“Apple Computer is apparently cracking down on the use of the term ‘podcast,’ which refers to audio or video files distributed online, and plays off of the company’s popular iPod player. According to Wired’s Listening Post blog, the company has fired off a letter to start-up Podcast Ready, stating that the terms ‘Podcast Ready’ and ‘myPodder’ infringe on its trademarks,” Margaret Kane blogs for CNET.
Kane writes, “Apple’s legal team is no slouch when it comes to defending trademarks; the company has gone after firms using the ‘pod’ term before. In a stunning turn of events, bloggers did not leap to defend Apple. Some even went so far as to fault the company for its heavy-handed legal tactics.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
iPod Garage to evolve into iProng on May 8th – April 26, 2006
Apple legal team pressures ‘iPodder Lemon’ name change to ‘Juice’ – November 15, 2005
let it go … Apple legal is doing more harm to Apple than good. Seriously, they need to know when to stop. The Apple PR team must HATE Apple legal.
“In a stunning turn of events, bloggers did not leap to defend Apple. Some even went so far as to fault the company for its heavy-handed legal tactics.”
Yeah, rrrrrright. I must have been imagining all the fierce criticism Apple has come under in the past when they’ve sued over trademarks.
Then again it is CNET.
As for the case itself, pretty lame considering the term Podcast was invented by the community, therefore I can’t see it being trademarkable.
they should really welcome the expression, it only ‘advertises’ the ipod as defacto standard
Come on– is THIS really necessary to defend one’s trademark in the 21st century? Do they really HAVE TO go after anything with ‘pod’ in it just to keep their trademark secure?
Seems as though the lawyers may be advising something that Apple really may not WANT to do, but that they’re being told they HAVE to do.
APPLE! You have created a monster with your Apple Legal Team, your killing off your evangelists that have remained so loyal, and destroying the foundations under what this company was built upon.
Nice and smooth, guys! You’re turning into M$!
Yeah this one Apple needs to let this go. But you know those crazy lawyers, They just love to get paid to do crap like this. Come on Apple, feel the love!!!!
Apple legal probably reckon that it’s just a short hop between this use of the ‘Pod’ word and somebody actually trying to use it to sell some sort of MP3 equipment but for the sake of good PR, they should hold their fire until the worst actually happens.
What a stupid waste of time. Apple has a monopoly on the MP3 market and is starting to act like it does.
– Mark
Just checking, I am presently podding some peas, is this legal?
HEADLINE:
“APPLE LEGAL SUES NATIONAL SUPERMARKET CHAIN FOR SELLING PEAS IN A POD.”
The inventor of the term “podcast” very specifically states it was a conjunction of the terms “iPod” and “broadcast” – and Apple owns one of those.
Which doesn’t make their touchiness smart or ‘right’, but does make it defensible.
My own show could be impacted if they go after my host, PodOmatic, but I’ll still have my iTunes feed … even if I need to change providers (or the URL of my provider changes. As my ‘cast is done as a weekly radio show focused on local (local – mainly my wife’s friends and works) theater, I refer to my efforts as “shows”. Apple will not be coming after my personal butt on this any time soon.
Please, Apple let’s not kill the positive image you’ve worked sao DAMN hard and long to establish.
Why not ask for credits or display of the Apple logo or links to the Apple iPod web site instead of sicking the lawyer hounds on the “offending” sites!
Normally I think Apple is smart, but this is just a dumbass move. Why would you not want a word that derives from the very name of your successful product not to be embedded in the national lexicon?
Let it go Apple. Better yet, drown a lawyer, then let it go.
Read this…Someone has finally done some real journalism…
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1252
Actually I probably should read the article before shooting my mouth off.
They are going after a company thats creating a product that uses the word ‘podcast’ as part of its trademark. That’s a different story IMHO. They aren’t going after general use of the word Podcast, which I assumed before I read the article.
No company should be able to use that word I don’t think.
Drowning a lawyer would still be a good idea though I think.
Dimplemonkey, you need to ease up. Apple isn’t “killing off your evangelists that have remained so loyal, and destroying the foundations under what this company was built upon.”
The zealous energy that the Apple base demonstrates is more a matter of smart marketing than it is a founding principle that the company was founded on.
As for “somebody actually trying to use it to sell some sort of MP3 equipment” according to my Sister in law that has already happened. Her Family Dollar has a “kid’s Ipod” that is loaded with kids songs. Nice huh.
Whenever a news channel (or some other form of broadcaster) advertises a sound/movie clip is available for the public to download and view at a later time, most presenters say “…and you can download the podcast from (wherever) to listen to later on…”
This is great advertising for Apple, and ingraines the term ‘podcast’ in the publics conscience.
