Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs Apple -- Judgment Day
DaphneDiane writes "According to the Times Online Apple Computer successfully defended themselves vs the suit brought by Apple Corps." If you are looking for background on the case we had talked about it earlier. I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. And, of course, Apple Corp has filed an appeal already.
I hate to see The Beatles lose, but let's face facts: If you could possibly confuse the two, you're likely too dumb to appreciate The Beatles' music and too stupid to figure out how to turn on a computer.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
I'd have to say - why bother. If I'm not mistaken the audience that would download it has P2P'ed them to death, and it'd be too little too late.
Unless they remaster everything - which they're proportedly doing - but the restirctions they're trying to lay down make the recent "big 4" vs iTunes look like a cakewalk.
If you hate the laws, spend your lives trying to get them changed. Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor [emph mine]
You note that companies have 'almost unlimited funds' - they use these funds to:
1) Change the law to suit themselves.
2) Discredit / ridicule those who spend their lives trying to get laws changed.
3) Bury in legalities / court fees those who oppose them.
How can we not hate the companies that do this?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations, but for the simple concept of fair play that has been ignored. It's true that now nobody would confuse the two corporations, but the simple fact that Apple Computer exists is because Apple Corps agreed to let them continue using a name which could (at the time) have been confused, on the condition that Apple Computer not get into the music business. The distinction today is that Apple (computer) has greatly outstripped Apple (corps) is brand recognition. Heck, you may as well take Apple Corps trademark entirely, as the common person would likely mistake Apple (Corps) for the wildly popular international trademark Apple (computer).
My question would be - can Apple Corps start their internet Download Music Store and not get sued by Apple Computer? Is there a potential for mistakes in Apple iDMS and Apple iTMS?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
... because otherwise no-one would remember they exist. There's still a market for Beatles songs, but who cares what the record label is?
... their remaining differences, so I can finally download some Beatles tunes from the iTMS.
Usually in those cases the companies don't use the same name in the same markets - ABC (Australia) could probably be sued by ABC (US) if they started a US TV station called ABC. In some markets the US Budwieser is just called "Bud" becuse the Czech company owns the trademark, although in others they do both use Budweiser. There's also Viz, the American publisher of Japanese comic books, and Viz, the British comic book.
As Apple Corps and Apple Computer both use the trademark in the same countries (in this case the UK), there is a more solid case, but still not much of one.
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
20 GOTO 10
That said, in this case, I'm not sure Apple Corps did anything immoral. Most people have concentrated on the fact Apple Corps isn't a big computer company, as if the situation was that Apple Computers was suing Apple Corps and not vice-versa. Apple Corps clearly thought there Apple Computer's decision to enter the music selling market may cause brand confusion given they're a company called Apple who're involved in selling music (albeit at a higher level.) Whether the decision was right or wrong, I believe Apple Corps had legitimate reasons to be concerned, and they had every right to bring the courts into it.
The sole argument against Apple Corps, so far as I can see, which wasn't raised by the defense, is that they're not really expanding in any serious way. They've limited themselves to periodic re-releases of a handful of back-numbers. As such, their "market" mostly knows who they are, being a small number of retail executives, and the handful who doesn't can be easily availed of their misapprehension with a one line disclaimer at the end of their letters. If Apple Corps was a little more active, signing on new talent, then I think there'd be a greater risk of confusion.
Trademark law is a legitimate buffer against confusion and fraud. So I'm not going to hate either Apple Corps or the government over this. But if it wasn't, and Apple Corps was just trying to extract money from Apple Computer and we lived in a perfect world where similarly named entities operating in similar markets never cause confusion, I would consider Apple Corps just at much at fault as the government who let them sue. Just as I dislike patent trolls, overly proprietary software makers, and telemarketers.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Apple is a label as much as Amazon is a publisher.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
Most countries in the world have laws against breaching restricted agreements.
Most countries in the world have laws against barratry, which is essentially the crime Apple Records committed by bullying (the then tiny) Apple Computers into signing the agreement in the first place. Okay, there might be an argument for iTMS conflicting with Apple Records, but no lawyer on earth would reasonably believe there was a case against Apple Computers when they first started making computers. They were simply two completely different markets back then, with no possibility whatsoever of confusion. So Apple Records were making baseless legal threats against a small startup when they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.
If I had a say in the matter, that would be cause for revoking Apple Records' trademark altogether. If you can't be trusted to wield the power responsibly and lawfully, you shouldn't have it in the first place.
Maybe if Apple Corps had actually participated materially in the market in the last thirty years there would be confusion, but now it's a niche player and Apple Inc. owns "apple" mindshare.
Apple corps had some relevance in the market 15 years ago when they made a deal with Apple Computers.
And for all those Apple Corps apologists that suggest Apple Corps market a macintosh coat
All those Apple Corps apologists?
There was only one person making a macintosh coat jibe (me!) and I'm not an Apple Corps apologist. I'm just disgusted at the hypocrisy displayed by Apple Computers.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
But all of the "all in one" types with the built in monitor are a fricking nightmare. Where have you been for the last 18 months? The latest iteration of the iMac (the "all in one" models you must be talking about) are almost completely user accessible. In fact, when there were noise problems with the Rev. A version, Apple was sending out the mid-planes directly to the users for replacement. I'll agree that the "sunflower" model was not terribly accessible, nor was the original CRT iMac, but the flat panel is incredibly well designed from an accessibility standpoint. Adding RAM is a snap - just look at this diagram http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 084. In fact, there is a whole list of things you can replace on your iMac - all involving opening up the back of the computer http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=868 12.
Apple Computer sells digital content - Music, TV shows, audio books.
If Apple Computer is in the music business, then so is 7-11 for selling cheap CD's in the store.
Apple computer is in the retail business, not the music business.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If Michael Jackson ala Sony owns the beatles library, what does apple corps own?