blogs.zdnet.com — Even if the product you make doesn't look, smell, feel, or do anything remotely close to what an iPod does, and even if consumers can't buy it on the shelves in a store, that apparently doesn't mean Apple won't release its legal dogs on you if the name of your product includes the letters P-O-D.
Aug 11, 2006 View in Crawl 4
johlinAug 12, 2006
So...are they going to sue Line6 also then. They make a product named POD.Oh wait, that one came out before the iPod. Maybe they should sue apple then. Sure there is a similarity.
finishdlawskoolAug 12, 2006
Too many fanboys have ruined any chance of your comment being taken as a joke.
sendmesomejunkAug 12, 2006
Best digg post ever. ^
Closed AccountAug 12, 2006
I suppose it's slightly harder to copyright a single lower case i in a product name.. Hmm- Ben
hellfire51Aug 12, 2006
So are these people going to fight back, doesn't say in the article? I say stick it to the man, I think even a judge would agree that the 3 letters "POD" used in the name of a totally different product is way too much.
teethmanAug 12, 2006
But what about iRiver and iEvery other mp3 player? I would think iRiver is a variation of iPod before I thought Profit Pod is, which has nothing to do with music.
geronimoAug 12, 2006
"in the eyes of the USPTO, they're exactly the same"This is my big problem with the USPTO. These guys err on the side of caution, ie with the large established companies with large marketing budgets, and are overzealous in claiming two trademarks are in the same space in order to basically stifle our capitalist system. With the USPTO they know they can just side with the current holder on pretty much every new application they review. How can you start a business when you apply for a trademark, then 6 months down the line the USPTO says no - something in your name is already in someone else's name. Then you start over. The trick is to be a big established company with a large marketing budget and pounce on all the small guys.
marioluigi123Aug 13, 2006
Are you sure this is even possibly? Apple didn't invent the word ''pod,' so how could they own it? People here have already shown things and I'm sure at least one predates Apple. Also, I'm sure this is impossible because some English words contain the word 'pod,' like peapod (as something mentioned). I hope that the court laughs at them with this. *dugg for concern*
surf314Aug 13, 2006
I doubt anyone's going to read this (I didn't want to abuse the reply option) but honestly Apple makes most of thier money from branding. I mean they make good products but at least in iPods case you could probably go cheaper and get just as good. They need to protect thier copyrights to keep the positive branding they generated from being diluted. And if you don't protect your copyrights they are considered given up.
wistarAug 13, 2006
How can the same go for Microsoft Office? OpenOffice as well as other "office" brands exist and MS doesn't pursue them.
cameron074Aug 14, 2006
loltouche' then again, nah, f**k you too buddy.
robertgoodwinAug 14, 2006
PODS (Portable On Demand Storage) is really screwed! Those big white storage pods look just like an iPod! And it stores stuff!<a class="user" href="http://www.pods.com/">http://www.pods.com/</a>
spaghetticodeAug 15, 2006
apple plan to launch the profit pod them selves.An iPod that prints money and connects directly to itunes currecy store where you can order all types of currency form around the worldtrust me i am very good inside source..... :)
maplemamaAug 18, 2006
Wouldn't it make more sense to trademark any word preceded by a lowercase "i"? Between iPod, iTunes, iLife, iMac...I think they would have much better footing for that arguement!