12 ms·

IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

254 points by twsted 11y ago

waterlesscloud 11y ago
I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
- noja 11y ago
  > it means really big movie screen It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.
  - msandford 11y ago
    And even if it still did mean "gigantic screen with impeccable quality controls" like in the days of old, it still wouldn't matter! And that's because a trademark is exclusive rights over using the name for a commercial purpose. So the IMAX folks could make a product called IMAX-VR if they made a VR headset. But the Oculus folks, if they got some 8k phone screen, couldn't call it Oculus-IMAX without a licensing agreement, because IMAX owns the name IMAX with respect to product names. But owning it with respect to product names doesn't mean you can prevent people from using it at all. How else would Coke (tm) be able to tell you in a commercial how much better they are than Pepsi (tm) as a result of some ridiculously staged "public tastings" where regular people prefer Coke (tm) to Pepsi (tm) three to one? Anyone can refer to someone else's trademarked product name full stop. The only thing a trademark does is prevent other people from naming their products the same as, or confusingly similar to, the one which was trademarked first. And if someone thinks their new product name is different enough to be confusing the trademark holder still has to take them to court to prove it.
  - i80and 11y ago
    Case in point: I went to see Jurassic World the other day, and paid extra for IMAX, imagining the building-sized screens I associate with their brand. Nope. It was smaller than the unbranded "Monster Screen" at my local theater in the middle of nowhere. IMAX no longer really means anything to me.
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      Depending on the cinema you were at, you may have paid extra to see the 70mm print, instead of the 35mm cut.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    Yup, IMAX's "MPX" is little more than a largeish movie screen, with typical sizes around 18m by 8.5m (58' by 28'). MPX maxes out under the size of a "classical IMAX" display, and as far as I can see it exists just about solely so multiplexes can tack on additional IMAX surchages on your ticket. That "innovation" is >5 years old: http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505 http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505
  - nogridbag 11y ago
    Yes this is frustrating. They just closed one of the only large IMAX screens in lower NY at the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, NY which is where most people from northern jersey and lower NY went. The IMAX is moving to the multiplex in the same mall - thus it will be the smaller screen variety. We're left with Lincoln square in NYC and possibly New Rochelle, NY as the only remaining large format IMAX in the area.
- teddyh 11y ago
  1. It wasn’t a description of IMAX, it was a description of something else by comparing it with IMAX. It was not describing IMAX. 2. It was someone else who was describing something and likened this other thing to IMAX. Ars was quoting this person, not writing it themselves. Don’t drag out the “confusion with consumers” thing – absolutely no-one would think that this thing actually was an IMAX™ – it was a comparison. Would I be sued by Coca-Cola if I said that “Pepsi is kind of like Coca-Cola”? Would I cause “confusion with consumers”? No. Trademark law does not mean that trademark owners can control every use of the word, despite what they (and apparently you) would wish for.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    The point, of course, isn't that they would think it was literally an IMAX. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that, frankly. But that consumers could think it was IMAX certified or some such. That sort of thing is worth defending.
    - Bud 11y ago
      Consumers could also think it was certified by the Mayo Clinic and made of unicorns. This is approximately as likely. Making the leap from what was written in the article to "IMAX certified" is a hilariously wide leap. It's about two orders of magnitude too wide to justify the threat letter from IMAX.
- adestefan 11y ago
  I've read it as another attempt by Ars to stir-up controversy to prop up their dwindling brand name. Ars is nothing more than a fragment of what it used to be.
  - twothamendment 11y ago
    Very funny. A fragment of what it used to be - like the size of an "IMAX" screen.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  Ars published a quote by someone they interviewed, about a similar technology to IMAX but not directly competing. If IMAX is in the right here, it means an end to any and all journalistic reporting of new technology. You simply can't report on tech without referencing similar tech as a comparison point for the reader. Innovation doesn't happen in a bubble. For example, if IMAX's point of view is correct here, the entire article linked below[1] wouldn't be legal to write as it compares AMD's new GPUs to Nvidia's GPUs. Simply put, it's a staple of product journalism to compare with other similar technology, and this has always been the case. IMAX is clearly and wholly in the wrong. [1] http://anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series http://anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series
dragonwriter 11y ago
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 incentives for trademark holders to assume the worst of an unauthorized use without concrete evidence to the contrary. Ars may have been in the right initially, but I think that the current article calling IMAX's response an absurd attemp at censorship is, at best, hyperbolic and wilfully blind to the realities around trademarks.
