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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
screw you beatles...
There is no way that anyone on this planet, except maybe the still-completely-self-involved surviving members of the beatles and the money grubbing kin of the dead ones, actually belives that Apple Computer's iTunes service is connected in ANY way to your dumbass company name.
Have your lawyers call 1968, because that's the last time anyone even knew what the fuck your company was called, let alone cared.
In (over)simplified terms, Apple just has to make an economic decision between how much a settlement would cost and how much the Apple brand is worth. If A < B, pay the settlement. If A> B, then spinoff and find a different brand to use for the music-related business.
If you believe their latest 10-Q, the Apple brand is worth about $80 million alone. I wouldn't say that "massively dwarfs" the $25+ million settlement in the first go-round with Apple Corps, but it's still a huge hunk of change.
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.
,there was no real risk of confusion and the law allows them both to be "Apple".
That is completely not the point. The issue is trademark confusion. Apple Records has been around much longer than Apple Computer, but as long as Apple Computer stayed out of the music business
If, however, the iTunes Music Store is associated with Apple Computer, then there's a real risk of people assuming that "Apple Records" or "Apple Music" refers to the online iTMS, which it doesn't. Identity is a powerful force in industries of all kinds, which is why marketing departments exist at all.
My two cents: Apple's gone out of their way to refer to the music store as the "iTunes Music Store" and to avoid putting their company name on it unless absolutely necessary. This is good from a legal sense, and doubtless will work in their favor when courtroom proceedings are taking place.
The Beatles don't own all their music.
Sony and Michael Jackson own some of it.
But, too bad Sony didn't take Jobs up on his offer (and maybe this suit had something to do with him making the offer).
If the Beatles won't take money...they MIGHT take their own music back. If Jobs could get Jackson and Sony to sell the music to Apple....they could give it to Apple Records in return for settling the suit.
In the end it comes down to $$, but I don't think money alone (or maybe it'd take a bunch of money) would liberate the Beatles music.
But, having McCarthy on the board of Apple woudn't be bad. He's got a bunch of power and influence and owns a lot of music personally. (He went on a buying spree after Jacko knifed him by buying his music.)
If the deal came with getting an exclusive for Beatles tunes for electronic sales....it wouldn't be bad.
Still, I don't know UK law...but Apple Records stopped doing business as Apple Records for several years. I don't know why this should mean that Apple Computer owes them a ton of money (some money maybe...but not tons of money).
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.
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.
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.