Hacker News Reader

Comment by bkishan | Hacker News Reader

> no good vision

Ah yes, years of continuing technical and product innovations, with "no good vision"

Attacking fruit sellers is not "a vision".

Which isn’t what’s happening. A fruit seller has a hypothetical concern over a trademark application, which is how you turn a non story into a story on a slow news day.

  Apple is manoeuvring itself into a position where it could
  Without any other reasonable explanation for why it should
  Except for the one of which Fruit Union is afraid it would

> Without any other reasonable explanation for why they should

You want a reasonable explanation such as they might want to use a 3D logo when launching a 3D product their currently spending millions advertising.

No other explanation except that they’re registering a very specific logo which they are now the owners of but has been used in trade since the 60s within the domain of trade relating to the historical use of that trademark (that is music and related media). You know, exactly the sort of thing you might expect the owner of a trademark to do in all the relevant legal jurisdictions where it might be using that mark in trade

That's precisely the point I was trying to make in response to my parent; Fruit Union's fears are fully justified as there'd be no reason for Apple to pursue this trademark if they weren't intending to exploit the perks of its ownership in the future.

Yes, the perks of its ownership like enforcing their trade mark in the trade they are engaged in. Specifically the sale of music and the licensing of that mark back to Apple Records. Again they aren't trademarking the concept of apples, or all pictures of apples, nor is the application for anything more than the categories under which that trademark was. Further more, the application is not really any different from any number of other trademarks for which the Swiss government has already registered for Apple, such as:

https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....

or perhaps most relevantly this one which is the other Apple Records mark that they own and was granted full protection for:

https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....

Realistically this article is pure rage bait mixed with some clever marketing by the Swiss fruit union. They're not seriously worried, they're getting free press by stirring up controversy over an absolute nothing. And you can tell because of this weasel word line:

>“We have a hard time understanding this, because it’s not like they’re trying to protect their bitten apple,” Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariéthoz says, referring to the company’s iconic logo.

They would understand if Apple were (and indeed already has as linked above) trademarking their Apple Computer logo, but they somehow don't understand why Apple is also trademarking the logo of Apple Records which they also own? Either everyone involved in this article from the fruit union reps all the way up to the editors are completely ignorant of Apple Records, their logo and the previous IP battles regarding that logo or they're playing dumb for the sake of making a story.

I can't understand your punctuation-free prose. Could it be that you're an IP lawyer?

Good thing they’re not attacking anyone then. They’re very clearly from the linked application in the article trying to register a trademark for a very long standing trademark that they now own within the realm of trade that said trademark has been traditionally used. That is, they’re trying to register the Apple Records (of the Beatles fame) logo as a trademark in the realm of music and related multi-media.

It really is relative. If Apple was spending even a majority of it's profits in new products then I would take back my statement. Spending a paltry billion a year (Estimated for Vision Pro) when you make more than 200 billion in profits, and the majority of profits going into share buybacks is "no good vision".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com