iPhone lawyers literally compare Apples with Pears in trademark war In the never-ending effort by Apple to think higher of itself, the computer giant has opposed a trademark featuring the silhouette of a pear. Pear Technology, which produces digital mapping software and services, applied for the pear logo in 2014 and was almost immediately challenged by Apple, which claimed it was confusingly …
@Dan 55
Absolutely right. If Apricot can do it then Pear should be able to too. But the precedent doesn't stop there:
Acorn
Raspberry (Pi)
Blackberry
Tangerine (remember them? They made the Oric)
I'm sure that there must be others - I just can't remember them all.
My guess though is that this doesn't come from the top. It's just some dickhead in the legal department who's trying to justify his sad existence. Lawyers. Right up there with PR and telephone sanitisers.
Apricot, yeah,we had a bunch of Apricot file servers back in the day, they had built in UPS and a little keyfob thingy that remotely operated a sliding door over the floppy drive. TBH I think the Apricot logo was more similar to the Apple logo back then, as Apple were still doing the coloured stripes thing.
I was attendeding a computing course at Herriott Watt around then. It was the week that V aired in the UK, and I missed it all. Anyway, yes, there were several Apricots in the University and we got a tour of the factory. Superb machines, I remember thinking. Was sad to see them go.
Apple Records predated Apple Computers.
Apple Computers made a deal with Apple Records to NEVER get involved in music. Apple Computers later changed that deal. Unclear how much they paid to Apple Records.
The more I see Apple, the moreI think, what a bunch of fucking cunts.
There were three separate lawsuits, with Apple Corp. taking Apple Computer Inc. to task over the use of 'Apple' and an Apple logo in conjunction with music.
Apple Corp. won the first two, and received modest damages and a more explicit license deal, but the third one in 2003-2006 centered around the use of Apple and the Apple logo on the iTunes store, which was clearly about music.
In this case, the judge ruled in favor of Apple Computer, taking a very (IMHO) lose interpretation of the maybe poorly worded section on content delivery and physical media (to me, it looks like the judge did not think that the electronic delivery of digital music conflicted with the previous agreement, which he interpreted as the delivery of music on physical media - clearly the case that digital music delivery was a disruptive techology).
Although Apple Corp. said they would appeal, it was likely they didn't have the financial resources, and eventually Apple Computer. offered a settlement, and part of the settlement transferred the ownership of the Apple logo to Apple Computer, with a perpetual license to allow Apple Corp. to continue using their logo. I think it also included an agreement to allow Beatles music to be delivered through the iTunes store, something that Apple Corp. had explicitly blocked previously, presumably because of the ongoing disagreement.
So there is now nothing Apple Corp. can do to anybody w.r.t the logo, as Apple Computer Inc. own it outright.
It's amazing how much can be achieved by the application of money.
The MacIntosh Apple predates them both a bit too, seeing as it was first named in 1811.
Or was it? There's a conspiracy theory going round that even it's name was, ahem, "corrected" after Jobs and his new fangled computer outfit had their reverse engineering fun: The MacIntosh Apple.
Morels are much more discerning than that. They are very particular about who they rub shoulders with. A neighbor has been trying to cultivate them for almost 50 years, and claims he's no closer now than when he was when he started. In his words "It has become a quest".
Ah, but Apple Corps (the Beatles record label) took Apple Computers to court as early as 1978.
Apple Computers settled and part of the settlement was that they agreed to stay OUT of the music business.
Apple Corps took them to court again over iTunes - which most of us would agree was a clear violation of the agreement to stay out of the music business - and a UK High Court judge gave the decision to Apple Computer.
I have NEVER EVER bought anything made by Apple Computer and never will. They are the evil empire.
I worked for an Apricot dealer. At the time their PCs were far better than IBM and most of the clones. Trouble is they weren't then IBM compatible. The later compatible ones were still ahead of the game but too expensive compared to the competition and their customer service was poor.
I had an Apricot Xi with a 10MB hard drive. That was enough for DOS, a GUI, dBase II, Supercalc, WordStart, a VT100 emulator (and its source code), a C-compiler, a C interpreter(!!), Pascal compiler, BASIC and MS-BASIC compiler. There was also around 3MB free for documents
This post has been deleted by its author
I _ordered_ an Oric,..... it was severely delayed, so I ended up cancelling and getting an Acorn Electron instead.
Oric basic had a few neat features, like the 'wait' command, I recall they had one set up in WH Smith, so, like all mischievous teenagers, I instructed it to 'wait' long enough for me to get out of the door, then loop around the predefined sounds. The BASIC equivalent of setting all the cooking timers in 'Spoils' (if you remember that shop).
I remember how aggressively Apple prosecuted anybody when companies tried to import clones into the US. I also remember the enormous royalties companies had to pay to sell apple compatible (//e, gs and early mac) hardware. The repressive tactics apple used back in those days are, in my opinion, one of the most significant reasons apple has had problems with mass product saturation in areas other than early education, mp3 or the cell phone markets.
See this? (Holds up my wallet.)
I'm voting with it. (Puts wallet back in pocket.)
I'll never buy an Apple product if this is how you treat people. You were at least a contender in my list of potential computer vendors for my next one, but given how you like to trample us little folks under your jack booted heels, I'll go find someone else to handle my computer needs.
Signed, a random person that just watched Apple flush itself down the toilet.
(My wallet & I will be walking away now.)
Well done you. Here, have some Guardian points to make you feel all morally superior.
Doesn't matter you'd be better off actually VOTING for someone to change the system itself.
With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law.
If Apple was the one writing these laws, you'd have a point. As they don't, you seem very misguided at best, because there isn't an alternative that wouldn't do what Apple does, because their shareholders and the law demands that they do so.
I bet you're the type of person that screams at shop assistants because you dislike their company policy.
If Apple was the one writing these laws, you'd have a point. As they don't, you seem very misguided at best,
The law has little bearing on the outcome in all high value legal cases. That's why top footballers get off speeding tickets that you wouldn't, why influential figures get away with wife beating that would have you in jail, why megacorps dodge taxes that SMEs and contractors can't, and why the chances of winning a legal battle against a bank are very, very low indeed.
In this case, a tiddly company has again been trampled by the handsomely paid army of lawyers fielded by Apple. If you really think that is "how the law is written", then you really aren't paying much attention to the world.
"
Well done you. Here, have some Guardian points to make you feel all morally superior.
Doesn't matter you'd be better off actually VOTING for someone to change the system itself.
"
Well, if I lived in the US, then maybe I could.
Instead, all I can do is "WTF-facepalm" like the rest of us.
@William3
"With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law."
This is not defending a Trademark If it were a Apple, or even a Pear with a chunk taken out of it, I could understand. but it bears no resemblance whatsoever.
This is bully boy tactics and little else.
"With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law."
Defending is one thing, looking for fights is something entirely different. Not only do the eponymous fruits look different, they're not even members of the same botanical genus. Apple do seem to have chosen the appropriate genus, however; botanically apples are Malus and Apple's behaviour certainly seems malicious.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
