Print 92 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on Aug 18 at 12:34 AM

Apple says this product may be confused with an iPod
Apple defends its line of MP3 players from arcade products

In an effort to protect its very well known iPod brand, Apple has begun sending out legal threats to companies that use the letters P, O and D together in any service or product. A company called Mach 5 Products is unfortunately on the receiving end of Apple's stick. Mach 5 Products makes basic products for arcades and its new device called the Profit Pod is raising concerns at Apple headquarters. According to Apple, "Profit Pod" significantly infringes on the iPod trademark and Apple claims that the name will confuse consumers.

Dave and Carolee Ellison, the owners of Mach 5 Products say that Profit Pod has nothing to do with Apple or any of Apple's products. In fact, the Profit Pod is an infrared device that is integrated into arcade machines and allows operators to keep track of information such as how much money was inserted without having to open up the machine. Profit Pod can send the data to a notebook or hand held tracking device. Despite the glaring differences between a Profit Pod and an iPod, Apple sent the following letter to Mach 5 Products:

We believe there is confusing similarity between Apple's IPOD mark and the PROFIT POD mark. PROFIT POD is a POD-formative mark and incorporates a substantial portion of Apple's IPOD mark. The products are likewise related. Both devices receive and transmit data and are used with computers, both are used in connection with video games, and both have other similar components. Moreover, it has not gone unnoticed that, like Apple's IPOD device, the PROFIT POD product is a small, flat, round corned rectangular device with a display screen. In addition to the likelihood of confusion between the products, because Apple's mark is famous, it is entitled to protection from dilution attributable to the PROFIT POD mark.
Apple is also telling Mach 5 Products that it cannot file for trademarks using the "pod" nomenclature in the US or anywhere else. The computer company also says it's giving Mach 5 Products a reasonable time to phase out any products using the "pod" name. Interestingly, Apple also claims that the Profit Pod bares physical resemblance to an iPod thereby confusing consumers on which one is which.

The full legal letter Apple sent to Mach 5 Products can be read here.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For a company
By creathir on 8/16/2006 11:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
That claims to stick up for the little guy... pretty strong arm tactics if ya ask me... not to mention rediculous!

Watch out Star-Trek! Escape PODS are off limits now!

- Creathir

RE: For a company
By Souka on 8/16/2006 11:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
NO coffee pods either I guess....
"Grindmaster GPOD Precision Brewer" Gpod? Is that an email client?

RE: For a company
By jon1003 on 8/16/2006 11:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
Darn, took me too long to type mine:(

RE: For a company
By FITCamaro on 8/16/2006 2:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the band P.O.D. is also screwed. Or the website (an teaching organization website). Or PODS (portable on demand storage).

I love it how Mac addicts defend Mac as being this shining beacon of morality in the computer world since they fight against Microsoft. To me they're as bad or worse than Microsoft. Microsoft at least opens up to others standards when the market demands it.

This kind of crap just disgusts me.

RE: For a company
By chrisdent on 8/17/2006 12:58:11 AM , Rating: 5
I love it how Mac addicts

Mac addicts -- I think they should be called Pod People from now on

RE: For a company
By ET on 8/17/2006 3:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
There's Print on Demand (PoD) technology, too. Getting big with book publishers. I guess it's about time Apple sued them.

RE: For a company
By ThisSpaceForRent on 8/17/2006 8:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
PODS (portable on demand storage).

Hehe, that conjures up an image of some kid trying to plug his headphones into one of those metal storage containers. Because you know they're both white, and Apple makes white iPODs. Um, they're both somewhat rectangular in shape, just like an iPOD nano!! I'm so confused now.

I agree w Apple
By DallasTexas on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
RE: I agree w Apple
By jon1003 on 8/16/2006 11:21:12 AM , Rating: 5
The world has been using the word "pod" long before Apple even existed. You can't even buy these in stores, and they don't play music "well" lol.

RE: I agree w Apple
By s12033722 on 8/16/2006 11:43:33 AM , Rating: 3
Well, certainly Mach 5 chose to use POD because the iPod brand has such a strong presence in the arcade coin counting business, and they want to capitalize on that fact. It's well known that iPods have powered all arcade machines since the 1980's, and associating their product with Apple's longstanding arcade presence will reap them untold benefits.

