gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (02/23/90)
I assume you all have heard about the Beatles' (a.k.a Apple Corps) lawsuit against Apple for supposedly violating a secret agreement allowing Apple to use, well, "Apple", as long as Apple didn't do anything related to music. Here, straight from MacWeek, is the latest: "Noting that Apple Corps' owners -- George Harrison, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono and Ringo Starr -- are 'among the richest people in the world,' Cooper [Apple Corps' lawyer] speculated that if they win, 'They may just say [to Apple], "That's it guys, you've had your license, now go change you name"', rather than claiming a paltry $10 million or $15 million a year in license fees." Pretty galling, isn't it? Now, I know there are a lot of Apple-haters out there, but think about it: if it hurts Apple, in the end it's going to hurt Apple users, i.e. us. So, in the end, _we_ have to suffer due to the actions of these _immensely_ rich people. Sheesh! So, my questions are: 1) Can they do something ridiculous like make Apple change its name? 2) If the answer to one is "yes", what suggestions do you have for Apple's new name? :-> 3) How secure is Wingz' legal position, now that McCartney is in the suing mood? :-> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (02/23/90)
In article <7779@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >So, my questions are: > >1) Can they do something ridiculous like make Apple change its name? Assuming Apple really made such a stupid agreement and/or gets a judge like the one who used to be on the H-P case, they could make Apple change its brand names. I'm fairly sure that company names cannot be copyrighted in the U.S, so any such agreement as to the company name would probably be held to be invalid (you can't have a contract which gives something for nothing). > >2) If the answer to one is "yes", what suggestions do you have for Apple's new >name? :-> Beatles, of course.... Disclaimer: I'm definitely not a lawyer, so any and all legal information above is not only suspect, its probably WRONG. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (02/27/90)
But look at the Beatles suign them in another light: Perhaps they're Mac users and in disgust at Apple suing everyone else, they're just bringing pressure to bear to get Apple to drop their "look and feel" suits.. Oh, and company names, while not copyrightable, are certainly trademarks, which i think are more enforcable than copyrights. (in addition to being RETROACTIVE if your a big company such as McDonalds and you want to stomp out a little restaurant which had been called McDonalds for the last 80 year) Disclaimer: McDonalds was mentioned above. I know for a fact it was not the company that was actually in the above mentioned case. It was actually a large Pizza chain that is one of the two largest ones in the nation. (but i don't remeber which one) -- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott R. Anderson) (03/06/90)
Apple better watch out if someone starts to use Macintoshs to electronically
control ovens and deep fryers....
*
* ** Scott Robert Anderson gatech!emoryu1!phssra
* * * ** phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu phssra@emoryu1.bitnet
* * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *