he grabbed the first iTools email address, I got the second.
I remember a Macworld Expo or WWDC keynote a few years ago where Steve Jobs was demonstrating some kind of email capabilities and as part of his demo he typed in this email address, [email protected]. It got a big laugh, but yeah, I guess he would have had first dibs on the names.
What does John expect from Steve? Changing the name of a product is not like asking them to ceasing making it and want a chunk of money from them. That said, if it's not that "big of a deal" why bother suing the small company?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
steve blew a great chance to show some mercy to the tiny little people who exist only to please his holiness
Apple had to send that letter and would have to sue. Trademark laws require that you protect your mark or you will lose it. Apple does not want ipod to go the way of aspirin, xerox and kleenex and become a generic term for a personal music player. If they let one company use the mark without permission, then another company can use that as a legal precedent to attempt the same thing and could win. Especially when the first was a company that used the mark for 6 years without any complaints from Apple. Not to mention those millions of downloads which makes it likely that someone at Apple would know about the software at this point. Non action would be seen as permission.
Steve was nice to respond at all. I probably wouldn't have. He certainly didn't have to.
It really is no big deal. The Web page can say "formerly called iPodRip" and there will be no confusion.
Frankly, they are lucky the lawyers didn't come done on them years ago for the functionality of the software. It's a feature that Apple could have easily included, but specifically didn't (presumably to make it harder to use iPods to steal music--to not make it easy for me to lend you my iPod and suck off all the music). It's an odd situation because it's actually good for Apple that this app exists, but they can't be seen to be endorsing it.
Anyway, Steve handled it fine. Like someone else pointed out, any "assholeness" you detect in the message is coming from the reader.
i love steve
no mistake there
i just simply see apple changing day by day
how ever micro that change may be .
as for odd situation you mention it helped sell sold tons of 2nd /3rd gen ipods >> this app yet allowed apple to sell with clean hands as regards to RIAA .
i agree with you that this is no big deal either way and the writer did go way over board with his plea and his praise.
this shareware company provided a service that allowed people's to take their songs from their ipod to rip to their computers
HENCE the correct name IPODRIP .
The name should have been allowed to stand or the inventors should have been paid $17,000 per lettrer of said name and or a single item top five placement in the APP store for 38 months .
APPLE RECEIVED an incredible amount of free value from these shareware dudes.
Perfect display of what makes Apple the genius it is - everyone else is blabbing out wasteful and unnecessary technology while Apple just cuts to the brilliant essence of an idea.
The problem with emails sometimes is that we can forget the effectiveness of fitting concise thoughts and arguments onto a single page - a succinct opening sentence and a couple quick meaning supports - end of story. At least that way you don't feel so played when someone cuts the crap out of it and reduces it to a simple response
Perfect response by Steve. Just change the name. Moron.
Nope, you're the moron for adding that to an otherwise sensible post. Implicit in the reply is the fact that to fight it is pointless, it will be less trouble than to get all upset and you can get on with selling your software. There is no judgement. No morons, no fuck heads. Only the people who imply the inference. Personally I think it ridiculous that the name iPodRip cannot be, but that's another story. Go to ipodrip.com and guess where it takes you? Not that hard, really.
nope, you're the moron for adding that to an otherwise sensible post. Implicit in the reply is the fact that to fight it is pointless, it will be less trouble than to get all upset and you can get on with selling your software. There is no judgement. No morons, no xxxx heads. Only the people who imply the inference. Personally i think it ridiculous that the name ipodrip cannot be, but that's another story. Go to ipodrip.com and guess where it takes you? Not that hard, really.
The Web page can say "formerly called iPodRip" and there will be no confusion.
no they can't. that would still be marketing using the trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
this app yet allowed apple to sell with clean hands hands as regards to RIAA
We don't know the conditions of the contracts with the labels that required DRM etc. but I will bet you that blocking ipod to computer copying was part of it, which is why the early itunes couldn't do it.
If true, then it is possible that Little App had to hack some kind of access control to make their ripper work. Which is as much a DMCA violation as the crap that Psystar was pulling. So if Apple was aware of the program, they would have had to suit it down all together. Or risk a suit of their own for not upholding the rules of their contract (at the least the labels would have started pulling out of the Store).
