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.
There's no way Apple computers would sue. After all - they're never lawyer trigger happy.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
When two powerful companies go head to head, I'm rarely rooting for either of them as they usually have unlimited funds. If you would have considered a huge settlement or the lawsuit being carried out "bad" then I must wonder why you allow the laws that create these lawsuits to remain in the first place.
I enjoy The Beatles' music but I could honestly care less about their merchandising and music publisher. In fact, I would wager that the material aspects of their lives and the selling of their works are what in the end ruined them. For that reason, I dislike Apple Corps.
I enjoy the fact that OSX has Bourne-Again SHell (BASH) capabilities (correct me if I'm wrong) although I hate their pricing and closed machine mentality--though that may change with x86 architecture. If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician.
In the end, I suffer the naïve shortcomings of one who has to believe in the justice system. Most countries in the world have laws against breaching restricted agreements. Which is what Apple is charging Apple of doing. I found this excerpt from an article of the original coverage of this case: This was a valid case and was brought to court, the result was decided and I'm happy that the justice system "works." I would argue that we take this in as unbiased a manner as possible, the case turned out neither 'well' nor 'ill' and would have been just the same to me if the prosecution had won. I think that the former settlements show that Apple Computers knows they are at fault for use of this name. I also think they knew that they did not violate their prior agreements and the court also agreed with them.
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, hate the government that enforces the laws. I maintain my trust in the system of courts and therefore any case in which a decision is made is just as 'well' for me as if the opposite decision had been found.
My work here is dung.
guess it is true an apple a day keeps the riaa away
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!
Long Live the Apple
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.
off limits trademark, they should have instead used a made-up word (something like Exxon?) that doesn't mean anything in any popular language but sounds cool, and not a word in the dictionary/history or common place item.
something of RIAA flock. Die, Apple Corps.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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?
They were thinking of settling out of court, and it was going quite well for Apple Corp until, in the middle of negotiation, they broke down.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
You're kidding me right?
... because otherwise no-one would remember they exist. There's still a market for Beatles songs, but who cares what the record label is?
I guess if Apple Computers wins (win?) nothing much happens, but what if Apple Corps wins (if that is still a possibility)? What are the implications?
Anyone care to give a brief answer to that, or point me to the info? I guess it's been explained before, but I'm not sure where to look.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
... their remaining differences, so I can finally download some Beatles tunes from the iTMS.
I'm neither a business expert nor a historian, but I have never understood how Apple Corps had any possibility of winning a trademark infringement case against Apple Computer... whether in the same business or not.
Look at these two examples:
Budweiser (Budvar, Czech Republic) and Budweiser (Anheuser Busch, USA). Same name, same business. And I have seen both products sold in the same location before (I prefer the Czech version myself).
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) and ABC (American Broadcasting Company). ABC... ABC. Same business.
And these are just off the top of my head. Certainly there are others.
I don't get where the Beatles were going with their action. Clearly Apple Computer was not going to be made to stop using their own logo and name. Nor were they going to be made to stop selling music via iTunes. What gives?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Time passes and things change, today one apple is rotten and one is fresh and shiny. Alas I am joking..for things haven't changed, sure a subjective opinion has been given today, but man is still selfish and so groups of men (in companies) pursue wealth...you could say it was a nice try..cause of course this was all about money rather than the false indignation of rights being abused..but does all this really matter? dust to dust and all that.
Imagine for a moment if Apple Computer had obeyed copyright and trademark laws to a “t” in this case. What products we never have seen the light of day? When you ponder this for a moment, it becomes clear how out-of-hand this nonsense is.
Join Tor today!
Apple won out against the RIAA, Apple won out against France, and now Apple won out against the Beatles' old label. Despite it, every investor knows the truth: Apple is dying. Watch their stock price for a decline this afternoon in light of this terrible, tragic, positive news.
Yes, this is sarcasm. Except for the stock decline thing.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
The judge appears to have made a narrow decision, possibly because he felt that Apple Corps was using the suit as a whip to extract some money. At least the lawyers made some money.
http://www.applecorps.com/ And http://ww.apple.com/
...Anyway Apple Computers is not selling music like a record company would... think of them as a record store with no control over the content being sold other than refusing to sell it.
Is there any possibility of confusing these 2 sites?
Things would be different if they where signing artists and producing content to be sold in competition (as if there where such a thing in an entertainment industry) with Apple Corp.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Apple records is a dying company with one 30 year old product. They just wanted an extra source of free revenue to keep their CEO's pockets full.
Apple is a label as much as Amazon is a publisher.
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
I read you so called "joke" several times. I have some advice. In the future, if you plan to make a joke, try to make it funny. Or at least try to make sense. No, what you did was say something stupid and then try to make it seem like a joke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4983796.s tm
;-)
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Looks like Apple Corp. is appealing the decision! You think Apple Corp. would know their limitations. See here http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/08/apple_to_a ppeal_verdict/
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
That's because it wasn't a Trademark Infringement case.
Apple Computers entered into a legal agreement with Apple Corp some years ago following a trademark case, in which Apple Computers agreed not to enter the music business, and in return Apple Corp allowed them to use the Apple Trademark (to which they had the rights at the time, and still do in the area of Music Publishing).
Their contention is that the iTunes Music Store is a contravention of that legally binding agreement. The judge basically agreed with Apple Corp but let Apple Computers off by drawing a distinction that Apple Computers sells Data through the iTunes Music Store, not Music. Had the judge agreed that Apple Computers was producing and/or publishing music, he would have sided with Apple Corp.
... and I was pretty fearful that Yoko Ono was gonna own me!
That'd really suck!
For a band that basically redefined the popular music of its time, years ahead of their time, their management has been atrocious. I remember waiting for Beatles CDs to be released, long after everything in the major label's catalogues had already been ported to digital (Sgt Peppers was released 20 years to the day after it originally came on on vinyl, and the line stretched around the block at Cactus Records in Houston that day). I remember the Beatles choosing to release the first four in Mono (good choice), issue no American releases (they later changed their mind, to make money no doubt), then reduce their sizable Vault down to three good (if incomplete) double-Cd volumes. If the Beatles fail to secure their legacy by making their recorded music available as widely as possible (which they seem hell-bent on doing) then it is their own damn fault. And it is a crying shame. Every last child on earth should know Revolver, if nothing else.
I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well.
:-)
Apple Corps has however appealed the decision.
Also, there's some name hilarity in this article:
"I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment on Monday. "The action therefore fails."
Justice Mann is even more cartoony than Judge Dredd.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
People, posting in hurry just in case as if any fanboy shouts "Who the hell is Apple music?" or "They are nothing"
http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp
See, that 168.5 million selling Beatles just in USA? They own their rights.
So they have a job.
This gives a whole new dimension to the Penny Lane lyrics:
There's a story at macworld uk and el reg
Quote from Apple Corp's lawyer:So - the fight continues!
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
rectification: "Apple Corps" is not selling music like a record company would...
Their website is a placeholder! How can a company promote music without communicating the new bands to anyone?
I propose the company is renamed "Apple Corpse"
Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
Have the companies merge. Apple Computer could take over Apple Corp. under a new ParentCorperation or you could have Apple Computer become part of Apple Corp. Doesn't Apple Corp. make a lot of different things? Computers could become yet another one of them.
It would be a solution to a never ending problem. Just make sure to leave control in the hands of Apple Computer and use the parent corp as a tax shelter or whatnot.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
Apple Corp had a legal agreement with Apple PC that the latter would NOT engage in the music business. Apple PC then starts and 100% owns iTunes and sells music. The judge found there was no confusion in the "Apple" logo being used on itunes. He found that itunes doesn't sell music. W/o reading all the court documents if the above is a fair summary it would appear that the Judge decided to ignore the legally binding documents the 2 APPLES had previously SIGNED. I admire both Apples, but surely the root is the legal documents pure and simple, whilst the judge decided to go into the grey area of "intent" and "use of logos". Sounds like this could end up in court again, as the newcomer (Apple PC) could theoretically take over full use of the "Apple" logo which does not seem right.
Judgment day, huh? Well, Jesus Christ will return to judge all men whenever He decides. But in the meantime, my thought on this matter is: does anyone really think someone could confuse Apple Computer's work with Apple Corp's work? Steve Jobs is not signing bands and recording their music for release, and neither does iTunes yet even sell the Beatle's catalog. If you sign onto iTunes and can't find the Beatles, there is yet another clue you aren't dealing with Apple Corps of the Beatles.
