Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming 392
eldavojohn writes "In what may be a case of trademark trolling, Apple has issued warnings to makers of other electronic devices containing the word 'pod.' Two companies have been asked to remove the word from their products. Why might this be a mean action by Apple? These two companies don't manufacture MP3 players as one would think would cause confusion. From the article:
Back in the day, if someone was calling an electronic device a 'pod,' I would have thought they were talking about Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods (which I believe have been around for a while). How come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming?"Profit Pod is a device that compiles data from vending machines, while TightPod manufactures slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products such as laptops and MP3 players.
Much ado about nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website [tightpod.com] (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)
Re:Yeah... (Score:1, Insightful)
Examples:
Sony walkman -> all cassette players got to be known as Walkman.
Aspirine -> All pain relieving drugs got to be known as aspirin.
Next: iPod -> mp3-hd player? google->Internet search?
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Line 6 and Apple's iPod are both music-related; Line 6's pod products came first, so, really, Apple should be careful about the word "pod," because maybe the reason Line 6 didn't care is that the emphasis is on the i in iPod. (But, who knows, really.)
Line 6's stuff is nearly universally known among guitarists and bassists. "People who enjoy music" is simply a bigger market than "people who play guitars." Considering that, I'd say Line 6 has very good recognition (although their 'pod' products aren't as popular now as they once were... I think Zoom's cheaper copycats took care of that).
Re:Much ado about nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
Bingo. This sounds similar to the story about Google telling media organizations to be cautious about using the words "Google" and "google" now that "google" is in the OED. If you don't at least make an effort to defend, your options on even the most blatant cases get much more difficult.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these companies try to get people to call their product by its full name, including function, such as "Zamboni ice resurfacing machine" rather than just "Zamboni," and encourage people to call competitors' products by the actual product description ("ice resurfacing machine"). These campaigns are rarely successful, but the companies still try.
After all, genericization (that's probably not a real word) of a product name is really only the first step in commoditization of that product. After all, if you can't use your name to distinguish your product from anyone else's anymore, that product has essentially become a commodity, and that makes the competitive environment much more challenging. After all, when people buy tissues these days, how many are really loyal to the particular brand Kleenex anymore? How many people care if the personal casette player they buy is actually a Sony Walkman? Or that the copier they buy is actually a Xerox? Or the aspirin they buy is really Bayer Aspirin? And so on.
Re:Yeah... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah. Your in-depth knowledge of trademark law must be a great comfort compared to not having any friends.
Meanwhile, in the real world, trademarks cover a domain. The purpose of this is to allow companies to use words without stampping all over everyone else. For example: "Apple Computers" has no relevence to a name like "Apple Drinks" and no trademark infringement is possible. When Apple stepped out of their domain and into that of Apple Corp, the music company, it became an issue.
"Pod" is a very generic word indeed. To be protected by trademark law it needs to be very specificly applied. Profit Pod is not within the same domain and TightPod is using the actual word "pod" in its dictionary meaning and not for a music player. Apple does not own the dictionary. Thus, there is neither any reason or any need to threaten them. Their existance is of no relevance to whether a judge would rule on Apple's willingness to protect its trademark.
You also seem to think that trademarks are some sort of popularity contrest with comments like 'remotely anywhere near the ballpark of being as well, universally, and ubiquitously known as "iPod"' and 'a mark and product as important as iPod'. There is nothing important about "iPod" from the legal point of view; it is just a name amongst millions of others.
In short: Apple's legal department is doing what Apple's legal department has always done - it is being a bunch of wankers who desparately need to justify their high fees by appearing to do something for their money.
Re:Yeah... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Much ado about nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, uh - you're thinking logically, try to think like a lawyer for a big company.
You want court cases where you've successfully defended your mark, so rather than go after a blatant case, you go after small, weak companies who are unlikely to afford a court defense. Bingo, another case won, to be used as proof that you've been vigorously defending your mark should you need to go up against a real competitor.
Its not exactly what I'd describe as ethical, but as most companies seem to do it, I'd say the solution lies in trademark law reform.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because things in the natural world are never enclosed in a protective pod.
The Courts Require It (Score:4, Insightful)
This is definitely a case of "don't blame the player, blame the game."
