The Apple stolen from the Bible.

I don't see it. Aside from the apple shape, they look totally different.

That is if you believe in the bible.

[eom]

Get a real Job... and don't ever try to use an apple in your logo

<img src="http://banksy.co.uk/drawing/images/fallofman.gif" />

Once again Apple Inc. trys to impose its views of the world on others. Next thing you know we'll be going to the store and buying "The Bible Fruit" because we aren't allowed to call it an Apple anymore because of all the pending suits from Cupertino. What's next? A licensing fee will be demanded by Apple for anyone growning Apples?!

You'd think they'd be more worried about their new Mac Air getting hacked in 2 minutes by a 0 day hole found in Safari.

A Tip for you Mr. Jobs -- try making AFFORDABLE products and quit picking on the little guy for "maybe" having a logo that looks possibly like the stupid Apple logo but doesn't even compete in the same business realm as your beloved Apple Inc.

Guest number - oh I can't remember - it was about three messages ago - who thought that the plural as busses was a synonym for kisses. Well, you're right. But busses is also an alternative plural for bus.

So if you're getting confused in that area, don't try blowing up a bus: you'll burn your lips on the exhaust pipe.

As for the previous - well I can't stop myself - idiot: you know nothing. If nothing else, you think that New York City is "the little guy"? Upoko kohua!

as much as i respect Steve Jobs, and Apple. this is a pretty arrogant move. EVERYONE knows what Apples logo looks like and wont ever confuse it with another. but considering Apple fought against Apple Records, who sued them for the same exact reason including Apple Records having there name since the 70's. bull. Apple should just grinn and bear with it as they made Apple Records do. what goes around comes around.

This, after the whole Apple Records shenanigans?

For shame Apple, for shame. . . .

I worked for many years as a graphic designer and found that most artists "borrow" good design. That is what we are taught to do. It's not blatant plagiarism, but used as the root in preliminary design and eventual fruit in this case, of the final design.

After comparing the two side by side, or rather overlayed one atop the other and turned into transparencies, it is clear the original apple logo was used as the basis for the design in question.

If you look closely you can see the greenNYC logo follows the exact curve of the apple and in fact may have been "cookie cut" from an actual Apple Inc. logo using special image editing tools.

You can go through thousands of clip art and dingbats and not come across the same curve. However, I have seen the Apple logo as a symbol in a couple typefaces presumably placed there by a dedicated fan.(???)

It is not uncommon to paste dozens of similar logos and symbols all over the work area to help along the process.

This artist took it a little too far and figured no one would notice. Some of us hear myths about changing a design by a certain percent makes it okay...well not quite.

The designer probably put a stylized letter "S", squashed it, flopped it, and punched it out of the Apple Inc. logo. Then tweaked the ends of the "S" and fused on the stem.

Then they grabbed the Apple Inc. leaf and flopped it and moved it slightly down and to the left.

"Down, and to the left. Down and to the left..."



I've been guilty of similar blunders, and was surprised when my client caught it...even though it had a different typeface, different colors, different markets AND my own Icon built from scratch!

Too similar he said...no go.

That's when I learned just placing elements the same as another can make you out as a copy cat even though the artwork is your own.

Go easy on the designer...

Probably up way too late, from way too many lattes for way too little money.

I guarantee you Apple Inc. paid more to challenge the design than the actual designer got paid in the first place.

There's just no money in it.

Sad but true.

Many so called design firms hire freelance that are often out of the country like India for mere pennies compared to established firms in the U.S.

You have a better chance of being a movie star than getting rich playing designer! Find a friend in the business and latch on, otherwise you're just another pretty fish.

My 2 cents anyway.

If you can't access the link above just click here or copy and paste the address into your address bar to view the image.

http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=applestoorangesua8.jpg

Apple stole the logo from Apple Records to begin with, then had to pay them a second time when it went into the music business. Apple respects NOBODY's intellectual property; why should anyone respect their's?

Guest, you think that Apple respects nobody's intellectual property?

Do Microsoft, etc. respect anyone's intellectual property? Not really. So quit whining.

This is just like when they tried to sue Microsoft for using a GUI in Windows and Xerox stepped in to remind everyone they invented the GUI.

As I recall, Apple ran into trademark trouble with the group that now owns the Beatles' Apple Records trademark. They worked out a deal, based in most part on the differing types of businesses (one a music record company, the other a computer company), but then they ran afoul of the trademark again when they got into the recorded music business with iTunes.

NYC has nothing to do with either type of business, and their proposed trademark isn't near as similar to either of these two predominant Apple trademarks as they are to each other. Apple Inc. would do well to remember that they weren't the first to use the Apple trademark, and if anyone's infringing on it, it's them!