Apple Computer has been so extremely picky with their own trademarks that judges should apply the same tight standards when the company is being sued by others.
"Geoffrey Vos, QC, representing Apple Corps, had argued that call the download system just an electronic device was a "perversion" of the constraints laid down in the agreement between the two companies. He said that Mr Jobs, Apple's founder, had said that the downloading of music from the internet was exactly the same as buying an LP in the modern world."
So if I set up a service delivering illegal content, let's say naked pictures of your underage daugther, can I argue that it's just an "electronic device" and get away with it? I think not!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Sorry about that getting a flamebait mod, I thought it was funny. I have a feeling this post will be modded off-topic (and rightly so) so I am going to post it AC.
Beatles: Hey Jude, I thought we agreed there's only room for one apple in this business!
Apple: STFU, we're not IN your business.
Beatles: I know it's been a hard day's night for you, but yeah, you are.
Apple: STFU.
Beatles: Right, we'll see you in the Court on Penny Lane.
(later)
Court: Beatles, STFU.
Apple: We have triumphed yet again!
Beatles: Waaaaaah! Twist and Shout! You never give me your money! We'll appeal and then you're going to lose that girl!
All: STFU!
Towards the Singularity.
Dude, you'd have to really suck to lose to France. ...and, btw, poo, to all of you who don't have a sense of humor :P
yours,
kbs
For those of you who want to read the court document first hand (I know there are at least a few groklaw people out there).
From Times Online.
Apple Corps v Apple Computer: judgment in full
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 996 (Ch)
Case No: HC03C02428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
08/05/2006
Before:
MR JUSTICE MANN
Between:
APPLE CORPS LIMITED, Claimant
and
APPLE COMPUTER, INC, Defendant
MR. G. VOS Q.C., MR. D. ALEXANDER Q.C. and MR. R. MEADE (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Claimant.
LORD GRABINER Q.C. and MR. D. TOLEDANO (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) for the Defendant.
Hearing dates: 29th, 30th, 31st March 2006, 3rd and 5th April 2006
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Mann
Introduction
This is a claim for breach of an agreement made between the claimant and the defendant in 1991 in which they sought to arrive at an agreement as to how they would each use their respective similar marks. The claimant, whom I will call "Corps", claims that the defendant, whom I will call "Computer", has acted in breach of that agreement in circumstances arising out of the creation and operation of Computer's iTunes music download service. At this stage of the trial I am asked to determine liability only. If I determine that question in favour of Corps any damages or other financial compensation will be determined at a separate inquiry; whether any, and if so what, injunction is necessary or appropriate will also be dealt with once liability is determined.
The Parties
As is widely known, Corps is the record company synonymous with the Beatles. It was incorporated as The Beatles Limited on 20th June 1963. On 4th December 1967 it changed its name to Apple Music Limited and on 9th February 1968 it changed its name again to its present name. From that time at the latest the apple mark, both in the sense of the word and as a graphic symbol, became an important part of its business. Its symbol was a sideways view of a whole apple. On 19th March 1968 the first apple trade mark was registered. Corps owned, and still owns, the rights to a large number of Beatles recordings, and extensive other rights both in relation to the Beatles and in relation to other artists. For many years its principal activity has been the continued exploitation of those rights in a variety of ways which it is not necessary for me to go into. In the course of exploiting those rights, its apple marks have been an important benefit for it. In this case Mr Geoffrey Vos QC led for Corps.
Computer was founded in 1976. It is the well known computer and software house. It started producing computers (the Apple I and II) at the end of the 1970s and has continued to develop computers and software ever since. While it has had nothing like the market share of Windows-based computers, its market share in the personal computer market is nonetheless significant and it has large numbers of devotees. It too has adopted apple marks, including the word "Apple" and a stylised apple with the bite taken out of it. Its own marks have been important to it in the development of its business. In this case Lord Grabiner QC led for Computer.
The Genesis of the Agreement sued on
From time to time, the marks of Corps and Computer created conflicts. In November 1981 they entered into an agreement concerning the use and registration of the word "Apple" and various apple logos. I do not need to set out the detailed terms of that agreement. In general terms, Computer was allowed to use its marks in relation to computer goods and services, but not use them in relation to computer equipment specifically adapted for use in the recording or reproduction of music, or in relation to operational services relati
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
And for all those Apple Corps apologists that suggest Apple Corps market a macintosh coat, how about Apple Inc creating a new "innovative" mouse design and calling it the new "Apple Beetle?"
