Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!ig!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!oberon!pollux.usc.edu!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: The Beatles sue Apple
Message-ID: <15724@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 8 Mar 89 07:51:36 GMT
References: <1250@husc6.harvard.edu> <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1046@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> <15565@oberon.USC.EDU> <15384@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 23

In article <15384@cup.portal.com> wert@cup.portal.com (robert scott comer) writes:

>I have never heard of or considered any connotation that Apple Computer
>products are better because of Apple Records. I never heard of Apple
>Records before today ever, and I am sure most people will fail to
>recognize them as the publishers of the Beetles. You need recognition
>before association...

>scott comer

Hmm.. where were you in the '60s, scott? Apple Corps was quite a news story.
The Beatles started their own company to fund creative endeavors that
were not being or would not be funded by the "establishment". They wanted
to fund upstarts that bucked the system. (Remind you of any company whose
computers you use?) Part of Apple Corps was Apple Records, which released the
Beatles records starting with the White Album, I believe. When Apple Computers
first came out and pundits were talking about how creative the name was (you
know, a nice organic non-threatening fruit to ease people's fears about high
tech), most of the people I know were saying things like: "creative? sh*t.
What's so creative about copying the Beatles."

Anyway, there may not be an association for you, Scott. But for millions
of people who grew up in the sixties there is.