If they were trying to protect the word "iPodcast", I'd be in half a mind to support them. They are, however, trying to bully people out of using the term "podcast', one letter but a huge difference.

Neither. I have no problems however with IBM, who have grokked Open Source perfectly.

Not that it's my job to defend them, but I thought they were going after two specific companies who are, themselves, trying to trademark the term "podcast"; and used "made for iPod" or somesuch on their marketing material.

Cheers,

Andrew

Considering significant parts of Mac OS X are based on OSS derivatives, I hold out the hope that Apple are more on board when it comes to OSS than Microsoft.

If Apple want to start picking fights with the OSS community, I wonder if OSS software can be licensed for "free use by anyone but Apple Corp."? :)

Not to mention that Trademarks and Patents are very different things.

Trademarks are about brand ownership, which should not be exploited by others unchallenged otherwise Apple risk losing all claims of ownership; Patents are about intelectual property and here Apple have the option to enforce their ownership or not, and if they decide not to enforce they do not lose ownership.

Milhouse,

Indeed, and having worked at IBM and having got a couple of software patents to my name I'm aware of both the good and bad that software patents bring.

Nevertheless, they do exist and for big tech companies it's often a case of patenting practically anything they can to form a MAD-like "patent shield".

As has been said, it's what a company does with its patents, rather than the patents they apply for.

Cheers,

Andrew

Both Engadget and SlashDot have reported cases where Apple's lawyers sent C&D letters to people/companies who named their product (which, I hasten to add, had absolutely nada to do with "portabe", "music", "playing" and/or "downloading") something with "pod" in it.

I think someone should remind Jobs -- preferrably with a 2-by-4 -- that, if your product name is turning into a generic denominator, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.

Wow, so far afield of my initial post!

No matter...

Well there is - by enforcing your trademark you reduce the risk of genericide, which is precisely what Apple Computer Inc. appear to be doing.

If Apple Computer Inc are going after people/companies who use the term "pod" for non-portable, non-music playing and non-downloading musical devices then it is actually quite ironic - even hypocritical, and possibly without merit - when you consider the recent legal verdict handed down in the recent Apple Corps Ltd. vs. Apple Computer Inc. courtroom drama. The court found in Apple Computers favour, focusing mainly on the following clause from the original Apple vs. Apple agreement:

The way I read it, as long as these "pod" devices make no reference to Apple Computer Inc., have nothing to do with music playback or recording, and basically cannot be confused with an iPod, then I see little reason why Apple should resort to sending out the C&D letters (pot, kettle).

On the other hand, if these devices do fall into the "Apple Computer Field of Use" then yes, Apple Computer has every right to enforce it's trademark in whatever way it sees fit.

...two bastions of journalistic integrity and accuracy.

Cheers,

Andrew

PS. I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the news reports in question (though do remember seeing the Slashdot article and the subsequent clarifications of the restrictions based on the field of use in the comments), but I largely agree with Milhouse's assessment.