For whatever reason, Apple ignored/wasn't aware of them. And now that the whole DRM on music is over, no big deal. So they let slide the hacking part. but they can't let slide the trademark usage. But rather than just send a 'we are suing you' letter, they do as they did with Microsoft over the tv ads. A gentleman's contact that they are aware of the violation and expect it to be resolved by the offender with all speed or other methods will have to be used (ie, a lawsuit).
Apple had to send that letter and would have to sue. Trademark laws require that you protect your mark or you will lose it. Apple does not want ipod to go the way of aspirin, xerox and kleenex and become a generic term for a personal music player. If they let one company use the mark without permission, then another company can use that as a legal precedent to attempt the same thing and could win. Especially when the first was a company that used the mark for 6 years without any complaints from Apple. Not to mention those millions of downloads which makes it likely that someone at Apple would know about the software at this point. Non action would be seen as permission.
APPLE ALLOWED SAID SHARE WARE name to exist for over 70 months
apple also directed countless consumer's to that site to add value to its own product // apple implied by the 2 reasons i have stated that this name was a viable approved name .
Go to ipodrip.com and guess where it takes you? Not that hard, really.
All of this took place in the last few days. Domain registrars take up to 72 hours for a change to filter around the system.
now if in two weeks that address still works, you've got a huh? on your hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
apple also directed consumer to that site to add value to its own product
No they didn't. Apple never directed consumers to any such site. Some members of the staff, particularly at the stores, might have on their own mentioned the program, but Apple as an official recommendation never happened. If it had, the developers would have used THAT as the point of defense (you knew about the program cause you put it up on your site) not 'we are such a great and popular program and we gave them something you wouldn't so you should be thanking us, whine whine'.
no they can't. that would still be marketing using the trademark.
We don't know the conditions of the contracts with the labels that required DRM etc. but I will bet you that blocking ipod to computer copying was part of it, which is why the early itunes couldn't do it.
If true, then it is possible that Little App had to hack some kind of access control to make their ripper work. Which is as much a DMCA violation as the crap that Psystar was pulling. So if Apple was aware of the program, they would have had to suit it down all together. Or risk a suit of their own for not upholding the rules of their contract (at the least the labels would have started pulling out of the Store).
For whatever reason, Apple ignored/wasn't aware of them. And now that the whole DRM on music is over, no big deal. So they let slide the hacking part. but they can't let slide the trademark usage. But rather than just send a 'we are suing you' letter, they do as they did with Microsoft over the tv ads. A gentleman's contact that they are aware of the violation and expect it to be resolved by the offender with all speed or other methods will have to be used (ie, a lawsuit).
great sane valid points
yet why o why ?
did apple direct people the offending site ???
they directed me to that site and also to a movie rip site .
you can't have it both ways ...
OR can you
peace
PS i cannot imagine any apple person saying anything off hand
bullsnots
apple is tightly controlled to a point of insanity
It's more complicated than that. If you allow one, you've potentially opened the door to allowing all. As CEO, he now has $180B in (partly brand name-based) market cap to protect. It is his fiduciary obligation to do so.
It's more complicated than that. If you allow one, you've potentially opened the door to allowing all. As CEO, he now has $180B in (partly brand name-based) market cap to protect. It is his fiduciary obligation to do so.
agreed
but
the old steve would have compensated these people quietly and moved on
Comments
also... [email protected]
he grabbed the first iTools email address, I got the second.
I remember a Macworld Expo or WWDC keynote a few years ago where Steve Jobs was demonstrating some kind of email capabilities and as part of his demo he typed in this email address, [email protected]. It got a big laugh, but yeah, I guess he would have had first dibs on the names.
