Slashdot Mirror
Beatles vs Apple
loid_void writes "Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols, says a report in Forbes. The Beatles' company, Apple Corps., is involved in a legal battle with Jobs' Apple Computer, claiming the hardware manufacturer is in breach of a 1991 agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music." The two companies have been involved in a number of court battles over the years involving the use of the Apple trademark." Good summary of all the wacky misadventure the two mega corporations have had.
They've jot $4 billion in cash. If they were rumors about purchasing all of Vivendi Universal Music for the same amount, why don't they just freaking buy them. You don't even have to buy them out; just buy a significant interest in the company to shut them up. "Here's a $250 million investment. Let's forget this." It's better than a settlement; it's a resolution.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Why do companies these days always resort to the law to handle their problems.
the Beatles' company should hire Mr.T
Make the next iPod yellow and engrave on the back "B3ATL35 R00LZ!!!11!!!" That should satisfy Apple Records.
Maybe I'm cynical, but, uh, AppleCorp as a megacorp? What's the threshold of calling a company a megacorp?
I don't seen any "summary of wack misadventure" in the short article referenced.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
While Apple is very clearly in violation of the agreement, they have a buttload of cash and will probably just resolve it by giving up a few mil.
Steve Jobs is expected to announce at the next MacWorld that every new iPod will now ship with a single MP3 file on the harddrive called sosumi.
As World Wrestling Federation learned. They'd made a deal with World Wildlife Fund not to use the WWF initials internationally, but then... well, the internet took off, and WWF.com become popular. Nevermind the fact we know the difference between WWF.com and WWF.org, the UK judges didn't care. Because of the agreement, World Wrestling Federation was forced to change their name and pay a hefty fee to World Wildlife Fund. It's now World Wrestling Entertainment, and I hear World Wildlife Fund doesn't even use that name that much anymore.
Couldn't Apple just spin off the music part into a separate operating company like "iTunes, Inc." and be done with it?
this would have never happened.
As it is, Yoko's vagina is a ceaseless money vacuum.
look for the person who will benefit. And you will, uh, you know, you'll, uh, you know what I'm trying to say...
Imagine no lawsuits ... it isn't hard if you try ...
The article at the end said for more see Variety.
so do it.
Oh hell, this is typical big business angling to screw another big business; nothing new, and it just proves that apple isn't morally better or worse than anybody else, including microsoft.
/. spin this to try to make this into a issue that Apple Records is wrong, and Apple is doing this for the good of all Mankind.
No, the fun part will be watching the Apple fanatics on
I think its already begun!
Oh, good. Apple Computer has nothing to worry about. Despite the vagaries of language, there's no way a court will uphold "principle content" over "principal content".
Next?
If you play Yellow Submarine backwards, you hear Paul say "Steve Jobs is p0wned"
Try it!
Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols
Shouldn't that be iDols?
*ducks*
Free XBox, PS2
I just get my Beatles tunes (and anything else for that matter) from http://allofmp3.com/. Works pretty well and i can choice any format i want!
-Will
Look, as long as it doesn't affect my ability to listen to Britney, Christine, or Sasha or my ability to text-message my friends I don't care if these insect-pod-people-beetle-things eat fruit or not
Granted, I don't use ITMS, but I've never seen it billed as "the Apple music store", only as "the iTunes Music Store". I'm entirely lost as to how this could be a trademark issue. If the article (which is skimpy on details) is accurate, then the 1991 court ruling said they had an "agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music."". So how is "iTunes Music Store" easily confused with "Apple Records"?
do not read this line twice.
Wait....Apple COMPUTER runs the iTunes Music Store? Oh, damn...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I'm with Apple on this subject!
SCNR
Apple Corps is a corpse its dead LOL Long live ipod!
It seems we have a couple of big names which run into the so-called 'should-have-known' trademark cases.
This is one, and I believe the reason why these two Apples can co-exist for so long is the very agreement which states they don't touch each other's business, which is the main concept of a trademark, ie allowing businesses to operate under same marks in different trades.
Let's not forget how Google forgot a simple check on its gmail or Froggle.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
Clank!
Considering how litigious Apple is with protecting their trademark I don't see any room to bash the other side here. Oh and btw this company was around before Apple the computer compnay was even created.
Also considering that the article mentions a "1991 agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music." " this doesn't seem to be too baseless a claim. Apple will pay and in return they will get access to the Beatles catalog. Not a bad deal IMO.
Honestly, maybe I am just ignorant or naive, but I do not see the point of this lawsuit. I cannot see any obvious conflict of interest. It is not as though anyone buys an iPod and thinks the money is going to the Beatles or anything. Can anyone explain this? The article was a little thin on details.
I had no clue the Beatles had a company called Apple Corps. There's a Wikipedia entry about it.
Regarding the case, it sounds like Apple is screwed. It sounds like they haven't won any of these cases in the past (or, at the very least they settled out of court paying large sums to the Beatles' company).
It sounds like Forbes thinks this will be one of the largest court cases in histroy (from TFA), but I'll be that Apple will end up settling out of court (probably for a large amount still, but if they habitually break these rulings/agreements, they're going to have to pay).
It doesn't look like the news hurt Apple too much today.
Maybe they'll rename the company Orange. Of course, then they'll have to deal with people comparing the offerings of the new company to those of the old, but that won't go to far. Afterall, you can't compare Apple's to Orange's.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
You know Jobs was feeling left out of the whole IBM/SCO thing so you KNOW he dropped the anonymous hint to Apple Corp's Bottom Feeding Land Sharks. Now he's got a big case of his own and can feel all grown up. Just like IBM.
The Uber
http://www.tulg.org/
http://devurandom.livejournal.com/
The two most overrated entities on the planet go at it. I hope WalMart buys them both so we don't have to hear about either ever again.
This isn't about copyright, ane even if it was, Paul is still alive. George and John might be dead, but neither one has been dead long enough.
This is, however, about trademark. The fact is that Apple Corps. still exists, and holds the trademark on the name. Apple Computer just chose a really bad name, and probably should have done some research. Granted, we wind up in another Mozilla Firesomething situation, but seriously, Steve and Woz made a bad call when the named their company Apple.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
JFQ! Just 'cause it sounds the same doesn't mean it means the same.
principle: the primary source of something, or fundamental truth
principal: first in rank of importance.
Just because you quoted it from Forbes doesn't mean that it's correct.
