I am as interested in how this could scale down as well as scale up. Sure, economies of scale can give us certain efficiencies, but having the ability to do this on the personal level makes for more personal independence and less reliance on corporations.
Well, you didn't come out and say it, so I'm not sure if it's what you have in mind, but if you mean that the very laws that give "life" to corporations need to be re-examined, then yes, you've got an excellent point. I'd go even further, and say that the very assumptions that out culture and civilization are based on need to be re-evaluated.
But who is to do such a re-evaluation? The politicians? Heh. No, it's got to be you and me. And is there any hope in hell of pushing through such changes of underlying assumptions, given that the ones who don't want the assumptions changed have guns, money, and inertia on their side? No. So, the best either you or I can do is to make changes in our own little lives, and maybe help those we come into contact with change their own assumptions, if they want it.
Ever thought of getting off the grid? Or if that's impossible, moving as much of one's life off the grid, becoming less dependent on the grid, leaving a smaller footprint?
Meanwhile, legislation like S-O might help people from getting ripped off.
This is actually a long time pattern in the PRC, since the Communists achieved victory on the mainland. Chinese intellectual and cultural life has historically experienced an ebb and flow of government crackdown of free expression alternating with encouragement. They don't spell out what is off limits except by example. It shouldn't be surprising that a company CEO doesn't want an example made of his company or him personally.
Maybe a China expert can fill us in on a timeline of such ebbs and flows. The reason I'm semi-aware of it was that I wrote a college paper many years ago on the anti-spiritual pollution campaign. (That's not my paper; it's a chapter from someone's thesis.) What is important is that we understand the history of free expression and cultural life in China and understand that the Chinese have come a long way in the last 20 years.
Oh, to be sure, there are differences between Chinese censorship and US censorship. But let's not make the mistake of saying that we are free from censorship, from government pressure to self-censor, or that the battle for free speech has been for ever won in the US.
Also,to use your analogy: the difference between jumping and flying is one of degree. Most people in the US are comfortable with the censorship practiced here, but would not be satisfied with the degree to which it is practiced in China.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was confused about the purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley. Of course, some executives are going to complain that it's not helping profits. That's not its purpose. Its purpose is foreclose an avenue of fraud for the dishonest. Is this unfair for the honest guys? Maybe so, but on the whole, isn't it better to protect the investor and the marketplace from corporate criminals?
OK, Mr. Chinavasion, let me ask you. . ..do any companies in China manufacture Bluetooth motorcycle helmets? China manufactures more motorcycles and scooters than any other nation, so I'm hoping that sooner rather than later I will be able to find an inexpensive yet quality bluetooth helmet. The BT helmets I'm researched in the US are extremely expensive. US DOT certification (Dept. of Transportation) would be nice, too. Something under $300 would fit the bill. Current prices are in the $1000 range.
Those of us who are Republicans in the spirit of the original principles of the GOP should be especially disgusted by the likes of Jack Thompson. Forming a coalition with the Christian Taliban has destroyed the GOP, and given us the Bush Administration and its brand of Corporate Socialism/Crony Capitalism.
There are too few Republican politicians that hold to traditional GOP principles.
Since it was the target of a criminal attack, BS could subpoena ICQ for the IP without US law enforcement agency intervention. However, I think it's doubtful that the IP will be anything other than a dead end, unless Pharma was especially reckless.
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
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
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
Slashdot Mirror
I am as interested in how this could scale down as well as scale up. Sure, economies of scale can give us certain efficiencies, but having the ability to do this on the personal level makes for more personal independence and less reliance on corporations.
Then fill up the tank with premium, because I want to associate with only quality people.
Should they decide to do something the general public does not approve of, they can be replaced
That is, if the general public becomes aware of acts hat it might not approve.
And I'm Irish, and I try to avoid redundancy.
Well, you didn't come out and say it, so I'm not sure if it's what you have in mind, but if you mean that the very laws that give "life" to corporations need to be re-examined, then yes, you've got an excellent point. I'd go even further, and say that the very assumptions that out culture and civilization are based on need to be re-evaluated.
But who is to do such a re-evaluation? The politicians? Heh. No, it's got to be you and me. And is there any hope in hell of pushing through such changes of underlying assumptions, given that the ones who don't want the assumptions changed have guns, money, and inertia on their side? No. So, the best either you or I can do is to make changes in our own little lives, and maybe help those we come into contact with change their own assumptions, if they want it.
