Last week, Ars published a story about the newest version of SteamVR, a virtual reality system made by Valve Software. The piece includes interviews with game designers praising the new system as well as writer Sam Machkovech's own experience using SteamVR at Valve's office in Bellevue, Washington.

For VR enthusiasts, it was all good news—but the article got some surprising pushback.

On June 16, Ars Technica was contacted by IMAX Corporation. The company said our story required a retraction because it included a brief reference to IMAX—included without IMAX's permission. "Any unauthorized use of our trademark is expressly forbidden," IMAX's Deputy General Counsel G. Mary Ruby wrote in a letter (PDF)

The letter is surprising in several ways. First of all, the article isn't about IMAX. The single reference to IMAX in the story is a quote from Alex Schwartz, a game designer interviewed by Machkovech. Schwartz predicted that SteamVR could take off with consumers despite the fact that the room-sized system takes up a lot of space. "It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house,'" he told Machkovech. "It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup."

In other words—Schwartz thinks SteamVR is awesome, and to express its awesomeness, he compared it to IMAX, another thing he clearly thinks is awesome. His quote was made part of the story's headline.

Apparently IMAX didn't appreciate the compliment, though. In her letter, Ruby apparently sees Schwartz's statement as something of an insult to IMAX. She writes:

We believe that your incorrect reference to IMAX when describing this product is misleading to readers as we do not believe that it is possible for a virtual reality system to replicate the experience of an IMAX theater, which is provided by cutting edge projection and sound technology on screens up to 35.72 metres. We request that all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark.

Really... where to begin?

No retraction

First of all, this isn't a story about IMAX, and it contains just one (nice!) reference to IMAX. The statement wasn't Ars' speech at all, but one that an Ars writer chose out of many possible interview quotes. But that's all a bit of an aside, because the important point is that despite Ruby's fantastical interpretation of what a trademark means, we're actually allowed to say whatever we want about IMAX. I can say IMAX screens look like SteamVR, or that they look like my 47" Vizio TV, or that they remind me of purple bunnies. We can review IMAX directly, we can compare it to other products, we can love it, we can hate it—all without IMAX's permission.

The standard in trademark law is to determine whether there's infringement by detecting whether there would be a "likelihood of confusion" between two products. But again, we're very far away from that test here. That standard would only apply if we were selling movie tickets; there are no consumers who confuse reading an article about virtual reality with going to the movies.

IMAX's letter is part of a disturbing trend in which some companies believe that owning a trademark actually allows them to control any speech about their product. Too many examples abound already of trademark owners that believe they're entitled to control how movies and TV shows portray their brand . IMAX has taken that to the next level here, believing it is entitled to literally silence someone speaking to a journalist because the name of a corporation happened to slip out of his mouth.

As a side note, IMAX's own licensing practices have muddied their brand over the years far more than any Ars Technica article could. For years now, people have been noticing that IMAX means very different things in different theaters. Consumers keep getting charged IMAX-sized prices for disappointingly small IMAX screens, some of which aren't even 25 percent of the size of the big IMAX screens that first set the standard. IMAX has watered down its own product, necessitating the "up to 35.72 meters" language used in its letter to Ars.

In case it isn't obvious at this point, we're declining to make the asked-for retraction. I wanted to call Machkovech to badger him for an on-the-record interview for this story because he's a fun guy to badger, but he was busy covering E3 events. So instead, he sent me a cagily worded e-mail. Going forward, Machkovech "plans to never patronize a branded, large-format theater again."

Update: IMAX has apologized for the letter.