What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
261 Comments
- cameron074, on 10/12/2007, -71/+279***** apple.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -26/+154***** corporate lawyers.
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -15/+92Can you really trademark 3 letters of your products 4 letter name? Nike and 'Mike and Ike's' are gona go at it then.
- nox327, on 10/12/2007, -19/+84I always thought that Apple were the nicer guys compared to MS, but this just shows that they are the same. I say ***** apple and not the lawyers. The lawyer got nothing to do with this, they are only doing what Jobs is telling them.
- Harbinger67, on 10/12/2007, -8/+60How long until all of science fiction is sued for the use of Escape Pods?
Mother Nature must be pretty high on the list too, what with the use of seed pods and all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+59I tried to walk to far, but the walk was too far.
- Froid, on 10/12/2007, -40/+88i can't help but agree
- bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+51This is clearly not an instance where this type of trademark complaint seems valid on the surface.
However, based on the way United States trademark law is currently written, Apple is required to vigorously defend all of the trademarks it owns, or else it will lose ownership of them. If they do not contest names like these, then it's possible that in the future, a company *will* attempt to profit off the iPod trademark. When Apple brings the matter to court, then the company could bring out products such as the "Profit Pod", show that they are electronic devices, make the claim that they attempted to profit off of Apple's trademark, and that Apple did not adequately defend it. It's a flimsy argument, for sure, but I've seen far less fly in some courtrooms. The real culprit in these situations is the trademark law as presently written.
Keep in mind that I am not attempting to be an Apple apologist. I'll freely admit that this seems ludicrous. However, I simply wanted to provide some background information for those who are unaware of the legal aspects involved. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48Ironically, Apple Computer was sued by Apple Records in a similar manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer - trampish, on 10/12/2007, -28/+68No, ***** the battery-powered fans in a cheap plastic case sold at walmart. they call it the fanPod or something. blatant grossness.
- Chris_F, on 10/12/2007, -17/+56Quote: "Can you really trademark 3 letters of your products 4 letter name?"
Apple could trademark the color red if they wanted to. - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -15/+46"If they want to make a successful product... don't copy other people. It will never sell. You need to make something new.... something different."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060515/2152218.shtml
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/european-ipod-filings-confirm-apple-still-swiping-ideas-185402.php
http://mrkaiser.wordpress.com/2006/06/23/why-apple-makes-me-sad/
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/06/29.2.shtml
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/macosx_leopard_preview.asp
hmm.... - bat-21, on 10/12/2007, -24/+54This just in: Apple has filed suit against George Lucas for the use of the term "escape pod" in "Star Wars: A New Hope". Steve Jobs is willing to settle out court for 20% of Lucasfilm, 50% of ILM, that all future releases of Star Wars films be in Quicktime only and more Jar Jar Binks.
- IMesh, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42"Has Apple gone to far?"
Yes. - podwich, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33I'm screwed. Just look at my username.
Maybe I should sue Apple-I've been going by this since around 1996. I think that predates ye olde iPod. - Sanchez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Anyone remember POD for the PC by ubisoft?
Those were the good times. - kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -11/+38yes, the Profit Pod looks *just* like an ipod. and i look *just* like George Clooney.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31@AKnowles,
Have you even BOTHERED EVEN READING the article? ProfitPod is a black ugly-looking add-on device for arcade machines that deals with counting money and transmitting it via infrared. ProfitPod is made from a company called Mach5 that has existed longer than iPods.
It has in no way or form copied off Apple.
Any why is RomPom being dugged down? PLEASE READ HIS LINKS. One of the Gizmodo articles has a point, Apple got away with patenting Toshiba's Gigabeat player. - ani-pockdotnet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33This reminds me of the time when a kid nammed Mike Rowe was sued by Microsoft after it was discovered his programing website was nammed MikeRoweSoft.com
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Does P.O.D know about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.O.D. - lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35to far? where is far?
- punkrockxtian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24If you want to get technical, the iPod does have "games" on it. They are horrible, but they're still technically video games.
- TaeBoX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26If you agree with Apple you should have no problem recommending this reading to others and thus you should Digg it.
- randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29"both are used in connection with video games"
Did they just lie in a legal document? There's no way in hell you can tell me iPods are used in connection with video games. - hoyaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20I agree with what you're saying...
We have to remember that it was Apple Records who first sued Apple Computer for "infringing on the music business" or somesuch. That's why the Beatles aren't in iTunes.
It HAPPENS EVERYWHERE. I used to work in this gallery named "Gallista" because the owner was sued for portrayed "Puro Gallo" - pure macho - Rooster (*****) fights in his paintings. That was his heritage growing up. "Puro Gallo" means all man, and was a badge of honor for the kids AND their *****.
Check out his art here: http://gallista.com/
Anyway, he was sued by Gallo wines for using, you guessed it, the word "gallo." It didn't have any damn thing to do with Gallo's business. They sell wine, he's one artist promoting local art. Ended in a Settlement.
Gallo's also sued the Italian government and countless other wineiries and small mom-and-pops who dare use a ROOSTER in their logo or business.
Copyright law is totally ***** up.
The truly sad thing is that if Apple didn't pursue folks who used "pod" or "i-" or "mac" then in a few years their own brands, the entire line, might be in jeopardy of becoming public domain. Like Kleenex(TM). - Kleenex is a registered trademark of Kimberley-Clark, and if you use it, ***** , you have to pay them royalties. - MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Random fact: Did you know Apple purchased the name "iPhoto" from Ulead Systems?
They aren't the ones that came up with the name; they bought it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27Apple wanting money?
