PDA

View Full Version : Apple v Apple Decision on May 8?


MacRumors
Apr 28, 2006, 03:36 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Macworld.co.uk reports (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=14505) that a decision on the Apple Corps v. Apple Computer Inc. case will be announced on Monday, May 8.

Apple Corps, the recording company founded by the Beatles, sued Apple Computer Inc last year for allegedly breaching a trademark settlement made by the companies in 1991. The 1991 settlement's language barred Apple Computer from distributing music on physical media, but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time but was clearly within the spirit of the agreement.

Should the court decide against Apple Computer, the judge is expected to forcibly remove Apple's logo from iTunes, and precedent would be set for a large sum of money be paid to Apple Corps.

Raw Data: Recent court decision quoting 1991 ruling. (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm")

DontBurnTheDayy
Apr 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Azadre
Apr 28, 2006, 03:39 PM
That would be devestating. Although, since the beatles are no longer a group should the case still be upheld?

BenRoethig
Apr 28, 2006, 03:41 PM
What would probably happen is that the Ipod/Itunes section would be spun off like filemaker. However, in my mind, there is nobody on earth how is going to mistake a dormant record label for Apple computer.

luminosity
Apr 28, 2006, 03:42 PM
Sad that apple corps feels the need to keep itself afloat by using another company. they're ancient history now, and irrelevant. just a lot of sour grapes and whining.

sintaxi
Apr 28, 2006, 03:50 PM
I am currently taking a law class and we have discussed this case. My Proff seems to think that apple corp will win. I think I disagree because apple computers is only providing a means for record labels to distribute their product. Apple isnt actually distributing music.

Ironic how Apple Computers paved the way for legal downloads. and now they are being sued.

Stridder44
Apr 28, 2006, 03:51 PM
OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good...



Whatever. They'll probably work out some deal to sell their songs on iTunes cuz the heads at Apple Corps. are up there with the asshats at the RIAA.

~Shard~
Apr 28, 2006, 03:53 PM
Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this story and am curious to see how the judge will rule.

jimN
Apr 28, 2006, 03:54 PM
cpuldn't apple just buy these guys out and then fire them. Now that would be amusing.

corywoolf
Apr 28, 2006, 03:54 PM
I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.

benpatient
Apr 28, 2006, 03:54 PM
stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement.

there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store.

seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store.

But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they?

Apple Media Store?

can't use "Apple" anymore.

iTunes Media Store.

stays iTMS.

remove the apple logo from it.

no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.

corywoolf
Apr 28, 2006, 03:55 PM
Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this sorry and am curious to see how the judge will rule.

Don't be sorry! ;)

dr_lha
Apr 28, 2006, 03:57 PM
OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good...
Yes - the were.

But that's not the issue. Apple Corps are run by a bunch of ex-Apple roadies that are desperately trying to make money by any means necessary. They're wankers, but this in no way dimishes how good the Beatles were.

corywoolf
Apr 28, 2006, 04:00 PM
stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement.

there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store.

seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store.

But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they?

Apple Media Store?

can't use "Apple" anymore.

iTunes Media Store.

stays iTMS.

remove the apple logo from it.

no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.

You sir, just hit the nail on the head.
:eek: :D

munkees
Apr 28, 2006, 04:01 PM
This will only effect apple in the UK, seeing that the prior judgement has no legal bounds outside UK law.

dr_lha
Apr 28, 2006, 04:02 PM
This will only effect apple in the UK, seeing that the prior judgement has no legal bounds outside UK law.
Losing a large chunk of change will effect Apple everywhere however.

p0intblank
Apr 28, 2006, 04:03 PM
I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

evilgEEk
Apr 28, 2006, 04:05 PM
...but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time...
I disagree whole-heartedly with this statement. How could online distribution not be envisioned in 1991? Around that time the Internet was still in its infancy, but it was growing very fast. Digital distribution wasn't exactly a brand new idea at that time.

I don't care if it was in the "spirit" of the agreement or not, they should have specified.

I hope Apple, Inc. wins straight out.

vtprinz
Apr 28, 2006, 04:05 PM
This has nothing to do with the actual case, but did anyone notice the name of the judge from the '91 trial?


Mr. Justice Mann.


That's amazing.



/end

kozmic stu
Apr 28, 2006, 04:06 PM
I still don't get why so many people think Apple Corp MUST be after money and only money in this case... Seems to me that actually The Beatles (and so Apple Corps) already have LOTS of money. Had they only been after a large settlement, surely they would have allowed the case to take place in the USA, where the chances of winning are higher, as are the settlements, in general.

I also don't buy the argument that they're tying to buy back the rights to the Beatles catalogue as Paul McCartney's no fool and the rights revert back to him in a few years anyway.

Seems to me that this is about the fact the when The Beatles music is put up on iTunes, under the 'Record Label' section it will say 'Apple'. When Apple Computer advertises the iTMS, they play a music video, followed by a picture of an Apple: which can easily be seen to imply that Apple is the publishing company for the music being played. Both these things lead to brand ambiguity, and are clearly against the 1991 agreement,

I can't see a way in which Apple Computer can win

But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just using my head...

Stu

P.S. I actually want Apple Computer to win, but not because they SHOULD, just because I don't want them to lose.

~Shard~
Apr 28, 2006, 04:07 PM
Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

I think one guy did. His name was Steve Jobs or something like that. :cool:

p0intblank
Apr 28, 2006, 04:09 PM
I think one guy did. His name was Steve Jobs or something like that. :cool:

Hahaha, you know what I meant! ;)

longofest
Apr 28, 2006, 04:10 PM
I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

Dude, in this conversation you really gotta qualify your "Apple's". Reading what you wrote, I have no idea which Apple you are talking about.

runninmac
Apr 28, 2006, 04:12 PM
I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.