The store in question is not the "Apple Music Store" - it's the "iTunes Music Store". It would appear that, under the terms of the agreement, Apple has done everything it could to avoid using the Apple logo - save for the part in the store where it says "Copyright Apple Computer, Inc" - which is more than enough to establish it being different from "Apple Records".
As far as the previous posts about Apple Computer buying out Apple Record - why the hell not? It would ensure that the Beatles music would only be available via the iTMS - not that I am stating this is a "good" or "bad" thing (bad, if they stop selling CD's, good otherwise), and would truly cement Apple into the music business, while removing a pain in the ass.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
From what I know of the previous agreement it would be hard to see that Apple has much of a leg to stand on, no surprise the number ($$) offerred by the Beatles lawyers to settle is going to be a big one. Especially with so many Apple Press Releases touting the number of tracks and ipods sold.
The only good that will come out of this (well aside from making Paul and Ringo a little richer) is I would imagine the previous settlement will be appended and apple will no longer have this monkey on it's back. Hopefully it will be a one time payment and not a percentage of profits going forward.
I remember reading about the first round of Apple vs. Apple lawsuits in Mac Secrets. :)
(A *very* small summary here.)
You thought Apple Records went apeshit when Apple Computer started putting microphones with their machines, that was nothing!
Please...
:)
As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."
I can never understand this B.S. At least with Lindows, they purposely chose that name in competition with Windows (a Linux that's so much like Windows, it's scary... AHHH). So I can understand MS being pissed/
Apple isn't making money by the association with Apple Records or the Beatles. They're just Apple, and they decided to expand into a lucrative market. A market that only makes sense for a tech savvy company to get into in the beginning.
I think the contract was an asshat thing to do. Oh no! 2 companies are called Apple, one publishes music, the other has recently started selling music. Apple is such a unique and creative word, it's not even in the dictionary. I know, I'll start a new company called "Creative," because I just made that word up!
But Anyway...
A contract is a contract, and Apple violated their's. Yeh, it was a contract that was stupid as heck in the first place, but a contract none-the-less.
Both sides should just settle and move on.
Then, Apple should make a game called "Squash the Silver Beatles" or something
Honestly, makes it tough to choose who to root for. The greatest band of all time, or everyone's fave iPod maker? Guess it'll have to come down to objectivity...
Just because someone posts something about her doesn't make the post itself a troll by association.
but seriously, Steve and Woz made a bad call when the named their company Apple.
I would just say they made an unfortunate choice. but I wouldn't say they made a bad call. We're talking about naming a computer company ~30 years ago. Jobs is noted as a "visionary", but I doubt he could have forseen trademark issues with a record company at that time.
This is an old, old issue. This was mentioned in the trade press about the time that the iPod was announced, and again when the iTunes Music Store was announced. During the mid-1990s, all music-related Macintosh gear (MIDI interfaces, etc.) was available only from third parties because Apple didn't want to violate the settlement.
Apple must have seen this coming, must have consciously violated the settlement, and must surely must have made some calculations of what it would eventually mean in costs.
Furthermore, there's a sort of precedent for Apple's taking calculated risks with trademarks. Steve Jobs decide on the name "Macintosh;" announced it within Apple; claimed (falsely!) within Apple that he had cut a deal with McIntosh Laboratories, a maker of high-end audio gear. Only after the name was set in stone did Apple approach McIntosh. Whatever the details, Apple gambled and won, because McIntosh Labs did agree to let them use the name.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away,
iPod sales rising heavily,
but oh oh Yesterday
Yesterday Apple music were so far away,
and now oh no we have to pay,
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
Paul McCartney must be rolling in his grave.
Dear Prudence, Baby you're a rich man. I am the walrus. I've got a feeling we can work it out, with a little help from my friends. Happiness is a warm gun. Don't let me down, I'll be back. P.S. I love you.
can't sleep. clowns will eat me.
Since this case is going to be in the U.K. courts, how do the laws on the two sides of the pond compare for trademark issues? Is there a real rift in what they mean or how they can be applied?
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
because either Forbes can't spell "principal", or the guys who wrote the agreement couldn't.
What is the content principle, anyway? That music shall be pleasurable? Sounds good to me...
-b
myselfmusic
that Jobs is actually the Walrus...
I was reading about the Apple IIGS, and a lawsuite that even affects modern day MAC's. It has to do with the inclusion of synthesizer chip, and quoting this article:
s t=1&c=71
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?
"The Ensoniq chip in the Apple IIGS was a brilliant move by Apple, but it drew a lawsuit by Apple Records, the Beatles' record label. Apple never again put a synthesizer chip in any computer. Even today, Macintosh does not have hardware synthesizers. Macintosh needs to go around this with software based synthesis. "
I found this to be quite interesting.
of the Apple/Beatles legal battles is here."
Of course, much of the legal dispute has gone on between lawyers and is not a matter of public record, so it's not very complete.
I do remember, though, what crummy audio hardware the Mac had in the early 90's, thanks to Apple Corps. Apple always had to lag behind the industry, for fear of being sued. It's only since Jobs came back in '97 that his attitude was, "Screw it, we're going full steam ahead."
It was Froogle not Froggle. Otherwise Miss Piggy and that freaky looking thing from The Dark Crystal would be banging on the door.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Apple Computers weren't in any way infringing upon Apple Music's trademark back then; they were completely different markets. But the chances of Apple Computers successfully defending a lawsuit without spending lots of money was slim, so they were pressured into signing an oppressive agreement that said they couldn't enter the music biz. This is trademark abuse at its worst.
Was Apple Records even publishing music when Apple Computers came into being?
All the posts regarding potential confusion between Apple Records and Apple Computer (and pointing out that it's called the iTunes Music Store, not Apple Music Store) are completely missing the point.
A deal was hashed out years ago after Jobs'n'Woz called their upstart company Apple. It wouldn't be unlike you starting a music store called Dell -- Michael might have some issues with that.
Apple and Apple made an agreement -- Jobs'n'Woz could keep their corporate name if they agreed not to get in the music business. And now they've broken that contract. QED
I'm sympathetic to Apple Computer, but they don't have a leg to stand on here.
// I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
Disney will solve all of this.a sp?guid=%7B 0F0464F0-03CD-4F00-A4CB-C607616BCD0D%7D&siteid=goo gle&dist=google
sorry about the spaces...
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.
Jobs is going to be one busy person.
http://slashdot.org/~Seth%20Finklestein
I like how you sign your 'name' with a different position/title in every post. Very amusing.
Once again, a bunch of corporate lawyers are trying to wring every last cent out of something done 30+ years ago, and in the process, screwing someone who's trying to do something NEW, TODAY.
