🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46700106@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> thompson@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>/* Written Feb 27, 1989 by kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu in comp.sys.mac */
>>
>>Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored of another
>>fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the Beatles owned the word
>>"Apple" as a trademark. And don't think that the original Apple founders didn't
>>consider the benefit of the subtle, subconscious association with the Beatles.
>
>a. I find it hard to believe that Jobs and Wozniak, in 1978, sat down
>  and said, "and what's more, it'll remind people of the Beatles!!"

True, but irrelevant.

>Apple Records may have the trademark on the name *in the music
>  publishing business*, but that hardly applies to computers.
>  And Apple Computer is not publishing music.  I don't see where
>........
>And I would say that more people are aware of Apple Computer than
>  are aware of the Apple record label.  And I do not see even the
>  slightest chance of anyone confusing the two.

Apple is not a music publishing business,  it is a money
management venture including, long ago, a clothing
boutique. The record label was just another arm of their
capitalist venture, which died from mismanagement and
a too generous heart for several starving artists. See
rec.music.beatles for more...

-------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Feinberg     |  Disclaimer:          | 
| cs004004@cs.brown.edu |  I don't even work    |
| (401) 863-5362        |  here.                |
|_______________________________________________|