PDA

View Full Version : Apple Corps lose lawsuit against Apple Computer


MacRumors
May 8, 2006, 06:51 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The BBC reports that the Apple Corps have lost (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm) their lawsuit against Apple Computer. Mr Justice Edward Mann, the presiding judge on the case, ruled that Apple Computer used its Apple logo in association with its store and not the music itself, and was therefore not in breach of trademark agreements made in previous decades.

Mr Justice Mann ruled iTunes was "a form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music.

"I conclude that the use of the apple logo ... does not suggest a relevant connection with the creative work," he wrote in his judgment.

According to the BBC, Apple Corps is planning to appeal the case.

Dont Hurt Me
May 8, 2006, 06:52 AM
Good thing , this was nothing but some greedy lawyers chasing the ambulance.

ctango
May 8, 2006, 06:54 AM
Don't tell Steve about the "creative" part.

Dagless
May 8, 2006, 06:55 AM
Agrees. Just let it be. let it beeeee.

Atlasland
May 8, 2006, 06:55 AM
This is great news for Apple (obviously).

And, for my money, quite unexpected.

I thought Apple Corps were sure to win.

It seems they lost on quite a technical point.

bwintx
May 8, 2006, 06:56 AM
Outstanding, but Apple Corpse (and that spelling is intentional) obviously will drag this out in the appeals process unless Apple Computer comes up with $$$ to make the former go away. Which is all Apple Corpse probably ever wanted anyway.

gkhaldi
May 8, 2006, 06:57 AM
Yes! Good news. This was a suit with no merit!

SPUY767
May 8, 2006, 06:58 AM
Apple Corpse has run out of ways to re-release the Beatle's recordings and is therefore in desperate need of revenue.

Goliath
May 8, 2006, 07:02 AM
This is a good thing- Apple corps. have recieved millions in the past for the use of 'Apple'. They have had more than their fair share of reparations for the use of the term Apple in relation to music

Doga
May 8, 2006, 07:03 AM
...Apple Corpse...

Heh heh, nice play on words. :p

I too was thinking the plaintiff would win so I'm pleasantly surprised and pleased by the ruling.

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 07:03 AM
I think this could be both good and bad news. Good news for obvious reasons, bad news as it may delay the Beatles back catalogue entering the iTMS. If indeed all that was requested was a removal of the Apple logo from the store, I can't see it having changed the store itself much.

Since they are going to appeal, I wouldn't expect any Apple Corps related music to appear on there for some time yet.

thefunkymunky
May 8, 2006, 07:04 AM
Apple Corpse has run out of ways to re-release the Beatle's recordings and is therefore in desperate need of revenue.

Why don't Apple Corpse re-release the Beatles back catalogue on iTunes.:rolleyes: :o

sishaw
May 8, 2006, 07:05 AM
We've been hearing for a while that Apple (the Beatles' music company) has been remastering the Beatles' catalogue in order to make it available on iTunes. Is it possible that this lawsuit helps clear the way by eliminating any possible future legal claims between Apple Corp. and Apple Inc.?

Has anyone heard of an appeal being filed by Apple Corp.? If not, I would wonder how "adversarial" the lawsuit really was.

Edit: My bad. I see there is an appeal. Man, I hope that doesn't mean we have to wait for the appeals process to see Beatles songs on iTunes/

coumerelli
May 8, 2006, 07:05 AM
Mr Justice Mann ruled iTunes was "a form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music.


Thank you Captain Obvious.

mi5moav
May 8, 2006, 07:06 AM
I think the 91' agreement allowed the Mac(Apple) to play and manipulate or edit music if I recall... but not create music. So, the ipod and itunes so, guess this fell through the cracks. I guess we won't be seeing ikaraoke from Apple anytime soon. Apple Corps will be sure to find a judget that doesn't own and ipod next time... since they all have a bit of that kool-aid in them now.

coumerelli
May 8, 2006, 07:08 AM
Has anyone heard of an appeal being filed by Apple Corp.? If not, I would wonder how "adversarial" the lawsuit really was.


reread the post, if you will...

intlplby
May 8, 2006, 07:09 AM
that's not true...... they could license the Dr. Ebbett's Sound Studio discs (DESS) and release them..... truly great mastering


they should also release the Abbey Road Black Triangle disc from Japan again and the Canadian Disque Americ Help and Rubber Soal discs. The Sgt Pepper's UHQR is a good find too as is the stereo German Metal Master of the White Album.

there's a bunch more, but these are the best masterings of the Beatles and most people have never heard them..... they sound much better than the typical releases.... some are bootlegs some are official discs..... for example the DESS ones are bootleg masterings from virgin vinyl.... the disque americ were accidental production of the original stereo masters and were quickly stopped

forget any itunes remastering, get the above remasterings that i mentioned.

Applespider
May 8, 2006, 07:09 AM
Apple Corpse has run out of ways to re-release the Beatle's recordings and is therefore in desperate need of revenue.

No... they're involved in a new Cirque du Soleil show in Vegas which is Beatle-themed and which they're expected to make a great deal of dosh from.

I really don't think there's much danger of Apple computers getting any benefit from a consumer thinking they are Apple Corps - if anything these days, Apple Corps would gain.

One thing I was curious about and which didn't seem to come up in the case was that Apple do 'create' music with their Live in London series where they record an artist's gig and make it exclusive to iTunes. But it is clear when you go back and check the iTMS, how often the Apple logo appears in iTunes or on iPods but how seldom in the Music Store itself which is obviously intentional

Sonofhaig
May 8, 2006, 07:09 AM
Does Apple Corp. have to pay court expenses?
This was a total waste of time....... Just lawyers adding to their wealth.
Dear God, I hate Lawyers. Please send them all to hell. Please?

rt_brained
May 8, 2006, 07:11 AM
And now, for the coups de gras, Steve Jobs will buy the rights to the Beatles music library from cash-strapped Michael Jackson and feature Beatles music in every iPod commercial from now to infinity.

aswitcher
May 8, 2006, 07:11 AM
Good outcome. Pity about the wasted time and expense. How soon before the beetles hit iTunes? ;)

Platform
May 8, 2006, 07:11 AM
Good news......go Apple....wait who...Apple Computer :p

generik
May 8, 2006, 07:20 AM
Only ONE Apple is relevant in 2006, Apple Computers :rolleyes:

Good bye Beetles, we've got RAID :D

joesporleder
May 8, 2006, 07:20 AM
I don't always buy into SJ's reality distortion field (unless it's something I just have to have! <grin>), but I do agree with his sentiments quoted in the story. I wish Apple Computer and Apple Corps could focus on a business agreement that is a winning situation for both. I remember reading on a Mac message board somewhere that Yoko Ono would be willing to sell out for $1 billion. Of the 4, sounds like John Lennon's estate might be the toughest holdout for Apple Computer to form a business agreement or buyout with Apple Corps.

Joe

Boggle
May 8, 2006, 07:20 AM
The best part is, the beatles will have to pay for Apple's legal costs. I wish they'd adopt that system in the US. It would put a stop to all those frivilous law suits of ppl seeking fast money in out-of-court settlements, such as. "I'm suing you b/c I have color induced stress disorder and your front door is the wrong shade of blue. Give me 5 million dollars & I'll get better."

Stridder44
May 8, 2006, 07:21 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The BBC reports that the Apple Corps have lost (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm) their lawsuit against Apple Computer. Mr Justice Edward Mann, the presiding judge on the case, ruled that Apple Computer used its Apple logo in association with its store and not the music itself, and was therefore not in breach of trademark agreements made in previous decades.



According to the BBC, Apple Corps is planning to appeal the case.

And how! Thank God for that.

So does this mean we'll see the Beatles on iTunes now?

Leoff
May 8, 2006, 07:26 AM
We've been hearing for a while that Apple (the Beatles' music company) has been remastering the Beatles' catalogue in order to make it available on iTunes.

Sorry, that's wrong. They are not remastering the catalogue to make it available on iTunes. They're remastering the catalogue to make it available in digital formats (.mp3's, etc...). Whether it will be sold on iTunes or whatever other store is out there this month (Sony, Microsoft, etc...) remains to be seen.

snkTab
May 8, 2006, 07:27 AM
but not create music.

What about Logic, Soundtrack, and Garage Band?

