| 1 |
On 06/11/16 23:07, Nick Vinson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/06/2016 02:53 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 06/11/16 22:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> There's a reason why Apple computers and Apple Records |
| 6 |
>>>> both exist, both have an Apple as the logo, are not the same company, |
| 7 |
>>>> but do not violate each other's trademarks. |
| 8 |
>>> Well, they didn't back before Apple was in the music business. Apple |
| 9 |
>>> Records hasn't been active as far as I'm aware in recent days so this |
| 10 |
>>> is probably why the issue was never pressed when the iTunes music |
| 11 |
>>> store came along. Either that or some kind of deal was worked out |
| 12 |
>>> quietly. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> I do believe there was some legal action taken against Apple Records, |
| 15 |
>> because Apple computers were a bigger organisation and can afford to do |
| 16 |
>> so (broadly generalising here). Fortunately, the courts saw sense, and |
| 17 |
>> both companies continue to exist, doing their own thing in their own |
| 18 |
>> arena (again AFAIK). |
| 19 |
> It was actually the other way around. Apple records went after Apple |
| 20 |
> Computers because of the latter crossing into the music marketplace. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I sit corrected. Thanks Nick :) |
Archives