NO WAI. - Aldrenean, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28The main reason that Apple is eviler than MS, etc, is that they are really a monopoly. People always talk about MS being totally controlling and monopolistic, but they pale in comparison to the proprietary behemoth that is Apple. Basically, if you buy one apple product, they own your soul. You have to pay through the nose for things you don't even really need, and if you want to use something else, which is probably cheaper and better, sucks to your asmar, man, because it won't work.
- iDVD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20the tripod companies are *****
- JoeCoder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15And what about P.O.D. the band? They've been around since the early 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.O.D. - neoknight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15and I look like a PC.
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This sort of crap, where huge companies go after individuals or small companies who are very clearly no threat to them happens far too often. It's just plain dumb. E.g.
Yell want someone to close down yellowikis.org - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5169674.stm
Starbucks went after woman called Sam Buck who called her one small coffee shop SamBuck's Coffee. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/01/sam_buck_sued_for_na.html http://tinyurl.com/7b6sy http://tinyurl.com/djkvx
Dell is going after someone who's surname is Dell and has dared to use the word in the url of his own sites - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/20/dell_sues_dell_man/
And let's not forget Microsoft and the teenager kid called Mike Rowe http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/19/microsoft_lawyers_threaten_mike_rowe/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20"If they want to make a successful product... don't copy other people."
you obviously haven't gone shopping in forever - wistar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Off your meds, eh, lakawako?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19No, but iSOB is.
- GerPe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15POD is first used by line6 in 2000 for a guitar effect processor, and iPOD is from 2001, so they arnt the first to use tis name for stuf that has to do with music! so cant line6 sue them for using it? http://line6.com/products/pods/
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13You poor man.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@ zybch
Whatever that laserpod is, it looks awfully cool and amusingly phallic.
I want one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10sure do. 3DFX FTW!
- SteaminTmann, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17That crappy christian rock group better watch it's ass
- eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Key difference is that mikerowe soft was doing software, and while they may or may not have had legal precidence (didn't they trick him out of it anyway?) I think there was a lot more reason for them to sue that guy then apple.
Don't get me wrong microsofts done a lot of bad things, but when it gets down to it I really do think apple is one of the most evil mainstream tech companies.
Now that they have "assets" to protect methinks their true colors (as a "big evil company") are only gonna show more and more. - milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10From a legal stand this will never hold in court.
No parts of the english language may be trademarked whether legitimate words of slang.
No colors, shapes, or
names wether proper or slang.
No locations, numbers, or beliefs may be trademarked/copyrighted.
pod fits into quite a few of those categories. It took me 3 minutes on google to find this out, Im sure mach5 can defend this one. - xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Ya sucks for this company,
http://www.pods.com/
I don't think Apple should do this. Unless some company made a music player or video player called something POD or something in that way. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I hope this isn't true but knowing the govt-run USPTO and corporate apple, it could easily be true.
If you've ever applied for a trademark, you'll know what a load of crap it is. If there's anyone out there who has trademarked something containing a name that is somewhere in your trademark... And you're in the same space(ie: do anything online), then if the trademark office doesnt reject your trademark, then you'll get at least one lawsuit coming your way in the future.
I have lost the will to trademark anything at this point.. Why? You invest your time and money and you'll get rejected/sued anyway, then you switch to a new name. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This hurts capitalism. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10yes, they invented the word pod.
- trinityrubicon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Is Apple feeling a bit rotten at its core?
- mellon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Um. Has anybody verified that the statements made in this blog, with its myriad ads, are true? Or is it possible that someone just posted something inflammatory in order to get a huge number of ad impressions? The number of ads on the web page to which this article links is *truly* impressive.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9HY-POD
Granted April 6, 1976
SKYPOD
Granted September 2, 1986
source: United States Patent and Trademark Office - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11wtf mate?
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -2/+7hurray for lots of people not knowing trademark law here. check the polaroid or dupont factors (depends on which jurisdiction you're in, but they're essentially the same).
1) mach5 filed an ITU which is an intent to use application for a federal trademark. that means mach5 has never used the POWER POD name before.
2) apple has on the other hand, owns US Trademark #3089360, for among other things "Portable and handheld digital electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating, and reviewing text, data, and audio files", first used in 2001 (so apple gets preference)
3) apple's IPOD mark has tons of advertising dollars behind it. there are few people under the age of 60 who do not know what an ipod is. this factor alone is staggering against mach5. IMO, if apple wanted to claim against others using the prefix of the lower case I, apple would probably win, by this factor alone.
4) mach5's device is a "portable... digital electronic device for recording... transmitting... data". in the eyes of the USPTO, they're exactly the same, even if that data serves entirely different purposes.
5) mach5's will probably cost a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars. apple's ipods cost $60-400. additionally, the channels of trade are not even close. the people buying mach5's product are arcade managers/owners. the people buying ipods are everyday consumers. one could argue that due to so many frauds on the market and the tech knowledge required merely to use an ipod, that the consumer of an ipod would be educated enough to not be confused between the two products. the managers/owners spending much more money are probably held to an even higher standard, buying some technology for even more money, they will have to exercise more care. this is the only point that goes to mach5.
what you hear about a lot of legal cases is a bunch of media crockery. pull the case on the lady who spilled mcdonalds coffee on herself. even ABA Journal (the premiere US legal magazine) got ***** on for piss poor reporting that basically made fun of her. when they covered it, tons of attorneys wrote in about how the media (including ABA journal) has portrayed that case is just wrong, as they left out all of the key facts that made her win. there was a lot more at stake with mike rowe soft bc the kid was a little ***** who knew of microsoft already and wanted to ***** with them.
the only trademark case i care about right now is nissan.com. check it out yourself. nissan motorcorp is a bunch of ***** *****. they have no legal right to the domain name and are basically trying to bury the guy who owns it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 266 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