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.
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 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".
"anyway Apple (UK/Beatles) have the right here and they will win"
AFAIK, there are two issues here:
As to the first, I do not think that Apple's use of an Apple logo in the iTunes Music store in any way profits from Apple Record's investment in their trademark. Also, I do not think there is any chance of people mistaking Apple Computer for Apple Records of vice versa here.
As to the second, there were earlier agreements, but they were kept confidentional. The first I ever read about this is "Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," he said." in the CNN article.
I do not know whether that claim is accurate.
In both cases, let's see what the judge thinks of it.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
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.
I disagree. Apple Comp. is not cutting records of bands and selling it. Anyone who thinks the trademark will be caught in confusion is an idiot or a crook. In this case, I think it's obvious. It's easy to hide behind, "We have to defend our trademark" like Apple Corp. but in reality they're either so blindly self-absorbed that they think this is really going to confuse people or they are simply suing because they can. True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed. I'm not sure iTunes constitutes a breach of that. Who knows.
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
The iPod and the iTunes Music Store are definitely not computing products
if you can show us how to use iTunes and the iPod without a computer you are a better man than most of us
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.
You forgot the lesser spotted fark moran.
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.
It isn't that simple, No Brainer. Trademarks exist to protect the consumer and the basis is that one could get the two brands mixed up. Now Apple Records may be pissed off that no one in the US cares about them, Beatles reissues aside, but that doesn't make their case legitimate. While it could be argued that Apple the computer company breached the previous contract, the previous contract should have never needed to be made. Apple isn't using their name to make a publishing company. Should a music store called "Apple Music Store" be denied because of the Apple Records trademark, nooooooooooooo. Nor should a stereo company called Apple Stereos. Only a record company, plain and simple. And..honestly..if you don't think the ipod and itunes are 'computing' products, you need an IQ test.
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.
GP put it wrong. The original Apple vs Apple settlement/court order (I don't remember) specifically stated that Apple computers was allowed to keep using the Apple logo, as long as, and only as long as they didn't do ANYTHING with music. And now they've become a music label by proxy; clearly Apple Corp (the Beatles' label) has 'right on their side'. The only thing I don't understand is how Apple computers could've been so stupid, and why Apple music waited so long with this case.
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*
True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.
It's never been debatable -- Apple Computers was named in homage to Apple Records. Apple Computer either signed the agreement or they would have had to rename the company.
Also, Apple Records was not some obscure outfit. Every Beatles LP had an Apple logo in the center. Every 1970s kid (aka Steve Jobs) knew who Apple Records was. Just because Apple Inc has outmarketed Apple Records in recent years doesn't change the reality of Apple Computer was named.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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.
Apple's not selling music under the Apple name, they're selling it under the "iTunes" name. Unless Apple Records has a trademark on iTunes, Apple Computer has nothing to worry about.
My other car is first.
> Nor should a stereo company called Apple Stereos.
:)
Interestingly, there is a speaker company called McIntosh, and they did have a disagreement (and eventual ca$h settlement) with Apple many years ago.
My other car is first.
Now if Apple Records was still releasing new music, they'd have a case for "brand confusion." But today, any time "Apple" is mentioned to anybody, they rightly associate it with Apple Computer.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
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...
"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.
Yeah, I can see this either way; it's hard to be an armchair lawyer when nobody seems to know the exact details of the original settlement.
But I'd go further with your observation... Apple is selling music, but they are not a music publisher. They are a music reseller, like Tower Records, just in a different format. Even if they used "Apple" in the name of the store, I don't think it should cause problems with the music publisher.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
The fact that Apple Computer owns applemusic.com tells me that Apple Corps has a case.
The binding value of the '91 agreement is exactly why these parties are back in court.
But hey, Coward, nice try: using this case as an example of corporate malfeasance (after all, nobody forced Apple Corp. to accept the out-of-court settlement the first time!).
damaged by dogma
Yeah, but they probably don't want to dictate what happens to the name. My guess is they just want some money from Apple (Cupertino) ;-)
Georg
I would have agreed with you in the past. But their system for for-profit "podcasts" - which is really just digital publishing when you get right down to it - I think definitiely pushes it into the "publisher" or even "label" category.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
No, the Beatles' music label is Apple Corps. People usually call it Apple Corps. Not Apple.
