What is Digg?68 Comments
- jbenson2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If you "knew it was coming" and you knew you violating a registered trademark, then you are the morons, not Apple.
- Banukab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If iPodder Lemon had nothing to do with the iPod, then why did they name it that. They where blatantly trying to use the iPod name to help get their product out there. It could have been any other variations of name that included podcasting and not iPod.
- platypibri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love how many posts using the word "moron" have typos in them.
OK, most self respecting geeks know pod-cast has nothing to do with iPods. Had they called themselves "Podder Lemon" they'd probably have a leg to stand on. Putting the "i" in front of the "pod" and ESPECIALLY lower case "i" in front of the upper case "p" was bound to cause Apple's under fed, ravenous lawyer hounds to have fits. They breed those things for fighting you know. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'The fact that the term "podcasts" did not come from Apple should be reason enough to back up iPodder or iPodderX keeping their own name. I love Apple, but I really wish they weren't called podcasts because it has NOTHING to do with the iPod.'
..thats a good point..
I don't think "Juice" have done a very good job of fully rebranding their site yet :P :
http://juicereceiver.sourceforge.net/screenshots/index.php
Finaly, I hate when companys screw their customers/fans like that..
- Ben - Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple's got control issues. At least that's was iReckon.
The iPodder guys should have replied with one word: Sosumi. - meteors, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You called it "iPodder" and you're calling Apple a bunch of morons?
Okaayyy.... - Nomax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hate apple btw... just thought I'd mention that.
- reggiedarden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wonder if the required name change is going to hit the iPodderX camp.
- jasbur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bad choice on the name. Am I the only one with a dirty mind here? Juice Receiver? Um.....
- veritech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1legal services, seems to be a good career path right about now
DRM+DMCA, Brand issues, Copyrights, Media rights, the list goes on - Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*what I reckon
facepalm - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When a company violates your trademark you are under an obligation to protect it. Apple are not evil in any way for protecting their ownership of the "iPod" brand.
- scarper86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I hate it when people try to make a bloody fight over something that was an amicable agreement"
Exactly. This has nothing to do with Apple being mean to the little iPodder boys. They must defend their copyright or else they lose it. If they didn't ask them nicely to change the name, then anyone could use it for any purpose in the future and Apple would have no legal recourse.
BTW - It's "Apple could HAVE..." not "Apple could OF..." - toddbloom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Isn't it ironic that the same people who defend Apple in this case by stating that iPodder violated their trademark are the same people who hate the RIAA/MPAA for having the gall to crack down on movie/music trading on the Internet.
Apple could of created a unique partnership with iPodder to make the iTunes pod cast service better, but they, instead, chose to be overly aggressive in going after a product that probably helped create more of a brand awareness for Apple/iPod more then it hurt it.
*sigh* Some things never change. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The thing is a podcast downloader. Which is cool and all, but really, it doesn't have much better features than other podcast downloaders. I mean, iTunes is about as good as this thing.
- Iconoclast5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Isn't it ironic that the same people who defend Apple in this case by stating that iPodder violated their trademark are the same people who hate the RIAA/MPAA for having the gall to crack down on movie/music trading on the Internet."
Maybe it would be ironic if trademarks and copyright where in any way shape or form the same thing. Indeed somethings never change. 90% of the world still doesn't understand the difference between trademarks, trade secrets, patents and copyright.
If it is okay for Microsoft to go after Lindows it is okay for Apple to go after iPodder. I distinctly remember a large number of the contrary brigaide (You know the ones. They look for whatever they percieve as a popular opinion and immediatly take the opposite line.) backing Microsoft over that. Both Lindows and iPodder where blatently cashing in on the product names they were 'honouring' except Window is a generic word and a generic computing term - test5477, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm with apple on this, think before you name your products. You had to know that with something as big as the Ipod apple is going to protect their image.
If you did not expect this then you are the idiots. Apple is simply protecting their product and its image. - DeVryGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like how its supposed to be wrong that they spend millions on building the brand and now they are evil because they got someone to stop using the name without permission.
- aggies11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your right, it's obviously deceptive and harmfull.
My parents just went out and bought me "iPodder Lemon" for christmas, so I could listen to MP3's on the go. So Apple just lost out on an iPod Sale since I have iPodder Lemon instead ... wait a second???
God bless Corporate America, what would be do without it..
Aggies - .Steven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I will drop Apple like a hot brick in a "nano" second. They might as well be Sony the way they treat devoted fans and customers." Very well said!