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
And trying to protect words that are used in everyday life is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone in their right mind is arguing for that. First "Windows" and now "Pod" what next, "Mouse"? "Can"? "Pen"?
Will Nintendo start warning people about using the word "Paper" because they have a successful Paper Mario franchise? This is bullshit of the highest degree, right up there with software patents.
If I want to start up a brand of frozen vegetables, I shouldn't have to worry if I wanna call them "Peas-In-A-Pod" for fear of legal issues from Apple. Next thing you know, they'll be taking Granny Smith to court because they call them "apples".
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell does this even mean? "dedicated music player devices"? I guess that includes transistor radios, boomboxes, cassette tape players, and turntables? Obviously, if you include all music players ever made in any category, Apple's market share is going to be a lot lower than the numbers they quote. But that hardly matters; they're not competing against those products. It would be like saying Microsoft's global market share in "operating systems for electrical devices" is only 10%. Well, they're only actually *in* the computer market, so all those other devices are pretty meaningless in that context.
Apple's worldwide market share for DAPs is way over 25%. The iPod is the #1 mp3 player in more than just the United States. But this trademark issue is only being applied in the United States anyway, so the point is pretty much moot as it is.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?
They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.
Apple's not in a good defensive, let alone offensive, position.
Apple Trademarks "i*" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obvious answer (Score:3, Insightful)
(Okay, so Microsoft products crash from time to time. Let's call it tough love.)
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
And what percentage of the cupboard space below the display shelves?
Invasion of the pod people (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Apple should be ridiculed about this as "invasion of the pod people", ala invasion of the body snatchers.
If this is about trademark law then it is the law that is wrong not our usage of common English words. Change the law not our heritage of the English language that is thousands of years old I say.
Re:Yeah... (Score:1, Insightful)
Windows was a word used by microsoft to name their operating system. It has since become rather a popular operating system, but it is still a trademark! No-one else can use windows as the name of their operating system for very good reason. Its called deception.
Similarly with iPod, it represents an apple brand name, anyone using
No but you will run into problems if you create a computer game who's hero is an guy called Mario! Similarly even though everyone (in the States) calls a tissue a kleenex, doesn't mean you can bring out your own brand and call them kleenex too!
See above. At least try and apply some logic in your arguments...
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
The second half of the artical reads like a Zune commercial, suggesting that Microsoft's cooperation with musicians (read: "music industry moguls") will insure the product doesn't fail like the other iPod competitors have. Wait a minute... didn't you just cite a study just seconds ago that suggested that non-cellphone based music players were unpopular among most of the world?
The artical also fails to mention that the iPod sells even better in Japan than in the US. It also fails to quote any sales figures from late 2005 to the present, which have seen the biggest sales in the iPod's life so far.
Bottom line, the artical reads like a biased, anti-iPod editorial, drudging up obscure information in attempts to sully the iPod's name. The fact that they saught a Nokia-commissioned study says it all. Nothing to see here, move on.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
What pisses me off, is the name of the freaking product is "iPod", NOT "Pod".
Pod is a freaking WORD, not a NAME. I can't believe this damned discussion has to exist, shoot the lawyers, shoot em all!!! Take something as brutally simple and obvious as this and spew FUD until it is no longer so.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but I can still call the windows in my house Windows. I could invent and patent a plastic window to install in your stomach to view what you've eaten and call it bodyWindows. People can create products that work WITH MS Windows like WindowBlinds etc. You're not exactly making a sound case for Apple here, rather, you're pinpointing how very far overboard they have gone, ESPECIALLY when the name of their product is "iPod", NOT "Pod". Their claim to anything containing the term POD is BS, pure and simple.
Not that they won't get away with it, which points, again, to the real problem at hand.
Line em up and shoot em all
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because there are exactly three different kinds of iPods, while there are umpteen-thousand other random players. The amount of something actually sold doesn't necessarily have any relationship to the amount of display space it has.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?
Nothing. Podcast is just a word in the common language.
They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.
That actually wouldn't be a defense. If they were to sue, what they have to show is that the use of the word "pod" is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of consumers about who makes the product. Now, I think they'd have a hell of a time convincing a jury that the name of the vending machine-related Profit Pod has any chance of confusing consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't try to scare them out of using it anyway.
