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.
(You know, he owns the rights to the Beatles songs)
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
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.
Uh, Wait just a minute... How can the Beatles be suing Apple if they are giving away an iPod with each Beatle sold? ;-)
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.
It actually is kind of confusing:
Apple:Beetles::Apple:Beatles
Turns out that cute girl's A|X t-shirt didn't mean AIX. Who would've thought?!
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.
... 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.
Safer transfer than you'd think. Apple Records already died, several decades ago.
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
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.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Koo, koo ka-sue?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Well, what record labels do is distribute music. So if Apple Computers is getting into the music distribution business they need to find another name as Apple Music has to be considered one of the most established of record labels.
Branding, while not important to me, is understandably important to a corporate or business entity as that is how they are identified. I couldn't start an ebook distribution company called Scholastic Ebooks, certainly Scholastic the publishing company would have something to say.
I think we just have a (1)negative first reaction to lawsuits and (2) Apple computers is much more in our minds than Apple Music. That shouldn't negate Apple Music's rights to keep their branding untarnished.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
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 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.
It's not a trademark battle. Apple Computer signed a binding agreement that promised that they'd stay out of the music business.
Shortsighted, but still a legal contract.
it's not the fact that they were the first "boy band" that makes the historically significant. modern boy bands don't write their own music or lyrics, nor to the majority of modern pop artists. the beatles wrote all their own lyrics and music. they created a completely different sound than what ever existed before (you can't listen to just the early or just the late beatles to hear this sound either). their creative skills were much larger than any modern rock band. they use completely different methods in arranging their music. they are the single most influential band to ever exist in music. most of what you, your parent poster, his parent poster, and even the guy that made the first "beatles suck" comment listen to was influenced by something the beatles did. i'm not saying you have to enjoy their music, but you have to respect that they basically created modern rock/pop music. the only person who might be more influential is bob dylan, and that's only as far as lyrics are concerned since he showed the beatles how to write songs about real things, not just teenage love/lust. you might even throw brian wilson and the beach boys in there too. without the rivalry, the bealtes wouldn't have gotten to where they did, and paul claims brian wilson as one of his major influences and pet sounds as one of his favorite albums.
so the moral of the story is... although you may not like the music of the beatles, it exists in probably everythign you listen to (unless you listen to classical or jazz or variants of those).
please me, have no regrets.
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.
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")."
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.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
What's an intensive purpose? ;)
;)
fap...fap...fap...fap
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood