Apple not shutting down all use of "podcast"; still not so hot on "pod," though

You probably remember our post this past weekend citing a Wired Listening Post story which claimed that Apple was trying to claim ownership of the word "podcast"; we even got -- OMG -- Slashdotted. Well, Wired Listening Post has now printed Apple's letter to the company in question, Podcast Ready, and it seems that the real situation is a bit murkier than our original post might have led you to believe. While Steve and friends are definitely gung-ho about Podcast Ready abandoning the use of "myPodder" for its automation software (claiming that it is "very similar phonetically to Apple's iPod mark and appears to have been chosen intentionally to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of Apple's marks"), the letter goes on to say that "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." What it basically comes down to is this: Apple objects to "Podcast Ready" trademark applications which cover "portable listening devices" and "software to manage digital content for portable media players," but is fine with an application for that branding which only refers to podcasting in general. It's still confusing as hell, since it's not entirely obvious where one would draw the line between "podcasting in general" and podcasting as it relates to portable listening devices and software for managing podcasts for portable media devices, but either way what is very clear is that Apple is determined to protect its turf and prevent anyone from using the words "pod" and "podcast" in any manner they believe might possibly infringe on its trademarks.

[Via MacRumors]

[Aaron @ Sep 27th 2006 12:33PM]

if apple is suing everyone for infringing on it's iproperty why dont we just iabandon their iproducts! For goodness sake, how are idevelopers supposed to idevelop or idistribute media for apple players when apple keeps isuing everyone?

[Jason @ Sep 27th 2006 12:35PM]

Before anyone gets gung ho, the way the law works is thus:

If Apple doesn't defend their claim to the term iPod, including Pod or Podcast or anything close, it can be argued that the term has fallen into common usage and is no longer a trademark. Much like Adobe when they released a statement saying that they were unhappy with people using the phrase "I Photoshopped that picture", Apple needs to defend its trademarks lest they fall into common usage like scotch tape or kleenexes.

[Jeff Foster @ Sep 27th 2006 12:39PM]

"Apple needs to defend its trademarks lest they fall into common usage like scotch tape or kleenexes."

word, like Elevator or Gasoline. both were once brands.
(just like Google trying to get rid of the "i googled some phrase" terminology.... though i dont think anyone says "i googled it" if they actually MSN'ed it or AOLSearch'ed it.)

...but, you know, anything that casts Apple in a negative light is good for hits.

[tristanfey @ Sep 27th 2006 5:03PM]

You are correct in the common usage, being a reason for losing a Trademark. Another that must be done is proper use of the Trademark by the company. This means, when the Trademarked item is used (e.g. iPod) it must be accompanied by the � symbol, if the application is pending or the � symbol if the application has been granted.

Check Apple's website and tell me how many instances where Apple does not meet this requirement.

[Jeff Foster @ Sep 27th 2006 12:35PM]

"as it relates to portable listening devices and software for managing podcasts for portable media devices"

seems fairly straight-forward-ish to me. :)

[bipto @ Sep 27th 2006 12:40PM]

"...is very clear is that Apple is determined to protect its turf and prevent anyone from using the words "pod" and "podcast" in any manner they believe might possibly infringe on its trademarks."

Darn, Jason beat me to it. But yeah, that's how the law works. Don't blame Apple for playing by the rules.

[Chad @ Sep 27th 2006 12:47PM]

Apple does not have a leg to stand on:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/podcast

They have lost all legal rights to the use of the word "pod" when it refers to podcasting. It is in the dictionary and therefore public property.

[Jason @ Sep 27th 2006 12:55PM]

I hope you're joking.

[minus_273 @ Sep 27th 2006 1:07PM]

damn must suck for google too
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google

[julian @ Sep 27th 2006 12:51PM]

They hit my copmany too. The Tinpod is a ipod case. Apple does not want us to use the word pod. Figures. What can you do?

http://www.thetinpod.com

Cheerio, Julian

[tekdroid @ Sep 27th 2006 1:32PM]

I would like to express my strong aversions to the word podcast. We had audio on the web well before iPod hit. It was called audio. It was never associated with a brand. Or marketed. Or even associated with anything but...audio.

It was audio. It still is.
Thank you for your attention.

I am in the mood to islap somebody in marketing.