I think there is too much uncritical positive comments about Apple. How much do they give back to the community? They use the freedom as in beer (OS, browser etc.) but how much do they give?
I do believe there was a large period of time that Apple Records was not active before the were burned onto cd's. You must be young and beautiful.
Never heard of them. Heard of the Beatles. Never heard of Apple Corp. Heard of Apple Computers. Does it really matter? I mean, really?
Team Rusty Nuts
You can't rush procrastination!
At some point last year, actually, Apple changed the "Music" tab on their website to "iPod + iTunes", and it was widely assumed it had to do with the impending legal action brought by Apple Corps that just happened to coincide. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20030801072141/www.appl e.com/music/
The article says that the lawsuit is about a contractual agreement between the two companies. This is the same agreement that purportedly forced renaming of the System 7 sound to the "Sosumi" name. But aside from nterpretations by engineers of the interpretations of Apple's lawyers, these contracts haven't been publicly disclosed.
The rumored agreements perhaps explain why the computer company relies on advertising with the iconic bitten fruit logo in iPod and GarageBand ads rather than by plastering the word "Apple" in its Garamond-like-typeface. The pictoral trademarks of the two companies are quite different. But whether the agreements being litigated covered all trademarks or just trademarks with the words Apple hasn't been publicly disclosed.
Perhaps AppleCorps' insistence on litigating these agreements is because its being puppeteered by a larger computer competitor. Perhaps in some backroom deal Sony offered partial control over the 159 of the 260 songs now controlled by Jackson-Sony. But the agreements (if any) between a well-funded compteitor and AppleCorps haven't been publicly disclosed.
There's a lot of speculation about this case, but beyond the stalest of rumors and FUD being kicked up (yet again) there's very little that's actually new here.
When I read the Forbes' article, I was confused as to the reference that Apple was holding back the Beatles catalog - it is my understanding that the catalog is owned by the one gloved one. Regardless of the outcome, Apple records cannot offer the Beatles catalog to Apple computer simply because they don't own it.
This seems to be a simple trademark suit; Apple computer reached an agreement from Apple records stating that they could use the trademarked term "Apple" as long as they did not become involved with music production/distribution.
When Apple computer became involved in music distribution they were breaking the agreement with Apple records and now they've got to pay. I don't think they're going to get anything out of the deal (other than a board member that looks like a chipmunk).
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Now if the agreement said "whose principal content is music" they might have a problem. http://www.shared-visions.com/explore/english/prin prin.html/
That said, I have to admit that I am very sorry but I have bought my last Mac. I cannot think of a single compelling reason to buy a new iMac given the performance and capabilities of the AMD 64 bit line, and the fact that Microsoft seem at last to be turning into a more mature company. Apple computer needs its music business, and for the sake of competition the world needs Apple Computer rather more than it needs yet another royalties collection agency.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Paul McCartney = Greedy, egotistical asshole.
Pete Townsend = Greedy pedophile
Ringo = Greedy talentless drummer without the beat
Harrison = Greedy, plagarizer - (great that he died of cancer)
Lennon = Greedy genius?
Well, it's not quite so clear... That's what Apple Comp's lawyers think, too, which is why they're fighting the suit.
The original trademark suit and settlement had Apple Comp agreeing not to enter the music recording industry. They haven't - they sell music, but then, so does Target and Walmart, and they certainly aren't record labels. Neither, sez Apple, are we.
-T
Sqweeky whining brit music, Yuk!
- the world is better off without them... thank god they broke up and saved our collective ears from their horrible noise.
At least Steve Jobs helps the world enjoy real music.
Apple Corps hasn't done much good for anybody lately.
In Soviet Russia (back in the USSR), A Hard Day's Night Eight Days a Week!
Mod me down? All together Now... "I Should Have Known Better"
But Steve was well aware of the restriction of entering the music market when he chose to point his company in that direction with the introduction of Itunes and the Ipod and later the distribution business ITMS. He most certainly did know that this fight was coming. hmmmm.. I wonder what he has up his sleeve.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Jeez, Beatles the company, not the band, I thought Apple took the band's "We're bigger than Jesus" tradmark, thank God I read the rest of the article.
I like suggestions, but I don't like contributing towards them.
Apple Records and Apple Computer settle a lawsuit with a deal saying Apple Computer can use their name, as long as they don't enter into the music industry.
..
Apple Computer enters into the music industry, with iPod and iTunes.
Apple Records sues.
No brainer.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Apple Computer has decided to adopt the DBA of
"Lemon Computer", citing "bug problems".
This is a scandalous money grab. Apple Records had absolutely no contribution to the success of Apple Computer and its iTunes store, or its iPod. The success of iTunes and iPod is pure Apple Computer genius and trademark industrial design, and Apple Records has absolutely no right to claim a major bite out of that, or become a major shareholder in Apple Computer as a result. I mean, what have they contributed to the iPod or iTMS that was of value and deserved such hefty return??! Seriously, who have bought an Apple iPod or tracks from the iTunes music store thinking it was made or directly endorsed by the Beatles Apple Records??!! Apple Records is essentially squatting a word of the English language and seeking to extort Apple Computers regardless of market realities. Besides, Apple Computer is in its normal line of business, and that includes multimedia, as many other computer companies are currently doing, I mean, Does Apple Records expect Apple Computer to ship mute computers? Heck, look around, every major computer company, and even non-major ones, have a multimedia online operation. Apple Computer is right to say that they have different interpretations of the agreement; fore example, when they start talent scouting and recording their music artists then yeah, that *is* music business, but what they are doing now is within their line of computer business.
Two things annoy me most; first, I hope the judges won't be nationalistic about this; I live in the UK and people here have an excessively heightened esteem for all things British. Second, I have the worry that the judges may not represent the actual consumers of iPods or or iTMS, and due to their age, generation and British nationality, may even be more familiar with Apple Records than they are with Apple Computers.
If Apple Records gets anything out of this it would be a major breach of commonsense and basic morality.
that HP was suing Nirvana.
The only reason Apple computer made the agreement in the first place was because back then Apple Computer was small and they had no choice. I can't believe that any modern court would feel that Apple Corps. has a right to a large monetary settlement. I don't see how they could prove that they have lost any money at all to Apple Computer over this. This is just money grubbing rich assholes trying to use archaic legal systems to make even more money. This is a misuse of the court system and an insult to free market economics in general.
