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.
While all that might be true, it doesn't change the fact there's some sort of contract between the two.
The worst 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. It's not going to shut down their music ventures and doesn't seem like something that people should get too worried about.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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.
According to http://www.roger-russell.com/mcintosh2.htm, the Macintosh Plus had a sticker that read "Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Macintosh is a trademark of McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and is being used with express permission of its owner."
Who sued who? I don't think that Apple Computer ever sued Apple Corp. If I understand correctly, this is the fourth 1time that Apple Records sued Apple Computers since 1981.
Here's a very interesting part from that WP article regarding the 1991 settlement:
"The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials."
It's fair to own a copyright when there could be confusion between two similar companies, so that a second company can't steal the thunder from the first company.
But come on, it's been years since they heyday of Apple Corp. All of my beatle albums have a big "EMI" logo on them. Nobody is going to mistake Apple Computer for Apple Records. This is a cheap attempt for Apple Records to get money from Apple.
For the record, I don't like Apple. But these lawsuits are pretty farging lame.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
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.
Yep, in fact it goes much deeper than that. The reason they're not on iTunes has nothing at all to do with the agreement between Apple Corps and Apple Computer, it has to do with the agreement between Apple Corps and EMI, who own the rights to the recordings of all Beatles songs. Here's the deal: Neil Aspinall, the man who pretty much is Apple Corps, believes that the contract between Apple Corps and EMI does not give EMI digital distribution rights. Their contract is so old that it contains no clauses (in his opinion) that would grant them such rights. In other words, Neal Aspinall wants to be able to put the Beatles songs online directly licensed from Apple Corps, bypassing EMI completely, with the proceeds going 100% to Apple Corps. But EMI won't go down without a fight, and some people believe that if he makes such a move it could be one of the biggest legal battles in the history of the music industry. (EMI believes that the contract language added to allow them sell CDs does include digital distribution rights.) A lot would be at stake, because if Apple won then it could open the floodgates for tons of older bands to examine their contracts and fight for full digital rights because of muddy or unclear contract language. In any case, Aspinall is in no rush. He doesn't want to take on the fight just yet, but also doesn't want to conceed anything yet by signing off on digital rights.
(This information was described in an article about Neil Aspinall that I read at some point last year, I think in Blender magazine.)