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
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
Couldn't Apple just spin off the music part into a separate operating company like "iTunes, Inc." and be done with it?
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.
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.
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
They signed a contract saying they wouldn't do something.
They did that something.
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.
First, your argument does not matter because there is no question that Apple breached the settlement. This new case is NOT a trademark case it is a breach of contract case. If you truly were an attorney, you'd know the difference.
Secondly, the Beatles HAS released new music. Check out allmusic.com and you'll find that the Beatles has released MANY new CDs since their breakup.
Thirdly, it does not matter if the Beatles released new music or not. Since Apple is still selling the OLD CDs they are still in business.
This is NOT an instance where Apple music has abandoned its trademark, it is still being used every day to generate millions of dollars.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
No, I'm old, ugly, but intelligent. First, I don't ever remember a time when the Beatle's catalog was out of print. In the 60s and 70s they sold LPs and since the 80s they sold CDs.
Second, even if there was a time when Apple stopped selling music prior to the advent of CDs, it is irrelevant in relation to the settlement signed in the 80s. The current case is a breach of contract case, NOT a trademark case. And even if Apple Computer could have used abandonment of trademark as a defense, it has since thrown such a defense away when it signed the settlement.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."
You don't, but guess what, lots of people do. Millions of people have green apples drawn in their LP labels and CDs, and see the Apple logo and name in the back cover of the albums, in the opening of the DVDs, etc.
I was just going to give you another example with "Vertigo", relating to the music label, and then (only after thinking of the label) I remembered the Hitchcock movie. For tons of other people, they'd think of the movie first, but I'm sure that for a lot of music fans, not.
On the other hand, when my father thinks "Apple", he thinks "fruit".
So don't come saying "Apple"->"Beatles" is unreasonable. It's no less reasonable than saying "Apple"->"Mac".
The filesystem is the package manager
Apple has a history of making stupid agreements. Microsoft won their GUI lawsuit with Apple because of a similar stupid agreement Apple made with MS a few years previously.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
"Apple Music."
Maybe I'm just old, but my first association when I hear those words together is the red and blue albums, with the Apple Records logo on the label.
Apple computers might actually benefit from a perceived connection with Apple Records. More to the point, if Apple totally tanks then any apparent connection between the companies could hurt Apple Corps.
That's why they cut a contract, and that's why the music company is determined to force the computer company to uphold that contract.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Are you on crack? Nobody knows Apple Records? They have been around since 1968 and have been releasing best selling albums and cds throughout. They just released the Beatles' Anthology DVD in April. The Beatles are the best selling band of all time and their music continues to be best sellers no matter how they repackage it.
Apple Corp is in no danger of going out of business (especially since it is owned by some obscenely rich individuals) and is only reprimanding Apple for violating their earlier agreement.
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?
Whereas Apple Computer's violation of an existing contract was the height of morality.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Right. Or. Wrong.
Apple. Computer. Signed. A. Contract. With. Apple. Records.
Apple. Computer. Broke. That. Contract.
It's that simple. Maybe Apple Computers shouldn't, or *needn't* have signed it in the first place. But they did.
That having been said, I hope Apple Computer win, Paul McCartney et al have to pay legal bills, and Macca is bankrupted. Because frankly, I'm sick of hearing about him, his latest honours, his wife, and his tedious disputes with the equally irritating Yoko Ono, when he hasn't done anything musically worthwhile in recent memory.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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?
Well, maybe if she drank a little milk her bones wouldn't have been so fucking brittle.
Vegetarians. Worthless anti-evolutionary bleeding hearts.
Yo, dick, grow a brain. This is Heather McCartney we're talking about, Paul's current wife, not Linda McCartney, his previous one who died of cancer.
If you're going to post dumb AC comments at least try not to be so dumb that you can't get the basic facts straight.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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.
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?
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.
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.
Before we all jump at this (from either direction), does anyone have access to the actual agreement? I know that common understanding is that Apple agreed not to go into the music business, but that's a summary. What's the wording of the contract?
Obviously, Apple's lawyers think it's in their favor.
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.
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!
So, when will Sun sue Sun?