If this happens, I will never buy another Beetles song as long as I live. I own them all already anyway, but maybe I should get rid of my collection too.
All You Need is Lawyers
MSFT PR: "MacOS not only has Bugs so big that they're Beetles!"
MSFT PR: "Apple (but we're not sure which one) supports Michael Jackson's activities"
SCO PR: "You owe us $699 for every Beetles record you buy"
Ummm, your Recent Submissions do not show unless they have been accepted. Therefore we can see NO submissions of yours, since it would seem that they have all been rejected.
Pity it's old news though...
Too late
-- &&
iTunes Music Store is operated by iTunes S.à.r.l., registration number B 101 120.
Our registered office is 10 rue Mathias Hardt BP 3023, L-1030 Luxembourg.
I've been sat on my arse doing fuck-all for thirty-five years. Where's my free money?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Is it possible that Apple Computer will just buy out Apple Corp.? I'm not sure which is the larger company there; except for Beatles albums, I don't think I've ever seen another Apple CD Label. If such a buy-out would occur, I think it would create some interesting results (think iTunes music store perhaps?).
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
Let It Be
or
Live and Let Die
--When it's my time, I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather -- not screaming like all the passengers in his car
WIN::WIN::WIN Scenario....
Apple delves into their $4 billion cash reserves. They then buy the "Beatles" rights off of Michael Jackson (giving Jacko some much needed raw $$$).
They then negotiate a deal with Paul McCartney to exchange ownership of the "Beatles" library for a merger with Apple Music and exclusive right to online digital distribution of the said Beatles library.
Apple wins doubly (ends legal battle gains exclusive Beatle content rights). McCartney doubly wins (re-gains ownership of music and gains shares in Apple Corp. online venture!
vwaaalaaa....
Now was that so hard?
"They may have done it purposefully once they knew they weren't getting the Beatles' tracks on the iTMS - to see what they could get Apple Corps to do."
Ofcourse! One day Jobs was kicking around the idea of selling Beatles music online, when Apple Corp said no. He decided to invent the iPod and start up iTunes Online Store.
It all makes sense now.
I think its RIDICULOUS that you can copyright or trademark an object that occurs in nature. Yes yes yes, its only regarding music-based companies with the name "Apple", but this ranks right up there with McDonalds suing the McDonald clan in Scotland for mis-use of their copyright...
BTW, I'm working on my trademark of the world 'The'. I'm hoping the courts will also extend my title to mispellings like 'Teh' so that I can assume title of the internet through spurious lawsuits...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Unbelievably, her music is sold via iTunes. Maybe she could perform her patented shrieking at the developers conference while they roll-out the G5 Powerbooks!!
...lawyers suck.
Is anyone actually going to get confused and end up doing business with Apple/iTunes when they intended to work with Apple/Beatles?
Cases like this, and like the WWE/WWF debaucle are ridiculous (was someone really going to accidentally give money to Vince McMahon when they intended to save a Panda?).
In both cases, it was a problem of contracts, but those contracts ought never have existed because the original case should have been laughed out of the court. Since the companies couldn't trust the court to give them a rational result, they were bullied into unreasonable contracts.
And both this business interests were supposed to be some form of 'counterculture'.
The West rejected Yaweh, and all it's got is Mammon now.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Apples to Apples comparisons.
50 bucks on Apple.
MIDI sequencing programs are used by professional musicians to compose, arrange and record music. IN those days Apple didn't make or market these programs; they just made the hardware and the operating system. But the Beatles did not sue the third party MIDI sequencer software companies for their products; they sued Apple Computer because they had a product named "Apple" which could be used for composing music, and playing back the music so composed.
It's mind-boggling. MIDI sequencers first appeared around 1982, and have existed in all kinds of specialized keyboard instruments and electronic music hardware as well as on every computer platform/operating system known to Man. But it was the pairing of the concept of a MIDI sequencer with the brand-name "Apple" that set the Beatles on the path of litigation. Never mind that the Beatles' Apple Corps never marketed any computer platforms that could run software for composing music. How could any sane person confuse Apple Computer with the Beatles' Apple Corps?
But, sadly, Apple Computer is obviously in breach of the agreement they clearly made in 1991, and they will have to pay for it. Not only do they have the iPod, Apple now owns and operates emagic.de, which makes Garage Band and the Logic line of professional music composition and recording programs--and that is in direct violation of the original settlement, in a sense, more so than the iPod.
In 1991, if they could not have reached a more favorable agreement, Apple Computer should have simply settled with the Beatles' Apple Corps and agreed to change the name of the computer company to something else, thereby regaining the right to sell their computers and develop music software without any risk of further legal action. They could have become the Macintosh Computer Company and avoided this colossal debacle.
I wonder if Sir Paul McCartney and Richard Starkey et al realize what tremendous harm they are doing to the development of the computer industry and its competitive environment. Any severe blow to Apple is a big boost to Microsoft and a disincentive to healthy competition.
Then there's the fact that virtually every musical recording you've heard in the last fifteen years has had an Apple Macintosh computer involved in its creation at some stage, usually in the recording studio, sometimes on the concert stage as well. I can't imagine why McCartney and company are so hell-bent on damaging that achievement.
that nobody owns music. i thought this was slashdot...
This is why they're letting HP make iPods too -- in case they have to stop making iPods, the devices will live on.
The assumption being made here is that Apple Computer broke a contract that none of us has ever seen. Apple says they don't believe they did; that it was open to intepretation in some of its key points. It's premature to call them guilty, since none of us really knows what the hell we're talking about. Just 'cause Apple Records says it doesn't make it true.
I thought about starting a crazy rumor around MacWorld Expo in January and again at WWDC that Steve Jobs' big announcement would be that Apple was settling the lawsuit by purchasing Apple Corps. from Capitol Records, and that the Beatles catalog would be available exclusively from iTunes. After all, Apple had previously reportedly offered $5-$6 billion to purchase Universal Music--they could certainly afford the smaller Apple Corps.
It really would not surprise me if part of the settlement is Apple Computer striking a distribution deal with, or purchasing outright, Apple Corps. Think about it... a stock swap purchase would certainly "make Apple Corps a significant shareholder in Apple Computer," and would likely result in someone from the company (McCartney) joining the Apple Computer board.
No reference to "Sue me, sue you blues" -G Harrison ?
IANAL, but: "whose principle content is music." Is that a homopo, or did the original agreement really use that word? In which case the agreement may be meaningless...
What matters is what the CONTRACT says. Until we see the actual wording in the CONTRACT, it is impossible to say whether Apple has breached.
