[besson3c]

This blog posting really made me roll my eyes:

Jobs to dev on app name change: "Not that big of a deal."


Guy writes a long letter to Apple about his app, gets a very terse and somewhat rude response where he is blown off and his concerns belittled, "the Steve" rocks... Hmm.

You know, Shifuimam has a point about crazy Mac fanaticism.

[iMOTOR]

I really don’t think it is that big of a deal, and I would say the same thing if it was any other company asking another company to not infringe on a trademark.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

I really don’t think it is that big of a deal, and I would say the same thing if it was any other company asking another company to not infringe on a trademark.

ipod rip - Google Search

"iPod" has become a household term, much like "Kleenex". There are all sorts of products, domains, etc. that use "iPod" in the name as well as products that start with a lowercase i or include the word "Mac". This horse has left the barn ages ago.

[subego]

Apple - Legal - Copyright and Trademark Guidelines

[Spheric Harlot]

So has "Kleenex" and "Scotch" tape.

Good luck using those terms in your business's product names.

There is a difference between popular usage and trademark infringement.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"iPod" has become a household term, much like "Kleenex".

If that's true then Apple is doomed. No one goes into a drug store to specifically get Kleenex over other tissue paper. Luckily this is clearly not the case yet with Apple, otherwise we'd be seeing a lot more people going into Best Buy to get an "iPod" and walking out with a Zune feeling completely satisfied.

[Chuckit]

If any of you people bashing Apple for this either own or work for businesses, please tell me their names so I can put out my <YourBusinessName> Goat Porn Browser. We'll see what kind of response I get.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If that's true then Apple is doomed. No one goes into a drug store to specifically get Kleenex over other tissue paper. Luckily this is clearly not the case yet with Apple, otherwise we'd be seeing a lot more people going into Best Buy to get an "iPod" and walking out with a Zune feeling completely satisfied.

I *have* had a number of people tell me about their iPod, and then explaining to me it was a no-name USB stick player from the local supermarket.

Like it or not, in common usage, the term "iPod" is becoming synonymous with "mp3 player".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I *have* had a number of people tell me about their iPod, and then explaining to me it was a no-name USB stick player from the local supermarket.

Like it or not, in common usage, the term "iPod" is becoming synonymous with "mp3 player".

Exactly, and what is wrong with using the brand name in a product that extends its usage? Is there something wrong with "iPod speakers"? iPod sound dock? iPod case? Where is the line drawn, legally? Is it okay to mention the word "iPod" in a product description, and just not the title?

I'm not a lawyer, my beef with the response was mostly the tone and the applauding of the response whether the name is legal or not. I thought that trademark protection was to prevent product confusion? Does this threaten Apple more than the name change threatens the guy making the product, who is perhaps helping Apple increase its sales by making these sorts of products available?

Maybe the main beef was the fact that the product is for ripping stuff? Does Apple go after vendors who sell products such as "iPod Protective Sleeve"?

Regardless, again, I just rolled my eyes at the Apple cheerleading in that blog post, that's all.

[imitchellg5]

I think that's actually the longest response from Steve via email ever. Normally it's something like "We're looking into it."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I *have* had a number of people tell me about their iPod, and then explaining to me it was a no-name USB stick player from the local supermarket.

But the likelihood of this happening in Germany is 3x higher than in the US

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not a lawyer, my beef with the response was mostly the tone and the applauding of the response whether the name is legal or not. I thought that trademark protection was to prevent product confusion? Does this threaten Apple more than the name change threatens the guy making the product, who is perhaps helping Apple increase its sales by making these sorts of products available?

Yes, it does.

Because if Apple doesn't take measures to protect abuse of its trademark (which this is), then it can LOSE the trademark, AFAIK.

As for the response:
1. You use a trademark for business purposes in clear violation of the terms set forth for use of that trademark.
2. You get called on it.
3. You waste trademark-owning company's CEO's time by whining for four pages about a matter that is absolutely, utterly, and completely clear, and in which the company owning the trademark has no choice but to enforce their position.
4. You get a terse reply.

WTF is this confusing or surprising?

The *real* surprise here is that Steve himself replied, rather than just some assistant - I suppose other companies might have just had a lawyer write up a cease & desist, but lawyers cost money.

[Face Ache]

Don't doubt The Steve.

iRip is a better name anyway.

