Will Apple sue PodTech.net? (My employer)

How about media cast? Is that generic enough?

Doh! I'm up too late and sleep deprived. Yes, I like the specific flavor.

To be hipper, we need to shorten it.

AudCast (pronounced oddcast) and VidCast.

I'm in favor of a name change, but only because it might finally allow MS to include "netcast" support in WMP. :-P

Im fine with podcast, thanks.

Jamie: yeah, but Apple isn't. They are protecting their trademark, so I say "screw them."

What about 'Pdcast', pronounced podcast.

I still call my PDA my Palm Pilot. I think Audio and Video is just fine. I need to go Xerox my timecard and Hoover my livingroom now.

Christian: oh, I just sneezed into my Kleenex, which really isn't a Kleenex, and Googled your name on Windows Live and ...

Excuse me?

My three year old walks around the house with his own Palm Pilot, an SD card case. He happens to be growing up in a world that will have no superstars and why would anyone on TV be special? He is on TV all the time. He cant wait to report the news over at the Everyday News Network.

Robert, Apple have no chance in hell of winning this fight.

Podcasts already have so much traction. It would be stupid to change. Im a huge Apple fan, but fuck them on this occasion.

I agree that 'podcast' has too much traction to be replaced, but perhaps 'vidcast' could be used for video.

Considering people don't even say 'weblog' -- good luck getting them to say 'audio' or 'video'

Perhaps, 'soundcast' is snappier, but still not as catchy as 'podcast'.

I still like videoblog or vlog if it has to be shorted.

I dunno, my show celebrates five years this October.

Was a show then. Is a show now.(and it passes the mom test which 99% of the retard words we make up will never do.)

The end.

I don't think Apple really has a trademark on 'Pod', and even if they did, I don't think it would stand up.

It's also probably not useful to try to rename 'podcast' from the top down -- sooooo many people use it, that trying to change it will only come across as fake or cheesy.

It's not and never will be a videocast - it's The Show.

I think Apple is being petty and at the same time, maybe it is time for a change.

Trying to change how people talk is close to impossible. I wouldn't waste a second on this, Robert. Besides: Trying to teach people about podcasting and RSS is hard enough if we make different names on it all the name.

Apple is behaving like idiots but I will continue to use "podcast" and not the lame videocast and audiocast. It's just confusing.

Blogcast and blogcasting works for me. Video podcasting or similar simply becomes video blogging, after all, Amanda Congdon refers to herself as a video blogger (check out the Amanda does America series).

hmmm.... wen "blog" itself isnt really a standard term yet, I think its premature to think of others... however "vblog" or "ablog" seems more relevant than "podcast"...

Podcast is a misnomer in the fact the you don't need a Pod to view or listen to the media.

The 'cast' part comes in when media is sent down an RSS feed.

So I usually try to differentiate between a Video Blog and a Video Podcast.

You can watch video on a videoblog and have it delivered in a video podcast.

But if we are to stop using the word podcast, head over to YouTube and listen to what the kids are calling what they do.

They are putting up and recording vlogs. Although they are not really making a new vlog each time they record a video. That would entail going somewhere like blogger or typepad and creating a new vlog with header, entries, blah blah blah.

People are making new blogs all the time, but all they are really doing is posting a new entry to their existing blog.

I'm off to make a new vlog now. ;-)

I'd switch to podge or podiatrist or podpeople or podspeach... a humoristic brand... something a great corporation will never dare to adopt :-D

I might have a case - seems there is some plagiarism going on see
http://blogs.technet.com/jamesone/archive/2006/... posted 20th of last month :-)

Still I like to say plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.

This is crazy, they're actually promoting Apple and doing things that legitimately can be used by its products and they get sued. Of course this shouldn't really come as a surprise, Jobs has the ego the size of Texas. Apple is always overprotective with, and control every aspect of their products.

Cheers,

gamehawk

It's too late to change. The term is being used everywhere and the mainstream is just catching on to it. People/companies need to fight Apple, they're being totally bone headed on this one.
Robert, show us what the blogsphere can do, mobilize the troops.

How about

WINDEOWS?
WINDEO? WIN-DEO 2.0? Pronounced like video
Geeks shortened quickly to DEO.
Deo ?
I can hear it now DEO, DEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-O.
"Daylight a-comes and you want to DEO."
Look out your own Windeo. Man you guys are gonna have to pay me for some of this stuff ... LOL.
Have you seen the new Windeo on channel 9?
It's about a pod that mophed in through the window.
Come on Bill get the brain trust on it. LoL

Don't follow.
Lead!

