On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 19:20 +0200, Klaus Kosten wrote:
> Patrick Shirkey schrieb:
> > Thomas Vecchione wrote:
> >
> >>> The only audio
> >>> related things for "pod" I could see are: a guitar effects processor
> >>> called
> >>> a PODxt (there was a POD historically), an audio I/O device called a
> >>> Firepod, and the documentation for the LADSPA Perl module. Perl docs
> >>> are the only non-coincidental hits for "LADSPA POD".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pod devices are used in live sound fairly often, probably much more so
> >> than guitarists would like;)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > So theoretically you could find a way to put a .pod on a PODxt.
> >
> > I was trying to think of a name that encapsulated the concept of
> > pluggable bits of code and mod was gone. A .pod is entirely relevant and
> > easily memorable.
> >
> > If it's really available then stake your claim before anyone else does.
> >
>
> Before further discussing the name "Pod", please have a look at
> www.line6.com/products/pods/ . There is a whole family of FX processors
> for guitar and bass under the registered trademark "POD", and these
> devices are well known and widely used. So itīs probably not a good idea
> to name a software effects collection "Pod".
This is a good point. The POD line is _VERY_ well known, and given that
plugins can be effects or guitar amp models etc (ie the domain is
similar) I wouldn't be surprised if Line6's lawyers had something to say
about it once they find out.
-DR-
Received on Thu May 4 08:15:05 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 04 2006 - 08:15:06 EEST