Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Image

Apple Doesn't Appreciate Toilet Humor 104

Posted by samzenpus from the evacuate-different dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Doesn't Appreciate Toilet Humor More

Apple Doesn't Appreciate Toilet Humor

Comments Filter:

  • 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 (Score:4, Funny)

      by Talderas ( 1212466 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @09:24AM (#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.

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

    • 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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by MasterClown ( 323471 )

      That joke stinks.

    • 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 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22, 2010 @09:18AM (#32989668)

    I wonder how easy it is to flush the cache.

  • Apple... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • Low hanging fruit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reilaos ( 1544173 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @09:23AM (#32989718) Homepage

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

  • iPee Laws (Score:5, Funny)

    by Silfax ( 1246468 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @09:33AM (#32989830)
    Was this a violation of iPee laws also?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rHBa ( 976986 )
      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 m

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        iAnal but ...

        FTFY

      • 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).

  • RSS feed (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

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

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

    • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by VisiX ( 765225 )
        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?

        • 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.

      • 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

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

          • 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.

  • Apple doesn't appreciate much.

  • ""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 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Iburnaga ( 1089755 )
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by SETIGuy ( 33768 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:54AM (#32991068) Homepage

      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.

      • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:50AM (#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: (Score:1, Troll)

      by bonch ( 38532 )

      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.

  • 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?

  • Trademarks are not absolute (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bk2204 ( 310841 ) <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:03AM (#32990266) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.

  • They deserved it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wiarumas ( 919682 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:09AM (#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.

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

    by qazwart ( 261667 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:09AM (#32990378) Homepage

    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.

  • 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?

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

  • I saw these a while back: adult toilet version [jinx.com] and baby version [jinx.com]

  • Descartes just got an iwarning (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @10:46AM (#32990920) Journal

    "I think therefore I am"

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

  • by the iPod... hehe damn that was corny

  • 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.

    • 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.

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

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

    • 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.

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

  • 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

  • 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?

  • Order placed, shipping will take a few days ; either I'll own something moderately useful, plus have the pleasure of having shat in Steve JobBIE's capPOOccino. Or I'll have something not terribly useful that I can still sell as a collectors item on eBay when JobBIE finally gets flushed.

    (For those who live outside the civilised world, "jobbie" is a Scots word for a turd. As in "Piss and Jobbie" [pressandjournal.co.uk], Aberdeen's newspaper.

    (While ordering, from a UK-based supplier, I saw a very worrying product called a Campinggaz

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close