Re: Apple stealing "Lily"

[David Kastrup]

Michael Gerdau <address@hidden> writes:

>>> And none of this is really relevant here on the Lilypond mailing list
>>> anyway.  Since when did Lilypond hold exclusive trademarks over every
>>> English word that may or may not have been derived from "lily", and
>>> what does this even have to do with Apple, since the Lily app isn't
>>> even made by Apple themselves in the first place?  Sounds like
>>> uninformed alarmists' kneejerk reaction to me.
>> 
>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/27/apple_lawyers/>
>> 
>> Trademark wars have become silly.
>
> Just because something appears silly or way of does not mean apple will
> try it - provided they see the shadow of money in it.
>
> Anybody remembering apple sueing apple records for trademark infringement?
>
> For the younger among us:
> apple records was the record label founded by the Beatles which predated
> apple computers ever so slightly (and it featured an apple as logo).

At some point of time there was a settlement based on Apple Computers'
claim not to be involved with music distribution business if I remember
correctly.

> That having said, while I certainly think apple is not above silly
> lawsuits, I don't think this particular lily app is meant to destroy
> lilypond.

No, that's a side benefit.  The legal departments work by scanning the
market for trademarked terms and suing anything that turns up.  Most of
the time they settle for costs plus fees.  In other word, the legal
department pays for itself even when idling.  And then there is the
occasional big haul as well.

-- 
David Kastrup