Observe the sarcasm...

RE: I agree w Apple
By DallasTexas on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
RE: I agree w Apple
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're kidding, right?

We believe there is confusing similarity between Apple's IPOD mark and the PROFIT POD mark. PROFIT POD is a POD-formative mark and incorporates a substantial portion of Apple's IPOD mark. The products are likewise related. Both devices receive and transmit data and are used with computers, both are used in connection with video games, and both have other similar components. Moreover, it has not gone unnoticed that, like Apple's IPOD device, the PROFIT POD product is a small, flat, round corned rectangular device with a display screen. In addition to the likelihood of confusion between the products, because Apple's mark is famous, it is entitled to protection from dilution attributable to the PROFIT POD mark.

Do you seroiusly believe there is any possible confusion between these products, in the way that Apple has described?

Normally your views are right on, IMO, and I wonder why you think Apple is right in this issue.

RE: I agree w Apple
By DallasTexas on 8/16/2006 2:56:45 PM , Rating: 1
What are you doing in this stink hole of a forum? It's polluted with AOL refugees, for crying out loud :-)

My post is merely to provoke controversy and contribute a different point of view. I confess I am not married to the above point of view yet see a case for both companies, that's all.

RE: I agree w Apple
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 2:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm welcome if that's your gig.

LOL....well apparently YOUR gig is being I guess we all have our "gigs". ;)

RE: I agree w Apple
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 12:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is this companies choice of "POD" was not by coincidence.

You are on crack. There is no similarities in the least either in form or function....hell the products are even in the same industry for crying out loud.

I'm all for copyrights and all but come on! And I thought there was some standard about common everyday terms not being disputed or something for copyrighting......hint "Pod" is a word that has been defined and use by the english language for longer than Apple, Inc. has even been a company -- let alone the Ipod being out.

RE: I agree w Apple
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 12:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
* should have read they ARE NOT in the same industry

RE: I agree w Apple
By Samus on 8/16/2006 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
definition POD (P.) n Something resembling a pod, as in compactness.

This product seems to fit Webster's definition of the noun.

RE: For a company
By SirPsyko on 8/16/2006 12:19:35 PM , Rating: 3
This is a little ridiculous. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of products and other entities (companies, groups, etc) that have "pod" in them in some form or another. Apple seems like they're trying to get money from other companies to pay off Creative's lawsuit over their navigation system... or fix all the problems they're having with their products (scratching, discoloring, overheating...).

Apple should try Google. The iPod comes up 7th in the list when I search for "pod". I know for sure Line6's guitar accessories have been around longer than the iPod...

I see this getting tossed out. You can trademark iPod, but that doesn't give you the rights to each letter individually or any combination thereof... taking their logic one step farther, they could sue for infringement of TCP/IP (IPod)...

RE: For a company
By JNo on 8/16/2006 8:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's ridiculous, not rediculous. Please learn how to spell it. All this mis-spelling is getting rediculous

Like Peas in a Pod.
By BladeVenom on 8/16/2006 11:45:24 AM , Rating: 3
Will now have to be changed to, "like peas in a a dry dehiscent pericarp."

Definitely bad for movies. The end for sci-fi, "Everyone to the escape pericarps." It's almost as bad for horror movies, "pericarp people" just doesn't have the ring that "pod people" has.

Just like it's parent company Microsoft
By sdifox on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
RE: Just like it's parent company Microsoft
By rrsurfer1 on 8/16/2006 1:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... I think that takes the cake for the most moronic statement here. You think Microsoft is the parent company of Apple ! Wow, just... wow.

RE: Just like it's parent company Microsoft
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 1:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
How did you get:
You think Microsoft is the parent company of Apple

out of:
Remember M$ tried to trademark windows and got b-slapped for it? So now Apple is trying the same thing. Figures, since they got a big chunk of cash from M$


RE: Just like it's parent company Microsoft
By AmbroseAthan on 8/16/2006 2:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
*points up at the OP's subject*

By rrsurfer1 on 8/16/2006 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks AmbroseAthan. Guess I should have specified, the subject really did have nothing to do with the post itself.

