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
Maybe I'm cynical, but, uh, AppleCorp as a megacorp? What's the threshold of calling a company a megacorp?
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.
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."
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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 ?
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...
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.
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!