Here is the point. According to Apple Corp. the music industry could mean making music. That is what the Beatles did. Right? Apple, has sold music but they have not actually made or produced any music. Maybe the point of the CONTRACT was to prevent Apple from being a producer. Maybe Apple Corp. wanted to spare the world from the sexy ballad duet of Steve and Steve.
Here is what I want to know. How in the hell is this settlement supposed to be so damn big. This is not tort, with punitive damages. It is contract. How was Apple Corp. hurt by Apple's iTunes. Where is the damage from the breach.
Apple seems to have breached a contract that runs somethign like this. "We won't make music, which won't hurt you anyhow, and you won't get pissy." So now they are pissy, but where is the damage. A few million, alright. But the largest non-mass-tort settlement in history.
This is no Pennzoil v. Texaco, and should not be. Here is what is scary. That case had a verdict somewhere in the range of Apple's total value (4 billion in cash included). So if this is going real bad (and being in England and not the US it is a possiblity) then Apple could forever be fucked.
Life is very short
and there's no time
for fussing and fighting my friends
I have always thought
that it's a crime
So I will ask you once again
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While I see it your way
There's a chance I might get more publicity for iTunes
-Steve Jobs
Prior to the '80s you would have. This is the crux of the whole problem - Apple (computers) agreed to not encroach on Apple's (music company) turf within the music business, purely to avoid this whole situation.
Apple (the music company) want to be the _only_ company in the music business associated with the name Apple. They in all probability had the legal right to that (which is why Apple (computers) settled in 1991), and the agreement meant that they definitely have that right now. Are we supposed to be surprised that Apple (music) are upset about this?
Mickey Mouse, Jerry Mouse, Speedy Gonzales, Mighty Mouse, Fievel Mousekwitz, Danger Mouse, Pinky, and the Brain are all mice trademarks created for use in the animation industry, owned by many different entities, and used in many similar markets (animation, toys, action figures, underroos, McDonalds collectible glasses, lunchboxes, bobble-head dolls, coloring books, etc.)
These "mice" can be trademarked even though they are rodents in the same market exactly because they visually don't resemble each other. If this were strictly a trademark case, there would be almost nothing that Apple Corps could litigate against the computer company. The visual design of their iconic trademarks are significantly different even if it's found that the two may overlap in the markets they are selling to.
The issue that no one can grasp is whether the 1991 contractual agreement signed when Mr. Jobs was in exile from Apple made further stipulations about just what could and couldn't be done with markets, advertising, and so forth. It's those contracts that are still not public and thus we know nothing more than we did in 1991 about what Apple stipulates that Apple can and can not do.
I bet it took you more time to write the warning, than it would have to make the link clickable.
<url:http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/innov ators/hkelleher.html> becomes http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/innovators/h kelleher.html
I read somewhere that he only called it 'Apple' to get before 'Atari' in the phone book.
Yes and no. In the US and Canada they're known as World Wildlife Fund, but in the rest of the world they've used the name "World Wide Fund for Nature" since 1986. The abbreviation and short name is WWF everywhere anyway and it's a registered trademark. It's still makes (some) sense as an abbreviation for "World Wide Fund for nature".
Look here for source. www.wwf.org is also in use, but is a fairly empty portal.
later today in the news Darl Mcbride anounces " we cannot continue the case against linux, all of my lawyers seemed to misteriosly moved to the UK, they were saying something about greener pastures"
common folks this is nothing more than the UK using SCO tactics on Apple. when was the last time you heard anything about apple corp. what the hell do they produce except for litigation.
what we should have is a video preview of steve jobs tying paul mccartny up and dick slapping him, but paul might like something like that too much.
I wonder if Apple would be interested if anyone could prove to them that Paul is DEAD and therefore the guy posing as Paul is not eligible to actually participate in this suit?
This brings an interesting point to mind - when gathering tracks for use on the iTunes Music Store, Apple will only work with labels (it doesn't have to be an RIAA member, they work with "independent" labels as well) and not individual artists.
Perhaps that policy is insulation against this very problem - if they were to work with artists directly, they could be considered a record label, but as long as they're working with established labels they are demonstrably just another reseller.
>As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles." Up the the early 1980s most people thought of the Beatles when they heard of Apple Ltd. Apple, the computer company, barely got to keep its name. I was there.
WTF is Apple (named after Newton's proverbial falling apple,) supposed to cell itself?
If I was Apple Computer Corporation, I'd sue Apple Corp for trademark infringement. Newton predates John Lennon by a long shot.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
In 1994, Apple Computer began developing the Power Macintosh 7100. They chose the internal code name "Sagan", in honor of the astronomer. Though the project name was strictly internal and never used in public marketing, when Sagan learned of this internal usage, he sued Apple Computer to use a different project name. Though Sagan lost the suit, Apple engineers complied with his demands anyway, renaming the project "Butthead Astronomer". Sagan sued Apple for libel over the new name, claiming that it subjected him to contempt and ridicule. Sagan lost this lawsuit as well. Maybe Butthead Beatles could be used somewhere here as well...
How can anyone trademark such a common name like "Apple?" I thought there was a provision in the law that said you couldn't trademark common names like this. "Intel" yes, "Chip" no.
So how do you do it?
Or does Apple Computer have some really bad lawyers?
I am sure I'm missing a few, but every case I can think of with Apple Computer in court resulted in their either flat out losing, or not winning in the intended way.
Morons. This has nothing to do with Apple (the Computer Company) vs. Apple (Corps., the Beatles record company and representational companies)- a trademark war that was fought (and lost by Apple Computer) way back when. The Beatles had Apple (the name) first. Period. Assertions to the contrary, no one disputes that the Beatles were identified worldwide with the name Apple well before a computer company was attached to it.
Trademark law requires the vigorous defense of infringements of any kind OTHERWISE the law instructs the court to drop the protection. That is why the Beatles sued, that is why they won.
Apple was actually smart enough to agree (if indeed they did not propose in the first place) to generous terms allowing them to use Apple as a name as long as they didn't get into the music business. It was actually kind of McCartney, et all, to allow them to continue. Very non-corporate of them.
THAT was the contract. Creating a music-download service or a device to play digital music can be construed as violating the terms of that contract.
It is pedantic to suggest that Apple Computer could simply "buy" Apple Corps, or any "controlling" interest around Beatles music. In fact, the reverse may end up true. Should they win, The Beatles and the surviving estates, could well decide to revoke permission for use of Apple as a name for a computer company, and force it to be called something else. Pixar maybe?
Why doesn't everybody celebrate by buying all the Beatles tunes they can find over at AllOfMP3.com
but seriously, Steve and Woz made a bad call when the named their company Apple.
Why? Only the most bloody-minded greedhead would ever confuse Apple Corps the Beatles' bloody management company and Apple Computer Corporation. Does Apple Corps offer any products, anything at all I could possibly confuse with an Apple Computer product? I hadn't even heard Apple Corps until this story (what a corny name, btw).
The bad move Steve made was doing a deal with them in the first place, instead of telling Sir Paul and the rest of the living Beatles to piss up a rope. This is really pathetic, and seriously lowers my view of these characters in the first place. When it comes right down to it, the (remaining) Beatles are just a bunch of money-grubbing greed junkies like so many others in the entertainment industry.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
Peace
With every day that goes by, with every lame, generic pop song that is played, Appel Records looses a little more value.
I never hear teenagers singing the Beatles. When someone says "Isn't it good", no one says " Norwegian Wood".
For this reason alone, I say that closing this chapter is best for all parties. Apple computer gets to perhaps be the exclusive distributor of Beatles music on-line and Paul gets to make more money than he would otherwise.
Win-win-the-end
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
You don't need to type "apple" into your browser to reach the iTunes page.
When I think of Apple I sure don't think about John Lennon, nor Paul, nor Ringo, nor any thing to do with the Beatles or their record company.
I do think about an Apple II computer, which was the first personal computer I ever played on (way back in 1980/1981) and Washington state. Which sometimes makes me think about Redmond and Microsoft.
So, with the help of stupid logic, Apple corps should sue Washington state for making people think about something besides their trademark. Better yet, go ahead and take a pop-shot at Microsoft, you silly lawyers!
Now, what does the Apple trademark mean to Apple Corps? Close to nothing, I say! Apple Corps is known for one single thing which is the Beatles. Or, actually, just a *part* of the Beatles' back catalogue. I would say that no single person exists who knows of Apple corps but not of the Beatles. Which is not a problem, because the Corps makes money of the Beatles - possibly the best known band in the world.
/Arru, doing the coward thing tonite
They could be named FruitZilla2000 and carry on their business all the same. They could change name once a week without harming cash flow.
Apple Computers on the other hand have an extemely strong linking between the apple and its products. This has been built for 20+ years and is more important than ever with their current struggling in online music. And yes, a lot of posts have pointed out that this is a breach of contract case. My point is, that one of these companies need just the name, and another needs nothing but cold cash.
The Corpse will probably be adequately described as a winner when this ends, but either they'll settle for heaps of cash which would be in their best interest, but if they are going after the Apple-music connection (reclaiming their trademark) they are probably doing someone elses arrends. Someone micro, soft or maybe real.
...to compare the British justice system to the American legal system, this is not about trademerks or anything like that -- it's a straight breach of conract issue.
The fight is going to be about whether Apple Computer broke the contract it signed with Apple Corp, the one they signed to settle the previous trademark dispute.
That's a lovely idea. But since the company is named Apple, and iTunes belong to them, then by definition they are selling music, using iTunes, with the Apple brand. The only way around it would be to sell iTMS.
I suspect that even if iTMS were spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary, they would still be engaging in selling music using the Apple brand.
So either they completely get rid of iTMS, they give Apple Music their asking price for use of the brand to sell music (which was rumored to be more than 4 billion plus royalties for every song sold... basically, 'give us ALL of your money, plus royalties'), or they break the law.
Interesting set of choices, huh?
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
There's a couple points that I wanted to briefly cover:
;)
1. Steve and Woz knew exactly what they were doing when they named their company 'Apple Computer'... Jobs was such a huge Beatles fan, even back then, that it was considered an homage to them.
2. We have no clue what the original settlement agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Corps said, so to speculate is fortuitous...
So, that being said, I'll do a little speculation myself...
It's my hunch that the original settlement agreement was so vague, that Apple intentionally thwarted it to get the terms 'fleshed out' or re-written.
Look at it this way... they enter the music business, get sued by Apple Corps, and hammer out 'another' settlement agreement that is much more specific (and accommodating) than the current one, and then pay Apple Corps a few bucks for their trouble.
Or, Apple foregoes another settlement, and lets the court decide the meaning of 'music business' (taking their chances)... hoping that the term will be vague enough to give them some wriggle room.
It looks like a win-win situation to me... at most they're out a few million, which they will recoup with their iPod sales, and at best they win their court case and can continue to do business as usual. I find it unlikely that Apple Corps would require them to take down iTMS... most likely Yoko^H^H^H^H they will just demand some royalties.
In hindsight it looks like a good calculated risk to me... they pretty much have the #1 Music Player and the #1 Online Music Store... neither of which would have come to fruition had they stayed completely away from music as the original agreement is purported to read.
I'm not sure how many times that this will need to be repeated to sink in, but the URLs you gave do not lead to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). They lead to a section of the apple site for marketing iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. iTMS is only accessible through the iTunes application itself. An ordinary browser won't do it.
Furthermore, unless you've read the contracts and have extensive knowledge of contract law, you cannot positively state that Apple is in breach. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Have you read the contract at this time? Would you know how to interpret it if you did?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I recognize that Apple singed a contract with Apple and broke it, but I still think this is total bullshit.
Trademark law (or perhaps just the lawyers) are totally out of control.
Trademark exists so that your company may uniquely identify your products in a way that other companies may not copy. It does not.... or at least SHOULD not be used so that a company can exercise sole control or a word, phrase or graphic.
That's fucking nonsense.
Who owns the rights to the word "Apple"?
Nobody.
Apple owns "Apple Computer", and the other Apple owns "Apple Corps". Companies should have little or no right to prevent another company from using a VERY common word that just happens to be a fraction of their trademark.
This is why I believe that if the Lindows lawsuit had been fought out to completion in the courtroom, microsoft would have lost. "Windows" is a common word, "Apple" is a common word. It's just plain stupid to believe that when you chose a trademark including that word, you gained sole rights to the word.
Imagine if Bass (the beer company and holders of one of the oldest registered trademarks) decided to sue ANY company who's product had a red triangle on it ANYWHERE.
It would be absolutely stupid.
Life is too short to proofread.
It is also kinda odd that apple corps never got pissed at the Blue Meanies references that abound in the early mac os's (option click about in the graphics control panel among other places.) Since Blue Meanies is a SGT Pepper Refernce
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
1. iPod + iTunes will be spun off into a separate company. Some analysts are saying this makes good sense anyway.
2. Apple computer will change its name. To something like Mac or Macintosh. No one says "I use an Apple" anyway. It's no big loss; when you think about it, I mean stare at it, it's a really stupid name for a computer company.
1. is, of course, more likely.
(A third possibility is that the name is formally changed to the apple logo. Like Prince.)
I was at Apple (Computer) when they settled the previous case (1991?). What we were told at the time was that the settlement involved Apple Computer paying Apple Corps a huge chunk of money so they could CONTINUE to "be in the music business" (which at the time meant having machines that could be used to create music). Now it sounds like they agreed to NOT "be in the music business." Does anyone know what that agreement actually said? Was it ever made public?
Maybe I'm drawing a long bow, but...
It seems most posters are of the opinion that Apple Computer is in the wrong and that Apple Corp has the sole right to operate in the context of anything related to music, because some legal documents purportedly say so.
Which I find ironic, because SCO claims to have the right to anything related to UNIX because some legal documents purportedly say so, and I doubt there's a single Slashdot poster in existence who would agree with that!
Why is it that computer companies think that they can Trademark dictionary words that are in common use? There was the Apple and then the Pineapple, Orange, and Pear knockoffs. Palm is a favorite (non)trademark of mine, right next to Windows. Commodore is stretching things. Altair (from MITS) was a unique tradename, Exidy was also unique (although Sorcerer could have caused issues). Tomy was a unique, although scary name for a computer. All of these non-unique tradenames are lawsuits just waiting to start.
I'm no big fan of Apple (for reasons that are best left for when I feel like a good rant) but one has to feel sorry for them - if there is one sure way for a decent company to go under, it is to put McCartney on its board of directors.
Instant karma burn indeed.
(yeah, yeah, I'm trolling, Sosumi)
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
The 1st agreement was before the Mac. That was silly enough, though, in a way, groundbreaking.
The 1991 agreement was when Sculley ruled Apple. Despite the Newton (oooh, a handheld computer what an idea-- no sci-fi writer's ever dreamed of THAT now have they?), Sculley, I'm convinced, never "got" technology. And now that ignorance is going to pay big time for the poor, impoverished nations known as the Beatles and their Estates.
However, contract law is quite clear, especially in the UK. If they broke a contract, no matter how stupid, they must pay. I'm a big fan of Apple (the computer company, not the record company-- boy, that IS confusing, isn't it?), but they can be a tad heavy-handed with the litigation sometimes...
My question is, what's the last largest settlement outside a class action lawsuit? Any predictions as to a dollar amount? What's Vegas betting? Obviously Wall St. doesn't see this as a problem. And with around $4B in the bank, I don't know that any of this will matter to Apple in the long or short term.
What IS scary: the potential chilling effect. I know, it isn't a trademark dispute. However, Apple Corps. was obviously able to strong arm the little Cupertino Computer Co. into signing an asinine agreement long ago... What does this mean for companies wanting to name themselves anything similar to something already out there? I guess ask Linspire, huh?
So much for my soda idea: Poopsie.
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
From February 25, 2004:
"The High Court" refers to the court of the United Kingdom in London, which is where these judgements have been made.Also the Bloomberg article erroneously uses the word "logo" where they should say "trade name" in reference to "Apple".
I remember the circumstances now...there were sequencers and a primitive third-party hardware music synthesizer called the AlphaSyntari that was on a board you could install in an Apple II computer. This predated MIDI by a couple of years and was practically the first music composing system available for a personal computer.
The Apple Macintosh, in 1984, was the first brand of personal computer that had audio out as a stock feature. A third-party company made an external box called the MacRecorder that enabled the recording of short snippets of 8-bit mono audio. This incensed the Beatles and caused them to reopen litigation!
Musicians of all stripes will agree with me that most all of the innovation in personal-computer-based music recording took place on the Macintosh platform (well, there was the Atari platform in the early days, but it didn't survive and the Atari developers ported their stuff to Macintosh after that). All the stuff we take for granted today, from Pro Tools to Finale to Logic, which is featured in the recording of every genre of music you can think of, from punk to classical to techno, has been possible because of the Mac platform. (I am not discounting the fact that for some time now there have also been excellent tools for doing this on the Windows platform as well).
And to think that the Beatles have been trying to prevent this from happening all these years! Or, more precisely, they thought it their business to prevent this from happening on the Apple computer platform simply because of their company name!
Could Apple Computer argue that the contract is too vauge to be valid legaly? IAMNA(L/J) by any means but, it seems to me that something that doesn't lay down examples, as to what would be considered a breach, i.e. selling cd's, tapes, or albums (vinyl), recording, representing artists, or selling music related software, etc..
Just an AC's 2 cents
It was, er, a buncha years ago today
Sgt. Jobbie had to go and pay
For jacking names from Apple Corp
Now he's bent over like a Mapplethorpe
So may I recommend that you
Dump your stock while you can!
Sgt. Jobbie's Trademark Rip Off Band!
We're Sgt. Jobbie's Trademark Rip Off Band
Sure, we may have thought of Apple second
We're Sgt. Jobbie's Trademark Rip Off Band
But the bill's higher than we reckoned!
iPods are very profitable,
They've kept us in turtlenecks.
You're such a lovely installed base
We'd hate to charge you more for things
But now we'll have to charge you more!
I don't really want to kiss and tell!
But hell I really might as well!
Yoko Ono comes from outer space,
And Ringo's nose has been replaced!
So let me recommend to you
Never listen to another Beatles song!
Just Sgt. Jobbie's Trademark Rip Off Band!
>> Of course, the actual agreement (as is pretty normal with these cases) is non-public, but before we all second-guess Jobs, McCartney and everyone else, reading the agreement(s) would really help.
6 8/apple-v-apple.htm
Some of the terms of that agreement are mentioned in the current suit:
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j24
So, when will Sun sue Sun?
(I'm not a lawyer, but I've paid one, once).
:)
But I've not seen a single comment yet that points out that they can try and get he contract ruled null and void...
I have no idea how likely they are to win that, but I seriously doubt Apple (Computer) lawyers are going to walk into the courtroom and try and say 'no, we didn't go into the music business' (except in the case that they then try and have 'the music business' defined as the 'act of signing artists to produce music').
I imagine they'll try and claim that they signed the original contract under duress, or that it's infair restriction of competition, or that it's void because the original lawsuit (over a trademark) was frivolous, or something that justifies the HUGE amounts of money the lawyers will be taking in...
