Beatles Bite Apple

blamanj writes "Apple Computer, which once got into hot water with the Beatles Apple record label, has been sued once again by the same group. Apple Records says iTunes and the iPod violate the previous agreement." Apple's broke their agreement in the past when speakers were first used with their computers to play music.

Comments

O_o

[dosius]

This whole situation is bullshit, Nobody on earth is going to confuse Apple Computer Inc. with Apple Corps Ltd. So the trademark point should be moot.

-uso.

Re:O_o

[PipianJ]

I will agree with you, but only for the iPod. I've never seen Apple Corps release a music player. The RESALE of music however is a much trickier issue that will likely be ruled in Apple (the Beatles') favor, as it is for all intents and purposes impossible to distinguish Apple (Computer's) intent with the iTunes music store from the topic the agreement was made about.

My opinion? Music PLAYERS (iTunes, iPod, speakers) would not violate. iTMS *DOES*. (Well, there is a subtle distinction in that Apple serves as a store, but in the modern computer age, distribution through the internet is just as good as manufacturing/label.

I've been wondering why Corps didn't do it sooner, since I knew it was inevitable. All I can see is an uphill battle for Apple.

Re:O_o

[ccweigle]

The RESALE of music however is a much trickier issue that will likely be ruled in Apple (the Beatles') favor, as it is for all intents and purposes impossible to distinguish Apple (Computer's) intent with the iTunes music store from the topic the agreement was made about.

Maybe in a court of law with high powered attourneys arguing the case, it will be indistiguishable. But to those of us with common sense, I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps. That they distributed, maybe, but I give no thought to that at all when making a purchase. I buy music from BestBuy, and my wife's bought a few tunes from ... Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store. Hell, I just tried to look them up on the web ... do you know how many actual record companies with "Apple" in their name there are? Where are those cut-and-dry law suits?

Re:O_o

[critter_hunter]

Here's some fun thing to try: listen to the album "One". The first 10 songs or so (up until Yesterday, IIRC) are the *exact* *same* *thing*

I love the stuff the Beatles did later on, but overall, the Beatles were much better as a cultural event than as a musical group. They were just another pop band for most of their career. My mother tells me "you had to be there", "you weren't there" whenever I criticize the Beatles' music. Well shit, I love tons of bands that made music in the seventies, and I wasn't "there" either. Why should the Beatles get some special privilege because a bunch of baby boomers had nothing better to do than worship them? Heck, those baby boomers were all on LSD anyway, what kind of reference is that ;)

Re:O_o

[edwdig]

That's rather similar to the World Wrestling Federation vs the World Wildlife Fund over the initials WWF.

There's no way to mistake those two, but when the Wildlife Fund first complained, the wrestling federation signed an agreement that they wouldn't use the initials internationally. Then the web came along and they registered wwf.com. After a long court battle, the Wildlife Fund won because of the prior agreement.

In the Apple vs Apple case, there's much more room for confusion. Just on trademark law alone Apple Computer would probably lose. But if they did sign an agreement say they'd stay out of the music business, then they don't have a chance. Most likely result though is they'll either settle for cash, or spin off iTunes into a seperate division that doesn't use the Apple name.

Re:O_o

[Jeremy Erwin]

Playing lawyer today, are we? Apple's liability depends, in large part, on the exact wording of the various contracts and settlements Apple has signed over the years. Many of these documents are confidential. One cannot, therefore, determine, with any degree of certainty, which of Apple's venture, if any, infringe on these agreements.

Re:O_o

[MrLint]

"I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps. That they distributed, maybe, but I give no thought to that at all when making a purchase."

That's because they are irrelevant. As it was in another post, No one with any common sense would confuse the 2 entities. I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed. The original suit was frivolous to begin with. Speakers on a computer somehow would cause market place confusion and such. give it a rest guys.

Re:O_o

[elmegil]

They're trading under the name "iTunes Music Store".

Re:O_o

[AJWM]

Do yourself a favor.

Go get a copy of Pet Sounds. Listen to it. Better yet, listen to it, particulary to the music rather than the lyrics. Especially track 8 -- God Only Knows. (Unless, of course, your hearing is already totally shot from listening to head banging heavy metal acid rock at 130 dB.)

BTW, Brian Wilson was inspired to create Pet Sounds when he heard the Beatles' Rubber Soul. In turn, Pet Sounds inspired the Beatles to do Sergeant Pepper's, which in turn prompted the Rolling Stones to create On Their Satanic Majesties Request. Rubber Soul, BTW, was partly a result of Bob Dylan's influence on the Beatles.

Re:O_o

[Doomdark]

Maybe in a court of law with high powered attourneys arguing the case, it will be indistiguishable. But to those of us with common sense, I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps

Note though that this is about trademarks, and Apple Corps clearly has had trademarks well before Apple Computer even started. That Apple was ever apple to be named that was based on them not being in music business. Now they are extending there, and getting into trademark problem. In this case you either believe trademark law makes sense, or you don't; and only in latter case you can consider this case frivolous.

Easiest thing for Apple should be just spinning off their music download business to another fully owned company, names, say, iTunes? Problem solved.

Re:O_o

[black mariah]

The relevant point here is that Apple Computers had a CONTRACT with Apple Corps that was VIOLATED. You break a contract, you pay. Simple as that.

Re:O_o

[hamster foo]

It SHOULD be bullshit, and I would imagine if Apple Computers had actually gone to court over the issue they would have won. The problem is they settled and made an agreement to stay out of the music marketplace. I don't have any idea what the specifics of that agreement were, but it was apparently fairly broad.

From the article: "The Beatles sued and won another lawsuit when Apple shipped computers that allowed music to be played through attachable speakers."

If attaching speakers to a computer thereby enabling music to be played breeched the agreement with Apple Corps, then ANYTHING they touch involving music must be within the scope of the agreement.

Unless there is someway to have that agreement rendered void, it appears Apple will be paying big bucks if they continue to release music products under the Apple name. Confusion or lack there of doesn't even play into it.

Re:O_o

[Lumpy]

I'm sorry, but the beatles and all the other "pioneers" owe everything to the early Jazz and Blues artists...

THAT is where it started... the "banned" so called "black" music is where rock-and-roll got it's birth. the beatles, elvis, rolling stones all admitted that they got their ideas from listening to the real pioneers....

Re:O_o

[Glock27]

The relevant point here is that Apple Computers had a CONTRACT with Apple Corps that was VIOLATED. You break a contract, you pay. Simple as that.

Yes.

It was stupid of Apple Computer to enter into a contract with no expiration date. I'm pretty sure if they'd specified "expires in 2000 A.D." as one of the conditions in the original contract it would have been accepted. Also, after the first suit (and $50 million), there should have been an agreement releasing both parties from the original contract. I hope the award to Apple Corp. will be small, as I feel the actual damages are negligible. Apple Corp. has no intention or need to sell music online (other than possibly through the iTunes store;). In fact, a reasonable settlement would be for Apple Corp. to be able to distribute music through the iTunes store at a slightly increased profit margin.

All in all , though, contracts in perpetuity are best avoided. ;-)

These agreements can really screw you up

[Anonymous Coward]

World Wrestling Federation had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment because of an agreement they made with World Wildlife Fund to not use WWF internationally. Internet took off, Wrestling ended up at wwf.com, and Wildlife (wwf.org) sued. Bye bye Federation.

Re:These agreements can really screw you up

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh aren't organizations supposed to take .org and commercial applications such as the World Wrestling Federation (who are out to make a buck = commercial) take .com? so then wouldn't the WWE (formerly the WWF) be in the right. The World Wildlife fund would be in the right if the World Wrestling Federation were to take wwf.org, but there is no harm in taking wwf.com.

Re:These agreements can really screw you up

[Jeremy Erwin]

How quaint. That sort of classification died when netscape introduced its autocompletion feature, and when the register started to promote buying domain.com, domain.net and domain.org in a "package" deal.

The autocompletion feature is the most problematic-- as the "World Wide Fund" owns the senior mark. But every time a user typed "wwf" in his address bar, the site reflecting the "junior trademark" would be loaded. Instant trademark dilution.

Re:For Christs's Sake

[MisterFancypants]

It isn't like this is a surpise patent suit or anything. Apple knew about this trademark issue when they first named the company and they signed an agreement to stay away from the music business. They broke the agreement, so tough luck Apple... that's the way it goes when you break a legal contract.

How utterly annoying for Apple Computer

[cbreaker]

I mean seriously. When the agreement was first made, who knew which direction computers would take. Apple isn't being a record label, they are simply selling devices for playing music and distributing music from the record companies.

