrase "2 peas in a pod"?...

It may just be me, but if this continues, I'm going to throw out all my things MAC, and go back to Micr$oft. That's how really ANTI them I'm feeling at the moment.

OI! APPLE LAWERS!!! YEAH YOU!!! Read some Mintzberg, or Mead, or (and I'd strongly advise this) Andrew Bailey. Basically, get those HBS grads out of your org and stop using crappy outdated Business School Methods. It was once the way to go. But what they don't consider are Gender and Cultures! You wanna piss me off: You loose my custom.

Sorry for the moan, but the litigation era was over in the 90's.

It's about Love Marks now, and your Lawers are hurting your brand!!! Fix it before it's too late!

[Frisco]

CBS is now using the term NetCast (http://www.cbs.com/netcast/)

Goodbye free advertising for the iPod!

[iSee]

There are two things going on here, that are very different:

Apple cannot own the word "pod." Sorry guys, you built your brand on a regular 'ol common word. Apple derived a benefit from using an existing word as part of their product name and they can't just turn that around and take the whole damn word for themselves. They could have called it the "iKerbock" you know, and they'd now own "kerbock." But then, they wouldn't have sold as many iKerbocks as iPods, I'd bet.

However, iPod is Apple's word and they should clearly be able to stop people from using it, especially in an mp3 playing context.

podcast - public domain word
iPodcast - infriges on Apple's trademark.

To put it another way: If Apple can decide to own the word pod, what other words can be owned?

[podcast411]

http://media.libsyn.com/media/podcast411/411_060925.mp3

There has been a lot of misreporting on this issue the last few days. I clear up this issue in my latest podcast. Where I talked to the USPTO, read the actuall letter and talked to the people that actually applied for the term Podcast.

Rob @ podCast411

[dhlvrsn]

Apple needs to be very vigorous in defending the iPod TM. Not sure if anyone else caught it but with the updated iPod line CNN ran a story. In it the woman stated that Apple currently controls "70% of the iPod market." Unless the rebranded HP models are selling like hotcakes sounds like a generic use of the term to me.

[Gasu E.]

According to US law, a trademark holder MUST defend their trademarks, or they risk losing them. Google is struggling with this, as they're trying to encourage people not to use it as a generic verb.

Wikipedia Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademark)

Absolutely. Having received a couple of cease-and-desist letters myself (from Microsoft, actually), I think Apple's letter to Podcast Ready is extremely polite and accomodating for letters of this type. Also, note it was carefully crafted just for Podcast Ready, undoubtedly at significant expense. If Apple had a larger agenda of controlling the term "podcast" in all its uses, I suspected this note would have been a bit more boiler-plate and re-usable.

My take on this is not that Apple is trying to own all uses of the term pod or podcast, but to establish the legal boundaries between the reach of their trademarks and common usage. In order to do this, Apple has to take a somewhat aggressive stance. The actual boundary will be adjudicated by negotiation, and at some point, probably the courts.

[Gasu E.]

There are two things going on here, that are very different:

Apple cannot own the word "pod." Sorry guys, you built your brand on a regular 'ol common word. Apple derived a benefit from using an existing word as part of their product name and they can't just turn that around and take the whole damn word for themselves. They could have called it the "iKerbock" you know, and they'd now own "kerbock." But then, they wouldn't have sold as many iKerbocks as iPods, I'd bet.

However, iPod is Apple's word and they should clearly be able to stop people from using it, especially in an mp3 playing context.

podcast - public domain word
iPodcast - infriges on Apple's trademark.

To put it another way: If Apple can decide to own the word pod, what other words can be owned?

Apple never claimed to own the word "pod" in all contexts. If someone called an mp2 player a "SoundPod", you'd agree that would be a clear violation, correct? Apple is not claiming "seed pod", "escape pod", or "sleep pod" as violations.

[Gasu E.]