Because the judge seems to have bought "Hey it isn't Apple, it's iTunes". It is an apple product and the Apple logo is used. FTFJudge:
Mr Justice Mann ruled iTunes was "a form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music.
But the distributors (Sony, BMG/EMI et al) are a form of shop and not involved in creating music. They just get the pressed disc out.
[continued from 1st page]
iv) On occasions Computer makes available collections of recordings of an artist as a notional (or virtual) "boxed set". There have been three of these so far. These sometimes extend to copies of all the published musical works of an artist or band. They can be purchased with one "click" of the mouse. Sometimes a "boxed set" will include tracks that have not hitherto been released. As always, the IP rights remain with the artist or record company - ITMS has the right to sell the digital tracks.
v) The Store offers its own collections of tracks in the form of "iTunes Essentials". The online Help facility describes Essentials as being "favorites chosen by our iTunes Music Store staff experts."
vi) It is possible for artists to sign themselves up to ITMS by means of an online application procedure. By this means their product is put on the Store with all the other products. The application procedure on site suggests that there are few qualifications attached to the material which will be sold. The evidence of Computer's witness on the point suggested that in fact there was little real selection. I find that a little hard to believe, and I think there must be some. But be that as it may, ITMS is still signing up content and artists so that their content is then sold online, and Corps relies on this as further conduct tending to equate the overall conduct of Computer to that of a record company and thereby associating its mark with music content in breach of the TMA.
Advertising and publicity matters
Certain publicity-related matters are relied on as breaches. They are as follows.
Video advertising
I was shown 4 adverts which were broadcast on television in at least one country. They are said to contravene the TMA. Each is roughly 30 seconds long; they can be described as follows.
"My Generation"
This is obviously the earliest of the adverts since it contains a reference to applemusic.com, an address which was abandoned after a few months (at least so far as publicity was concerned). It shows a middle-aged man holding and listening to an iPod over his earphones, clicking his fingers and apparently singing along with it - he is singing "My Generation", recorded by The Who in 1965. After 21 seconds his image is replaced by a screen which says:
"Your favorite songs 99 each"
for about 2 seconds. The man then reappears and stays until the end when the final screen displays Computer's apple logo over the word "AppleMusic.com" for about 3 seconds.
U2
This commercial features the band U2. It starts with a brief silhouette of a dancer holding a white iPod with white earphone cables. It then cuts to and between various band members all depicted in greyscale against a coloured background. One is playing an electric guitar with a white cable - plainly an allusion to the white iPod earphone cables. There are then brief cuts back to silhouetted dancers (with iPods) until after 22 seconds:
"U2's new album
Now available
Online exclusively at iTunes"
appears against a solid colour background for about 2 seconds. The advert reverts to shots of the band for 3 or so seconds, and then puts up a screen saying:
"iPod and iTunes"
followed by brief shots of band members and ending with 2 seconds of a screen showing Computer's apple logo centre-screen.
Coldplay
This advert features the band Coldplay and was shown on only one occasion - after the season end of a series of Saturday Night Live on US TV on 21st May 2005. This starts with 20 seconds of music and fast cutting between band members. Then the following appears centre-screen:
"Coldplay's new album
Plus exclusive tracks on iTunes"
for about 2 seconds. The band reappears and the advert ends with Computer's apple logo with "iTunes.com" on screen for the last 2 seconds.
Eminem
This is another video in which an artist called Eminem is shown performing heavil
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I enjoy the fact that OSX has Bourne-Again SHell (BASH) capabilities (correct me if I'm wrong) although I hate their pricing and closed machine mentality--though that may change with x86 architecture. If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician.
Well that's news to me, as I have a G4 tower and a G4 PowerBook at home which I have upgraded the memory in, as well as a Mac Mini, a G5, and this MacBook Pro on my desk here at work that I have upgraded the memory in.