Companies have to protect their trademarks are they get lost. Ask Hoover how much that has cost them in Great Britain. Is 'Pod' trademarkable or is it only 'iPod'?

For that matter, Scobbie old son, where were you when Microsoft was protecting 'Windows'? I love how objective you are.

Zunecast

Robert, it's no more onerous than when MS went afer Lindows. As David said in 31, when you have a trademark, you must actively protect it or you lose it. There's no choice in it. If someone can show that you're allowing people to use your trademarks, then you lose them.

Before you start applying moral judgements to actions, perhaps, and here's a wild thought, how about you do a little fact checking...oh wait, yeah, you and the whole fact checking thing.

EVERY company has to do this to protect their trademark, even MS. Amazing how you seem to forget that.

Mr. Welch, They may "have" to defend their IP. Personally I think they're overreaching their IP and playing the heavy. There's no way they win this round. It's way too far out ahead of them.

And, if you have any history to you at all, you'll know Mr. Scoble clearly understands the IP sphere from the recent dust up over O'Reilly's "Web 2.0 (r)" conference mess.

While I think Podcast has too much sticking power, Videocast, or Audiocast is a better descriptional term. And the industry as a whole needs to get over the "Pod" hype, bad naming to start with.

Broadcast, Videocast, Audiocast - keeps within the format, and doesn't narrow to "net", for what if you decided to cut the 'Scoble Show' to DVD. And I am against "vlog" or anything "blogging", as it will instantly create negative marketing perceptions.

Some of this video stuff is getting really really good, the early cheap consumer camera, shaky-cam days are fading away. Sure you will always have the YouTubers, while Hollywood is distant marker away, but the stuff in the middle is starting to really kick up some real quality niche programming. And gotta give props, the Scoble Show productional quality has really improved, this ain't no Channel 9'isms.

I agree with the above post -- call it a Zunecast. Microsoft would love the publicity.

Apple (and the courts) should be able to differentiate between a generic term 'podcast' to something that is ripping off their brand, ie 'ePodThingee'

We could really piss Apple off and start calling both video and audio, "iCast." But I suppose that would just be asking for trouble.

We could start a class action against Apple on behalf of the MacIntosh clan.

We could not worry about what to call them and allow the presentation method, the file format, and the software needed to communicate to the users the medium.

What about broadcasts that focus on growing peas? Did Apple trademark peapods? They're branching out into the vegetable world after trademarking fruit?

The reality is probably that everyone using "pod" in some way needs to start making plans to change to something else. At least initially we likely don't all need to agree on a naming convention; just call it what you want. Audcast, vidcast, broadcast, show, this thing I did... they're all good.

What would happen if people just said "no" to Apple. If this issue was about "iPodcasts" I could see where Apple would have some substance behind their requests to stop using the term, but surely they have no right to the term Podcast. Apple definitely did not come up with that. Did they somehow come up with the rights to it? I don't know, but I think that not only is it ridiculously petty but they could easily lose the fight if people don't back down. And the people shouldn't back down in my opinion.

What's wrong with Video without the cast?

Sign up now to win a new "DEO"
Win-DEO video camera.
Google Win-deo.com hurry before it is to late and someone snatches it up.
LOL

I don't think that folks should stop using "podcast" but the term "webcast" has been around for some time now (well before podcast). I think it works.

Perhaps Ween can claim prior art with their 1991 "The Pod" album.

Do all of the cetaceans need to get a new name for their club?

When will it stop?

Erik

"Video Cast" is cool. In fact, anything featuring the word "video" is necessary, because Podcast is, well not saying a lot for the average dude. (Which is in the end the target audience for PodTech, I'm sure)

But, especially you should care for a name that makes your company name still sound good. PodTech sounds like they are the creator of the original podcast-idea... :)

Quick, register p0dc4s7.com

I see Scoble has not responded to the many examples where his former employer sent their goons after anyone that used a brand that even vaguely resembled Windows or Office.

What about Podtech, yiu guys goin to change your name? Scobletech? Apple-sued-Me-Tech? Ha ha ha.

Since when can any company use Kleenex on their product packaging or in their advertising?

I agree. I have never liked companies who think they are bigger than customers and apple definitely is up there somewhere in that regard.