- chc 11y ago
  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.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > 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.)
pervycreeper 11y ago
I find it peculiar that they would call this "censorship", especially when the original article's author, Sam Machkovech, has been one of the article writers who has been beating the drum the loudest in favor of censorship in recent months. I guess it's somehow different when it happens to internet bloggers rather than internet comment authors.
- reamworks 11y ago
  He is also dishonest in his reviews. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38rgl2/ars_technica_writer_sam_machkovech_wrote_two/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38rgl2/ars_...
- acdha 11y ago
  Do you have a citation for any of those claims?
  - rev_bird 11y ago
    First guess was that this was yet another whiny, obtuse reference to something related to the Gamergate persecution complex that grew out of people for SOME REASON objecting to violent threats and doxxing, google search didn't disappoint: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-pos... http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-zoe-quinn-looks-beyond-gamergate/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-zoe-...
    - acdha 11y ago
      I assumed it was either that or, given his username, all of the trolls whining about Reddit declining to give them a completely unrestricted forum for abuse: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/reddit-announces-sitewide-effort-to-enforce-new-anti-harassment-rules/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/reddit-announces-sit...
jasode 11y ago
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 publicity? A natural human tendency is to speak with similes & metaphors. "Yosemite Valley is like a jacked up IMAX for nature lovers" or "my budding friend the film student with his overuse of lens flares thinks he's the second coming of J.J. Abrahams". The tension between trademark enforcements and natural human tendencies to color conversations with innocuous references to pop culture creates silly-looking "cease & desist" letters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_er...
- morganvachon 11y ago
  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.
  - jasode 11y ago
    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_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalator#Loss_of_trademark_ri...
drcode 11y ago
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 letter isn't ridiculous, but just realize what the job of the internal lawyer is at IMAX: Her job is to defend all mainstream attempts to use their brand name out of context, she doesn't seriously expect arstechnica to comply- It's just that people in the past have lost rights to trademarks they failed to defend, so she is pretty much obligated to write these silly letters.
- jobjh797878 11y ago
  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.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >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"
- Eric_WVGG 11y ago
  That’s possible. It’s also possible that this is a deliberate media campaign to try and draw attention away from pervasive rumors that IMAX screen cause #buttcancer
murbard2 11y ago
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 the large screen, your eyes can relax by focusing at infinity. With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    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."
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      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.
      - 11y ago
reamworks 11y ago
If you don't show that you take affirmative steps to maintain your Mark, you can lose it. IMAX is doing what they have to do.
twothamendment 11y ago
IMAX - Isn't that the name of the inflatable robot/healthcare worker/superhero in that one movie? I love that guy. His curved screen is so large, has great high definition and amazing audio quality. I can't wait to watch a movie on him again!
shiggerino 11y ago
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.
- zyxley 11y ago
  > and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision From what I understand, movies shot specifically for IMAX are meant to be framed something like a stage play, with your eyes wandering around the screen rather than staying fixed near the center. Of course, that presumes the movie was made for it (or had a cut framed specifically for it), rather than just being "normal theatrical cut but bigger".
- hydrogen18 11y ago
  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.
  - ytdht 11y ago
    Could you hang paintings on the walls instead of cardboard everywhere?
    - Cantremeber 11y ago
      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.
  - protonfish 11y ago
    To simulate the IMAX experience, sit 10" away from your TV.
omouse 11y ago
yet another backwards Canadian company; IMAX shouldn't let their lawyers write up any letters or emails or anything and should stick to what they do best.
- CleanCoder 11y ago
  What does the origin of the company have to do with this?
dharma1 11y ago
the film industry standards are just weird.. Why are there a zillion privately owned standards? IMAX, THX, DTS (HD, X etc), Dolby (Cinema, Digital Cinema, Atmos etc)
sambeau 11y ago
I count 30 references to IMAX in the rebuttal, including the image. Well that shut them up!…
raverbashing 11y ago
Funny, there are some movie theaters using a MAXX brand for a large format screen, but I don't know if there has been legal action against them.
belgianguy 11y ago
