Apple in 873-page legal claim to word 'Pod'

[Stella]

Extract:
Apple really, really, really wants exclusive rights to the word “Pod,” in names for tech products, the company has argued in an 873-page legal brief filed earlier this week.

Steve Jobs & Co submitted the voluminous document in a dispute with Sector Labs, a startup that's developing a projector called the Video Pod, Wired.com reported. The Reg has been unable to confirm this because the filing (PDF, we're told) was evidently more than the Patent and Trademark Office website could bear.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/24/apple_pod_row/

 

[maflynn]

Just apple being apple, while its a little over the top, its clearly what they do. They protect their brand. The question is that the word pod is generic and predated apple, so they really don't have too much chance.

Most of the time, they have such deep pockets they can force the other company out of business or drain their resources by dragging on this legal process.

 

[roadbloc]

That's just a wee bit over the top methinks.

 

[kainjow]

Several years ago, Apple made a lot of small software companies lose the "pod" in their name (including me). I'm surprised they're still at it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Just apple being apple, while its a little over the top, its clearly what they do. They protect their brand. The question is that the word pod is generic and predated apple, so they really don't have too much chance.

Most of the time, they have such deep pockets they can force the other company out of business or drain their resources by dragging on this legal process.

And that dragging feet part to me is why we need some massive tort reform. If they are going to do that then if proven they were doing that they should be required to pay back every penny plus interested in legal fees to the person who was being sued.
I hate how big companies will pretty much sue a company in to bankruptcy even though they really do not have a case.

 

[*LTD*]

Apple is protecting their brand. Besides that, it isn't affecting the end-user, so let them do what they like as far as laws allow.

 

[CalBoy]

And that dragging feet part to me is why we need some massive tort reform. If they are going to do that then if proven they were doing that they should be required to pay back every penny plus interested in legal fees to the person who was being sued.
I hate how big companies will pretty much sue a company in to bankruptcy even though they really do not have a case.

There is already such a legal mechanism; it's called malicious prosecution. Abuse of process also covers other cases, but basically the legal mechanism is already there.

The tougher part is determining whether or not a defendant did maliciously prosecute without millions in new legal fees. For that, we would need to find a way to make litigation cheaper and faster. Short of quadrupling the number of judges and lawyers, I don't know how that could be managed.

 

[chown33]

There is already such a legal mechanism; it's called malicious prosecution. Abuse of process also covers other cases, but basically the legal mechanism is already there.

The tougher part is determining whether or not a defendant did maliciously prosecute without millions in new legal fees. For that, we would need to find a way to make litigation cheaper and faster. Short of quadrupling the number of judges and lawyers, I don't know how that could be managed.

Cage match: mano a mano.

 

[kdarling]

How many pages would it take to defend "McDonalds" ?

If I were a judge, just the sheer fact that it takes over 800 pages to explain why "Pod" supposedly is a reference to Apple, would be enough to reject the claim.

If such a verbal claim isn't obvious in a few pages, then it's not an infringement.

Especially since Apple wants to claim "pod" without the "i" in front. What next? Try to claim the word "phone" by itself?

 

[maflynn]

Apple is protecting their brand. Besides that, it isn't affecting the end-user, so let them do what they like as far as laws allow.

Except the word pod is not their brand.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

How many pages would it take to defend "McDonalds" ?

If I were a judge, just the sheer fact that it takes over 800 pages to explain why "Pod" supposedly is a reference to Apple, would be enough to reject the claim.

If such a verbal claim isn't obvious in a few pages, then it's not an infringement.

Especially since Apple wants to claim "pod" without the "i" in front. What next? Try to claim the word "phone" by itself?

I think 'pod' is worse than when Monster went after anyone with 'monster' in their name. Now I am saying that as in Monster did not have much of a case and apple here is even worse.

 

[*LTD*]

Except the word pod is not their brand.

That's for the courts to decide.

 

[Bonch]

We're all like peas in a pod. I mean peas in a long thing that holds peas.

 

[Abstract]

"Monsanto, Start Your Photocopiers."

 

[Stella]

How many pages would it take to defend "McDonalds" ?

A few years ago, in Scotland, McDonalds tried to prevent companies from using the prefix 'Mc'. Of course, this was thrown out of court ( especially since Mc is very common prefix to a name in Scotland ).

 

[*LTD*]

Apple is not claiming the actual word, just the word as it might be used in product branding, that is, a specific application of the word.

 

[kdarling]

Apple is not claiming the actual word, just the word as it might be used in product branding, that is, a specific application of the word.

If Apple were only trying to protect "pod" in relation to handheld portable media players, then that makes sense.

But they're apparently trying to claim "pod" in relation to any kind of tech device.

It's like when they suddenly decided "pad" was theirs, too, and made iPhone developers rename their apps. Of course, "pad" (and even the TNG "PADD") have been in use for years.

 

[mewfert]

Apple wins

The TTAB sustained Apple's opposition to registration of this "video pod" mark. Details here.

 

[kdarling]

If I were a judge, just the sheer fact that it takes over 800 pages to explain why "Pod" supposedly is a reference to Apple, would be enough to reject the claim.

Indeed, 873 pages is a lot.

It only took about 80 pages from Jeff Han to convince the Trademark Office to reject Apple's attempt to own the term "multi-touch".

However, Apple won the judge over in this case. A "Video Pod" projector apparently is too close to sounding like an "iPod", although they sure seem like different enough devices.