Great job, Robert-- you basically just zeroed out any brand identity that PodTech was going to have! Why did they hire you, again?

As far as I can see, Apple seems fine with podcast as a generic term. The companies they are going after all construct trademarks incorporating "Pod" "iPod" or "Podcast"

I would think it's to Apple's advantage to keep "podcast" in circulation as a generic name, since it implies that you need an iPod to listen to them. It serves as an inducement for people to buy iPods. (Leo says a couple of folks told him they couldn't listen to his podcast because they didn't have iPods. I've also heard that from folks I know.)

BTW Jake, Apple has filed for a trademark on POD in the U.S. (Serial Number 78521891; filed July 1994). it hasn't been granted, yet.

I understand why Apple would want to protect their imaginative word "Podcast" from being *abused* by another manufacturer of portable audio players and other online music stores.

But, I have a problem with Apple trying to take away the word that has been adopted by all content creators of this medium.

As a podcast producer that does not gain to profit directly from the use of the word, I will not be changing to a word with less market penetration until I receive a cease and desist and explore legal options.

And with that, I am now going to go watch a sad movie I tivo'ed with a box of kleenex while I eat a pop tart.

I don't think it's too late to change. The word 'podcast' is confusing because it makes people think you need an ipod. And if you have to then explain to people how to listen and not use an ipod... you loose them. As Eric says it's a Show. We need to decouple the 'show' from the device that plays it. And we need to have an alternative to itunes as a 'channel' to get the 'shows'...

"Jamie: yeah, but Apple isn’t. They are protecting their trademark, so I say “screw them.” "

Michael Markman is right. Apple doesn't mind the generic term or users using the term. What they mind is lame companies with no brand of their own incorporating "pod" specifically into their own name and brand to get instant recognition without doing any of the work.

They most certainly do have a case in the 2 examples mentioned here. It is quite clear what these companies/products are referencing, what their intent is here. And it is not destinct from Apple's iPod at all.


And, of course, Scoble has had this lame "renaming" conversation before... each time he failed and he had finally had given in. Now he starts it up again a year later? Yeah, if you can't get a new name to stick 5 months into something, maybe it'll work a year and a half into it. Pathetic.

Audiocast, Videocast - who talks like that? Why not Talkcast and Seecast.

I think Apple is forever destined to shoot themselves in the foot whenever they get a good thing going. I think they no longer deserve the free advertising that goes along with anything containing "pod", so I agree with #5

And that was even before I knew about the lawyers... From now on, foot doctors shall be known as "Foot Doctors". and when we speak of two peas being in something it shall be know as a pea holder.

With their transition to "just another Dell clone" complete and the ("i" + "syn:FootDoctor"-"iatrist") now becoming a commodity device I predict no more than two quarters before people begin to puzzle over what is happening to their bottom line (the accountants can cook the books for a while and I bet there is some of that going on already.

This is stupid and short sighted... as for this comment:

"hmmm…. wen “blog” itself isnt really a standard term yet, I think its premature to think of others… however “vblog” or “ablog” seems more relevant than “podcast”…"

and all the others calling for names like blogcast, blogging and podcasting are totally different. A video podcast is not necessarily a video blog. It's more closely related to a tv show on the web, quite frankly.

I think using the term blog in association with what we now call podcasts is stupid. It's not equivalent, nor should it be. I always rejected the term "vlog" anyway.

@Goebbels:

"And, of course, Scoble has had this lame “renaming” conversation before… each time he failed and he had finally had given in. Now he starts it up again a year later? Yeah, if you can’t get a new name to stick 5 months into something, maybe it’ll work a year and a half into it. Pathetic."

What a jackass. If you disagree, just disagree. Pathetic is as pathetic does. Besides, it looks like he had a point, doesn't it, considering the current situation with Apple going freaky over the word podcast?

People (like me) have been using audiocast and videocast for a *long* time; this isn't nothing new. Still, we could use some Big Namess (like Scoble's) to push the terms.

apple is power n $ straved... in sure every1 for $

I think their approach is a bad one and not a very smart move. I think Apple should allow the term podcast to be as wide spread as possible, after all it links back to the ipod somehow.

How about and FU cast for Leo?

Dont let the "I really didnt like the name" stance fool anyone.
Leo knows the game well and has no need to fight this and in the same process cut his cozy Apple tie ins.