Paraphrasing from one of the comments there: IMAX's legal counsel failed to see the big picture.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  I see what you did there. However, I think they do see the big picture. VR is a huge threat to their marketshare; if relatively small screens and a couple nice lenses can give an experience people find comparable, it's going to be a lot harder to sell their gear at their current price points. The fact that VR's getting to the point where some people are finding it comparable to the "IMAX Experience" is showing that in a generation or two, it will be there for the majority of people.
- 59nadir 11y ago
  No, no... IMAX are developing a competing VR system and only want to drive people to adopt VR too early, so they can swoop in and grab the already cultivated market with their product, of course.
chris_wot 11y ago
Someone refer them to Charles Carreon, pronto!
ak39 11y ago
I can only imagine the precious 5 seconds of thought given to the decision to respond to Ars by the IMAX Chief Admin Officer: "Hmm, we know we have nothing to stand on here, but if we politely ask Ars to remove references to IMAX and they do, matter ends there. If Ars doesn't comply, we just lost 5 minutes of drafting this pointless letter. Nothing really to lose." Hits send. The irony? IMAX is now paying the real cost of that poor decision. Bad publicity and worse - the revelation that they are insecure about and feel threatened by emergent technologies. Talk about pissing on your own product.
- derekp7 11y ago
  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.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    This strategy works as long as the other party doesn't call your bluff. Which is a very large number of instances compared to the number of instances where the other party decides to tell you to sue or get lost. It's kind of amusing if you call a legal bluff, the other party now has two bad choices: either they will have to go away quietly and the issue will remain or they have to actually sue and will most likely lose (that's never guaranteed). The real downside is not that these lawyers make dubious or baseless legal claims (it's up to you to respond or take them serious or not), the problem is that most people will not feel qualified to make that call and so will either comply or run up some legal expenses. So for small entities (private individuals for instance) folding is usually the only option. In this case Ars was a pretty dumb target of such a C&D, they're part of the media and will of course use it to maximum effect.
    - derekp7 11y ago
      That's where it would be nice to be able to counter sue for legal expenses, under the theory that the C&D lawyer is abusing his position as an officer of the court in writing a baseless C&D letter (thereby causing the target to have to hire a lawyer to review the issue). So even if this wouldn't happen that often, it would be something they would have to consider prior to writing a letter with baseless claims. Of course, being lawyers, they would probably put in some fine print that states that no legal threat is implied, or something like that.
cbhl 11y ago
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?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- opcvx 11y ago
  No, because IMAX can't set up a movie theater in your home.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
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=4808:77unwy.2.3 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:77u...
- splawn 11y ago
  This comment confuses me. Is it text on a web page or did i just actually watch an IMAX movie? I hope they don't send you a letter too!
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  A little more research turned up this article that mentions IMAX partnering with Samsung's VR product. http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-virtual-reality-headset-built-with-facebooks-oculus-1201296736/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-virtual... Samsung's VR will offer "a selection of IMAX films in a virtual theater". Samsung's VR is based on Oculus tech, and actually will be an IMAX theater in your house. Heh.
macspoofing 11y ago
They must be worried.
Anechoic 11y ago
FWIW, IMAX has apologized: https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816 https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816
- slayed0 11y ago
  I think that's worth a lot. You don't often see such a sincere apology in situations like this. Very cool on IMAX's part.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  So? I imagine many sites have been on the receiving end of this yet dont have the political capital that Ars has? How the hell is this level of bullying accepted? Trademarks aren't keys to censoring others. Its absurd that this even happened. Did they change their policy? Fire Mary Ruby? Do anything? Of course not. Empty apologies are useless.
Animats 11y ago
IMAX has bigger problems. They're diluting their brand by building "IMAX-lite" theaters with smaller screens.[1] Reviews are negative: "Underwhelming, overpriced: IMAX screens get smaller, prices stay the same"[2] Early IMAX digital projection was only "2K" (1080p, or regular HDTV), and now they have 4K projectors. This is still lower than their old 70mm film system, and not much better than what you can buy at Costco. [1] http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm [2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punier-days-just/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punie...
cmurf 11y ago
Well the reality is, many people are bad at their job. But then there's the select slice of those who are also embracing their own hubris in the process and thoroughly expect they won't be called out on it.

