Apple, Startup Go To Trial Over 'Pod' Trademark 401
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "Apple is scheduled to go to trial with a startup to fight over a three-letter word: Pod. The trademark battle centers on independent entrepreneur Daniel Kokin, founder of startup Sector Labs, and his video projector in development called Video Pod. Apple had previously filed oppositions against Kokin's usage of 'Pod,' alleging that it would cause customers to confuse it with Apple's iPod products. ... Names that have come under fire include MyPodder, TightPod, PodShow, and even Podium. Sector Labs is the only company to go to trial with Apple over using the 'Pod' branding. Ana Christian, Kokin's lawyer, says the fight is about more than allowing small businesses to use 'Pod' in their product names. She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words."
WIth all due repsect (Score:5, Insightful)
I say this with all due respect:
Fuck Steve Jobs.
News @ 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing new to see here.
Re:WIth all due repsect (Score:1, Insightful)
IN THE ASS!
Re:What a typical waste (Score:2, Insightful)
When you're aware of a trademark issue you have to defend it or you loose it. The trademark laws are setup so lawyers keep getting paid.
Re:iCapitalLetter (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but Apple stole that from the iPaq, so they don't have a leg to stand on there.
Open the pod bay doors (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll have a tough time proving that "pod" is a valid trademark when it's been a part of the English language for several centuries before the existance of anything remotely resembling a portable recorded music player. They'll also have a tough time arguing that "pod" is seen as equivalent to "iPod", regardless of the context. And lastly, they'll need to explain why if "pod" is a trademark they haven't gone after all those obviously infringing gardening suppliers with their seed pods, or the PODS moving equipment company, or the Pipeline Open Data Standard (code for managing oil and gas lines), or the gazillions of other uses of the word that they've failed to defend.
My guess is there's another reason for this suit, perhaps that the defendant refused to sell an invention of his to Apple.
If they get Pod... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give them Mac, but what does that mean for Shakespeare's Macbeth? Or MacLisp? Or Emacs?
Trademarks (Score:2, Insightful)
She noted a trend in the tech industry, in which large corporations have been attempting to assume ownership of ordinary words.
Um, hate to break it to you, Ms High Priced Layer, but that thing you're describing there is called "trademarks" and is a practice that can be found in many industries and is not exclusive to the tech industry nor large corporations.
I'm just sayin'.
Re:What a typical waste (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I think it's justified. Using a media device called a Video Pod could indeed be confused with the Apple Trademark, which is the entire point of a trademark. Words such as Podium wouldn't be of course, but in this case, I would think it's warranted.
If Apple were to release some new gadget and call it "iDroid", you can bet Google would be all over their ass, and with good reason. Borrowing another's trademark with the intent to leverage another's success is a perfect example of trademark infringement [wikipedia.org].
Re:What a typical waste (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Law (Score:4, Insightful)
TLT (The Lawyer Tax) (Score:5, Insightful)
This is known as TLT (The Lawyer Tax). Lawyers, not having any technical competency nor skills, want a piece of the action^Wmoney from the high tech industry. So the lawyers devise rules, regulations, and guidelines, that force Apple to pursue any and all things that the lawyers feel necessary to, well, protect the lawyers. It's a vicious cycle, the lawyers feeding themselves lawyers. In the end it's the human consumer who loses.
Re:WIth all due repsect (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck U.S. intellectual property laws, and the American legal system for condoning the litigious tendencies of those wanting to bully or extort money from others. Apple's suit is disgusting, yet almost any other U.S. company would pursue the same suit if in the same position; hell, we've had a car company both sponsor and send legal threats to the same web site (with no significant changes to the site).
I'm getting ready to release a software application I've worked on full-time for the better part of two years, but one very big issue I have yet to deal with is how to protect myself from frivolous lawsuits (under which I include software patents, which is my main concern). I tend to move around a lot, so the typical defense of forming an LLC is a major burden to me. It doesn't help that my prior location (CA) and current location (NYC) both have ridiculous requirements for LLCs, even if they're just single-person companies run out of a bedroom -- e.g., I'd have to contract out the garbage service, even though my work is entirely computer-based and generates no physical waste. This entire headache would be avoidable if not for corrupt lawmakers who don't want to fix the system because they're paid off by lawyers and mega-corps who want to strangle out any new competitors, whether via patents or trademarks.
Re:The Law (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a lot of money Apple has been throwing into making the public familiar with the "pod" brand,
But Apple has not developed a "pod" brand, they've developed an "iProduct" brand. There is the iPod, iMac, iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and iTunes. I'm certainly not familiar with any other of their brands that are called "productPod"
What's next... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Law (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to mention the following trademarked generic words: All, Cheer, Dial, Dove, Pert, Suave, Mustang, Focus, Fusion, Crossfire, Tabasco, Oracle, Dell, Windows, Vista, Outlook, Entourage, Office, Access, Logic, Aperture, Flash, Adobe, Apple...