No company should have the right to the word "Apple" - it's a common word. So, as long as the full name of the company is different it should be OK, IMO. No one's going to ever confuse Apple Corps with Apple Computer.
www.linuxpenguin.net
It seems the only reason Apple Corp. still exists is to milk the Beatles songs.
In what way is that illegitimate?
It seems like the "pro-Apple" argument here is that big companies have the right to squat on the trademarks of little companies. At least you guys are being forthright about your approval of bullying.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
IANAL, but That's a pretty simplistic view. The iPod and iTunes ARE computing products. They are not a music label; they do not produce their own music. They are merely selling music players, and don't compete directly with Apple Corps, the music company. Also, there is little to no chance that anyone would mistake the two. When Apple Computer starts signing bands, thats when things could get sticky. Then there is the whole issue of the legality of trying to trademark the name of a piece of fruit in the first place...
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.
Podcasts are usually newscasts or interviews, though, not music. And most podcasts aren't published by Apple - Apple just lets you use the iTunes software to get them. In fact, I don't think any podcasts are published by Apple.
www.linuxpenguin.net
The CB App. What's your 20?
The CB App. What's your 20?
If Apple Records was still an active music label releasing new music, then their case would remain legitimate.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
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
It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where confusion would occur, e.g.:
PERSON A: Who owns the right to distribute Beatles songs?
PERSON B: Apple, I think.
PERSON A: Okay, thanks.
Assuming that Person A has no prior knowledge of Apple Corps' history, who do you think they are likely to assume that Person B meant by "Apple?"
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
As someone else pointed out, Apple Records released some "new" Beatles material that hit #1 in the charts a couple years ago. No use pretending that Apple Records is not an active concern, it's obviously untrue.
That Apple Inc spends more money on advertising is not debatable, but I'm not sure if that should affect who is right or wrong.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Well the Beatles did say:
The best things in life are free
But you can keep them for the birds and bees
Now give me money
That's what I want
No use pretending that Apple Records is not an active concern, it's obviously untrue.
Its not entirely unclear what you against.
It doesn't matter -- you are expending a ton of effort to make a moot point.
Would you ever argue that Apple Computer deserves to lose their trademarks because they "rehashed" the same "old, tired" operating system for the entire 1990s? Of course not -- Apple can do next to nothing and still own "MacOS(tm)" as long as they are still around. It's a ridiclous position to take.
What does matter is that (1) Apple Records was there first, (2) Apple Records is not defunct, and (3) Apple Inc has licenced the trademark for certain fields of endevor from Apple Records.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
What's your point? All that means is that Apple Computer is currently the most relevant company with the Apple moniker and would come to mind far before a record label that primarily distributes 35 year old songs. It's not illegal to have the same name as another company. And it's not illegal to be much bigger than the other similarly named company so that your company generally comes to mind first when the shared name is used. The agreement was that Apple Computer would never become a record label, and they definitely are not a record label. Their services don't overlap the services of Apple Corps in any way whatsoever, so I don't see how Apple Corps. has a case here.
Well, if the lawyer's statements are any indication, the iTunes store is exactly what this is about and the guy is going to use the data transmitting defense against them. They better fire this guy before he uses that line or they're going to get bent over harder than Napster.
Xerox received Apple stock in exchange for showing Apple the details of its GUI. It was understood that Apple would apply that knowledge to creating its own GUI for the consumer market which Xerox had no interest in. "Stealing" was not involved.
As I understand the music disagreement, Apple Comp's position is that they are allowed to distribute digital content through their 1991 settlement. Apple Corp's position is that the current shift in the music business to non-physical media has changed the music climate and the settlement should allow for that.
I'd just point out that Apple's position on DRM has been decidely pro consumer. The "little guy stealing" you claim "Jobs" is against have quite a bit of freedom WRT Apple products. The iPod and iTunes happily play non-DRM'd music (iTunes even plays OGG with a codec extension). Apple has not gone out of their way to prevent users from copying DRM AAC music. There are numerous solutions for removing the DRM. Apple even featured your "victim" in the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad campaign which I'm quite certain Steve-o signed off on.
