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 it´s 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-
