Actually that original Apple Computer logo always reminded me stylistically of the Dr. Dobbs' Journal cover/logo artwork. :)
Honestly, I'm not all that upset that the name "Apple" was re-used by Jobs & Co. Icons and mascots and images provide inspiration and get borrowed, re-used, and at times outright stolen all the time. Apples are everywhere, using an apple for a logo or a name is no big deal, IMO, and I'm surprised more companies haven't done so.
My own complaint was about the way Apple Computer handled their transition from being a computer company to being (in part) a media company, which IMO was in conflict with the the original agreement with Apple Corps to not get involved with that.
I think Jobs, being the brilliant strategist and fearless entrepreneur, just decided to plunge ahead into whatever business he thought best to plunge into, and let the lawyers duke it out on his behalf. I don't believe for an instant that he held any ill will or untoward designs on Apple Corps; I think rather that he simply didn't care, and figured it would work out somehow since he knew what was right for his company and was going to do it. Which is essentially what happened.
So I agree in principle with Beowulf on theft of artistic intellectual property; I don't think Jobs did so, but even if he did I'm not that concerned with the original similarity. I'm more disturbed by how it played out over the years. But since it eventually worked out to everyone's satisfaction (with a hat-tip to Beowulf's comment that money doesn't fix everything), I don't care to spend any more time on it this evening.
Best of the evening to you and all...
Agreed. I am not thinking of Jobs. I am thinking of the advertising department artist who created the logo.
I can agree with that, Dayglo. . . but notice something when you come back tomorrow. I know you aren't upset. I, too, am a great supporter of IP.
Apple was royally ticked off by the original Apple Corps lawsuit about the name and logo. . . TradeMark experts told them it was baseless because they weren't in the music business and it was essentially a nuisance suit at the time generated by lawyers. The lawyers claimed that Apple WAS a music company because the Macintosh could generate alert sounds! Steve Jobs memorialized the lawsuit by naming one of their new default alert sound effects "Sosumi." I think that validates your theory.
However, the lawyers at the time were of the opinion because this was the Beatles suing Apple, that it was likely a jury would be swayed by their fame and find in the favor of the famous rock group, not by the letter of TradeMark Law. . . so Apple settled out of court for $80,000 and with the agreement that they wouldn't make music specifically on physical media and Apple Corps wouldn't make computers.
Apple's foray into music was under the name iTunes. . . not AppleTunes. Apple's music players and even their phones and Tablets were not Apple Phones or Apple Tablets, but iPhones and iPads. . . avoiding the name Apple explicitly. The name of the company was printed only on the back of the devices in very small print. The Apple logo was missing. . . until 2007. However, in mid 2007, Apple bought all rights to the Apple name and Logo from Apple Corps Inc. and settled all lawsuits with the Beatles. They licensed back to Apple Corps the appropriate logos and names and everyone is happy. Shortly afterwards, the Beatles catalog appeared in the iTunes Store. . . and both companies got richer.