Or does 'create music' just prevent Apple from becoming a band.

Benjamindaines
May 8, 2006, 07:32 AM
*Pops open champagne*

Finally now maybe Apple Corps will finally get off Apple's case and stop suing them every 10 years.

What about Logic, Soundtrack, and Garage Band?

Or does 'create music' just prevent Apple from becoming a band.
I think it means to prevent them from becoming a record label

Spanky Deluxe
May 8, 2006, 07:37 AM
Haha, told!

Apple Corps is dead.... long live Apple!!

WeeManDan
May 8, 2006, 07:37 AM
I think it means to prevent them from becoming a record label

Basically they cant do what Sony do

Edit, now I think about it, could Disney?

macFanDave
May 8, 2006, 07:49 AM
The best part is, the beatles will have to pay for Apple's legal costs. I wish they'd adopt that system in the US. It would put a stop to all those frivilous law suits of ppl seeking fast money in out-of-court settlements, ..."

That's my thought, too. Do you think the debt owed to Apple Computer is significant enough that they will get to distribute Beatles music over iTunes as the reparation? (Personally, I tired of Beatles music about 20 years ago, but their music will sell really well on iTMS.)

Benjamindaines
May 8, 2006, 07:57 AM
Edit, now I think about it, could Disney?
They already are, ever head or Radio Disney? Or all those kid TV actresses / actors that are not singers *cough* Hillary Duff *cough*

jeffgarden
May 8, 2006, 08:00 AM
People ask if this could mean the Beatles catalog coming up in iTunes...but with all this b.s. between Apple and Apple, don't you think this could mean the opposite ? That everyone but iTunes gets it ?

twoodcc
May 8, 2006, 08:02 AM
great news! go Apple!

iGary
May 8, 2006, 08:02 AM
Sorry, Yoko.


























Hahahahahahahahaha! :D

jacobj
May 8, 2006, 08:13 AM
This calls for a change of avatar

Super Dave
May 8, 2006, 08:15 AM
Heh heh, nice play on words. :p

I too was thinking the plaintiff would win so I'm pleasantly surprised and pleased by the ruling.

I don't understand why people thought Apple Corps would win. Apple Computer hammered out an agreement with the last lawsuit that clearly stated they could do anything with the Apple name except become a record label. And they aren't producing music or selling CDs.

David:cool:

MacPhreak
May 8, 2006, 08:18 AM
...bad news as it may delay the Beatles back catalogue entering the iTMS.

That's bad news? It's a resounding "MEH" to me. If you're a Beatles fan, you've already got the discs. Why would you want to buy crippled, low-bitrate versions?

AoWolf
May 8, 2006, 08:19 AM
This really is the big decision so many of us have been waiting for its good to see apple computer coming out on top. I think that its pretty funny back in 91 no one saw apple computer being this deep into the music industry. I wonder if the appeal will go anywhere somehow I doubt it.

deadturtle
May 8, 2006, 08:24 AM
Hmmm... two apples, two logos, one lawsuit. I think the Beatles had a point... but they went about it in the wrong manner. The we're the Beatles so obviously everyone else sucks was bound to not go far with the magistrate... A reasonable agreement with apple would proly make far more that the 1.5 or 2 million quid they are gonna have to sink into Apple Legal... is iTunes/Apple so evil that they cant see the potential revenue source sitting right in front of them? My dad asked me the other day if he could get the Beatles off iTunes but I had to say no... Maybe this will change things.

Lord Blackadder
May 8, 2006, 08:27 AM
I hate Apple Corps, so this is good news for me. They are just greedy scumbags who make money off music they had nothing to do with the creation of.

princealfie
May 8, 2006, 08:29 AM
The Real Apple- 1; Beatles- 0. :cool:

jacobj
May 8, 2006, 08:31 AM
I hate Apple Corps, so this is good news for me. They are just greedy scumbags who make money off music they had nothing to do with the creation of.

Apart from the fact that they are primarily owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Star and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison. Other than that they have nothing to do with the Beatles. ;)

Still, Apple Corps is a placeholder for Beatles music and is not an active record label in itself. It really seems unfair to restrict the actions of a growing company on the basis that you own a name. This would be extemely difficult for a judge to make a call on. Apple is synonymous with iTunes and the iPod and that in itself raises the profile of Apple Computer. If Apple were forced to trade under a different name for iTunes and iPod then the HALO effect would be greatly reduced and restrictive. But the judge made a call and it is a good one.

Mr_Ed
May 8, 2006, 08:31 AM
Only ONE Apple is relevant in 2006, Apple Computers :rolleyes:

Good bye Beetles, we've got RAID :D

That was simply . . . awful . . .

(but I did LMAO :D )

p0intblank
May 8, 2006, 08:32 AM
Woooo! Yay for Apple! :D

netdog
May 8, 2006, 08:32 AM
The Beatles are not stupid. They would be insane not to sell at iTMS. I don't know that Steve can entice them to do an iTMS exclusive, but the store is too large to ignore. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their face if they boycotted Apple's distribution network (iTMS).

foofan
May 8, 2006, 08:35 AM
Foxnews.com Had This Story Hours Ago. You Guys Specialize In Apple Related News? What Were You Doing Sleeping? Puuhhlease!

ppnkg
May 8, 2006, 08:38 AM
That's good news. This was the only logical outcome of the case, and logic has prevailed.

mozart
May 8, 2006, 08:38 AM
ofcourse apple would win. apple is indestructible!!! :cool:

firsttube
May 8, 2006, 08:40 AM
This calls for a change of avatar

What a wonderful avatar. I like it.


P.S. I hate how I'm still a newbie here, I've been a member for years, however since I only lurk, I can't get no respect. :D

davey-nb
May 8, 2006, 08:45 AM
The Beatles are not stupid. They would be insane not to sell at iTMS. I don't know that Steve can entice them to do an iTMS exclusive, but the store is too large to ignore. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their face if they boycotted Apple's distribution network (iTMS).
Apple Corps are rumoured to be starting their own download site.
All Beatles, all the time.
No sharing the profits with anyone else!
I would think it would cost a lot to come up with the store but that would be a one time cost.
I can see them not wanting to involve any other company, especially Apple Computer Inc.!

Applespider
May 8, 2006, 08:46 AM
The full judgement for those interested in legalese is now up on the Times website.

It's an interesting read from a clued-up judge although I'm sure an appeal will be pending!

Multimedia
May 8, 2006, 08:48 AM
The Judge Owns An iPod - Duh. :p

Lord Blackadder
May 8, 2006, 08:48 AM
Apart from the fact that they are primarily owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Star and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison. Other than that they have nothing to do with the Beatles. ;)

I'm aware of that, but they don't seem to be the movers and the shakers behind all this litigation, unless they are quietly towing the party line held by the record industry and thei more business-minded colleagues at Apple Corps. Plus, as you pointed out, they aren't really "active", just managing a catalogue. I think that the name link between the two companies is pretty tenuous and nobody is confused between the two.

baby duck monge
May 8, 2006, 08:51 AM
Good to see that Apple Computers won this round. Perhaps this will discourage Apple Corp. from filing yet another lawsuit about this stuff.

Also, did anyone else catch that the judge's name was Justice Mann? That's classic. :D

whooleytoo
May 8, 2006, 08:55 AM
This is great news for Apple (obviously).

And, for my money, quite unexpected.

I thought Apple Corps were sure to win.

It seems they lost on quite a technical point.

I thought the same - it seems they could hardly have asked for a more sympathetic judge!

dansgil
May 8, 2006, 08:55 AM
I bet Apple's stocks will go way up today...:)

sishaw
May 8, 2006, 08:55 AM
reread the post, if you will...


I was reading it quickly befor going to work and missed the last line...bad news. Appeals can be lengthy.

interlard
May 8, 2006, 08:56 AM
Hopefully it wasn't down to the luck of getting a judge who understands what a music download is.

Now can Apple (Computer) sue Corpse for NOT ACTUALLY MAKING ANY MUSIC IN DECADES and wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

FFTT
May 8, 2006, 08:56 AM
This just in..........


Granny Smith sues Apple Corps for trademark violations. :D

sishaw
May 8, 2006, 08:59 AM
Apple Corps are rumoured to be starting their own download site.
All Beatles, all the time.
No sharing the profits with anyone else!
I would think it would cost a lot to come up with the store but that would be a one time cost.
I can see them not wanting to involve any other company, especially Apple Computer Inc.!

Hard to believe they couldn't come up with some way to market their catalogue in a highly distinguishable way on iTunes. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use an already established distribution network? Is running such a network really a one-time cost? Aren't there bandwidth costs, employee overhead, server costs, software development costs, etc.?

Well, they are The Beatles, I guess they can do what they want!

iAlan
May 8, 2006, 09:00 AM
<SNIP>They would be cutting off their noses to spite their face if they boycotted Apple's distribution network (iTMS).

Michael Jackson owns the copyright to a lot of Beatles songs and he has already cut his nose off, so nothing more to loose there.....:cool:

Di9it8
May 8, 2006, 09:14 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The BBC reports that the Apple Corps have lost (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm) their lawsuit against Apple Computer. Mr Justice Edward Mann, the presiding judge on the case, ruled that Apple Computer used its Apple logo in association with its store and not the music itself, and was therefore not in breach of trademark agreements made in previous decades.



According to the BBC, Apple Corps is planning to appeal the case.

How long will it be that Apple Corps decide that using the word Core will be an infringement??:D

bigandy
May 8, 2006, 09:14 AM
Does Apple Corp. have to pay court expenses?
This was a total waste of time....... Just lawyers adding to their wealth.
Dear God, I hate Lawyers. Please send them all to hell. Please?

What a generalisation, eh?

US lawyers have a reputation for being cash grabbing slimy gits who'll do anything possible in courts - probably because of their tv/film portrayl. Now I grew up down in England, where my mother and father are both lawyers in their own firm, and they, and every laywer I met during my five year employment there and visiting conferences, are nothing of the sort. I absolutely hate this generalisation, and have no time for the small minded idiots who think they're all the same.

Think before you open your mouth, and then, don't bother.

dextertangocci
May 8, 2006, 09:21 AM
Can Apple corps lose the right to appeal?

luminosity
May 8, 2006, 09:22 AM
excellent news :).

Object-X
May 8, 2006, 09:22 AM
It seems they lost on quite a technical point.

The whole case against Apple was predicated on a very technical point. It all involved how the logo was used. Quite the frivolous law suit.

MrCrowbar
May 8, 2006, 09:22 AM
What a generalisation, eh?

US lawyers have a reputation for being cash grabbing slimy gits who'll do anything possible in courts - probably because of their tv/film portrayl. Now I grew up down in England, where my mother and father are both lawyers in their own firm, and they, and every laywer I met during my five year employment there and visiting conferences, are nothing of the sort. I absolutely hate this generalisation, and have no time for the small minded idiots who think they're all the same.

Think before you open your mouth, and then, don't bother.

I agree. You'll be very thankful for a good lawyer once you're blamed for something you did't do (or something you did :p ). However I think justice was right (great name for a judge btw). Hopefully this was the lasse of Apple vs Apple, but I fear we will hear about it again.

Bakey
May 8, 2006, 09:25 AM
Agrees. Just let it be. let it beeeee.

Love your work... ;)

njmac
May 8, 2006, 09:30 AM
I read a quote a year or so back from an Apple Corp. exec said that he loves how Apple Comp. keeps infringing on their trademark because it makes them money. I lost all respect for the Corp. right then and there.

LimeiBook86
May 8, 2006, 09:32 AM
I read the title wrong and almost spit out my breakfast! ...but, then I read it again and rejoiced. I'm glad everything is now settled, Apple doesn't need to worry about such nonsense, now they can focus on more things, like a new Newton :p :rolleyes:

QPlot
May 8, 2006, 09:36 AM
great news, apple.
Now, it's time to kick some a**

Re lea se the power. aww, wth, whose shoes ...

dornoforpyros
May 8, 2006, 09:43 AM
damn....will we ever see The Beatles on iTunes?

glowingstar
May 8, 2006, 09:49 AM
is justice mann the best name for a judge ever, or what? :D

treblah
May 8, 2006, 09:55 AM
damn....will we ever see The Beatles on iTunes?

I give it 6 months after the appeal(s) ends. Corps will release the catalogue to Napster/MSN/et al., see minimal sales and wise up.

Or Steve might use the RDF to convince them that the appeals process will only add the cost that they owe and offer them a sweet multi-million dollar exclusive contract. This is probably happening right now.

50548
May 8, 2006, 10:00 AM
What a generalisation, eh?

US lawyers have a reputation for being cash grabbing slimy gits who'll do anything possible in courts - probably because of their tv/film portrayl. Now I grew up down in England, where my mother and father are both lawyers in their own firm, and they, and every laywer I met during my five year employment there and visiting conferences, are nothing of the sort. I absolutely hate this generalisation, and have no time for the small minded idiots who think they're all the same.

Think before you open your mouth, and then, don't bother.

Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

hadleydb
May 8, 2006, 10:02 AM
Right on!!! :D

Sonofhaig
May 8, 2006, 10:08 AM
What a generalisation, eh?

US lawyers have a reputation for being cash grabbing slimy gits who'll do anything possible in courts - probably because of their tv/film portrayl. Now I grew up down in England, where my mother and father are both lawyers in their own firm, and they, and every laywer I met during my five year employment there and visiting conferences, are nothing of the sort. I absolutely hate this generalisation, and have no time for the small minded idiots who think they're all the same.

Think before you open your mouth, and then, don't bother.

My Brother-In-Law is a lawyer who stole $12,000 of my money through legal mumbo jumbo. I'm entitled to my opinion!! As do you.... DON"T CALL ME AN IDIOT... I'm sure there a many on this board who feel the same as I do!!
Generalization? Indeed. I agree there. The sky can be many colors, but MOST of the time it's blue!!!!!!!!!!

Peace
May 8, 2006, 10:15 AM
Apple Corp. must pay the legal fees of Apple Computer.About 2Million pounds.Apple Corp. offered 1.5M but Apple Computer refused it..
Steve Jobs now hopes The Beatles will come to iTunes but Apple Corp. said no way.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=14575

Eluon
May 8, 2006, 10:16 AM
Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

While I am an American (and very proud of that), I know court cases here are stupid. But, what is just as stupid in this post is your statement that people in the U.S. are unable to admit their wrongs, etc. NOT EVERYONE. I am sure there are people in England, Brazil, wherever that are like this as well.

I also love how people in foreign countries believe our government is a replica of all people all times in all their actions. While yes they are representatives, THEY ARE NOT US.

Get over the American are the most lazy, selfish, arrogant bastards. Those kinds of people are every where. Every where.

bluebomberman
May 8, 2006, 10:16 AM
You know, I kept on thinking that this was a frivolous lawsuit brought on by greedy lawyers, but that was before learning that Apple Corps is obligated to pay Apple Computer's legal costs by law. I have to say, it's softened my stance a bit. It's still a money grab, but it's not as blatantly stupid as before.

mcarnes
May 8, 2006, 10:27 AM
No, it's still blatantly stupid. :D

Well this news has made my day.

MongoTheGeek
May 8, 2006, 10:27 AM
Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

Part of the problem with admitting your mistakes is that you get punished for it. Two people equally culpable in an accident. One was speeding, the other wasn't paying attention. The first one to say "oops" is dicked.

Yes there are a large number of ambulance chasers here. I'm related to couple of them, and yes they do have a tendency to exacerbate the problem of a litigious society. They are not the whole cause though.

Lawsuits have taken the role of interpersonal justice in America. Europe is far more regulated and inspected. Think about it like a game of basketball. Fouling happens. Some people say its part of the game. In America its playground rules, call your own fouls. Europe is more like a refereed game. Neither place is a pure example.

Americas strength is the ability to say "No harm, no foul." Something that lazy-a$$ people with a sense of entitlement are doing away with.

milatchi
May 8, 2006, 10:29 AM
in Yo Face Apple, In Yo Face!

bluebomberman
May 8, 2006, 10:36 AM
My Brother-In-Law is a lawyer who stole $12,000 of my money through legal mumbo jumbo. I'm entitled to my opinion!! As do you.... DON"T CALL ME AN IDIOT... I'm sure there a many on this board who feel the same as I do!!
Generalization? Indeed. I agree there. The sky can be many colors, but MOST of the time it's blue!!!!!!!!!!

Boy, your Thanksgiving dinners must be a real blast. :D

nagromme
May 8, 2006, 10:40 AM
I thought it could go either way easily (and with the appeal it still can one day). But I'm glad Apple won for now, and didn't settle either.

I'm sorry, but I simply have no difficulty remembering which one is the Beatles and which one is Apple :o

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 10:45 AM
That's bad news? It's a resounding "MEH" to me. If you're a Beatles fan, you've already got the discs. Why would you want to buy crippled, low-bitrate versions?
I know a lot of middle age consumers who are put off using iTunes because they can't find everything they want on there. I know this argument is pointless, but if people would buy it and buy iPods to play it on, it should be on there.

morespce54
May 8, 2006, 10:52 AM
Since they are going to appeal, I wouldn't expect any Apple Corps related music to appear on there for some time yet.

yes, that is quite a downside... :(

gugy
May 8, 2006, 10:54 AM
Congrats Apple Computer!
Scr*w you Apple Corps!

I am happy to see Apple Corps losing it. They are just a bunch of old greed people trying desperate to make more money. It's amazing that all the royalties revenue that The Beatles generate still not enough to satisfy a company that has not done anything for so many years. Decades.
I hope this will teach them a lesson and The Beatles will join Itunes.

QPlot
May 8, 2006, 10:59 AM
I am happy to see Apple Corps losing it. They are just a bunch of old greed people trying desperate to make more money. It's amazing that all the royalties revenue that The Beatles generate still not enough to satisfy a company that has not done anything for so many years. Decades.
I hope this will teach them a lesson and The Beatles will join Itunes.


it's contract, they're equal greedy. Don't forget about that.

QPlot
May 8, 2006, 11:01 AM
Generalization? Indeed. I agree there. The sky can be many colors, but MOST of the time it's blue!!!!!!!!!!

Heeya, I like that. Made my day:rolleyes:

gugy
May 8, 2006, 11:05 AM
it's contract, they're equal greedy. Don't forget about that.

What do you mean?

Fitzcaraldo
May 8, 2006, 11:13 AM
Generalization? Indeed. I agree there. The sky can be many colors, but MOST of the time it's blue!!!!!!!!!!

You have obviously never lived in the North of England... :)

50548
May 8, 2006, 11:14 AM
While I am an American (and very proud of that), I know court cases here are stupid. But, what is just as stupid in this post is your statement that people in the U.S. are unable to admit their wrongs, etc. NOT EVERYONE. I am sure there are people in England, Brazil, wherever that are like this as well.

I also love how people in foreign countries believe our government is a replica of all people all times in all their actions. While yes they are representatives, THEY ARE NOT US.

Get over the American are the most lazy, selfish, arrogant bastards. Those kinds of people are every where. Every where.

Sorry, Eluon, I was mainly referring to those that use the legal system in a frivolous way in the U.S. (which might be the majority or not, due to the above-mentioned widespread market-driven mentality)...and I DO hope that you oust those warmongers and criminals from the government...they really crush any good perception we can have about U.S. nationals.

jayb2000
May 8, 2006, 11:14 AM
I think this could be both good and bad news. Good news for obvious reasons, bad news as it may delay the Beatles back catalogue entering the iTMS. If indeed all that was requested was a removal of the Apple logo from the store, I can't see it having changed the store itself much.

Since they are going to appeal, I wouldn't expect any Apple Corps related music to appear on there for some time yet.

See that is good news and better news to me, I don't like the beatles :p
I know it would be more money for Apple, but if Yoko, Paul, and Ringo were uncermoniously dumped on a small island where they could live out the rest of their lives away from any recording studio or transportation, I would be happier.

If there is anything worse than Wings, Yoko singing or Ringo singing, I have not heard it yet.


Q. What would it take to reunite the Beatles?
A. 2 more bullets :D


Conrats to Apple for winning this one, it seemed so stupid based on the last agreement.

50548
May 8, 2006, 11:15 AM
You know, I kept on thinking that this was a frivolous lawsuit brought on by greedy lawyers, but that was before learning that Apple Corps is obligated to pay Apple Computer's legal costs by law. I have to say, it's softened my stance a bit. It's still a money grab, but it's not as blatantly stupid as before.

That's obvious, the lawsuit wasn't treated by a U.S. court, but a British one...

imikem
May 8, 2006, 11:19 AM
is justice mann the best name for a judge ever, or what? :D

No, I think Judge Dredd would be. Best name, but one of the worst movies ever though.

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 11:20 AM
Apple Corp. must pay the legal fees of Apple Computer.About 2Million pounds.Apple Corp. offered 1.5M but Apple Computer refused it..
Steve Jobs now hopes The Beatles will come to iTunes but Apple Corp. said no way.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=14575
This is really what discourages a lot of opportunist civil cases in this country. If you bring the case and lose, not only must you pay for all your own fees, but you are required to pay for the accused side's fees too. It's like saying you must be sure your case is valid or you will financially be crippled.

I still don't think it is completely down to those Beatles and their estates though. Live 8 featured Paul McCartney and U2 performing Sgt. Peppers and within about 8 hours it was downloadable through the iTMS. Proceeds went to charity. If this was greed on their front, would they have also been callous enough to prevent this being released?

Amuraivel
May 8, 2006, 11:21 AM
Well, I actually read a lot of the ruling.


I think the judge was correct on all points, except the issue of Apple commissioning "exclusive" tracks. Most people know that Apple is just selling music made by other record companies.


A record company at heart "commissions" music, and then distribute it. Apple is doing the exact same-this goes beyond releasing "exclusive" material, it is in effective producing music. If artists come directly to Apple to put their content on ITMS (i.e. distribute) it is functionally the same as an artist getting paid to have its music distributed by the record company.

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 11:27 AM
See that is good news and better news to me, I don't like the beatles :p
I know it would be more money for Apple, but if Yoko, Paul, and Ringo were uncermoniously dumped on a small island where they could live out the rest of their lives away from any recording studio or transportation, I would be happier.

If there is anything worse than Wings, Yoko singing or Ringo singing, I have not heard it yet.


Q. What would it take to reunite the Beatles?
A. 2 more bullets :D
Hope none of your friends or family ever get shot and people start making cracks about it.

Also, I don't care if you don't like the Beatles. I don't personally care for seeing them on iTunes myself. Some do though and I'm sure Apple would see increased sales on iTunes with the Beatles and that should lead to increased iPod sales. If you were in apple's position would you think, "Screw them, I don't like them anyway. They have tried to sue us many times and even if they are the biggest band in the world, they are overrated and I don't want them in our store" or "We've won, like I knew we would. Now we can try to get their catalogue in our store and increase sales. I don't like them, but others do and it would also put us even more on the map as being the one stop online store for music."

I would say from a business point of view, you always try to put personal feelings to one side when trying to strike deals that benefits your company in one way, short term or long. Think Apple-Microsoft 1998.

Jesus
May 8, 2006, 11:30 AM
The Judge Owns An iPod - Duh. :p

Brand loyalty is the best...

yac_moda
May 8, 2006, 11:44 AM
OH who cares you can hardly see the Apple logos on the iPods :eek:


I thought there would be a monetary judgment against Apple for damages but I had not done anything to learn about the case, this is pretty SMALL POTATOES :eek:


I guess if I was in SJ's shoes it would be hard to take the small logo on the iPods LIGHTLY but I would definitely see what the creative people can come up with as an alternative logo.

And I have thought for a LONG TIME that iPOD and other small EXPERIMENTAL devices should be in a CLEARLY separate division, and if they have modified branding -- NO BIG DEAL :D


YOU KNOW the Apple logo means, "Products for the rest of us !" -- VERY simple, VERY reliable, and easy to use.

Now they need an engineering logo, maybe an Apple with rivets at its edges, "Products for the engineer in us ALL !" -- Trendy, YOUNG, sometimes complex, WILD features, a few bugs, ALWAYS FUN :cool:

Mac Fly (film)
May 8, 2006, 11:46 AM
This calls for a change of avatar
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Mac Fly (film)
May 8, 2006, 11:49 AM
This calls for a change of avatar
:D :D :D :D :D :D

http://static.flickr.com/51/142847690_9526efb197_o.png

That's hilarious ;)

Foxer
May 8, 2006, 12:03 PM
Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

As an American lawyer (but not a trial lawyer - there are distinctions), allow me to shead little light on this point. We decided that the way to control the behavior of people was to expose them to lawsuits. If GM makes an awful car that explodes, they will be sued by those who are injured. Those parties will not only get back what they lost, the court will also award them additional (punitive) damages. While this does deter GM and encourage them not to make cars that blow up, it also encourages people to sue when, as the famous example, they spill hot coffee on themselves. In other countries, there is no concept of punitive damage. GM is encouraged to make good cars or the government will punish them in some way. Ours is a bad system, but its what we are stuck with since the trial lawyers have given too much money to the Democrats to ever make changes.

