Slashdot Mirror
On Apple vs Apple
Since nothing else really interesting is happening, here is a CNN story about Apple vs Apple where you can read about the latest developments in the latest round of the never ending court battles as two bazillion dollar companies fight over who gets to use the word 'Apple' to sell music.
Apple (ie the beatles Apple) pulls in around $1million a year
anyway Apple (UK/Beatles) have the right here and they will win, Apple-computers keep trying to twist the case to matters it is not
The ruling in hte 90's basically said Apple-computers to stay away form Music stuff, they have violated that, they will lose, and so they should
Why don't they just cut the logo in half and let them each use half an apple?
echo YOUR_OPINION >
You say you want a revolution?
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But nothing TOO different please. Please don't change the status quo TOO much. Don't rock the boat if you're in it. I don't want to put my music on this interweb thingy...
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
...vs orange?
I like my apples with that yummy caramel stuff.
Applesauce. Sweet.
My photo's.
Apple (the Beatles' music label) had the name first so they should be able to dictate what happens with the trademark when it comes to music, plain and simple. Apple (the computer company) agreed that they would only use the Apple brand for computing products. The iPod and the iTunes Music Store are definitely not computing products, so it looks like they breahced the contract.
The music label should win. It's that simple.
How you like them apples?
My photo's.
I hope Apple wins.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
The CNN article gets a little over-excited about Apple Computer's barrister saying that "even a moron in a hurry" could tell the difference between the two brands.
The lawyer wasn't being gratuitously offensive - the "moron in a hurry" is an established figure in English passing off/trade mark law, like the "man on the Clapham omnibus". The phrase comes from an action for "passing off" (i.e. infringement of an unregistered trade mark) a few years ago, where the court held that there would be no infringement where the only person likely to be confused by two different usages of a mark is the said "moron in a hurry".
Apple Corp is an utterly irrelevant entity that hasn't been a force in the music industry in three decades. I'm willing to bet that a good number of younger Beatles fans have no clue as to who they are. The "threat" Apple Computer poses to their trademark recognition is already nullified by its lack of mindshare. People still love the Beatles' music, but the Apple "label" is just a joke that has slipped out of the minds of many.
Microware's laughable suit against Apple over the "OS-9" / MacOS 9" "confusion" was on more firm ground than this.
Until they create their own music i dont see a problem with apple computer selling music devices ( and itunes ).
They really are not *in* the music business, so they arent hurting apple records, so they should just shut up and appreciate the extra sales they get via beatles songs on itunes.
Just another bloodsucker standing in line to screw the big guy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I wonder if Fiona Apple will be made to change her name some time soon.
Most record companies have welcomed iTunes, because -- unlike pirate music sites -- it protects their copyright and collects a fee. But the Apple vs. Apple dispute means that no Beatles music is available on iTunes.
"We haven't unfortunately been able to persuade Apple Corps in relation to their Beatles catalogue," said Grabiner. "But we have persuaded everybody else."
This dispute has nothing to do with Beatles music being on iTunes. The Beatles music is not available via any digital store, iirc. Yes, a few of the German Tony Sheridan tracks, and 'interview' tracks, but that's about it. The major catalog is not available through any digital download means, not just iTunes. If the Beatles were trying to get back (heh) at Apple Computer, they'd license their material to Napster, or MSN, or Yahoo, or some competing network.
The Beatles have historically been 'behind the times' technologically, what we might call 'late adopters'. For example, their catalog wasn't available on CD until 1987 - years after CDs were accepted as mainstream. Even going back to the 60's, they were one of the last major bands to 'upgrade' to 8 track recording, having recorded practically their entire career on 4 track recording, even though 8 track recording was certainly available earlier.
As an aside, I find it a bit funny that people accuse the Beatles of 'cashing in' every so often. While I certainly feel that way myself occasionally, I have to remind myself there's a lot of opportunity they're sitting on which they could still release and all the hardcore fans and baby boomers would still eat it up. I think they've shown a fair amount of restraint so far. I'm thinking of the hours of live concert footage which is available, for example - there's probably another DVD or two which could be put out, plus remastering all the old albums . Witness the Yellow Submarine remaster - *much* better sounding than the original CD - they could reissue all the original CDs and make still millions more, but haven't (yet?) done so. Maybe they never will?
creation science book
World Wrestling Federation faced a similar suit in the UK, not just over the initials, but over an agreement they signed not use to them internationally. They lost. They were forced to remain themselves to World Wrestling Entertainment.
