More Details and Analysis of Apple v. Apple

Posted by pudge on Thursday October 7, 2004 @08:50AM from the won't-be-long-til-you-know-when dept.

lothar97 writes "MacNewsWorld is reporting details about the Apple (Beatles) v. Apple (Computer) case. It's most interesting concerning the confidential settlements the two parties have previously signed: 'one of those passages in the court document strongly implies that Apple Corps agreed to allow Apple (Computer) to pursue digital music initiatives, but not package, sell or distribute any physical music materials such as CDs.' This might be a cause of 'move on, nothing to see here,' and Apple Computer might be able to settle on the cheap. Trademark infringement might be minimal, and both sides would want to keep this from going much further."

3 of 37 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 10:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Except for the Apple I, Apple II, Apple IIe, etc. that came before the Macintosh. Then a non-Macintosh Apple logo pre-1984 does make sense. The first logo was a pen and ink sketch of Isaac Newton under an Apple tree.
Re:No big deal by Yaztromo · 2004-10-07 10:40 · Score: 2, Informative
Oops -- my bad on the first link:
- Apple Corps' apple
Yaz.
mac vs. mc by fracai · 2004-10-07 13:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Gah
McIntosh is the apple, named after the Canadian farmer from the 1700s
Macintosh is a raincoat, in England
Macintosh is the computer, play on the apple theme and because it is synonymous with flexible

--
-- i am jack's amusing sig file