I know people who write long, rambling letters like that guy did, and I usually send them on-line or one-word responses, so I love Steve's reply (of course, he's probably a lot busier than I am).
I know people who write long, rambling letters like that guy did, and I usually send them on-line or one-word responses, so I love Steve's reply (of course, he's probably a lot busier than I am).
Here is a decent yet brief synopsis of Apple Computers v. Apple Corps over the years. I?ve looked it over and saw nothing that seemed out of place or erroneous.
Steve Jobs has really devolved into an asshole -- a fuckhead to the highest degree.
And yet because of these traits he's managed to turn a failing computer company into a world recognised brand that is the only tech company that is freehold and making lots of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
A preemptive fuck you to anyone that disagrees with me. Yes, that means *YOU*.
I can't tell. I'm surprised some names are still clear. At least from what i can see.
Google?s cache of page 4 starts off in sync and no other post is missing between the two, so it would have occurred after post 155 which was posted at 03:25 EST.
Oh well, it?s not the AI?s irritable bowel-boy as I can see people are replying to his asinine comments.
Jobs comes across as such a douche with that reply but I guess he achieved the desired result.
What I don't understand is why he didn't have a problem initially with the iPodRip name when it was released in 2003? Why wait 6 years until the app has an established userbase? A name can be a valuable commodity so changing the name can be 'a big deal'...
If there is anything at all you can do with regards to this matter, we would be most grateful.
Both are smart. What he wants - tells user there's a great app, minimize the impact caused by name change. What Apple wants - fix the legal issue but not kill a great app. So, what Steve could do - reply the email and let the media do the rest.
is Apple have a trademark on these words just because they contain "ipod" as in the "ipodrip"?!
Plain stupid.
What is ?uniquely stupid? is your assumption that Apple has a trademark on words that existed before the iPod simply because they contain the letters i-p-o-d in that that order. By your reasoning no one can have the name McDonald because it infringes on the restaurant.
If you read the thread you?d see that trademark infringement only exists when there is a potential confusion between products. Since iPodRip was specifically making a product for the iPod there is a conflict and an obvious name usage built upon Apple?s trademarked term.
What I don't understand is why he didn't have a problem initially with the iPodRip name when it was released in 2003? Why wait 6 years until the app has an established userbase? A name can be a valuable commodity so changing the name can be 'a big deal'...
A company has to defend their trademark or risk losing it, but it does not have to expend excessive resources to constantly seek out and destroy them as quickly as possible. It?s possible iPodRip simply flew under Apple Legal?s radar until they sent the first letter asking them to change their name. Happens all the time. This is nothing new.
iPodJobs is just an insensitive iPodPrick whose arrogant iPodAttitudes permeate his iPodCompany. iPodApple and its shiny happy iPodLemmings he calls iPodEmployees are living proof of how the iPodHive-mentality hinders a potentially great iPodCompany.
Comments
I know people who write long, rambling letters like that guy did, and I usually send them on-line or one-word responses, so I love Steve's reply (of course, he's probably a lot busier than I am).
Gee you people are mean!!
Here is a decent yet brief synopsis of Apple Computers v. Apple Corps over the years. I?ve looked it over and saw nothing that seemed out of place or erroneous.
thanks
Which poster on this thread has been sent to Coventry by the mods?
You know, the one that you dare not speak his name!
Steve Jobs has really devolved into an asshole -- a fuckhead to the highest degree.
And yet because of these traits he's managed to turn a failing computer company into a world recognised brand that is the only tech company that is freehold and making lots of money.
A preemptive fuck you to anyone that disagrees with me. Yes, that means *YOU*.
Right back at you.
Which poster on this thread has been sent to Coventry by the mods?
I can't tell. I'm surprised some names are still clear. At least from what i can see.
I can't tell. I'm surprised some names are still clear. At least from what i can see.
Google?s cache of page 4 starts off in sync and no other post is missing between the two, so it would have occurred after post 155 which was posted at 03:25 EST.
Oh well, it?s not the AI?s irritable bowel-boy as I can see people are replying to his asinine comments.
Oh well, it’s not the AI’s irritable bowel-boy as I can see people are replying to his asinine comments.
And you're his #1 responder.
- bipod
- tripod
- unipod
- antipode
is Apple have a trademark on these words just because they contain "ipod" as in the "ipodrip"?!
Plain stupid.
What I don't understand is why he didn't have a problem initially with the iPodRip name when it was released in 2003? Why wait 6 years until the app has an established userbase? A name can be a valuable commodity so changing the name can be 'a big deal'...
If there is anything at all you can do with regards to this matter, we would be most grateful.
Both are smart. What he wants - tells user there's a great app, minimize the impact caused by name change. What Apple wants - fix the legal issue but not kill a great app. So, what Steve could do - reply the email and let the media do the rest.
what if I'm going to use one of the next words:
- bipod
- tripod
- unipod
- antipode
is Apple have a trademark on these words just because they contain "ipod" as in the "ipodrip"?!
Plain stupid.
What is ?uniquely stupid? is your assumption that Apple has a trademark on words that existed before the iPod simply because they contain the letters i-p-o-d in that that order. By your reasoning no one can have the name McDonald because it infringes on the restaurant.
If you read the thread you?d see that trademark infringement only exists when there is a potential confusion between products. Since iPodRip was specifically making a product for the iPod there is a conflict and an obvious name usage built upon Apple?s trademarked term.
What I don't understand is why he didn't have a problem initially with the iPodRip name when it was released in 2003? Why wait 6 years until the app has an established userbase? A name can be a valuable commodity so changing the name can be 'a big deal'...
A company has to defend their trademark or risk losing it, but it does not have to expend excessive resources to constantly seek out and destroy them as quickly as possible. It?s possible iPodRip simply flew under Apple Legal?s radar until they sent the first letter asking them to change their name. Happens all the time. This is nothing new.
There is also a grammatical mistake here: "... customers that has potentially caused you many repeat clients ..."
Personally, I would never, ever, send an email to Steve Jobs that wasn't perfectly formed at the very least. He's lucky he got an answer at all.
Well, as long as you bring up grammar, note that in Steve's reply:
Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal.
We're missing an apostrophe. Should be:
app?s
And, of course, e-mail takes a hyphen, at least according to Webster?s Collegiate, Eleventh Edition. But let?s not strain ourselves.
It's app's NOT apps - or have you yet to figure out how to type an apostrophe on the iPhone's keyboard? LOL!
Thank God for for alternatives.