What does John expect from Steve? Changing the name of a product is not like asking them to ceasing making it and want a chunk of money from them. That said, if it's not that "big of a deal" why bother suing the small company?
steve blew a great chance to show some mercy to the tiny little people who exist only to please his holiness
Apple had to send that letter and would have to sue. Trademark laws require that you protect your mark or you will lose it. Apple does not want ipod to go the way of aspirin, xerox and kleenex and become a generic term for a personal music player. If they let one company use the mark without permission, then another company can use that as a legal precedent to attempt the same thing and could win. Especially when the first was a company that used the mark for 6 years without any complaints from Apple. Not to mention those millions of downloads which makes it likely that someone at Apple would know about the software at this point. Non action would be seen as permission.
Steve Jobs has really devolved into an asshole -- a fuckhead to the highest degree.
I really can't wait until there's a real competitor to Apple. Apple and Steve Jobs have become arrogant little pricks.
A preemptive fuck you to anyone that disagrees with me. Yes, that means *YOU*.
LOL...this guy is a real tool.....he should start a website called.....hmmm...."Posting obvious knowledge from the 80's"
Hey I got one for you!!!...."Eddie Van Halen has really evolved into an iconic Rockstar....screw anybody who disagrees with me"
Thanks for the insight Einstein!
Wow.
Steve was nice to respond at all. I probably wouldn't have. He certainly didn't have to.
It really is no big deal. The Web page can say "formerly called iPodRip" and there will be no confusion.
Frankly, they are lucky the lawyers didn't come done on them years ago for the functionality of the software. It's a feature that Apple could have easily included, but specifically didn't (presumably to make it harder to use iPods to steal music--to not make it easy for me to lend you my iPod and suck off all the music). It's an odd situation because it's actually good for Apple that this app exists, but they can't be seen to be endorsing it.
Anyway, Steve handled it fine. Like someone else pointed out, any "assholeness" you detect in the message is coming from the reader.
i love steve
no mistake there
i just simply see apple changing day by day
how ever micro that change may be .
as for odd situation you mention it helped sell sold tons of 2nd /3rd gen ipods >> this app yet allowed apple to sell with clean hands as regards to RIAA .
i agree with you that this is no big deal either way and the writer did go way over board with his plea and his praise.
this shareware company provided a service that allowed people's to take their songs from their ipod to rip to their computers
HENCE the correct name IPODRIP .
The name should have been allowed to stand or the inventors should have been paid $17,000 per lettrer of said name and or a single item top five placement in the APP store for 38 months .
APPLE RECEIVED an incredible amount of free value from these shareware dudes.
steve knows better . or he did at one time
The problem with emails sometimes is that we can forget the effectiveness of fitting concise thoughts and arguments onto a single page - a succinct opening sentence and a couple quick meaning supports - end of story. At least that way you don't feel so played when someone cuts the crap out of it and reduces it to a simple response
nice.
That told em
Apple records to Apple computer: Change your company name. Not that big a deal.
:-)
Perfect response by Steve. Just change the name. Moron.
Nope, you're the moron for adding that to an otherwise sensible post. Implicit in the reply is the fact that to fight it is pointless, it will be less trouble than to get all upset and you can get on with selling your software. There is no judgement. No morons, no fuck heads. Only the people who imply the inference. Personally I think it ridiculous that the name iPodRip cannot be, but that's another story. Go to ipodrip.com and guess where it takes you? Not that hard, really.
nope, you're the moron for adding that to an otherwise sensible post. Implicit in the reply is the fact that to fight it is pointless, it will be less trouble than to get all upset and you can get on with selling your software. There is no judgement. No morons, no xxxx heads. Only the people who imply the inference. Personally i think it ridiculous that the name ipodrip cannot be, but that's another story. Go to ipodrip.com and guess where it takes you? Not that hard, really.
cool down and edit you bad words
now
The Web page can say "formerly called iPodRip" and there will be no confusion.
no they can't. that would still be marketing using the trademark.
this app yet allowed apple to sell with clean hands hands as regards to RIAA
We don't know the conditions of the contracts with the labels that required DRM etc. but I will bet you that blocking ipod to computer copying was part of it, which is why the early itunes couldn't do it.
If true, then it is possible that Little App had to hack some kind of access control to make their ripper work. Which is as much a DMCA violation as the crap that Psystar was pulling. So if Apple was aware of the program, they would have had to suit it down all together. Or risk a suit of their own for not upholding the rules of their contract (at the least the labels would have started pulling out of the Store).
