Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Doesn't Appreciate Toilet Humor

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the evacuate-different dept.

Australia 104

beaver1024 writes "I doubt if Apple lawyers even contemplated the irony as they slapped a small Australian company producing camping equipment with a lawsuit for trademark violations. Sea to Summit makes a product that assists in the disposal of human excrement, calling it iPood. Apple thinks that 'For obvious reasons, Apple's reputation for clean design and high-tech electronics will suffer should it be associated with latrines and the like through Sea to Summit's use of iPood.' If only Sea to Summit had the resources to fight this in court. Alas, we are witnessing yet another sign of the corrupted nature of IP laws in Australia and internationally."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

iLaughed (1)

johnshirley (709044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989662)

No, really. iDid. It's funny because it's so sad; one has no choice but to laugh. Well, laugh or just stop buying Apple products. ...typed from my Mac.

Re:iLaughed (3, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989728)

iLaughed because they don't like the latrine/bathroom link to their products failing to realize that the iPad has forever been linked to feminine hygiene products.

Re:iLaughed (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991722)

Next year's model will be the MaxiPad.

Re:iLaughed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33005430)

How will Apple react to this outrageous product then.... http://shedsimove.com/node/924

Re:iLaughed (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989904)

iLaughed, because apple have not only followed every single possible letter of trade mark law, but they've also scored more free publicity!

Re:iLaughed (1)

uzzelien (1158161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990540)

So is apple going to sue j!nx for the iPood tshirt? This is what I hate apple and Steve Jobs. I know everyone here hates MS but I don't think even MS would go after a product like the Ipood and give them even more of a name then they had. Face it before apple started this who really knew of them?

Re:iLaughed (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990720)

Who would get the reference to iPood without Apple?

Re:iLaughed (2, Funny)

MasterClown (323471) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990618)

That joke stinks.

Dear submitter (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32993172)

Alas, we are witnessing yet another sign of the corrupted nature of IP laws in Australia and internationally.

Thanks for telling me what to think, submitter. iPood is totally not an attempt to dilute the trademark of iPod, and there's no way I would get sued if I released the Xbocks 360 or started a store called Wall-mart.

Is this for real? Has all logic completely left Slashdot?

iPood (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989668)

I wonder how easy it is to flush the cache.

Re:iPood (1)

smaddox (928261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991278)

I'm more interested in dumping the firmware.

Apple... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989674)

You don't own all words that start with the letter "i". You don't even own all single syllable words that you add an "i" in front of.

bullPoo (-1, Redundant)

Jayws (1613285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989682)

Corrupted nature of IP laws? I disagree. I don't know how this stuff works legally but in my opinion, Apple owns or at least is associated with damn near everything that has the iFormat naming style. What the hell is wrong with Apple not wanting its products associated with poo? Pick a different name.

Re:bullPoo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989848)

> What the hell is wrong with Apple not wanting its products associated with poo?

Trademarks are only valid for a specified product category or line of business.

See, for example, Canon EOS cameras and Volkswagen Eos cabriolet cars; there is no trademark case to answer as the product types are discrete and unambiguous.

A good example of a trademark conflict would be Apple adopting the iOS product name when Cisco already held IOS as a trademark for an operating system, so the two companies came to an agreement. But if I developed an umbrella I could name it IOS with no legal qualms, other than for overly-litigious Californian companies.

Re:bullPoo (4, Funny)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989912)

Maybe apple are trying to assert that their products are shit, and hence part of the same line of business.

Re:bullPoo (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#33000624)

Or what about a record company and a computer company? It became an issue when the computer company started selling Music. The name of that company slipped my mind. Pear? Orange?

Re:bullPoo (1)

CoffeeDog (1774202) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989872)

Damn imagine how much Apple could've raked in if they had of named it eMac, ePod, ePad, ePhone... Those poor saps using "eMail" would never stand a chance in court! They should've picked a different name after all, sheesh.

Re:bullPoo (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#32995268)

Damn imagine how much Apple could've raked in if they had of named it eMac

You mean like this? [wikipedia.org]

Re:bullPoo (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990328)

I don't know how this stuff works legally but in my opinion, Apple owns or at least is associated with damn near everything that has the iFormat naming style.

Fortunately, your opinion is not how trademark law works. The iPood has nothing to do with computer technology, and therefore is in an entirely different trade (as in trademark). The typical person would not be confused and think that the iPood is a music player made by Apple.

Re:bullPoo (0, Redundant)

Jayws (1613285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990708)

I'm not saying that they would be confused, it's an image thing. It could establish a link in a person's mind between Apple and waste removal. That is not a desirable connection for Apple, but it is desirable for the people making the iPood.

Re:bullPoo (4, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991168)

It doesn't matter whether it's desirable for Apple. Apple doesn't have legal grounds to stop them from using the iPood name. So Apple is stopping them using financial means.

Re:bullPoo (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990960)

I guess the iPhone does have 5 pages of fart apps in the app store.

Re:bullPoo (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33002424)

The typical person would not be confused and think that the iPood is a music player made by Apple.

You're right, it's called the shuffle, I understand.

Re:bullPoo (1)

adunstan (1409073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32993350)

Corrupted nature of IP laws? I disagree. I don't know how this stuff works legally but in my opinion, Apple owns or at least is associated with damn near everything that has the iFormat naming style. What the hell is wrong with Apple not wanting its products associated with poo? Pick a different name.

Sorry but your opinion is wrong, there have been many iFormat product names before Apple (even in the media player market) and there will be many after. Should the companies that have used the i prefix before Apple be able to slap a lawsuit on Apple because they don't want their product associated with them?

Incoming fucktard sopssa aka SquarePixel trolling (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989688)

sopssa = SquarePixel = fucking troll. Remember it moderators!

Peace out!

iLawyers (0, Redundant)

Vetruvet (1639267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989700)

Did the iLawyers iPoo their iPants when they saw this iApp supposedly violating their iTrademark?

Low hanging fruit (5, Insightful)

Reilaos (1544173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989718)

I can't tell which company is more full of shit.

Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989734)

I'm missing something. What irony should they have contemplated?

Re:Irony? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33002386)

I think the irony referred to relates back to Apple v Apple Corps which was settled on the basis that, obviously, Apple only made computers and so would never have even a tangential involvement in the music industry.

!faggotize toiletry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989800)

iPood

iPee Laws (5, Funny)

Silfax (1246468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989830)

Was this a violation of iPee laws also?

Re:iPee Laws (3, Insightful)

rHBa (976986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990528)

IANAL but my understanding was that if you are in a totally different market (i.e electronics vs. outdoor equipment) that it was hard to prove trademark infringement.

For example, I used to work for a small (<10 employees) English company called Typhoon that imported/distributed oriental cookware. We got sued by the makers of Typhoo Tea because our logo and name were too similar. Our company won primarily because the court decided that nobody would confuse a wok with a tea bag.

Now who in their right mind would confuse... Ah!

Re:iPee Laws (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990760)

iAnal but ...

FTFY

Re:iPee Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32991042)

haha you said iAnal. I lawled

Re:iPee Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32994260)

iAnal?

Re:iPee Laws (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32995292)

The law treats made up words like Ipod (or images, or whatever) very differently from normal words (like Typhoon). You get more extensive rights with the former - so none cannot sell Microsoft cars or stick a Mercedes logo on your software (without permission from the trademark holder).

but in Response ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989834)

the outdoor gear company has proposed several new names that are also drawing flack from the iPod's masters:

the crapple
macintush

RSS feed (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989850)

Why is this listed in the rss feed, then when I come to slashdot.org is buried away and not listed on homepage?
Fucking annoying.

The iPad's Swedish nickname (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989890)

In Sweden, iPad have now been introduced. The word "pad" is almost the same as "padda", which means "toad" in Swedish. So iPad in Sweden has now been named "paddan". It's like calling the iPad for iToad. Maybe it's a suitable name. It looks like a larger version of iPod - iPhone. So who not "iToad" or just "the Toad" then? Anyone?

Re:The iPad's Swedish nickname (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32989986)

Could Apple sue a whole country this is calling the iPad for Toad?

It's infringing on future product (1)

Petron (1771156) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989896)

We all know the next big apple product is Steve Jobs crapping in a box and slapping a label on it... the iPoo'd.

Re:It's infringing on future product (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990648)

Nah, he's going to release the iPee in honor of Will Wright's Pee.

A travesty, except for one thing... (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989924)

They're right, and despite the tone in the summary, Apple's quote pretty much spells out why.

Re:A travesty, except for one thing... (1)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991322)

iAgree. It's pretty much a textbook example of someone attempting to glom on to someone else's success by emulating a trademarked name.

Re:A travesty, except for one thing... (2, Insightful)

VisiX (765225) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992020)

They thought it was a funny name and it is, I doubt it was anything more than that. Didn't Apple already lose a lawsuit where they claimed they owned the idea of the small i in front of a word?