[shifuimam]

One of the comments in the OP's linked article points out that for a small business, changing your brand to something different is a big deal. It's not an issue to a corporation with millions to blow on rebranding (like when my former employer rather arbitrarily decided to change the corporate color scheme, resulting in God knows how much money spent on new branding everywhere, including the big, expensive signage at each office or manufacturing location worldwide), but it's a major problem for a small business that doesn't necessarily have the disposable income to spend on rebranding everything and trying to continue to keep the same visibility to potential customers.

I'd say it's pretty clear that Stevie completely disregarded the guy's message, judging from his short response.

If the scenario were a little different, and the person with the application called it ZuneRip and the person responding was Bill Gates instead of Steve Jobs, how do you think people would respond? Disregarding that the iPod is far more popular than the Zune, I doubt that people would be jumping to Gates' defense over treating a customer that way.

[0157988944]

Well then they shouldn't have branded themselves with someone else's brand in the first place.

[Doc HM]

Everyone seems to be missing the main issue.

Steve didn't reply with three lines. He replied with two. His iPhone added the third automatically. Also anyone who leaves their standard iPhone sig on is a n00b

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I *have* had a number of people tell me about their iPod, and then explaining to me it was a no-name USB stick player from the local supermarket.

Like it or not, in common usage, the term "iPod" is becoming synonymous with "mp3 player".

Then Apple is doomed.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly, and what is wrong with using the brand name in a product that extends its usage? Is there something wrong with "iPod speakers"? iPod sound dock? iPod case? Where is the line drawn, legally? Is it okay to mention the word "iPod" in a product description, and just not the title?

Correct.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Then Apple is doomed.

‘iPod’ has been a synonym for ‘anything that plays music on the go’ in common, colloquial usage amongst many people for a long time. I used to hear teenagers refer to their discmen or portable MiniDisc players (mini-discmen?) as iPods, and nowadays I frequently hear them talking about the iPod in their cell phone (and we’re not talking iPhones here, but regular phones with MP3-playing capabilities).

It even seems to be increasingly common to refer to Macs as ‘iPod computers’. The term ‘iPod’ is becoming synonymous not only with all portable music players, but also with Apple as a whole. Airports and Apple TVs aren’t very common over here, but if they were, I’m sure there’d be plenty of people who’d call them iPod routers and iPod TVs, too.

Perhaps Apple’s attempts at keeping ‘iPod’ as an easily recognisable brand name that stands out from competitors’ names are doomed; but Apple will do just fine, the present genericisation notwithstanding, just like Kimberley-Clark Worldwide are doing just fine, despite the genericised usage of ‘Kleenex’.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

‘iPod’ has been a synonym for ‘anything that plays music on the go’ in common, colloquial usage amongst many people for a long time. I used to hear teenagers refer to their discmen or portable MiniDisc players (mini-discmen?) as iPods, and nowadays I frequently hear them talking about the iPod in their cell phone (and we’re not talking iPhones here, but regular phones with MP3-playing capabilities).

I don't doubt you, but I've really never heard anything like that. Whenever I've heard anyone use the term iPod, they are referring to the iPod, not anything else.

Perhaps Apple’s attempts at keeping ‘iPod’ as an easily recognisable brand name that stands out from competitors’ names are doomed; but Apple will do just fine, the present genericisation notwithstanding, just like Kimberley-Clark Worldwide are doing just fine, despite the genericised usage of ‘Kleenex’.

Branding is much more important when you are talking about luxury goods. Kimberley-Clark is fine because individuals buy tissue paper a lot, even if they only buy "Kleenex" 1 time in 5.

[Eug]

Apple has learned from Xerox's and Kleenex's mistakes, and is vigorously defending its trademark. I have some issues with Apple's business practices, but this is definitely not one of them. In Apple's shoes I would do the exact same thing. The iPod brand is extremely important to the company.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

‘iPod’ has been a synonym for ‘anything that plays music on the go’ in common, colloquial usage amongst many people for a long time. I used to hear teenagers refer to their discmen or portable MiniDisc players (mini-discmen?) as iPods, and nowadays I frequently hear them talking about the iPod in their cell phone (and we’re not talking iPhones here, but regular phones with MP3-playing capabilities).

It even seems to be increasingly common to refer to Macs as ‘iPod computers’. The term ‘iPod’ is becoming synonymous not only with all portable music players, but also with Apple as a whole. Airports and Apple TVs aren’t very common over here, but if they were, I’m sure there’d be plenty of people who’d call them iPod routers and iPod TVs, too.