Yay for people actually thinking good. I hate the people that actually post things that will never happen and expect people to agree with them. I would just hope that they TIGHTLY and i mean TIGHTLY intergrate the companys. StevyJ being the CEO of both. (obviously)

mac-er
Apr 28, 2006, 04:23 PM
I would be shocked if Apple Computer didn't win this case.

The case seems to boil down to one point, from what I have read in the media. Would a reasonable person using iTunes think that Apple Corps is behind it? (Thus, the reasoning behind removing the Apple logo from the software.)

The dumbest person in the world wouldn't think that.

combatcolin
Apr 28, 2006, 04:23 PM
In the style of of dear Pub Landlord...

"BACK OFF YOU WORK SHY SCOUSER, SITTING ON YOUR ARSE AND ROBBING DECENT HARD WORKING COMPUTER COMPANIES OF THEIR EARNINGS...of course they are Yanks, grrrr!"

:p

dausone
Apr 28, 2006, 04:35 PM
How could online distribution not be envisioned in 1991? Around that time the Internet was still in its infancy, but it was growing very fast. Digital distribution wasn't exactly a brand new idea at that time.

No it wasnt growing very fast in 91 if memory serves me correctly... was 56k even around?? I think it was still 14.4k that was the hot ticket and most common connection speed back then if that. And I think digital distribution was a brand new idea at the time... You would be hard pressed to find a web site with images let alone music.

ITASOR
Apr 28, 2006, 04:37 PM
If Apple is ruled against, they can't call the iPod an "Apple iPod" anymore? That sucks...

joseph2166
Apr 28, 2006, 04:46 PM
It's rediculous - the apple corps logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. The record company's logo is an apple, Apple's logo is THE APPLE LOGO.
There is no way you could pursuade me that Apple stole the logo, or that they should pay any money to the members of one of the most successful and richest bands ever.

Doctor Q
Apr 28, 2006, 04:48 PM
I think we've been over all the issues involved in this dispute many times. I'm just glad it might finallly be over.

And let's hope they have a comprehensive enough settlement agreement that we don't have another suit in the future about another unforseen intersection of Apples and music.

elo
Apr 28, 2006, 04:49 PM
I would be shocked if Apple Computer didn't win this case.

The case seems to boil down to one point, from what I have read in the media. Would a reasonable person using iTunes think that Apple Corps is behind it? (Thus, the reasoning behind removing the Apple logo from the software.)

The dumbest person in the world wouldn't think that.

Actually, that's merely how Apple (Computer) is framing the issue. In reality, it boils down to standard contractual interpretation. In other words, the real issue is whether or not Apple (Computer) violates an agreement they made not to sell music under the Apple name. There is a large body of standard legal contract doctrine that will decide this issue. The wildcard, from our perspective, is that none of us knows what the contract actually said. Assuming a written order (which the judge is not compelled to issue), we'll find out something about that when we finally read it.

Anyone who frames an opinion either way with respect to this issue without knowing the substance of the contract is simply shooting their mouth off.

As a side note, the main post misuses the term "precedent." One case serves as precedent for another case by interpreting the law in such a way as to apply to analogous facts. A case, however, does not provide "precedent" for damages within that case. Rather, the factual and legal determinations form a basis for damages, and any subsequent appeal.

Could the damages be large? In a word, yes.

elo
Apr 28, 2006, 04:51 PM
I think we've been over all the issues involved in this dispute many times. I'm just glad it might finallly be over.

And let's hope they have a comprehensive enough settlement agreement that we don't have another suit in the future about another unforseen intersection of Apples and music.

They didn't settle; that's why this went to trial.

QCassidy352
Apr 28, 2006, 04:53 PM
I can't see a way in which Apple Computer can win

how about the facts that:
1) apple doesn't produce music, but only distributes it, and
2) online music is not specified in the agreement, so Apple Computer has not violated the letter of their agreement

Lumeswell
Apr 28, 2006, 04:59 PM
I disagree whole-heartedly with this statement. How could online distribution not be envisioned in 1991? Around that time the Internet was still in its infancy, but it was growing very fast. Digital distribution wasn't exactly a brand new idea at that time.

I don't care if it was in the "spirit" of the agreement or not, they should have specified.

I hope Apple, Inc. wins straight out.

There seems to be some confusion about what this case is about, is it that Apple Computer are distributing music which goes against the 'spirit' of the 1991 agreement, or that people might confuse Apple Computer with Apple Corps.

If its about the 1991 agreement, then I would think Apple Computer should be OK. To hell with the 'spirit' - if everyone followed the spirit of things lawyers would out of a job. They make their money out of what is not written down (not that theres anything wrong with that) - but heres the wording from the original agreement regarding where apple was allowed to play:

Apple Computer Field of Use means (i) electronic good,s including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium; (ii) data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services; (iii) ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution; (iv) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services; and (v) promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing.

OK, I think that you could argue that what Apple do now falls within the description given above. The music is just data when it comes down to it.

Now, if its about people thinking Apple Computer is Apple Corp (and think about this Apple Corp, there are worse things in the world right now than people thinking you are part of apple Computer ;-)) then a later section deals with trade mark usage:


4. RIGHTS TO USE TRADE MARKS"Apple Computer shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use.
"Apple Corps shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Corps Field of Use.
"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

Again, I dont see anything there that screams out they are not playing fair. They dont distribute physical media, and they have the right to put Apple Computer Marks on their software.

