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 >
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".
I hope Apple Loses!
They're obviously in the wrong here.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.)