SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: aaplfan who wrote (60561)1/10/2007 10:36:20 PM
From: NAG1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 213186
 
aaplfan,

After reading some of the other pieces on this trademark issue, i would agree with you. I had the same thought with regards to the Beatles and Apple records. I think Apple will change the name before they agree to giving anything up unless they get something significant in return. If they call it the Apple iPhone as they have it on one of their web pages everybody can still call it the iPhone with most knowing what they mean. I think this is what they have over Cisco right now. Maybe that is why they changed the name of iTV to Apple TV and SJ had trouble remembering that they had changed the name. Maybe it was to show Cisco that they could and would do this.

Probably in the grand scheme of things, an insignificant distraction and maybe something the shorts will try to play up to drive the share price down.

Neal



To: aaplfan who wrote (60561)1/10/2007 10:48:04 PM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 213186
 
>>That reminds me: did anyone else find the way Jobs implied a Beatles agreement/deal while simultaneously back-handing them 'interesting'?<<

applfan -

How did he backhand them? It just seemed to me that he chose two of their songs to play. I don't recall his making any snide comments or anything.

- Allen