There are reasons why we should and shouldnt use the term but Laporte has a vested interest in NOT shaking the boat so Ill skip on his opinion.

I can not understand the Apple decision since the word association really HELPS them but I never thought Apple to be much different than Microsoft in its approach and actually as their history of lawsuits has shown, they are closer to the Scientologists with rabid fans and lawyers.

The american pto employs retards - you didnt discuss web 2.0 getting marked by O'reilly (book publishers).

One word: "feedcast".

And a downvote for "vlog". Too Russian for our mixed Germanic and Romantic language. It sounds horrible and has about the same feeling inside one's mouth as a urine-soaked cockroach.

cast, its just a cast, you can tell what kind when i say i watched it or that you should hear it. mostly you wouldn't care what kind it was - just why it was good or bad.

Whoa, daddy-o! That's seriously wrong. They didn't even invent the term. >grumble, grumble

Short answer, probably. The full legal name is podtech networks. The "pod" in the name includes a significant portion of the ipod trademark, and the context for the service your company is offering could be confused with services provided by Apple Inc.

At first I also thought that Apple could not claim this because the class was slightly different, but not now.

ipod is a VERY strong mark. "famous" as it were. If they challenge the company and they don't back down, they will have to re-emburse legal fees to apple when they lose. It's a risk you have to calculate.

On the surface it would seem easy, but it's not. Hey, the name is free, just take it right. Nope. You really do have to have the strongest use of the mark in the class.

Who would have thought ten years ago that today Bill Gates is the Baby Jesus (due to his incredible philanthropy efforts) and Steve Jobs turned to the darkside to become the friggin' anti-christ!

What the hell are they thinking? They manufacture computers and mp3 players. They......had the mystique of being cool (the holy grail of marketing). Now that's all down the shitter. That Samsung Rhapsody player is looking "cooler" every day.

As far as a name, since podcasts are similar to a radio program or tv program, let's call it a ProgramCast.

Still has a ring to it, eh?

Who owns the word "Cast"?

Jamie: yeah, but Apple isn’t. They are protecting their trademark, so I say “screw them.”

@Scoble: This coming from a former MS Eichmann.

Do they own the word "pod"?

"Podcast" is here to stay.

Even the BBC uses the term!

"Do they own the word “pod”?"

No they don't, but people including podtechnetworks and other products are using 75% of "ipod" in conjunction with services that could be confused with services provided by apple under the trademark. ipod is a device, but I believe it's listed in several classes.

This threw a wrench in many people's plans, not just podtechnetworks or the game counting device.

It would be like calling your new site googltech networks. Yes, the e is missing, yes, you will probably be harassed by google inc. Yes google is a commonly used word synonymous with web search.

POD also means point of delivery. If the mark is used in that way, I doubt apple could do anything unless it was used in conjunction with services they provide.

So as Microsoft tries to become less evil, Apple becomes more. I wonder if Apple will keep getting a free pass over stuff like this as they expand these lawsuits, release more bugfests like iTunes, etc.

Forget changing the name. Let's rain down jeers on the Apple Representative who accepts the Directory of the Year award at the Podcast Expo this coming Friday night.

That way I can say to my friends “hey, did you see Ze Frank’s latest videocast?”

After reco'ing Ze Frank, they might not BE your friends anymore. ;)

Re Apple, just you imagine who is on the list for the legal dept
- NASA, who have escape "pods" on their rockets & shuttles, as well as George Lucas for having the same in the original Star Wars
- Any musician that plays Tunes
- anyone that refers to themselves as "I"

This is truely a capital value play of immense proportions.

Odd, some companies would be delighted to have a verb & noun reminding us of their products (especially after already having a very popular fruit!). I guess flattery just doesn't pay the bills, which must be a worry in the Jobs household.

Meant to add, do you think Apple got the idea from Mike Arrington ;-)

See if this lights any bulbs:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1252

Too late. Words have meaning whether they are intrinsically descriptive or not. The social forces that mingle to create new words are too strong to counter. Podcast already has a meaning and that's not going to change no matter how many well-meaning technologists try to change it.

You may have noticed that it's just as impossible to rename an even lesser-known term like "RSS". And in the world of Internet search you would end up doing everyone a disservice if you started posting about "netcasting".

Oh nuts!!!! :( grrrrr

Lets all thrash this out at the portable media expo next week.

