Will the hammer fall here as well?
Looks like Apple is starting to flex their muscle and working hard to protect their trademarked image/brand name iPod®. They recently sent a nasty letter to the makers of an arcade-game money-tracker broadcaster-thing — of obvious little or no correlation to their product. I know that they did ask a few folks to change the name of their sites/services when those sites/services used the actual series of letters I-P-O-D in their name. This marks the first time I’ve heard of them getting nasty over P-O-D without the I.
I’m not surprised by this action, as I recently heard that Google wasn’t allowing AdWords (their self-service keyword advertising system) clients to use the word “pod” in the ad text. I’ve got a call into my rep at Google (day job stuff) to see if she can give me more details.
So it begs the question — will Apple have an issue with us? We’re not using the trademarked term, but we certainly do make prominent use of the sequential letters P-O-D in our domain name and service name. When I coined the term “podiobook”, I deliberately did not trademark the name as I wanted it to be a well-accepted term for any type of book presented in audio form using the sequential delivery nature of podcasting. Yeah, I made it up, but someone came up with the word “automobile” and didn’t ask for money every time someone used it.
Thoughts and opinions. If there are any IP attorneys who are members of Podiobooks.com, I would really love to chat with you further on this and a few other related topics.
August 13th, 2006 at 11:23 am
What’s next? Is Apple going to go after peas? After all, they come in PODS.
August 13th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
The letters P-O-D in sequence also stand for “print on demand.” And “piece of data,” once upon a time.
And, for that matter, a pod in its original sense is simply a container, holding many things. Like a seed pod, the “pod” in “podiobook” represents the great potential of thought and imagination contained within an RSS feed, ready to burst upon the listener’s fertile mind. It has nothing to do with iPods, any more than podcasts do.
Better call the EFF…
By the way, what does the “I” stand for in iPod? Because I know I didn’t sanction the use of the word that signifies my individual identity. How dare those bastards at Apple presume such!
August 13th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Hrm… What’s going to happen to “podcast”?
August 13th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Very odd. I can understand Apple going after anything called Ipod, but not Pod, because, geez, pod is such a generic term. Are they going to sue octopi, squid and cuttlefish because they’re cephaloPODs?
And yeah, what about the Print on Demand folks? Apple going to sue Lightning Source because it’s the main POD???
This is plain silly.
August 13th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I suspect this is over the hardware connection, as described in the letter:
————-
Both devices receive and transmit data and are used with computers, both are used in connection with video games, and both have other similar components. Moreover, it has not gone unnoticed that, like Apple’s IPOD device, the PROFIT POD product is a small, flat, round corned rectangular device with a display screen. In addition to the likelihood of confusion between the products, because Apple’s mark is famous, it is entitled to protection from dilution attributable to the PROFIT POD mark.
————-
If Podiobooker puts out a piece of rectangular hardware with “pod” in the name, then yeah I bet there will be a problem…
August 13th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Hey I am a *huge* Apple fan, but come on…I hope this insanity doesn’t extend here. I can grudgingly understand them protecting a trademark name like “ipod” (oops! dont sue me Apple) but *pod.*?
That sounds more like a Micro$oft move than an Apple one.
Can you trademark the term ‘podiobooks’ inexpensively?
August 13th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Probably not, if I’m correct trademarks typically cost hundreds at least. Hopefully Apple will realize that the term “podcast” is quite generic now, and “podiobooks” stems from that. Given that the term podcast has appeared all over the place, for example in the title’s of many books, how can they claim ownership of it now? Trademarks go away if you fail to protect them (unlike copyrights and patents), by letting pod without the i be used so freely for this long, I’m thinking they’ve given up any claim to it.
Heck, if all else fails, just point to “Podcasting for Dummies” and say that’s where you got your inspiration
August 14th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
You may remember that the car Lexus almost didn’t come out because Lexus/Nexus filed a law suite. While there is a little more similarity – it highly unlikely they would win. I wish you the best of luck and would be willing to donate to a legal fund if it comes to that.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Maybe someone at Apple® should try to find a Sony® Betamax® Video Cassette Recorder and see if they can buy a movie to mellow out with. Haven’t we seen the companies that jealously guard their registered trademarks and all varriants thereof in perpetuity go down the tubes? If not for the public usage of “kleenex,” “aspirin,” “coke,” “compact disk,” or any number of “namebrand” products that have become the icons of all such products, where would we be… I doubt many people would got to the store to by a bottle of salisylic acid tablets.
Come on Apple®, JUST DO IT! (oh! can I say that?)
What’s next? “ROLLOX Replacement Rectangular Wall Apertures”
August 15th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
This might clear things up a bit on this issue, it seems the company’s that were contacted sold products that were iPod like. I think Podiobooks should be save, unless Apple really starts to get aggressive.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6105789.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
August 16th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I figured I’d coin a new word for what we’re talking about. I was going to call each person speaking about “iPod” to step up to the iPodium…until I did a google search…scratch that idea.
Apple’s got its hands full if it thinks it can stop the iPODEMONIUM (poor take-off of pandemonium, of course). There’s pod and iPod everything nowadays!!
I, like Matt Selznick, am still waiting for someone to explain the “i” in “iPod”. AND…I never liked the appellation “podcast”, anyway. When I did my first audio excursion into blogs, I called it “audioblogging” and began producing “audioblogs”. Never considered it “casting”, either, since I wasn’t exactly broadcasting in the currently excepted sense of the word.
Upon reflection, I’m thinking, “What’s all the hoopla, anyway?” Let’s squash Apple’s megalomanical attempt to grab all things P-O-D, and simple tell them they CAN’T HAVE IT! I’m more than willing to surrender any use of i-p-o-d that doesn’t fall into an actual pre-iPod word, and just tell them…take your iPod and shove it!
If I can reserve rights to AUDIOBLOG, AUDIOBLOGGING and …BLOGS, et al, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
–>
I’ll be more than happy to allow others non-commercial, no-revis, no deriv permission to use it.
Go ahead Apple(r)…put that in your POD and smoke it!!
-Bear
August 16th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Oh…one more thought…
What am I gonna call that red thing I eat to keep the doctor away?
-Bear
August 18th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
hey I was just over shamelessly sucking up to the folks at EscapePod. I asked him the same question….since the Apple nazis are out in force are you concerned. I made a point in mentioning that they seemed to be focusing in on anyone that was using POD. They don’t seem to be worried because they were not trying to trademark/register the name. Seems reasonable I guess. I haven’t asked podomatic yet who host my podcast….
Paul Cole Beam Me Up http://www.beameup.podomatic.com
September 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
It would only be relevant if the Apple product was in the same market, ie, audiobooks.
IANAL, but I’ve read quite a bit of IP analisys because I’m a free culture believer.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
You guys won’t have a problem. Apple is protecting the rights to their hardward trademarks. That’s it. For them, the term “podcasting” and even “podiobooks” is nothing but a benefit. Since they have the iPod, and they have jumped on the podcasting bandwagon with both feet, going after the term podcasting, like I’ve heard in quite a number of paranoid circles, would be cutting their own throats. They are thriving on the fact that people are confused and often think that podcasting requires an iPod. Podcasting brings people to iTunes, which, for some smaller percentage, creates more sales of their iPod. Simple business.