IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/from-quote-to-retraction-request-imaxs-absurd-attempt-to-censor-ars/

by twsted • 11 years ago

254 146 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years 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.

masklinn• 11 years 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

nogridbag2• 11 years 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• 11 years 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.

waterlesscloud12• 11 years 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.

adestefan• 11 years 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.

twothamendment2• 11 years ago

Very funny. A fragment of what it used to be - like the size of an "IMAX" screen.

morganvachon5• 11 years 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

dragonwriter4• 11 years 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• 11 years 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.

dragonwriter4• 11 years 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• 11 years 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.

acdha2• 11 years ago

Do you have a citation for any of those claims?

rev_bird• 11 years 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-pos... http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-zoe-...

jasode3• 11 years 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_er...

morganvachon5• 11 years 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.

jasode3• 11 years 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_ri...

moron4hire6• 11 years ago

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

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

insipid• 11 years ago

Even presuming we accept "trademark erosion" as a thing, it's still irrelevant here: the author wasn't using a trademark to describe a generic good (i.e., they didn't mean "a 'large-format' movie theatre with surround sound"), they were literally referring to the product (or, rather, one of the confusingly different products) traded under the "IMAX" mark (i.e., they meant, literally, AN IMAX THEATRE).

mediocrejoker• 11 years ago

I think the quotee (not the article author, mind you) was, albeit indirectly, comparing the VR product to IMAX.

MCRed2• 11 years ago

Both parties are guilty here. Ars should put at the bottom of its article "IMAX is a trademark of <whatever the entity that owns it>" which acknowledges the IMAX trademark. And IMAX's lawyers should be less obtuse in their writing when there's such a simple solution.

Also, the law shouldn't be that trivial uses of the mark like this work to erode it, but the law is not precise on the issue so mark holders tend to have to be verzealous in showing their defense of the mark.

This letter is just a lett-er not worth the non-paper it's not-written on.

The whole purpose of the letter is to be able to show diligence in court if the mark is threatened... not to attempt to get Ars to do anything different.

Are should know that too... but I guess they feel this is good link bait. (personally I think it adds tarnish to Ars's reputation, by making them look like rubes.)

davidgerard• 11 years ago

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

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

mikeash• 11 years ago

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

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

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

dpark9• 11 years ago

"I saw Star Trek at the IMAX last night"

This is actually still an example of trademark erosion, even if referring to an actual IMAX theater. This is using the brand to refer to the abstract thing. It's not an IMAX. It's an IMAX theater.

For a relevant example, look at Google's guidance to journalists. They say not to write "I googled X", but "I searched for X using Google". Using "google" as the verb, even when literally referring to Google, erodes the brand, because it conflates the brand with the thing.

drcode• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years 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

murbard25• 11 years 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.

waterlesscloud12• 11 years ago

This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

moron4hire6• 11 years 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."

skelsey• 11 years ago

It's ironic that in an article documenting attempted censorship, I have to squint to read this legitimate comment because people think that disagreeing with someone gives them the right to censor them.

macspoofing2• 11 years ago

Be serious.

Someone12348• 11 years ago

With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.

In theory.

But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens for that form-factor.

I don't legitimately consider IMAX's business threatened by VR headsets in the next ten or so years, and even then we'll have to see how well people like wearing a VR headset on their face (which might hurt necks, feel uncomfortable, suck for glasses wearers, etc).

VR is better now than at any point in history. But people are pretending like it will definitely succeed. But Google already cancelled Google Glass (and, no, Google Cardboard isn't the same thing). This might be another "3D" flop all over again.

murbard25• 11 years ago

1) No, the resolution is a function of the solid angle taken by the screen. Yes, there needs to be an uptick in PPIs but 8000x10000 is basically a hard cap on what's necessary (corresponding to a field of view of 135x180 with a visual acuity of one arc minute). There are already prototypes doing 2000PPI so it'll be at most a few years.

2) It doesn't have to be clear that VR will succeed for it to represent a threat to IMAX's business.

chinpokomon4• 11 years ago

Glass is not VR and it isn't even AR. It is a HUD and head mounted sensor array.

twothamendment2• 11 years 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!

shiggerino3• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

Could you hang paintings on the walls instead of cardboard everywhere?

protonfish• 11 years ago

To simulate the IMAX experience, sit 10" away from your TV.

nogridbag2• 11 years ago

A proper large format 15/70 IMAX theater is definitely worth it given you arrive early to get the better seats - especially for 3D films where the 3D glasses tend to make the screen look smaller.

Sadly, the IMAX CEO says screen size does not matter [1] and thus the majority of them are being replaced by smaller digital screens in multiplexes. lfexaminer.com has a great list of IMAX theaters and their formats [2].

[1] http://www.wired.com/2009/05/imax-ceo-screen-size-isnt-every...

[2] http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm

chinpokomon4• 11 years ago

Regarding the 3D experience, Real3D's circular polarization is significantly better than IMAX's more traditional polarization filters. The large screen format serves well for immersion, but the employed 3D tech detracts from the overall experience so much that I'd rather watch the smaller format screens.

dragonwriter4• 11 years ago

Having to recline and look up at the screen was annoying, and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision.

The first feature is a function of sitting to close to the screen, and isn't specific to IMAX format. The second is by design -- a major point of large-format cinema screens like IMAX is to provide a more immersive experience by making it so that, in shots where there is a strong central focus, even the non-focal parts of your vision field are occupied by the movie screen rather than (usually, just black) background from the theater, and, second, enabling shots that are composed so as to invite audience members to not just focus near center, but to look around the screen (this second feature isn't taken advantage of in films not designed for large-format screens, but major films now generally are made in a large-format aware manner.)

omouse• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

What does the origin of the company have to do with this?

dharma1• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

I count 30 references to IMAX in the rebuttal, including the image.

Well that shut them up!…

raverbashing• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

Paraphrasing from one of the comments there:

IMAX's legal counsel failed to see the big picture.

Sanddancer• 11 years 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• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

Someone refer them to Charles Carreon, pronto!

ak392• 11 years 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.

derekp72• 11 years 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• 11 years 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.

geon• 11 years ago

Or perhaps it was intentional? They got an article on ARS, mentioning their brand 26 times...

All publicity is good publicity, right?

ak392• 11 years 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.

slayed02• 11 years 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.

rbcgerard• 11 years 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/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• 11 years 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• 11 years 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 :-)

drzaiusapelord2• 11 years 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• 11 years ago

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

cbhl• 11 years 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?

opcvx• 11 years ago

No, because IMAX can't set up a movie theater in your home.

waterlesscloud12• 11 years 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=4808:77u...

splawn• 11 years 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!

waterlesscloud12• 11 years 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...

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.

macspoofing2• 11 years ago

They must be worried.

Anechoic• 11 years ago

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

slayed02• 11 years 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.

drzaiusapelord2• 11 years 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• 11 years 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 [2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punie...

cmurf• 11 years 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.

IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

Related Stories