4 ms·

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 con

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.

MCRed 11y ago
I'm quite depressed to see you being downvoted for making cogent points. It's a shame HN has become slashdot.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story. I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.
  - nate_meurer 11y ago
    The problem isn't that your opinion is unpopular. The problem is that you're misrepresenting your opinion in terms of a legal concept. The term "confusion" has specific meaning in trademark law, which you seem to resist acknowledging. Even if you have a point, you're going to frustrate others by being thick-headed. See dragonwriter's comment for a good concise clarification.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      Honestly, we're all just talking past each other. I knew it would be hopeless to get the idea across in this environment of jump all over the stupid thing of the day, but I wanted to try anyway. As far as the legal concept goes, it should be clear that I'm just interpreting what IMAX's general counsel seems to believe. Whether you agree with her or not, I wouldn't say she's uninformed on the topic.
      - nate_meurer 11y ago
        Uninformed or not, IMAX' action was stupid and self-destructive and they know it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-to-ars-for-its-trademark-retraction-demand/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-t...
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Eh. It just happened to be a stupid story of the day. The other 1000 people they sent letters to either complied or did nothing.
- zzleeper 11y ago
  Has it? The quoted article had an interview with a developer where the developer mentioned IMAX. Not the article, but a guy with quotes around it. How does that lead to any consumer confusion at all?
  - shiggerino 11y ago
    At least HN doesn't seem to be perpetuating the Reddit hypocrisy about voting for quality and not popularity, but the problem remains, voting popular opinions up and unpopular ones down only serves to turn the place into an echo chamber. Though mostly it's annoying to have to select the text to be able to read it as it gets lighter and lighter.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Stylish browser addon -> Add CSS for HN for "font { color: #333 !important; }" Now all comments are the same color, regardless of votes. I dislike the fading mechanism for the reasons I describe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9746702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9746702
      - shiggerino 11y ago
        Good idea. But what I should do is write a script that in addition to that puts and indicator so I know which posts the HN readership has decided my feeble little mind needs to be spared from lest I too start having unpopular opinions. Which is too late by now anyway, since I have tons of them.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  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).
dpark 11y ago
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 no one is going to think a headset is a motorcycle. [1] I made this up. I'm pretty sure Harley-Davidson does not use this as a motto/slogan/trademark/whatever.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  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?
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    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!
  - dpark 11y ago
    > 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.
SEMW 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. The test isn't whether someone can believe it, in the sense that it isn't physically impossible that at least one person could believe it. Thankfully. It's, according to the article, whether there's a likelyhood of confusion. I.e. whether an average, reasonably prudent consumer would be likely to be confused.
zck 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. This is a different issue -- of course IMAX /could/ license it; it's possible. The issue is whether people believe IMAX /has/ licensed it. This may be your point, but it's not clear to me. If I say "this car is as good as a BMW", do you think I'm saying that the car is a BMW? If I say "the guitar my uncle made plays as smoothly as a Les Paul", do you think I'm saying I have Les Paul's signature on the headstock? I think the comparisons and analogies are understood as such; I doubt the average consumer thinks the SteamVR has anything to do with IMAX.
moron4hire 11y ago
"Like" is not the same as "is". For a consumer to be confused, it would be no fault of the speaker, because the speaker expressed themselves correctly. Your argument is that users could misinterpret what is said, willfully ignore the meaning of words. By that standard, I could say "my product has nothing to do with IMAX" and someone could choose to ignore it and say "he said IMAX! It must be IMAX." No court is going to apply such a standard, because it is ludicrous.
dragonwriter 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. 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.

MCRed 11y ago

I'm quite depressed to see you being downvoted for making cogent points. It's a shame HN has become slashdot.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story. I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.
- nate_meurer 11y ago
  The problem isn't that your opinion is unpopular. The problem is that you're misrepresenting your opinion in terms of a legal concept. The term "confusion" has specific meaning in trademark law, which you seem to resist acknowledging. Even if you have a point, you're going to frustrate others by being thick-headed. See dragonwriter's comment for a good concise clarification.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    Honestly, we're all just talking past each other. I knew it would be hopeless to get the idea across in this environment of jump all over the stupid thing of the day, but I wanted to try anyway. As far as the legal concept goes, it should be clear that I'm just interpreting what IMAX's general counsel seems to believe. Whether you agree with her or not, I wouldn't say she's uninformed on the topic.
    - nate_meurer 11y ago
      Uninformed or not, IMAX' action was stupid and self-destructive and they know it: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-to-ars-for-its-trademark-retraction-demand/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-t...
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Eh. It just happened to be a stupid story of the day. The other 1000 people they sent letters to either complied or did nothing.
zzleeper 11y ago
Has it? The quoted article had an interview with a developer where the developer mentioned IMAX. Not the article, but a guy with quotes around it. How does that lead to any consumer confusion at all?
- shiggerino 11y ago
  At least HN doesn't seem to be perpetuating the Reddit hypocrisy about voting for quality and not popularity, but the problem remains, voting popular opinions up and unpopular ones down only serves to turn the place into an echo chamber. Though mostly it's annoying to have to select the text to be able to read it as it gets lighter and lighter.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Stylish browser addon -> Add CSS for HN for "font { color: #333 !important; }" Now all comments are the same color, regardless of votes. I dislike the fading mechanism for the reasons I describe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9746702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9746702
    - shiggerino 11y ago
      Good idea. But what I should do is write a script that in addition to that puts and indicator so I know which posts the HN readership has decided my feeble little mind needs to be spared from lest I too start having unpopular opinions. Which is too late by now anyway, since I have tons of them.
hyperpape 11y ago
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).

dpark 11y ago

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 no one is going to think a headset is a motorcycle. [1] I made this up. I'm pretty sure Harley-Davidson does not use this as a motto/slogan/trademark/whatever.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
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?
- moron4hire 11y ago
  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!
- dpark 11y ago
  > 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.

SEMW 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. The test isn't whether someone can believe it, in the sense that it isn't physically impossible that at least one person could believe it. Thankfully. It's, according to the article, whether there's a likelyhood of confusion. I.e. whether an average, reasonably prudent consumer would be likely to be confused.

zck 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. This is a different issue -- of course IMAX /could/ license it; it's possible. The issue is whether people believe IMAX /has/ licensed it. This may be your point, but it's not clear to me. If I say "this car is as good as a BMW", do you think I'm saying that the car is a BMW? If I say "the guitar my uncle made plays as smoothly as a Les Paul", do you think I'm saying I have Les Paul's signature on the headstock? I think the comparisons and analogies are understood as such; I doubt the average consumer thinks the SteamVR has anything to do with IMAX.

moron4hire 11y ago

"Like" is not the same as "is". For a consumer to be confused, it would be no fault of the speaker, because the speaker expressed themselves correctly. Your argument is that users could misinterpret what is said, willfully ignore the meaning of words. By that standard, I could say "my product has nothing to do with IMAX" and someone could choose to ignore it and say "he said IMAX! It must be IMAX." No court is going to apply such a standard, because it is ludicrous.

dragonwriter 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. 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.