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.
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
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.
>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
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.
" 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!"