Slashdot Mirror
Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal
Sometimes_Rational writes to mention Apple Inc. formerly (Apple Computer) has announced an agreement with The Beatles' company, Apple Corps Ltd. which settles the lawsuit brought by Apple Corps. Under the new agreement, "Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to 'Apple' and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The terms of settlement are confidential."
Wow, a somewhat happy ending to a big lawsuit...too bad this doesn't happen more often.
The government can't save you.
Anyone care to guess how much this settlement is worth?
Certainly adds fuel to the rumors of the Beatles catalogue (sic) showing up on ITMS.
Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
.... All you need is love.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
In other news, the Apple Growers Association of America has recently come under fire...
But it can buy a trademark.
A big hint was dropped during Jobs' keynote address when he played the Beatles on the iPhone. Everything about those presentations is scripted, certainly the addition of Beatles music was no accident. This latest deal might mean that one of the last barriers between the Beatles vast music collection and the iTunes Music Store has been cleared. Whether the Beatles still resist online distribution (through anyone) remains to be seen. They were a late adopter of CDs. Their music, their prerogative.
One thing a lot of people seemed to have missed is that the official John Lennon bus now has an Apple logo on the front side (and has for at least a few weeks if not more):
:)
http://www.jlsc.com/bus/
Image is about halfway down the page.
I wonder what exactly the terms of this settlement were?
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
There were rumors going around that Apple would be announcing that the Beatles catalog would be available on iTunes during a Super Bowl commercial. Clearly that did not come to pass. I wonder if this was the root of that rumor, or just a coincidence. Supposedly, Apple WILL be having a special announcement coming up on Feb. 20th.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Mind you, I'm not exactly impressed by Apple Corps attitude or behaviour in all of this. Or, indeed, in any of their business conduct. Nonetheless, the fact remains that if a trademark is to have meaning, legalized theft of that trademark is not acceptable.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...The Osmonds "One Bad Apple"? Fiona Apple? The "Big Apple"? Do they need to cut a deal as well?
Computerus Non Carborundum
This whole lawsuit reminds me of the battle between American Budweiser vs. the Czech brewer Budvar. Fortunately, and rightfully so, the European courts upheld precedent in trademark name on behalf of Budvar. I may be American, but I am a proud Czech first. Stick it to "the man". That's my motto, and I proudly raise my Budvar to it.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
If you're even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, wouldn't you already have all the Beatles music you need. Are there going to be people actually seeking out Beatles songs on iTunes?
I'm just glad it's over, regardless of which side came out on top. Maybe now I'll see a digitally remastered Beatles catalog appear, like, before I die. And not on iTMS, but on SACD or some equivalent.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
I'm just imagining how uncomfortable it would make Sir Paul to be in that sandwich.
they settled the lawsuit, which means mutual benefit. no court decision. and no complaining about apple inc. lawyers - and they lost last tiome anyway.
"although Apple Inc. violated the terms of the original settlement by pushing first multimedia and then music"
The British judge in the Apple Corps vs Apple Computer case found that Apple Computer DID NOT violate the terms of the 1991 agreement.
The judge found that the computer company did not enter into the music business - they merely provided a vehicle to DISTRIBUTE music, not make it.
The Apple Corps lawyers should have been more careful in drafting the words of the agreement.
Looks like Apple Corps. got the short end of the stick on this one. Apple, Inc. got ownership of all trademarks in regard to the Apple name and will license them back to the company that used it first.
I hope that Apple Corps. isn't paying for those licenses. I mean even if Apple, Inc. paid money to Apple Corps. in settlement, Apple, Inc. will just collect it all back in license fees later. And I doubt that Apple Corps. paid money to Apple, Inc..
My twitter
is equal to the love you make.
oops, buy.
oops, negotiate through intermediaries.
the music gets stale after 40 years, i guess.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
My spellchecker suggests the names Apple Ink and Apple Corpse.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
1. Use company's name
2. Get sued
3. Agree to sell their own name back to them
4. Profit!
This is one of many lawsuits that have been happening since the 80's (remember the Apple IIgs?). It's just a balance of power. In the early days, the Beatles thought that they were bigger than Jesus, and so they sued a little computer company. Now, that little computer company is bigger than the Beatles, and Jesus has an iPod.
"Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal"
Try saying that 10 times quickly.
"No, no, no, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to."
I'm a Beatles fan from back in the 60s.
The burglars got surprised and left my house with CDs "A" thru "D", so no more Beatles CDs, save for Abbey Road that was in the car at the time.
The files from the net were mostly badly done.
I'll be getting these on iTunes.
(I wish I had all the original 45s we would buy weekly at the old 5&10, the proceeds from those would likely pay for the entire repertoire.)
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The difference of course being that Apple makes a good product... these days at least... and after the first revision...
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
When will the day come that we refer to Apple or Apple Computer as the company formerly known as Apple? They'll just be a symbolic apple, like the musician formerly known as Prince.
And what will Steve Jobs choose as his next moniker?
I had to read it again because of that word. "Formally" and "formerly" aren't even close, completely inexcusable.