Am I missing something?

Superdrive
Apr 28, 2006, 05:01 PM
MacTunes? iTunes by Mac? Either way, the cash could be the largest hurt for Apple. As long as the iPod can wear the Apple, iTunes already has enough brand recognition to be okay.

confirmed
Apr 28, 2006, 05:08 PM
If Apple is ruled against, they can't call the iPod an "Apple iPod" anymore? That sucks...

why can't the ipod stay with Apple? the way i see it, only the music store would be affected, if Apple Corps wins. The iPod is just a hard drive that can play music, whether it comes from CDs bought from Apple Corps or downloaded through iTunes. It doesn't have anything to do with the distribution of music.

Seperate Apple and iTunes, nothing else changes. You won't even have to change the commercials, don't they all say "iPod+iTunes," as in two seperate things. hey, even leave the Apple logo on those commercials, it's just two companies advertising together. Like those Radio Shack commercials that advertise Sirius, or a movie trailer that advertises a featured car in the movie.

Now, as to whether or not Apple Comp. will win... I don't know how exactly the law works in this fashion, but i understand that the way things are worded are very important. And the judgement from '91 clearly says "physical media." I understand it's all about Apple Corps never imagining another form of distribution, but why not just say Apple Comp. can not distribute music. Add to that Apple is defined in the '91 judgement as providing "data transmission services." that's all iTMS is. whether it's music, music videos, or TV shows.. it's just transmitting data, and the Apple logo is nowhere to be seen within those transmissions.

Doctor Q
Apr 28, 2006, 05:08 PM
They didn't settle; that's why this went to trial.Correct, and I didn't explain my point well. Even if Apple and Apple have a settlement forced upon them by court decision, I'm hoping it will put the problems to rest, and not become just another battle in a continued feud.

Followup worry: Whichever way this decision comes out, is it going to be appealed?

Whiteapple
Apr 28, 2006, 05:18 PM
MacTunes? iTunes by Mac? Either way, the cash could be the largest hurt for Apple. As long as the iPod can wear the Apple, iTunes already has enough brand recognition to be okay.

Nahh, I dont think so...:)

More this...:eek:

jobberwacky
Apr 28, 2006, 05:21 PM
This has nothing to do with the actual case, but did anyone notice the name of the judge from the '91 trial?

Mr. Justice Mann.

That's amazing.
No, it's just a title. The monarchy north of France hasn't quite made it to the 21st century yet in many ways.

In Britseze it's not merely "Mr Justice" btw, the guy would probably be offended. Thou shalt address him as "The Honourable Mr Justice Mann".

see here for a list of his mates:
http://www.catribunal.org.uk/about/memberlist.asp?Category='3'

macgyver2
Apr 28, 2006, 05:21 PM
[8< *snip*]

Again, I dont see anything there that screams out they are not playing fair. They dont distribute physical media, and they have the right to put Apple Computer Marks on their software.

Am I missing something?
I'm with you. The only thing I can think of that might possibly violate the agreement is Apple selling preloaded iPods (think U2).

Play Ultimate
Apr 28, 2006, 05:32 PM
I'm with you. The only thing I can think of that might possibly violate the agreement is Apple selling preloaded iPods (think U2).

They were't sold pre-loaded, just pre-purchased. You still had to download the songs from iTunes.

Roads0
Apr 28, 2006, 05:33 PM
It's rediculous - the apple corps logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. The record company's logo is an apple, Apple's logo is THE APPLE LOGO.
There is no way you could pursuade me that Apple stole the logo, or that they should pay any money to the members of one of the most successful and richest bands ever.

I don't think that's the argument...

Shaun.P
Apr 28, 2006, 05:35 PM
A large sum of money? How much are we talking?

Tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions?

Kingsly
Apr 28, 2006, 05:35 PM
Yes - the were.

But that's not the issue. Apple Corps are run by a bunch of ex-Apple roadies that are desperately trying to make money by any means necessary. They're wankers, but this in no way dimishes how good the Beatles were.
Thank you. This trial has nothing to do with the Beatles (best band ever, by the way) but the record company which happened to be founded by them. Beatles recordings are now owned my Capitol and EMI, I think...

Removing the Apple logo from iTunes? Nooooooooo!

AP_piano295
Apr 28, 2006, 05:41 PM
Actually, that's merely how Apple (Computer) is framing the issue. In reality, it boils down to standard contractual interpretation. In other words, the real issue is whether or not Apple (Computer) violates an agreement they made not to sell music under the Apple name. There is a large body of standard legal contract doctrine that will decide this issue. The wildcard, from our perspective, is that none of us knows what the contract actually said. Assuming a written order (which the judge is not compelled to issue), we'll find out something about that when we finally read it.

Anyone who frames an opinion either way with respect to this issue without knowing the substance of the contract is simply shooting their mouth off.

As a side note, the main post misuses the term "precedent." One case serves as precedent for another case by interpreting the law in such a way as to apply to analogous facts. A case, however, does not provide "precedent" for damages within that case. Rather, the factual and legal determinations form a basis for damages, and any subsequent appeal.

Could the damages be large? In a word, yes.

well spending fifteen minutes looking around the itunes store i find that it would be perfectly possible to not even know it is apple's creation.

in no way does it "look" like they are selling music under apples name so that would mean they arent selling music under apples name.

