Slashdot Mirror
The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes
novus ordo writes "Apple is being sued in London by Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs. This is a third battle over the name 'Apple' in Britain. Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."
Apple seem to be relying on the "It doesn't come on physical media, so it doesn't apply" argument. I wonder if the fact that Apple produced the special U2 iPod (A physical product containing "music") will be held against them.
Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers. The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers, and the stupidity of current trademark legislation.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
err its their fault
AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music )
and now they are acting like a record label
so the courts will hear all the evidance and decide
regards
John Jones
p.s. this is a story ?
If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.
Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.
Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.
RST
What actually do Apple Records do nowadays if they don't hold the back catalogues?
I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?
Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs other media corporation, Disney, to just buy Apple Records?
As for the point of the remaining Beatles licensing the back catalogue to Apple to make available via iTunes, wouldn't it actually be Michael Jackson who would be in the position to do that?
Seeing as he's in financial trouble lately from what you hear with all the news reports maybe it would make commercial sense for Apple Corporation to buy the back catalogue from him, which I think would really wind up the existing Beatles.
Surely as a band they would want to make sure that their music is available to the largest possible userbase. The world has changed since 1960 and this would appear to be the way forward?
Personally, I thought that the Beatles' claim to the original trademark infringement was pretty tenuous. Apple Computer should have fought that one tooth and nail. At this point, it's a lot more relevant, but, again, their basis seems pretty diluted.
At any rate, although Apple Computer (not "Apple") runs the iTunes Music Store, I don't think that they're promoting it as the "Apple Music Store". They should tell Paul, Ringo, Yoko and whoever's running the show for George to cheese off -- it's time to get this monkey off the back, even if it means a long court stint.
Go ahead, search for the word "Apple" on this page:
The fact is, the trademark they seem to be using for anything music related is a stylized fruit, along with the trademarks "iPod" and "iTunes". When have you ever heard a phrase like "the Apple iTunes store". It's just the iTunes store, it's just the iPod, and the posters just use a stylized fruit (sorry, there's no html entity I can insert for it.), which is Apple's trademark.
They can't help having a certain company name, which they don't use in their music business! Not because it wouldn't add value, but because (in music) it's not their trademark to use. They don't infringe.
So I suppose to download music I would go to www.itunes.com, righ? Hmmmm, why look at that, it redirects to www.apple.com. Why, look at the titlebar! "Apple - iPod + iTunes!" No Apple branding there, no siree!
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.