Wired.com: Pod People Ponder Litigation

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71881-0.html?tw=wn_technology_1' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71881-0.html?tw=wn_technology_1</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Apple Computer's recent legal threats to rivals using the terms "pod" and "podcast" met with giggles and kvetching among podcast entrepreneurs and enthusiasts gathered here to discuss the future of the industry. Carrying more than a week's worth of sometimes tense online chatter about Apple’s recent letter to Podcast Ready claiming possible trademark infringements, the 2,500 attendees at the 2006 Podcast and Portable Media Expo on Friday alternately complained and laughed about the prospect that the iPod maker might own such seemingly generic words."</i><br /><br />What's wrong with Apple? Their freakish need to control everything related to their brand - even when it's harmful to their own community of users - is simply insane. I've always always disliked the term "podcast", but it has the momentum on the market and is the de-facto standard. For Apple to try and play the heavy now, at this stage in the game, is mind-numbingly stupid.

[Macguy59]

Actually agree with you on this one. This is as stupid as the Zune not allowing any current or past Play-For-Sure media to play on it.

[Philip Colmer]

I read - and I'm sorry that I cannot remember where or link to it - that this is all because Apple wanted to trademark iPodcast and they were refused, partly on the grounds of the existing use of podcast. I think that they believe that if they can stamp out the use of podcast, they will get their trademark approved.

--Philip

[Felix Torres]

The reasoning behind trademark-infringement laws is to avoid confusing the consumer and to prevent the exploitation of somebody else's brand equity and associated good will. Apple's behavior goes beyond the letter and intent of the law and it is more of an attempt to exploit brand equity and good will created by others.

One could understand them defending their trademark within the regime of music-related devices and services, but Apple's boys are going after everything! They went after a company that made laptop sleeves. What next? Going after the moving-services company that makes the P.O.D.S.?

On "podcast" they *might* have had a case if they'd acted sooner, since there is nothing pod-specific about them but the fact is they were more than happy to exploit consumer confusion and allowed its use for what should have probably been called Webcasts or audiozines, since "podcasts" are really creatures of the web and most never get synch'ed to a DAP but are played on the PC that d/l'ed them in the first place.

Well, the law is clear on that; you can't pick and choose when, where, and against whom to defend a trademark--discriminatory enforcement is not acceptable. You either defend it against all uses as soon as you are aware of it or you lose it. Apple can hardly be claiming they only recently became aware of the broad use (and misuse) of podcast so they shouldn't be trying to restrict its use at this late stage. If nothing else because they might rile up somebody with pockets deep enough to countersue and go for a court ruling on how much of a trademark Apple actually owns instead of folding or negotiating.

iPod is a clear Apple trademark; "pod" isn't, even in music related uses. It most definitely is *not* their property in non-music applications. Apple wants to milk every last bit of revenue they can out of the ipod for as long as they can and that is their right but they don't own the word pod and the sooner they realize it the better; these attacks are eating away at their brand equity and good will a lot more than than any imagined infringement ever would.

[EscapePod]

Makes you wonder..... how long will it be before Apple goes after any product with "i" before another word (eg.: i-home, i-Drive, i-&lt;anything>) ? There are quite a few products already named as such.

[BugDude10]

Hmm, maybe this is why Apple has only 5% of the computer market? :roll:

Ya know, someone could probably start a pretty successful tech company using Sony and Apple as example of exactly what not to do to your customers...

[Janak Parekh]

I've always always disliked the term "podcast", but it has the momentum on the market and is the de-facto standard. For Apple to try and play the heavy now, at this stage in the game, is mind-numbingly stupid.
Most of the media is mind-numblingly stupid as well, though. As per the original C&amp;D (http://blog.wired.com/music/index.blog?entry_id=1562695), which most of the media seems not to have read,

"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..."

In other words, they're not going after the use of the term podcasting. I agree with others here, though, that them claiming rights to "pod" is lame.

--janak

[James Fee]

I think you guys are reading more into this than you should. Apple doesn't own the podcast trademark and has never tried to trademark it, but someone else has (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&amp;state=5fq6hr.1.1&amp;p_search=searchss&amp;p_L=50&amp;BackReference=&amp;p_plural=yes&amp;p_s_PARA1=&amp;p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&amp;expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&amp;p_s_PARA2=podcast&amp;p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&amp;p_op_ALL=AND&amp;a_default=search&amp;a_search=Submit+Query&amp;a_search=Submit+Query).

Heck the trademark office cites the word Podcast as "descriptive" and cannot be trademarked anyway. (I'm not saying Apple might not get iPodcast, but really who cares?) What is hilarious is that the Trademark office used Wikipedia (http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2005/09/trademark_offic.html) to strike down that Podcast trademark application.

Now should Apple defend their iPod trademark? Yes, but you'll see that they are using their Pod trademark (that they actually don't own yet) to strike down mypodder and Podcast Ready. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that as long as Apple doesn't get the "Pod" trademark or a "Podcast" trademark (which I don't think they'll get either). Frankly what would happen if Podcast Ready started getting these trademarks? Would they go after Apple and others?

Frankly I hope we'll never have to find out either way, but it seems that it is impossible to trademark Podcast so we can sleep tonight.

[Jason Eaton]

While I understand that Apple needs to defend/pursue infringments to things they have trademarked or risk losing it, I fear for the small websites just trying to get along.

I think site owners are facing very difficult times as they often have to give in, no matter if the action is right or wrong, simply because they can't afford the justice process currently in place. :?

So without beating the dead horse a few more times... this sucks.