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

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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?

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

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: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")."

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.