Apple Goes After the Term 'Podcast'

Udo Schmitz writes "Earlier this year, Apple went up against companies using the word 'pod' in their product names. Now, Apple is going after the term 'podcasting'. Wired has the complete text of Apple's cease-and-desist letter to Podcast Ready." From the article: "Robert Scoble -- whose own company, PodTech, may be at risk in this witch hunt -- has weighed in on the issue by suggesting that the tech community as a whole adopt other terms like "audiocast" and 'videocast' (or alternately, 'audcast' and 'vidcast') to describe this type of content, while other folks feel that fighting Apple and generating a ton of negative press for Cupertino is the best solution. Our take? Apple should be happy that its golden goose is getting so much free publicity, and if it isn't, we know of several companies that probably wouldn't mind if zencast, zunecast, or sansacast became the preferred terminology."

There goes my week!

I guess I won't be able to drink coffee [cw-usa.com], take photos [bhphotovideo.com] and work on my ninja talents [opentip.com].

Trademarks are ridiculous when they're normal, everyday words. While I don't support trademark law, I can understand "Xerox," but pod? Come on.

Re:There goes my week!

Didn't Apple basically ignore "podcasting" when it first started? Why would they bother to chase down people who are creating content that makes iTunes Store more attractive for those of us that couldn't give a shit about DRM music?

I use iTunes for playing music and podcasts but I haven't visited the Music Store before iTunes 7 in a *long* time. Now that they are really pushing podcasting content on there, I'm all about finding free media.

Don't piss off your userbase Apple, you should know better.

Re:There goes my week!

They're not going after peopel who create podcasts. They're going after Infostructure Solutions LLC and Podcast Ready Inc. over the terms 'Mypodder' and 'Podcast Ready' which were recently filed for trademarks.

Re:There goes my week!

I ask you to cease and desist use of the letter 'A', as I have had that trademark for over two years!

Gimme a fucking break.

More specifically

I ask you to cease and desist use of the trade mark 'ucking' and any words that may be phonetically similar to it, as I have a trade mark pending.

-Rick

Re:There goes my week!

This whole thing is stupid. Did anyone even read the article? Apple is trying to block two trademarks from being issued that they feel are likely to cause confusion with the iPod. The letter even states that Apple has no intention of trying to block the use of the term "podcast." Trademark law requires this kind of behavior. Trademarks must be defended or else they can be lost.

Re:There goes my week!

Apple is a trademark whore. They seem sue anybody using a term that might be related to thier products even if the term itself is not trademarked. But they don't concern themselves at the onset. They wait to see if something actually becomes popular to send in the wolves.

Bullshit. Apple likes the fact that the term podcast is popular and based on their existing brand. It is as though everyone started calling modding pickups for racing toyotafizzing. Toyota would be cool with that too. The problem is when another company or companies apply for trademarks that include your trademark and try to lock down terms to that only they can sell things in that market. If some company tried to trademark the term "Toyotafizzle" to use in their aftermarket mods of all trucks, not just Toyotas, you can bet your sweet ass Toyota would send them a nasty letter in short order too.

Re:There goes my week!

After a series of battles, the two firms agreed to live and let live, but the controversy flared up again when Apple Computer went into the music business with iTunes. I'm not sure where it stands now

Apple won.

Re:There goes my week!

The problem is that "podcasting" comes directly from the iPod name and confuses a vast majority of consumers. Unlike possibly a pod of whales [youtube.com], here the term actually is confusing and misleading. You would think that Apple would like the public thinking that podcasting is dependent upon (or has anything to do with) iPods, but I think their fear is that the term commoditizes iPods. They don't want iPod to become the next pliers, band-aid, or other generic term that was once a trademarked brand name. Moreover, they don't want people who ask for iPods for Christmas to get their competitors' products.

Re:There goes my week!

I dispute the second half of your premise -- I haven't found anybody who is both (1) familiar with the term and (2) associates it with Apple.

I'd argue that the word "podcast" is already generic -- are there any audio blogs that don't call themselves podcasts?

Re:There goes my week!

I think you've just argued Apple's point for them. The word "iPod" is clearly and appropriately associated with Apple, and they have a trademark on it. The word "podcast" comes directly from "iPod," and yet isn't associated with them. A lawyer could easily argue that this is dilution of trademark.

(Warning: IANAL)

Another thing to remember: trademark isn't like copyright. Copyright requires no special action for you to initiate: your works are copyrighted to you, unless you sign those rights over to someone else, and copyright notices only serve to notify the people of your right. Trademarks, on the other hand, need to be registered and filed, often in multiple countries if you're a big company. In the US, if you get a trademark and don't defend infringements upon it in court, the courts can hold that your trademark has been invalidated.

So in other words: if Apple doesn't do this, they may risk losing the trademark on the word "iPod." I think you can understand why they'd consider this bad.

I'd argue that the word "podcast" is already generic -- are there any audio blogs that don't call themselves podcasts?

Uh - yes [google.com].

Re:

I dispute the second half of your premise -- I haven't found anybody who is both (1) familiar with the term and (2) associates it with Apple.

When I first heard the term "podcast" I immediately thought it had something to do with the iPod. I thought it wa

Re:There goes my week!

No, but if you started a major fast-food chain called MacDonalds, you could still be found to have infringed McDonalds' trademark. There's much more to trademark law than the precise, literal infringement of an exact mark.

Re:There goes my week!

Didn't Adam Curry more or less "invent" the term podcast? It was always my understanding that it stood for Personal On Demand Broadcast. Sure, not a great definition and a suspicious use of the term "pod", but justification nontheless. And how can apple complain now that they've host all sorts of third-party podcasts in iTunes for a while, and they clearly use the term "podcast". Doesn't seem like they are consistent at all.

Re:There goes my week!

No. Making POD == "Personal on demand" was a lame backronym [wikipedia.org] invented by Creative, trying to crowbar themselves into the picture when its quite obvious the "pod" in "podcast" refers to an iPod.*

The "inventer" of the word (apparently a Ben Hammersley, not Adam Curry, but... meh) actually responded to Creative on this point in one of the funniest putting-corporation-in-its-place responses I have seen:

Creative are talking rot. The pod in 'podcast' was obviously and blatantly meant to refer to the iPod. The accusation that I'd use such a clumsy acronym invites another one: stfu, kthxbye.

Source: here [guardian.co.uk]

(* I am listening to my beloved Zen as I type this, and I don't like or own any Apple goods, so I'm not being a fanboy, I just genuinely think that was a lame thing for Creative to try...)

Re:

I guess I won't be able to drink coffee [cw-usa.com]...

Dude, if Apple were to destroy Coffe Pod, you should thank them. Have you ever had pod coffee? It is nasty.

Re:There goes my week!

I wonder how useful this kind of aggressive C&Ding is in actually protecting one's market share? I mean, let's say Apple lost trademark protection over the word "iPod," and it becomes a generic term. They're still the Apple iPod. They've still got the ipod.com domain. They can still call themselves "The Original iPod." They've still got iTunes and their proprietary DRM. And they still have control over the lion's share of the market. As long as they still have their product design and logo trademarked, nobody will mistake a knock-off iPod with the real thing, and any company that starts calling its player an iPod is just setting itself up for a poor comparison with the real thing, and at best anonymity, at worst, disrepute.

For a contrast, look at what happened to Xerox. They once had a commanding lead in photocopies, so much that their name nearly became verbed. They no longer suffer that threat, thanks to their efforts to protect their trademark. But neither do they have their commanding lead any more.

Hmm, looks like someone else [seomoz.org] wondered about this before I did.

Re:There goes my week!

This is not a Cease and Desist order. It's a polite request to withdraw a trademark filing application. Didn't you bother to read TFA? Of course, the /. editors didn't bother to do that before posting the story, and the guys who wrote the Wired blog entry don't seem to understand the letter, either. All they did was see the words "Apple" and "IPod" and recognize that the letter is from a law firm and instantly work themselves into a tizzy.

To sum up for those that can't be bothered: Apple owns the trademarks "IPOD" and "POD". These people filed a trademark application which incorporates those existing trademarks in their proposed trademarks. Apple would like them to withdraw the application. It's all part of the process. No harm, no foul. That's why you don't instantly get trademarks -- they go through this sort of review and examination process.

Re:

Trademarks are ridiculous when they're normal, everyday words.

Tide
Crest
Dove
Dawn

these don't bother you?

2001 redux

"Open the pod bay doors, Hal."

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Steve Jobs won't let me."

Re:

However, If they don't make an effort to protect their trademark then they may lose it. I don't think that Apple would want to lose their iPod trademark.

Re:

A C&D letter clearly does not alienate anyone. And this is negative publicity. I had actually seriously considered getting a Mac, but clearly it's homegrown for the win.

What, did you miss all the other Apple lawsuits? Or was this the one that finall

Re:There goes my week!

How about "portacast"?

Reminds me of portapotty [wikipedia.org].

Hmm. How about "portapoddy"? (-:

About Time

I'm so glad to see them doing this. I must say the term "podcast" has to be one of the most annoying buzzwords I've ever heard.

Re:About Time

How about "recording."

I mean we had cassette players in the 70s and 80s that were portable. We called what was on them "recordings."

Why is this so hard?

Podcasting is a term used by retards who think they invented something new. OMG A PORTABLE COPY OF SOMEONES NOISE HOLE!!!!

Tom

Re:

I mean we had cassette players in the 70s and 80s that were portable. We called what was on them "recordings."

And this is a bit offtopic, but the same really goes for "blog." Most blogs are opinion pieces, essays, meditations, etc. Why couldn't they ju

Not to be outdone...

Sony has announced it is going after the words "walk" and "man," though a couple decades late. Come on, had to make this into an anti-Sony argument. Just wouldn't feel right...

OK, I'll bite

Come on, had to make this into an anti-Sony argument. Just wouldn't feel right.

I'd be happy to oblige...

Sony, in fact, HAS vigourously defended [wired.com] its "walkman" trademark right from the beginning (right from the beginning, not "a couple of decades late"--I remember when Sony went after a Canadian electronics store for advertising a sale on "personal stereos" made by Sony's competitors as a "Walkman Sale" back in the mid 1980s). Sony is amongst the most agressive defenders of trademark in the world, and unfortunately it seems Apple is following in its footsteps and threatening a world of hurt for anyone naming their handheld products /*pod*/ or /^i*/.

I understand why Apple defends their industrial designs as they are tangible characteristics of Apple products and a lot of time, effort and money is put into the look, shape and usability features. It seems really unfair that Apple should spend so much time making a Mac look like a Mac just to have some goofily-named Taiwanese plastics company barf out replica cases jury-rigged to accomodate generic PC motherboards. But claiming ownership of the word "pod" or the 9th letter of the alphabet? That is just petty and greedy. Compete on the merits of your product, not on some silly brand name, and let the fledgling market for accessories to your products thrive. Sure brand dilution is a valid concern, but lets be realistic--Xerox is still around even as its coporate marque bacame a noun and verb in the dictionary. Kimberly-clark continues to make a lot of money with Kleenex even though everyone calls all sorts of other tissues Kleenex out of habit and Google continues to thrive even as its identity has come to mean "search the internet" in general.

Sometimes a little brand dilution can be a good thing. Yes, I understand Apple wants to make sure some cheap-ass purveyor of junky accessories doesn't pretend to be affiliated with Apple but there are other approaches to take. For example licensing terms could be kept relaxed and Apple could have a little "Apple approved" logo for 3rd party manufacturers (like "intel inside" or the "VHS logo" or "Designed for Windows"). Consumers would then know it was a 3rd party product but that it met Apple's quality standards...and forget about fighting the junky stuff unless they fraudulently use the "Apple approved" logo. Done right this can work quite well--it helped VHS beat Beta for example. Let "Podcasting" and "iThingy" and "PodPouch" and whatever other pod-wannabes and i-philes survive and thrive.