[Jeff @ Sep 27th 2006 7:01PM]

"We had audio on the web well before iPod hit: we called it audio."

podcasting, though it includes audio, is not the same thing.

look it up.

even if it is just an RSS wrapper for an audio file, it's significantly different than the midi you had playing as background music on your angelfire site in 1998. podcasting != just audio.

[Magus @ Sep 27th 2006 1:55PM]

Personaly i make a larger connection to the iAnything instead of the word pod especially since they have a significantly larger line in i*. Wouldnt it make more sense to go after things like iFish and such?

[netboolie @ Sep 27th 2006 2:03PM]

Go Zune!

[glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 2:13PM]

tekroid, I agree with you. I would love to see a more descriptive name for what is essentially a sound file delivered by RSS.

It has nothing to do with Apple or ipods I just can't get past the ridiculous name. It's like calling it a 'flowerbutt'. I just can't bring myself to DL and listen to a flowerbutt. I love listening to NPR and they have a lot of shows available for flowerbutting but how can you take seriously something called a flowerbutt?

[Mike Talmadge @ Sep 27th 2006 2:17PM]

It all makes sense to me.

MyPodder sounds like iPodder, easy court case (FYI iPodder.org is gone). Just like iPed looks like iPod. ref http://www.google.com/search?hs=dSd&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=iped+iPod&btnG=Search

Yes, Apple yelled at us too! (honest mistake)

"Podcast Ready" should not be Trade Marked by this new company because this is a general word. I believe all APPLE is saying is that the word "Podcast" shouldn't be Trade Marked by anyone.

Now on the other hand APPLE has been trying to TM "iPodcast" for sometime now and not geting to far in court with that. Then again they may have other reasons too, who knows?!

[Giggle Beans @ Sep 27th 2006 2:21PM]

Oh for crying out loud people. Please remove the scratch & sniff stickers of Steve Balmer's ass from your eyes long enough to read the friggin letter. They haven't sued a soul thus far. It's simply a C&D letter meant to show intent to protect their mark. They make it clear that they aren't claiming podcasts as their own. There's no story here, you dig? Okay, you can re-immerse yourselves in Ballmer-induced rapture once again.

[tekdroid @ Sep 27th 2006 2:31PM]

glacia00 @ Sep 27th 2006 2:12PM

tekroid, I agree with you. I would love to see a more descriptive name for what is essentially a sound file delivered by RSS.
---------
I suggest audio feed. Or audiofeed.
Simple.

Audio subscription. Etc. Simple language; no new words. Understandable. Not related to any particular device, brand or introducing obscure language.

[Jeremy @ Sep 27th 2006 2:37PM]

I haven't read the C&D letter but from the quotes above it certainly seems like Apples only beef is that podcast is being used in conjunction with support for players that are not iPod's.

[EngadgetSucks @ Sep 27th 2006 4:41PM]

Slurp--oh my god!--slurp--Steve Jobs is right on!--gulp--Apple should sue everyone because--slurp--it is essential that no one use any soundalike word to "iPod" or "pod" or "i" or "crapple"--gurgle--cause then people would stop buying Apple products--slurp!

[tristanfey @ Sep 27th 2006 4:54PM]

There are 21 "Live" Tradmarks containing the word "podcast". Two of which use just that word (each in a different font) and are an image TM. Apple has some work cut out for them (unless they just plan on paying everyone off like have done with a few already.

FYI - The Trademark search is located here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=io7r67.1.1

Just type in podcast and go.

[javaflash @ Sep 27th 2006 10:43PM]

Maybe I read this wrong, but basically Apple doesn't mind people using the term "Podcast," but they have a problem with people using the term "Podcast Ready."

Take a moment to chew on implications ---> The former uses the term, the later steals the term.

Apple's objection sounds fair, don't you think?

[NewType @ Sep 28th 2006 12:17AM]

Uh, the situation seems pretty clear to me. Apple is basically saying Podcast Ready's application for trademark is overly broad because it doesn't merely describe a podcast service, but also covers "portable listening devices." That means if Apple allows Podcast Ready's trademark to go forward, then at a future date, they could introduce a branded MP3 player called "myPodder" since the application covers devices.

Apple clearly has a legitimate beef against the possibility of a music player being named "myPod" or "myPodder." That's what the letter is about.

If Podcast Ready modified the application to state that it was only for a "podcast service," I'm sure Apple would not have a problem with it. Simple as that.

[the rest of of the words in the English language @ Sep 28th 2006 2:53AM]

What if pod was like one of us? Just a pod like one of us?