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 ...
Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols
Shouldn't that be iDols?
*ducks*
Free XBox, PS2
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
Paul McCartney must be rolling in his grave.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.