By TomZ on 8/16/2006 3:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I didn't notice the subject.

By Lonyo on 8/16/2006 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Except Microsoft had a better case (against Lindows), since it was an obvious play on Windows, and aimed at the same market, and was only a very slight variation on the name (an L replacing a W).
The Profit Pod is not in the same market, and is a very different name to iPod than L/Windows was, and both are equally generic terms.

Apple has no real way they could hope to win.

RE: Like Peas in a Pod.
By frobizzle on 8/16/2006 5:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
And let us not forget the two "Invasion of the Body Snatcher" movies. In both, they talk incessantly about the pods that grow human replacements!
This movie should be banned!

Don't support Apple
By hollywood99 on 8/16/2006 11:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don’t understand how an unprofessional company can be so successful. This surely will not last long. Did you know that they ridiculed the Microsoft Vista OS during their last main event? They even made banners that suggested their product was Vista 2.0.

- They overprice their gadgets.
- Limit the operability of their devices so they are proprietary.
- Have poor customer support

I realize you can find good things to say about Apple but they aren’t half as good as their following suggests.

RE: Don't support Apple
By WxGuy192 on 8/16/2006 12:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and the stock price is almost 7 times what it was only 3 years ago. Mid-August 2003, AAPL (Apple) stock price was about $10. The stock price peaked above $84 earlier this year, and it now about $67. From a business standpoint, the three pionts you made above have all created a company that is, financially, stronger than pre-IPod times. The "overpriced" gadgets have increased revenue and profits many times over; the proprietary nature of their products means users must buy Apple's own accessories, which means more revenue; the customer service may be bad because they haven't spent the money (reducing cost) to improve that facet.

So, many may complain, but the investors certainly aren't. [For disclosure purposes, I do not own AAPL stock]

Give Apple SOME credit -- they did to the personal digital music product what Google did to search. Both Google and the iPod are what Kleenex and Post-It Notes are -- a product becoming synonymous with an industry. Before the iPod, there were many different personal media players on the market, but none was able to penetrate into maintstream society. Apple successfully set the iPod as a cultural icon. How many people know what the iRiver H320 is? Not many, though almost everyone knows what an iPod is, and this is despite reviews that argue that there are plenty of other digital music players that may be better than the iPod. I'm certainly NOT an Apple-nut, and I haven't owned an Apple product since my parents got an Apple IIGS back near 1990. I think there are better digital music players out there (better than the iPod), so you won't be seeing me buy one.

RE: Don't support Apple
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 12:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
All what you said is nice and dandy, but at least with this one is being an ass...plain and simple.

RE: Don't support Apple
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 1:11:18 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, and the stock price is almost 7 times what it was only 3 years ago. Mid-August 2003, AAPL (Apple) stock price was about $10. The stock price peaked above $84 earlier this year, and it now about $67M

Enron stock was quite high too, for a while. My point is you can't judge the ethics of a company by their stock price.

correct me if i'm wrong...
By barjebus on 8/16/2006 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 5
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I remember another evil tactic by Apple.

When the iPod photo came out, many people tried using their own headphone jack to RCA to plug their iPod photo into their TV. It should have worked fine but didn't. Contacting Apple, people were informed that they must by special apple accessory cables, but in reality, Apple switched the pairing of their cables. To make your own home cable work you simply needed to swap the yellow plug with the white audio plug and it would work fine. Simply a marketing tactic.

I can't believe that anyone still believes the bullshit that Apple is the little guys company. They're so profit hungry it makes me sick! Look at the number of accessories that they sell for iPod's and look at the price!!! Pull the wool off your eyes people.

RE: correct me if i'm wrong...
By RandomFool on 8/16/2006 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
I've noticed that about apple too, especially on the MacBooks that have a video output that can only be used if you have an dvi or vga adapter. Of course it doesn't come with the laptop and it's an accessory you can easily get from apple.

This is ridiculous there's no reason they need to sue these people for something competely unrelated to the iPOD.

