Podcast Trademark Controversy

[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.