Guess I better go take the licensing exams before someone figures out that I've broken some kind of FUD.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
With the agreement thus construed, Corps says that each of the matters relied on is a breach. The use of the Apple logo, as described above, is in connection with musical content whether or not it is also used in connection with a delivery service. Dual use is infringing use. One of the things that makes it a use in connection with the content is the fact that the content is sold (and, in the case of three of the video advertisements, actually advertised as well). The pronouncements of Computer, either through Mr Jobs or formal SEC documents, make this plain. If one looks at the overall picture, Computer is acting as a record company - it is pre-packaging music, and it is procuring recordings and then selling them under its banner in exclusive tracks and virtual boxed sets.
Computer's case on the true construction of the TMA and breach - an outline
Computer's case gives a different meaning to the words use "on or in connection with". For most of the case Computer said that it meant a use which indicated the source or origin of the rights to the music, but in his final speech Lord Grabiner expanded this slightly to mean a use which indicates the source or origin of the rights in, or the right to control, the music. Computer emphasises the wide range of products within its own field of use, and particularly category (ii) (the services). Corps' field is narrower and confined to content. For Computer to cross into Corps' territory with its mark it would have to have indicated, by its use of the mark, that Computer was the source or origin of the music. That is said to be fundamental. It did not do so and has never done so. Its advertisements are always of the service (or of the iPod, which is hardware within head (i) of clause 1.2), and not of the content. The ownership of the rights is always attributed to the correct person within the ITMS and in the track information on any downloaded track. Other service providers use their marks in the same way - they use their marks to identify the service and do not go further and attribute them to the musical content.
Clause 4.3 is an "avoidance of doubt" clause which affirms the right of the parties to use their respective marks in their own respective fields. Computer's main case was that there was no overlap of fields of use for the clause to deal with because conceptually the boundaries were clear. Lord Grabiner says it was designed to ensure that the arguments now advanced by Corps could not be correctly advanced. Alternatively, (and I think this was an alternative argument) it actually has the effect of meaning that "in connection with" cannot be taken as referring to a situation where Computer's mark is applied to a service delivering musical content. On this argument the provision goes somewhat beyond an "avoidance of doubt" provision. Computer then says that there is no material difference between the use of the apple logo in iTunes and its use on the ITMS, so Corps' non-objection in relation to the former means that there is no legitimate substance in their objection to the latter. Lord Grabiner also says that if he needs to he can also rely on head (iii) in Computer's field of use (the ancillary matters) including the references to financing and distribution, which permits the business-like performance of the fields of use in head (ii).
The proper construction of the TMA
I preface my conclusions on the proper construction of the TMA with two points. First, I am aware that I must be careful to keep the TMA in its correct place in the chronology and the development of technology and to construe it accordingly. The use of the internet, and the ready availability of all sorts of downloads, was not part of the technological scene at the time, and I cannot approach the question of construction as though the particular activity now conducted by Computer (and other digital suppliers) was in the parties' minds at the time. It is true that, as Mr Vos pointed out, it remains necessary to consider how the words of the agreement apply to
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Somehow I think the judge would have had access for far more documentation than you did, and would also have had many years of presiding over cases such as this.
I'm sure that his decision is most likely going to be fairly reasonably close to the actual reality of the situation.
And indeed who the hell would confuse Apple Computer and Apple Corp? The logos are actually significantly different, and one is a computer company - look, it says so quite clearly in the name, that does computery stuff like have online stores that sell data. Apple Corp could be anything to be honest, but just happens to be a music publisher.
Ummm...no. Apple signed a contract that said they would not get in the music business. That is sign, promote and distribute their own artists, as far as I know the agreement never states that Apple is prohibited from being a retail outlet of the music business.
I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. I hope that was sarcasm although it does not convey well over the internet.
Yes it does. Try reading a few examples of better English than the shit that gets passed off as it on the 'net. Like... books? There are subtler clues than having to have lame "sarcasm tags" or even worse, "emoticons". For fuck's sake.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-217097 7,00.html
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. - Douglas Adams
Thanks for all the cool comments on the last topic of Apple vs. Apple, like when hell freezes over, or fat chance of "winning in England", so all you that posted nice comments, you're cool, for all the jerks who got all worked up and fed me lines of shit, go piss up a rope!
Sig Hansen?
The article says that Neil Aspinall, now manager of Apple Corps, was the Beatles' first roadie. Neil wasn't a roadie, he was a press agent. Mal Evans is well know as the Beatles roadie, go-fer and body guard.
