Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-tale-of-two-apples dept.

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."

16 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. What's next? by WarwickRyan · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  2. Gah? by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Gah? by adjensen · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      Or maybe it's because Apple Records (records? what the fug is a record?) haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years? When was the last Badfinger album?

      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.

    2. Re:Gah? by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Agreed.

      Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.

      Disagree.

      The original lawuit was lawyer driven legal harassment. You can't own a common word in countries I know of, except to differentiate your product within its specific class of products. Since there was no chance that tunes from the Beatles catalog could be confused with microcomputers, the original suit had no merit. Apple Computer paid Apple Music a token amount that probably covered part their expenses bringing the suit, which meant the Apple Music's lawyers got their payday. However the lawyer's clients could hardly have been happy walking away from what their lawyers told them was a threat to their trademark, so the laywer extracted from Apple Computer what was then an empty promise: that Apple Computer would stay out of the music business.

      And the substance and letter of that then empty promise is what is at issue.

      Now, if you'll note, Apple Computer is very careful to avoid branding their muisc services as "Apple" music service. It's "iTunes(tm)". The closest you get to associating the words "iTunes" and "Apple" is that there is an "iTunes" page on the apple web site. However, in the store itself, you are running inside the iTunes program, and the web content provided doesn't say "Apple" anywhere in it. This should be surprising; companies running stores usually are drilling their names into your brain at every opportunity. You've got the "Apple Computer" logo on the iTunes program frame, but it never appears inside the content pane. Get it? You are using Apple Computer software to access the music store, but the music end of the business is not branded with Apple Music's name.

      In my view, this is pure sophistry, since you can't readily use the Apple iTunes software with anything but the Apple iTunes store. And Apple knows better than anyone else that the delivery mechanism is part of a unified customer experience -- that's their very strategy. Users don't differentiate between an Apple logo in the window frame and an Apple logo in the content pane.

      So now I think Apple Corps Music has a legitimate trademark beef with Apple Computer; however that's not what's at issue. What's at issue is Apple's promise about staying out of the music business. The question is, did Apple Computer's lawyers cleverly trick Apple Corps lawyers into thinkng they'd agreed to stay out of the music business, when if fact all they did was agree to stay out of the music business as it existed then, to wit: distributing recordings of music on physical media. If so, it was a sneaky (professwional from the lawyer's point of view) thing to do; computer people even then must have been aware that music could be encoded and transmitted digitally without any physical distribution media.

      The thing is, now that they've leveraged their computer business to get into the music business, it wouldn't be hard for Apple Computer to fix the trademark problem. They might have to pay a one time settlement and desist from associating their Apple Computer logo with their music store, which is easy as designing a new iTunes logo and updating their software. But if Apple Corps could sink its teeth into the very business of iTunes, rather than its trade dress, they'd be onto something magnitudes larger. Like the original lawsuit, it's a self-serving abuse of the legal systems put in place to help artists, and by which the Beatles had already profited beyond all but the wildest dreams of greed.

      And it all hinges on exactly how the concept of "staying out of the music business" was worded in the original settlement. I'll bet that Mr. Jobs and his lawyers fleeced those Apple Corps bastards and left them buck-naked in the oncoming snow storm. God help the bastard who meets a smarter bastard.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. How edifying by gowen · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  4. Confusion! by TangoCharlie · · Score: 5, Funny

    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; }
  5. Well if you say you will not go into music and... by johnjones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ?

  6. Court can't play Beatles song? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  7. FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Re:Apple are in wrong by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Funny
    Apple are in wrong
    Absolutely. I hope Apple wins, taking Apple to the cleaners and resolving this issue once and for all in favour of Apple.

    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.
  9. You Never Give Me Your Money by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  10. Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? by aidanjpadden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:Interesting that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It *was* resolved years ago, in 1991: Apple Computers got to use the name so long as they didn't get involved in the music business or set themselves up as a record label. Since that was explicitly set out in the settlement, and was the basis of the agreement, it's hardly surprising that iTunes has got up their nose.

  12. Atlast by dotpavan · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. there is a lawsuit which compares apples to apples :)

  13. Am I the only one who realizes... by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That none of the the iPod or iTunes marketing material uses the trademark "Apple"! At most, they use their trademarked slick stylized fruit.

    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.
    Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.
  14. Re:Apple Corps - New Release Coming 11 April 2006 by uptheriver · · Score: 4, Informative
    In fact, the statement that Apple Corps, Ltd. "haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years?" is inaccurate. There have been MANY, and in fact, the next one will be released on 11 April 2006, The Beatles new box set "The Capitol Albums, Vol. 2."

    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.