Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#41

Post by hydrogen18 »

shiggerino wrote: post #22

I went to an IMAX™®℠℗(U.S. Patent 3,494,524) theatre once. Having to recline and look up at the screen was annoying, and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision. That's definitely not something I'd want in my living room.

Likewise. It was more like if I wanted to watch the whole movie, I had to pan my head constantly through an arc.

It's a horrible experience. You can buy a horribly cheap TV, a 5.1 sound system and plop it in your living room and get a better experience. Getting the sound right takes a long time, but my end conclusion was that suspending bunch of cardboard everywhere seemed to negate the poor acoustics of the room.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#42

Post by moron4hire »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #29
murbard2 wrote: post #15

IMAX demands are ridiculous, but Ars's claim that IMAX is merely used as an example of "something awesome" is dubious when high quality VR happens to provide a substitute for going to an IMAX theater. This is why IMAX is annoyed: they understand that VR is a huge threat to their business. The reason watching a movie on a very large screen is better than watching it up-close on a small screen is that in the case of th…

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

No, it does not create "consumer confusion". Consumer confusion means consumers might be lead to think Product A, with a far to similar a name to Product B, literally is Product B. It's not at all about relative value comparison like "as good as" or "better than". You can put competitor products' names on your package, in your advertising, to make comparisons. Facebook could make ads selling themselves as "Facebook has 200% more users than G+", and Google cannot make a trademark infringement complaint, because it cannot possibly be interpreted by a "reasonable" consumer to say "Facebook is provided by Google".

There is no way to interpret what was said to say "SteamVR is the same thing as IMAX, from the same people, etc."

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#43

Post by nogridbag »

shiggerino wrote: post #22

I went to an IMAX™®℠℗(U.S. Patent 3,494,524) theatre once. Having to recline and look up at the screen was annoying, and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision. That's definitely not something I'd want in my living room.

A proper large format 15/70 IMAX theater is definitely worth it given you arrive early to get the better seats - especially for 3D films where the 3D glasses tend to make the screen look smaller.

Sadly, the IMAX CEO says screen size does not matter [1] and thus the majority of them are being replaced by smaller digital screens in multiplexes. lfexaminer.com has a great list of IMAX theaters and their formats [2].

[1] http://www.wired.com/2009/05/imax-ceo-screen-size-isnt-every...

[2] http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#44

Post by murbard2 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #34
murbard2 wrote: post #15

IMAX demands are ridiculous, but Ars's claim that IMAX is merely used as an example of "something awesome" is dubious when high quality VR happens to provide a substitute for going to an IMAX theater. This is why IMAX is annoyed: they understand that VR is a huge threat to their business. The reason watching a movie on a very large screen is better than watching it up-close on a small screen is that in the case of th…

> With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away. In theory. But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens…

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years.

2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#45

Post by jasode »

morganvachon wrote: post #38
moey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. When most people think of fascial tissue, they think of Kleenex. They call any brand of fascial tissue Kleenex. IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX. So they over-reach anytime someone mentions the word I assume. Not justifying the actions, just trying to clear things up. Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

But who is calling just any theater "IMAX"? If I say to my wife, "hey let's go to the IMAX", she's going to ask me why we would pay that much when we can just go to the theater instead. If there's any dilution of the IMAX brand going on, it's by IMAX themselves by constantly lowering their standards. Something else you have to consider is intent. It doesn't seem that Ars intended to dilute IMAX's brand by publishing…

>But who is calling just any theater "IMAX"?

I'm not saying any theater but I have noticed that some visitors to Epcot refer to the Canada and China 360-degree movies as "IMAX". The actual designation is "CircleVision 360". But people don't remember that 7-syllable trademark. The first word that comes to the tip of their tongue is "IMAX" because that word has become a placeholder for "any immersive large screen experience".

>Something else you have to consider is intent.

Yes, but society's casual use of "Escalator" to "escalator" and "Kleenex" to "kleenex" didn't have any kind of mastermind conspiracy to dilute the trademark. It just happened. I'm guessing most trademarks erode without malicious intent.