By The Boston Dangler on 8/16/2006 7:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
too bad the post rating only goes up to 5

How many "Profit POD" commercials will we see?
By Fenixgoon on 8/16/2006 11:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
Apple complaining is absolutely pointless. Two things:

First, the Profit POD is not a consumer item like an iPOD is. It's meant for business owners to keep track of arcade machines, not for your average person.

Second, Apple can cry foul when MS kicks their a$$, but now Apple wants to be able to take down any company/product with the letters "POD" in it? Come on already!

RE: How many "Profit POD" commercials will we see?
By michal1980 on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
By Chernobyl68 on 8/16/2006 2:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
and a group of whales will now be called "a group of whales"

RE: How many "Profit POD" commercials will we see?
By plowak on 8/16/2006 2:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and pity the poor octopus and other cephalo-thingys!

By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 5:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Save the squid!

By MikeO on 8/17/2006 7:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
Line6 was my first thought too, have the PodXT. I think the orignal POD was first lauched about ten years ago, when was the ipod launched?

By LtFarva on 8/16/2006 11:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
Is that thing in the picture what Apple says looks like an iPod?
I'm confused because that in no way looks like an iPod.

RE: Picture
By jon1003 on 8/16/2006 11:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe apple is planning a redesign? Retro?

RE: Picture
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 3
Or maybe apple things its average userbase are morons....

oh wait......oh.....nah...nvm ;)

RE: Picture
By rushfan2006 on 8/16/2006 2:17:44 PM , Rating: 1

By Ardan on 8/16/2006 2:25:28 PM , Rating: 3
I was so bored just now that I actually read all your comments. They were interesting, and the ones against this push against the 'Profit Pod' had great points to make that seem like common sense. However, perhaps what I just went through would have helped me in elementary school. The same points and ideas were just made about a million times, one after the other.

Now, if someone would have sat there and told me the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again like this was, perhaps 5th grade would have gone by really smoothly then :).

I just thought it was funny because most other comments on dailytech articles have mixed humor and usually lack an abundancy of redundant posts that are bringing up a point. This one, however, had only a small portion of humor and everyone was trying to make the same point and explain the same points to all of us. If the article and picture wasn't obvious enough, the repeated explanations of why it is wrong on here will :D. I would stay and wait for someone to flame me for pointing out something that amused me, but I have to go to work now :). Hope you all enjoy spending your time posting comments on here!

RE: lol
By Griswold on 8/16/2006 2:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
You're perfectly in line then, your post also lacks any humour.

RE: lol
By JWalk on 8/17/2006 2:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Now see, that was funny!

By LegalPod on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
RE: LegalPod
By Griswold on 8/16/2006 2:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that you have that recent push from google against the usage of the term "google" for "general internet research" (as seen in many dictionaries around the world and the media) in mind, as that would actually threaten their trademark (commonly used terms cant be protected like that).

The word "pod" is a completely different thing though.

RE: LegalPod
By rrsurfer1 on 8/16/2006 3:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Pod was already a word. You can't just sue everyone who now chooses to use it unless it's in a similar market and the word is intended to confuse customers into buying.

This is a totally different product. And they didn't even join the two words like ProfitPod. Not similar market, not going to confuse anyone and nearly every poster has said.

Addressing your political comment. "More and more I am coming to beleive" that ultra-conservative's are an incredibly destructive force that, under the guise of protecting one CORPORATION, they are willing to step on smaller companies, and individuals, rights to use a word in the dictionary.

Also, your comparing liberals to terrorists. Maybe you need to exersize a little bit of restraint yourself. It might keep the waters from becoming muddy for those that actually have a brain and think for themselves.

Carry on.

Note: I don't actually harbor any real hate towards most conservative ideals, just this guys ramblings.

RE: LegalPod
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 3:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe that so many Mac techies are so ignorant of trademark law.

I agree with you, that a company has to actively work to protect its trademarks, but your general statements completely ignore the facts of this specific case.