Kingsly
Apr 28, 2006, 05:56 PM
Dear Apple records,
I've got a feeling I will have to Cry baby Cry if this Long, Long, Long trial continues any further. It seems like Here, There And Everywhere Apple records is suing Apple computer once again. I Want To Tell You that Apple shaped logos are For No One, but, rather, for everyone to share. You need to Slow Down, because Baby, you're a Rich Man. I mean, come on! Ob-La-Di Ob- La-Da, life goes on. Run For Your Life! Im So Tired of rich record execs constantly yelling I Me Mine! The fact of the matter is that You Cant Do That. Tell me why you need so much money? Tomorrow Never Knows, but You Wont See Me purchasing any more Apple records unless this Helter Skelter comes to a stop.
Hello, Goodbye,
Kingsly

macgyver2
Apr 28, 2006, 05:58 PM
They were't sold pre-loaded, just pre-purchased. You still had to download the songs from iTunes.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Di9it8
Apr 28, 2006, 06:06 PM
Are Apple rotten to the core?? ;)

luminosity
Apr 28, 2006, 06:10 PM
Apple Corps has been a failure since Day 1. they had the biggest head start in business history, but failed anyway.

Now they have to get money by leeching off other people's successes, regardless of what some legal contract says.

Peace
Apr 28, 2006, 06:17 PM
Reading between the lines I think the major problem this go around is the two parties have yet to settle out of court as in times past.Since the Judge said he will give his decision May 8th.One can presume that is a correct assumption..

Personally I think Apple Corp.is really going after Apple Computer this time.They know iTunes is the biggest music distributor of online music and they want to distribute the Beatles catalog online.They even said so in court..
One of two things are going to happen..
There will be a last minute settlement with The Beatles holding a very prominent view on the iTunes front page with ALL the monies from the sale of Beatles music going to Apple Corp...or...

Apple stock takes a dive due to shelling out 200-500 million dollars and changing the iTunes store to something like iMedia Store with no Apple Computer logo..


Lets hope these two trend-setting folks can do it properly.
But like the good Dr.Q...I too hope this ends once and for all because there are new and exciting things coming up for Apple Computer..

chefscientist
Apr 28, 2006, 06:31 PM
Apple Inc. should have lost the first time.

There are common names out there like Orange, Apple, and Tropical used for many companies. Most are followed up my a second part to their name like: Orange Micro, Apple Computer, or Tropical Products. To use things like apples if your name is Apple Computer for you logo should be acceptable. Apple Computer's rainbow colored apple with a bite out of it is clearly not a copy of the cut in half apple of Apple Inc, niether is their name, type of business, way of advertizing or even the counrty wich they are headquartered in.

Sad to say the same crap happens. The problem is that copywrite laws have lost thier focus. Some guy is suing E-bay for their "Buy It Now," button, and Wrigley's is suing Ice-Breaker's (Hershey's) for using Cooling type flavors in chewing gum.

This is a scary thing for all businesses to see happen. Apple Inc. would sue you too if they thought they could win.

nemaslov
Apr 28, 2006, 06:42 PM
It does not matter that you think the Beatles are old news. The fact is that they created a company called Apple in 1967/1968, which still is in the music business today. Just because Apple Computer is "bigger" and more relevent also does NOT matter. Twice already Apple Computer settled with Apple Corp agreeing NOT to be in the music business. They each outlined their own individual perameters They came to a mutual agreement. A settlement.

Apple computer is now in the music business which is the problem. Another point is that in 1991 when the last settlement was made, no one thought of digital distribution of music so Apple Corp is in fact violating that agreement. They not only distribute albums of others, but sell exclusive tracks and create playlists like the celebrity lists which are specific to iTunes. Even though Apple Computer is fighting this on a technicality (digital downloads vs. CDs or albums), the spirit of that 1991 agreement was that Apple Computer would not be IN the music business.

This is strictly business. Even if you forget the individual Beatles or their heirs, Apple Corps must protect their company and had to sue AppleComputer. Apple Computer does the same with their company as you'd never find another computer related company called Apple. They even sue people who use iPod in their name. Why do you think that iPod Lounge is now iLounge. If someone started an iPod Record label, they would certainly get a cease and desist letter/

Steve Jobs offered the Beatles one million dollars just prior to launching iTunes, which Apple Corp. turned down (sounds like an offer from an Austin Powers movie). I thing Apple Corp is in the right here and I think they will win, but a settlement will probably happen which would benefit both parties.

Again this is not greed and Apple Corps still releases CDs every year and has a very profitable catalogue in print, which Steve Jobs would love to have on iTunes.

Norse Son
Apr 28, 2006, 06:46 PM
Take a survey in most any city of the world, and chances are people have heard of The Beatles. And many of those surveyed could even pop off a few lines from one of their songs - never mind if they're tonally-ungifted.

However, prior to the 3rd Round of this silly courtroom shenanigans, how many of those people surveyed would give a correct answer to the following: "Can you name a musical artist who sold records under the Apple label?"... Hell, rewrite the question any way you want, and 99% of those surveyed would not give you a correct answer. Especially if you first asked what business Apple Corp was in.

Hundreds of millions of people can tell you at least something about The Beatles. Few can tell you about Apple Corp. Now, if Steve Jobs & Woz had decided to name the company Beatles Computers, then I'd rule in favor of the Fab Four, Now Reduced to Two.

I say Apple Corp should change its name for the sake of relevancy, if nothing else...

PS: If the High Courts are high on something, and rule in Apple Corp's favor, then their next target should be Apple Insureance in Southern California - I've seen their building on the 405 Freeway, in Orange County, and... pssst... it has an apple as a logo.
__________________________________

The one point of "possible confusion" is if people thought of Apple Comp. versus Apple Corp., but I've never seen Apple "Computer, Inc." referred to as Apple Comp., so that comes across as lame... Although, what one person posted earlier, about The Beatles being listed under "Apple" in iTMS for their record label - yeah, that might be confusing... Then, again, how many people shop for music, on iTMS or even in any brick & mortar store, by saying to themselves, "I wonder what Sony has released this week?..."