OI! APPLE LAWERS!!! YEAH YOU!!! Read some Mintzberg, or Mead, or (and I'd strongly advise this) Andrew Bailey. Basically, get those HBS grads out of your org and stop using crappy outdated Business School Methods. It was once the way to go. But what they don't consider are Gender and Cultures! You wanna piss me off: You loose my custom.

Sorry for the moan, but the litigation era was over in the 90's.

It's about Love Marks now, and your Lawers are hurting your brand!!! Fix it before it's too late!

Oh, calm down and read all the links. There's been no litigation. Apple was pretty damn polite in its one cease-and-desist. Under US law, if you don't defend your trademarks you lose them, and the links discussing their trademark applications indicate that Apple may already be in trouble on that score already.

P.S. I read Mintzberg in business school in 1981. "Gender and Cultures" is a non sequiter right out of a university course catalog. ROFL. YDKWTFYATA.

[AndyGUK]

Maybe I'm reading the letter wrong or perhaps just missing the point but it seems to me that Apple isn't claiming either the term "podcast ready" or "mypodder" but actually trying to stop Infostructure Solutions Inc from registering them as trademarks.

If Infostructure Solutions are successful in their application they'd be able to stop Apple and anybody else for that matter from using either of terms (or anything closely related). The letter makes it clear it doesn't object to the use of Podcast Ready as the company's name just to it's application to trademark the name.

It seems to me that Apple are the good guys here for once, slapping down a company that is trying to trademark terms that are already in use albeit in a niche market!

[whooleytoo]

It seems to me that Apple are the good guys here for once, slapping down a company that is trying to trademark terms that are already in use albeit in a niche market!

Personally, I can't see how Apple could be seen to be the good guys in this case, given they're sending cease-and-desist letters to people using 'pod' (not "iPod") in their product names.

[AndyGUK]

Except they're not trying to stop anybody "using" those names.

The letter is opposing a company trade marking not simply using

1. a generic term .... "podcast ready"...... should everyone who uses this term in future pay a royalty or get a c and d letter from Infostructure Systems Inc?

2. stop the trade marking of a product deliberately named to cause confusion with someoner else's product.......if Apple didn't oppose this, and the trademark was granted they'd be equally likely to be sued for infringement should they use phrases like "ipodder" or "my ipod" in any product they marketed as they infringe a registered trademark!

Maybe you should try to trademark the name of an Music Player that comes in grey, brown or blue called an eye-pod or one that plays brass band music from Yorkshire - an Aye-Pod :D

[gauchogolfer]

Personally, I can't see how Apple could be seen to be the good guys in this case, given they're sending cease-and-desist letters to people using 'pod' (not "iPod") in their product names.

I'm actually reversing myself here, now that I've gotten a chance to read it. This isn't a true C&D letter, in fact, they're only opening up a dialog. Also, the pod reference is specific to content loaded onto portable media players, not 'pod' in general. Seems reasonable to me.

[Archmagination]

Is it me or do most of the people who posted in this thread don't know how to read?

Apple ISN'T OBJECTING TO USING THE WORD PODCAST What they are doing is trying to stop this company from doing things like marketing ipodcast and things like that.. AGAIN APPLE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT PODCAST WAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THEIR CEASE AND DESIST REQUEST.

[nagromme]

What you forget is that many Apple users will turn on Apple without proof at the slightest hint of anything to object to, however trivial :)

So much for being mindless Apple-praising "sheep" and "zealots" :D

[peharri]

I wish people would actually read the letter before jumping on Apple's back! It clearly states: "While Apple, of course, has no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term podcast as part of a trademark for goods and services in the podcast field...."

That's how I read it too. The poll needs to be changed, right now it's like one of those Fox news polls:

Q: Are you in favour of the War in Iraq?

1. Yes, I support our troops and America! I think Bush should be President for years!
2. No, I'm a coward and I also support Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

[MacCurry]

This just goes to show that Apple is in reality no better than Wal-Mart (who may be trying to thwart iTV) and Microsoft (criticized for monopolistic practices).