Give me a break. I still can't believe that an earlier suit was won against Apple Computer because they included speakers with their PC.

Something's gotta give here. Hopefully some judge will step in and say "This is retarded. Case dismissed."

Re:How utterly annoying for Apple Computer

[cbreaker]

If it was called "Glosprinklewisterfed Music" then I could buy that, but since the word "Apple" is an extremely common English word, well, then I can't.

There's many many companies out there with the same name elements, and many of them even do similar things. They don't sue each other because not many of them are billion dollar companies like Apple Computer. That's the only reason this lawsuit exists.

How does that make any sense?

[why-is-it]

Look, the Beatles were arguably the greatest band ever. Their music is amazing. But I have never confussed their record company with the guys in Cupertino who make computers.

NOT EVEN ONCE!

This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards. They sued because Apple computers couple play music over external speakers - and won? I suspect that they are looking for another payday, and given past history, will probably get it.

I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...

Re:How does that make any sense?

[kaltkalt]

Well, the argument is, you never confused Apple computer with Apple Music because the agreement was that they'd do separate things, and that apple computer would not enter the music industry. Now, Apple Computer has entered the music industry with iMusic. The article even says they're calling it "Apple Music." So, I hate to say it, but apple music (the beatles) does have a good case here. They've won worse cases in the past (such as apple computer shipping speakers with their computers).

That being said, these companies have been around so long, anyone who is confused needs to be shot and have his wallet taken away from him.

Re:How does that make any sense?

[Strudelkugel]

This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards

Given the way the RIAA has been behaving lately, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Pretty soon we will be able to look forward to a "Behind the Music Label" expose. Somebody, somewhere is going to write a book about the thinking of the RIAA/majors during this time. I suspect it will be a stunning read, as in "How could they be so clueless?!?"

Re:I Can't Believe This

[cbreaker]

I still like the Beatles. I'm sure this has very little to do with the still-alive members of the Beatles, and more to do with the corporate losers at this Apple record label joke-of-a-company.

RTFA People!!!!

[boarder]

Man, did any of you read the article? Yes, the law suits in the past were pretty silly... involving a computer's speakers making them "in the music business."

That is not the case today. Apple Computer has been sued and lost twice already to the tune of $50 million. Now they open a website named AppleMusic which sells music. If that doesn't put them in the music business, I don't know what does. Not only that, but AppleMusic could easily be confused with Apple Corp's music business.

This is a stupid mistake by a company that KNOWS they will lose a suit (since it has happened in the past with much more obscure violations). In those other suits, I would've sided with Apple Computer but not in this one.

Re:RTFA People!!!!

[Spy Hunter]

What do you want them to do? Give up this hugely profitable and innovative business just because some company is going to file a lawsuit? Music is practically the core of Apple's strategy lately, and they can't give it up no matter what it costs them. They'll just have to suck it up and pay out to the leeches at Apple records. What they would do if they were smart is negotiate a new contract this time so they don't get sued in the future, because Apple's music strategy is not going away.

Re:RTFA People!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you want them to do? Give up this hugely profitable and innovative business just because some company is going to file a lawsuit?

Its a bit more than just a random company suing Apple. It is a company that Apple has an agreement with not to enter the music business. And has been successfully sued once over that settlement, so Apple cannot claim ignorance.

What Apple needed to do, was prior to entering the music business, they needed to renegotiate the terms of the settlement (not an uncommon action) or have the settlement overturned on the basis of a legal flaw in the original terms. By blindly going forward, Apple was inviting this lawsuit upon themselves.

Aren't all the Beatles dead yet?

[tjstork]

I mean, cut me a break. It's been more than 10 years since any of the fab four made an arguably great album.

I like their stuff, but then again, I'm older, and it's easy to see that in a decade or so that band will be completely forgotten.

Now I know we love apple and hate the RIAA, but...

[stomv]

... if the two groups did have an agreement, signed by both parties, it would seem pretty open and shut.

The question I have is: why? Why wouldn't Apple spin off some other company named Golden Delicious Music, or produce the iPod by Granny Smith or something? They pay their lawyers to come up with stuff like this, no?

Seems like Apple Computers knowingly breached a contract. Blatently. Seems like poor managerial decision making.

Maybe they should hire Paul ?

[polished look 2]

You know what would be neat is if the two companies merged on this issue and Apple Computer and Apple Corps worked together to provide songs to the public as this is the sort of thing that John, Paul, George and Ringo envisioned when they started Apple Corps.

Re:Apple who?

[pyrrhonist]

But it's not just me, you can ask anyone!

Yeah, if, "anyone", means, "person under 30".

This goes back to the early days of Apple

[ScottGant]

I agree with the Beatles...this goes back to the early days of Apple in which Jobs and Woz asked if they could use the Apple name...since it was associated with Apple Corps back then. The Beatles said they could use it as long as they didn't get into the music biz.

Now, it may be frivolous, but iTunes is in the music business. The Beatles may not need the money, but it's the thought that counts.

I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first, and a computer fan second.

Re:I Can't Believe This

[sahala]

What I am saying is that maybe if a lot of people don't buy the music then Apple Records will get the point and stop making these lawsuits.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And what's a lot? 5, 10? As much as I support voting with your dollar I don't think it will be effective in this case. If you're so upset about this decision, write to Apple Records and tell them that the music business and computer business can be complementary and that this lawsuit looks like a cheap way to get extra bucks from Apple.

Lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies!

Back yourself up, liar!

Smacking lightly of stupid...

[softspokenrevolution]

All right, so most people in the computing community probably have no idea what Apple Records are. ANd those people that do look at a lot of record labels when they buy their beatles albums, certainly didn't put the CD down (if they were windows users) and say, "Oh god, apple makes this, it should die as the unholy rot it is."

Clearly there shouldn't be an issue here, but the thing is that the first ruling was stupid. But apple signed an agreement that said they wouldn't intrude on the music business.

That's where apple is stuck, they will settle and they'll continue on as normal. Seriously, no one would confuse the two, primarily because one is a music distributor (through ITunes) and one is a music producer (who has how many bands represented).

If companies weren't companies than this thing would be solved more amicably. As they are however, companies, and one signed an agreement to not do what it is doing. Tough for apple, then again now they probably have a little more money to fight or settle this thing to their end.

The issue wasn't the domain name...

[cyberwench]

The issue was that World Wrestling Federation was using the "WWF" name in a context they'd agreed not to use it in. That's what the agreement was about. World Wildlife Fund had been around for ages before WWE came into being, and it seemed more than reasonable of them to allow WWE to use "WWF" within a limited context. When they started using it in a more expanded context, WWF understandably objected.

Ok, so I'm a nature-geek, but I thought it was pretty cool that they won that case. I figured with all the money WWE had, WWF wouldn't have a chance.

Here's a decent article on the subject: WWF Responds to Name Change

Sorry, but the G5 is a good value

[TheInternet]

Now I know why they've been charging an arm and a leg for those G5s.

$3,000 for a 64-bit, 2GHz, dual processor unix workstation that runs consumer apps, has a great Java development environment and burns DVDs?

Seems like a good value to me.

If they didn't gouge the consumer so effectively

You do understand the difference between "not dirt cheap" and "gouging," right? Nobody has to buy a G5, but Apple invests more in creating and manufacturing a product than Dell does, so they believe it's worth more. I happen to agree, but you, of course, don't have to.

If everyone just assembled components and sold them as dirt cheap boxes, the industry would be even more stagnant than it already is. Fortunately, we have Apple.

- Scott

Apple Computer Doesn't Care...

[tyhockett]

A few notes:

1. I'm sure everyone at Apple remembers clearly how much money they lost in previous Beatles' law suits
2. Moving into the music business was certainly not a bad business decision by Apple management
3. I'll bet that somewhere in the business plan for ITMS, there is a proforma with a line item for "Paying off ensuing Beatles' law suit... $many Millions"
4. The offense is trademark offense is clear cut, and Apple Computer will lose or settle
5. Life will go on, Apple Computer will stay in the music business, and will continue to make money

Trademark point?

[mindstrm]

This is about an agreement made between the two parties, not about the trademark, even if that's what started it.

If Apple Computers agreed to stay out of the music busines.. you get the picture.

Nowadays, nobody will confuse Apple with Apple.. but in the day when Apple Records decided to settle out of court with Apple Computers.. it was a different story.

Imagine..

[toast-]

Imagine if you started a company, 20 years ago, called it Microsoft, and started selling Music.

Do you think that would go over well with Microsoft, the software manufacturer?

Apple Computer was started when the name "Apple Records" was very fresh in the minds of most music lovers in the world. They asked to use the name, got in trouble back then with Apple Records, and lost. Plain and simple. They therefore had a legal precedent that essentially should have made them negotiate with Apple Records if they ever decided to enter the music business.. and obviously they didn't, all because Apple Records continues to be a very well known and popluar selling record label! (Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!)

The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS. Your mom isn't, and frankly, non-geeks (most of the rest of the world) could get confused, hence, I feel strongly in favour of Apple Records.

Blown opportunity for Apple Records

[azpcox]

Talk about a blown opportunity for Apple Records!! All they needed to do was negotiate a hugely favorable agreement to sell music via iTMS and voila! they not only make gobs of money that way, they come out looking like the good guys.

They way it is now, everyone looks pretty silly. Apple (computers) for not taking care of this earlier and Apple (records) for waiting this long and looking like money grabbers.

And when iTunes for Windows comes out, maybe ther'll be another lawsuit files to make up for this lost opportunity...

And who are the beatles again? I think my parents listened to them.... :)

Re:Now I know we love apple and hate the RIAA, but

[schuster]

You're not the first slashdotter to ask that question, but think about it. How many Apple is dying trolls do you see every time a new apple story comes out? the iTMS/iPod are as much about profits as they are about getting the Apple name out there and telling people that it's okay to buy Apple products and that they're not going out of business. It's all about making the Apple name cool, and that iTMS/iPod go a very long way toward making that happen.

Re:You should be embarrassed

[Waffle Iron]

" Right now I am embarrassed to say that the Beatles are my favorite music group."

That would be embarassing regardless of any lawsuits.

I mean, its like sayiing "Glen Miller" is my favorite group. Both are equally relevant to today's music scene.

Which is unfortunate, as it may explain why today's music scene is comprised almost exclusively of crap. Today's music is at a low point worse than that of the late 70s, and there's nothing new coming on the horizon to bail it out.

Re:sosumi

[Wyatt Earp]

Sosumi did come from the Apple Records situation

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records

"At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers. The case was settled out of court. Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me")."

kraftwerk was more influential in the long run

[dj_virto]

So the Beatles created a few new subgenres of rock? So what... How about a band that helped spawn the next phase, post-rock evolution of music- Kraftwerk.

Re:kraftwerk was more influential in the long run

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I totally agree. Just like Swing Jazz was just such a wild expression of youth and their beast-like sexuality, it wasn't really worthy of being called music. Or keeping a place in History. Or even being played on the radio.

Gimme a break, Rock has been around for half a century now, and is arguably a derivative of Jazz and Blues which I doubt most people would consider "culturally empty". In the same manner Hip Hop and Rap were derivatives of R&B and so on so forth and now you have Rock and Rap. It's a continuous evolution.

Pop Culture is always "empty and void" to a certain extent, but it doesn't just go away, and it certainly isn't forgotten. Go look up how Sebastian Bach (No no no, not Skid Row...) was considered back in his time, and what his music was all about.

I think it may be valid to assume that most of the ARTISTS will be forgotten in 100-200years time. But to say the entire genre will be forgotten because it's "empty" is a bit of a stretch.

By the way, Kyu Sakamoto who sang "Sukiyaki" (or "Ue wo muite aruko" as it was originally called in Japan) won an award for the song on an occasion, but wanted to give it to the composer who wrote the song. He was then told that "The song will live on forever. The singer won't." I've gotta agree here.

Whats The Big Deal?

[Nightbrood]

IANAL but owning my own business and consulting for several others I think things are pretty cut and dry from a business stand point.

This is not about Apple Records crying foul over trademark or copyright infringements but is moreover most likely related to the laws governing incorporation of a business. If Apple Records was already registed in California as Apple Inc. or something similar Apple Computer would had to have gotten permission from Apple Records to be incorporated under a similar name.

Most companies will let this happen but only if the company wanting to incorporate under a similar name agrees not to enter its market. This appears to be exactly what Apple Music asked of Apple Computer and Apple Computer obliged. So we really should not be making Apple Music into another big bad ligitation-happy corporation because they are simply enforcing the agreement Apple Computer willingly signed.

Now whether we feel the merits of the lawsuits are justified is not important in contract law. The only thing that is important is whether the contract is legally binding and enforcable. It seems as if it is and Apple Computer has willingly cornered itself in its business strategy.

After all who would of thought of music on personal computers back in the early 80's.

Therefore instead of getting upset with Apple Records we should all see that Apple Computers latest lawsuit is one that they knew would be coming and have probably set aside some money to pay Apple Music off. Just don't be surprised if Apple Records wants some sort of royalties from iPods or something of the like.

Finally I repeat even though we may not like it Apple Music is merely enforcing its contract that was mutually agreed to by Apple Computer.

Re:sosumi

[mbbac]

Wrong. The Sosumi sound was because of Apple Corp.

Huh?

[TheInternet]

The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS.

You can't be serious.

Apple is well known brand and has ads about the music store in mainstream media almost daily. When was the last time Apple Records advertised at all, or even published something?

Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!

Ummm, are you sure about that? I think Michael Jackson owns the rights, and the "Beatles 1" album publisher is listed as Capitol. You might be right here, but I can't find anything that references Apple Records for that CD. Tell me if you can find a web site for Apple Records or Apple Corps Ltd.

- Scott

Fox News?

[Arcady13]

How come Fox News is the only outfit that has this story?

I'd like to see someone else (credible) tell this story, if it is even true. I searched through over 500 comments and no one else has even questioned the validity of the story. And the only links on Google News lead back to the same story.

Sorry, but I don't trust things that are only reported by one person, quoting a "source," especially if the person works for Fox News.

The whole article is suspect

[tychay]

It's a sad day when MacCentral/Yahoo is reporting a rumor from Fox News as an actual news story.

It seems every rumor regarding this is traceable to Fox News and Roger Friedman. Is there any other articles other that come from a source other than the two by this guy? (Yes, even the MacCentral article references this.)

I'm suspicious because the article reports that the term Steve Jobs admitting "Apple Computer" came from Apple Records, as well as provides no background as to the relationship between the two companies (or if even Apple Records still exists after they were absorbed by Capitol).

Perhaps I'm not up on my history, but I seem to remember that Apple was supposed to be the "third" Apple (after the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and Isaac Newton's story). In fact, the original logo was looked like a woodcut of Isaac Newton under an apple tree. It seems the author has done no research.

Though Apple Records was formed as a holding company for the Beatles, I thought the trademark passed to EMI/Capitol. Why does the article claim that the Beatles are suing Apple? More sensationalist FOX B.S.? sloppy reporting? or am I in error?

I have never heard a real company giving a comment about a lawsuit that hasn't even been served--Apple is not SCO.

On another note, can anyone find the lawsuits between Apple Records and Apple Computing (I assume they're in England and not in Lexis/Nexis). I ask this because while I know that early lawsuits between Apple and Apple Records occurred, I don't have any evidence that Apple Records ever took Apple Computing up on the offer, "sosumi".

Re:Irrelevant - it's a contract suit, not trademar

[MrLint]

A computer isn't a breach anyway. Apple isn't making any music (other than perhaps incidental music for ads, which is prolly all farmed out anyway). The wording is important here. You can make music to your hearts content. You have no agreement with Apple records. Apple Computer has no agreement with Apple Records that it cannot be a retailer.

Apple deserves it

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is probably the most vigorous defenders of it's own trademarks and branding. Has everyone forgotten all of the hubbub about the Cube and I-Macs. I mean really, as far as Apple was concerned they are the only people allowed to use translucent plastic and user the letter I.

But when it comes to honoring their own agreements (like with Apple Records) or with the recent news about Rendezvous it's see ya in court. They are the biggest hippocrites around and they need to see some serious punitive charges. So Sue me indeed......

Apple, just buy EMI...

[The Lynxpro]

Not long ago, Apple came close to buying Universal Music from Vivendi Universal. Perhaps its time Apple makes a serious attempt at acquiring EMI wholly. The big music companies will inevitably consolidate again, quite possibly Warner Music and BMG if enough European Commissioners can be paid off this time 'round. With Warner/BMG together, that cuts out EMI's two choice merger partners. This whole lawsuit is an attempt by Apple Records/EMI to get a stake in future proceeds Apple makes off iTunes because they've been the only company with enough moxi (not to be confused with the PVR platform) to create a sensible commercial download distribution model. Although there could be a complication in the future. If Apple acquires EMI/majority stake in AppleCorps., Apple will still have to deal with Sony over their eventual ownership of the Beatles publishing rights. Sony probably doesn't have a strong desire to aid Apple in any endeavor as of this point...