In the abcense of common sense though, let me propose an alternative to the word "podcasting". "Audcasting" and "vidcasting" are even dumber sounding and limiting (it implies only moving video or sound, not a combination of media). "Zunecasting" just helps Microsoft marketing and MS needs none of our help there. So, how about PEERCASTING. The term BROADCASTING covers all sorts of media distributed from one central point to widespread areas simultaneously, so PEERCASTING would be an apt description of what we call podcasting now--distribution of media from one point to other, individual points on-demand. Peercastig is already used by a few people to refer to distribution via BitTorrent or other P2P networks and podcasting isn't THAT far off in overall concept.

Good luck apple.

It is a generic term now and only a judge that is either mentially retarted or paid by apple to be corrupt would see it any other way.

On the other hand, is the management at apple losing their grip? they should have told the legal department to back off on things that benefit them heavily.

CBS is using "netcasts" now

In response to Apple's ridiculous stand on "podcast," CBS is now referring to their "podcasts" as "netcasts."

http://www.cbs.com/netcast/ [cbs.com]

Re:

In response to Apple's ridiculous stand on "podcast," CBS is now referring to their "podcasts" as "netcasts."

Fishermen are consulting with their lawyers.

Pod nazis?

Is this just a bit over the top? The wording of the cease and desist letter is vague enough that they could replace "PodCast Ready" (an LLC) any company or product name that contains the word "Pod", or any word that is "phonetically similar" to Pod. Not to mention that they have a trademark pending for the word "Pod" even though the have no product, branch, or line under the name "Pod".

It's crap like this that would make me buy a Zen and call it my "F!Pod".

-Rick

So?

Looks to me like Apple is going after companies trying to profit from their trademark. They're not going after the term Podcasting in general use, they're simply trying to stop companies from using the term in for-profit activities. The term obviously refers to iPods, so it makes sense to me that Apple would defend their trademark in this way.

Moderation: -1, Apple Fan-Boi

Devil's Advocate

I know most of the slashdot crowd is going to deride this move on Apple's part as completely stupid. I agree to a certain extent. However, consider the fact that if a trademark holder does not vigorously defend their trademark, they stand to lose it.

SiO2

Letest News: Feds confiscate Anakin's Podracer

Enough is enough, the young Jedi reportedly said,I convert to the dark side of the force!

Ummm...no they're not. Read the Cease and Desist

No offense to anyone here, but this article caught a little bit of speed elsewhere by the title, when in reality, Apple is going after the use of iPod (a registered trademark), but nowhere in the letter is it indicated that 'podcasting' is not to be used. Please read the cease and desist letter. Hopefully someone will update the headline so that the title is more reflective of what's going on here...seems like the other company involved may be trying to garner sympathy from the "big, bad" apple. Apple is perfectly within their right to protect their product's trademark.

Re:Ummm...no they're not. Read the Cease and Desis

Apple is perfectly within their right to protect their product's trademark.

Actually, they have to defend it. IANAL, but I think you have to enforce your trademarks in this manner, otherwise you might risk loosing them.

You're right

They don't subject to the term "podcasting". I read that somewhere, but didn't check it.

But some problem could be that /. has a funny understanding of editing. Here's my original submission:

While news are out that Apple wants to stop companies [zdnet.com] from using t

Xerox... Kleenex.... iPod?

I am not an Apple lover, nor am I an Apple hater, so I think I am well qualified to throw in my two cents here. Steve Jobs works his ass off (and is so proud) to be the industry leader in the portable mp3 market. He has made it very clear that he wants the whole world to think of "iPod" when they think of an mp3 player, and yet the second that people actually do begin to genericize the word "iPod," he flips out. Which is it? Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid, Coke etc. will tell you that it is better to be an industry leader and have people try to copy/genericize your name than to never have your name associated with a generic product. Then again, those companies won't hesitate to sue over misuse of their names either.

Re:

I am not an Apple lover, nor am I an Apple hater

So, largely Apple-thetic, then?

Which Apple?

Wait, is this Apple, the record company, or Apple, the computer company that infringed on the record company's name? I'm so confused.

Is Apple actually going after "Podcast"?

The term "podcast" was clearly a surprise to Apple. They didn't even start using the term even casually, let alone in a product, until it was already in world-wide generic use.

It's not clear to me that they have a policy of going after people who use the term "Podcast" in business. The other term, "myPodder", is clearly the kind of thing that Apple has gone after in the past. Without that, would Apple's lawyers have acted? This could simply be an attack lawyer going overboard.

Leo Laporte votes for "netcast"

Leo Laporte is also floating the idea of switching the term to "netcast". [www.twit.tv] Bonus advantage: helps clue people in that they don't need an iPod to listen to a "podcast" (which understandably is a common misunderstanding by those who hear the term for the first time).

3. Profit!

In related news:

"Microsoft goes after people having windows in their apartments, Sun sues people that sell and drink, or talk about java."

"Google sues all massively big numbers with typos. Suggests people use smaller numbers."

"AOL sues all Americans that are On-Line, tells people to pick: either be on-line abroad, or be Americans."

"After Adobe went after people using 'Flash' based trademarks /that's for real btw/, now they go after construction companies using adobe."

"News Corp. sues all news media, newspapers and news bulletins in the world."

"Companies using dictionary word based trademarks go after dictionaries including their trademarks."

"Practises in trademark law threaten the Universe to collapse from a massive lapse of logic. Won't happen because Apple is suing the Universe for making use of 'Logic', a company trademark they own."

Summary is WRONG

Read the actual cease-and-desist letter [wired.com].

Apple is asking the company to stop using the term "MyPodder". They explicitly state they are not asking them to stop using their company name "Podcast Ready" (see the bottom of the second-to-last paragraph, page two).

Is it too much to ask that the editors read the actual story before approving it?

RTFA extract

RTF S&D letter

While Apple, of course, has no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term "podcast" as part of a trademark for goods and services offered in the podcasting field, it cannot allow marks that go beyond this legitimate use and infringe on Apple's rights in POD and IPOD.

RTF headline

Now, Apple is going after the term 'podcasting'.

Why can't submitters at least RTFS&DL.

They're not going after the term podcast

I know this is slashdot and nobody will RTFA, but they are going after a company that is (it seems) trying to associate itself with the iPod in order to gain credibility. Their trademarked software is called "myPodder" and they are also applying for a trademark for "podcast ready". I tried out their program for a while and it basically works like the podcast features in iTunes, but not quite as nice. Personally, I don't think that myPodder is a very good name for the software. This software has little to do with the 'Pod' part of podcasting, but everything to do with the casting part. I think something like "myPodcaster" would be a better name as it more accurately describes what the software does and further differentiates it from Apple's offerings. The "podcast ready" thing is kind of lame IMO. It doesn't seem to really step on Apple's toes too much, but they're all up in arms about it, and it seems like a kind of silly thing to attempt to trademark. The readiness of software or hardware to deal with the RSS/audio of a podcast is not unique to any program, nor IMO, the company should change the name of their software, but still be able to use the term "podcast ready" without it being trademarked.

Apple is not objecting to use of Podcast

I think the C&D is clearly valid. Apple is not objecting to the use of the word podcast in general. They only want to stop PodTech from trademarking 'Podcast Ready'. If PodTech manages to trademark 'Podcast ready' then they could have ask Apple to stop using the term podcast since it is a derivative term.

-S

Re:

google owns the rights to the word google while apple doesn't own the rights to the term podcast.

Not the same.

Google originated the term "google" in the context of search engines. And they do go after businesses who used the term "google" in ways that implied a connection to Google.

Apple didn't originate the term "podcast" in the context of downloaded radio programs. Here they are going after a company using it in that context... but ALSO using another term (myPodder) that's a clear infringment of the trademarks Apple has claimed.

It's not at all clear that Apple is claiming the term "podcast", and if they did they wouldn't have as nearly as strong a position as Google.