Contrary to Apple's assertion, there is little chance that any reasonable person would confuse the trademark "iPOD" with "Profit Pod." In addition, contrary to Apple's assertion, there is zero chance that any reasonable person would confuse the device pictured above with the Apple iPod, since is looks completely different and performs a completely different function. (The Power Pod isn't nearly as ugly as the iPod - kidding.)

In short, Apple's claims of similarities are absurd.

Finally, I don't see how this becomes a "bleeding hard liberal" issue, or even a political one at all. Apple is cleary wrong, IMO, is abusing the legal system and needlessly inflicting legal costs upon other parties by their over-zealous attempts to protect their trademark.

too many comments for a non-issue
By spindoc on 8/16/2006 2:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
..and now i'm commenting too.

Apple should sue the earth for making Macintosh trees.

Also, for those that pit Apple against MS... doesn't MS own part of Apple?

RE: too many comments for a non-issue
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 3:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Also, for those that pit Apple against MS... doesn't MS own part of Apple?

Microsoft purchased 150,000 preferred non-voting shares of Apple back in 1997, but it has been since reported that these shares were sold a while ago. I don't know if this information is accurate or not, or whether Microsoft owns/owned any other shares, although frankly I doubt it.

RE: too many comments for a non-issue
By aliasfox on 8/17/2006 12:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
150,000 shares, that at that time, would've amounted to less than ~ $3,000,000 US, which if I remember correctly, was only about 2-3% of Apple's total market cap at the time. Regardless of the numbers, 150,000 shares wasn't that much, and wouldn't've given Microsoft any significant level of say in Apple.

RE: too many comments for a non-issue
By TomZ on 8/18/06, Rating: 0
I See What is Going On.
By Slaimus on 8/16/2006 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 3
"Profit Pod" is Apple's internal name for the iPod!

RE: I See What is Going On.
By Griswold on 8/16/2006 2:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
The pod err.. plot thickens!

By buyforless on 8/16/2006 12:40:47 PM , Rating: 4
There are 527 federal trademarks now in full LIVE affect with the letters P, O, and D side by side (POD). Obviously, the fed gov thinks Apple is full of baloney. And Apple failed nearly as many times to oppose the POD trademark filings. Oops! - thanks

what about the apod ?
By lanielf on 8/16/2006 1:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
what about the Apod?

hey that's also black,small and got a wireless handheld display.

RE: what about the apod ?
By Brainonska511 on 8/16/2006 1:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Or apod as in Astronomy Picture of the Day (frequently referred to as APOD in their little summaries, also around since 1995):

Apple again
By feelingshorter on 8/16/2006 3:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has been known to notoriously sue a lot. Everyone knows that Apple like to sue people. This is just stupid, sueing over the word pod when it doesnt confuse people. If you think that thing looks like an iPod then your an idiot. Evil Apple. As if this will make their profit go up since it causes so much confusion to stupid people. "Oh no, i wont buy an ipod because this thing that detects coins in arcade machines are of the same name that everyone herd of." Who even herd of Profit pod anyways? I cant believe people are defending apple.

RE: Apple again
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 5:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps Apple want to start selling a range of iTachments? One such iTachment could be a portable piggy bank called iPiggy. I can foresee the possible confusion. LOL

By SilthDraeth on 8/16/2006 4:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 5:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait to see the Apple C&D letter trying to explain how consumers might confuse these with their MP3 players. Let's see, they are both rectangular, have lots of storage space, are portable, etc...

Bullyboy tactics
By podknocker on 8/16/2006 6:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
I'm new to this forum but could not resist commenting on Apple's stance over this.

I remember when Apple really were the underdog in this sector and very nearly went under many years ago.

It really was an example of 'phoenix from the flames' when they redesigned their machines and their corporate image.

I respected them for coming back from the brink and eating into the 'Wintel' share of the market.

This is yet another example of their all conquering, megalomaniac attitude to the marketplace and is something sinister and unwelcome.

Also, do they really think they have juristiction overseas?

Apple and it's trademarks are registered in the U.S. and they cannot expect companies abroad to change their name and branding for the products they make, especially when these names were thought of and registered as brand names years before Apple was a household name.