Ever thought of getting off the grid? Or if that's impossible, moving as much of one's life off the grid, becoming less dependent on the grid, leaving a smaller footprint?
Meanwhile, legislation like S-O might help people from getting ripped off.
This is actually a long time pattern in the PRC, since the Communists achieved victory on the mainland. Chinese intellectual and cultural life has historically experienced an ebb and flow of government crackdown of free expression alternating with encouragement. They don't spell out what is off limits except by example. It shouldn't be surprising that a company CEO doesn't want an example made of his company or him personally.
Maybe a China expert can fill us in on a timeline of such ebbs and flows. The reason I'm semi-aware of it was that I wrote a college paper many years ago on the anti-spiritual pollution campaign. (That's not my paper; it's a chapter from someone's thesis.) What is important is that we understand the history of free expression and cultural life in China and understand that the Chinese have come a long way in the last 20 years.
Oh, to be sure, there are differences between Chinese censorship and US censorship. But let's not make the mistake of saying that we are free from censorship, from government pressure to self-censor, or that the battle for free speech has been for ever won in the US.
Also,to use your analogy: the difference between jumping and flying is one of degree. Most people in the US are comfortable with the censorship practiced here, but would not be satisfied with the degree to which it is practiced in China.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was confused about the purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley. Of course, some executives are going to complain that it's not helping profits. That's not its purpose. Its purpose is foreclose an avenue of fraud for the dishonest. Is this unfair for the honest guys? Maybe so, but on the whole, isn't it better to protect the investor and the marketplace from corporate criminals?
Glass houses and throwing stones and all that (I'm in the US) but really...
I'm glad you put that.
It's not too terribly different from the system of censorship that we use in the US, with the FCC.
Yes, censorship is bad. Yes, it's practiced in the US, and most people don't even blink, because it doesn't have a direct effect on them.
Don't forget to rape and pillage his mother's house after you're done burning it down (unless it's explicitly forbidden in the agreement).
Please stop referring to our former Vice President as Al Gore. He is to be known henceforth as A.I. Gore. That is all.
Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln was at Disneyland, not Knott's.
Still, I'm rather looking forward to Mr. Jobs' Wild Ride.
OK, Mr. Chinavasion, let me ask you. . . .do any companies in China manufacture Bluetooth motorcycle helmets? China manufactures more motorcycles and scooters than any other nation, so I'm hoping that sooner rather than later I will be able to find an inexpensive yet quality bluetooth helmet. The BT helmets I'm researched in the US are extremely expensive. US DOT certification (Dept. of Transportation) would be nice, too. Something under $300 would fit the bill. Current prices are in the $1000 range.
Andrew Tannenbaum is clearly a man ahead of his time, so we can't fault him if his prediction of OS X on Intel hardware was nine years early. =)
I think you misunderstood "everyone" to mean "extraordinarily small niche group"
Again, Prof. T made an error by forgetting to type the qualifying phrase "who is intelligent" as a modifier of "everyone".
Don't blame me if Andrew Tannenbaum is a sloppy writer. =)
Those of us who are Republicans in the spirit of the original principles of the GOP should be especially disgusted by the likes of Jack Thompson. Forming a coalition with the Christian Taliban has destroyed the GOP, and given us the Bush Administration and its brand of Corporate Socialism/Crony Capitalism.
There are too few Republican politicians that hold to traditional GOP principles.
Since it was the target of a criminal attack, BS could subpoena ICQ for the IP without US law enforcement agency intervention. However, I think it's doubtful that the IP will be anything other than a dead end, unless Pharma was especially reckless.
Again, that is incorrect. The Mini is user upgradable. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
My bad. I should have written "in connection with" vis-a-vis the logo.
I think Prof. T misspelled "running OS X on their G5 Powermac".
Oops!
I misspelled "Duo Core Intel Mac"!
Ship analogies are confusing and a tool of the devil.
Could someone out this into an easy-to-understand car analogy, like the good Lord intended?
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
[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
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
They just can't use the Apple name on either the label or (debatably) the music store, so as to avoid confusion. This is the kernel of trademark law.
Apparently, the debate was settled in court. Apple Computer can use the Apple name and the Apple Computer logo on the iTunes Music Store.
Apple Corp. is going to appeal, but I'd bet money that a settlement is reached before it gets that far.