My Brother-In-Law is a lawyer who stole $12,000 of my money through legal mumbo jumbo. I'm entitled to my opinion!! As do you.... DON"T CALL ME AN IDIOT... I'm sure there a many on this board who feel the same as I do!!
Generalization? Indeed. I agree there. The sky can be many colors, but MOST of the time it's blue!!!!!!!!!!

Report him to yor state bar's ethics panel.

I DO hope that you oust those warmongers and criminals from the government...they really crush any good perception we can have about U.S. nationals.

And all the Swiss are Nazi-sympathizers, interested only in finding ways to profit off the Holocost. How's that for a generalization?


Sorry for that outburst. I am just sometimes thrown by the hotile, let alone unappreciative, attitude of Europeans for U.S. contributions to the world. That's why I stay out of the political forums.

elgruga
May 8, 2006, 12:23 PM
I thought the joke about the two bullets reunion was quite good - we need a lot of jokes to make this unseemly greedy and stupid action by the Beatles mildly funny.

An amazing waste of time and energy, and now these idiots are going to appeal. They obviously have WAY too much cash from selling endless 're-mastered' versions of the same old crap.

Just retire Beatles, and paint watercolours on some island somewhere.

No-on EVER gets the Beatles and Apple Computers confused - one is a vibrant co., the other is some kind of grave-digging, dead pop-star, grab cash from anywhere bunch of hags.

dongmin
May 8, 2006, 12:26 PM
I know a lot of middle age consumers who are put off using iTunes because they can't find everything they want on there. I know this argument is pointless, but if people would buy it and buy iPods to play it on, it should be on there.:confused: The iTunes has a better collection than just about every other store (digital or traditional) with the possible exception of Amazon. The last I heard, they have something like 3 million songs for sale.

elo
May 8, 2006, 12:31 PM
Does Apple Corp. have to pay court expenses?
This was a total waste of time....... Just lawyers adding to their wealth.
Dear God, I hate Lawyers. Please send them all to hell. Please?

As a member of the legal profession, I have to respond to this. This was a standard case of contract interpretation but the issue was not entirely clear-cut. As a party to the contract, Apple Corps had every right to challenge Apple Computer over a perceived violation of the contract's terms.

This suit was not instigated by lawyers, but rather by the company itself. They asked their in-house counsel for an opinion as to whether or not litigation would be possible. Based on that opinion (and, presumably, their belief that Apple Computer was violating the terms of its agreement) they decided to move forward. In a situation like this, the attorneys are instructed by their client to file suit, not the other way around. At that point, it's the job of the litigating attorneys (who may come from a firm hired by the in-house counsel) to make the best legal arguments possible on behalf of the plaintiff company. Most of the time, it's a very honorable, thoughtful process that should lead to the correct legal result. Moreover, the attorneys were not suing to "add[] to their wealth." In-house counsel don't make that much money and it's unlikely that any of the attorneys involved were working on a contingency basis.

The system is far from perfect (although this case appeared to be quick, well-argued, and quite professional all the way around), but most attorneys care deeply about improving it and work tirelessly to that end. True, there are some bad apples who exploit the system, but it's almost inevitable that when a large group of people has access to a powerful tool, a few people will use the tool as a weapon. We have strong safeguards against such self-interested behavior, however, and the safeguards probably catch more than they miss.

Most lawyers I know are wonderful and very honest people who care about the health and integrity of the legal system. It's a profession I'm honored to be a part of.

sam10685
May 8, 2006, 12:35 PM
we will win.

SiliconAddict
May 8, 2006, 12:39 PM
MWAHAHAhahahHAHAHAhaHaHaHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *takes a breath* HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEheheheHeHeHeHeHe.....*coughs* sorry. :rolleyes:

theBB
May 8, 2006, 12:41 PM
I agree. You'll be very thankful for a good lawyer once you're blamed for something you did't do (or something you did :p ).
There is a difference between criminal law and civil law, I think people are quite pissed off about some civil lawsuits.

Unlike some countries in Europe, even if you win a civil lawsuit against you in the US, the losing side does not compensate you for attorney fees. Even if you win, you lose. That encourages more lawsuits, as most corporations would settle a lawsuit if the price is not too high, rather than fight it. This is quite a burden on businesses and discourages them from entering certain fields. How is that good for everybody?

yac_moda
May 8, 2006, 12:49 PM
As an American lawyer (but not a trial lawyer - there are distinctions), allow me to shead little light on this point. We decided that the way to control the behavior of people was to expose them to lawsuits. If GM makes an awful car that explodes, they will be sued by those who are injured. Those parties will not only get back what they lost, the court will also award them additional (punitive) damages. While this does deter GM and encourage them not to make cars that blow up, it also encourages people to sue when, as the famous example, they spill hot coffee on themselves. In other countries, there is no concept of punitive damage. GM is encouraged to make good cars or the government will punish them in some way. Ours is a bad system, but its what we are stuck with since the trial lawyers have given too much money to the Democrats to ever make changes.



Report him to yor state bar's ethics panel.



And all the Swiss are Nazi-sympathizers, interested only in finding ways to profit off the Holocost. How's that for a generalization?


Touche :eek:

And the rest of your statement acknowledges my growing suspicion that the Demonaristoratic party has become the party of criminals :mad:

Is there any way to change this :confused:

yac_moda
May 8, 2006, 12:54 PM
I just went to Apple's website and the front page says, "FREE MacBooks FOR EVERYBODY just as long as you buy a 3 year CONTRACT with our communications and support package :eek: :eek: :eek: "

WHAT DO YOU THINK :D :p ;)

jenkij
May 8, 2006, 01:00 PM
Next Apple Corpse sues Fiona Apple for putting an apple logo on the itunes music store.:D

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 01:01 PM
:confused: The iTunes has a better collection than just about every other store (digital or traditional) with the possible exception of Amazon. The last I heard, they have something like 3 million songs for sale.
But their selection mainly targets younger consumers. In order to get greater market share, they need to expand into back catalogues more. Where better to start than the biggest selling band of all time?

elo
May 8, 2006, 01:11 PM
There is a difference between criminal law and civil law, I think people are quite pissed off about some civil lawsuits.

Unlike some countries in Europe, even if you win a civil lawsuit against you in the US, the losing side does not compensate you for attorney fees. Even if you win, you lose. That encourages more lawsuits, as most corporations would settle a lawsuit if the price is not too high, rather than fight it. This is quite a burden on businesses and discourages them from entering certain fields. How is that good for everybody?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both the American and British system of apportioning attorney's fees. It's important to keep in mind, though, that a system that errs too far in the direction of encouraging settlements over trials comes with economic costs that may ultimately be larger than the trials themselves.

First, litigants operating in loser-pays systems may have *more* incentive to file lawsuits (all else being equal) because risk-adverse parties will have greater incentive to settle. That fact, which is true only in certain types of cases, could undercut your point.

Second, and more importantly from a legal perspective, settlements don't create precedent. That imposes a huge systematic cost, as companies then have less information as to what behavior they can legally engage in. Under the British system, companies may not take all of the chances they could in the American system. Uncertainty, a necessary byproduct of the British system, is economically inefficient.

I have a few more, but just got a call I have to take, so I unfortunately must miss the end of this discussion.

yac_moda
May 8, 2006, 01:12 PM
But their selection mainly targets younger consumers. In order to get greater market share, they need to expand into back catalogues more. Where better to start than the biggest selling band of all time?

They also need to sell iPod with collections on them, like the Burl Ives Collection for people that are TOTALLY COMUPHOBIC :eek:

http://www.musicstack.com/tsearch/burl_ives/collection

Or these Timelife collections ...
http://www.timelife-europe.com/cgi-bin/tls.cgi?site=tecukcd02&c=uk

This way people can just walk into an Apple store and buy an iPod with music on it and never have to touch a computer if they don't want to :eek:

bluebomberman
May 8, 2006, 01:15 PM
That's obvious, the lawsuit wasn't treated by a U.S. court, but a British one...

