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
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?
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, 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?
Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols
Shouldn't that be iDols?
*ducks*
Free XBox, PS2
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?
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
"As it is, Yoko's vagina is a ceaseless money vacuum."
Given this is Slashdot you may want to keep it to terms that the local nerds will know. For example, "As it is, Yoko's mysterious nether region is a ceaseless money vacuum. SCO sucks."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
Waitaminnit... I didn't know the surviving members of The Clash were involved in this litigation! How dare Apple Computer confuse people with their iSandanista product!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Apple Computer has decided to adopt the DBA of
"Lemon Computer", citing "bug problems".
Too late
-- &&
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.
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
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.
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).
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 ?
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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!
So, when will Sun sue Sun?