The Beatles were great musicians, but terrible business men. The story of the mess that was Apple has been documented in several books including "The Love you Make" by Peter Brown.
Where did you see it referred to as Apple iTMS?
It's iTunes Music Store, not Apple iTunes Music Store.
And the reason for this must be pretty obvious.
Yeah, I could figure Apple Corps could start their own music service, called Apple iDMS. Steve Jobs is such a Beatles' fan (even after all this), Apple Computer would never sue Apple Corps.
As to a lack of "Fair Play". I just don't see it that way. Apple Computer and Apple Corps settled this issue TWICE over the past twenty years (with payments and agreements). Apple Corps for some reason then decided they didn't need to stick to the terms of the settlement.
In the end, if you feel being there first and occupying a small corner of the music marketplace means you get to be the only one who gets to use the name of a popular fruit, then yes, there was some massive railroading going on here. Apple Computer ran over Apple Corps repeatedly and like a freight train.
But I just don't see it that way.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
How can this fact and quote be a "Story Update" if they're included in the story itself? (on page 1, nothing less). Moderators have been tricked.
Apple Corp, I get it.
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
Jeez... Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If someone makes a sarcastic comment, and leaves off tags, someone will flame him for being an idiot. If someone makes a sarcastic comment, and included sarcasm tags, he gets flamed for including unnecessary comments. Christ, people, relax!
Rhapsody in Numbers
Glad I finished my coffee first, cuz doing a spit-take all over the monitor would NOT be covered under warranty...
First, if his machine was under warranty, just bring it back and have Apple replace it for free. Apple, like every other vendor, can't just hand out hardware cuz you swear there's a bad one twenty blocks away. 2000 is before they had Apple Stores so this must have been a reseller, but still...
Not just Apple, but anyone - RS, BestBuy, Walmart - ANYONE would want the old one back before they hand you a free one. Honestly, did he think they were just handing out spares on the word of anyone who walks thru the door?
Unless it's not gone bad but perhaps used as a coffee holder, donut holder, bookshelf or pet perch, in which case he's unfortuately out of luck. On the other hand, when I sent my iBook in for a screen failure that was under warranty, they also supplied me with a shiny new case top, palmrests and fresh Little Rubber Feet.
Someone got their signals crossed:
1. Apple doesn't have to send it back for testing - any Apple store will first bench test it with known-good parts and/or the standard hardware tests on the network or an external drive.
2. There is no $20,000 fine for violating any customer agreement. You just void your warranty, period.
3. If in the end he did what they wanted him to - brought it in to keep it under warrany - then why would they charge him $1,000 for a drive that supposedly went bad under warranty? In 2000 it had to be the original G4 tower - and there's no way a CD swap in a G4 tower is a $1,000 repair.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
If Michael Jackson ala Sony owns the beatles library, what does apple corps own?
Wait, wait, wait, by what law can a plaintiff file an appeal? Most American law is based on English common law, including the court process. Filing in a higher court on new grounds for the same request is premissible, but I am uncertain how they can simply appeal a judgement found in the defendant's favor.
It's a girl!
I've heard of the Beatles
I've heard of Apple (computers)
But I've never heard of Apple Corp., I doubt a lot of consumers have heard of Apple Corp. even though they are a wealthy company. I doubt Apple (computers) is affecting their bottomline.
Can I bum a sig?
new A.C. Low!
/. success
your obviously another whiney mac user who's jealous of the real whiny mac user's
Apple Records is a record label, founded in 1968 as a division of Apple Corps Ltd. by The Beatles. ... EMI and Capitol agreed to distribute Apple Records until 1975; Apple owned the rights to records by artists they signed, while EMI retained ownership of the Beatles' records, though issuing them under the Apple label. The label survived the breakup of the Beatles in 1970, and was resurrected in the late 1980s, for use on all Beatles CDs. Apple Records own the rights to all of the Beatle videos and movie clips. ... During the 1974 proceedings dissolving the Beatles as an entity, a court ruling decreed that eighty perent of all profits from Beatles albums (as a group) would accrue to Apple Records, and five percent would go to each of the four members.
