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
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".
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
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.
I hope Apple Loses!
They're obviously in the wrong here.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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."
I wonder if Fiona Apple will be made to change her name some time soon.
I don't know, but I would LOVE it if she'd adopt Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.