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

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#51

Post by dpark »

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.

Neither of your examples lead to consumer confusion. No one is confusing a head-mounted VR display with a 35 foot movie screen.

Believing that a VR solution could be certified/licensed by IMAX is not consumer confusion, that's accurate belief. IMAX could certify a VR solution as "The IMAX Experience" if they wanted to. But hell, Harley-Davidson could certify a VR solution as "The Open Road Experience" [1], too. Still no one is going to think a headset is a motorcycle.

[1] I made this up. I'm pretty sure Harley-Davidson does not use this as a motto/slogan/trademark/whatever.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#52

Post by waterlesscloud »

MCRed wrote: post #50
waterlesscloud wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story.

I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#53

Post by mcphage »

moey wrote: post #31
morganvachon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. When I hear "Honda", I think of cars. When I hear "Ford", I also think of cars. When I hear "IMAX", I think of theaters. When I hear "SteamVR", I think of computer games and virtual reality. If anything, IMAX has even less footing than the other companies I mentioned. Now, that's just me, but I can imagine it being similar for most people.

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.

> IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX.

Of course they don't. But that doesn't give them legal ground to send out C&Ds when people do. They're allowed to protect their trademark in specific, legally defined situations. This isn't one of them, no matter how much IMAX wishes it were so.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#54

Post by ensignavenger »

jasode wrote: post #24
morganvachon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do AMD, Intel, Nvidia, HP, Lenovo, Ford, Honda, and so on send a cease and desist letter to every publication that mentions them in passing during a review of a similar product? Product comparisons are inevitable. If I review, say, a Sony Smartwatch, you bet your ass I'm going to compare it to a Pebble and an Apple Watch, otherwise there's no real frame of reference. IMAX's lawyers are clearly overreaching here.

Do AMD, Intel, Nvidia, HP, Lenovo, Ford, Honda, and so on send a cease and desist letter to every publication ... I suppose they don't and I'm not disagreeing with you on that. The IMAX situation may be different in that their trademark is very catchy sounding (2 syllables "eye"-"macks") and is getting pulled (by innocent human tendencies) into a lot of conversations unrelated to IMAX(tm) theaters. When people use wo…

According to that wikipedia article, Otis lost the 'escalator' trademark because of the way they themselves had generically used the term, not just because of the way others used it. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Avoiding_gen... gives several suggestions on avoiding genercization that don't involve legal threats.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#55

Post by ytdht »

hydrogen18 wrote: post #41
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.

Could you hang paintings on the walls instead of cardboard everywhere?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#56

Post by SEMW »

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.

> 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.

The test isn't whether someone can believe it, in the sense that it isn't physically impossible that at least one person could believe it. Thankfully. It's, according to the article, whether there's a likelyhood of confusion. I.e. whether an average, reasonably prudent consumer would be likely to be confused.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#57

Post by zck »

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.

>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.

This is a different issue -- of course IMAX /could/ license it; it's possible. The issue is whether people believe IMAX /has/ licensed it. This may be your point, but it's not clear to me.

If I say "this car is as good as a BMW", do you think I'm saying that the car is a BMW? If I say "the guitar my uncle made plays as smoothly as a Les Paul", do you think I'm saying I have Les Paul's signature on the headstock?

I think the comparisons and analogies are understood as such; I doubt the average consumer thinks the SteamVR has anything to do with IMAX.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#58

Post by zzleeper »

MCRed wrote: post #50
waterlesscloud wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has it? The quoted article had an interview with a developer where the developer mentioned IMAX. Not the article, but a guy with quotes around it. How does that lead to any consumer confusion at all?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#59

Post by Cantremeber »

ytdht wrote: post #55
hydrogen18 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you hang paintings on the walls instead of cardboard everywhere?

I personally used those cheap canvas tarps you get to put down while painting. You can paint them, they're huge for the money, and they prevent weird echos in my cavern of a living room.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#60

Post by morganvachon »

jasode wrote: post #45
morganvachon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expe…

I still think IMAX is barking up the wrong tree. If anything they should have sent the letter to the person who made the comparison, not Ars who simply quoted the person. Though that would be wrong as well, it would be slightly less wrong than attacking a news site for reporting the news.
Post reply on HN