254 points by twsted 11y ago

I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.

noja 11y ago
> it means really big movie screen It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.
- msandford 11y ago
  And even if it still did mean "gigantic screen with impeccable quality controls" like in the days of old, it still wouldn't matter! And that's because a trademark is exclusive rights over using the name for a commercial purpose. So the IMAX folks could make a product called IMAX-VR if they made a VR headset. But the Oculus folks, if they got some 8k phone screen, couldn't call it Oculus-IMAX without a licensing agreement, because IMAX owns the name IMAX with respect to product names. But owning it with respect to product names doesn't mean you can prevent people from using it at all. How else would Coke (tm) be able to tell you in a commercial how much better they are than Pepsi (tm) as a result of some ridiculously staged "public tastings" where regular people prefer Coke (tm) to Pepsi (tm) three to one? Anyone can refer to someone else's trademarked product name full stop. The only thing a trademark does is prevent other people from naming their products the same as, or confusingly similar to, the one which was trademarked first. And if someone thinks their new product name is different enough to be confusing the trademark holder still has to take them to court to prove it.
- i80and 11y ago
  Case in point: I went to see Jurassic World the other day, and paid extra for IMAX, imagining the building-sized screens I associate with their brand. Nope. It was smaller than the unbranded "Monster Screen" at my local theater in the middle of nowhere. IMAX no longer really means anything to me.
  - cdcarter 11y ago
    Depending on the cinema you were at, you may have paid extra to see the 70mm print, instead of the 35mm cut.
- masklinn 11y ago
  Yup, IMAX's "MPX" is little more than a largeish movie screen, with typical sizes around 18m by 8.5m (58' by 28'). MPX maxes out under the size of a "classical IMAX" display, and as far as I can see it exists just about solely so multiplexes can tack on additional IMAX surchages on your ticket. That "innovation" is >5 years old: http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505 http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505
- nogridbag 11y ago
  Yes this is frustrating. They just closed one of the only large IMAX screens in lower NY at the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, NY which is where most people from northern jersey and lower NY went. The IMAX is moving to the multiplex in the same mall - thus it will be the smaller screen variety. We're left with Lincoln square in NYC and possibly New Rochelle, NY as the only remaining large format IMAX in the area.
teddyh 11y ago
1. It wasn’t a description of IMAX, it was a description of something else by comparing it with IMAX. It was not describing IMAX. 2. It was someone else who was describing something and likened this other thing to IMAX. Ars was quoting this person, not writing it themselves. Don’t drag out the “confusion with consumers” thing – absolutely no-one would think that this thing actually was an IMAX™ – it was a comparison. Would I be sued by Coca-Cola if I said that “Pepsi is kind of like Coca-Cola”? Would I cause “confusion with consumers”? No. Trademark law does not mean that trademark owners can control every use of the word, despite what they (and apparently you) would wish for.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  The point, of course, isn't that they would think it was literally an IMAX. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that, frankly. But that consumers could think it was IMAX certified or some such. That sort of thing is worth defending.
  - Bud 11y ago
    Consumers could also think it was certified by the Mayo Clinic and made of unicorns. This is approximately as likely. Making the leap from what was written in the article to "IMAX certified" is a hilariously wide leap. It's about two orders of magnitude too wide to justify the threat letter from IMAX.
adestefan 11y ago
I've read it as another attempt by Ars to stir-up controversy to prop up their dwindling brand name. Ars is nothing more than a fragment of what it used to be.
- twothamendment 11y ago
  Very funny. A fragment of what it used to be - like the size of an "IMAX" screen.
morganvachon 11y ago
Ars published a quote by someone they interviewed, about a similar technology to IMAX but not directly competing. If IMAX is in the right here, it means an end to any and all journalistic reporting of new technology. You simply can't report on tech without referencing similar tech as a comparison point for the reader. Innovation doesn't happen in a bubble. For example, if IMAX's point of view is correct here, the entire article linked below[1] wouldn't be legal to write as it compares AMD's new GPUs to Nvidia's GPUs. Simply put, it's a staple of product journalism to compare with other similar technology, and this has always been the case. IMAX is clearly and wholly in the wrong. [1] http://anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series http://anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series

dragonwriter 11y ago

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 incentives for trademark holders to assume the worst of an unauthorized use without concrete evidence to the contrary. Ars may have been in the right initially, but I think that the current article calling IMAX's response an absurd attemp at censorship is, at best, hyperbolic and wilfully blind to the realities around trademarks.