We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.
The point is moot, but Apple Corps will try to extract some fake fealty from Apple Computer.
The lawyers win. We don't.
Maybe Disney should by Apple Corps.... all in the family, then.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I hope Apple Loses!
They're obviously in the wrong here.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Go open iTMS right now. There is no Apple logo anywhere on the front page or any of their other pre-produced pages. Good thing we need a lawsuit to clear up the status quo.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Rather alot it appears now.
What I find interesting is what this means for the earlier agreements and if they'll have to honour it or not. I find it irritating that if you have enough money you seem to be able to pay your way out of most court cases or ignore what happens or just go through endless appeals so nothing ever gets done.
Interesting to see what an agreement is worth these days
The courts will be irrelevant on this one. Whatever they decide Apple Records will eventually disappear. They produce nothing new except for the continuation of the nostalgia of those aging Sgt. Pepper fans. It's popular music, for God's sake. Even Rudi Vallee fell into obscurity (ask your grandmother about him...) Neither Time nor History are kind to memory; once Jacko bought the catalog the writing was on the wall. Move on with your lives.
Apple sells iPods.
itunes sells music.
isn't this the best argument to make?
I recall that "Sony's" was a restaurant in Hong Kong that predated "Sony" the electronics and music company by many years, yet the latter sued the former for a good deal of money.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
I'm actually surprised that Mcintoshlabs never took exception to apple's use of the brand "Macintosh" that i've been made aware of. Slashdot users who are unaware Mcintosh is a brand name for highfi equipment. To me it's the same issue with apple records, sort of a problem before Apple got into audio, but huge confusion after apple got into audio.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Looks pretty close.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
It would seem that apple corps really will be laughed out of court. Apple corps probably hasn't sold 2 records in the past decade.... Legally they are probably squatting on the name.... and that is grounds for a suit to be named later. I thought, I heard in the distance, this is the inroad for Sir Paul to seat his ass on the Apple computers B.O.D.? We all know apple corps was a flash in the pan record company that only exists as an "honored guest" in todays music word.
Sig Hansen?
Now that the two Apples are dueling it out, what's next? Let me guess, I can't listen to the White Album on my (black) iPod nano? Hmm, as soon as I can find someone to keep saying “number nine... number nine...” we'll have to show them what a revolution really looks like!
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Jobs obviously has an abundance of business "trade skills" - everyone else in the entertainment business seems to have their feet buried in concrete - and move at that speed. However, why Jobs keeps "stealing" is beyond me - from the original GUI on down the line - to the music business copyright of Apple. I'm sure part of the excuse is that everybody else in the entertainment industry cheats, and steals - so why not!
I always laugh when Jobs and the rest of the entertainment elites start to cry foul when some kid does what they (the elites) do everyday of the week - stealing, screwing everything that moves financially. The one difference is that at least Jobs has some balls compared to the rest of the elites - and sometimes make things happen - although seldom in the best interests of the consumer or the artists.
You forgot the lesser spotted fark moran.
Imagine there's no lawyers...
John's spinnin' in his grave I tell ya... Bloody wankers..
Since nothing else really interesting is happening...
:-D
That's because all the interesting news happened yesterday.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
It's a shame to see the comments thus far. There are the usual appologists, "Apple (Computer) can do no wrong!" and some decent guessing, but without the terms of the contract to inspect, everything happening is speculation on the behalf of readers.
My understanding from what I have read is this is not a trademark dispute, but rather a contract dispute, which will be governed by different aspects of the law. There are some important unanswered questions:
1. What are the material terms of the contract?
2. What was the duration of the contract? US law requires a finite duration, otherwise it's valid for a "reasonable" amount of time (How's that for vague!).