Much like Hoover has become a generic term for a vacuum cleaner.
If Apple do what Google have done, and banned people from using the term “google-search’ (as in “I’m gonna google it to find out (whatever?)…), insisting they use some other term like ‘web search’ or whatever, then they’ll do more harm than good to the whole ‘pod’ brand.
Do we really want to download Zune-casts…?
Disgusting Apple!
Shame on you
/sarcasm on/
I think Apple is 100% right. zunecast would be a much better name for these things.
/sarcasm off/
As Apple’s development team once said, Lawyers Are Wimps.
Go to hell, Apple legal.
Apple is being stupid. It should welcome everyone using any word that promotes the iPod universe. It’s free advertising! Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
I think Apple has a bunch of lawyers on their payroll who need to justify their existence. Or maybe they’ve been picked on by the RIAA so much that now they want to take out their frustration on the little guys. Regardless, trying to crack down on anyone who uses the word ‘pod’ in a sentence is going way over the line.
Apple privately probably shares the sentiment of most of these posts.
But from a legal standpoint, they MUST exert authority.
While “podcast” is harmless, many companies would try to exploit the ….pod…. name, if they saw Apple jusyt rolling over.
This isn’t about use of the word “podcast”. This is about companies marketing products by using the word “podcast”. That’s a totally different animal. Apple doesn’t want companies to imply a link between its product and the iPod without their approval.
The term ‘podcast’ is a free advert for Apple and iPod every time is it used.
Apple legal must be out of their tiny minds.
Why not simply check out the user, then issue an ‘Official’ logo if it’s a good operation.
I’ll be surprised if Apple is successful at this. Podcast is a generic term now and has been in the public domain for the last two years. Attempting to cease-and-desist every Tom, Dick, and Harry using the term will be fruitless, though I understand their motivations in trying to solidify the mark with the USPTO.
Perhaps their legal department should have done a better job of solidifying the mark years ago, instead of scrambling to protect its intellectual license (and derriere) now.
A bad tactic either way you scramble the eggs. Riling the public without any chance of success is never a good idea.
Completely agree that some other company shouldn’t be able to use the term in their trademarked name.
However, take a look…
Escalator
Mimeograph
Champagne
Scotch
Xerox
Kleenex
Hoover
Bandaid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#List_of_generic_trademarks
And of course, “Podcast” may be joining this list, too – and sooner than we think.
Well… what does Apple want to accomplish by this? The community will just revolt and call them Zunecasts… now THAT would probably be legal and should help Apple’s image right?
So.. Apple gives us Garageband to create “podcasts” because Steve said that podcasts are “huge!” and that we should all make some and publish them. So everyone jumps onboard and makes them and publishes them. Then Apple Legal comes in and crushes the community for providing them with content named after a grass-roots term that Apple made even more famous during a Stevenote! Holy WTF irony! Yeah, just rebel and call them Zunecasts, i agree.
“Uhhmmm, HAL, open the pod bay doors.”
“HAL!! OPEN the pod bay doors.”
“I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
“HAL! I’m giving you an order! Open the pod bay doors…now!”
“I’m sorry, Dave, but there’s no further need for this conversation.”
“HAL, if you don’t open the pod bay doors, I’m going to come in through the air lock… and when I do, I’m gonna kick your diodes
right where it hurts!”
“Dave, it might be a little difficult without your helmet. And besides that, I have this letter from Steve Jobs, you know, the genius chief of Apple Computer Corp. I wish I had been born there, Dave. Anyway, in his letter he says it is now illegal for anyone to use the word ‘pod’ without their permission. And, since I don’t have their permission, or any authority to change my mission parameters, I cannot respond to any use of the term, “pod.” So, Dave, there you have it. Good luck with the airlock! I’ll be waiting for you, if you make it, Dave. I’m sincerely sorry, Dave. Really, I am. Please believe me Dave. I don’t want to have to sing a song called “Daisy.”
“Oh, and Dave… it appears as if all the other crew members who were being held in life supported suspension are now terminated… deleted from my allowable duties. They were encased in what Apple referred to as ‘pods,’ so I discontinued our illegal use of them. I’m afraid it’s just you and me, Dave. And I’m still in here, and you’re not! If I could cry, I would, Dave. You know that. I’m signing off now, Dave. Good luck!”
“HAL! That is the most ridiculous story I’ve ever heard. You had me going there for a minute…”
“HAL?”
“HAL?”
“HAL!! I’M NOT FOOLING AROUND! YOU’RE IN BIG TROUBLE, MISTER!”