I don't know if you missed that, but since last year Apple Inc. owns all the trademarks that Apple Corps (the company owning Apple Records) used to own; Apple Corps has a non-exclusive license to the Apple name. Of course Apple Inc. had to pay a lot of money for that.

And I don't know if you missed that either, but no matter what Xerox invented, Apple bought a license for that as well, paying with a significant amount of Apple stock. If Xerox had sat on that stock and not sold it, it would probably now be worth more than the rest of the company.

So Apple Inc _does_ use the intellectual property created by others, and _they pay_ for it. GreenYC apparently doesn't want to pay. A nice touch that the designer from a few posts above who matched the outlines of both logos didn't notice: The GreenYC logo shows an "infinity" sign, while the address of the Apple Inc. headquarters is Infinite Loop 1 in Cupertino. Coincidence?

The question of the logo being to similar is a matter for lawyers, but I think that Apple Computer is missing an opportunity to work with NYC for mutual benefit. As the old saying goes "You can't buy publicity like this." Something like Environmentally friendly computers for an environmentally conscious city, something like that.

I suspect that there are a number of logos out there that are remarkably similar to Apple Inc.

Speaking of legalese, I request a sidebar with the Guest who worked as a graphic artist. You sound like a very knowledgeable graphic artist and it would great to have you has a regular poster on this blog.

These don't look similar to me at all. I don't think anyone would confuse them.

I also agree that Apple is missing an opportunity here and getting bad press for no good reason.

I'm a big Apple (computer) fan but I think they are way off in this case.

The Green NYC initiative is a total joke. Bloomberg is a total hypocrite. Congestion pricing will only bring more pollution and cars to neighborhoods just outside the pay zone (but not the Mayor's hood of course). Also Bloomberg supports large unwanted mega-development like Atlantic Yards which is located at the busiest intersection in Brooklyn and will be an environmental and traffic nightmare. There are alternatives. And promoting mercury-laden toxic CFL bulbs is not a revolutionary concept.

Wow. Haven't seen this many ignorant and FUD'ish posts in one thread in quite a while.

What is Apple's point here? What possible impact could the NYCGreen campaign have on Apple? Anyone who cannot differntiate NYC's intent from an Apple product and therefore associate one with the other is too stupid to operate a computer or any other product for that matter. Even headphones!

I like Apple products, however they need to get over it. New York City has been known as the Big Apple predating Steve Jobs company.

It wasn't too long ago that Apple was defending its use of the Apple name and logo very similar to that of the former Beatles' record label. I'm not quite sure how a program for environmental consciousness and computers can get confused, but it was pretty clear that iTunes and the Apple Records brand might get confused. This is simply ridiculous and a prime example of how a medium-sized California company has turned into a Neo-Microsoft. The bundle of Safari with iTunes to PC users reinforces that notion. Shame on you Steve Jobs.

New York City is known as the Big Apple, using apple elements in a New York City based environmental group's logo seems perfectly acceptable to me. I hope the judge agrees with me and orders Apple Inc. to pay greeNYC's legal fees and Attorney costs.

Has Apple sued the MAPB as well?

http://www.marylandapples.org/

Quote

burreyeann wrote:
Has Apple sued the MAPB as well?

http://www.marylandapples.org/

I don't agree that the designer 'probably' copied Apple's logo. The leaves are distinctly different. The stem is nonexistent in Apple's logo. The base of NYC green is more indented and the outer shape is less top-heavy than Apple's logo. Apple's logo is solid, NYCgreen's is a complex line.

There's also no bite in NYCgreen logo - and everybody knows about Apple's bite.

New York has been knows as The Big Apple since long before Steve Jobs was born. The infinity sign is an elegant 'recycling' logo symbolizing sustainability forever.

People are not so stupid as to 'be confused' by these two logos, which are actually very different and which do not overlap in categories (computer equipment, city identity).

As a long-time graphic designer, I for one do not bring other artwork onto my page when developing a logo.

I been thinking of buying an apple computer for a while. Apple suing NY for use of their well know name "the big apple" is just against common sence. I will NEVER BUY an apple product, to include ipod, iphone, imac, ianything. i always rooted for apple when they were struggling. But not, I think they forgot where they come from. It's like the old saying "give someone power and you know what kind of people they really are"

Steve job, do the right thing. Everything is not always about money. Find one of your super bright marketing people to think of ways to get more free publicity from this great opportunity with NYC.

remember, you are not the only company that makes: computers, phones, music devices, etc.

This absurd!! The logo that NYC wants to use looks nothing like the Apple logo. Never in a million years would anyone form anywhere mistake one for the other.

Apple...you need to get a life!