Don't underestimate Sir Paul's violent temper when pressed. If his last relationship is any indication, he'd leave them without a leg to stand on.
Try the veal.
"Apple's move into the music business was a blatant violation of their agreement with Apple Corps"
a y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002464164
Apparently no judge seems to agree with this obviously biased opinion. In fact, in the most recent case a British judge ruled in FAVOUR of Apple Inc., not Apple Corps.
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_displ
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Honestly, I don't understand what this is all about. Why are people making such a big deal about the Beatles being available on iTunes? Has everyone suddenly forgotten about this thing called a compact disc? You just pop it in your CD-ROM drive, run CDex to convert the audio files to MP3, then move the files over to your MP3 player! I've done it! It's not so hard! I actually slammed some knucklehead on Engadget who said that he downloaded the Beatles' songs illegally because he couldn't download them legally! WTF? Is this what we've reduced ourselves to? Are physical discs now completely taboo?
Ordering music online? I buy music online that's not on iTunes lots of times! It's called a "compact disc"! Sure, it takes a few days for it to arrive, but when it gets here I can do whatever I want with it, including rip it to MP3 and put it on my MP3 player.
I know, I know. iTunes gives you the ability to download individual songs as well at whole albums. Well, I'm a big Beatles fan and probably 90% of their most popular songs are on the "1962-1966 (Red Album)" and "1967-1970 (Blue Album)" CD sets.
But even if you wanted songs that are not on those two sets, in total we're talking about 13 original albums that were produced. Sure, that would cost a bit of money to buy brand-new CDs online or at brick-and-mortar stores, but what about discount stores? What about used CD stores? What about eBay, for crying out loud? You can get all of the Beatles CDs (used) for probably less than what iTunes will charge, and you'll at least have a physical, DRM-free CD in your hands! Yes, there are certain things where "instant gratification" is required, like insulin to a diabetic. But music is NOT an "instant gratification" requirement to survive! Is it really that hard to wait a few days for a CD to be shipped?
Come on, people! Just because music isn't available on iTunes doesn't mean that it's not available at all! It's absolutely staggering to see that there are actually people out there who refuse to buy a physical disc anymore, and even more staggering to see people act as though iTunes is the only music repository available. Don't you think this whole iTunes thing is being taken a bit too far?
No, this isn't flamebait, damn it, but it is certainly a question of the degradation of patience in this society when we can't wait a few days for a 5-inch piece of reflective plastic to arrive in the mail and we can't look in the phone book for used CD stores in the area.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Okay. The Beatles catalog is in Northernsongs, which is de facto owned by Sony unless Michael Jackson starts getting some financial sense. (The financial advice he took from Paul appears to be the last sound financial advice he ever took.) Apple Corp. does own something valuable, though--the Beatles recordings.
To put it another way: if you wanted to record a cover of a Beatles song, or play one in public, you would need to contact Sony, Northernsongs division. If you wanted to use an actual Beatles recording--that is, one actually made by the Beatles--then you would need to contact Apple Corp.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I reckon he pushed for a settlement on the basis he'll be needing some cash for his divorce. He wants to count himself lucky- In the olden days, when you got robbed by a monopod, often as not it was Davy Jones's locker next....
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
The Beatles: "You Never give Me Your Money"
Steve Jobs: "We Can Work it Out."
Beatles: "Don't Let Me Down"
Jobs: "It Won't Be Long"
Beatles: "Money, That's What I Want"
Jobs: "Come and Get It"
Beatles: "I Feel Fine"
What I dont get is how people can still accept the notion of "buying music" over and over again. Back in the day, when it came on vinyl or whatever, it was easy to see the tradeoff: if you dont take care fo your shit it gets worn out, scratched, warped or otherwise screwed up and you gotta replace it. Without going into detailed analysis of my past collections I can recall at least three purchases of Sgt. Pepper's (two vinyl and one on 8 track), two purchases of the red and blue collections (LP and 8 track) and that's just the Beatles stuff - I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I have bought some Alice Cooper releases like "Killer" and "Easy Action" (LP, 8 track, CD, cassette... how many of each?)
My Son in law has gigabytes of shit he bought through napster. In return for his troubles he has to keep track of licenses and, if he wants to transport them, convert each one to an MP3 file.
Well, I ain't buying either of'em. Not again.
This is potentially huge, as Apple inc. now seems to own the trademark and will license it back to Apple Corps Ltd. Unless I am missing something, this means that Apple can sign bands directly, cutting out the record companies which collect 69 cents on every iTunes dollar.
As online music sales surpass physical media, this has the potential of allowing Apple to take over the record industry. I doubt they want to, but it gives them a great deal of opportunity to expand their iTunes business.
.... All you need is love.
And $8.7 Billion USD in cash. But that's a lot harder to rhyme.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Well, I don't like to buy CDs because after I rip them to my Mac I have really no use for them anymore."
CDs make excellent backups. Buy a CD of the music, and you (probably) have a full-quality backup for the music in your computer, complete with meta-data. You won't have to burn a backup CD, and you don't have to worry about the transfer limits.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Apple Computer: "I wanna hold your hand"
Apple Corps: "Please please me!"
Comp: "Can't buy me love"
Corps: "Money (That's what I want)"
Comp: "Got to get you into my life!"
Corps: "Tell me why?"
Comp: "I want to tell you!"
Corps: "Baby You're a Rich Man!"
Comp: "Act Naturally!"
Corps: "That'll be the Day!"
and finally, years later...
Inc: "Love me do?"
Corps: "Don't let me down"
Inc: "Yes it is?"
Corps: "I will"
Inc: "The End!"
With thanks to http://www.stevesbeatles.com/songs/
Some background info - the 'Beatles' was a band popular in the late Pleistocene epoch. It featured four musicians who used to work in a semiconductor plant (hence their nickname 'Fab Four'). One of them is that guy who's getting divorced. No, not him - the other one. They formed a distribution company called Apple which owned their music before Michael Jackson bought it. Apple was suing Apple over the name Apple (or maybe Marklar), but Apple has settled with Apple and is now free to use Apple.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I take it that this article has something to do with apples?
... and then they built the supercollider.
My CDs can be used on every Windows/Mac/Linux/Solaris box and CD player in my house, my car, or at work with no loss in audio quality and no restrictions on how many pieces of hardware it's played on. Can you say the same for your iTunes downloads?
(Not trying to be a prick. Just playing Devil's Advocate at this point.)
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Phil Schiller, of course.
"each party bearing its own legal costs"
As always, the lawyers always win no matter what the outcome. Theremodynamically, their wins are like heat: always generated when there's any friction.
Is that true?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hey, I'm just reporting what the judge said - it's his logic, not mine!
So you can all go on splitting hairs over the meaning of the words "music business" if you like, but the judicial decision has already been rendered (your opinion and mine doesn't count here), and the consequences of the judge's decision are already apparent.
And we can surmise that Apple Corps knows that overturning the judge's ruling on appeal is very unlikely, since they dropped the appeal and aquiesced to Apple Inc. being assigned all the "Apple" trademarks.
Like I said, this is the fault of the lawyers representing Apple Corps, since the imprecise language they used in the 1991 deal came back to bite their client in the butt.
And don't forget that ordinary, everyday English words might not have the same nuanced meaning in a legal sense. A lawyer or a judge might get a different meaning from reading a legal document (such as a contract) than you or I would. For instance, the word "bit" means something entirely different to my sister than it does to a computer programmer. So "music business" might mean something entirely different to a judge than you would infer from reading that same document.
Floating around on the web is this interview of the Beatles about their meeting with Elvis (supposedly from a book called "The Beatles Anthology", perhaps ISBN-13: 978-0811826846 ):
Not even with itunes. Music is a relative fraction of the stuff I keep around - TV shows, movies, music vids, etc. I can't jsut go rip those again if they get lost (although I might, eventually, be able to recollect them... at 50 cents a gigabyte... from newsgroups). I don't have cable (can't get it), won't pay Hughes 600 bucks a year for country cable, and even if I did I still couldn't get many of the shows I like (The IT crowd, CBC reports, various Korean and Russian shows and movies) so what's the point? The "old media" is obsolete.
No matter how it's obtained, a media collection represents considerable time and effort - much more than jsut a box of CDs. If I lose it, even if it's all "free," I still have to recollect, reclassify, and possibly rerip.
So, if anything happens to my "hard drive," I just take out the failing one, replace it, add it back into the raid and wait for the computer to do all the heavy lifting. I've had oodles of cds become unreadable, but I've not lost anything from this RAID in years... even through lightning strikes and pebkac errors (dd if=/dev/zero of=dev/shit/this/is/a/raid/partition).
I have a few CDs I have purchased because I wanted to support the artist and I wanted higher quality rips than others were sharing. I've bought more, though, from places like magnatune - where I can get the quality I want, I know the artist is getting a good chunk of my money, and I don't have to devote "shelf space" to a package I would otherwise never use. Seems to me something already has completely replaced CDs: the combination of internet, dirt cheap hard drives, and SAN appliances.
Replying to overturn a mistaken mod. I really need to remember to stop using the new comment system when I'm moderating. Or better yet, they need to fix the code for it.
The author of this article deserves to be shot for the headlines word play.
Do not trust this signature.
this is totally interesting. wow! omg!
Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps' Corpse?
[Apple Corps., aka Beatles vs, Apple (Computer) Inc. aka Apple]
Beatles: I Thought I Knew You; What Did I know?; You Don't Look Different; But You Have Changed
Apple: We All Want To Change The World
Beatles: You Say Got A Real Solution; Well, We'd All Love To See The Plan
Apple: If I Had Some More Time To Spend; That I'd Guess I'd Be With You My Friend
Beatles: You Never Give Me Your Money; You Only Give Me Your Funny Paper; And In The Middle Of Negotiation You Break Down
Apple: I Look At The Floor And I See It Needs Sweeping; Still My Guitar Gently Weeps
Beatles: Though I Know I'll Never Lose Affection; For People And Things That Went Before; I Know I'll Often Stop And Think About Them