4 ms·

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

by 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.
geon 11y ago
Or perhaps it was intentional? They got an article on ARS, mentioning their brand 26 times... All publicity is good publicity, right?
- ak39 11y ago
  Hehe. I swear I had plans for Mad Max on IMAX this weekend way before hearing about this story. Good publicity? So, I will resist buying the super-sized popcorn as my attempt to protest. I still love IMAX.
- slayed0 11y ago
  Not necessarily, before this article I did not know that the range of screen sizes considered IMAX™, was so large. That's a pretty damning detail Ars slipped in there and will definitely make me think twice when going to the movies.
  - bryang 11y ago
    It's a huge problem that people that people haven't understood this. For me, it's akin to Apple back in the early days, and to some extent right now, enforcing low bit rate standards on iTunes. They're hinging on enough people not being educated or interested enough to protest. Just because it is possible to get away with this kind of, it really frustrates me because it lowers the standard for the creation and display of art. You may not notice an immediate difference, but you definitely would if they're side by side. As for the new IMAX screens, not only is it the size of the screen, but the quality of the projector and speaker setup not to mention the actual proportion of the screen as well. There are only a handful of "true original" IMAX screens. I'm not hating on their brand, I know they've needed to dilute to actually not go bankrupt, but it's important to note that there is a legitimate difference between "large format" (that's the term that's replacing IMAX for legalities sake and so IMAX competitors can be introduced and undercut IMAX licensing fees) and IMAX. To be totally honest, they're in a lot of trouble as a company and they desperately need to find a way to save their product before competitors like Regals "RPX Experience" ruin them.
rbcgerard 11y ago
I completely agree - but i think there is another dynamic at work here: Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic, and one way to defend against that in court is to show a history of defending the mark (I'm not lawyer but that's my simplistic explanation) this is a great article explaining the phenomena around derby pie http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/whats-inside-a-derby-pie-maybe-a-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/wha... My bet is that they are weighing the lesser of two evils (to them) loose their trademark or look like a fool in the press for a few days...
- aroch 11y ago
  If IMAX's attorneys actually think nominative use in an article risks them losing the trademark, they need to fire their attorney. In no way is Ars using the IMAX mark to refer to a generic large screen (its an attributed quote, not an editorial comment) and there's no risk of confusion. All the lawyers are doing is chasing a pay check
- Digit-Al 11y ago
  It's 'lose' not 'loose'. They even use the term 'lose their trademark' in the article. Sorry - can't rest whilst someone's wrong on the internet :-)
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic This is ridiculous on its face. Its not like some competitor made an IMAXy Projector. This was a quote in a press article. This is a speech issue that has nothing to do with dilution, which is obvious if you bothered to read the article where Mary Ruby assaults ars staff with a weird rant about how VR cant compete with IMAX. Frankly, the fact that trademark abusing corporations have people repeating their bullshit is scary.
ElComradio 11y ago
I am sure there are about 0 people who will not go see an IMAX movie over this.

by ak39 11y ago

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.

geon 11y ago

Or perhaps it was intentional? They got an article on ARS, mentioning their brand 26 times... All publicity is good publicity, right?

ak39 11y ago
Hehe. I swear I had plans for Mad Max on IMAX this weekend way before hearing about this story. Good publicity? So, I will resist buying the super-sized popcorn as my attempt to protest. I still love IMAX.
slayed0 11y ago
Not necessarily, before this article I did not know that the range of screen sizes considered IMAX™, was so large. That's a pretty damning detail Ars slipped in there and will definitely make me think twice when going to the movies.
- bryang 11y ago
  It's a huge problem that people that people haven't understood this. For me, it's akin to Apple back in the early days, and to some extent right now, enforcing low bit rate standards on iTunes. They're hinging on enough people not being educated or interested enough to protest. Just because it is possible to get away with this kind of, it really frustrates me because it lowers the standard for the creation and display of art. You may not notice an immediate difference, but you definitely would if they're side by side. As for the new IMAX screens, not only is it the size of the screen, but the quality of the projector and speaker setup not to mention the actual proportion of the screen as well. There are only a handful of "true original" IMAX screens. I'm not hating on their brand, I know they've needed to dilute to actually not go bankrupt, but it's important to note that there is a legitimate difference between "large format" (that's the term that's replacing IMAX for legalities sake and so IMAX competitors can be introduced and undercut IMAX licensing fees) and IMAX. To be totally honest, they're in a lot of trouble as a company and they desperately need to find a way to save their product before competitors like Regals "RPX Experience" ruin them.

rbcgerard 11y ago

I completely agree - but i think there is another dynamic at work here: Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic, and one way to defend against that in court is to show a history of defending the mark (I'm not lawyer but that's my simplistic explanation) this is a great article explaining the phenomena around derby pie http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/whats-inside-a-derby-pie-maybe-a-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/wha... My bet is that they are weighing the lesser of two evils (to them) loose their trademark or look like a fool in the press for a few days...

aroch 11y ago
If IMAX's attorneys actually think nominative use in an article risks them losing the trademark, they need to fire their attorney. In no way is Ars using the IMAX mark to refer to a generic large screen (its an attributed quote, not an editorial comment) and there's no risk of confusion. All the lawyers are doing is chasing a pay check
Digit-Al 11y ago
It's 'lose' not 'loose'. They even use the term 'lose their trademark' in the article. Sorry - can't rest whilst someone's wrong on the internet :-)
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic This is ridiculous on its face. Its not like some competitor made an IMAXy Projector. This was a quote in a press article. This is a speech issue that has nothing to do with dilution, which is obvious if you bothered to read the article where Mary Ruby assaults ars staff with a weird rant about how VR cant compete with IMAX. Frankly, the fact that trademark abusing corporations have people repeating their bullshit is scary.

ElComradio 11y ago

I am sure there are about 0 people who will not go see an IMAX movie over this.