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.
The article at the end said for more see Variety.
so do it.
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.
Well, they don't have control over a bunch of their music to begin with...
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!
That's not the issue. The issue is with the initial settlement, where Apple Records sued Apple Computer. Stupidly (in my opinion) on Apple Computer's part, they signed a settlement that 1) gave the Beatles a lot of money and 2) said that Apple Computer could never enter the "music" business. As far as what the "music" business actually is defined as is questionable. As many people know, when Apple first shipped the LC, with a microphone, they added the "Sosumi" (so sue me) sound to System 7. In January 2001 Apple released iTunes and in October they released the first ipod. In 2002 Apple purchased Emagic. In 2003 they launched the iTunes music store. Which of these actions constitutes entering the "music business" ? To me the problem was with the original settlement. The wording is not clear. Apple Computer was also stupid to agree to something like this. They SHOULD have agreed not to become a record label, since that would never be their interest. iTMS is a store, not a label. If Apple Computer didn't sign such a stupid deal back in the 80s this wouldn't be an issue today.
In case it's not just me that wanted to read that story.....
n novators/h kelleher.html
"Those good-natured feelings have everything to do with the man who's been with Southwest since its inception, Herb Kelleher. His down-to-earth, "everyman" demeanor has endeared him to the airline's employees. His zany antics have helped set the tone for the airline's offbeat culture. One outrageous incident was his arm-wrestling showdown with the CEO of Stevens Aviation in 1992. Both Stevens and Southwest were using the advertising tagline "Plane Smart." To settle the matter, Kelleher suggested an arm-wrestling competition with the winner keeping the rights to the slogan. Kelleher lost the match, but the event generated so much good will and publicity that Stevens let Southwest continue use of the tagline."
From [note: beware of slashdot induced spaces]:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/i
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.
First, this current case isn't really a trademark case. It's a breach of contract case.
A long long time ago Apple Music sued Apple Computers when Apple Computers included sound cards in its computers. The case never went to trial and the parties entered into a settlement. Apple Computers agreed not to enter into the music business.
Now Apple is in the music business, which means that the settlement has been breached.
Secondly, I decided to check out iTunes to see how prominate the word "Apple" is used. First, the url for the store is http://www.APPLE.com/itunes/ and secondly, the name on the top left of the browser is "APPLE - iTunes." Emphasis added.
If Apple Computers were smart it would have spun off an entirely separate corporate entity for the iPod and iTunes store.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Except they've registered domains like http://applemusic.com, and the site shows up under http://www.apple.com/itunes/ ... and if that isn't an effective enough demonstration for you, do an Apple Music search on google and see where you land -- "apple music" is associated with iTunes enough to be the first hit.
Aside from the obvious trademark infringements, it doesn't matter anyway. Apple Computer signed agreements with Apple Corp last time this happened, stating that Apple Computer would not enter the music business. End of story. Apple Computer is in breach of contract.
>Well, they don't have control Not ENTIRELY true. While Jackson/Sony do own the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog (Northern Songs Ltd), The Beatles (Apple Corps and I believe EMI) still retain the recorded rights. Which translates to Apple Corps getting money for every Beatles item (albums, authorized merchandise, ...)
So, Apple Computers would still indeed need to make friendly with Apple Corps (and NOT Jackson) to sell the music catalog.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
That's just sick, bro.
For those of you who don't know, Mrs McCartney only has one leg. She lost one after being hit by a speeding police car.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Too late
-- &&
It took me a few seconds to figure out what you were talking about. At first I thought you meant to say that John Lennon was rolling in his grave. But then I remembered, Paul is dead.
Mod me -1 Slow-thinker. But give me a break, I'm on cold medication...
It comes down to the fact that Apple did break the agreement. 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
This goes back way farther than that. The Apple IIgs and the Mac itself came under fire from Apple Corps simply by having sound systems advanced enough to play music with. It just escalated from there as more technologies, like QuickTime, were piled on.
8==8 Bones 8==8
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.
WTF does Vivendi have to say about it? They don't have an interest in either the Beatles music or Apple Computer. EMI is the Beatle's record company. (Apple Corps is simply the holding company for the Beatles.)