DOWN WITH APPLE!

anyone want a cool domain name? ;) *joke* heh

I always thought that "podcast" was a stupid name for the following reasons:
1. It incorrectly associates the technology with a specific brand of portable media player. This unfairly hurts iPod competitors. It also hurts Apple in that it promotes "pod" being a generic term for something that is not always iPod (i.e. it helps sell iPods in the short term, but cheapens the brand name in the long term).

2. It confuses the populace as it makes people think that an iPod is required to listen/view to "podcasts". When I first heard the term "podcast" I thought that an iPod was needed, and I'm not J6P, I've been a tech guy for years. But it's only natural that when first encountering the term, you'd think that an iPod was a necessary component.

3. Here's the kicker: According to http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback109.html, 80% of podcasts are NOT listened to on a portable player; rather, they are listened to on the computer that downloaded them (or are thrown away). Since only 20% of downloaded "podcasts" are transferred to a portable player of any kind, the term "podcast" is completely idiotic and nonsensical.

I favor "webcast" at the moment.

To those of you saying that Apple is in the right with their legal threats to companies that use the term "pod" in their names, that's beside the point. Whether Apple is in the right or not (the courts will decide that, I guess), this situation illustrates why a brand-neutral term is required for "RSS Feeds with multimedia enclosures".

Above, I suggested "webcast", but now I agree with Tom Morris' suggestion of "feedcast". :-)

("blogcast" was suggested above, but that term refers to the subset of "podcasts" that originate from blogs, so it shouldn't be the more general term for "podcasts".)

Hmm... will they go after the BBC and NPR? (links go to searches for "podcast" on each site)

Hey Scoble.. why do they call it a PODcast anyways...

oh yeah. right.

As if Apple would ever stop someone from using podcasts... what they'll do is threaten their competitors..

Will this eventually mean that Microsoft and other companies won't be able to use the word "Podcasts" when offering audio and video content for their media players, Media Centers, or mobile phones in the future?

Let it go Apple.

Let's shorten it even more. E-cast! M-cast! G-cast Beta!
Anyway, noone's gonna care if podcast is gonna be changed to mediacast or whatever, everybody will still use id in everyday speech, the internet will still use the terms so that "oldies" can browse for it. It's like Sony going after us for saying Walkman at a Panasonic casette player. nobody will care if Apple wins this battle. That is my opinion:)

Does anyone actually listen to podcasts on an ipod? Or any portable media player?

RSS enclosures were a great solution to a scarcity problem when bandwidth was expensive. As bandwidth becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous the need to download in background goes away. And it's questionable whether it's cheaper for the provider to deliver thousands of enclosures that are then discarded or to stream fewer on demand. The one thing that would have changed this dynamic would have been widespread use of BitTorrent as a delivery mechanism.

So let's celebrate audio and video blogging, and the democratisation of audio and video production and back off from promotion of a specific product from a specific company. Especially one that doesn't want to be inclusive.

"To those of you saying that Apple is in the right with their legal threats to companies that use the term “pod” in their names, that’s beside the point. Whether Apple is in the right or not (the courts will decide that, I guess), this situation illustrates why a brand-neutral term is required for “RSS Feeds with multimedia enclosures”. "

That's exactly the point and why defending Apple is not besides the point. Apple is not going after companies using it in a brand-neutral manner to describe a technology. They are going after companies who are trying to use the term to create a brand for themselves. People are claiming the debate is: Apple is evil; they are going after anyone using "podcast." This is not true. The debate should be: why can these companies not create their own brand, why can't they create a company or product name that doesn't reference the generic field they are in? That's the debate as I see it.

Some more thoughts:
- Maybe we need to drop the 'cast' bit too?
- P O D in podcast - for me - has always meant 'Portable On Demand'
- Many people I speak to think you need an iPod to consume podcasts
- Many iPod users hate their iPods as they trash content.
- I think we need to distiguish between audio and video - and other media formats - is 'media' the word to use?

- It needs to 'sound' automatic and easy
- It uses feeds
- It can be consumed where you like (desktop or portable) - and WHENEVER you want - on demand

- I agree with Dave Winer that we need to get together and produce/define our own media player/recorder. Screw Apple. Their products might look good, but they simply are NOT THAT good, when you have tried alot of the competition.


As far as I know, Apple have not contacted us - yet (podcast.com) - but then we're still (just) pre-beta

I say we give Apple what they want.