Regardless of the judge's decision, this retarded nonsense has to end once and for all. Especially if Sir Paul McCartney expects to retain his credibility if he walks out his front door with white ear buds dangling from his coifed sideburns.....

shawnce
Apr 28, 2006, 07:11 PM
Even though Apple Computer is fighting this on a technicality (digital downloads vs. CDs or albums), the spirit of that 1991 agreement was that Apple Computer would not be IN the music business.

Review the following closely...

4. RIGHTS TO USE TRADE MARKS"Apple Computer shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use.
"Apple Corps shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Corps Field of Use.
"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

The "spirt" of the agreement appears to allow Apple Computer to use the Apple Computer logo on hardware, software and/or with a distribution service that can reproduce (say rip from CD, copy a file), play (iTunes, iPod), or deliver (iTMS) content as long as Apple Computer doesn't use the Apple Computer trade mark in conjunction with physical media delivering pre-recorded content.

So can you outline how Apple Computer has violated that? In practice or in spirt?

MacPhreak
Apr 28, 2006, 07:22 PM
No it wasnt growing very fast in 91 if memory serves me correctly... was 56k even around?? I think it was still 14.4k that was the hot ticket and most common connection speed back then if that. And I think digital distribution was a brand new idea at the time... You would be hard pressed to find a web site with images let alone music.

You would have been hard pressed to find a web site, period. The WWW was announced by the inventor (Tim Berners-Lee) August 1991.

Sabenth
Apr 28, 2006, 07:32 PM
That would be devestating. Although, since the beatles are no longer a group should the case still be upheld?
they may not be a group but there matrial is housed in a company that deffently exsists they werent thick about there music they covered all bases and sadly there more than likely going to win sorry to all those who posted before me but i havent read all the posts or pages apple vs apple is getting very tyring

tboneh08
Apr 28, 2006, 07:36 PM
This has nothing to do with the actual case, but did anyone notice the name of the judge from the '91 trial?


Mr. Justice Mann.


That's amazing.



/end

That sounds like some kind of superhero...

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's JUSTICE MANN!!!:D

yg17
Apr 28, 2006, 07:56 PM
A large sum of money? How much are we talking?

Tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions?


http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/rbotoole/2005/09/25/dr_evil_pinky.jpg
One hundred.....BILLION DOLLARS!

evilgEEk
Apr 28, 2006, 07:57 PM
No it wasnt growing very fast in 91 if memory serves me correctly... was 56k even around?? I think it was still 14.4k that was the hot ticket and most common connection speed back then if that. And I think digital distribution was a brand new idea at the time... You would be hard pressed to find a web site with images let alone music.
No, 56K wasn't around at that time. I think my modem was a 2800 baud, not exactly broadband. ;)

But the ideas still existed, just as the idea of the Internet existed long before it was realized.

That's my point, the idea of digital distribution was definitely not a new thing.

tboneh08
Apr 28, 2006, 07:58 PM
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/rbotoole/2005/09/25/dr_evil_pinky.jpg
One hundred.....BILLION DOLLARS!

:) Haha... I needed that laugh...

Stella
Apr 28, 2006, 08:02 PM
There are an awful amount of people here that think Apple Computers can do no wrong.

If Apple Computers lose then Apple Computers have violated their previous agreement. End of subject.

Apple Corp have a good reason to protect their trademark - if they didn't they would lose it, simple as that. Apple Computers would do the same, and they have done, to protect their trademarks.

Neither is this because Apple Corp want their catalogue on online music stores. Do you *really* think they would have a hard time in doing so? Of course not.. all online music stores want Beatles music, and they would see that as 'Gold'.

I really doubt Apple Corp are doing this for money, because they are about to go under, any suggestion towards this is absolute absurd - please correct me if I'm wrong.

From the postings I've read, nemaslov is about the most sane. Others, well, are just fan-boy/girl efforts.

shawnce
Apr 28, 2006, 08:04 PM
You would have been hard pressed to find a web site, period. The WWW was announced by the inventor (Tim Berners-Lee) August 1991.

Gopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_protocol), Usenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet), NNTP, FTP, bulletin boards, email!!, etc. all existed before that date and it was common for software and in particular images and sound files to be distributed via the Internet. WWW was a late comer to the scene but it did change it radically.

Anyway the idea of digital distribution was well thought about in the industry well before 1991 (heck back in the 70s at least).

shawnce
Apr 28, 2006, 08:05 PM
Apple Computers FYI it is "Apple Computer"

Stella
Apr 28, 2006, 08:13 PM
FYI it is "Apple Computer"

That you for pointing it out...

Computer not Computers.

uburoibob
Apr 28, 2006, 08:20 PM
cpuldn't apple just buy these guys out and then fire them. Now that would be amusing.

Which apple buys which??

sartinsauce
Apr 28, 2006, 08:20 PM
Meh,

Chalk this up as further evidence that in the 21st Century it is more profitable to make lawsuits than it is to make products...