I wish Apple Corps (The Beatles) would sue Apple computer's pants off for infringing on their name.

[SPUY767]

This just goes to show that Apple is in reality no better than Wal-Mart (who may be trying to thwart iTV) and Microsoft (criticized for monopolistic practices).

I wish Apple Corps (The Beatles) would sue Apple computer's pants off for infringing on their name.


:Crickets:

Apple records have been suing apple computer for about 25 years, ever since the first apple computers were capable of producing sound.

Second, that's a dumb thing to say because the two companies are in different markets. It would be akin to a company named Slithe Manufacturing which made car parts suing a company named Slithe Bakeries. There is no place in the world for hollow logic like that.

[whooleytoo]

I'm obviously missing something obvious - where is the text of the cease and desist letter. Is it contained in one of the links in the original article?

[MacCurry]

SPUY767,

Tounge-in-cheek comment, but I am somewhat miffed at Apple because of this.

[SPUY767]

SPUY767,

Tounge-in-cheek comment, but I am somewhat miffed at Apple because of this.


The good lord brought me to these forums to piss people off. :D

[MacNut]

You know what? There was an ex-MTV VJ that made his own show using a Powerbook and two mics and he called it "Podcasting." There was an issue of Wired Magazine with him on the cover damn near two years ago. People were using the term "podcast" before Apple did. Apple has no right to do thsi to teh people who've made their player the most successful MP3/Portable Media device EVER.

*kicks steve jobs in the nuts for allowing this*Yes Adam Curry should own the name "Podcast" since he is the one that coined the term.

[tveric]

What you forget is that many Apple users will turn on Apple without proof at the slightest hint of anything to object to, however trivial :)

So much for being mindless Apple-praising "sheep" and "zealots" :D

You're pretty close to nailing it there - in truth, they're still sheep and zealots, terms that imply a lack of ability to think for oneself and an over-the-top reaction when someone else makes up, or changes, their mind for them. It's the same morons, they just rush to extremes no matter what.

As for the pod thing - true, Apple doesn't own the word "pod", but it's perfectly reasonable to protect your iPod trademark so that someone else doesn't start making mp3 players called a MePod or something. I can't see how anyone can fault Apple for that. Trademark is not at all like copyright - if you don't actively protect your TM through the legal process, someone later CAN theoretically market their MePod and claim in court that since Apple didn't protect their trademark in a similar case, they can call their player a MePod, and perhaps even trademark THAT.

It's a jacked-up system, but you gotta play by the rules, I guess, if you want your product name protected.

[tringo]

Yes Adam Curry should own the name "Podcast" since he is the one that coined the term.

Thank you very much, I was worried that I would read this whole thread and no-one would know about Adam Curry. Him and his friend came up with the name a long time ago ago and theoretically it was the first "podacst" ever.

Also, Apple is being very ignorant here. Its not called an iPodcast, so how on earth can they clame that anything with the word "pod" in it must refer to the iPod. Absolute BS, grow up Apple.

[Kingsly]

Not sure if this has been shown yet:

[spicyapple]

Hey everybody, you can continue using the term 'podcast'. It was a false alarm. Continue on with your daily routine...

[mccoma]

gotta love Wired's stellar reporting and fact checking. I swear, page hit advertising is going to be the end of good journalism.

[whooleytoo]

You're pretty close to nailing it there - in truth, they're still sheep and zealots, terms that imply a lack of ability to think for oneself and an over-the-top reaction when someone else makes up, or changes, their mind for them. It's the same morons, they just rush to extremes no matter what.


Woah, woah, woah.

First of all, the "cease and desist" letter wasn't posted here until the second page of the thread, hence all we had to go on was the other sites' reports. (And even I missed that one post until just now).