We stop using Podcast.

What about "AppleSucksCast"?
"BiteMeSteveJobsCast"?
"TakingAPageFromTheGoogleHandbookCast"?
"ThanksForYourMoneyNowBendOverCast"?

It used to be, when I was in college that people WANTED to have their name/brand/product used as the word for a generic item (think Kleenex)

Why is Apple so opposed to holding such a tight grip on simple words...especially when they benefit from it. How many people assume that you need an iPod to listen to them. I wonder how many have bought an iPod for that reason?

The other question is why do people keep worshiping Apple when they pull this type of stuff?

What about calling it a "WindowsCast" or "MSCast?" Really stick it to Apple.

Or, how about the members with gravitas in the podcast community, including yourself and Leo, alongside the EFF, fight this off and make a fuss about it, get it in the general press instead of running to the hills with your tails between your legs?

Apple's corporate counsel must be paid by the hour. This makes no sense as a strategy for Apple.

Most companies would kill to have a category-defining brand name like Vice-Grips, Crescent wrench, Ziploc, Kleenex, etc.

Apple has tremendous branding in the term podcast. Now they want to restrict its use. Unbelievable.

- frabgod
http://www.zunerama.com

"Apple is not going after companies using it in a brand-neutral manner to describe a technology. They are going after companies who are trying to use the term to create a brand for themselves."

That Apple is going after *anybody* is evidence that we need a new, brand-neutral, term.



"why can these companies not create their own brand, why can’t they create a company or product name that doesn’t reference the generic field they are in? That’s the debate as I see it."

That is idiocy. That would mean that Microsoft shouldn't use the word "soft" in their name because it refers to the generic field that they are in ("software"). Come on, now.

BTW, Apple didn't invent "podcasting", so why should they have any higher claim to the term than anyone else? I don't think Apple has any claime to "Pod" eitehr, except in the market for portable media players. So companies like Pod Tech, which use the word "POD" but don't make portable players (so "pod" refers to "podcasting" and shouldn't be confused with "iPod") should be free to use the word. You and Apple disagree. That means that a new term is required.

"Most companies would kill to have a category-defining brand name like Vice-Grips, Crescent wrench, Ziploc, Kleenex, etc."

Well, that's good in the short term, but dilutes the brand name in the long term. Today, when someone goes to the store with the intent to get a box of "Kleenex", there's a good chance they'll actually buy some other tissue paper, and still call it "Kleenex". That doesn't help the "Kleenex" company any.

"iPod" isn't at that stage yet. "iPod" everyday becomes more and more generic as a term to mean "portalbe digital media player", but not to the point where people go to the store to get an iPod and get a Zune, Gigabeat, Sansa, Zen, etc while still calling it "iPod". Right now, the term "iPod" still does wonders for Apple (as "Kleenex" did back in the day), but I can see why Apple wouldn't want the "iPod" to get diluted. (I still say that while they may have a trademark claim to the term "pod" wrt portable players, they have no claim to the term "Pod" wrt "podcasting" as they didn't invent podcasting nor did they even invent the term "podcasting".)

A couple of other tech terms that may become "generic" in the future:
Google: could become generic for "internet search" someday (it's not that today, I don't think).

PowerPoint: seems that all presentations are called "PowerPoint" regardless of what software made them.

How about we tell Apple to go...fly a kite? Jump off a cliff? Get lost? STFU? Or of course.. you could just give in and change the name.

I think audiocast and videocast are perfect choices. netcast is so 90's and podcast is misleading. audiocast and videocast are clear concise and easy to switch over to

How about Audcast and Vidcast. The cool thing is that Audcast kind of sounds like Podcast.

I opened this entry with more than 100 comments expecting there would be some substance to it. There is not. If a cease and desist letter exists (notice that the complainer has not posted one) it is directed at people who try to use the term Podcast for commercial purposes. 'Podcast Ready' may be a target because it seeks to compete with iTS in a way that might confuse downloaders. It should differentiate itself, making clear that it is an alternative, not iTM's podcast service. As for the everyday use of the term 'podcast,' trademark protection is not about that. The general public is completely free to use the word 'podcast.'

This thread did give Windows fanboys who hate the fact that Apple owns the digital download and digital players markets a chance to show their asses. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

apple is becoming microsoft... shudder.

getting up in arms about the term "podcast" seems as well-grounded as getting up in arms about the term "blog."

youre right!