Stella
Apr 28, 2006, 08:25 PM
I love the fact there are so many armchair lawyers!! :-)

Do you know how much money you could earn if you were all lawyers?!!!
( though you wouldn't have any social life - working long hours etc ).

uburoibob
Apr 28, 2006, 08:33 PM
Having read the 1991 agreement, it's clear that it specifically spells out that Apple Computer cannot put its trademark on physical media that distributes music. Apple Corps is indicating that they could not have envisioned the internet and non-physical distribution mediums, and that the spirit of the agreement is being breeched. OK, I understand that. But if we are talking about the SPIRIT of the agreement - here's the deal. The agreement was, in spirit, intended to prevent Apple Computer from acting as a record label, signing artists and promoting them etc, because that would be confusing to the public at large - is this an Apple record or an Apple record? And it might be construed that Apple Computer was attempting to use Apple Corp specifically to this end to gain greater profits at the expense of Apple Corp. HOWEVER, acting as a record label and acting as a retailer are two very different things. I believe that it's clear from Apple Computer's activities, that they have intended to and are acting as a retailer - in effect, as a distributor/broadcaster and are not acting as a record label at all. I think if we are talking about the SPIRIT of the agreement here, one has to look at both sides.
Bob Martin

photomaniac
Apr 28, 2006, 08:56 PM
soooooooo unfair! Here's why:

Apple Corps claim is that people have been confused in the marketplace with their company and Apple Computer.... BS!!!!!! BS!!!! BS!!!!!! You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that.... this is not an infringement of the trademark... there is no confusion... we all know what Apple does! They are not a record label. It's a way to take big heeps of money from them being successful.

bretm
Apr 28, 2006, 09:25 PM
I think one guy did. His name was Steve Jobs or something like that. :cool:

Well, they do barely break even on selling music online. But the sell of ipods is a different story. Hmmmm.... wonder why they don't want to release the DRM for others?

cbigfoot1987
Apr 28, 2006, 10:30 PM
...I would throw out the case because only now does applecorps get upset. they shoud have tried to sue when I tunes Music Store first opened not after 1.25billion songs or so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

~Shard~
Apr 28, 2006, 10:32 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I'm hoping Apple wins... :p :D

Demon Hunter
Apr 28, 2006, 11:01 PM
The Beatles, and their record label, need to die.

milatchi
Apr 28, 2006, 11:53 PM
I really hope Apple kicks Apple's ass.

Apple...

Apple Apple Apple!

regre7
Apr 29, 2006, 12:03 AM
Apple Corps claim is that people have been confused in the marketplace with their company and Apple Computer....

Ahhh! Should I buy an iMac or iMcCartnac?!?

I've come to realize that the entire business world (and most of the rest of the world) is corrupt, and that to win, you have to pull for your side whether it's right or wrong.

Invading Hawaii while it was under native rule with US Marines (I think that was the branch) with support from a Navy vessel was wrong. The U-2 incident of the Cold War was wrong. The Cuban Missile Crisis was wrong ("Vee aff no meesiles in Cooba!").

Pull for your side, because that's what the others are doing.

And just to clear it up, I think that Apple Computer is in the right on this one.

nemaslov
Apr 29, 2006, 12:23 AM
THEY DID SUE RIGHT WENT ITUNES WENT UP it just took this long to get to court. Apple computer is putting together it's own complilations NOT simply acting as a retailer. They also have exclusive tracks and albums. They infact, like it or not, are like a record label. Like VIRGIN who is a retailer AND an Label.
Apple corps wins here!!!

mjstew33
Apr 29, 2006, 01:25 AM
I wonder if the judge uses an iPod. :D

jobberwacky
Apr 29, 2006, 02:18 AM
I wonder if the judge uses an iPod. :D
He has already publicly stated that he does. So what?

jobberwacky
Apr 29, 2006, 02:20 AM
That sounds like some kind of superhero...

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's JUSTICE MANN!!!:D
No, it's just super-retro.

Here's what I wrote a few comments back up (hoping that this would clarify the matter):

No, it's just a title. The monarchy north of France hasn't quite made it to the 21st century yet in many ways.

In Britseze it's not merely "Mr Justice" btw, the guy would probably be offended. Thou shalt address him as "The Honourable Mr Justice Mann".

Here's a list of his mates:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay
The Honourable Mr Justice Evans-Lombe
The Honourable Mr Justice Blackburne
The Honourable Mr Justice Lightman
The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer
The Honourable Mr Justice Park
The Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey
The Honourable Mr Justice Hart
The Honourable Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton
The Honourable Mr Justice Smith
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
The Honourable Mr Justice David Richards
The Honourable Mr Justice Warren
Source: http://www.catribunal.org.uk/about/memberlist.asp?Category='3'
EOD

chefscientist
Apr 29, 2006, 09:45 AM
I heard on the news that the judge owns an Apple Computer. And i will argue against stella, that if Apple Computer looses this battle then Apple Corps. it right. I don't always agree with a courts decision on what is right or wrong an niether should anone else.

I think Apple Corps. needs this case to survive, they aren't protecting themselves, they did not loose sales because of apple computer, there is no public confusion between the two companies.

If Apple Corps wins the money will just go into some fat rich guys wallets Apple Corps does jack ****, employes nobody and is only there to torment Apple Computer.

raster
Apr 29, 2006, 10:23 AM
I do think this is all stupid and greed based...
However - for all that think Apple Computers is GOD and does no wrong....
IF it was the other way around, Apple Computers would be sueing the pants off the record label.
Greed flows both ways

raster
Apr 29, 2006, 10:37 AM
If Apple is ruled against, they can't call the iPod an "Apple iPod" anymore? That sucks...
Who cares what you call your ipod?
If you misplaced your ipod, do you say: "Damn where is my APPLE iPod"

I have never prefaced my ipod with the word APPLE

mrgreen4242
Apr 29, 2006, 11:02 AM
cpuldn't apple just buy these guys out and then fire them. Now that would be amusing.

