Apple is moving to own "anything with pod in it" which probably means it's time to telle Apple to get stuffed. To think that Apple takes in interest in killing an enormous market for iPods that they didn't foresee, don't control and arent paying to build up. That's just silly, even if the courts go along with it. Who says no to free advertising. If somebody was selling hardware called "Pod" that would be another story of course.
So, when is "burn all podcasts" day going to be?
Aside: The recent EuroOSCON expended great effort to refocus open to account also for open data, which is battle field for open when everybody's apps are running hosted. Maybe a session or two should have been spent on going further and talking about "open language". Not that it isn't sickening to have to do this.
Aside II: I wonder how the trademark lawyering business actually works: Do the lawfirms trawl the web looking for potential infringement cases they can sell to their clients (kinda like selling defensive domain registrations to businesses works) or do the companies actually do the TM searching on their own and push the cases to the lawyers. I ask because I really wonder why a lawsuit like this one would appear if it was driven from the Apple and not the lawyering side. The lawyers of course have a clear incentive to shake the tree and see if some money falls off.
Aside III: As far as I recall the web 2.0 case turned out to be more of a Tonkin Gulf kind of event in the copy wars than an actual battle.Posted by Claus at September 26, 2006 05:40 PM | TrackBack (0)