What is Digg?74 Comments
- TexMachina, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38This is ridiculous. Our touchy feely patriarch at Apple needs to put his mad-dog lawyers on a shorter leash. Unless of course I am wrong about the touchy feely part and Jobs has just deluded himself into thinking this was a good idea.
I recall Exxon's suing people for trademark infringement on for the use of a double X as in their own name. They must have sued Dos XX and all XXL size clothing I imagine. Maybe they can find a precedent there that will shut up Apple on this matter. - o0joshua0o, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18The dry pea and lentil industry should be up in arms over this! And trust me, that's one group of people you don't want to piss off....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16For me, I thought the "jump the shark" moment was when Apple nearly forced you to download itunes when you were trying to download quicktime. It was such a microsoft move.
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20This is Apple's official "Jump the Shark" moment.
This is the point where the shine comes off and even the fanboys will see them as no different than any other company with an unholy army of lawyers. - unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Pod" is not a common abbreviation for iPod. When someone asks me about my mp3 player, I tell them "it's an iPod". When referring to the actual device, iPod is never abbreviated.
If anything, "pod" has become an abbreviation for "MP3 player" - like PodCasting. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I've never heard any of their music players referred to as a "pod," either in the media or in my social sphere, and I live and work just north of Silicon Valley. Apple can do better than this.
- daprice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13So if Apple comes out with iPhone, will they want to trademark "phone"??
- timbitca, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Ridiculous.
- ihaveduff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9No, that's when they'll trademark "i"
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10""The term pod has been adopted and used extensively in the marketplace by consumers as an abbreviation to refer to Apple's iPod player.""
What a load of *****, I've never heard anyone call the ipod "pod" Whats the deal with Apple suddenly playing like they are Microsoft but more evil? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Trademarks work by class. In other words, they are only applicable to the specific medium that they are being applied to. For the class of electronics (or whatever the USPTO puts it under) what else would a Pod be? Let them have it.
This is not nearly as absurd as Ralph Lauren trying to trademark the word "Polo" in all classes and dropping C&D on polo sports organizations when that's what the brand was named after in the first place. - liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Haha, looks like an Apple fanboy or Steve Jobs himself came through and modded down all the comments. Everyone is at Zero. :D
- Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Just because they have the trademark for "pod" doesn't mean other companies can't use it. A trademark only extends to related fields. You could sell "pod" cereal, you just couldn't sell a "pod" mp3 player."
---------------------------------
Yes, but does this not also mean that Apple will go after any mp3 player that advertises itself as "podcast-capable"? Will Apple allow Creative, SanDisk, and Microsoft to advertise their players being able to play "podcasts"? - Godel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Just because they have the trademark for "pod" doesn't mean other companies can't use it. A trademark only extends to related fields. You could sell "pod" cereal, you just couldn't sell a "pod" mp3 player.
- liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Agreed. I think they should adopt the "Do more evil" approach. Then they could patent "I-evil" and "Evil".
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"They must have sued Dos XX and all XXL size clothing I imagine."
Yeah, like they can sue in unrelated markets... :-p
Same reason for why this isn't that bad, it just protects Apple from brands like some "xPod media player". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You mean Apple Records only ame after Apple computers when they entered the SAME MARKET (music)?
Those bastsards! - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Apple shouldn't get it because Line 6 already had their POD amp modeler in the market before Apple put out the iPod. Both products are music related. The iPod plays music while Line 6's POD is used while playing a guitar or bass.
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You mean eat their peas... honestly.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11oh, apple = evil like microsoft....???? nooooo, never!!!!!!
- tomwsmf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Is this the same APPLE who was SUED for using the name APPLE?
Short memory, expensive lawyers, and a customer base who keeps them profitable so they can keep doing this sort of thing.
So how you like your over priced mp3 player now cultofapple?
-tomwsmf - LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They wouldn't be able to. Two things might kick in if there was ever an Apple vs Podfoods. One possible defense is podfoods was around before iPod. The other is that both companies are in entirely different markets. PodFoods could argue that the Apple brand name confuses apple (the food) buyers.
I also find it interesting that someone has come through and knocked every single posting down by 1. Go figure. - williamhelmick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bort: get quicktime alternative (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alternative.htm) and you won't have to worry about it again. or any annoying startup processes, for that matter (qttask.exe).
- unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Oh, and +1 to the commenter in the original article that pointed out that Apple Computer stole their own company name from Apple Records, and has been sued repeatedly over that....
Ironic. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The term pod has been adopted and used extensively in the marketplace by consumers as an abbreviation to refer to Apple's iPod player."
No it hasn't... I always refer to my iPod as an "iPod" So, they want to call their player "Foot" now? - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.g5.com/ ---- Not computers.
http://www.mini.com/mini_worldwide/mini_worldwide.html ---- Not computers.
http://www.cast.org/ ---- Apple doesn't own the TM for cast and won't even try.
http://www.finalcut.com/ ---- Nothing to do with video editing.
http://www.nano.gov/ ----- Doesn't look like an audio player to me.
As many others in this thread, you don't understand Trademark law. - liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The term pod has been adopted and used extensively in the marketplace by consumers as an abbreviation to refer to Apple's iPod player."