I have never called them that. In my world it has always been Apple records or just Apple. I seldom refer to Apple computers as Apple computers. I refer to them as Macs or G5s ;)
Actually someone might confuse Apple Corps with Apple computers but I doubt they will confuse them with Apple records.
I don't make a penny off this but the Apple Corps thing rang a bell. House was the bell. It is a good book (as is The Soul of a New Machine) and Apple Corps were the contractors building the house.
They haven't been sued yet.
Yeah, I know... music.... houses.... no connection and no one is going to confuse the two.
Apple Computer.... Apple records.... Apple sells music.... Apple sells Beatles music... Apple doesn't sell Beatles music... my brain hurts!
Anway, I seem to recall somewhere where the agreement stated that Apple (the computer one) would not sell physical media. Can't find any evidence at the moment.
From TFA: Apple Corps was started by The Beatles in 1968 and is still owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison.
The last I heard they don't need any money.
Back in 1970 Paul sued the others over a money issue. Read the part about Allen Klein.
Today they are worth a lot of money.
So who wants the money from the suit? I would guess it is not one of the original Beatles.
qz
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...
. . . that was exactly the point I was trying to make. . .
www.linuxpenguin.net
But when revenues continue to come in, that counts as active.
qz
Except, the settlement between Apple and Apple back in the 90s didnt prohibit Apple from creating software or hardware to play music, if I recall correctly - they just couldn't become a music publisher/music label. Apple computer already paid millions in their settlement, and as far as I know has not voiltated their agreement.
How do you get "G5" from "Apple Computer"? I could see you calling them "Apple" maybe, but. . .
"Actually someone might confuse Apple Corps with Apple computers but I doubt they will confuse them with Apple records."
. . . you do realize that Apple Corps and Apple Records are both the same company?
"Apple Computer.... Apple records.... Apple sells music.... Apple sells Beatles music... Apple doesn't sell Beatles music... my brain hurts!"
Apple doesn't sell Beatles music.
Neither Apple sells Beatles music. Apple Corps doesn't sell Beatles music - in fact, they don't sell music at all. Apple Computer is the one that sells music.
"So who wants the money from the suit? I would guess it is not one of the original Beatles."
I'm guessing it's Yoko.
www.linuxpenguin.net
Do any of you think that one would not get sued beyond belief if, for example, one tried to open a restaurant with the name Microsoft, because the hamburger buns that the restaurant serves it's hamburgers on are "Micro Soft"? If so, I have a bridge to sell to you!
Just out of interest, what's Apple Corp worth these days? Little enough to be bought by Apple Computer?
Well, we have Mary Hopkin way back when.
Then we have Badfinger. Looks like their first five albums were on Apple records. I happen to like Badfinger. I have Magic Christian Music on vinyl unopened. I suggest this one. It was a boot they released themselves with little or no enhancement. Great live music!
But I can't think of any more. I thought Klaatu was but was mistaken.
Just google around. You find some interesting related stuff.
But yeah, nothing recent.
qz
Where I work we have Macs and PCs. No one refers to a Mac as an Apple. We call them G5s because we have some G4s and need to identify the model sometimes.
Anyway, a mac is a Mac, not an Apple in our house. ;)
. . . you do realize that Apple Corps and Apple Records are both the same company?
Uh, yeah, and Apple computers is a corporation and Apple Records is but most won't associate Apple Corps with a record company. Just my opinion.
Apple doesn't sell Beatles music.
Which one?
Neither Apple sells Beatles music. Apple Corps doesn't sell Beatles music - in fact, they don't sell music at all. Apple Computer is the one that sells music.
Gotcha! Apple computers sells music. Apple Corps/Records, the music company, doesn't.
But you may have a point. I can't find any references at the moment that Apple Corps does anything but own an apple logo and sue Apple computers.
Didn't Michael Jackson buy the Beatle copyrights?
So what does Apple Corps really own except a name and apple logo?
I'm guessing it's Yoko.
My guess is it is not.