This really is astonishing and although I think Apple products are aspirational and a technical tour de force, I will certainly not be patronising this company at all.

I have never snd will never buy an Apple product because of their bullyboy tactics.


RE: Bullyboy tactics
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 8:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Also, do they really think they have juristiction overseas?

Yes, they do (well not "jurisdication," but protection). Just as they file for patents and register trademarks here in the US, they also have to pursue similar IP protection in all their regions throughout the world, wherever they do business.

RE: Bullyboy tactics
By podknocker on 8/16/2006 9:27:16 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct in stating that Apple need to pursue this type of action to protect their IP rights in other business regions, but surely Apple cannot demand a company change it's name, or a product name, when this brandname was first announced many years ago and has no relevance to what Apple are doing today.

If a person or business creates a brandname which Apple feel will be detrimental to it's image, or be a challenge to it's business, it must prove this has been created after their own product/brandname was introduced and has a direct negative influence on their own invention.

It is utterly absurd that these huge corporate entities think they can tell people what they can call themselves because they have a few letters in their branding that are the same. This cannot be regarded as a similar product by anyone with any common sense.

I hope the accused company stand their ground and highlight how ridiculous Apple are being. I also hope that Apple lose the lawsuit if it gets that far.

I genuinely hope Apple's PR suffers because of this and their stock loses value.

They're turning into Microsoft.

RE: Bullyboy tactics
By TomZ on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
What are they thinking?
By Profyrion on 8/17/2006 12:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is almost as bad as Monster Cable's 14 pages of trademark infringement filings at the USPTO.

This is bad, bad juju. Negative press and consumer backlash is (and should be) forthcoming!

Lay off, Apple.

RE: What are they thinking?
By Webgod on 8/17/2006 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
WOW, they sued someone who produces a toy "Monster Truck". What jackholes. Hopefully the judge would laugh them out of court.

Coffee pods....
By jon1003 on 8/16/2006 11:17:18 AM , Rating: 3
What about coffee pods? They're used with an electronic device that has a small screen and rounded corners also. Heck, they are round themselves! They are also used by people who use ipods. I will definitely get my coffee pods mixed up with ipod one day and attempt to stick it in my ears right after I brew it, burn myself and sue, and somewhere in there I will call Apple customer service when it doesn't work.

That's awesome!
By feraltoad on 8/16/2006 1:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
That little iPOD looks great! Glad they finally named it more appropriately. Are the four holes to rivet it to a belt? Either way, I'm sold! Where can I buy one?

RE: That's awesome!
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 1:13:56 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, big risk of confusion. Apple's argument is a real stretch at best, and at worst is unethical.

Gregor Mendel
By MoFoQ on 8/16/2006 5:55:27 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget to sue Gregor Mendel (wiki: and his estate for his unauthorized work with pea pods

Trademark Everything
By rrsurfer1 on 8/16/2006 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is a rediculous assertion by Apple. The products are ENTIRELY different, and for entirely different markets. One is consumer, the "Profit Pod" most certainly is targeted at businesses.

Apple needs to spend less time on lawsuits and more time on designing their products.

speaking of trademark infringment
By swine on 8/16/2006 12:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
wonder when I'll have to start paying royalties everytime i pick an"APPLE". Maybe I should just cut down the tree and avoid a lawsuit.

Whats new
By Griswold on 8/16/2006 12:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Pathetic business as usual from the apple black-suit brigade.

Apple is right...
By PrinceGaz on 8/16/2006 12:07:51 PM , Rating: 2 defend the iPod name. When I saw that picture of the 'Profit Pod', I took one glance and thought "oooh, a new iPod, nice design- I want one of those!". It wasn't until I read the article that I realised it wasn't an iPod but something totally different. This Mach 5 or whoever they are will probably sell millions of these 'Profit Pod' things to unsuspecting customers who wanted to buy an iPod and find they've been duped, thus damaging Apple's good reputation.


Thumbs down, Apple
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 12:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
Seems that Apple cries foul if "Apple Corps" the music company, claims trademark infringement.

Yet, when a completely different product, and under a different name, "POD" is nothing like "iPod", then Apple start throwing their weight around.

