KVR Audio

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:21 pm

About MSynth from the main post

I cannot approve the MSynth, simply because I want to try something creative and this is a creative plugin, not mentioning there could be multiple synthesizers in the future.

Novalis · Post by **Novalis** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:25 pm

mysticvibes wrote:
Novalis wrote:So how did Apple protect their name, then?

Or don't they have any protection, and I can found a company or create a product called Apple?
sure, as long as it isnt a computer

So can I create a smart phone called Apple?

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:27 pm

Macrocosm

Malarkey

BlackWinny · Post by **BlackWinny** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:29 pm

mysticvibes wrote:
Novalis wrote:So how did Apple protect their name, then?

Or don't they have any protection, and I can found a company or create a product called Apple?
sure, as long as it isnt a computer

Exactly. Any other company in the world can use the name Apple as long as it doesn't introduce an ambiguity between both companies (same geographical location or same domain of marketing for example).

You can play around to search on Google companies having a same common name. You'll find many cases, all around the world. It's even sure that there are many companies or little societies using such names without any problems.

Don't confuse with the logo for example. The logo, yes, is patented. But the term "Apple" itself can't.

For the worldwide company that we call commonly Apple, its real name is "Apple Inc.", and the "Inc." is not anodyne. It is this exact name "Apple Inc." which is patented, not the world "Apple".

Even a glance at Wikipedia shows you 4 companies using the world "Apple" in their name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_%28 ... #Companies

And there are in fact many others.

gamecat666 · Post by **gamecat666** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:33 pm

MMmmmmm

Numanoid · Post by **Numanoid** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:36 pm

Novalis wrote:So how did Apple protect their name, then?

You mean, how did the Beatles record label protect their name?

BlackWinny · Post by **BlackWinny** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:44 pm

Numanoid wrote:
Novalis wrote:So how did Apple protect their name, then?
You mean, how did the Beatles record label protect their name?

It's good to read exactly the terms of the patents (when we can access to them).

It's not the name "Apple" which was patented by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, but "Apple Records". And it was a division of their society created in 1968 : "Apple Corps".

Touch The Universe · Post by **Touch The Universe** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:46 pm

so about Melda's new synth

Novalis · Post by **Novalis** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:47 pm

Exactly, it was Apple Records.

Thanks for all the info, BlackWinny.

MMmmmmm

Best suggestion so far

BlackWinny · Post by **BlackWinny** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:52 pm

Apple Inc. has itself infringed the law... not by creating a company named "Apple" but because they began to make musical products in 1978. They introduced an ambiguity, not by the name itself, but by the use of this name in a common domain of marketing: the creation of music products both related to the music.

It's been a long, very long procedure engaged by Apple Corps., that has been lost by Apple Inc. Since that years Apple Inc. reverses annual royalties to Apple Corps to keep on being allowed by Apple Corps to create musical products. The problem was not in the name itself, but in the use of the name in a same domain of marketing.

That is the real story.

ENV1 · Post by **ENV1** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:54 pm

MeldaProduction wrote:I cannot approve the MSynth, simply because I want to try something creative

Well in that case: MThrax

Sounds kinda poisonous and even has a semi-hidden musical reference.

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:58 pm

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:58 pm

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:24 pm

This is getting rediculous... "M'Fashnik"?... LOL...

MeldaProduction wrote:About MSynth from the main post

I cannot approve the MSynth, simply because I want to try something creative and this is a creative plugin, not mentioning there could be multiple synthesizers in the future.

I'm not sure what you're asking with the above. My view was clear. And personally I'm abstaining from voting on the current names because a) I don't find any of them particularly original and several do sound like existing synths (and I hope we can avoid MPathic turning into MPathetic...) and b) It's hard to use a descriptive and unique name down when the exact design and workflow of the synth is still unknown.

As far as the future is concerned you could adopt a tagging a descriptive to the basic name, as in "MSynth-Analog", "MSynth-Diffractor", "MSynth-Granular", or for that matter any form of creative names you wish (MSynth-Chelyabinsk...).

In fact, you could call this one MSynth-One. They say there's nothing like your first.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:38 pm

I'm disappointed that (most) people still chose MPulse!

MPulse sounds like a synth that is only capable of using pulse waves or PWM...

I voted for my suggestion MMeldulator because it shows the immense modulation possibilities that - hopefully - can be done with the new synth.

KVR Audio

Poll: Let's choose a name for MeldaProduction's new synth, last round :)...

Which one?