Perhaps Apple’s attempts at keeping ‘iPod’ as an easily recognisable brand name that stands out from competitors’ names are doomed; but Apple will do just fine, the present genericisation notwithstanding, just like Kimberley-Clark Worldwide are doing just fine, despite the genericised usage of ‘Kleenex’.

I hear people calling any Mac an iMac or MacBook; never heard iPod computer.

Also people still call the new Macs G5s and iBooks, or add "i" to anything. Like iTouch, GRRRR.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I hear people calling any Mac an iMac or MacBook; never heard iPod computer.

Oh believe me, it happens.

[Eug]

I've rarely heard things get called iPods that aren't iPods, and the only time I've heard it is with other music players. No wonder Apple is defending its brand so vigorously. I have never heard "iPod computer".

It seems everyone calls their MacBook Pro a MacBook though. Part of that was Apple's fault, since going to http://www.apple.com/macbook used to get you do a combined MB/MBP page. Now they've changed that. That URL takes you to the MacBook only. The MacBook Pro is a completely separate page.

The one that bugs me though is "iTouch". It wouldn't be so bad if it were just a nickname, but it seems there are a lot of people out there who think that's its actual name.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The one that bugs me though is "iTouch".

I am with you on that 100%. It's a little creepy, personally.

[besson3c]

Let's return to the cult of all things Apple idea...

In life people usually routinely route for the underdog. Whenever I hear stories of Apple rejecting an app in their app store, going after somebody who spread a rumor, going after a trademark infringement, rejecting a warranty claim because of cigarettes, etc. my reactions are usually varied. They range from a sort of acceptance that this is what companies do, to my eyes rolling and feeling a little sense of empathy for the person affected, all depending on circumstances.

What I don't get is why there are cult of Apple lawyer type fans all around us that not just accept but cheer on Apple seemingly unconditionally when these sorts of things happen. We've seen people rip apart others for possibly breaking NDAs in leaking rumors about prerelease builds, defend Apple's app store practices, etc.

What's with cheering on a very wealthy company over stuff that has no real tangible benefit to all of us over stuff that involves them throwing around their weight, and over stuff that Apple is more adequately prepared to defend on their own? How come any sort of competition be it from an underdog or mainstream player is usually cheered against? What is it that creates this sort of fierce loyalty?

I hope I'm not the only one that sees this, despite the fact that my explanation and description is pretty lousy.

[The Final Dakar]

Jesus besson, none of were cheering it until you made a thread about. Just because we support IP rights doesn't mean we're riding Apple's dick. When we start threads about how awesome Apple is about being lawyer heavy, call me.

[iMOTOR]

Mmm… Apple dick. Didn’t know Apple has a dick.

[ort888]

Steve is right, but his email was rude and unprofessional. Is that a statement we can all agree on?

[The Final Dakar]

The funny thing is, I bet he thinks it was nice, seeing as he didn't threaten lawyers or anything.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jesus besson, none of were cheering it until you made a thread about. Just because we support IP rights doesn't mean we're riding Apple's dick. When we start threads about how awesome Apple is about being lawyer heavy, call me.

I realize that nobody has been riding Apple's dick within this particular thread, but would you agree that there are Apple dick riders? That this sort of individual does exist?

All I was trying to do was explain myself adequately, as the TUAW guy sounded like one to me.

[The Final Dakar]

There are dick riders about everything. Maybe I should start a thread about the cult of Apple naysayers?

[besson3c]

You should! May I suggest a thread topic for that thread? How about "Why don't you guys hop on the dick?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You should!

Well I won't, because its boring and pointless.

[besson3c]

So are threads such as this one, but that doesn't stop me!

How come you never create threads anyway? Are you scared?

[The Final Dakar]

Just because I don't create threads on any whim doesn't mean I don't create threads.

[sdilley14]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Well then they shouldn't have branded themselves with someone else's brand in the first place.

My thoughts exactly. I don't care how polite or rude the response they got was. They stole another company's brand to make their own brand more recognizable/profitable/whatever. They should be glad it was Steve replying and not an attorney for Apple.

[Andy8]

[olePigeon]

Anyone else find it somewhat disturbing when Personnel got renamed to Human Resources?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Just because I don't create threads on any whim doesn't mean I don't create threads.

Forget about creating threads. You need to be watching BSG to get up to geek speed.