iBook. iPhone. and the list goes on. and on. All names Apple gave to products that had already been used and legally protected.

John Devor and his iRip got some cheap publicity.

as in APPLE CORPS

iLiver iTransplant

You are wrong about "iBook" which is *now* used by someone else, *after* Apple has stopped using it (for the time being).

That leaves your "list" with "iPhone" which was mentioned in the article and makes it not really a "list" at all.

" "What's the big deal about a name change?" It seems like Apple Corp could have asked Steve Jobs that same question 30 years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot. Funny how the Brits were a bit more descent in their handling of such matters than Jobs has been. So much for "pass it on" from the supposedly "oh so liberal" Mr. Jobs. "

You forget the Beetles' label and the iTMS and their ongoing stare down the results in no Beetles tracks being sold via iTunes.

Well, I see Apple's side and John's side. Apple did come up with the "i" when it introduced the iMac touting the internet, and then the iPod - iSuppose to capitalize on the "i". But everybody then started coming out with "i" something. Even eMachine tried to copy the name iMac as it intro'd it's copy of the iMac - the eOne. Of course you can't copyright placing an "i" in front of a word, that's just iCrazy. But not all consumers are savvy and know the difference between what is and what is not an Apple product.

In John's case, iPodRip is not an Apple product and just because it contains the name iPod he shouldn't have to change it just because Apple is concerned about product confusion. And sadly, I'm sure if John's company was equal to Apple's, he would probably defend his product instead of being bullied by the big guy - but things being as they are, it probably makes more business sense to change the name and move on.

And yes, Apple is hypocritical - the iPhone was not Apple's (though could the iPhone really be called anything else), but at the same time, there's that whole "i" thing again. Here's a case where Cisco could have caused a lot of problems for Apple if it wanted too, and had the cash to do it.

what does 'hypocritical' have to do with it? Apple is on solid legal ground. Whatever issues there may have been with Linksys, they were worked out, obviously. So what other naming conflicts are we talking about, then? Just this one example? WEAK.

Any company's reaction would be, 'if you think you have a good case... we'll see you in court. Otherwise, cease and desist.'

I think Jobs was doing the guy a favor by replying directly, and yes he got some free publicity out of it.

try selling a product called, "Coca-Cola Helper" and see how quickly you get a strongly-worded letter from Coke's legal department.

You can NOT use another company's brand name in your product name. Duh.