It wasn't obvious to me. I'm just an ignorant American. What's a prime minister?

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 01:22 PM
They also need to sell iPod with collections on them, like the Burl Ives Collection for people that are TOTALLY COMUPHOBIC :eek:

http://www.musicstack.com/tsearch/burl_ives/collection

Or these Timelife collections ...
http://www.timelife-europe.com/cgi-bin/tls.cgi?site=tecukcd02&c=uk

This way people can just walk into an Apple store and buy an iPod with music on it and never have to touch a computer if they don't want to :eek:
Hard to do this, but if there were more compilation options on iTunes, it would also help. In order to get a lot of those albums, you would have to buy each song seperately. Normal albums would cost a little less than buying every track for that album seperately.

Now if you could go to the iTMS and add xGB worth of music into your basket, then order the relevant iPod with it pre-loaded for a slight discount overall, this would win over even more technophobes. They could send a burnt disc with the protected audio on too, just in case of problems so they could take it to their local store and have it reloaded.

Not ideal, but for those who fear technology completely, it is an option Apple could investigate. This would again mean more music would be needed to allow the user to choose what they really wanted on there.

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 01:26 PM
It wasn't obvious to me. I'm just an ignorant American. What's a prime minister?
Same as the first minister. Since in most European countries the ruling party/coalition has a heirarchy and those at the top are referred to as ministers, the one who has overall power over them is the first/prime minister. Some European countries have Presidents that have power over their Prime Ministers, some have elected Presidents with no political power, the UK has a pathetic royal family.

50548
May 8, 2006, 01:27 PM
It wasn't obvious to me. I'm just an ignorant American. What's a prime minister?

You may try calling Mr. Blair for such answer... :rolleyes:

50548
May 8, 2006, 01:31 PM
Same as the first minister. Since in most European countries the ruling party/coalition has a heirarchy and those at the top are referred to as ministers, the one who has overall power over them is the first/prime minister. Some European countries have Presidents that have power over their Prime Ministers, some have elected Presidents with no political power, the UK has a pathetic royal family.

You just forgot to mention Parliamentarism... :rolleyes:

preston.lanier
May 8, 2006, 01:33 PM
Thats what you get!!! What the hell do you think was gonna happen. Greedy bitches!!! :D Long Live Apple Computer!

yac_moda
May 8, 2006, 01:35 PM
Hard to do this, but if there were more compilation options on iTunes, it would also help. In order to get a lot of those albums, you would have to buy each song seperately. Normal albums would cost a little less than buying every track for that album seperately.

Now if you could go to the iTMS and add xGB worth of music into your basket, then order the relevant iPod with it pre-loaded for a slight discount overall, this would win over even more technophobes. They could send a burnt disc with the protected audio on too, just in case of problems so they could take it to their local store and have it reloaded.

Not ideal, but for those who fear technology completely, it is an option Apple could investigate. This would again mean more music would be needed to allow the user to choose what they really wanted on there.

I think this is an important option especially as the market matures because for compuphobs this would be THE entry point, it MUST be a totally computer-less starting point.

Their point of view would be, well if I can't use a computer and iTunes at least I can still play all my favorite music that it came with AND NO ONE ELSE WILL BE THE WISER.

See many of these people, if not ALL, are narcissistic and their main goal would be to fool others into believing that they can use a computer :eek:

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 01:45 PM
You just forgot to mention Parliamentarism... :rolleyes:
Not sure Bliar knows that word.:(

Technically, I believe you can now appoint any person to the cabinet in the UK. All you need to do is just give your friends a place in the Lords, then they can serve. Democracy, who needs it eh. ;)

yac_moda
May 8, 2006, 02:19 PM
NOW the loopy rumorers are saying LATE MAY :eek:


:D BUT YOU DON'T MIND WAITING DO YOU :D

rt_brained
May 8, 2006, 02:22 PM
It's the only time I'll be able to get away with this...

APPLE SUCKS!

Oooooh...I feel naughty.

JGowan
May 8, 2006, 02:37 PM
Apple Corpse has run out of ways to re-release the Beatle's recordings and is therefore in desperate need of revenue.Both your statements are just not true. The Beatles have been doing just fine, both in presenting their recordings and video archives to the world and also, in the return on that investment (ie. CA$H).

In the last few years alone, the Beatles have been selling their albums ala carte at an amazing rate for albums that old AND they've released the following collections: The Capitol Albums (v.1 & 2); Yellow Submarine (remasterd); First US Visit; Let It Be... Naked (a very different album than the original, let me personally say); The Anthology (v. 1, 2 & 3); One (a collection of all of their #1 hits and finally, the Concert For Bangladesh. They've also released their 10 hour Anthology video (first on VHS and most recently on DVD (a Must-Have for Beatles fans) as well as the companion Anthology coffetable book (also a Must-Have). They are also in the process of remastering the whole Beatles catalogue.*

In addition to all this, they have teamed up with Cirque du Soleil for The Mirage Hotel's presentation of "LOVE" in Las Vegas.

Finally, Paul McCartney has been very busy himself and is make serious money with his touring and individual projects. The last one, "Chaos And Creation In The Backyard", is a great little album that I am thrilled I got on my last birthday. It also has a VERY CLEVER bit of logo design wherein his name "Paul McCartney" can be read upside down (image included-right side up AND upside down. It makes quite an impression when physically holding the disc and rotating it 180˚. Discovering it accidently was like, wow. Certainly, Paul McCartney will not let HIS 64th Birthday go by without releasing SOMETHING. I would imagine at least some sort of "NOW I'M 64" single or possibly a whole new album with a new cut about being a senior. Paul turns 64 on June 18, 2006. He graces cover of AARP's May/June Magazine! (See first link below)

Final thought: This has had nothing to do with money. It was simply two companies actually believing they were right and standing their ground. I respect Apple Corps for trying to protect themselves in this manner. The Beatles and their music are still very much alive -- and still influence musicians to this day.

Final, Final thought: I'm glad Apple Computers won. I love both Apples, but the computer company is still my fav.

I'll take a fresh apple with a single bit out of it over Half of one any day. :)

---

Here's hoping (almost in vain) that this will all end up on iTunes. However, it's worth noting that Steve Jobs still believes in miracles...

" 'We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,'' Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. 'We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.' ''

Mann's judgement in full -- verbatim (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2170977,00.html)
Excellent Flash Timeline of Paul's 64 Years! (http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarpmagazine.org_/articles/entertainment/mccartney_timeline/timeline_pop.htm)
NY Times Article about Apple Computer's win (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-media-apple.html?hp&ex=1147147200&en=294bc485a8887640&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
beatles.com (http://www.beatles.com)
Ticket Sales for "LOVE" (http://mirage-cds.admission.com/cgi/guide.cgi?l=EN&C=US)

* "We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages," Aspinall explained. "I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."

VanNess
May 8, 2006, 02:52 PM
Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

In the US Judicial system, there are a number of ways to deal with a frivolous lawsuit, provided the complaint was indeed "frivolous" from a legal perspective. In other words, frivolous doesn't equate to your feelings about the law. In any event, if there is a problem with the complaint (including filing a frivolous lawsuit), there are a number of ways to deal with it - before the suit gets off the ground or, if it gets that far, goes to trial.

Demurer

Motion for Judgement on the pleadings

Motion for declaratory judgement

Motion to Dismiss

Motion for summary judgement

And if a complaint or subsequent motion work by either plaintiff or defendant bought before the court is in fact improper or frivolous, the aggrieved party can file a motion for sanctions, which could include reimbursement of attorney's fees (if not already provided for by statute) in addition to other penalties.

That's just off the top of my head. There are plenty of safeguards in the legal system to counter a truly frivolous lawsuit, but the public perception of how civil procedure works and specifically how frivolous lawsuits are addressed is basically nonexistent. The results of cases like the famous McDonalds case highlighted in the link you provided further the often false notion that frivolous lawsuits are common, largely because the outcome is perceived to be highly disproportionate with the initial facts surrounding the case. But the public never got the whole story on the McDonald's litigation, only the the seemingly incredible result. Basically, for reasons beyond the topic here, McDonalds bought that one squarely on themselves. They steadfastly believed there was no case, and all along treated the whole matter contemptuously and indifferently. They were wrong from the start.


