Apple goes after "Podcasts"

HardOCP ^ | 9-25-2006

[Echo Talon]

Last month, Apple’s legal team went after anyone using the word “pod” in their name.
This month, Apple is after people using the word “podcast” in their names.

Now that Apple's lawyers have scared the pants off of small entrepreneurs selling products
like the Profit Pod and TightPod -- items that have nothing to with portable audio in any way,
mind you -- it seems that the next targets are companies that have the audacity to use the word "podcast" in their names.

[Echo Talon]

Sheesh, and people complain about Microsoft all the damn time.

[theDentist]

Apple and the Pod People

[livius]

Typical Apple. One of their problems is that they come up with great technology, and then they destroy its usefulness by making it so proprietary that it becomes inaccessible and weird.

[cripplecreek]

Sauropods and Bait-casters hardest hit.

[Echo Talon]

[Drango]

Apple can byte my Pod.

[SeanOGuano]

You beat me to it.

The Pods storage units were the first think I thought of.

[bmwcyle]

I hate rich liberals.

[Echo Talon]

sheesh, this si crazy. Maybe someone should give HotAir/Michelle Malkin a heads up because they have the world "podcast" on their blog, hopefully Apple doesn't sure them... :D

[Echo Talon]

sue even.

[Petronski]

This is an idiotic move.

[Echo Talon]

This is a screen grab from hotair.com OH THE HORROR!!

[Revel]

I think that God should sue apple. Really this is rediculous. Remind me to never support these liberals by spending money on any of there products. No MACS for me.

[newheart]

I love Apple products. I've used them since 1984. I will continue to use Apple products. I also think their marketing prowess is unparalleled in the computer industry.

But for crying out loud, why they would go after people using a word that sells their product is beyond me. When anyone hears the word 'podcast' the first thing you think of is iPod. That delivers monster mindshare and is worth every penny they don't have to pay for it.

[stainlessbanner]

madness

[ShadowAce]

DTV

[Doohickey]

Apple has stepped over the line on some of their attempts to stamp out "pod".

That said, "podcast" can only mean one thing. It conjures up an image of the iPod. I can't imagine it being though of any other way.

Apple has somewhat of a point on the podcast issue. I think they'll lose, for a couple of reasons. I don't think "podcast" is trademarked, for one. For another, the word "iPod" has or is about to pass into the public domain, much like Intel's x86 did.

[Barney59]

I agree, to stomp on a branding 'GIFT' like podcast is like Kleenex trying to stop everyone from using their name as a generic reference for tissue.

Ask any brand manager and they'll tell you to 'own' the reference to a generic action is gold.

Lawyers gone amok... again.

[antiRepublicrat]

"Open the pod® bay door, Hal"

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't think "podcast" is trademarked, for one.

There are several trademarks over "podcast," but Apple doesn't own any of them, although they do own "ipodcast." The term went generic before Apple could do anything about it.

For another, the word "iPod" has or is about to pass into the public domain, much like Intel's x86 did.

There is no such thing as public domain in trademark. You can lose it because you abandon it or don't defend it from becoming generic. "iPod" won't become generic any time soon, as that is a trademark concerning an actively sold product.

As far as x86, you bring up an interesting case. Intel came up with the trademark "Pentium" because x86 were determined to be series numbers and not protectable by trademark, and competitors could use variations of the scheme to sell their chips (AMD's 386DX-40 and Am486).