Re:What a typical waste (Score:5, Insightful)
As PART of their trademark. That's the part that's problematic right there. If they had tried to trademark pod, they would have lost(or at least, the other companies wouldn't have tried). Having a trademark apply to partial words is what makes it gaming the system.
Re:The Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that the special thing for Apple is using generic terms and declaring them to be trademarked by virtue of attaching an i to the front, I don't think they have any right to pretend like they own the word "pod."
Especially when this [line6.com] was around long before Jobs even thought of getting into portable music devices.
Why would they want POD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Guy's wasting his money, even if he wins he loses because no one will ever be able to find his product online, and "Video Pod" is a horrible name for a video projector. He claims "it took us years to go from prototype to funded" and now he's wasting that funding on fighting Apple? If I was one of his investors I'd pull my funding immediately because he's wasting money.... unless he's doing all of this to get publicity and he's planning on backing out the last minute. I did that ten years ago, chose a similar name to a famous existing product and was sued. I even had a story that ended up on slashdot and sales shot through the roof.
Re:If they get Pod... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused - would this be the 'substandard junk' hardware that a reasonable proportion of the /. audience feels is worth buying specifically to run Linux on? Or the 'kiddie interface' OS that another reasonable proportion of the /. audience wishes would run on commodity PC hardware, and sometimes hacks to do so?
Obvious troll is obvious. No mods for you!
FWIW, I wouldn't give them 'Pod' either - but I would give them 'Podcast'. Nobody cared about downloading 'digital media files (either audio or video) that are released episodically and often downloaded through web syndication' [wikipedia.org] when they were called 'webcasts'. It wasn't until someone - not Apple, btw, but a Guardian columnist - linked them with the iPod that the term 'podcast' came into fashion.
Now, strictly speaking that's not trademark dilution - but it's bloody close. If the iPod had instead been called a 'Chazzwazzer', we'd be downloading 'chazzcasts' now...
Re:The Law - Something to consider (Score:3, Insightful)
As an aside, I personally dislike those that use such words as "podcast" and "blogosphere" it is saddening that their use has become so prevalent among the young.
Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why there can be a Firebird database, and also a Firebird automobile. Same name, but nobody is going to confuse one for the other. Nobody is going to say "Man, I thought I was going to get a car but it turns out I have a database server instead."
While both products in this case are technology, that seems to be where the similarities end. The iPod is, of course, an MP3 player. The Video Pod looks like it is going to be a digital cinema projector. Not really that similar. Also, Apple's branding has been around the "i" thing. Their iPod is their only "Pod" thing so saying someone is trying to create confusion by calling a projector a "Video Pod" is a real stretch.
While anything can happen in court, I can't see Apple winning this if it is properly litigated. A trademark doesn't mean you own any and everything relating to the mark. It means companies can't try and use a mark or one like it to confuse people. this does not at all seem confusing.
Re:What a typical waste (Score:3, Insightful)
First, problem with what you said is that it's not in the same market sector. It's a video projector not a media player.
Second, "pod" is an actual word. Just because they've slapped an i on the front of it doesn't mean they're allowed ownership over an entire word. Replace the word "Pod" with Plane, sandwich, whatever and it makes just as much nonsense.
Re:If they get Pod... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't blame Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:America, pull your head out of your arse. (Score:3, Insightful)
compared to u.s., europe does indeed live in an utopia.
Not really. I live in Europe, and while I wouldn't want to visit the US because of their recent draconian limitations to civil rights, things have been going seriously downhill over here too.
Maybe I'll move to Sweden some day. They seem to be taking civil rights and freedom pretty seriously over there.
Re:What a typical waste (Score:2, Insightful)
Well it's obvious it isn't an Apple product just by looking at it.
Not shiny, less than $1000, not portable enough to take in the Starbucks ...
And most importantly, doesn't start with a fucking letter *i* !
Re:WIth all due repsect (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck U.S. intellectual property laws, and the American legal system for condoning the litigious tendencies of those wanting to bully or extort money from others. Apple's suit is disgusting, yet almost any other U.S. company would pursue the same suit if in the same position; hell, we've had a car company both sponsor and send legal threats to the same web site (with no significant changes to the site).
The lawsuit is a direct consequence of the American trademark laws. From http://www.answers.com/topic/trademark [answers.com] :
The owners of registered trademarks can lose their rights in a number of ways. When a trade or the general public adopts a trademark as the name for a type of goods, the mark is no longer distinctive and the rights to it are lost. The owner of trademark rights must be vigilant to ensure that this does not occur.
The general idea is that, if Apple allows the practice of calling a small electronic device a 'pod' to continue without objection, I can sell my ePod and directly claim that it is 'a better Pod than the iPod!'. Apple has no recourse, because 'pod' can be argued to be a common term applying to handheld electronics, and not anything particularly referring to the 'iPod' or any Apple product...
The general message: blame the legislation and legal precedent. Don't blame Apple for vigilantly defending its trademarks; Apple has to do this or else face losing any trademark rights that it has...