My Brother-In-Law is a lawyer who stole $12,000 of my money through legal mumbo jumbo.

There is no such thing as "legal mumbo jumbo"

Regarding Apple v Apple, from my read of it, the case centered pretty much entirely on the iTMS, which Apple Corps believed was Apple computer's entry into the record business and thus a violation of the agreement. There was just no way in hell Apple Corps could pitch that argument, as Apple maintains only reseller agreements with the content providers on iTMS and does not operate as a record label nor has any interest in becoming a record label.

In order for Apple Corps to win, they would have to show that in essence your local Tower Records Store is in fact a record label. What were they thinking?

ssteve
May 8, 2006, 03:10 PM
And now, for the coups de gras, Steve Jobs will buy the rights to the Beatles music library from cash-strapped Michael Jackson and feature Beatles music in every iPod commercial from now to infinity.

This is funny! Very very funny!

tboneh08
May 8, 2006, 03:20 PM
What a relief...
:D

Scruff
May 8, 2006, 03:41 PM
I would love Beatles music in the music store, I think it would be fantastic. And a Beatles iPod ad...

'Can't Buy Me Love' would be a brilliant song for it :p. Or 'Help!' ^_^.

SPUY767
May 8, 2006, 03:46 PM
Both your statements are just not true. The Beatles have been doing just fine, both in presenting their recordings and video archives to the world and also, in the return on that investment (ie. CA$H).

In the last few years alone, the Beatles have been selling their albums ala carte at an amazing rate for albums that old AND they've released the following collections: The Capitol Albums (v.1 & 2); Yellow Submarine (remasterd); First US Visit; Let It Be... Naked (a very different album than the original, let me personally say); The Anthology (v. 1, 2 & 3); One (a collection of all of their #1 hits and finally, the Concert For Bangladesh. They've also released their 10 hour Anthology video (first on VHS and most recently on DVD (a Must-Have for Beatles fans) as well as the companion Anthology coffetable book (also a Must-Have). They are also in the process of remastering the whole Beatles catalogue.*

In addition to all this, they have teamed up with Cirque du Soleil for The Mirage Hotel's presentation of "LOVE" in Las Vegas.

Finally, Paul McCartney has been very busy himself and is make serious money with his touring and individual projects. The last one, "Chaos And Creation In The Backyard", is a great little album that I am thrilled I got on my last birthday. It also has a VERY CLEVER bit of logo design wherein his name "Paul McCartney" can be read upside down (image included). Of course it might be hard to visualize onscreen. It, however, makes quite an impression when physically holding the disc and rotating it 180˚. Certainly, Paul McCartney will not let HIS 64th Birthday go by without releasing SOMETHING. I would imagine at least some sort of "NOW I'M 64" single or possibly a whole new album with a new cut about being a senior. Paul turns 64 on June 18, 2006. He graces cover of AARP's May/June Magazine! (See first link below)

Final thought: This has had nothing to do with money. It was simply two companies actually believing they were right and standing their ground. I respect Apple Corps for trying to protect themselves in this manner. The Beatles and their music are still very much alive -- and still influence musicians to this day.

Final, Final thought: I'm glad Apple Computers won. I love both Apples, but the computer company is still my fav.

I'll take a fresh apple with a single bit out of it over Half of one any day. :)

---

Here's hoping (almost in vain) that this will all end up on iTunes. However, it's worth noting that Steve Jobs still believes in miracles...

" 'We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,'' Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. 'We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.' ''

Excellent Flash Timeline of Paul's 64 Years! (http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarpmagazine.org_/articles/entertainment/mccartney_timeline/timeline_pop.htm)
NY Times Article about Apple Computer's win (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-media-apple.html?hp&ex=1147147200&en=294bc485a8887640&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
beatles.com (http://www.beatles.com)
Ticket Sales for "LOVE" (http://mirage-cds.admission.com/cgi/guide.cgi?l=EN&C=US)

* "We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages," Aspinall explained. "I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."


Will you just take me out in the parking lot and kick me in the nuts next time. None of that was necessary. I was just making a quick play on words, which ,while many will think I was beaten to, if they will reference more apple corps news from about two weeks ago, I have previously referred to them as Apple Corpse. So how about this. Stuff it. You getting bent all out of the frame because I make a short and sweet two line post at 6 in the morning just goes to show how foolish we can be sometimes.

210
May 8, 2006, 04:10 PM
Why do people care if The Beatles' music is on iTunes?? Considering this recent argument, I'm sure Apple Corp. will sell their music on any download music store except iTunes.

But who cares? Yes, Apple Computer will lose out on money, but considering how popular iTunes Music Store is already, I doubt they'll lose much sleep. And any Beatles fan out there would already own their music. Most likely on CD so there's no problem putting the music on your iTunes/iPod.

milo
May 8, 2006, 04:20 PM
Will you just take me out in the parking lot and kick me in the nuts next time. None of that was necessary. I was just making a quick play on words, which ,while many will think I was beaten to, if they will reference more apple corps news from about two weeks ago, I have previously referred to them as Apple Corpse. So how about this. Stuff it. You getting bent all out of the frame because I make a short and sweet two line post at 6 in the morning just goes to show how foolish we can be sometimes.

Sheesh. Kick you in them? Sounds like you need to grow a pair, Sally.

JGowan
May 8, 2006, 05:27 PM
Will you just take me out in the parking lot and kick me in the nuts next time. None of that was necessary. I was just making a quick play on words, which ,while many will think I was beaten to, if they will reference more apple corps news from about two weeks ago, I have previously referred to them as Apple Corpse. So how about this. Stuff it. You getting bent all out of the frame because I make a short and sweet two line post at 6 in the morning just goes to show how foolish we can be sometimes.The only negative thing I said to you was "both your statements are just not true". I think the only person getting "bent all out of the frame" is you. I didn't agree with your statement and went on to submit an informed post: siting links, graphics and information. What's wrong with that?

SPUY, this is a public forum about complicated issues. It's designed so that people can dissagree and do it constructively. If you can't recognize that a short and sweet two line post might, from time-to-time, get a negative response, you might reconsider continuing to post here.

Oh and since you're so concern with getting due credit for "Apple Corpse": I say "brilliant", "delicious", "absolutely classic". I think Mad Magazine is taking applications.

APPLENEWBIE
May 8, 2006, 05:28 PM
Do you think it will help the stock?

SPUY767
May 8, 2006, 05:29 PM
Sheesh. Kick you in them? Sounds like you need to grow a pair, Sally.


Watch this, you can tell everyone that I have no testicles, but when I call you an idiot, my post will get pulled, and I'll likely have to take a posting vacation.

JGowan
May 8, 2006, 05:54 PM
Why do people care if The Beatles' music is on iTunes?? Considering this recent argument, I'm sure Apple Corp. will sell their music on any download music store except iTunes.

But who cares? Yes, Apple Computer will lose out on money, but considering how popular iTunes Music Store is already, I doubt they'll lose much sleep. And any Beatles fan out there would already own their music. Most likely on CD so there's no problem putting the music on your iTunes/iPod.Here's my thoughts about your question:

Apple doesn't care about the average Beatle-manic. You're right, they already have all of the music. And they wouldn't think about 128 AAC for their precious Beatles music.

Apple wants the casual Beatles fan. The one who knows some of the hits and might have an album. Probably buying "1" got them all of the songs they THINK they'd care to have, right? Surely, if the other Beatles songs didn't make Number 1, they weren't very good, right?

But if you could get the millions of casual fans out their to take a listen to all of the songs (in a 30 second preview), that would translate into a LOT of sales. It's a form of education. Educate the masses of everything they did, not just the hits. Cha-ching.

Also, lots of mega-fans are baby-boomers are close to it. By getting the Beatles onto iTunes, it would be "such a story" that millions of younger music-lovers would have to check out what the hoopla was (is)... again, cha-ching. Impulse buying, baby. You do it on a planetary scale and you're banking, son.

milo
May 8, 2006, 05:55 PM
Watch this, you can tell everyone that I have no testicles, but when I call you an idiot, my post will get pulled, and I'll likely have to take a posting vacation.