Re:A travesty, except for one thing... (1)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992228)

Honestly, I think it's a funny name, too.

But is could also be interpreted as a mis-spelling of iPod, and I believe there have already been successful trademark lawsuits over misspellings.

Personally, I don't care enough about this to root for one side or the other, but I do think this was an intentional attempt to gain popularity from Apple's trademark, and that's what trademark law is supposed to prevent.

Re:A travesty, except for one thing... (1)

celery stalk (617764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32995800)

I beg to differ. I was just looking at one of these the other day, and have actually considered getting one in the past when prepping for a camping trip, due in no part to associating it with Apple Computers. If you look at the packaging, you can see the name/logo is an anagram AND is a purposeful misspelling of "i poo'd!" (aka: "i pooped!" abbreviated). This gives you "iPood!", which when the package is inverted, still reads as "iPood!" due to the font used.

The product itself is a well designed solution to the problem of chintzy plastic shovels sold for the purpose of digging a scat hole. It's made of aluminum for light weight, collapsible for small size, and named well for it's intended purpose, "I poo'd (in the woods)!"

Re:A travesty, except for one thing... (1)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32996136)

yeah, but would we even be having this conversation if it was called "!Poodi"?

Re:A travesty, except for one thing... (1)

celery stalk (617764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32996368)

yeah, but would we even be having this conversation if it was called "!Poodi"?

No...but we speak english here, not spanish, so we put our exclamation points at the end of our sentences. And they're both upside down. Otherwise, you have a good point.

This just in (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989964)

Apple doesn't appreciate much.

From TFA (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32989998)

""Sea to Summit iPood is clearly similar to Apple's iPod, there being merely a single letter difference," the letter said."

Ha! Wanna see how far that will get you? Check out Microsoft Vs. Lindows!

Oh, wait...

Wat (2, Interesting)

Iburnaga (1089755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990052)

Now I am personally an Apple hater. But can someone explain to me how Apple can remotely get away with bullying a company out of a different name for a completely different product?

Re:Wat (4, Informative)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991068)

But can someone explain to me how Apple can remotely get away with bullying a company out of a different name for a completely different product?

Apple has lots of money.

Re:Wat (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991558)

But can someone explain to me how Apple can remotely get away with bullying a company out of a different name for a completely different product?

Apple has lots of money.

Someone give this [wo]man a cigar!

Re:Wat (4, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991922)

The purpose for Trademark law is to prevent product confusion. In suing this company, Apple is implicitly asserting that their product is indistinguishable to the consumer from another product used for shoveling shit. Personally, I can see the huge potential for confusion.

Re:Wat (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32993132)

Bullying? Give me a break. You wouldn't be able to call yoursef Microosoft or AT&TT either. Apple has to prevent trademark dilution.

At least you admit you're an Apple-hater.

What about all the Johns in the world (1)

agentc0re (1406685) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990090)

So does this mean that all the John's in the world get to sue port-a-potty company's for associating their name which follows their reputation with port-a-john's?

Re:What about all the Johns in the world (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991080)

My name is Potty, you insensitive bastard!

Call it the Steve Jobs Verbal Quicker-Picker Upper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990252)

A wild bear can't crap in the woods without completing a requisition,
environmental impact study and get it all stamped by a notary these days.

What's the world coming to ???

Trademarks are not absolute (4, Insightful)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990266)

The thing that Apple doesn't seem to get is that trademarks are designed to prevent confusion among products in the same field. If the iPood played music or was electronic in any way, Apple might have a leg to stand on. But nobody is rationally going to think that a trowel can in any way be confused with a portable music player. Not only are the products in question completely different, but so are the respective companies' fields of endeavor. Confusion is not possible here.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (0)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990434)

You seem to ignore the fact that had iPod never existed, iPood would have been titled something else. It is obvious that the namers intended a little funny by naming it after the iPod, which means they are taking liberties with the trademark. This appears to be infringement to me, and Apple jealously protects their trademarks. Yes, this is silly, but for Apple, it's necessary.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990656)

That's not how trademarks work. Apple apologetic. Apple has a shitty chance of winning this in court, if the small company can fight them in court that is. They rely on small companies not having the funding to defend themselves, they drown out small businesses.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (-1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991030)

Yes it is. The way trademarks work is if you don't defend them, you lose them. Apple is compelled to fight to protect their trademark. And they can't lose this, so I predict it won't make it to court. The AU co. will save face by changing the name. It's an exceptionally small concession. Call it the 'Pood' and Apple has no issue.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (2, Insightful)

VisiX (765225) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992108)

