IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
arstechnica.com
IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
1–10 of 151 posts
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#2I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection".
And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards.
It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#3I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
> it means really big movie screen
It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#4I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
1. It wasn’t a description of IMAX, it was a description of something else by comparing it with IMAX. It was not describing IMAX.
2. It was someone else who was describing something and likened this other thing to IMAX. Ars was quoting this person, not writing it themselves.
Don’t drag out the “confusion with consumers” thing – absolutely no-one would think that this thing actually was an IMAX™ – it was a comparison. Would I be sued by Coca-Cola if I said that “Pepsi is kind of like Coca-Cola”? Would I cause “confusion with consumers”? No. Trademark law does not mean that trademark owners can control every use of the word, despite what they (and apparently you) would wish for.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#5I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
1. It wasn’t a description of IMAX, it was a description of something else by comparing it with IMAX. It was not describing IMAX. 2. It was someone else who was describing something and likened this other thing to IMAX. Ars was quoting this person, not writing it themselves. Don’t drag out the “ confusion with consumers ” thing – absolutely no-one would think that this thing actually was an IMAX™ – it was a compariso…
The point, of course, isn't that they would think it was literally an IMAX. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that, frankly.
But that consumers could think it was IMAX certified or some such. That sort of thing is worth defending.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#6I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
> it means really big movie screen It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.
And even if it still did mean "gigantic screen with impeccable quality controls" like in the days of old, it still wouldn't matter!
And that's because a trademark is exclusive rights over using the name for a commercial purpose. So the IMAX folks could make a product called IMAX-VR if they made a VR headset. But the Oculus folks, if they got some 8k phone screen, couldn't call it Oculus-IMAX without a licensing agreement, because IMAX owns the name IMAX with respect to product names.
But owning it with respect to product names doesn't mean you can prevent people from using it at all. How else would Coke (tm) be able to tell you in a commercial how much better they are than Pepsi (tm) as a result of some ridiculously staged "public tastings" where regular people prefer Coke (tm) to Pepsi (tm) three to one?
Anyone can refer to someone else's trademarked product name full stop. The only thing a trademark does is prevent other people from naming their products the same as, or confusingly similar to, the one which was trademarked first. And if someone thinks their new product name is different enough to be confusing the trademark holder still has to take them to court to prove it.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#7I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
> it means really big movie screen It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.
Case in point: I went to see Jurassic World the other day, and paid extra for IMAX, imagining the building-sized screens I associate with their brand.
Nope. It was smaller than the unbranded "Monster Screen" at my local theater in the middle of nowhere.
IMAX no longer really means anything to me.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#8On the one hand, a factual recitation of a third-party direct quote in a bona-fide journalistic piece almost certainly isn't a trademark violation.
On the other hand, much of the tech press is coordinated, spoonfed promotional material for the industry, where such a thing, even in a quoted endorsement, is arguably trading on the mark in a way which, absent a license, is a violation, and there are strong legal incentives for trademark holders to assume the worst of an unauthorized use without concrete evidence to the contrary.
Ars may have been in the right initially, but I think that the current article calling IMAX's response an absurd attemp at censorship is, at best, hyperbolic and wilfully blind to the realities around trademarks.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#9I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
I've read it as another attempt by Ars to stir-up controversy to prop up their dwindling brand name. Ars is nothing more than a fragment of what it used to be.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#10I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
> it means really big movie screen It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.
Yup, IMAX's "MPX" is little more than a largeish movie screen, with typical sizes around 18m by 8.5m (58' by 28'). MPX maxes out under the size of a "classical IMAX" display, and as far as I can see it exists just about solely so multiplexes can tack on additional IMAX surchages on your ticket.
That "innovation" is >5 years old: http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505