What gets me is when people make a big fuss that 'netcast' and 'audiocast' are their views and their ideas. Podcasting is a stupid word and I have stated that on many occasions. It does nothing more than add more baggage to technology and more layers of jargon for people to penetrate / congratulate themselves on.

I can't fucking believe people are just waking up to this.

Mosely Vs. Secret Catalogue.

This is will help decide all trademark dilution. The case is to solve the conflict on the interpretation of the FTDA- to see if there was economic harm to prove “dilution under the FTDA.” Trademark law is part of a broader law regarding English common law in the Trademark Act of 1946. But prohibitions against “trademark dilution” are not part of common law. The law passed by congress definitely needs to demonstrate “actual dilution” rather than the likelihood of dilution.
The key legal issue in this case regarding the meaning of the FTDA is “mental association” does not reduce the capacity of the famous brand to identify its good, which is what the FTDA requires. The Supreme Court decided regarding this issue that there is not enough evidence to support the judgment on the dilution count. If a consumer can distinguish from one product to the other then there isn't enough evidence to support dilution on the trademark. Apple is not to smart to take on this supreme court decision.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/podcast411/411_06...

Rob,

I am disappointed in how much you really missed this story by.

I did some journalism work on this and got to the heart of the story - you can hear it at the link above.

Rob @ podCast411

Apple might as well insist podiatrists rename their profession to footology.

How would apple like it if we all started saying . . .

ZUNECAST.

See how they like their free brand-building going to the competition!

Totally Hapless.

There are several seemingly mutually contradictory strategies to be adopted:
1) Inertia. Example: podcast.
2) Respect Apple's position and acknowledge their exclusive rights to dictate how the word "pod" may and may not be used. Example: netcast, mediacast.
3) Use the rename as an excuse to bring attention to Apple's disgraceful conduct. Example: zunecast, stevejobscankissmyhairybuttcast.

We can unify all three strategies by calling it a p*dcast (pronounced "podcast", and spelled with an asterisk).

Hey Robert, just drop the 'O' in the written version and keep the great logo and call it PDTech. Or like m00 says. Everyone who knew it before will still refer to it as podtech. Kind of like short form on a licence plate...

Time to start considering using the term MODCast "Media On Demand" Cast. It seems like a better option than VODCast or AUDcast which the description is to limiting by describing the type of program (video/audio). This is still short, simple, and easy to remember. It should also help clairify that you don't need an "iPod" in order to download and listen to or view the media, which many consumer still misunderstand.

I agree that it would be pointless to try and change the use of "podcast" now - - it's in the vernacular and minus perhaps a BIG marketing investment, that seems unlikely to change.

My inner geek is compelled to point out, tho, that the posting of media "casts" (aud/vid/whatever) to the net is NOT what's new - hell, we've been doing that for well over a decade.

It's the fully personal, customized, seamless, time-shifted aggregation of said media. There's even already a word for it: broadcatching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcatching

fwiw.

Or we could go further back revisit 'Push' ... perhaps calling it 'Pull technology' ?

Pullcast... ah... isn't this thread dead yet?

So RObert, now that the C&D letter was actually posted on this whole mess, are you planning on another post talking about how Apple wasn't ACTUALLY going after them for "podcast"?

Or are you content to let inaccurate postings rule yet again.

You know how I tell you "You should do better with that fact gathering, you tend to burn yourself when you don't" and you reply "Screw you, I'm not waiting, i know i'm right this time", and you rarely are?

Has it ever occured to you that maybe your way kinda sucks here?

John: this is why I have open comments, so the record gets corrected by you. Yes, they are going after people who are using the word "pod."

The point still stands. Last time I checked "pod" is part of "podtech." And it also is part of "podcasting."

The thing which distringuished _casting is the use of a feed, so it's FEEDCAST!
How do I trademark that?

I still haven't figured out why they're called Podcasts anyway. Back in the first bubble they were called "MP3s".

eeeek. Well I'm torn. I never liked how "podcast" was inadvertently associated with ipods. Anytime I've ever said the word "podcast" to someone who does not know what it is immediately assumes that you need an ipod to listen to it. This has never stopped me from using the termmm...it's way too late. It has seeped into the vernacular and Apple couldn't pry it out with a crowbar. And even though I never liked "vlog" as a word--your mouth just trips on it-- I have to reject "vidcast" because it leaves out the "blog" aspect of what so many people out there are doing. I always went with "videoblog", which leaves everything else to be described as "video on a website". Clunky, I know, but that's what it is. "Vodcast"? Jesus, no, please. What's a "vod"? It's still reminiscent of "pod". Perhaps videoblogs should be called "me-casts"?

