3 May
2006
3 May
'06
11:38 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 19:20 +0200, Klaus Kosten wrote:
Patrick Shirkey schrieb:
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-
Thomas Vecchione wrote:
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". 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;)