IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

I was wondering, if a legal trick can be used to limit these C&D letters that have no merit. Effectively, the lawyer on the other side of the letter is making a legal claim, that the law says what you are doing is wrong. If that claim is clearly baseless, then shouldn't the their lawyer be held on malpractice charges? After all, they are licensed and certified experts, and have a duty to not mislead the public.

It's worth noting IMAX does in fact have a trademark in the relevant fields -

": Consumer electronic products, namely, headphones, earphones, cables, camcorders, DVD players and stereos; home theater systems comprised of a projector system, a surround sound system, a screen, media servers and control devices; and gaming equipment, namely, video game machines for use with televisions and computers; video game controllers; computer software for playing video games and for accessing and browsing global computer and communications networks; video game programs downloadable from global computer networks and global communications networks; and user manuals for all of the aforementioned software and devices sold as a unit therewith; devices used to facilitate interactive game play over computer networks; television and video converters; speakers, loudspeakers systems"

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:77u...

> Having to recline and look up at the screen was annoying, and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision.

The first feature is a function of sitting to close to the screen, and isn't specific to IMAX format. The second is by design -- a major point of large-format cinema screens like IMAX is to provide a more immersive experience by making it so that, in shots where there is a strong central focus, even the non-focal parts of your vision field are occupied by the movie screen rather than (usually, just black) background from the theater, and, second, enabling shots that are composed so as to invite audience members to not just focus near center, but to look around the screen (this second feature isn't taken advantage of in films not designed for large-format screens, but major films now generally are made in a large-format aware manner.)

Depending on the cinema you were at, you may have paid extra to see the 70mm print, instead of the 35mm cut.

> 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

What article did you read? The quote most certainly did not refer to IMAX as a "set of standards for image projection". Here's the quote again:

> "The jump up in tech between playing a normal video game and playing with Kinect was X. The jump between a regular game and playing a room scale VR experience is X times 100. It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house.' It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup."

There's nothing here about standards for image projection. The quote doesn't even compare the visual quality of SteamVR to IMAX. It says the jump in experience from a regular game to "room scale VR" is like the jump of putting an IMAX theater in your house. The quote is specifically about the huge improvement in the experience. You can tell because he literally referred to the "experience".

And none of this matters, because even if he had actually been saying that SteamVR looks like an IMAX screen, that would still not create consumer confusion. Comparing products' quality is a reasonable thing and we do it all the time without creating confusion. Someone reviewing a Samsung LCD could say that it looks as good as their Panasonic plasma, and this is a reasonable and probably useful comparison to make. It wouldn't confuse any reasonable person into believing that Panasonic was manufacturing, certifying, or licensing Samsung displays (or vice versa).

> 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?

It seems like a stupid thing to say because the statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Saying "It's like having a UL certified lamp in your house!" is kind of like saying "It's like having a car that won't kill you in a crash!" It reads like sarcasm. No one would make this comparison in a serious way.

But no, I don't think it creates any kind of consumer confusion.