Over the years Starbucks has pretty much been a successful company with no major conflicts or complaints. Starbucks was founded and founded in 1971 by an English teacher named Jerry Baldwin, a history teacher named Zev Seigel, and a writer named Gordon Bowker. Starbucks was named after the coffee-loving first mate in Herman Melville's Moby Dick and also because the mental conception of the naming evoked the romance of the high seas and the maritime tradition of early traders. The Starbucks logo is a two-tailed mermaid surrounded by the store name. That said, research has shown that Starbucks prices have steadily increased since 1994. The average price increase appears to be about $0.10 per cup. In my opinion, raising prices again is extremely absurd. It's not like Starbucks is losing money and therefore needs to raise prices on waste items to preserve the company. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, Starbucks' 7,000 retail stores in the United States produced more than $10.5 billion in revenue in 2012. Furthermore, according to Mark Kalinowski, a financial analyst, Starbucks would pay half of the 1.4 billions of dollars paid in 2012 for coffee beans. . In addition to the drop in coffee bean prices, Starbucks will indeed retain its revenue. So the need to raise prices today in the economy is simply greedy. This is really compelling to me. What's even more fascinating is that considering the market power of the US coffee shop and donut shop sector, which has continued to grow while other segments of the restaurant industry struggle in the aftermath of the recession. Starbucks grew 15% between 2007 and 2011, and at the time the study was published, it was estimated that it would reach... middle of paper... small business, but that's actually not the case. A judge ruled in favor of Starbucks because it named its store Sambuck's. The judge in his case said that by doing so he intentionally infringed on Starbucks' trademark. It didn't really matter that Sambucks was its legal name. So, depending on the genuine questions of perplexity and validity, not some dramatic people have a “right” to “do business under their own name” much less a nickname (like “Sam” Buck for Samantha Buck), much less putting it on the architrave a shop which, by being more preponderant or worse, more immeasurably colossal or more minute, competes with a consolidated business. In conclusion, Starbucks plans to exist for a long time. Hopefully the company does not enter the gates of money through hell. This type of thinking and practice has never benefited any business or company. Just ask WorldCom.