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.
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!
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.
Looks pretty close.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
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."
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.
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.
Except that their largest audience is on the WINDOWS platform.
Naming products isn't the problem, since it's not called the "Apple Music Store" but the "iTunes Music Store"; the problem is Apple's ownership of it.
Feasibly, Apple Computer could spin off iTunes and the iPod into a separate business. Hovever, the Apple Computer brand is one of the most recognizable in the world, with many millions having been spent on building brand awareness, so it's worth fighting to keep it an Apple-branded product.
It also helps to position future Apple-branded products, because of the success associated with iTMS.
I realize that you can not view any iTMS pages in other browsers. And I realize that the iTMS browser does not allow any content other than Apple's.
It seems like the logo placement is very relevant to this case, and I can't imagine this technical distinction not being made in court.
From what I've read, this case seems to hinge more on the particulars of the agreement both parties made in '91, than on trademark infringement in general.
damaged by dogma
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
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.