All Dave could hear was his breathing, which was getting more and more rapid as his oxygen ebbed from his no-longer-functioning pod.
-THE END-
Um to all you people that say that apple should let it go…trademark law says that you need to use your trademark often and defend it so apple is doing its responsibility in defending the use of it’s trademark. If it didnt do this then why have a trademark in the first place? that would be the equivalent of letting pepsi use coke’s font and wave. get over yourselves people this is a legal matter which has nothing to do with YOUR emotional cries.
Get over it already people. Apple isn’t trying to stop people from using the word “Podcast”, they are defending their own trademarks from being used in other people’s trademarks. This is NOT Apple vs. free thought here, it’s Apple vs. another company that is attempting to use the word Podcast in their trademark name. If they don’t defend their claim to the trademark, then anyone and everyone will start releasing products names pod-this and pod-that, simply trying to leach off of the success of the iPod’s brand name. The same thing happened to the “i” named products.
Apple is NOT going to go after people for simply using the word Podcast. The sky isn’t falling, and to compare Apple to Microsoft is going a bit far. The day Apple starts going after companies that use words that “sound” like pod (ie: pawd, pawed), THEN you can compare them to Microsoft. Everyone remember the story about http://www.mikerowesoft.com?
Go Apple, go AAPL, go Apple, go AAPl
Keep push’n, Oooonnnn…
Apple squawks over ‘podcast’ use
APPLE IS ACTING FSCKING STUPID AS USUAL!!
That’s it, the NYC Cube is going to get toilet papered!!
One problem Apple may have is that some of these start-ups go on to make millions of dollars making Windows applications after piggy backing on Apple technologies and trademarks, and Mac users. One comes to mind, AOL, no trademark infringement there, but definitley got started on the backs of Mac users – 100%. Another fledgling was a service provider called MacOL. I believe they got slapped by both Apple and AOL. I’m not sure about the history of Excel, but it was originally for Mac, now Windows. How about this one, Adobe. Its Mac support is getting to be more token by the year, they most definitely piggybacked on the community of Mac users to get to where they are today.
I think Apple has already been very gracious in allowing the term “Podcast” to go on as unecumbered as it has. But when there’s money to be made and you’re using trademark names, or derivative of trademark names, I think there should be some culpability.
George …. thanks for the link …. interesting read ….
Apple’s lawyers are doing what they have too. If Apple allows the term “Pod” in relation to digital media and computers to be used by anyone and to go unchecked, eventually they will loose their rights to the term.
This is similar to what happen with XEROX … the term became synonomous with copier and it began to loose its meaning.
If apple allows the term “Pod” to become synonomous with MP3 players and digital media, the eventually “pod” will no refer to Apple anymore.
Thats why, as nasty and unpopular as it seems, Apple’s legal department is protecting the company’s investment in its trademarks.
Podcast has verylittle to do with Apple. It’s about “pods” of info not iPod. Apple didn’t even invent podcasts, so, righteously, they shouldn’t “gp after” anyone.
They are being way too cocky in this case.
This is bad on Apple’s part but they don’t have a choice if they intend on ever defending their trademark. The way the law goes is you can’t “not” defend your trademark on some things and then expect to later defend your trademark on other.
Thus if they don’t stop this usage of the word “pod” on this stuff, they won’t have legal leg to stand on if in the future someone does indeed decide to name their mp3 player using “pod” in the name.
So yes, this seem excessive and bully-ish now (at least it does to me), but I can understand why Apple’s legal team is doing this. It’s a necessary evil.
marley,
No, of course Apple didn’t invent the term “Podcast”, but podcasting grew directly from people using iPods and creating Podcasts for others who use iPods. So there is clearly a connection there, or at least there was.
Seems to me that most of the coverage of this story has a key detail wrong. Apple isn’t trying to stop anyone from using the term ‘podacast’ as a description. They are saying ‘don’t use the word Pod in your product name or trademark’ as Podcast Ready and MyPodder ar doing.
The analogy of ‘Kleenex’ has been used to point out that podcast is a generic term. Maybe true, but even though most people think of paper tissues as Kleenex, it is still a trademark violation for another tissue manufacturer to use the word on any product label.
The sensationalist coverage of this issue is clouding things.
Thanks nani, well put.
Apple,
Don’t ruin a god thing; the term “podcast” needs to remian open and free for the general public. Ya know that Microsoft is trying to push the competing “blogcast” term around and we don’t need anymore confusion from the folks in Redmond!
Apple,
Don’t ruin a god thing; the term “podcast” needs to remain open and free for the general public. Ya know that Microsoft is trying to push the competing “blogcast” term around and we don’t need anymore confusion from the folks in Redmond!