The only logical way to distinguish audio podcasts from video podcasts is to call them exactly that for as long as we're allowed to, which will be forever because I doubt Apple will expend too much time & energy suing little people over "podcast". Using "pod" within the name of companies and products not sanctioned by Apple is, unfortunately, another story.

All these terms (vidcast, vlog, podcast, webcast, pidcast, poo-cast) are completely random anyhow. We can call these shows-on-the-web anything we please. I think I'll start calling my video podcast "pancake" because I really like pancakes.

Oh, fine, fine. I won't. I'll call it something non-pod-related that somehow describes what it is without giving a hint as to its content:

CompVid.

There.

Robert, if you seriously think that people are naive enough to think that comments get the same ranking as your headlines, then either:

a) People are dumber than even I thought

b) You have an even lower opinion of them than I had thought

c) all of the above.

As well, other than this case, which has as much to do with what mypodder DOES as anything else, I find it astonishing that we've not seen a massive flood of C&D letters. maybe a handful. At most.

By your accusation, Apple would be having to flood everyone from you to Birdseye. Yet, that doesn't seem to be happening.

mypodder, being software that interacts with an iPod is really dancing on the line there, and that then brings all their other products into a big thorny trademark questions.

However, you didn't bother to get ANY of the facts yourself. You saw a nice juicy headline, and Dvoraked it.

Way to go Snap-On.

I personally like "podcast." Netcast, mediacast, webast... those just don't sound as catchy. "Podcast" is like a whole new generation of flavors.

13 comments? Holy s**t.

Anyway. If the name is going to change, they need to drop the *cast* part too. It implies *push* technology, not *pull*.

*Cast* implies that you need to be there at a certain time or you will miss it.

I vote for *audiofeed*, or *issue*, or *web program* or just about anything else that does not contain *POD* or *CAST*!

Why doesn't Apple just change it's name to something new? I suggest iPud.

i'm late to the discussion here... long time reader, first time poster. :)

just wanted to "third" the suggestion of FEEDCAST. i've seen it floating around a handful of places, and i think that's the term that makes the most sense.

i agree with leo, let's move on from "podcast." and as a PC gal, i'm happy to stop giving apple the free marketing!

MS was 1st to Patent Podcast, says NYT.

Let's just call them "casts".

I listened to the cast on Apple's litigation processes, have you seen the cast on iPod sweatshop conditions... It will be fine. Because of the popularity of Youtube, video casts might end up being called tubes. Casts and tubes, it's all fine.

This should have been prevented if people were only conscious about copyrights and intellectual rights property. But in fairness to other companies, I think Apple should be a little considerate and investigate more prior to submitting a case or complaint. Because the more that we run after anyone in order to pull them down so we can rise above, the more that we will sink.

Suing bloggers is just ridiculous. What is Apple going to start doing, suing people for speaking about their products in public too? That's essentially what a blog is. Not only is it a gross violation of 1st Amendment rights to sue bloggers, it also makes me think that they're covering something up. Why not let people talk about their products? If they're built well they'll stand up to commentary. Perhaps in a year when they've had widespread MacBook Seagate HDD issues, tried to sue bloggers, and released Leopard with many bugs before it was ready they fell it necessary to attack their customers. Still, in general, any publicity is good publicity. As one blogger said on another site "I still love Apple even when they're suing us," or something of that nature. As dumb as I think it is to protect a company that violates your 1st amendment rights, we have to remember that in the end Winston loved Big Brother. Anyway, when consumers talk about Apple products it is good for other consumer. Consumers should demand their rights to talk about companies that they buy products from so they can hold those companies accountable when they release crap and over charge for it. This should be a basic consumer right. It drives me nuts that 90% of people can just switch to Linux at this point anyway, but we continue to put up with Apple's iFascist tactics. Oh, I better say in my opinion in case they try to violate my rights. Anyway, if you're podcasting you should be able to say podcast. In general you should be able to say it in any way shape or form. If Apple has advertised it it is probably part of public culture anyway. How can you release terminology publicly and then sue for people doing free advertising for you, etc.
What a bunch of assholes.