Personally, it stinks of double standards, irrespective of the strong arm tactics.

I think that there is obviously a large legal team at Apple, on a big payroll, and they are trying very very hard to act busy and get a bigger budget for 2007.

Lawyers are replaceable. I suggest Jobs fires his legal department, hires a new team, and earns significant kudos in the community.

By kattanna on 8/16/2006 12:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
i see they have learned how to stomp around like intel over some of their silly names.

i remember them trying to trademark

the intel one always made me laugh because the phrase intel existed long before they did.

and when they sued the "yoga inside" people to change their name...was another humorous thing.

now i have nothing against people trademarking their products..when they are unique names, say like pepsi or bigmac or some such.

POD as a word has existed long before apple did as its an iffy one to me.

By Trisped on 8/16/2006 12:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you wanted to be able to defend the whole name of your product, you shouldn't have made 80% of it (because the Pod portion takes up much more space then the i) from a very common product name. Storage pods, escape pods, that coffee pod. Pods are way more popular then even your iPod, so suing just because you chose a weak name is stupid and unfair. Did Microsoft sue anyone with a product with Box in the name? Did Sony sue anyone with a product containing the word Station? Or did Nintendo sue over the use of either Game or Cube? Or what about Creative suing over Apples use of the word Sound in their advertising? After all, Creative and Apple are big competitors now, and Creative has Sound Blaster trade marked.

By Nik00117 on 8/16/2006 1:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is trying to sue this company because they use the word POD IN IT?

Don't ever say Ipod to MP3 players that Google is to search engine. When poeple say Ipod I think of a oversized, piece of junk overpirced.

Apple guess what, I don't think of the Profit Pod when I say IPOD nor do I think of the IPOD when I think of Profit Pod.

So shove it

Dictionary word
By kextyn on 8/16/2006 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
pod1 (pod)

-A casing or housing forming part of a vehicle, as:
-A streamlined external housing that encloses engines, machine guns, or fuel.
-Aerospace. A detachable compartment on a spacecraft for carrying personnel or instrumentation.
-Something resembling a pod, as in compactness.

How the hell do you trademark a dictionary word? The only thing they should be able to trademark is using the i in front of it or subsituting the i for something else. For example if MS came out with a product called the mPod that would be a legitimate use for the trademark.

Apple is just as evil as M$
By Araxen on 8/16/2006 1:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
How will the Mac Zombies spin this?

By INeedCache on 8/16/2006 2:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
I saw a pile of dog dung and confused it with an iPod. I suppose Apple is right.

Another Case Turns Up
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Another case of Apple going after a small company for a similar supposed-infringement of Apple's trademark:

ipod chaning look?
By willy on 8/16/2006 2:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Is ipod going to change its look similar to profit pod? I just told my grocery store manager to sue apple for using the word apple. Hey, the big Mac looks similar to the iMac too, you have a case here, Mcdonald! Apple computer's managers must think that consumers are so stupid that we will purchase a profit pod to download music. What an insult!! Consumers are lot smarter than you think, Apple.

Confused customer
By Iridium130m on 8/16/2006 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Today I walked into Worst Buy (or substitute your own local electronics store), and I walked out the new and improved Profit Pod that has an electronic counter on it thinking I could listend to my tunes and make money at the same time. I tried to plug my headphones into the line marked +5-12V, but all I got was a loud pop and my headphones no longer work. i tried to interface it with my laptop, and my tunes just said error.

I am such a confused customer.

By Aeros on 8/16/2006 5:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
How is an iPod used with videogames? Seriously... I see what there trying to do (keep other companies from ruining there brand). But c'mon this is assanine.

By Doc Savage on 8/16/2006 7:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Apple also announced that they are suing anyone or any product with an "i" in their name, since they could obviously be confused with an iPod. Apple has plans to sue those with names or products containing an initial "A", or any product with any reference to a fruit, including all wine producers in the world.

By AxemanFU on 8/17/2006 10:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
Next thing you know, they'll be after God, because it it has the letters OD consecutaavely, and woz and steve could be confused with God for macheads.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki