Huzzahs and hosannas to the new little person! We're not sure how closely you follow the entertainment news (you should be studying it like a bloodhound on espresso, because you never know when another Ashton-Demi pairing might send pork belly futures soaring again), but faithful viewer Keith Bradnam informed us over the weekend that, according to the BBC News, the lovely and talented Gwyneth Paltrow gave birth to a healthy baby girl last Friday. And granted, while the Beeb isn't necessarily as well-known for this sort of coverage as, say, Entertainment Weekly or the Weekly World News (which has apparently been forced into hiatus by Elvis-worshipping alien government conspirators), we figure it's probably still generally accurate as far as this sort of thing is concerned.

Why is this relevant, you ask? Well, apart from being news about a celebrity's personal life, which is always crucial to know under any circumstances, the BBC reports that Gwyneth's bouncing nine-pound-eleven-ouncer is, in fact, a "baby Apple." And while at first the headline caused us a fair bit of confusion (since we had been assuming for years that offspring was more or less generally of the same species as the parents, to say nothing of the same genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom), only after an hour or two of pondering some profoundly disturbing mental images of the birth, we soon came around to the realization that the baby isn't destined for the "Unnatural Vegetation" section of some circus sideshow, and that "Apple" is merely the oh-so-human child's name.

Now, you'll have to admit that "Apple" is a relatively unusual name for a child-- and one verging on emotional abuse, guaranteeing as it does a childhood brimming with cruel schoolyard taunts and the like. Whether Paltrow's sprout sharing the moniker of our fave computer digital lifestyle company is a mere coincidence or Gwyneth is just sucking up to get moved to the front of the miniPod waiting list is a matter of some speculation. But in any case, "both mother and baby were said to be doing well," which is good news in any circumstances. Well, unless you know for sure you're dealing with a Rosemary's Baby sort of situation, but those comprise fewer than one in five births these days, so why worry?

Meanwhile, on a slightly more litigious note, sources inform us that little Apple may be off to a rocky start: Apple Corps (the parent company of the Beatles' record label, Apple Records) has already filed suit against the child, alleging blatant trademark infringement. In a statement to the press, Apple Corps general counsel insisted that Apple Martin's very existence on the face of the planet constitutes an illegal usage of the Apple trademark; since fully half of her genetic material derives from her dad, musician Chris Martin of the band Coldplay, in the eyes of the law, her own DNA clearly defines her as a product of the music industry, and, as everyone knows, any use whatsoever of the word "apple" in a music context constitutes a vile act of assault on the Beatles' intellectual property.

Compounding the sheer evil of her having been born in the first place is the fact that her surname is unapologetically an infringement of the intellectual property of the Beatles' former producer George Martin™, whose lawyers are currently hoping to settle out of court. Not exactly a peaceful introduction to this crazy world, although it's maybe a pretty representative one. Don't worry, little Apple; we're sure that Mummy and Daddy have got some mighty fine lawyers at their disposal.