Last time I checked, you can't buy something unless the owner wants to sell it to you.
Check again. Don't know if Apple Corps is a publically traded company, but your supposition is not correct on its face.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."
In the Apple Computer forum on the net's premier techie BBS, probably not. I like Apple computers and OSX, and I know I'll get modded down into oblivion for saying anything critical of Apple Computer here in the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field forum, but c'mon.
In the context of music publishing, yes, if someone says, "They're on Apple" I think "Apple Records." And so do lots of other people, especially those who are, oh, about Steve Jobs's age. Let's not pretend he's innocent in all this - he was coattailing off the Beatles for cheap publicity from the beginning.
Apple [Computer] isn't making money by the association with Apple Records or the Beatles.
Au contraire. They counted on it in the early days.
Those of us old enough to remember can recall that Steve Jobs obviously knew damn well what he was doing when he chose the Apple Computer name and logo - he even admitted at the time that it was derivative of the Beatles' label. Apple Records was still active (and still are), pressing not Just Beatles, but also Lennon's stuff, and Badfinger, and a few other then-current acts. Jobs intentionally created the trademark collision, intending to reach the settlement (computers, no music) that he did, in order to get the Apple Computer name in the papers, Barnum-style. It worked, and wasn't a bother until computers started getting sound.
I think the contract was an asshat thing to do.
The contract was an inevitable end-result of Jobs's naming strategy. It was his endgame. The asshat thing to do was rip off someone else's trademark (Apple) in the first place, creating this perpetual problem for himself. And especially, doing it with the 800-lb gorilla that is The Beatles. Given the history, Apple Records is quite justified in smacking Jobs any time he comes anywhere near the music biz.
Maybe Jobs thought Apple Records would eventually slow-fade to groove noise, sound the dog whistle, lift their needle and go back in the jacket, leaving Apple Computer free and clear with the name. Jobs's big screw-up was that his name crash prevents Apple Records from ever dying; they have a perpetual lawsuit against him, and he ends up having to pay to keep them alive so they can sue him again another day. Apple Records is not going to fold, and they're not going to let Apple Computer off the hook in perpetuity for precisely this reason.
Anyway, what does Apple Records do? Among other things, it produced LPs and now produces CDs - in other words, it takes recorded music and makes it available to listeners, in a format that will play on their household music reproduction equipment. What does Apple Computer do with iTunes? They take recorded music, and make it available to listeners, in a format that will play on their household music reproduction equipment. Uh-oh...
Even without the contractual agreement that resulted from Jobs's name-collision publicity stunt back in the '70s, this parity in purpose would put iTunes in a very bad spot on its own. Nice name you got there, Jobs. Too bad it's already in use in the chosen market space.
The Beatles catalog is the Holy Grail of downloadable music services. Right now, no one has them. The bidding war for the exclusive right to distribute THE FREAKING BEATLES is going to be intense, and if you think Apple Records is going to roll over and let Apple Computer buy them out, think again. All Apple Records has to do is sit back and tell the bidders, "You Know My Name (look up the number)" and watch the millions add up. They're not just going to sell out easy. They'll probably end up with the iPod profits, leaving Apple Computer with exactly zero for all their hard work on iPod + iTunes (since Jobs admits that iTunes is break-even - Apple Computer sells the razors, the RIAA sells the blades, and we all know how that goes).
The moral of the story is, when starting a business, choose a name that isn't already in play. Steve danced, now he's going to have to pay the band.
" The Beatles don't own all their music. Sony and Michael Jackson own some of it."
You are confusing the publishing rights of Beatles songs with the actual Beatles recordings of those songs. The publishing rights (owned by Whacko Jacko) provide control over (and royalties from) third party artists who want to perform/record songs that were written by The Beatles. They do not give Whacko ownership of the actual recordings made by The Beatles themselves and they do not provide him with royalties from the use of the songs by the (surviving) Beatles either.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
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!
I'm not exactly sure, but I believe you have it backwards, protiens are easier to digest then carbs. Animals that can break down carbs and complex-carbs are most likely more evolved digestivly... That's how the evolutionary trend looks anyway.
:wq