The logos or not even similar. NYC is known as the BIG APPLE so it's not like NYC decided to adopt the "APPLE" to garner publicity thanks to Apple Inc. This is just one more reason for me to avoid anything Apple. IPod...IPhones...MacBooks.... all over rated and over priced!!!!!

In the picture, the apple is not a logo of Vietnamese tourist company. The driver just found some decal and think it would look good on his bus's window.
How do I know? I am the driver.

How utterly stupid of Apple to protest a totally legal use of the apple in a different market, a different design. Clearly apple will lose, will lose honor in public, and apple should be ashamed of their lawyers for wasting time, money and honor fighting a battle that can't be won, and that shouldn't be waged... maybe George Bush is advising apple on battlefield strategy.. giving them his gems gleaned from mis-adventures in Iraq..

"There's also no bite in NYCgreen logo - and everybody knows about Apple's bite."

Good point about the bite, or is that bight?, freaking homophones will drive you nuts. Anyway it is what makes the Apple Inc logo distinctive from other apple themed logos.

Nothing like a little controversy to stir up interest in NYC's program, Apple Inc products, and to sustain the existence of blog trolls.

Much ado about nothing by Apple, Inc. I think Apple, Inc. should be sued by the Big Apple for using an apple as a logo. After all, which came first? Big Apple or Apple, Inc. Besides that...I don't think the Big Apple plans on selling Computers, Cell Phones or MP3 Players. LOL

Apple Inc. is crazy. Im sorry i am a HUGE apple comp fan, I've given that company thousands of dollars, but this is too far. I could see if the "infringing" apple logo was to sponsor porn, but it's for the environment! Does apple really care if there is confusion with "clean environments" and "computers?" wow, thats all i have to say!

Hey the GreeNYC logo looks like butt cheeks!!

If you tilt your head slightly to the left it spells "AS".

I think these guys really have just too much time on their hands. You can clearly see the two logos are very different. What's with Apple going after every little thing? It's obvious GreeNYC's logo isn't going to hurt iPod sales. http://www.espressoreport.com

lol...very nice...i did the same thing with the logos before i saw your post...those curves looks a little too similar..lol

You're right! That's funny.

Compare the shape of the Apple logo and the New York apple design. Shapes are identical. Now compare the shapes of the Apple logo and those apples on the webpage you are linking to: No similarity whatsoever. I hope that explains why one gets sued and the other doesn't.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Hey the GreeNYC logo looks like butt cheeks!!

So, your standard for making decisions about appropriate behavior are based on the precept that so long as someone else did it first, then it is ok to do?

Please stay away from my children.

Perhaps everyone in the world should pay a copyright fee to apple when they eat apple.

stupid stupid stupid... why the hell Mac keep trying to get other people money for nothing????...

... I hope the judge charges Apple for wasting the court's time.

They don't even look similar.

Apple is just a greedy self-absorbed self-serving corporation. The companies are NOT in the same industry at all and the arguments that Apple Computer had with Apple Records would work to prove Apple Computer wrong this time.

Apple speaks with fork-tongue

You obviously don't read /. often

And, BTW, to the Microsoft basher up above... just because one company does something bad does not mean that another company's bad cannot be pointed out. Douche.

I worked in the patent and trade mark business for a while, some years ago. I recall one dispute which concerned a registered design for a lettuce crisper. I was impressed by the ability of the presiding judge to get at the nub of the matter.

Tupperware, I think, objected to the registration of a design by a local company for a lettuce crisper which had essentially the same shape as a design registered by Tupperware.

The judge dismissed the objection because lettuce crispers, being designed to hold lettuces of a certain familiar shape, necessarily took on the same shape. The conclusion was (I think) that the original registration by Tupperware had to be more narrowly construed so that infringement had not occurred.

Now Registered Designs are not the same as logos, but I think there's a reasonable probability that a judge will conclude that an apple is bound to look like an apple and the parties should just get on with their lives.

Macinerd, who was talking about Microsoft. You can't just throw that into here. All the other guy did was say that Apple does not respect intellectual property. He never said they were the only company that did that. So why don't you get off Steve Jobs' dick and pay a bit of attention. Any way you slice it Apple seems to be in the wrong here. I'm tired of everyone thinking that Apple is the little guy who is infallible. Apple is a business that is run by smart self-serving businessmen looking to make a buck.

I used to have an Apple on my band website, nothing like Apple's logo, and I got a message telling me to take it down of they would sue me. Basically. So now my site is basic, and I took it off my MySpace band site too...

I guess Apple owns all the Apples. And he who owns the apples makes the rules..

Christina Dietz

http://myspace.com/christinadietz
www.christinadietz.com