_________________________________
Actually, it is a defense. As I said, someone can claim their product containing the word pod is based named upon podcast, and as you've said, it's in the public domain. So if I create new piece of hardware called the podPlayer and they pursue me, my defense will be "it's a player which plays files which have a podCast format. The name podPlayer even indicates it's podPlayer -- a player of pod formats.
Unless & until you can show me how using the word pod in a name will stand up because Apple can claim it came from iPod and not from the pod in podCast, you won't have a case.[1] If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see logic beyond ukase [reference.com] or fiat [reference.com].
Were Apple to set things up such that podcast is a proprietary & protected format (e.g.,GIF) and it can be created by any number of means but played only upon an Apple iPod, that might hold water. But I'm willing to bet that won't hold water, would it?
____________________________
From a message three or four down:
And isn't Podcast an Apple invention? Could have sworn they were the ones that created the name anyway.
If this is true, I'd expect to see podCast (or pod) with a TM, C, SM, R everywhere it's used (except Slashdot for reasons I shouldn't have to explain -- aside from it invokes Godwin's Law in no more than three messages). I'd also expect to see Apple protecting the pod in podCast as adamantly as they are the pod in iPod. If they don't, they don't have a leg to stand on for the reasons I've stated here and a previous message.
iPod and podCast treated separately will require Apple to show intent on the part of alleged infringers as to which source of pod they were using. There's no way a company is going to put its head in the noose and state the wrong one. (landshark preparation: "Whatever you do, don't say we're using pod from iPod. It is soley and wholly from podCast.
_______________________________
[1] This leads into one area where patent law could be good, including submarines: stating via some document it will not be enforced and derivatives cannot be made private, preventing someone else from making it proprietary to themselves, thus letting everyone enjoy it. Prior art should prevent the patent to begin with, but because two or three companies seem to have convinced the USPTO prior art means nothing, one cannot count on prior art working correctly. It's like plastic additive patent ten or twelve years ago. Someone figured out how to add something to virtually all plastics without altering its desired properties. This made plastic show up on x-rays which wouldn't have done so before. This made it possible for plastic objects ingested (or entered their body through any number of means) to show up in the ER when they get an x-ray.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, at one point, Apple tried to snuff the first podcasting client, 'iPodder'.
So yeah. Quiet, fanboy. They didn't invent the GUI either.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the strongest argument in the world, mind you....
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
there are numerous clients that can listen / download podcasts on the net.
personally i would LIKE podcasts to be renamed, the whole 'pod' part of the name confuses people to the point that they think that they can ONLY listen / watch (in the case of video podcasting) to these feeds in iTunes.
which of course, is a fallacy that apple would like to continue propogating i'm sure.
we have podcasts on a number of sites that we run and the client of choice for most people to listen / watch them is NOT iTunes.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
The term is inaccurate, not to mention the implication is that internet-based media didn't exist before iPods. It's an internet broadcast. The only thing that qualifies as a podcast would be a broadcast using an iPod and a transmitter.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
In trademark law, a mark can be eroded and fall into the public domain but terms once in the public domain can also be turned into trademarks. "Apple" and "Macintosh" for example both existed before the Apple Computer company was founded but are both trademarked terms now. In this respect, trademark law is unlike patent and copyright law. In patent and copyright law the public good provided in exchange for legal rights is some novel creation which, once released to the public belongs to the public (with a few exceptions).
The key to understanding intellectual property law and the differences between the different varieties of IP law is understanding the bargain struck between the holders of the IP right and society at large. In trademark law, the public good received in exchange for the legal protection of the mark is the decrease in consumer search costs as a result of the mark. In theory, the more vigorously defended marks the better, as consumers can more efficiently identify the products they wish to purchase. The only thing the public sacrifices for this decrease in consumer search costs is the right to sell a product named in such a way that causes confusion as to its source. Novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a mark -- the public association between the mark and the source is the only relevant issue (though things like novelty can contribute to the strength of the mark and the ease of establishing it) and as a result a trademark can be lost and reclaimed (or even lost by one company and reclaimed by another). While there is essentially a one-way gate between patent or copyright protection and the public domain, the nature of the trademark bargain necessitates that the link between full trademark protection and the public domain be a sliding scale that can move in either direction.