That was my first thought. Just buy the whole company and be done with it. :P I also wonder how much of the Beetles catalog Apple Corp owns, if any. I wonder if Apple Comp could buy up Michael Jacksons share which is for sale and use it leverage the other company into coming to an agreement... like OK, no more selling these Beetles albums that we own until we settle this. You NEED the money from these sales, we can wait.

Kinda sneaky and underhanded, but the whole thing is a little lame. I can see both sides points, but it doesn't make it a very good dispute.

JGowan
Apr 29, 2006, 11:09 AM
Sad that apple corps feels the need to keep itself afloat by using another company. they're ancient history now, and irrelevant. just a lot of sour grapes and whining.While I hate this idiotic lawsuit, I wouldn't say that they're ancient history. They still sell millions and millions of dollars of music a year and they've teamed up with a Cirque Du Soleil, and have created a new Cirque show at The Mirage in Las Vegas called "Love". Attached is 1024 x 768 Desktop I made for you guys.

Cirque/Beatles Show (http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/CirqueDuSoleil/en/showstickets/love/intro/intro.htm?sa_campaign=internal_click/redirect/love)

confirmed
Apr 29, 2006, 12:07 PM
THEY DID SUE RIGHT WENT ITUNES WENT UP it just took this long to get to court. Apple computer is putting together it's own compilations NOT simply acting as a retailer. They also have exclusive tracks and albums. They infact, like it or not, are like a record label. Like VIRGIN who is a retailer AND an Label.
Apple corps wins here!!!

Exclusive tracks and albums?.. that's just like HMV giving you a free single, or sampler cd with your pre-order of an album. the record company is providing the free single, not HMV, and not iTunes.

compilations? are you speaking of the "Essentials"?.. that's just like an independent music store which has a section with recommendations of the people working at the store (eg. Pete's Picks, Steve's Picks, etc...).

iTunes is a store, it is by no means a record label!

but i just want to point out again, as i did on a previous post. this is all negated by the fact that the issue is the Apple logo on "physical media." even if you remove the physical media part, Apple's logo is nowhere to be seen on anything you buy from iTunes! it's not added to the data stream, it's not on the artwork. and it's nowhere in the tags, nor is the name Apple.. what is in the tags? the actual name of the record label!

when i buy an album from iTunes, even a compilation, i've never once considered it an Apple record.

~Shard~
Apr 29, 2006, 12:37 PM
While I hate this idiotic lawsuit, I wouldn't say that they're ancient history. They still sell millions and millions of dollars of music a year and they've teamed up with a Cirque Du Soleil show at The Mirage in Las Vegas --

Hardly ancient history.

I wasn't aware of that - thanks for the insight. :)

nemaslov
Apr 29, 2006, 01:05 PM
THose special celebrity compilations and playlists are put together by Apple iTunes people and NOT the records companies. Yes the music comes from the labels but are not label specific and are exclusive only to iTunes.

I really think both parties are somewhat right. Apple Computer is trying to cry innocent on a technicality, but they are a music providor now. Yes if they take the Apple name off, they are free and clear and all you Apple-Beatles bashers should realize that dispite how you feel about them or their company Apple, they pioneered theindependent label music thing. Although Apple did not have huge success with other artists, they took chances like no one else at the time and many artist owned companies came later because of them.

In 1991 Apple Computer was limited in what they could do in the music business and they have crossed that line and expanded and Apple Corp is in the right here. Someone wrote here about other companies called Apple, but they are NOT in the music business or certainly NOT in the Computer business. Do you think if the Beatles company got anywhere near computers, that Job's company would not go after them. They do it everyday. This is law. I mean you can't even have a fast food company with Mc "anything" as the name. There was a healthfood fast food company once called McDharma's that was shut down legally by McDonalds. Do you really think anyone got them confused. Maybe people in their 20s and 30s never heard of the Beatles Apple, but older people certainly have.

As I wrote before , I think they will settle, as it would benefit both parties. Appel Corp will get a cash settlement which Apple corp can afford and exclusively put the remasterd Beatles catalogue on iTunes with a huge promotion blitz.

Lastly I would imagine that at least half the bands that started after 1970 and up to today would list the Beatles as an influence. And they have been influencing musicians and artists for over 40 years.

Demon
Apr 29, 2006, 09:27 PM
maybe i should start another company called "apple" as well. since they all seem to do so well.. it's all in a name. :)

nemaslov
Apr 29, 2006, 09:31 PM
Man, posting on this site if you support Apple Corps is like being a liberal democrat on the Fox News Channel!!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

barstard
Apr 30, 2006, 03:03 AM
Hmmm. This is a tough one. I guess it really only comes down to whether or not Apple Computer is breaking the 'spirit" of the 1991 agreement. It is up to the judge to decide what that 'spirit' was and if Apple Computer broke that 'spirit'. What could also likely happen is if the decision (whatever way it goes) gets appealed. The appeal judge could easily find a very different result. I don't think that May 8 will be the last we hear about this.

barstard.

barstard
Apr 30, 2006, 03:11 AM
Man, posting on this site if you support Apple Corps is like being a liberal democrat on the Fox News Channel!!!:cool: :cool: :cool:

No, it is like being anything except a Uber-right-wing-neo-con f***wit on Fox News Channel. They definitely talk alot about "no-spin" etc, yet they are the biggest spin-doctors around. Especially that psychopath Bill O'Reilly. That guy has serious hate issues. Though I guess with my above comments, so do I. :D

barstard.

jmelrose
Apr 30, 2006, 08:57 AM
Having read through all this, what I think is really interesting is that Apple Computer hasn't settled this case, as they did the last two.

Why? I think Apple Computer feels like they have solid legal ground to stand on, and once they get the decision they hope for from the judge, Apple Corps will never be able to hassle them again.

