Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Podcast Trademark Controversy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think that Apple is doing a much better effort at protecting its assets. Keep in mind what happened a certain software giant (who's name will be omitted but is known for making a poor rip-off of the Mac operating system) got away with stealing from Apple...
iPod and POD!!!
Ok, iPod is fine for a TM.
aiPod and eyePod, That's a bit different.
But POD!!!
So, are Apple going to sue the BBC (amongst other) for having Pod casts? Everytime a member of the media of the celeb mention podcast, are Apple going to chase royalties???
This is really quite close to the mark!
What about the the phrase "2 peas in a pod"?...
It may just be me, but if this continues, I'm going to throw out all my things MAC, and go back to Micr$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 Basically, get those HBS grads out of your org and stop using crappy outdated Business School Methods.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!
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 Basically, get those HBS grads out of your org and stop using crappy outdated Business School Methods.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!
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 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?
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
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
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.
WildCowboy said:
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.
iSee said:
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.
rashdown_online said:
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.
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!
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!
AndyGUK said:
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.
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
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
whooleytoo said:
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.
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.
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.
Phil A. said:
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.
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.
I wish Apple Corps (The Beatles) would sue Apple computer's pants off for infringing on their name.
MacCurry said:
: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.
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?
nagromme said: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"
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.
MacNut said:
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.