- Mediaright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's digg worthy, just not worth complaining over. True, Apple was a bit strict about the name. But, they do own the name, the patent (kinda), and prior art so they can leagaly do this.
- stevec5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was never able to get ipodder to do anything so I don't know what all the fuss is about.
- JuliusErving, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The fact that the term "podcasts" did not come from Apple should be reason enough to back up iPodder or iPodderX keeping their own name. I love Apple, but I really wish they weren't called podcasts because it has NOTHING to do with the iPod.
- L337_M4CH1N3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If they knew what was coming then why are they so pissed? I mean they did violate the trademarking laws. They're just whining cause the big bad company got them for not playing fair.
- DeVryGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0toddbloom7: I just don't know how accurate that iPodder "probably helped create more of a brand awareness for Apple/iPod more then it hurt it." really is. I'm not saying it hurt the iPod but I doubt more than a handful of people managed to remain obscure to the iPod until iPodder came along.
- dechah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I reckon Apple has a point - it has to protect it's trademarks - already they got trampled by everyone appending an "i" to their products..."
Just like the way Apple respected Apple Corp's trademark in relation to commercial music products and services? - angelwspr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0apples a little slow huh...
- Bonjourmate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with everyone taking Apple's side. Using the IPod name was just dumb.
- Danathar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They should of changed their name to "AyePodder".....they probably could of gotten away with it
- chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0how cool is that i just got the juice! very cool!! clean setup ez to
use VERY NICE
psssst hey i do like the name "Juice Receiver" better
let morons at Apple have the name and chock on it :p - jamesburton1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think you will find the only morons are you.. where else could you have got the idea for the name from? Lame. Not digg worthy.
- antipass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If they knew what was coming then why are they so pissed? I mean they did violate the trademarking laws. They're just whining cause the big bad company got them for not playing fair"
If Apple didn't create the podcast technology, then it has something to owe to Ipodder or other related applications. Who is unfair in this case? - PhaseDMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lets see how you like it when someone rips off your multi million dollar name. Yes name, as opposed to the multi billion dollar product.
- Iconoclast5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And I then hit submit instead of spellcheck. :)
- xofc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate it when people try to make a bloody fight over something that was an amicable agreement. Straight from the horse's mouth :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/podcasters/message/12652 - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The issue is that if Apple allows an entity to continue to use a trademark (without a legal agreement), then a precedent is set such that any other entity can use the trademark as well. in other words, if they had not defended it here, Microsoft could start selling stuff like iPodWhackamole or whatever.
This has nothing to do with the fact that this company might help sell iPods, etc. or that it is a small company. It is the way trademark laws are structured.
so get over it. - redcard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is there really even a point to using Juice anymore? Yes, I know about the Bittorrent stuff, but if ITunes gets that soon (which, can't see why they wouldn't) , what's left to draw me to Juice?
- dieselpuker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0iDon't care. iKnew it was coming. iAm not surprised. iThink it is pretty ***** of apple to wait until now to do this.
- redcard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks, Jasbur.
I could have done without that image that is now perfectly seared into my brain. - alterion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Juice is a much better name.. also this program rocks.. MUCH better than itunes.. things like bittorrent support.. dynamic opml.. syndication with podnova.. i could go on
- avtomat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm kinda glad they changed the name. I use ipodder over the network at my job, and it's not formally _allowed_ to be used. So since the app changed names, I can use it again, b/c this new name isn't yet on our IT dept's radar.
- kenthorvath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Solution: use the word iPod as a verb. Verbs are not trademarkable.
- M$Whore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0McDonalds vs McHammer
Microsoft vs mikerowsoft.com
I guess this time is different because its Apple, and we all love Apple. They won't do anything mean. - heydigital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yet they leave the name Podcast alone, claiming it as their own. Silly.
- BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I only listen to 8 or 9 podcasts. It's easier for me to just download the MP3 or OGG from a website with Firefox. Using an extra application to do it for me is just a hassle.
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0"The fact that the term "podcasts" did not come from Apple should be reason enough to back up iPodder or iPodderX keeping their own name. I love Apple, but I really wish they weren't called podcasts because it has NOTHING to do with the iPod."
didn't the podcast term was a way to pimp the iPod (by podcasters, not by Apple)? - DarkCastle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Juice is a much cooler name. I agree that they were stupid to begin with to use the iPod name.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0" could have done without that image that is now perfectly seared into my brain."
There is more than one kind of juice... so choose your poison. - Hugh-Jass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like lemons. What's wrong with lemons? Apples are okay too. Apples and lemons together don't really work though. Dumbasses.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is