What did the label actually do? If we assume Apple took care of all the nasty little details of signing bands recording their music, what did Capitol and EMI do? Are they lables even though they did little more than make a contract and "distribute" recorded music?
How is that different from what Apple Computer is doing? The only obvious difference between what Apple is doing and what the "labels" are doing is that, once again, the labels are keeping all of the money and others are doing all the work. Apple has indeed become a publisher of music and a label and just another part of the business of screwing musicians.
They also look like they have violated their agreement by using their apple logo and name all over the iTunes site.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Also, didn't Michael Jackson own a large chunk of the Beatles' IP rights for a while (presumably being sold off to Sony to over his debts...)?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I would remaster all my greatest hits and sell them online at the Apple Store.
This all started in the 80s when there was a battle over the Apple trademark (Apple Corp owned the Apple trademark and an Apple logo).
They both settled fairly - Apple records would allow Apple computers the use of the Apple trademark AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T GET INTO THE MUSIC BUSINESS.
This was okay for a while, thinks were good.
Then Apple computers went and blatantly broke that agreement.
The reason they won this case is because they had better lawyers - They managed to twist the case to convince the judge that they were not music publishers, but merely distributors of data.
I mean, come-fucking-on!!! That is just such a load of BS!!!
I'm not a big fan of Apple records because they are monopolistic bastards regarding the Beetle back catalogue, but in this case I hope they get Apple comp...
They way they've just gone and broken that agreement and then cheesing such a deceitful win in court really riles me.
Apple records could have *destroyed* them back in the 80s, but they settled instead, and now Apple comp have gone and stabbed them in the back!
Now... I agree that in the land of Rational Thought, there is no way you could confuse Apple Comp with Apple Records, but when the heck has that ever stopped ANY company from suing another company in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INDUSTRY for having a similar name?
It certainly never stopped Apple comp...
You're wrong. Neil was the Beatles' original roadie; he happened to be friends with Pete Best, and became the Beatles' roadie because he owned his own van. Mal was later hired when the job became too demanding for Neil to do alone. Later, when the Beatles became hugely successful, Neil and Mal went from being roadies to personal assistants/confidants. It was only when the Beatles decided to run their own affairs following the death of Brian Epstein that Neil assumed a management role. He was never the Beatles' press officer, that task being taken by Tony Barrow and Derek Taylor.
...so much greatness came into this world that the gods decided to take out John Lennon just a few hours later via some insane nutjob to keep the greatness-meter in balance.
It's a girl!
after all, he's the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine!
'' Apple signed a contract that said they would not get in the music business. That is sign, promote and distribute their own artists, as far as I know the agreement never states that Apple is prohibited from being a retail outlet of the music business. ''
Actually, I could imagine that Apple Computer could be quite keen to create its own record label. And there would be three ways to do this: 1. Buy Apple Records. 2. Pay Apple Records for the right to use the Apple Computer trademark anywhere they like, including the record business. 3. Start the "iTunes Record Company", carefully avoiding any mentioning of Apple in the process.
If Apple Computer can convince Apple Records that they are willing to do (3), they might be able to make them agree to (2) for a reasonable price.
If the contention is that Apple Computers is not selling music, but data, does that mean that if I rip a cd (or even better vinyl) myself, and share it on line, I am sharing my own data, not someone else's music.
Opinions anyone?
I can buy a dirt cheap CD player and CD in a lot of retail stores - exactly like what Apple is selling. You confusion in distinguishing between devices that PLAY music and companies that RECORD music is fiarly astounding.
You do realize there's not a tiny little band inside that iPod right? Not even the first gen model.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What you are saying is complete nonsense.
The Beattles experimented with avant guard techniques, were conversant with modern composing methods of their times, investigated and used Estern music influences, and in general demonstrated that they were musicians through and through. The Stones remained pretty much where they started, and as for The Animals, you surely are joking.
I know a lot of people that are bored by Mozart, Beethoven or even Stravinsky (for bunnies sakes, Stravinsky) but that reflects badly in the inculture of the speaker, not in the worthiness of the artist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You must mean Linux users.
Apple Corps gave Apple Computers the right to do exactly what they are doing with iTMS. And now Apple Corps wants some of the iTMS action.
Now explain how Apple (Mac) has violated the terms of their agreement with iTMS. Anyone??
Justice Mann got it right.