3 ms·
AAPL is obviously not in the music business, therefore can use the name Apple. And it doesn't sell Beatles anyway ...or isn't that the case? Are these the same
by Create 15y ago
AAPL is obviously not in the music business, therefore can use the name Apple. And it doesn't sell Beatles anyway ...or isn't that the case?
Are these the same people, who deliberately manipulate photographs which they submit as evidence to courts?
hypocrites. and their followers. and their propagandists who pay attention to the hype.
- Locke1689 15y agoIf you were paying attention this was an actual case and ended up with Apple, Inc. buying the Apple trademark and then licensing it back to Apple Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- Create 15y agoI was paying attention, and am paying attention. What you are referring to, in plain terms, is that Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do. (don't misunderstand: I have no empathy for the record industry either).
- Locke1689 15y agoAre you seriously arguing that The Beatles are the underdog in this scenario? Also, "Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do" implies there was something improper, which is clearly not the case. It's not like Apple, Inc. bribed the courts to force Apple Corp. to hand over their trademark; Apple, Inc. reportedly paid as much as $500 million to Apple Corp. to control the trademark. Sounds like the real winner was Apple Corp.