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

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#21

Post by moron4hire »

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…

No, the tension is between greedy corporate interests and the natural human tendency to create shared culture out of our shared experiences.

This is so, so far outside of the rights of trademark that it is just plain abusive. This sort of behavior comes about not from attempting to protect ones brand from unfair usage, but from thinking one's moneyed influence allows them to do whatever they want.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#22

Post by shiggerino »

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.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#23

Post by insipid »

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).

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#24

Post by jasode »

morganvachon wrote: post #20
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…

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 words like "AMD" and "Honda", it doesn't seem to erode their trademark. But for some reason with "IMAX", and "google", and "kleenex", it does. In other words, most people haven't genericized "Honda" to the point of saying "I'm going to Honda my but to the grocery store."

Are the cultural references to "IMAX" trending towards trademark desctruction such as "kleenex" and "escalator"[1] or are the usages actually trademark preserving such as "AMD" and "Honda"?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalator#Loss_of_trademark_ri...

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#25

Post by jobjh797878 »

drcode wrote: post #14

I'm guessing that this was just the sort of typical letter that every company with an established brand sends to media whenever they use their trademark in a more generalized context. It's as if Ars had said "we googled up their website" while showing a picture of them using Bing, or if they had said "We enjoyed some Coke after the demo" and had a picture of them holding a can of Pepsi. I'm not saying that this lette…

She is compelled to defend their trademark in order that they can profit off it. Due to her poor judgement, their brand has suffered a miniscule but very real hit.

I'd say that's attempting to do hey job, overreaching, and causing more harm than if she had done nothing.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#26

Post by Dylan16807 »

drcode wrote: post #14

I'm guessing that this was just the sort of typical letter that every company with an established brand sends to media whenever they use their trademark in a more generalized context. It's as if Ars had said "we googled up their website" while showing a picture of them using Bing, or if they had said "We enjoyed some Coke after the demo" and had a picture of them holding a can of Pepsi. I'm not saying that this lette…

>It's as if Ars had said "we googled up their website" while showing a picture of them using Bing, or if they had said "We enjoyed some Coke after the demo" and had a picture of them holding a can of Pepsi.

No, it's not that at all. Ars was making a comparison to actual IMAX, not using it as a generic.

"This new pepsi tastes as good as coke"

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#27

Post by davidgerard »

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…

No, that's BS. The complaint letter was about an actual comparison to IMAX. This was obviously not an infringing use, and the letter is the sort of gross overreach that erodes respect for trademark law as a whole.

Just because you can philosophically conceive of a stretch by which an egregious abuse might possibly not be one, doesn't mean you're helping at all.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#28

Post by mikeash »

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…

Trademark erosion is about using a trademark to describe a similar but differently-branded product. Like if you said, "I saw Star Trek at the IMAX last night" when in fact that theater is not IMAX©®™ƒ branded, but some other big-screen movie theater.

Real-life examples include "give me a kleenex" when you just want any random facial tissue, "give me a coke" when you're just asking for any soft drink (this use is common in some places, while in other places it means only the actual Coca-Cola product), or "I xeroxed this document" when you have no idea of the actual brand of the copier.

Just using the trademark as a comparison doesn't do it, as far as I understand it.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#29

Post by waterlesscloud »

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.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#30

Post by morganvachon »

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…

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.

Post reply on HN