Apple vs Apple
by Giles Turnbull
Thirty years ago this weekend, when Apple began life as a business, it was Steve Jobs who chose a name for the brand-new company. He named it Apple, the same name used by The Beatles' record company.
Steve probably didn't think that would ever be a problem. After all, a British music business and a (then very new, very small) Californian computer company - no-one would have expected the two to have any conflict.
But Apple Computer did better than anyone expected, and was soon a global brand. The executives in charge of Apple Corps started to take notice.
And that's why the two companies came to a trademark agreement in 1991. Apple Corps said Apple Computer could continue using the Apple name, on one condition - that it never go into the music business.
Have a look on the back of a Beatles CD. It will tell you that "Apple" is a trademark of Apple Corps.
No problem--look, it's all settled! Details at:
|In no means is apple corps seeking damages for apple computers itunes website in which you can download music for the popular ipod, they are just trying to uphold their 1991 settlement agreement in which apple computer agreed not use apple corps logo on anything music related. This is simply a distrubte over trademarks, again!|
In no means is apple corps seeking damages for apple computers itunes website in which you can download music for the popular ipod, they are just trying to uphold their 1991 settlement agreement in which apple computer agreed not use apple corps logo on anything music related. This is simply a distrubte over trademarks, again!
|Apple should buy Apple Corps and put an end to this forever :)|
|I think this whole case is out of line. The Beatles using the Apple Corp is fine. I dont see anyone getting Apple Computers and Betles music confused. Apple Corp is just looking for attention. Whens the last time the Beatles made a new song anyways?|
|the beatles are stupid. don't they already have enough money, what's another couple million going to do for them|