3 ms·

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 qua

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

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