I would think that all of the diapers the latest FightBaby goes through may have helped Kimberly-Clark (NYSE: KMB) a bit, but that was not the case.

The home of Kleenex and Huggies announced yesterday that it will cut 1,600 jobs, roughly 3% of its total workforce. A majority of the cuts will come from salaried and nonproduction workers; the company does not plan to close any plants. The company believes that these cuts will save roughly $150 million a year, or 25 cents per share. These results will be reflected the most in the second quarter, when the company will record $110 million of the costs.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE: CHK) implied volatility up on gas price movement and expected fund raising.

CHK is the largest independent and third largest overall producer of natural gas in the U.S. Bloomberg reports Natural Gas Futures are up .88% to 5.63. CHK has a market cap of $15 billion with long-term debt of $8.3 billion. CHK announced on 8/8/07 a $500 million issuance of convertible senior notes (convertible debts increases volatility). CHK filed to sell EUR $525 million in senior notes on 11/27/06. CHK filed to sell $792 million in senior notes on 12/1/06. CHK filed to sell 30 million shares in a secondary on 12/7/06. CHK October option implied volatility of 33 was above its 26-week average of 28 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price risk.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation (NYSE: KMB) implied volatility flat; KMB has low debt to equity ratio.

1.3 billion people, nearly a quarter of the world's population, use KMB brands every day. KMB is recently down 98 cents to $68.42. KMB has a market cap of $29 billion with long term debt of $3 billion. KMB reported 2006 revenue of $16.7 billion. KMB has been frequently mentioned as an LBO candidate in 2006. KMB option implied volatility of 18 was near its 26-week average according to Track Data, suggesting non-directional risks.

Daily options update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

Xerox ® and Kleenex ® have been fighting for decades to protect their intellectual property. Their assertion, that their trademarked names are not nouns (it's a Xerox ® copy, and a Kleenex ® tissue), has been maintained despite every common usage evidence to the contrary, whereas words like Band-Aid and Aspirin have faded into 'generic' status, losing their trademarks.

iPod, surely, is headed that direction. When my sister asked for an iPod for Christmas, I immediately thought, but does she want an iPod ® player? Or an iPod? Apple may have some serious work to do to protect its IP, what with the ubiquity of white-colored iFakes from makers like Creative and SanDisk. This article from TechNewsWorld wonders if "MP3 player and iPod may become synonymous." I'd argue that it's already happened. Even iPod's silhouette ad style is being ripped off from here to my friend's Christmas cards.

What do you think? Are iPod and MP3 player synonymous? And should Apple spend big to protect their trademark from generocide?