Log in

View Full Version : Apple don't like green apple



Elysium
7th October 2009, 17:10
Anyone remember when Cadbury tried to copyright the colour purple/Violet? Well Apple seems to think the stylised logo for Woolworths/Countdown is too close to their own. Now I'm looking at the two logos and wonder what on earth Apple are complaining about as I can't see how people are going to confuse the two.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/technology/2931043/Apple-bites-over-Woolworths-logo

sunhuntin
7th October 2009, 17:51
your linky thing is broked. :baby:

AllanB
7th October 2009, 18:02
They are noodles.

AllanB
7th October 2009, 18:03
So to avoid ANY further confusion I have redesigned the APPLE logo - what do you think?

Nothing like a juicy APPLE

paddy
7th October 2009, 18:06
So to avoid ANY further confusion I have redesigned the APPLE logo - what do you think?

Nothing like a juicy APPLE

Great! It's got a bike in it. What more does a logo need.

Headbanger
7th October 2009, 18:09
That logo needs a second chick in it,Kissing the first chick.The bike can fuck off.Bikes are for riding, not taking up space in pictures of hot chicks kissing.

Mekk
7th October 2009, 18:20
They'd look more similar on a computer product, I think. Apple's probably just used to people ripping their shit off.

They seem to be throwing their toys with legal action though, could have just sent a strongly worded letter or something.

jono035
7th October 2009, 18:23
Yeah, they only get to keep their trademark if they defend it, so maybe they're doing this to get progressive to sign something saying they won't stick it on a computer or something. That way they can turn around and say look, see, we're defending it in future cases.

Elysium
7th October 2009, 18:49
your linky thing is broked. :baby:

Linky is now fixity fixed. :cool:

Mully
7th October 2009, 19:12
They'd look more similar on a computer product, I think. Apple's probably just used to people ripping their shit off.

They seem to be throwing their toys with legal action though, could have just sent a strongly worded letter or something.

Bingo.

Because supermarkets are branching out into consumer electronics and the like, Apple are concerned that if Woolworths sell a cheap MP3 player, that could damage Apple's brand (i.e. cos idiots will get confused and that concerns Apple)

I agree that legal action was a bit heavy handed, but Apple have worked hard for their brand (the implications of their brand notwithstanding)

Usarka
7th October 2009, 19:23
There brand is a fucking apple. A piece of fruit.

No one else in the world can use this basic food item as a basis for their logo?

Better warn ENZA, their logo has an apple in it too...... facists

jono035
7th October 2009, 19:38
There brand is a fucking apple. A piece of fruit.

No one else in the world can use this basic food item as a basis for their logo?

Better warn ENZA, their logo has an apple in it too...... facists

Context matters.

Noone else can put an apple on a piece of consumer electronics. Not exactly the same thing.

You would probably be fine if you wanted to make an Apple Motors for instance...

sunhuntin
7th October 2009, 19:43
Linky is now fixity fixed. :cool:

fanks! :2thumbsup

Elysium
7th October 2009, 20:13
Bingo.

Because supermarkets are branching out into consumer electronics and the like, Apple are concerned that if Woolworths sell a cheap MP3 player, that could damage Apple's brand (i.e. cos idiots will get confused and that concerns Apple)

I agree that legal action was a bit heavy handed, but Apple have worked hard for their brand (the implications of their brand notwithstanding)

Woolworths(Australia) already sell cheap mp3 players, we know the stores as Dick Smith. Anyway if Apple are concerned about cheap consumer electronics that may look like an apple or Apple product, they they sould focus on the hordes of cheap shit comming out of China.

James Deuce
7th October 2009, 20:15
Umm, the Woolworths brand is goneburger along with Foodtown. Storm in a tea cup.

Move along Steve Jobs non-diseased replacement, nothing to see here.

Elysium
7th October 2009, 20:18
Umm, the Woolworths brand is goneburger along with Foodtown. Storm in a tea cup.

Move along Steve Jobs non-diseased replacement, nothing to see here.
I mean Woolworths Aussie, as in they own Dick Smith.

