Apple vs. Apple

[dontwalkhand]

Whose side would you be on? Apple Inc. or Apple Corps?

Apple Inc. revolutionized the computer industry, and brought us things such as the Mac, the iPod, and the iPhone.

Apple Corps revolutionized music, were created by the Beatles, etc.

Who do you think is right in the cases past?

Why is it that the beatles are so reluctant to having their music on iTunes?

Apple & Apple are both arrogant, so it doesn't seem like they will ever come to an agreement that will allow the beatles to go on iTunes.

[Schtumple]

I'm confused, are Apple Corps in court again with Apple Inc over something?

Links to specific court cases might be helpful, the 2 companies have been fighting countless times.

My opinion is they should both grow the hell up and get over it, it must be a bit disheartening for Steve Jobs to have the company that he idolised (for the Beetles/Lennon) to sue him, and it seems pretty petty that Apple Corps keeps going after Apple Inc...

So what, you both have the same name, Apple is a fairly common word, if they were both called "Mitsubishi Electronics Division Sony Google Banana Hammock Inc" I could see the point, but it seems like every time they're in court it's because Apple Corps has thrown it's toys out it's cot over something fairly pathetic... Wasn't the last one because Apple was selling music through iTunes and there was an apple logo in sight?

[Peace]

Lawsuits between the two companies stopped a year ago.

[Schtumple]

Well there we go then! Thread pointless, wasteland ho?

[raggedjimmi]

Lol what.

Thanks to Apple Inc I get a salary.
Thakns to Apple Corp I listened to a few great albums.
I think I know who I prefer.

[Melrose]

I don't understand the nature of that lawsuit anyway - one company does technology and software, the other does music production. HOw are they in conflict with each other?

[steve2112]

I don't understand the nature of that lawsuit anyway - one company does technology and software, the other does music production. HOw are they in conflict with each other?

The arguement was that once Apple Computer (Err, Apple Inc) entered the music business with the iTunes store, they became part of the same industry. Part of the original agreement long ago was that Apple Computer would sell computers, not music. Apple Corp claimed that the iTunes store violated this. Check out the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer

[TuffLuffJimmy]

As I understand it most of the arguing has been settled. If I had to pick a side though, I would be on Apple inc.'s side as I really haven't liked the Beatles since middle school.

[joshbing]

Im not a fan of the Beatles so long live apple inc!

[Ivan P]

I side with Apple Corps.

To elaborate on what I understand with all these lawsuits, Apple Corps took Apple Inc to court over the name "Apple" (which is what both companies were known as to the general public). Apple Corps was founded at least a decade before Apple Computer (as it was known when the lawsuits began).
The agreement from that first lawsuit was that the differentiation between the two companies was to be that Apple Corps strictly dealt with music and Apple Inc dealt with computer products - infringing on the other's dealings would violate said agreement (so, technically, if Apple Corps had ever gone into the computer business then Apple Inc also had every right to sue them). When the iTunes Store first opened, Apple Corps said that this was in violation of the terms of the previous lawsuit, as it was bundled with Apple Inc's software AND had their name attached to it.
The entire legal dealings between the two companies was finally settled a couple years ago. Apple Inc owns the rights to the name, and Apple Corps has a special agreement to use "Apple" in their own name.

Now, I think that, being an Apple Inc forum, there is definitely going to be A LOT of bias - naturally most people are going to side with Jobs. I think it'd only be a fair insight to peoples' opinions if they were both Mac AND Beatles fans; anything else and, as I said, it will end up biased as hell. It seems that most people here that have given an answer have no interest in the Beatles whatsoever...bias.

Sorry, but I'm going with Apple Corps.

[barkmonster]

I side with Apple Corps.

To elaborate on what I understand with all these lawsuits, Apple Corps took Apple Inc to court over the name "Apple" (which is what both companies were known as to the general public). Apple Corps was founded at least a decade before Apple Computer (as it was known when the lawsuits began).
The agreement from that first lawsuit was that the differentiation between the two companies was to be that Apple Corps strictly dealt with music and Apple Inc dealt with computer products - infringing on the other's dealings would violate said agreement (so, technically, if Apple Corps had ever gone into the computer business then Apple Inc also had every right to sue them). When the iTunes Store first opened, Apple Corps said that this was in violation of the terms of the previous lawsuit, as it was bundled with Apple Inc's software AND had their name attached to it.
The entire legal dealings between the two companies was finally settled a couple years ago. Apple Inc owns the rights to the name, and Apple Corps has a special agreement to use "Apple" in their own name.

Now, I think that, being an Apple Inc forum, there is definitely going to be A LOT of bias - naturally most people are going to side with Jobs. I think it'd only be a fair insight to peoples' opinions if they were both Mac AND Beatles fans; anything else and, as I said, it will end up biased as hell. It seems that most people here that have given an answer have no interest in the Beatles whatsoever...bias.

Sorry, but I'm going with Apple Corps.

I agree with you on this. With one caveat. Steve Jobs has openly admitted in the past that he was such a big fan of the beatles that he named his computer company after their record label. There's even a system sound called Sosumi after apple computer originally won the right to use the name Apple.

What's stopping Apple Inc. buying Apple Corp anyway?

[ozontheroad]

but then again i truly dislike the beatles

[Little HZ]

I love the Beatles, but I think consumers are smart enough to be able to tell the difference between Beatles products and Mac products. I think we go too far with trademark protection, so that Fox News ends up trying to prevent someone from using their trademark "Fair and Balanced." (!) (See http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/fox.franken/) Similarly, Atlanta businesses with "Olympic" in their names were scrutinized when the Olympic games came to town. (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/26/opinion/topics-of-the-times-olympic-swat-teams-hit-atlanta.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FO%2FOlympic%20Games)

Sheesh! :cool:

[Ivan P]

I agree with you on this. With one caveat. Steve Jobs has openly admitted in the past that he was such a big fan of the beatles that he named his computer company after their record label. There's even a system sound called Sosumi after apple computer originally won the right to use the name Apple.

What's stopping Apple Inc. buying Apple Corp anyway?

I'd say one thing is iTunes; if Apple Inc outright bought Apple Corps then they'd have virtually no problems putting their entire catalogue, and even their still-unreleased material, on iTunes. They'd have total control over their physical catalogue and could use that to their advantage (for example, they could stop the manufacturing of the CDs and force people to use iTunes to buy their tracks). And as I understand the remaining Beatles and their families currently don't agree with the iTunes pricing structure - they think their music is worth MORE than the current price points...crazy musicians :p