chc 11y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > 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.)

pervycreeper 11y ago

I find it peculiar that they would call this "censorship", especially when the original article's author, Sam Machkovech, has been one of the article writers who has been beating the drum the loudest in favor of censorship in recent months. I guess it's somehow different when it happens to internet bloggers rather than internet comment authors.

reamworks 11y ago
He is also dishonest in his reviews. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38rgl2/ars_technica_writer_sam_machkovech_wrote_two/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38rgl2/ars_...
acdha 11y ago
Do you have a citation for any of those claims?
- rev_bird 11y ago
  First guess was that this was yet another whiny, obtuse reference to something related to the Gamergate persecution complex that grew out of people for SOME REASON objecting to violent threats and doxxing, google search didn't disappoint: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-pos... http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-zoe-quinn-looks-beyond-gamergate/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-zoe-...
  - acdha 11y ago
    I assumed it was either that or, given his username, all of the trolls whining about Reddit declining to give them a completely unrestricted forum for abuse: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/reddit-announces-sitewide-effort-to-enforce-new-anti-harassment-rules/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/reddit-announces-sit...

jasode 11y ago

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 publicity? A natural human tendency is to speak with similes & metaphors. "Yosemite Valley is like a jacked up IMAX for nature lovers" or "my budding friend the film student with his overuse of lens flares thinks he's the second coming of J.J. Abrahams". The tension between trademark enforcements and natural human tendencies to color conversations with innocuous references to pop culture creates silly-looking "cease & desist" letters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_erosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_er...

morganvachon 11y ago
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.
- jasode 11y ago
  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_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalator#Loss_of_trademark_ri...

drcode 11y ago

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 letter isn't ridiculous, but just realize what the job of the internal lawyer is at IMAX: Her job is to defend all mainstream attempts to use their brand name out of context, she doesn't seriously expect arstechnica to comply- It's just that people in the past have lost rights to trademarks they failed to defend, so she is pretty much obligated to write these silly letters.

jobjh797878 11y ago
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.
Dylan16807 11y ago
>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"
Eric_WVGG 11y ago
That’s possible. It’s also possible that this is a deliberate media campaign to try and draw attention away from pervasive rumors that IMAX screen cause #buttcancer

murbard2 11y ago

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 the large screen, your eyes can relax by focusing at infinity. With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  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."
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    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.
    - 11y ago

reamworks 11y ago

If you don't show that you take affirmative steps to maintain your Mark, you can lose it. IMAX is doing what they have to do.

twothamendment 11y ago

IMAX - Isn't that the name of the inflatable robot/healthcare worker/superhero in that one movie? I love that guy. His curved screen is so large, has great high definition and amazing audio quality. I can't wait to watch a movie on him again!

shiggerino 11y ago

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.

zyxley 11y ago
> and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision From what I understand, movies shot specifically for IMAX are meant to be framed something like a stage play, with your eyes wandering around the screen rather than staying fixed near the center. Of course, that presumes the movie was made for it (or had a cut framed specifically for it), rather than just being "normal theatrical cut but bigger".
hydrogen18 11y ago
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.
- ytdht 11y ago
  Could you hang paintings on the walls instead of cardboard everywhere?
  - Cantremeber 11y ago
    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.
- protonfish 11y ago
  To simulate the IMAX experience, sit 10" away from your TV.

omouse 11y ago

yet another backwards Canadian company; IMAX shouldn't let their lawyers write up any letters or emails or anything and should stick to what they do best.

CleanCoder 11y ago
What does the origin of the company have to do with this?

dharma1 11y ago

the film industry standards are just weird.. Why are there a zillion privately owned standards? IMAX, THX, DTS (HD, X etc), Dolby (Cinema, Digital Cinema, Atmos etc)

sambeau 11y ago

I count 30 references to IMAX in the rebuttal, including the image. Well that shut them up!…

raverbashing 11y ago

Funny, there are some movie theaters using a MAXX brand for a large format screen, but I don't know if there has been legal action against them.

belgianguy 11y ago

Paraphrasing from one of the comments there: IMAX's legal counsel failed to see the big picture.