This is only true when the product you are fighting is related to the product that is trademarked (like Kleenex and other tissue brands). People already refer to all MP3 players as iPods anyway, so in my mind Apple already lost this fight. In any case, they are in danger of losing their trademark because a portable latrine exists with a similar but different name. Even if it was called iPod exactly they still shouldn't have a case because it does not play music or surf the web, it doesn't even appear to be a powered device.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (0)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32995556)

You are incorrect in believing that Apple could release a computer called "Kleenex." They would be sued, and lose in court, even though facial tissues have no integrated circuits.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (1)

Shazback (1842686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32999588)

Apple can't release a computer called "Kleenex" because that would be trademark blurring. However, I'd love to see Kleenex bring a case against an Apple Inc. computer called "iClinix". Delta (the US-based airline) has no basis to sue Delta (US-based manufacturer of plumbing equipment) for instance. Delta and Delta both hold trademarks in their respective fields, as there is no reasonable risk of confusion between the services offered by both companies. The only thing Apple wants is to sue for trademark tarnishment. iPood is not iPod, so it's not a case of trademark blurring. The goods are dissimilar enough to make it not a case of trademark infringement. So the big question is "can iPood present a substantial risk to tarnishing the iPod trademark"? Since the iPood is much more limited in distribution, is not associated in any way with any current (and hopefully future) line of Apple products, nor even likely to be considered in similar shops... I can't see Apple winning. A very quick Google search tells me that iPood is likely covered under the same protection that allowed Chewy Vuitton to defeat Louis Vuitton in 2006 and 2007 (appeal). Too dissimilar, meaning there is no risk of confusion, as for the name, it's parody, which requires a certain degree of resemblance, whilst conveying evidently the notion that it is not the original product.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32999748)

Apple won a case against a group for using a green apple that looked nothing like the Apple apple. I don't mean to defend Apple here, but seems pretty clear what Apple wants, Apple gets. I just can't understand how anyone would think they'd lose. They're legal team has like a 90%+ win rate. Looking at this practically, ignoring whether you think Apple is wrong, or the law is clear, you REALLY beileve Apple will lose? I've seen enough Apple cases to justify my belief that, regardless of right or wrong or law or the stars in the sky, Apple legal will crush all. I mean, I understand rooting for the little guy, and that it's a little funny, a speck of dirt on Apple's face... ha ha... but SERIOUSLY??? You think Apple will lose? Care to bet your life on that? Because I'll take that bet they'll win.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990550)

I don't know. Maybe this is just Apple recognising that future versions of iPod will be nothing but crap. In that case, confusion may certainly be possible.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32999534)

This is not correct for well known marks.

For many trademarks, the "in the same field" rule you describe applies.

For famous trademarks, use of the trademark or similar trademarks in other fields is also prohibited by the concept of "trademark dilution". This protected by international agreements like the "Well-known status" of the Paris convention.

See the Wikipedia articles on "trademark dilution" and "trademark" ("well-known status" section) and the references they point to for more details.

Is anyone thinking "Curb Your Enthusiasm" here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990270)

The first thing that comes to mind is George Costanza's "iToilet" app from season 7...

They deserved it (3, Insightful)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990366)

*Insert complaints about how businesses bully common folk and how copyright and IP are BS yada yada yada*.

I agree, but the merciless side of me thinks they deserved it just for the fact of their lack of creativity. I am getting sick of all these things that come up with a product and just slap an i in front of it. Seriously, take another 15 minutes and brainstorm a bit longer.

Re:They deserved it (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990764)

Why not slap an "i" in front of everything? Lazy journalists and columnists have been doing it with "water"- and "cyber"- tacked in front of everything for years.

Re:They deserved it (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991140)

Maybe they did, getting sued by Apple great advertising... :)

Re:They deserved it (1)

gblfxt (931709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991282)

yes, and apparently its still creative of apple to begin all their products with i, i suppose this company is in fact in the same creativity boat.

Re:They deserved it (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992836)

I can't tell what's a troll and what's not these days.

Are you talking about how Apple should have been more creative and not stolen the trademark from Apple records (by first swearing not to enter the music industry and then entering the industry)? or about iPood, something fairly creative and COMPLETELY outside the iPod's industry?

You have to defend trademarks no matter how silly (3, Interesting)

qazwart (261667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990378)

To understand this, you must understand how trademarks work: If you fail to defend a trademark, you will lose it.

Imagine a company called ElectronCo coming up with a new electronic doodad and calling it an "iPud". Apple sues claiming that the name iPud is too close to iPod and iPad, and thus it is a trademark violation, and will confuse the consumer.

