Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videoblog Directory Opening Up

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Haugstrup
    On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:42:12 -0000, Steve Watkins ... Trademark, not patenting. Huge difference. - Andreas --
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:42:12 -0000, Steve Watkins <steve@...>
      wrote:

      > On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
      > podcast!

      Trademark, not patenting. Huge difference.

      - Andreas
      --
      <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
      Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
    • Andreas Haugstrup
      On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:52:02 -0000, Steve Watkins ... I didn t know if you were aware that there s a difference, so I thought I d point
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:52:02 -0000, Steve Watkins <steve@...>
        wrote:

        > Yes I emant trademark, but in the past Ive mostly studied patents so I
        > keep using that word in err, sorry for the confusion.

        I didn't know if you were aware that there's a difference, so I thought
        I'd point it out. :o)

        > Anyway trademarking the term podcast, if sucessful, would potentially
        > have big consequences for everyone using the term in the name of their
        > shows etc. But in practise these legalities still require the owner to
        > have sufficient funds to go through the courts etc to defend their
        > property, the cost of cease and decist letters to podcasters alone
        > would probably make podcast an unwise choice when attempting to
        > exploiting the name by grabbing "ownership" of it.

        What could happen is that the guy decides to sue Adam Curry or whoever,
        and the court will determine (hopefully) that podcast is a generic term
        and thus un-trademarkable.

        But with the wonders of the US legal system what also could happen is that
        the guy just sends out cease and desist letters, and no one wants to spend
        money going to court so the trademark is never actually challenged.

        Hes going to have a hard time though. Trademarks have to be actively
        enforced, and I doubt he's got the cash to sue everyone in the the US who
        use the term "podcast".

        - Andreas
        --
        <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
        Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
      • Steve Watkins
        Oops I meant trademark, not patent. Sorry bout that. Cheers Steve of Elbows
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Oops I meant trademark, not patent. Sorry bout that.

          Cheers

          Steve of Elbows

          --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@d...>
          wrote:
          >
          > On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
          > podcast!
        • Steve Watkins
          Yes I emant trademark, but in the past Ive mostly studied patents so I keep using that word in err, sorry for the confusion. Anyway trademarking the term
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes I emant trademark, but in the past Ive mostly studied patents so I
            keep using that word in err, sorry for the confusion.

            Anyway trademarking the term podcast, if sucessful, would potentially
            have big consequences for everyone using the term in the name of their
            shows etc. But in practise these legalities still require the owner to
            have sufficient funds to go through the courts etc to defend their
            property, the cost of cease and decist letters to podcasters alone
            would probably make podcast an unwise choice when attempting to
            exploiting the name by grabbing "ownership" of it.

            Software patent issues though, hmm I just dont know how much to worry
            about them. I hope they arent used to stifle the opensource and
            shareware etc end of the software market in the future. Im thinking of
            specific examples such as whether any of the features of ANT are
            covered by patents, whether we need to worry about that stuff or
            whether its not worth worrying about until (if ever) that bridge needs
            crossing. Whatya reckon?

            Cheers

            Steve of Elbows

            --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
            <videoblog@s...> wrote:
            > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:42:12 -0000, Steve Watkins <steve@d...>
            > wrote:
            >
            > > On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
            > > podcast!
            >
            > Trademark, not patenting. Huge difference.
            >
            > - Andreas
            > --
            > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
            > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
          • Andreas Haugstrup
            Thanks for the clarifications. They helped a lot. ... Look at explode(), trim(). That sort of stuff. PHP has excellent string/array manipulation. :o) ... Do it
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for the clarifications. They helped a lot.

              > Initially I wanted to keep my code very simple (I'm a php neophyte);
              > I'll look at that.

              Look at explode(), trim(). That sort of stuff. PHP has excellent
              string/array manipulation. :o)

              >> Why not just link normally? I guess I'm not understanding this short
              >> version business..
              >
              > This one's quite subtle. The only "placeholder" template tags that I
              > have available are either <BlogLink> which is the full url to
              > the current entry (e.g.,
              > http://www.herecomespod.org.uk/vlogdex/arc260405.html#ID268 ), <BlogID>
              > (e.g., 268), or which is the entry
              > number or <$FileExt> (e.g., .html) which is the file extension of the
              > page. I don't have the information there to know where a file
              > is stored to hard code the template, nor can I truncate the full url
              > back to the file name stem in HTML. So I need to do it after
              > the fact - which requires Javascript. I guess I could do it server-side
              > by putting ASP in the template, but I've kept clear of that
              > in these blogs so far.

              Do it on the server. Lots of people (and Google) have javascript turned
              off, so it's not a good idea to use javascript for something vital.

              - Andreas
              --
              <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
              Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.