Slashdot Mirror
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.
Er, wait... that's grapes :-/
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.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Man, this is a Corp dump that's going to byte big time!
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous, and Apple music knows it, but probably figures they can milk them for a little more cash, so why not?
FYI- IIRC, this was the origin of the "sosumi" sound (one of the first sounds apples made) (so-sue-me)
(You know, he owns the rights to the Beatles songs)
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Even Darl McBride knows this lawsuit sucks. He owns the Unix code in the IPod, after all.
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.
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.
As a huge Beatles fan and new Mac user I have to say that this is an outrage. Right now I am embarrassed to say that the Beatles are my favorite music group. iTunes has been out for how long? The iPod has been in production for how long? And only now are they deciding to bring this to court.
This seems like a desperate move to gain money and alienate fans. They have certainly alienated this fan. I can't see myself spending another penny on anything Beatles related, just because of this suit. I hope that others will do the same.
But when I saw that Apple was using applemusic.com, I'd had it figured that they must have bought out Apple Corps right to the trademark. I'm quite surprised they didn't, and now it does look like they really are at the losing end of a trademark battle that's extremely clear on the merits.
I'm confused by this. The article repeatedly states that The Beatles are sueing apple. It doesnt state that the Beatles former Label, Apple Corp, is suing them.
The Beatles songs and the economic copyrights (all revenue generated by) are owned by Micheal Jackson. Is he involved in this, him being technically the owner of all things 'Beatles' anymore.
Who is sueing who here? Can someone please clarify?
.
Uh, Wait just a minute... How can the Beatles be suing Apple if they are giving away an iPod with each Beatle sold? ;-)
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."
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I think we can now safely transfer the "Apple Is Dying" meme from Apple Computer to Apple Records.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
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...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
This is obviously just an attempt by Apple Corps to be bought out. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
After they've C&D'd everybody and their brother for making Aqua skins, providing a workaround to allow folks to use their DVD writing software, and various other "intellectual property" based "offenses," they're hypocrites to not respect the other Apple's "intellectual property."
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
I don't know about anyone else, but, I can see Apple Music's point....I mean, when I look for music, I'm geniunly confused about between which company is the music rights holder for the beatles, and which one has a library of a couple hundred thousand songs for $0.99/piece that also owns one of the three major platforms of personal computers!! I mean, how confusing can it get?!?!?!
Well, it's not like Apple Records is doing much in tech or on the web. Their web site is kind of spartan...
I wonder what they're running that Apache 1.3.26 on...
Share and Enjoy!
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.
IANAL, but I play one on
Now that Apple computers make music there is confusion between the Apple label and Apple computers.
Things are going to get a lot worse when we start hooking up Macs to food replicators and order lunch by saying:
"Computer, a Big Mac, Fries and a Coke..."
There will also be trademark confusion when trucking companies start using autopilots for their long haul routes. You'll see Macs driving Mack Trucks.
Brand confusion will get ugly I tell ya.
"So Mr. Jobs, how do you like dem apples?"
BANG!
Jobs: Apple sauce, bitch
Actually Ringo Starr means applesauce in Japanese.
... 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.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Stop talking trash about Glenn Miller or I'll run a String of Pearls through your nose. Now Take the A Train outta here or I'll sing you a Moonlight Serenade, and you don't want that.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
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.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Aside from popping up every ten years to sue Apple Computers, has Apple Corps actually put out any sort of product? A quick Google for Apple Corps brings up several other sites long before Apple Corps' placeholder website; has Apple Corps made an effort to protect its trademark, aside from prosecuting this single case?
Some of the hits on Google, in order of appearance:
I understand that Apple Corps has a standing agreement with Apple Computer, and Apple Computer is very likely in breach of that contract with iTunes and iPod because, as was true in the infamous speaker case, the contract was worded so loosely that if a Macintosh makes a sound, it's in breach. But, has this company actually done anything with itself, or taken any measures to protect its trademark from much more egregious infringements by organizations with shallower pockets?
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Koo, koo ka-sue?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
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.