Either that, or as people have suggested, suck it up and pay a settlement. How much do Apple (Computers) have in the bank? In 2003 it was $3,396,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents. $3.4 billion buys you a lot of copies of The White Album
Mark
PS And yes, I understand they can't use it all...
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j246 8/apple-v-apple.htm
I haven't had time to look at it in detail, but it doesn't look like a completely clear-cut case to me.
Whereas, the context in which this Agreement arises in the parties' desire to reserve for Apple Corps' field of use for its Trade Marks, the record business, The Beatles, Apple Corps' catalog and artists and related material all as set forth in section 1.3 herein and to reserve for Apple Computers field of use for its Trade Marks, the computer, data processing and telecommunications business...
So, on the surface - Apple Corps gets the "record business" and Apple Comp gets the "computer, data processing, and telecommunications business."
So, what's that mean?
Apple Corps Field of Use" means (i) the Apple Musical Artists; the Apple Catalog; personalities or characters which appear in or are derived from the Apple Catalog; the names likenesses, voices or musical sounds of the Apple Musical Artists; any musical works or performances of the Apple Musical Artists; (ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible; (iii) promotional merchandise relating to any of the foregoing; (iv) merchandising relating to the Apple Musical Artists and the Apple Catalog and the related subject matter set forth in subsection (i), including, without limitation, the commercial exploitation of personalities, characters, names, designs, images, words, photographs, drawings, or other materials through articles such as posters, toys, games (including computer games), novelties, figures, figurines and clothing; and (v) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services.
Apple Corps claims 1) their artists, 2) any works whose principle content is music, and 3) promotional merchandise.
Apple Corps is claiming that the iPod and iTMS violate #2. Nice and easy...
But wait!
"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).
According to this, Apple Comp is allowed to make software, hardware, and broadcasting services used to reproduce (iPod), run (iTunes), or otherwise deliver (QT, iTMS, etc.) such content... as long as it doesn't send pre-recorded content.
Apple Comp is arguing that since iPods are sold empty, they are not selling pre-recorded content, and are thus within their rights. Apple Corps is saying that iTMS, by selling MP3s, is selling pre-recorded content.
Looks like it could go either way. But I still think Apple Corps, a marginalized little label that's still riding on the coattails of its one main act, is overstretching its bounds. Other than Beatles fans, prior to these suits, no one had heard of Apple Corps.
-T
Apple could turn the table around and propose a partnership as part of the large settlement. Like doing a Beatles + iTunes + Reality TV series to further boost iPod and iTune demand. Could be singer oriented (a la "American Idol"), or DJ oriented.
Regards,
Jin-Ho
And when will Gateway sue Gateway?
To add my 5 pence....
Apple Computer settled with Apple Corp. in 1991 and promised not to enter the music industry.
Approx. 10 years later they break their word, because they are cash rich and (probably correctly) think they will get away with it (for a price -- they feel they can aford).
Do Americans feel that this is ok for rich people / companies?
My view is that too often there is one rule for the rich and one for the poor. Perhaps in America you think this is the way things are or should be.
i feel like when i was 5 and my parents split up....whomever gets the prize... a part of me is lost with the other one.
That's interesting. It raises questions about the sampler songs which came with iTunes, which are sold on a hard drive or CD with the iLife package. Isn't that distributing music on a physical medium?
Why? Only the most bloody-minded chiahead would ever confuse Apple Corps the NAACP's bloody management company and Apple Computer Corporation. Does Apple Corps offer any products, anything at all I could possibly confuse with an Apple Computer product? I hadn't even heard Apple Corps until this story (what a corny name, btw).
The bad move Steve made was doing a deal with them in the first place, instead of telling Mr. Bond and the rest of the living negroes to piss up a rope. This is really pathetic, and seriously lowers my view of these characters in the first place. When it comes right down to it, the (remaining) negroes are just a bunch of crack-smoking watermelon junkies like so many other non-white variants of the human race.
How could you mistake the two companies? Where is the threat? What on earth is the problem?
As for stealing the name or logo... you are kidding my right? How many orignial thoughts are out there.. at some point everyone gets inspired by something else... There are no orignial thoughs... just Beatles corp were smart enough to cash in, and the lawyers with their grubby paws..
As for Beatle corp, do you rember what they used to stand for in the early 70's... not the same now is it? Things change get used to it... evolution and all that crap...
I hate the Beetles - thank christ there only 2 left! Play it backward Paul!
One of my favorite movies of all time.
e id=60000361
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?trkid=73&movi
Then explain why Nick Rhodes is "playing a PowerBook" in the new Duran Duran video "Music For Bandcamp Chicks" (or whatever it's called), promoted on quicktime.apple.com? The PowerBook G4 was even promoted as a musical instrument and production system by some lisping DJ goon (BT?) in its initial roll-out. That means Apple is selling musical instruments, samples, CD-production, music playback devices, electronic music distribution services, plus offering music-related playlists exchange and artist promotion. About the only thing they don't do (yet) is allow customers to upload/exchange their original compositions --that's probably the next ".mac" upgrade. Oh yeah, then there's "iMac G5 from the company that brought you the iPod" --their big new ad campagin. Many artists regard Apple as a "corporate ass" to be kissed and I don't think Sir Paul McCartney & Co will pass-up this chance to screw rather than be screwed by a big corporation. It's time to sell the Mac division off to Sun (they'll port it to Opteron) or Sony (they still like Windows), or even to Microsoft (.NET instead of Cocoa anyone?) so the millions of people dependent upon the user community are not hurt as a consequence of Apple's breach of contract.
>Jobs is noted as a "visionary"
Yeah, he went to XEROX's PARC and "saw" their STAR. Really good vision, if you ask me.
Seriously, go the public library and read some back issues of Popular Electronics from the late 1970s. You'll quickly see that a computer in every home was a natural assumption as the realization of microprocessors, very large scale integration (VLSI) and single board computers (SBCs) was setting in. The only place it didn't stick was with the old-guard --the established COBOL-sucking FORTRAN-blowing computer industry which didn't read Popular Electronics, never went to the West Coast Computer Fair and didn't know a microprocessor from a hole in the ground.
Quote found at Forbes:
Steve Jobs--who was heavily influenced by the counterculture attitudes of the late 1960s and early '70s--has been said to have admitted that the computer company was named Apple in partial tribute to the Beatles.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
I belive this is the reason Apple spun off iTunes and iPod to another divison within Apple to differentiate...