You made an off topic post filled with nothing but whining, expect someone to call you on it. If you can't handle people responding to your posts, maybe you're not ready to handle posting on the internet.

VanNess
May 8, 2006, 06:21 PM
Here's my thoughts about your question:

Apple doesn't care about the average Beatle-manic. You're right, they already have all of the music. And they wouldn't think about 128 AAC for their precious Beatles music.

Apple wants the casual Beatles fan. The one who knows some of the hits and might have an album. Probably buying "1" got them all of the songs they THINK they'd care to have, right? Surely, if the other Beatles songs didn't make Number 1, they weren't very good, right?

But if you could get the millions of casual fans out their to take a listen to all of the songs (in a 30 second preview), that would translate into a LOT of sales. It's a form of education. Educate the masses of everything they did, not just the hits. Cha-ching.

Also, lots of mega-fans are baby-boomers are close to it. By getting the Beatles onto iTunes, it would be "such a story" that millions of younger music-lovers would have to check out what the hoopla was (is)... again, cha-ching. Impulse buying, baby. You do it on a planetary scale and you're banking, son.

And my thoughts into the frey...

First, will make the assumption that Apple Corps is in fact going to release some or all of the Beatles music catalog for online downloading (legal of course) as has been reported lately.

Then it looks like Apple Corps has 2 choices: they can either try to jumpstart one of the many failed online music stores that collectively comprise less than 20 percent of the market and hope and pray that the introduction of Beatles songs will catapult one of them into iTunes' market share - despite the fact that said music store would not even be iPod compatible.

Or they can eat crow, get some money to pay off Apple (Computer's) lawyers and much much more by hooking up with iTMS with it's greater than 80 percent market share, proven ability to sell more than one billion songs, and iPod compatibility with millions of iPod owners.

Unless the powers that be at Apple Corps have more holes in their heads than it takes to fill the Albert Hall, it seems like the decision is pretty obvious, but considering how these guys have handled modern emerging technologies, it seems like nothing is too dumb.

revjay
May 8, 2006, 06:26 PM
Here's my thoughts about your question:

Apple doesn't care about the average Beatle-manic. You're right, they already have all of the music. And they wouldn't think about 128 AAC for their precious Beatles music.

Apple wants the casual Beatles fan. The one who knows some of the hits and might have an album. Probably buying "1" got them all of the songs they THINK they'd care to have, right? Surely, if the other Beatles songs didn't make Number 1, they weren't very good, right?

But if you could get the millions of casual fans out their to take a listen to all of the songs (in a 30 second preview), that would translate into a LOT of sales. It's a form of education. Educate the masses of everything they did, not just the hits. Cha-ching.

Also, lots of mega-fans are baby-boomers are close to it. By getting the Beatles onto iTunes, it would be "such a story" that millions of younger music-lovers would have to check out what the hoopla was (is)... again, cha-ching. Impulse buying, baby. You do it on a planetary scale and you're banking, son.

"We are glad to put this disagreement behind us," Apple Computers CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement.

"We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store," he said (associated press)

Go for it Steevo!

JGowan
May 8, 2006, 06:37 PM
What if this $3M case was just a giant charade? Sure, they put $3M but what's that to them? Nothing. The case couldn't be written better (Apple vs Apple, c'mon!) -- The PRESS that this whole thing has generated has been worth millions in publicity. IF that's what they ultimately wanted. Get people thinking about Beatles music and iTunes and iPods.

To just come out with "Beatles is now on iTunes", ... yeah, it's cool, but then it's gone. To have a big court embattlement for awhile and THEN go online, it makes a much, much bigger story.

Paul and Steve have always struck me as oddly similar. I think they both know the old adage is true: there is no such thing as bad publicity.

JGowan
May 8, 2006, 08:25 PM
Mann's judgement in full -- verbatim -- it just does not get any better in understanding what went on -- well, we could've gotten a video of the judge, himself, reading this...

timesonline.co.uk (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2170977,00.html)

knackroller
May 8, 2006, 08:49 PM
What if Steve Jobs spins off a subsidiary company and let that company run either itunes or do whatever music stuff they want to get into (including iKaraoke!), that might be one way to get around this issue.

As an aside, Apple Corp isn't even a "real" record label apart from Beatles issues .... what's the latest non-Beatle related Apple record...was there even one?

mcarnes
May 8, 2006, 09:19 PM
Unless the powers that be at Apple Corps have more holes in their heads than it takes to fill the Albert Hall...

John Lennon would be proud of that reference. :D

I'd love to turn. you. on.

mikeyrogers
May 8, 2006, 09:39 PM
Um, since the target is against Apple and creating music, wouldn't the logical lawsuit be against Garageband?

elgruga
May 8, 2006, 09:50 PM
SPUY767 v. milo in the court of macrumors. May 8th 2006.

I hereby find that SPUY767 has no case to answer and that milo must pay all costs and apologise to SPUY767 in writing.

I suggest that milo's actions might be construed as an aide to understanding the whole silly Apple v. Apple case; to wit, some people really DO get bent out of shape over nothing, and have shrivelled testi... sorry, sense of humor.........

elgruga
May 8, 2006, 09:52 PM
Um, since the target is against Apple and creating music, wouldn't the logical lawsuit be against Garageband?

YES!

But dont tell McCartney, for gods sake - no more of this madness, please!

I doubt that the surviving beatles even know what Garageband is.

photomaniac
May 9, 2006, 01:50 AM
Outstanding, but Apple Corpse (and that spelling is intentional) obviously will drag this out in the appeals process unless Apple Computer comes up with $$$ to make the former go away. Which is all Apple Corpse probably ever wanted anyway.

Agree completely!

...I just really hope that Apple doesn't start being less aggressive now with its focus on music products - for example, limiting features in music creating programs etc, worrying about a possible infringement- that would suck!

photomaniac
May 9, 2006, 02:07 AM
Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

...couldn't agree with you more! The legal system in the US is very bad with regards to lawsuits, but hopefully it will be changing for the better

gnasher729
May 9, 2006, 02:30 AM
Um, since the target is against Apple and creating music, wouldn't the logical lawsuit be against Garageband?

No, that wouldn't be logical. If they find that Apple is creating music, whether with Garageband, or with some other software, or by going to a recording studio, they might have a point.

But Apple is perfectly free to create software that allows Apple's customers to create music.

johan_tanying
May 9, 2006, 08:35 AM
Apple Corpse has run out of ways to re-release the Beatle's recordings and is therefore in desperate need of revenue.
... with the exception of re-releasing through the iTunes Music Store! :eek: :D

TEG
May 9, 2006, 08:36 AM
1) Good news.
2) This means Beatles on line somewhere.
3) Corps -> Core

I'm surprised that no one made the joke about the Apple Corps (Pronounced Core) already being eaten, where as Apple Computer just has a bite taken out. I don't know exactly how it would go, but it would be funny.

TEG

virus1
May 9, 2006, 08:52 AM
Thank you Captain Obvious.
He's not captain obvious, he is justice man!

edenwaith
May 9, 2006, 11:33 AM
Hallelujah! Someone in the world ISN'T insane! After seeing FAR too many people and companies get away with ridiculous lawsuits, it's finally good to see Apple Computer win against Apple Corps, which is known only for The Beatles music. Did Apple Corps do anything other than that?

I got a big kick that Apple Corps will have to spend 2 million to pay for the lawsuit. :) Gee, that was worth it all, wasn't it!

Now, hopefully Apple Computer can continue on its merry way without having to worry about idiotic changes to their logos and what not. And as far as The Beatles songs being on iTMS, I really couldn't care. I've never much liked any of their music (with the exception of Come Together), but that's about it.

gloss
May 9, 2006, 11:36 AM
Did Apple Corps do anything other than that?

In Apple Corps' defense, you really don't NEED to be known for anything more than one of the greatest bands of all time.

nxent
May 9, 2006, 12:09 PM
what no one knows is that the deciding judge has a quad power mac G5 with 2 30" monitors, and has been an avid mac fan since apple's ever-so- brilliant "1984" spin off commercial two decades ago. in fact, he probably couldn't even hear apple corp's lawyers speaking in the courtroom because the volume on his ipod was too loud!! hahahahaha!!! and yes, he was listening to the beatles. "cry baby cry", to be exact