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

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#91

Post by thesteamboat »

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.

When most people think of fascial tissue, they're probably recalling some medical terminology. People thinking of facial tissue may or may not think of Kleenex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascia

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#92

Post by waterlesscloud »

dpark wrote: post #51
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.

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…

IMAX isn't a 35 foot movie screen.

The value of the IMAX trademark is that it's a set of standards for image projection, which is how it's being used in the quote. As if the product, which is concerned with image projection, is up to those standards.

Harley-Davidson, to my knowledge, isn't involved in image projection standards.

Say a lamp which isn't UL certified had a quote "It's like having a UL certified lamp in your house!" Would that seem ok? Or maybe questionable?

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#93

Post by opcvx »

cbhl wrote: post #89

I can imagine SteamVR later putting up a marketing site quoting Ars' original article headline like this: "SteamVR ... feels like an 'IMAX in your house'" --Ars Technica Is it possible that people would start confusing SteamVR and IMAX then?

No, because IMAX can't set up a movie theater in your home.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#94

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#95

Post by dpark »

chinpokomon wrote: post #87
dpark wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I saw Star Trek at the IMAX last night" This is actually still an example of trademark erosion, even if referring to an actual IMAX theater. This is using the brand to refer to the abstract thing. It's not an IMAX. It's an IMAX theater . For a relevant example, look at Google's guidance to journalists. They say not to write "I googled X", but "I searched for X using Google". Using "google" as the verb, even when l…

Right, I think that's what was written. The post said that that use of IMAX would be trademark erosion.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the post". If you're referring to the article, my comment wasn't addressing that at all. My comment was a response only to mikeash's comment. He gave an incomplete description of trademark erosion and I thought it was worth clarifying. Using "IMAX" to refer to a non-IMAX screen would be trademark erosion. Using "IMAX" by itself to refer to an IMAX screen is still trademark erosion. Just as "googling" is an erosion of the Google trademark, even when referring to Google's searching service.

You see the impact of this sort of brand erosion with the iPad. The iPad dominates the tablet space, so the constant references to iPads have started to genericize the term to the point that other tablets are often called iPads (which erodes the brand to a greater extent). Contrarily, BMW for example gets away with this because BMWs do not dominate the market, so there is little danger of "BMW" becoming synonymous with the car. IMAX dominates its market so the brand is quite in danger of becoming a synonym for a giant screen. The smaller erosions are therefore a bigger concern.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

chc wrote: post #49
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 woul…

> 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.

No, that's not what I'm saying. There's a big difference between press releases existing and presented-as-journalistic pieces being essentially paid promotional material for vendors.

> Do you actually think that position has a wooden leg to stand on?

No, which is why I didn't make it.

> 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 see how you could read it as descriptive of IMAX's actual product, since there is no actual description of IMAX's product being made. Its clearly a nominative reference; its clearly a statement saying another product is good because its like IMAX's product.

> I don't think a normal consumer would likely be confused.

Perhaps not, but legal actions for violations of trademark rights don't always require that (infringement does, but dilution, which seems the most applicable trademark concern here, does not.)

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#97

Post by moron4hire »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #92
dpark wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMAX isn't a 35 foot movie screen. The value of the IMAX trademark is that it's a set of standards for image projection, which is how it's being used in the quote. As if the product, which is concerned with image projection, is up to those standards. Harley-Davidson, to my knowledge, isn't involved in image projection standards. Say a lamp which isn't UL certified had a quote "It's like having a UL certified lamp in…

You're still just making shit up that doesn't exist in the real world. The world doesn't conform to your fantasy notions, dude!

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#98

Post by hyperpape »

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.

You're missing the point, which is that you can't just make up an opinion about whether something causes consumer confusion. It's a legal term that gets interpreted in a particular way.

I try not to downvote people for mere opinions that differ from mine, but I will downvote people whose posts are just uninformed or simply wrong.

(I didn't downvote here, because I'm not super familiar with how the courts interpret consumer confusion, but I suspect that the parent is just wrong about the term, and it's not just a matter of opinion).

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

I think more relevant is that if it is a competing experience, then the comparison -- especially in the context of promoting SteamVR by someone with a vested interest (including someone intending to sell software for the SteamVR platform) -- raises issues of trademark dilution and/or misappropriation even in the absence of the specific kind of consumer confusion that would be necessary for trademark infringement.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#100

Post by protonfish »

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.

To simulate the IMAX experience, sit 10" away from your TV.
Post reply on HN