Am I the only one to have never heard someone refer to thier Ipod as "Pod"? - LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@enjourni:
Obviously you forgot the whole thing about Apple Corps suing Apple Computer way back in 1978, with the explicit settlement that Apple Computer would not enter the music industry. They were then sued again in 1989 after adding an advanced synth chip to the IIgs, to which they once again settled. In 1991, they were sued yet again over the "Sosumi" system sound. This case is important, however, because the settlement outlined each companies' trademark rights - Apple Corps held the right to use Apple on any "creative works whose principal content is music", while Apple Computer held the right to use Apple on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content", but not on content distributed on physical media. That was the whole reason they got sued when they opened the iTMS. Apple Computer tried to settle for $1m, with the right to use the name Apple on the iTMS, but Apple Corps rejected it. This time, the suit actually went through court, where the judge ruled for Apple Computer (of course, Apple Corps appealed). This was in May of this year, so I'm not sure if there are any further developments on the appeal, but it seems that Apple Computer came out on top, in the long run. - StephenChow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Quick, go here for Leo's thoughts on it!: http://www.twit.tv/2006/09/22/a_cast_by_any_other_name
Or don't. - harrisonpowers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah, I agree with the general consensus on this being pretty damn bad.
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What?? Yes you can. How about "Dodge" (the cars)
- AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A search at the USPTO shows several hundred applications filed with the word Pod, and many of them already granted registration.
I'm not going to go through and find out how many of those pertain to music and MP3 players though.
Podcast Ready filed their initial application in November 2005, number 78814646, followed by 78813826, 78813822, and 78761085. Apple's initial application went in November 2004, number 78459101, published for opposition August 15, 2006. That means that it's the last chance for someone to challenge their right to the trademark.
Believe it or not, but Apple has yet to secure the trademark to iPod. Number 78521796 - Kwekubo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If this is true (and it's a big if), then this is a very stupid move by Apple's lawyers. The backlash from podcasters and listeners will be terrible.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This is Apple's official "Jump the Shark" moment."
Or perhaps you just don't know the whole story?
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/september#thu-28-mdj_pod - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are clueless, you don't understand TradeMark law.
Try to release a clothes-washing detergent called Tide... have fun being sued.
Tide doesn't mean detergent, yet it's trademarked as such. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1save yourself, those of us that already own one - we're now podpeople
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why does "Attack of the Pod People" come to mind?
Anyhow, I think I see where they're coming from with this, but I think they're misunderstanding the market in the context. I see _ALOT_ of knockoffs spinning on the name iPod. But the name is usually a spin on the 'i' not 'pod' For instance, iChair, iRadio, iBag, etc. I even spotted one shady store positioning iSticks (actually from PQI) as a product from Apple.
I can see how the whole i* thing is a little confusing with Apple selling iPods and iMacs, but confusing pods? I think that would be a good thing for Apple, wouldn't it? Bring more awareness (not that they need it) to the whole iPod lineup? - thedreaming1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Remember when starwars.com went up? They sent C&D letters to everyone that had a starwars fansite. Eventually, their braincell kicked in and they realized that was a stupid thing to do and they let them be. Same thing happened when startrek.com went up. It was a stupid idea to kill fan sites. It's like slapping your customers in their face for liking your product!
This is no different. Apple didn't invent pod-casting, they created an mp3 player that everyone loves to use. So much, that a new form of entertainment was formed. A mixture of radio and TV with the convenience of a dvr. Now, they're scrambling to "own" it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What consumers use the word "pod" as an abbreviation for an iPod?
Title is misleaing. There is certainly no guarantee they will be successful. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Could the article please cite its source(s) for Apple's applications for the 'pod' trademark? I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence to back that up. Apple requested Podcast Ready change the name of its software (myPodder) because it is named to sound and look similar to iPod, which I think is a legitimate concern. This article seems to be a hack PR job for that company rather than an actual legitimate piece of journalism.
- DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tide (tm), Apple (tm), Windows (tm), Crush (tm), Citizen (tm), Gap (tm), Sharp (tm).
These are the first few I could think of, but the list could be much longer.
In fact, most English words are already trademarked, and it's one of the reason new companies and products avoid using English words and create original names to be sure not to get sued. - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's no "prior art" clause in Trademark law, if these people didn't Trademark the word Pod for audio devices (they only registered it) well that's their problems.
If this company really had a TM on the word Pod, Apple would have had its TM request denied instantly. - AlbinoRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pea pod
bean pod
ipod
I wonder which pod came first in the english language? - zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is kind of the way trade marking works.
If you want to keep your brand you have to do things that seem
outrageous to protect it.
You know if apple let the "Pod" thing go you know that Microsoft would
walk up and start saying things like the Microsoft "Zune" the ultimate music pod.
"Zune" what a bad name it sounds like a sneeze.
Anyway Microsoft does the same thing with "Windows".
Windows is a generic name but Microsoft would let you believe that they
invented the word. - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seeing as apple didn't invent the term podcast, and as such do not have a trademark over that, then there's not a lot apple could do about a company stating their mp3 players are podcast compatible. other than whine like little girls, of course.
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OK I'm reading all the comments on here and....you guys can't seriously be against all trademarks, can you? I know digg generally leans toward common ownership, open source, and all that, but how is a company supposed to distinguish themselves in the market? Anything using the term "Pod" or "iPod" in the electronic/music market is obviously referring to one thing. Seriously, this is the real world here. Nothing underhanded or sneaky. It's just business.
- AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By time comparison, Apple filed for "iPod" in July 2004, and are not yet published. The guys at Digg filed for the word "Digg" (with two g's - very important), number 78542038, in January 2005, and were published for opp in August 2006. Now if no one opposes and can make a strong case, then they have Digg. Meanwhile, Apple is still waiting for even publishing.
Trademarking is a bitch. - Godel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Escamillo
No they can't, that's a fair use. You are allowed to reference your competitors in advertisements. Just like Dial can say "we're better than Dove," mp3 players will be able to say "we're podcast-compatible." - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, try to bash Apple using their name, them blame them for suing you afterwards... Soooo brilliant.
- AppleGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aside from the fact that I think Apple is taking this thing way to far, I have never heard anyone refer to their ipod as "pod," and why anyone would is beyond me.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is