Could Otis Escalator and Kleenex lawyers have done anything to stop the trademark erosion?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#46

Post by waterlesscloud »

moron4hire wrote: post #42
waterlesscloud wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

No, it does not create "consumer confusion". Consumer confusion means consumers might be lead to think Product A, with a far to similar a name to Product B, literally is Product B. It's not at all about relative value comparison like "as good as" or "better than". You can put competitor products' names on your package , in your advertising , to make comparisons. Facebook could make ads selling themselves as "Facebook…

If someone (such as OP) believes that SteamVR can be a competitive experience with IMAX, then they can believe it can be certified or licensed by IMAX. Thus consumer confusion is possible here.

And there's a difference in saying "Twice the resolution of IMAX!" (for example) and saying "It's like having an IMAX theater in your house." Those aren't the same kinds of statements.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#47

Post by Someone1234 »

murbard2 wrote: post #44
Someone1234 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away. In theory. But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens…

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years. 2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat t…

I like with #1 how you start with the word "no" but then repeat back to me what I said. So we both agree, you need a higher resolution than we have today to clone IMAX in VR, and we won't get that unless VR takes off (as funding is needed to produce the screens). VR also has the weight X factor, how heavy is this prototype 2000 PPI screen? And much would one cost?

Both we agree on #1, we both said the same thing.

> It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business.

I literally don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

If VR fails, it isn't a threat to IMAX business by definition. Something that isn't popular or doesn't exist cannot be a threat to something else.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#48

Post by MCRed »

insipid wrote: post #23
jasode wrote: post #12

I understand that IMAX's demands look silly but if we accept that " trademark erosion "[1] is a real phenomenon, the question is: What forms of human communication are exempt from that? In other words, no matter how silly and innocent the passing reference to IMAX is, is it possible that IMAX lawyers must pursue those genericized uses even though those lawyers (and the client IMAX itself) knows it generates negative…

Even presuming we accept "trademark erosion" as a thing, it's still irrelevant here: the author wasn't using a trademark to describe a generic good (i.e., they didn't mean "a 'large-format' movie theatre with surround sound"), they were literally referring to the product (or, rather, one of the confusingly different products) traded under the "IMAX" mark (i.e., they meant, literally, AN IMAX THEATRE).

Both parties are guilty here. Ars should put at the bottom of its article "IMAX is a trademark of " which acknowledges the IMAX trademark. And IMAX's lawyers should be less obtuse in their writing when there's such a simple solution.

Also, the law shouldn't be that trivial uses of the mark like this work to erode it, but the law is not precise on the issue so mark holders tend to have to be verzealous in showing their defense of the mark.

This letter is just a lett-er not worth the non-paper it's not-written on.

The whole purpose of the letter is to be able to show diligence in court if the mark is threatened... not to attempt to get Ars to do anything different.

Are should know that too... but I guess they feel this is good link bait. (personally I think it adds tarnish to Ars's reputation, by making them look like rubes.)

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#49

Post by chc »

dragonwriter wrote: post #8

On 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 incenti…

It sounds like what you're saying is, because press releases exist, comparing one company's product to another's by name in a news feature is potentially infringing. Do you actually think that position has a wooden leg to stand on? I don't see how you could possibly read a comparison like this — even if made outside of quotes — as anything but descriptive of IMAX's actual product. I don't think a normal consumer would likely be confused.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#50

Post by MCRed »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #46
moron4hire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it does not create "consumer confusion". Consumer confusion means consumers might be lead to think Product A, with a far to similar a name to Product B, literally is Product B. It's not at all about relative value comparison like "as good as" or "better than". You can put competitor products' names on your package , in your advertising , to make comparisons. Facebook could make ads selling themselves as "Facebook…

If someone (such as OP) believes that SteamVR can be a competitive experience with IMAX, then they can believe it can be certified or licensed by IMAX. Thus consumer confusion is possible here. And there's a difference in saying "Twice the resolution of IMAX!" (for example) and saying "It's like having an IMAX theater in your house." Those aren't the same kinds of statements.

I'm quite depressed to see you being downvoted for making cogent points. It's a shame HN has become slashdot.
Post reply on HN