Sanddancer 11y ago
I see what you did there. However, I think they do see the big picture. VR is a huge threat to their marketshare; if relatively small screens and a couple nice lenses can give an experience people find comparable, it's going to be a lot harder to sell their gear at their current price points. The fact that VR's getting to the point where some people are finding it comparable to the "IMAX Experience" is showing that in a generation or two, it will be there for the majority of people.
59nadir 11y ago
No, no... IMAX are developing a competing VR system and only want to drive people to adopt VR too early, so they can swoop in and grab the already cultivated market with their product, of course.

chris_wot 11y ago

Someone refer them to Charles Carreon, pronto!

ak39 11y ago

I can only imagine the precious 5 seconds of thought given to the decision to respond to Ars by the IMAX Chief Admin Officer: "Hmm, we know we have nothing to stand on here, but if we politely ask Ars to remove references to IMAX and they do, matter ends there. If Ars doesn't comply, we just lost 5 minutes of drafting this pointless letter. Nothing really to lose." Hits send. The irony? IMAX is now paying the real cost of that poor decision. Bad publicity and worse - the revelation that they are insecure about and feel threatened by emergent technologies. Talk about pissing on your own product.

derekp7 11y ago
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.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  This strategy works as long as the other party doesn't call your bluff. Which is a very large number of instances compared to the number of instances where the other party decides to tell you to sue or get lost. It's kind of amusing if you call a legal bluff, the other party now has two bad choices: either they will have to go away quietly and the issue will remain or they have to actually sue and will most likely lose (that's never guaranteed). The real downside is not that these lawyers make dubious or baseless legal claims (it's up to you to respond or take them serious or not), the problem is that most people will not feel qualified to make that call and so will either comply or run up some legal expenses. So for small entities (private individuals for instance) folding is usually the only option. In this case Ars was a pretty dumb target of such a C&D, they're part of the media and will of course use it to maximum effect.
  - derekp7 11y ago
    That's where it would be nice to be able to counter sue for legal expenses, under the theory that the C&D lawyer is abusing his position as an officer of the court in writing a baseless C&D letter (thereby causing the target to have to hire a lawyer to review the issue). So even if this wouldn't happen that often, it would be something they would have to consider prior to writing a letter with baseless claims. Of course, being lawyers, they would probably put in some fine print that states that no legal threat is implied, or something like that.

cbhl 11y ago

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?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
opcvx 11y ago
No, because IMAX can't set up a movie theater in your home.

waterlesscloud 11y ago

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=4808:77unwy.2.3 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:77u...

splawn 11y ago
This comment confuses me. Is it text on a web page or did i just actually watch an IMAX movie? I hope they don't send you a letter too!
waterlesscloud 11y ago
A little more research turned up this article that mentions IMAX partnering with Samsung's VR product. http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-virtual-reality-headset-built-with-facebooks-oculus-1201296736/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-virtual... Samsung's VR will offer "a selection of IMAX films in a virtual theater". Samsung's VR is based on Oculus tech, and actually will be an IMAX theater in your house. Heh.

macspoofing 11y ago

They must be worried.

Anechoic 11y ago

FWIW, IMAX has apologized: https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816 https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816

slayed0 11y ago
I think that's worth a lot. You don't often see such a sincere apology in situations like this. Very cool on IMAX's part.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
So? I imagine many sites have been on the receiving end of this yet dont have the political capital that Ars has? How the hell is this level of bullying accepted? Trademarks aren't keys to censoring others. Its absurd that this even happened. Did they change their policy? Fire Mary Ruby? Do anything? Of course not. Empty apologies are useless.

Animats 11y ago

IMAX has bigger problems. They're diluting their brand by building "IMAX-lite" theaters with smaller screens.[1] Reviews are negative: "Underwhelming, overpriced: IMAX screens get smaller, prices stay the same"[2] Early IMAX digital projection was only "2K" (1080p, or regular HDTV), and now they have 4K projectors. This is still lower than their old 70mm film system, and not much better than what you can buy at Costco. [1] http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm [2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punier-days-just/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punie...

cmurf 11y ago

Well the reality is, many people are bad at their job. But then there's the select slice of those who are also embracing their own hubris in the process and thoroughly expect they won't be called out on it.