...A talking apple is suing Apple Computers for using the name Macintosh. As its primary defense, Apple Computers pointed out that the apple in question was actually a fiji, and had no such ownership of the trademark. The Apple lawyers had a hard time proving their case, however, as the apple's main defense was to turn into an inanimate object every time a question was asked...
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
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
TPF
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 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.
When was the last time Apple Records did anything but repackage Beatles music? You never hear of anyone being signed to Apple Records, the last Apple Records artist I can remember releasing anything was Badfinger.
Darl McBride has corrupted Ringo with his business model!
Why do I have this strange sensation that Jobs is going to say "Sosumi" ?
Apple Records was started in 1968 as a tax shelter for the Beatles. The tax laws in Britain at the time took 95% of the profits from sales(hence the line "It's one for you, nineteen for me" from Tax Man). The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, Let it Be, and Hey Jude are all Apple Records albums.
When the Beatles were legally dissolved in 1974, Apple Corps continued. The judge ordered the profits divided 5% to each member, 80% to the holding company. They continued making money with the 1962 - 1966 and 1967 - 1970 albums until the mid-80's, and then started making money again with the release of the Anthologies and "1" album in 2000.
Ok...all the history aside...notice they sue when they stop making money...hmmm.... Co-incidence or bad timing by Apple Computer? Here's an idea...since Beatles music isn't on the net yet...work out a deal to get the music on iTMS. Oh wait...they wouldn't profit from it.
Paul...why did you talk Michael into buying music rights? You could have had the whole catalog for a decent price. For those of you that don't know...while recording "Say Say Say", Paul McCartney told Michael Jackson to invest by buying rights to music.
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.
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.
The thing is, when Apple Corps first sued Apple Computer over the Apple trademark, Apple Corps was by far the better known and Apple Computer was this wierd little company producing expensive little 8-bit computers that most people couldn't figure a use for,
As part of the settlement of that lawsuit, Apple Computer agreed not to sell music. It's that settlement agreement -- a contract -- that Apple Corps is charging Apple Computer with violating.
Sure, today Apple Corps probably wouldn't stand much chance in a trademark suit against Apple Computer, even if they did have the trademark first. But that's not what this lawsuit is about.
-- Alastair
I recall one of the first Mac beep sounds was entitled "Sosumi" (So-Sue-Me) because technically they were violating that agreement
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Apple Logos Dispute Settled
LONDON (AP)
Saturday, October 12, 1991
A multimillion dollar trademark battle between Apple Computer Inc. and the Beatles' Apple Corps holding company over their similar corporate logos has ended with an out-of-court settlement.
Apple Corps, formed by the Beatles in 1963 to manage their music rights, accused Apple Computer of violating a 1981 agreement by using its apple logo on music-synthesizing equipment.
Apple Computer's logo features a horizontally striped apple with a bite out of it and a leaf on top, while the Apple Corp logo is an apple with a stalk on top.
The two-year-old dispute centered on Apple Computer's musical instrument digital interface or Midi. Apple Corps contended the personal computer maker had agreed to use the apple logo only on computer equipment in order to avoid interfering with the British company's music business.
Gordon Pollock, a lawyer for Apple Corps, said in the High Court on Friday that the companies had reached an amicable settlement.
Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in the court last Oct. 29. "It has been a long, hard road," Pollock said. He said the terms of the settlement were confidential.
The San Francisco Chronicle cited one report that it said called for Apple Computer to pay $29 million. The newspaper did not reveal the source of the report.
Apple Computer, based in Cupertino, Calif., disclosed in July that it had put about $38 million in reserve to settle the litigation.
Apple Corps is owned by the three surviving members of the Beatles Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr and by the estate of John Lennon, who was shot to death in New York in December 1980.
London news reports said the case cost the two companies an estimated 7 million pounds ($11.9 million) in lawyers' fees and other costs.
Apple Corps was asking for a worldwide ban on the use of the Apple Computer logo on music-synthesizing equipment designed by Apple Computer.
Lawyers for Apple Computer argued that the agreement was unenforceable and that Apple Corps' claim violated the 1957 Treaty of Rome that set up the European Common Market.
--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
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".
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.