Japanese born Yoko Ono is not only John Lennon's widow with a net worth of $775 million, she is a granddaughter of billionaire Zenjiro Yasuda, one of Japan's top zaibatsu industrialist leaders. Yasuda Bank had the largest deposits in Japan at the end of World War II. Yoko's father worked for Yokohama Specie Bank in Hanoi from 1941-1945. After World War II ended, the zaibatsu cartels (defined) that backed and built Japan's war machine were broken up. More on Yoko Ono. See Yoko Ono, Hero of Gun Control. For more on Yoko's grandfather Zenjiro Yasuda, see Yasuda Zaibatsu, now Fuji Bank.
qz
.....So who wants the money from the suit?.....
That's easy -- it's the lawyers. No matter who wins or loses a lawsuit, the lawyers of both sides always get most of the money involved. There are too many lawyers and that's why there are so many lawsuits of of every kind.
All theory is gray
.....the restaurant serves it's hamburgers on are "Micro Soft".....
I could open a restaurant that sell "Milli-Soft" burgers though. They'd still be pretty soft even though 1000 times harder than the Micro kind.
All theory is gray
songs (and other Apple artists) electronically, as Apple Computer will own those rights.
I can see why they might not like that prospect.
-- Andyvan
Anyway, a mac is a Mac, not an Apple in our house. ;)"
*sigh*. Yes, the computer itself is usually called a Mac or a G5. As it should be. But Apple Computer (the company) is usually referred to as Apple or Apple Computer. You don't refer to Apple Computer as Mac or G5.
"Uh, yeah, and Apple computers is a corporation and Apple Records is but most won't associate Apple Corps with a record company. Just my opinion."
What? Apple Records = Apple Corps. How are you not going to associate Apple Corps with Apple Records - they're the same.
www.linuxpenguin.net
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
I don't know anyone who refers to Apple as Apple computer. They just say "I bought an Apple" or "I bought a Mac/G5" or "I bought iPods for everyone this year for Xmas." or "I bought an iBook for my kid."
It's kinda weird really. Saying "I bought a Powerbook" is different than saying "I bought a Dell laptop."
What? Apple Records = Apple Corps. How are you not going to associate Apple Corps with Apple Records - they're the same.
Maybe because I am old and it has always been Apple records to me. Apple Corps has never entered my reality.
To be honest I haven't put much thought into it, and probably heard the term Apple Corps in the past, but I can't recall any such term. It has always been Apple Records in my world. I know about the the clothing stores and electronics stuff but that was way back when I was in high school.
Rats! Now they know how old I am.
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)
Which was?
2 - If i have to read the f-ing article instead of the summary, then the summary is bad, not my fault.
Got it! I am too lazy to read the article because I trust the summary (which, I might add, was so far off the mark as to be out of the ball park altogether.)
Therefore I can contribute to the discussion with absolutely no clue as to what it is really about.
Does that about sum up your comment?
Oh, BTW, in case you don't know /. is well known for inaccurate summaries.
3 - goto hell.
You forgot to mention Nazis. Rewrite and submit again.
Thanks.
qz
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.
Not true. Apple Computer has the right under the last settlement to be in the music business. They do not have the right to distribute music on CDs or other physical medium. This case is about that. Does the Internet constitute a physical medium and if so, is Apple Records being damaged by Apple Computer using it to distribute music.
I think the actual case is fairly interesting. The judge could set quite a precedent here on distribution via electronic means.
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)
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
I'm sure Apple Insurance would disagree with you.
Trademark law doesn't have an issue with different companies with the same name, in different fields. That's why you can have an Apple Computer, an Apple Records, and an Apple Insurance, and an Appleby's restaurant.
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?
wrong - go fuck off back to Digg with the other fuckwits
Apple has sold many different series of computers over the years, of which the Mac is only one.
...am I missing anything?
Apple I
Apple II series
Lisa series
Macintosh series
Pippin
Newton series
iPod series (it has a HD and runs an OS)
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'
You'd be surprised how many people (particularly the less-technical) refer to Apple as Mac. i.e. "I'm on the phone to Mac now". I would say more people say Apple Computers though instead of Apple Computer. Suppose it is a tricky one to remember. I used to have terrible problems running Microsofts Window on my Dells Computerssess.
-- Using the preview button since 2005