If I permit myself to do some speculation, I'd suspect Apple Comp is treading on dangerous ground. They know and have known this, hence the contract in '92. It's not a tough argument to make for Apple Corp. We, Apple, sell music. They, Apple, sell music. See the confusion? Apple Corp, was there first and had first use and trademark. Most any lawyer ought to be able to make that argument successfully. But this isn't about the trademark, it's about the details of that contract, which I haven't seen in the article.
And a note to the applogists: I don't think Apple Corp is doing anything wrong. They have an established business that predated Apple computer. They are attempting to enforce the esisting contract with Apple Comp. Good for them, everyone should be held to their word.
"We" as in technology savvy people know the difference. What if you have some technophobe guy who grew up on the Beatles and Apple records who stumbles on iTunes and sees "Apple"? The first thing he's going to think of is Apple Records, because, duh, he's looking at music. He'll assume that Apple Records started the web site and is licensing music from other labels as well.
Remember, Apple Computer is only 3% of the market. There are LOTS of people who have never heard of Apple nor have ever seen a Mac (I know that's hard to believe from Mac fans whose lives revolve around the company).
Trademark cases are all about confusion, and there is clear potential for confusion here.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
...Apple Computer pushes their own brand, logos, and so on, and are known for that, and justifiedly so. People see a stylish computer and see "oh, built by Apple." People see a stylish music player. "oh, built by Apple." They see a nice web music store. "Built by Apple, of course".
But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?
Record labels don't need their names to market themselves. They can rake in money without making their names hot hot hot - they have the artists to draw the attention. When the spotlight hits them, they can just grin and say "oh, the CDs we made for this lovely band are in stores as we speak, please go buy them!"
Or are they just starting to make a web music store of their own? Heck, just do what everyone else is doing these days: Start a new web music store with a separate, distinct brand.
I have a heap of music here and I can barely remember what record labels made them. Mostly because the record labels in question were major idiots. =)
Well, just a hypothetical question: in a lawsuit in London, what do you think who has more chance to win: someone who has the music of the Beatles, or someone from overseas "trying to steal their name" ? I guess another out of court cash agreement is more likely again.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Apple Comp. is not cutting records of bands and selling it.
So their business is not growing but they still are in business. Are you arguing that the small businesss should roll over and accomodate the wishes of the larger growing corporation? That is in fact what you are arguing whether or not you had intended to do so. True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.
(1) So you are arguing that large corporation are above the law, that they may enter into contracts when convenient and break them without consequence when convenient to do so? Perhaps when what has changed is merely that they are now far stronger and their opponent far weaker? That is in fact what you are arguing whether or not you had intended to do so.
(2) "Never should have been signed"? How self serving a conclusion, have you considered that Apple Computer was about to *lose* the case and the settlement was the less risky alternative?
I own a Mac, I own an iPod, I will most likely own more in the future. However liking the products does not mean liking the corporation. Apple is every bit as evil as MS, they have merely had fewer opportunities and they have much much better public relations. The later can't be hurt by Jobs being a saleman rather than a geek like Gates.
Since nothing else really interesting is happening....
And he wonders why people complain about story quality. Here's a hint for some extra material. Search user journals for "rejected submission".
May the Maths Be with you!
Go open iTMS right now. There is no Apple logo anywhere on the front page or any of their other pre-produced pages. Good thing we need a lawsuit to clear up the status quo.
Are you basis this on what a Mac advocate told you, sure you have not actually run iTunes? After launching iTunes and selecting the Music Store I find a big black Apple logo.
We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.
Apple Computer has a website, Apple Corps does not. *boggles*
I just came up with the most amazing idea. There are clearly no damages to apple corp in this case, itunes only benefits from using apple computer's reputation, apple corp is as irrelevant as can be. Yet apple corp has already managed to squeeze a bit of money out of apple comp. Clearly the only things that determine whether or not you win a case are the size of your target and the amount of publicity you get. So I am going to start a company that tries to predeict what software companies are going to name future releases of their software. We will also try to predict what businisses will be computerized next and strategically name a company so that by the time apple, microsoft, google, yahoo, or whoever comes around, there will already be a company in that field with their name attatched to it. Then we'll sue major companies and pay off the press to print front-page articles about our cases. I'll be rich. Imagine if Blinds-to-go had changed its name to Windows 2000 in 1999. Our first projects will be Vista Records, Vista Productions, Vista Search, etc. Maybe we're too late to take advantage of Vista, but its worth a try.