For whatever reason, Apple ignored/wasn't aware of them. And now that the whole DRM on music is over, no big deal. So they let slide the hacking part. but they can't let slide the trademark usage. But rather than just send a 'we are suing you' letter, they do as they did with Microsoft over the tv ads. A gentleman's contact that they are aware of the violation and expect it to be resolved by the offender with all speed or other methods will have to be used (ie, a lawsuit).
Apple had to send that letter and would have to sue. Trademark laws require that you protect your mark or you will lose it. Apple does not want ipod to go the way of aspirin, xerox and kleenex and become a generic term for a personal music player. If they let one company use the mark without permission, then another company can use that as a legal precedent to attempt the same thing and could win. Especially when the first was a company that used the mark for 6 years without any complaints from Apple. Not to mention those millions of downloads which makes it likely that someone at Apple would know about the software at this point. Non action would be seen as permission.
APPLE ALLOWED SAID SHARE WARE name to exist for over 70 months
apple also directed countless consumer's to that site to add value to its own product // apple implied by the 2 reasons i have stated that this name was a viable approved name .
Apple does not have such a clear win here
apple would win of course
apple would also have to pay some compensation
thank you for responding to me
peace
9
Apple records to Apple computer: Change your company name. Not that big a deal.
:-)
I guess you missed a couple of things in your time.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
Go to ipodrip.com and guess where it takes you? Not that hard, really.
All of this took place in the last few days. Domain registrars take up to 72 hours for a change to filter around the system.
now if in two weeks that address still works, you've got a huh? on your hands.
apple also directed consumer to that site to add value to its own product
No they didn't. Apple never directed consumers to any such site. Some members of the staff, particularly at the stores, might have on their own mentioned the program, but Apple as an official recommendation never happened. If it had, the developers would have used THAT as the point of defense (you knew about the program cause you put it up on your site) not 'we are such a great and popular program and we gave them something you wouldn't so you should be thanking us, whine whine'.
no they can't. that would still be marketing using the trademark.
We don't know the conditions of the contracts with the labels that required DRM etc. but I will bet you that blocking ipod to computer copying was part of it, which is why the early itunes couldn't do it.
If true, then it is possible that Little App had to hack some kind of access control to make their ripper work. Which is as much a DMCA violation as the crap that Psystar was pulling. So if Apple was aware of the program, they would have had to suit it down all together. Or risk a suit of their own for not upholding the rules of their contract (at the least the labels would have started pulling out of the Store).
For whatever reason, Apple ignored/wasn't aware of them. And now that the whole DRM on music is over, no big deal. So they let slide the hacking part. but they can't let slide the trademark usage. But rather than just send a 'we are suing you' letter, they do as they did with Microsoft over the tv ads. A gentleman's contact that they are aware of the violation and expect it to be resolved by the offender with all speed or other methods will have to be used (ie, a lawsuit).
great sane valid points
yet why o why ?
did apple direct people the offending site ???
they directed me to that site and also to a movie rip site .
you can't have it both ways ...
OR can you
peace
PS i cannot imagine any apple person saying anything off hand
bullsnots
apple is tightly controlled to a point of insanity
steve knows better . or he did at one time
It's more complicated than that. If you allow one, you've potentially opened the door to allowing all. As CEO, he now has $180B in (partly brand name-based) market cap to protect. It is his fiduciary obligation to do so.
It's more complicated than that. If you allow one, you've potentially opened the door to allowing all. As CEO, he now has $180B in (partly brand name-based) market cap to protect. It is his fiduciary obligation to do so.
agreed
but
the old steve would have compensated these people quietly and moved on
this is a unique situation of course
Problem solved. Moving on.
Nicely said, Steve.
I guess you missed a couple of things in your time.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
And how does that change the fact that Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps records and originally lost?
This is not new. Apple "asked" developers and product manufacturer to refrain from using word "iPod" in their name(s) years ago.
iPodlounge is now called iLounge for that very reason.