If ElectronCo can show that Apple knew about the iPood, and didn't defend its trademark against that, Apple could actually lose the case.

Therefore, companies spend lots of time and effort defending their trademarks from all possible rivals no matter how ridiculous or silly it may look.

Re:You have to defend trademarks no matter how sil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990632)

you have to defend the trademark within your industry, last time I checked apple didn't make toilets..

Re:You have to defend trademarks no matter how sil (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991814)

but some people think their products are crap...

iDon't get why stop there (1)

Prikolist (1260608) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990538)

How come Apple missed all the other i's, like iRiver (mp3 player), iRobot (Roomba vacuum cleaner), iGoogle (personalized homepage made by Apple's major nemesis) et al?

someone should make an app called iFart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32990544)

that would show them

iShat... (1)

SpurtyBurger (1400111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990556)

...all over your crappy joke product name. Yours, Steve.

Descartes just got an iwarning (2, Insightful)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 4 years ago | (#32990920)

"I think therefore I am"

Dear sir, your quotes "ithink" and "iam" are similar to Apple trademarks and are a violation...

iDon'tBuyApple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32991342)

I just don't

iPood was iPeed (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991526)

by the iPod... hehe damn that was corny

Wow (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 4 years ago | (#32991896)

I don't like Apple much (actually I am indifferent, it's just the fanbois, whatever), but "iPood" is incredibly tasteless IMO. Sounds like something you'd read about in a humor site instead of a commercial product, latrine or not... I am totally with Apple on this one.

Re:Wow (1)

celery stalk (617764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32995998)

Seriously?? It's a shovel to bury your shit with.

Let me tell you a quick rhetorical story: I had to shit. I poo'd. I buried my poop with an iPood! shovel.

I bet you'll tell me that "Anti Monkey Butt Powder", um, butt powder, and "Cat Crap" anti-fog lens treatment are incredibly tasteless too.

Not infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32992018)

This would be trademark dilution, still an infraction of trademark law in many jurisdiction-though I have no idea about Australia. I can definitely see how Apple would consider the iPood a refference that wikipedia refers to as "unsavory or unflattering"and thus detrimental to there business.

Letter Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32992162)

Why not just change the letter? Bow to the allmightly iApple-y overlords and change the name to uPoo'd?!

Slogan change (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992200)

Now Sea to Summit needs to change their corporate slogan to "iF*cked".

Is it wrong... (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992332)

...that one of my first thoughts on this was, “That should be spelt ‘pooed’”?

Re:Is it wrong... (1)

celery stalk (617764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32996470)

It should be, but then (as noted in my other comment here [slashdot.org]

If you look at the packaging, you can see the name/logo is an anagram AND is a purposeful misspelling of "i poo'd!" (aka: "i pooped!" abbreviated). This gives you "iPood!", which when the package is inverted, still reads as "iPood!" due to the font used.

You wouldn't get to be a witty company by coming up with a clever name...which it turns out bothers Apple Inc.

At this point (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32992398)

it wouldn't surprise me to see Apple suing people over the use of the 'word' IP.

You inSensitive clod!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32992766)

ishithouse (1)

PerZon (181675) | more than 4 years ago | (#32994456)

seriously what aussie in their right mind would use the word 'poo'?! my 14 month old nephew drops the S word when explaining #2s. Forget IP laws, this is a mockery of the Australian culture!
But on another note, im sure i seen the 'ipood' t-shirt on sale from an american website long before some backyard Aussie camping shop, and if anyone here has ever met an Australian camper before, you will know they are an entire species (grey nomads, drifters, seasonal pickers, etc).

I think the real question that should be raised is why, when we become so familiar with a products name, we cant adapt it into our everyday lives? I dont think apple invented the 'i' but its used in thousands of products and company names across the world. Its there as a trend! It used to be an 'e' before and it was probably 'a' before that.

Maybe Apple Record should revisit their suit again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32994506)

Maybe Apple Records should revisit their suit against Apple Computer. In the current legal environment, I think things would play out differently this time around.

What's next? (1)

Nirva (26493) | more than 4 years ago | (#32999944)

So let's say they respond back saying 'different product area, stop bothering us', but in proper legalese.

If Apple says 'not worth our time', then obviously, it's all over. If they disagree though, what happens?

Good marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33000408)

Brilliant way of this company to get free advertisement.
Costs nothing and is now boosting the number
Of people who knew them before by millions

Very smart.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?