And even having read that letter, I'm still opposed to Apple's moves and intentions here. They're still trying to trademark the word "Pod", which I think is utterly farcical.

Never mind the delicious irony in Apple objecting to the phonetic similarity between iPod and MyPodder, when iPod was obviously chosen to leverage the phonetic similarity with a familiar word ("tripod") - could MyPodder not argue they were doing likewise? Never mind the fact that the Apple name was 'borrowed' from another company, and was the name of one of its products ("Classic") was taken verbatim from another company.

[WildCowboy]

And even having read that letter, I'm still opposed to Apple's moves and intentions here. They're still trying to trademark the word "Pod", which I think is utterly farcical.

What you need to keep in mind is that trademarks are not universal. They are trying to trademark usage of the word "Pod" within the arena of digital music players only:

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing audio files, and peripherals for use therewith; computer software for use in organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing audio files on portable and handheld digital electronic devices

How "pod" is used in the context of vegetables, spaceship evacuation mechanisms, or whaling is completely irrelevant to any discussion here.

[whooleytoo]

What you need to keep in mind is that trademarks are not universal. They are trying to trademark usage of the word "Pod" within the arena of digital music players only:

A very fair point. But even within that (relatively) limited domain, I believe attempting to trademark a 'generic' word (i.e. not an artificial label/title), especially one which was already in common usage in many other companies products is farcical :- to me at least.

To look at a parallel, I think Sony should have fought harder to protect their Walkman moniker, but shouldn't under any circumstances have been given the trademarks "Walk" or "Man". If companies want to protect their trademarks - fine, then they shouldn't choose generic, everyday words. IMO.

[WildCowboy]

A very fair point. But even within that (relatively) limited domain, I believe attempting to trademark a 'generic' word (i.e. not an artificial label/title), especially one which was already in common usage in many other companies products is farcical :- to me at least.

To look at a parallel, I think Sony should have fought harder to protect their Walkman moniker, but shouldn't under any circumstances have been given the trademarks "Walk" or "Man". If companies want to protect their trademarks - fine, then they shouldn't choose generic, everyday words. IMO.

So should Apple not have been granted any of their trademarks for use of the word "Apple?"

[whooleytoo]

So should Apple not have been granted any of their trademarks for use of the word "Apple?"

Well, bear in mind they were sued (successfully, the first time around) for using that! ;)

I'm more concerned with trademark names of products rather than companies, given that each company could have dozens of products, hence there is much greater potential for contention over product trademarks than company trademarks.

Honestly, I don't have much problem where company or product trademarks are generic terms not directly associated with their respective industries, for instance Apple Computers ("Elephant Cars", "Earthquake Chocolates" etc..) The potential for name contention there isn't that great.

But when companies attempt trademark generic terms which have relevance in that specific domain - such as "pod" for a portable device for storing and carrying digital media, the likelihood for contention over names skyrockets.

I don't really have much sympathy for any company who wants to leverage familiarity/phonetic similarity with everyday words, but then in turn fights to have exclusive rights to phonetic variations of it.

[WildCowboy]

Okay...forgive my ignorance in the computer field, but what is the history of the usage of the word "pod" here?

[tveric]

Well, bear in mind they were sued (successfully, the first time around) for using that! ;)


I can only assume you're referring to Apple Music, the Beatles' publishing company. In which case, the irony here is quite hilarious.

You seem to know precious little about US trademark law. To sum Apple's intentions here: protection of their iPod trademark is their objective. I think we can all agree that no one is trying to trademark just the word "pod".

But if someone else creates a product in the arena of digital music, and the name of their product intends to capitalize on the popularity of the term "iPod", then if Apple doesn't actively protect their trademark, they run the risk of losing rights to the trademark entirely, so that in fact, not only would someone in the future be allowed to sell under a "mypodder" or similar name, they could actually create ipod clones and sell them under the name iPod!

Of course, it'd never get that far, since you'd have to have legal department of morons to allow that to happen.