I think if there was a real chance of the iTunes/Apple brand being split, Apple Computer would open the wallet and ask, "How much to make you go away, Apple Corps?"

In short, I think Apple Computer will win it. They are not producing their own music, although it would be cool to see a jam session between a bunch of iMacs... OK, not really. But unless they are either making and selling music for themselves, or signing artists to an Apple-titled record label, I have to agree with the assertion that is is a (maybe final) desperate act on the part of Apple Corps.

jmelrose

dogbone
Apr 30, 2006, 09:19 AM
It's really that simple.

I've won plenty of court cases and my gut reaction after reading the details is that the wording of the law will apply and the 'spirit of the law' argument in this case will fail.

The argument for the 'spirit of the law' being what is in the minds of the consumer will not stand up. It may feebly raise it's head, but it will be ruthlessly kicked down. It's a fantasy from the expensive barrister robber-barrons representing Apple Corps.

nemaslov
May 2, 2006, 10:41 AM
For the sake of the argument here: What if Apple Corps. decided to team with some tech developer to make their own MP3 type player (or collaborate just for an initial promotional release and entry into the market) which has the entire Beatles catalogue ala the U2 Edition?

What if they released it as the "Apple BeatPod" or something like that, with the Beatles' green Apple logo prominantly on the front and in the ads?. Don't you think Apple Computer might go after them? But maybe the Beatles' Apple would be OK since no one thought in 1991....etc, etc. Shouldn't it work both ways???

luminosity
May 7, 2006, 12:05 AM
this is coming up fast in the windshield.

~Shard~
May 7, 2006, 12:57 AM
this is coming up fast in the windshield.

What exactly does that mean? How does something come up fast inside a windshield? Do you mean towards? What an obscure saying... :confused:

dogbone
May 7, 2006, 01:03 AM
What exactly does that mean? How does something come up fast inside a windshield? Do you mean towards? What an obscure saying... :confused:

It means, decision time tomorrow. Electrons bumping into each other will never be seen as 'physical media'

~Shard~
May 7, 2006, 01:08 AM
It means, decision time tomorrow. Electrons bumping into each other will never be seen as 'physical media'

Okay, can't say I've heard that phrase before.

So are Apples like electrons then? :p ;) :D

luminosity
May 7, 2006, 01:16 AM
Sort of like "coming up in the rearview mirror", only it's still ahead of us, so... ;).

~Shard~
May 7, 2006, 01:47 AM
Sort of like "coming up in the rearview mirror", only it's still ahead of us, so... ;).

Gotcha. :D

pinks
May 8, 2006, 04:35 AM
Apple Computers win court case against Apple Corps. Just announced (10.35 BST) on BBC News.

BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm)

joelypolly
May 8, 2006, 04:37 AM
Apple Computers win court case against Apple Corps. Just announced (10.35 BST) on BBC News.
Now that goooood news finally the Beatles can rest in pieces

dogbone
May 8, 2006, 04:44 AM
It's really that simple.

I've won plenty of court cases and my gut reaction after reading the details is that the wording of the law will apply and the 'spirit of the law' argument in this case will fail.

The argument for the 'spirit of the law' being what is in the minds of the consumer will not stand up. It may feebly raise it's head, but it will be ruthlessly kicked down. It's a fantasy from the expensive barrister robber-barrons representing Apple Corps.

Sad to see Apple corps not realising that barristers will tell them anything to get a brief. The whole case boiled down to bumped electrons not being physical media. It was never going to stand up.

68164
May 8, 2006, 04:56 AM
Apple (Computer) is on a roll - last week the 99 cent pricing plus French DRM on the ropes - this week sees off the Beatles and (hopefully) launches MacBook!

Can't wait for the week after - what could possibly top all this off?

Di9it8
May 8, 2006, 05:13 AM
Apple (Computer) is on a roll - last week the 99 cent pricing plus French DRM on the ropes - this week sees off the Beatles and (hopefully) launches MacBook!

Can't wait for the week after - what could possibly top all this off?
I nearly got an Apple store to say what was coming out on Tuesday, but he confirmed something would be!! :rolleyes:

jmelrose
May 8, 2006, 06:07 AM
From CNN.com (http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/08/technology/apple_beatles.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Apple outsings Beatles in trademark court battle
London judge determines the iPod maker committed no breach of trademark agreement against Beatle-owned Apple Corps.
May 8, 2006: 6:25 AM EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Apple Computer is not liable for trademark infringement against Apple Corps, the music company owned by the Beatles, a judge in London's High Court ruled on Monday.

Apple Corps, owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison, argued the computer company had violated a 1991 trademark agreement by moving into the music business through its market-leading iTunes online store.

Apple Computer (Research) argued in court hearings in London earlier this year that iTunes was primarily a data transmission service, which is permitted by the agreement.

The 1991 out-of-court settlement, which included a $26 million payment by Apple Computer, set out areas in which each party would have exclusive use of their respective fruit-shaped logos.

"I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment. "The action therefore fails.

Apple Corps said it would appeal the decision, while Apple Computer was awarded court costs.

Atlasland
May 8, 2006, 06:16 AM
Yep, Apple (Computer) won. Here's the BBC link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm

Play Ultimate
May 8, 2006, 07:05 AM
It is better that Apple Computer won vs. losing. However, it does not ssem that this entire spat over corporate logos is over. The 1991 agreement is still in effect, albeit it did not apply in this case. And thus Apple Corps can come back and sue again.
It will be interesting to see the final wording of the judgment and see if Apple Corps truly does appeal.