Instead, iTunes commands a dominant marketshare, an Apple product. The Beatles (and other artists represented by Apple Corps) used to have quite a marketshare. Time marches on for the Apple Corp catalog. Apple makes products in numerous markets. A specious 3% citation serves no purpose except to cough a number that looks like the damn lie of statistics. If you're quoting Gartner or another one of the wooly analyst firms, I'll question you still further.
Sure, there can be nominal confusion. But Apple Records is a brand, and so are any number of other labels-- distinct from other trademarks associated with their name. Capitol Records is confused with Washington DC? Maybe Smuckers should sue Def Jam? I don't think so. The entire trial and tribulation is for lawyers. The titans clash while we just go on our merry way. I'll buy Beatles music from iTunes when Apple removes DRM; I don't believe in their DRM methodologies. Otherwise, my Apple Corps vinyl (yes, I still have some) works, as do my CDs. And I have Apple computers, among many others.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Computer companies or services names Apple Macintosh Apricot Orange Strawberry Tomato Word Office Money Draw Graph Elements Windows Steam Valve Notes and there are hundreds more...
You didn't mention what government agency it was that you worked for - what was it again?
"While all that might be true, it doesn't change the fact there's some sort of contract between the two."
I would think it would affect the damages a hell of a lot. Since the monetary damage for using a trademark from a company nobody has heard from for decades must be nearly zero.
Maybe that should be another area of reform for Copyright/Trademark/Patent, namely a license to an IP right automatically doesn't extend beyond the IP right it licenses.
IANAL
...but has anyone seen or read the ACTUAL complaint? Everyone is speaking up in this forum as if they KNOW what this is all about. So far, everyone seems to have the same hearsay information that I have (from the media). Is there a place where people with some intelligence can read the actual complaint to see what this is really about?
Frankly, I think Apple Corp. is being quite juvenile as they were before the 1991 agreement was signed. In the U.S., I don't know a single person that associates the Beatles with anything but the name Beatles, so the whole Apple v. Apple thing was the Beatles just trying to generate revenue and publicity for a company that nobody knows about anyway! It sounds like the same thing all over again. F**k Paul McCartney! F**k him right in the ear, and Ringo too! I hope Apple Computer wins this one.
What Apple Computer should do is ally themselves with Gene Simmons. Gene could then unleash the KISS Army against Apple Corp, and it would all be over real quick.
Cd's were hardly mainstream in 1987. There were pricey toys. It wasn't until 1988/1989 that CD's became the mainstream format.
The one that hit him on the head while he was formulating his theory of gravity.
There is even the earliest ad for Apple computer to attest this which shows Newton sitting under an apple tree holding up the happle that just bonked him in the noggin.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
the Apple (Computers) name and the bite taken out of the logo, are in tribute to the father of computer science who was persecuted by the british government for being gay, and committed suicide by eating a poisoned apple.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
I hope they both win. I'd like to see a behind the scenes settlement, followed by a special Beatles iPod and promotional campaign for the first digital release of Beatles music, with Steve Jobs and Paul McCartney on stage together, promoting Beatles music and the iPod. Apple Comp and Apple Corp should seek to promote (not protect) their common interests. This is what music fans want. It's in their best interest to settle this dispute quickly and without making either of the two Apples look bad.
heh, i had the same idea and am almost done turning in my copyright application for 'OS XI'. (and i am also grabbing 'OS 11', in case you are starting to get any funky ideas now...)
My sig has been answered.
are that Apple Computer will not distribute music on physical media, which they've never done and probably have no intention or desire of doing so.
Umm, actually, they very well do if they're poorly calculated and impresicely placed demolitions charges. Witness the demolition of the Baptist East Memorial hospital here in Memphis. A couple of people were hurt (only a couple flecks of debris in the face, nothing severe) even though they were several hundred feet away from the demolition.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
One is music, the other a city. Different contexts.
Maybe Smuckers should sue Def Jam?
One is a food product, the other is music. Different contexts.
Trademark is all about context. If Apple is in the context of music, there is clear potential for confusion. That you're not confused says only that you're familiar with both products, but a reasonable person could be confused by "Apple Music", but could not reasonably be confused by your silly comparisons above.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The CB App. What's your 20?
The CB App. What's your 20?
In other news the Marine Corps http://www.usmc.mil/ is expected to sue http://www.marine-electronics.net/ Marine-Electronics for using the word "Marine" and logos that relate to water. The Marine corps had sated in an earlier suit that Marine Electronics was not allowed to enter the water.
(not only funny but, insightful too)
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Apple Corps represents a specific set of signed artists. They may add some, they may dump some. Their business is to sell media made by their contracted artists. Good for them.
Apple Computer sells computers, servers, operating systems, accessories, and resells licensed content from major media contract holders. They have no contracts of their own. They sell just about everything except the company mentioned in the above paragraph.
Are the contexts congruent? Vaguely. Apple Corps, in my opinion, is attempting to extort from Apple Computer.
Neither one of them have ANYTHING TO DO WITH APPLES THAT GROW ON TREES. Nothing at all. So, both have ficticious business names. One represents contracted artists and 'properties' that are manifested through various media. The other sells a variety of products, including reselling media of *artists they don't represent in any other way*.
The contexts? Vaguely congruent, but in a world where trademark law is not only squishy but undeniably insane, but the world will run out of words to trademark one day-- another problem. Is Apple Networks (I made this up) also going to be a litigation target? Although I'm hypothocating, it could. And it would be just as silly and attorney-enriching as the Corps vs Computer argument. Yes, as mentioned in other posts, there's the Orange, Pear, and perhaps Tomato arguments to be made, too. Go tangential and cite cybersquatting.
Turn another corner and get into replicas.... undoubtedly a bad thing to do. But Apple Computer doesn't seek to replicate anything that Apple Corps does. Therein lays the crux of the problem.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
should fix the problems nicely ;)
still, that would give steve jobs a whole lot of control over the enternainment world. whats next? timewarner?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Doesnt pervert Mike own the rights to the beatles music?
I wonder if he'll get paid from this....
outcome in this case appears to be that Apple Inc will need to remove their logo from the iTunes program and maybe pay some money.
I think this is the whole point of this lawsuit: "Yay! Free money!"
You can't take the sky from me...
qz
Just out of interest, what's Apple Corp worth these days? Little enough to be bought by Apple Computer?
Isn't mac and apple sort of the same thing?
Sort of?
1 - The fact they dont have beatles tunes on itunes does not negate the concept i was talking about.
2 - If i have to read the f-ing article instead of the summary, then the summary is bad, not my fault.
3 - goto hell.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
songs (and other Apple artists) electronically, as Apple Computer will own those rights.
I can see why they might not like that prospect.
-- Andyvan
I did find the end amusing.
One solution that has been touted in the latest Apple tussle is to have McCartney join the board of Apple Computer, ensuring that Beatles tracks are available on iTunes.
Heh. Like Sir Paul really cares about any of this crap.
So he joins and agrees to sell the songs for the Apple price. So he doesn't and does the same.
Who really cares how or if The Beatles songs make it to iTunes. Or not.
OMG!!!!! OMG!!!!! BEATLES!!!! THEY ARE SOOOOO CUTE!!!!!! ALMOST AS CUTE AS PONIES!!!!! OMG!!! OMG!!!!
Sorry. It musta been a flashback of some sort. From ze war.
qz
A "moron" is now "mild" mental retardation or "educable mentally retarded".
Get your eraser out - "retarded" is now considered offensive by the PC cops. It was "educable mentally handicapped" for the last two weeks of January, but then "mental" and "handicapped" came to be considered offensive so now the correct term is "we're all exactly the same".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Usually, people listening to music don't care much about the label making it. Even so, Apple Records hasn't made the Beatles for many years. As proof, I found a Beatles record to see what it said. It had "EMI" in moderate-sized letters(but still incredibly small compared to the actual record) and "Apple" in small letters the size of the rest of the printing of the lyrics. Also, my Green Day shirt has "GREEN DAY" in huge letters, and you can barely see "(c) 2005 Reprise Records" because it's in the font sleazy businesses use for small print.
