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."
The Pope sueing anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?
Bill Borg sueing anyone who has the ordacity to install "Outside Viewing Portals" in their home?
I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.
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.
I don't see how Apple Computers is in anyway confusing people away from the Apple label. When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles. I think of frustration at using a crappy piece of software [in light of things like GNUpod] and horrible DRM.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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
I must admit, When I hear "All you Need is Love" on the Radio, I
immediately think: "Wow that was a good record by Steve Jobs! Why
he ditched music and went on to start a computer company is completely
beyond me!" Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
Jobs at all... it was Woz! Sheesh I'm an idiot!
return 0; }
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 ?
From the article -- "The court will be treated to a demonstation of an iPod, but it is unlikely to play a Beatles song, as they have not been licensed for download and it would therefore be illegal." How is that true? I checked the iTMS and there are 16 Beatles songs available, including the appropriate-for-this-lawsuit track "Baby You're a Rich Man." Are they just off base or is there something I'm missing here?
It should also be mentioned at this point that Beatles->Apple are obliged to take action against Jobs->Apple over the trademark infrigement, otherwise the trademark will be automatically nullified.
Just so you know, The Beatles were a popular beat combo in the 1960's and 1970's, Apple was the name of their record label at the time.
'Records' were large black circular discs with grooves in them made from Vinyl, a metal needle would run over the disk and make sounds (mostly popping and scratching sounds).
Vinyl is a fragile black plastic that was popular at the time.
There were no video games back then, which is why music was so popular.
The great thing is, after this lawsuit is over, whatever the outcome, you and I will be able to say "I told you so." ;-)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
and in the middle of negotiations
you break down
I never give you my number
I only give you my situation
and in the middle of investigation
I break down
Baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man too.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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?
I would think, after being successfully sued, that indicated "Yes, WE SUCK. Here is some money so you leave us alone!", in which case, Apple Corps couldn't rightfully sue Apple computers for this... again.
That's right. It's like if I punch you in the face and you sue me and win then afterwards I'm entitled to punch you,kick you, run you down in my car etc whenever I like and you can't do anything about it. It's obvious really.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
"Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."
Wrong. They weren't awarded anything. They settled. As far as I know, this didn't even get to court.
.. there is a lawsuit which compares apples to apples :)
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.
List of goods and/or services
Class 09: Sound recording and sound reproducing apparatus and instruments; radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments; video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments; and parts included in Class 9 for all the aforesaid goods.CANCELLED IN RESPECT OF:All goods except sound recording, sound reproducing, radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments and parts for all the aforesaid goods, none being computers or goods of the same description as computers, but not cancelled in respect of video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments. I.e. Apple Records' trademark only covers physical recordings.
I'm not a lawyer, but I sure think that Apple Corps has a great case. There is both precedent where Apple Computer lost and paid damages and there is retention of trademark which is, as stated above, still in active usage.