Apple says they own the word "pod"

[elmo3]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4877

This case is a perfect example of how ludicrous trademark filing has become. Companies try to protect their brands by monopolizing common words in the English language, laying claim to anything that can make a buck. Soon, some company will emerge saying they own the trademark to the English language itself.

Imagine IBM laying claim to the word “business” because it’s in its name; or GM saying no other car company can use the word “motors.”

Frankly, Apple doesn’t need this publicity. To be blunt, they’re stupid for trying to beat up a self-employed woman over a word they have no right to own. Apple owns iPod, not every other rearrangement of those four letters.

[Racer X]

What, is Apple going to sue the killer whales now?

[$tevie]

I agree that it is absurd for Apple to sue the woman. On the other hand, I think TightPod is a dreadful name, and aside from the expense she might be better off thinking up something less ugly.

[chas_m]

Of course, Elmo is completely off-base. Apple have done NO SUCH THING as claim they own the word "pod."

They HAVE contacted people who offer products/services with the word "pod" in them that COULD be confused by the public (or are deliberately misleading) as being offered by, associated with, or connected to the iPod or Apple.

This is REQUIRED BY LAW. You *must* vigourously defend a trademark, or you lose it. Ask Domino's Sugar.

Has Apple been overzealous, or overreaching? That's for a judge to decide, not Elmo. In his zeal to find fault with Apple, he HAS to ignore/dismiss the fact that the problem is actually the trademark law (the article he links to is smart enough to point this out, but Elmo just blows right by that since it's inconvenient to his "Apple BAD!" position).

[SeattlePhotog]

Stanley Kubrick's estate is gonna be angry. They'll have to go back and alter all of the existing copies of "2001: A Space Odyssey"

"Open the, uh, roundish-shaped doors, HAL...

...HAL? Could you possibly open those oddly-shaped doors meant as a portal for our spherical shuttles, please? You know...the doors-formally-known-as-pod-bay-doors? TM?"

[fmgtech]

...HAL? Could you possibly open those oddly-shaped doors meant as a portal for our spherical shuttles, please? You know...the doors-formally-known-as-pod-bay-doors? TM?"

I can't do that Dave. Steve will sue me.

[elmo3]

[quote chas_m]Of course, Elmo is completely off-base. Apple have done NO SUCH THING as claim they own the word "pod."
So what part of "(Apple is even going as far as trying to register the trademark for “pod” in Europe.)" didn't you understand?

Wait--before you answer that, please tell me what part of "Apple also sent a cease-and-desist letter to Mach5products.com which sells a device for collecting data from vending machines called Profit Pod" don't you understand?

They HAVE contacted people who offer products/services with the word "pod" in them that COULD be confused by the public (or are deliberately misleading) as being offered by, associated with, or connected to the iPod or Apple.

Yeah. LIke Profit Pod, a product that collects data from vending machines.

Hey, chas_m--next time, read the freaking article BEFORE you comment on it and blindly try to defend Apple.

This is REQUIRED BY LAW. You *must* vigourously defend a trademark, or you lose it. Ask Domino's Sugar.

Hey, you don't have to tell me. I defended Google on this just the other day. But that is a COMPLETELY different issue. Apple doesn't own "pod", yet they're acting like they do--up to and including sending out cease-and-desist letters for anyone using any derivative of it
. And they're trying to trademark the word "pod" in Europe. They know damn well they can't do it here, because it's an English word.

Either you didn't read the article, or you are blindly defending Apple no matter what, or--most likely--a combination of the two.

Has Apple been overzealous, or overreaching? That's for a judge to decide, not Elmo. In his zeal to find fault with Apple, he HAS to ignore/dismiss the fact that the problem is actually the trademark law (the article he links to is smart enough to point this out, but Elmo just blows right by that since it's inconvenient to his "Apple BAD!" position).

Care to quote that passage that you refer to? Again, you didn't read the article. You just blindly defend Apple, right or wrong.

And by the way, I didn't "decide" anything. I simply REPORTED what I found. Maybe you can learn to discern between the two concepts, but I doubt it.

[$tevie]

The funny thing to me is that they are suing people about "pod" but seem to ignore the "iEverything" that is out there. Which I would have thought would be a more serious infringement.

[elmo3]

Just goes to show--in Apple's mind, they're an iPod company.

[Stephanie]

I agree with ya, $tevie. I would have thought they'd be concerned about all the "i" stuff too!