And I doubt he's never seen a Mac. Surely he's passed by a computer store, maybe on his way to buy more Beatles records which rarely mention Apple except in fairly small print one has to go looking for to find.
Oh, and in footnoteness, this is about a breach of contract--basically whether Apple's distribution of music files under the name iTunes counts as physical media because most of the AACs put on iTMS are primarily distributed on CDs. I think that it's not a breach of contract, but our opinions don't matter, only the judge's does.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
When Apple first started way back when, they went to Apple Records and paid a settlement, with the agreement they would't have anything to do with music. Then the iPod, same thing, and the agreement was it would have nothing to do with distribution of actual music. Apple (US) is just pushing their luck as far as they can. For the record, those Beatles anthologies have the little Apple logo. And Apple itself had more than just the Beatles - oh sure, they were a boutique kinda label, but Jackie Lomax and Mary Hopkin...great stuff. And Apple just put out a great Mary Hopkin reissue I highly recommend (save the modified track sequence, but nothing a program button can't fix)
Last time I checked 30 + 7 = 37. So where is the remaining 62 cents going? Let us imagine that for each track sold Apple gets 30 cents and the label providing the track gets 69 cents. You seem to be saying that it is Apple that is screwing the artists, but Apple is not responsible for determining how much an artist gets paid. That still falls to the label.
30/7 x 100 -Apple makes 428% of what artist makes.
62/7 x 100 - Label makes 886% of what artist makes.
62/30 x 100 - Label makes 207% of what Apple makes.
Who is doing the screwing?
If you would like to sell your music on the iTunes Music Store you can fill out an application and, pending acceptance, do so without a label. I am sure the artist will be getting a much better deal in that case. The only problem there is that you will not have the label marketing machine behind you getting you those juicy front page spots.
iTunes application
I think the actual case is fairly interesting. The judge could set quite a precedent here on distribution via electronic means.
Yes, this is quite an interesting case. But there are two corner stones the judge won't touch. One is Apple Corp owns the trade mark in the music business, the second one iTunes are selling music. I'd love to see Apple winning on just data download but I fear this won't happen. So everything will come down to "does the agreement between the two Apples allow for this". Since this agreement was done at the time where music downloads weren't known and probably is quite un precise about, it will be interesting what the judge decides. If it comes to a decision Apple Computer quite likely will loose but I bet this case will be settled outside of the curt.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
Excellent info! I consider myself rather knowledgeable about most things Beatles, but had not run across this particular aspect of the publishing side of things. Thank you for posting this! If it was from blender, this is probably the article you're talking about, but they only have part of it up. Does anyone have any more info on this?
creation science book
I've got it. No one gets to use it!
Is this a really a word?
... Can't wait until I upgrade to OS 5+6 :-).
wrong - go fuck off back to Digg with the other fuckwits
Fortunately there are competitors coming along - the artist makes 60% of the retail online price on one new site. 7 cents - give me (and artists ) a break!
This isn't about protecting their trademark... these lawsuits started back in the Apple II's heyday, LONG before anyone thought of personal digitized music. At the time, the Apple II was most famously known for Visicalc and playing games. And it had a tone generator that was only capable of beeps and boops. There wasn't ever the possibility of someone confusing Apple Computer with a rock music production company.
No, Apple's fortunes took off in the early 80's, and George Harrison saw an opportunity to seize some easy cash. THAT'S how this started.
> "We" as in technology savvy people know the difference.
Apple, as measured by business journals, reliably has one of the most reliably recognizable trademarks, not just in the United States, but in the world. It is literally up near MacDonalds and Nike, often in the top ten, and generally significantly higher than (for example) Microsoft. I suspect that the chances of there being someone out there who is aware enough to recognize Apple Corps but not aware enough to recognize Apple Computer as distinct from Apple Corps is, perhaps, not sufficiently miniscule that there couldn't be ONE person out there like that, but I doubt there are many more than that.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
it's not Funny, it's true!
my password really is 'stinkypants'