Skunk
7th October 2009, 21:20
Umm, the Woolworths brand is goneburger along with Foodtown. Storm in a tea cup.It's Woolworths Oz and Countdown NZ's new logo.

Apple take legal action first and throw their weight into it. Apple got royally screwed by Microsoft in the mid 80's. They let a bit of code be used then tried to stop it. Couldn't be done as they had let it go to start with...

Steve Jobs/Apple will never let that happen again.

James Deuce
7th October 2009, 21:29
It's Woolworths Oz and Countdown NZ's new logo.

Apple take legal action first and throw their weight into it. Apple got royally screwed by Microsoft in the mid 80's. They let a bit of code be used then tried to stop it. Couldn't be done as they had let it go to start with...

Steve Jobs/Apple will never let that happen again.

Don't forget the bit about Apple not paying Microsoft for IP either. Apple screwed themselves over that. Gates' MO was widely known by then. Buy software, integrate it into a suite, then develop the suite.

Apple lost my respect when the went after Apple Records and their back catalogue. The Record company was around a long time before Apple Computers. Steve Jobs is no saint. Bill Gates business practices may well be manipulative and underhanded at first glance, but what he's doing with the money he's made more than makes up for it.

Skunk
7th October 2009, 21:53
Apple lost my respect when the went after Apple Records and their back catalogue. I don't know about going after their back catalogue... They had an agreement with Apple Records about being able to use the name Apple and long as they didn't get into the music business. They then got sued by Apple Records for adding sound to their computers. Hence the sound called 'Sosumi' so the story goes...
Then there came the iPod... Round 2.

Where's some info on suing for the back catalogue? I thought it was part of the settlement.

James Deuce
8th October 2009, 06:00
I don't know about going after their back catalogue... They had an agreement with Apple Records about being able to use the name Apple and long as they didn't get into the music business. They then got sued by Apple Records for adding sound to their computers. Hence the sound called 'Sosumi' so the story goes...
Then there came the iPod... Round 2.

Where's some info on suing for the back catalogue? I thought it was part of the settlement.

Apple Computers began a legal process in 2003 to prevent Apple Records ever releasing anything again as part of releasing iTunes which was supposed to be Apple branded. They essentially got given the rights to release Apple Music's catalogue for free. A snitty respose to repeated law suits over Apple Computers getting into the Music Distribution Business from Apple Records.

It put Neil Aspinall's plans to remaster the Beatles on hold until this year. Under the terms of repeated agreements with Apple Records iTunes is a very clear breach. Apple have since won the the "rights" to anything Apple trademarked and lease Apple Corps name back to them. Since Neil Aspinall retired and got replaced with a typical jellyfish-spined record company exec the Beatles remastered will be going in iTunes.

Apple Computers suck. Their product is great, but they aren't a hip Indie computer company. They've gone from reasonable expectations of profit to over-weening corporate greed monster.

Elysium
8th October 2009, 15:21
Apple Computers suck. Their product is great, but they aren't a hip Indie computer company. They've gone from reasonable expectations of profit to over-weening corporate greed monster.

Yep. They were good once, now its all just a brand name.....under Microsofts ownership of course.

nosebleed
8th October 2009, 15:27
Yep. They were good once, now its all just a brand name.....under Microsofts ownership of course.

Sorry, too many WTF's to take this seriously.

Skunk
8th October 2009, 17:06
Yep. They were good once, now its all just a brand name.....under Microsofts ownership of course.
Microsoft have a FEW NON-VOTING SHARES. They 'own' SFA of Apple and have no say in it's affairs.

Elysium
9th October 2009, 07:22
Microsoft have a FEW NON-VOTING SHARES. They 'own' SFA of Apple and have no say in it's affairs.

Lol I hear differantly from old Apple fans! "...Oh no! not the same since Microsoft bought into Apple..." and all sorts of whinging.
To a hard out Apple fan, anything with the word "Microsoft" is bad to them.

Point remains Apple now only sell on their brand name, no mater the fact their latest products having heating, exploding and price issues.