Apple vs. Apple Trial Ongoing

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

This week marked the beginning on the trial of Apple Computer vs. the Beatle's Apple Corps record label. The lawsuit originally reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030911193013.shtml) in 2003 surrounds Apple Computer's move into the music arena with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. Apple Corps and Apple Computer have had previous legal settlements surrounding the potential of corporate name confusion.

Apple Computer reportedly paid Apple Corps $26.5 million and a contract on allowed use of the Apple Computer trademark. According to Apple's lawyers, digital distribution of music such as the iTunes music store was explicitly allowed under the terms of the agreement.

A lawyer for Apple Computer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_hi_te/apple_vs__apple) dismissed the claim of corporate confusion and stated that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".

The current presiding judge is reported to be "computer-literate" and own both a Mac (with iLife) and an iPod.

[rxse7en]

Steve>John :D

[mdt562]

we know whos gunna be the first one with the 6th Gen iPod ;)

[Rend It]

A lawyer for Apple Computer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_hi_te/apple_vs__apple) dismissed the claim of corporate confusion and stated that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".


That's the best quote I've heard in 6 months. Hilarious. Get a life, Beatles lawyers.

[javabear90]

This will be a HUGE problem if the other lawyers are good, and apple looses.
I have a bad feeling about this.:(

[Hugh]

Does Apple Records own any music any more? Doesn't Wacko Jacko own all the Beatles music now? So wants the point of this law suit?

-Hugh

[illw!l]

A lawyer for Apple Computer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_hi_te/apple_vs__apple) dismissed the claim of corporate confusion and stated that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".


In other news, Apple Computers is now accepting applications for new attorneys.

Hopefully Steve&Co. has got some better arguments than this. Hopefully...

[swingerofbirch]

Which of the Beatles are still alive? Why can't the living Beatles and Apple just get along? I'm sure all the Beatles want is some money, and Apple just wants to be left alone. Can't they compromise?

[MacMosher]

Maybe its because I havent seen this story progress through time but Im kinda lost I dont know exactly any back ground on this story

[QCassidy352]

I think Apple Computer's lawyer is right in that it's going to be a very hard sell that anyone is confusing these two companies. There might still be a breach of contract, depending on what exactly the previous agreement said and how the Court interprets the language of that agreement. This is "data transmission," which is clearly the domain of Apple Computer under the agreement, but one could argue that they are, in some senses, acting like a record label too.

[hardon]

Paul McCartney **** a ****** :p

[EricNau]

Remind me not to buy any music from the Beatle's Apple Corps record label.

[bcallen]

Who all are on their label?

[hvfsl]

I have to admit though, when I first heard about Apple Corps in the 90s, my first thought was; so Apple (computers) makes music now. :D

[arn]

Maybe its because I havent seen this story progress through time but Im kinda lost I dont know exactly any back ground on this story

Apple Corps record label was established first. They are suing Apple Computer because they feel that the term "Apple" trademark is their's in the Music industry, and that Apple Computer's entry will cause corporate confusion.

Just like I can't start a new Comptuer company called "Apple PCs" without getting sued by Apple.

This isn't a new issue... and as Apple Computer expanded, Apple Corps has sued them before. The last settlement in 1991 is at dispute about the allowed use of Apple Computer to distribute music digitally.

arn

[Kingsly]

The current presiding judge is reported to be "computer-literate" and own both a Mac (with iLife) and an iPod.
:D
I feel much better now!

[leenoble]

Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.

[LimeiBook86]

Since the judge knows his stuff I don't think he'd decide in favor of Apple records. The quote from the lawyer is hilarious, and I feel the same way. I think Apple Records just wants some cash... :rolleyes: :D

[jenkij]

What? For all these years I thought I was buying my Mac's from the same company that produced the beatles albums, I just though Granny Smith sued them and made them use a different logo. If I had only know I would have stuck with Windoze.:confused:

[ph0rce]

Paul McCartney is my friends next door neighbour and lives about en miles from me. What an idiot he is. His music was rubish too :P

[Kingsly]

What? For all these years I thought I was buying my Mac's from the same company that produced the beatles albums, I just though Granny Smith sued them and made them use a different logo. If I had only know I would have stuck with Windoze.:confused:
:eek: Nooooooooooo!
LOL.

[weev]

i wish this long and winding road would end!

I guess the Beatles are still struggling for recognition and reward.

[Atlasland]

Stop being such blind fanboys.

I love Apple as much as the next man, but "Apple Computer" is very similar to "Apple Corps" - especially as both are referred to as "Apple".

How would you you feel if somebody today started to deliver video content over the internet, and they decided to call their company "Macintosh", in honour of the raincoat? Apple would sue them to *****. And you would want them to. And Apple would win.

I mean, look at some of the recent compyright infringement cases: e.g. Spike Lee suing Spike TV, just because they used his first name!!

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

In addition, it is rumoured that Jobs choose the name Apple, precisely because he was a big Beatles fan, and liked the name. So, no plagarism there then (!)

I think Apple [Computer] are on the backfoot on this one. And, it may take another financial settlement to deal with this. Of course, not that either company is any desperate need of cash.

[icookbook]

Originally Posted by Macrumors
The current presiding judge is reported to be "computer-literate" and own both a Mac (with iLife) and an iPod.

:D
I feel much better now!


... and also owns the complete beatles discography on LP, cassette, AND cd.;)

[kjs862]

Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.


I think Paul has a alot of great songs. He wrote a lot of great music with wings and even his latest solo project chaos and creation in the backyard is a sweet solo album.

[dongmin]

This will be a HUGE problem if the other lawyers are good, and apple looses.
I have a bad feeling about this.:(
Worst case scenario: Apple removes the Apple logo from all association with iTunes Music Store--that's it.

Mr. Vos said Neil Aspinall, managing director of Apple Corps, had rejected an offer from Mr. Jobs in 2003 proposing to buy the rights to the Apple Records name for $1 million. The iTunes Music Store appears with the Apple Computer logo, but not the company's name.

In the suit, Apple Corps is seeking an injunction requiring Apple Computer to remove the bitten-apple logo from iTunes. If it succeeds, said Nick Valner, a lawyer representing Apple Corps, the company would seek undisclosed monetary damages.

Without the logo, Mr. Vos said, "iTunes is a jolly good name."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/technology/30apple.html

It's a pretty absurd and quite narrow a case really. Apple Records are contending that the use of Apple Computer's apple logo in association with iTunes Music is somehow confusing consumers. However, Apple Records have the 1991 agreement on its side which, in my opinion, Apple Computers has reneged on. Apple Computers, with all their exclusives, AOL live sessions, etc. are acting as a record company, i.e. stepping on Apple Records' toes.

[Doctor Q]

I'm So Tired of this case. It's All Too Much and makes me Shout. I can't Wait anymore, so I hope It Won't Be Long before Something is worked out. Yesterday wouldn't be too soon.

There was a previous Apple-Apple agreement. Will the judge say The Word and Let it Be? Will the judge decide You Can't Do That, put Steve in Chains, and leave him in Misery? Or will Apple Computer be found Not Guilty and come out Free as a Bird?

Is it likely that lawyers will charge lots of Money while working on the case Eight Days a Week? Yes It Is.

Will I be blamed for all these bad jokes? I will! You'd better Run for Your Life, Doctor Q!

[longofest]

Does Apple Records own any music any more? Doesn't Wacko Jacko own all the Beatles music now? So wants the point of this law suit?

-Hugh
Apple Records owns the trademark. There was big settlements over the trademark, and Apple Records is now claiming that Apple is in breach of the settlement with the iPod and iTunes Music Store (the settlement was that Apple Computer would not get into the music business, which was later defined as would not physically distribute music).

Apple is walking a tight-rope. While they are not physically distributing music in a traditional sense, the combination of physically distributing portable music players and electronically distributing music through iTunes could still be considered physical distribution. It will be interesting to see what the court decides. Apple (computer) could get socked with a big penalty if they are found to be in trademark violation, because this will have been the THIRD time they have violated the trademark of Apple Records.

[boncellis]

There is a reason, I believe, that Apple promotes its services the way it does. Apple has gone to some length to create recognition for iTunes, specifically referring to it as such with a dedicated URL, the "iPod+iTunes" references and so forth--so much so that there was talk about spinning iTunes off into its own IPO at one point.

I don't pretend to know why Apple has done it this way, but I do suggest that this approach was much wiser than referring directly to the company name, as in "Apple Music" or "Apple Tunes" with regard to differentiating Apple Computer from Apple Corps. I'm not an intellectual property savant, but it seems like this distance should help them. I'm assuming it's a bench trial, but even in a jury trial it might benefit Apple.

Ironically, in a case like this Apple Corps should be concerned with Apple Computer taking recognition away from them, but the reverse may well be true with the global success of the iPod and continuing preeminence of the iTMS.

[DTphonehome]

A lawyer for Apple Computer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_hi_te/apple_vs__apple) dismissed the claim of corporate confusion and stated that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".


I believe the full quote was:
"Even a blind, dyslexic, drunk moron, late for the moron convention (where he is delivering the keynote address), who is on fire and being attacked by crows and an ornery wild boar, could not be mistaken about that."

[dashiel]

Which of the Beatles are still alive? Why can't the living Beatles and Apple just get along? I'm sure all the Beatles want is some money, and Apple just wants to be left alone. Can't they compromise?

the least talented of the set. mccartny and ringo. i'm not as down on mccartny as some people, but his post-beatles behavior is rather sad. interestingly enough apple records effectively ceased to exist until the late 80's in order to sell CD versions of the beatles music.

they are no longer, as far as i know, a true record label. instead they exist solely to reap the profits of artists who haven't produced anything new in almost 4 decades. the incessant release of "lost recordings" and greatest hits compilations are testament to this.

as to the question of jackson's ownership of the beatles catalog. he owns(owned? rumor had it he sold it off to pay for legal funds) the publishing rights. e.g. if someone wanted to publish a book of beatles' music they would have to pay MJ a royalty - even one of the former beatles which must have been a kick in the teeth.

[longofest]

Worst case scenario: Apple removes the Apple logo from all association with iTunes Music Store--that's it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/technology/30apple.html

It's a pretty absurd and quite narrow a case really. Apple Records are contending that the use of Apple Computer's apple logo in association with iTunes Music is somehow confusing consumers. However, Apple Records have the 1991 agreement on its side which, in my opinion, Apple Computers has reneged on. Apple Computers, with all their exclusives, AOL live sessions, etc. are acting as a record company, i.e. stepping on Apple Records' toes.

It's not such an absurd case... It's a classic trademark violation case. If you say this is an absurd, then you are pretty much putting all trademark cases in the absurd category.

[drewpost]

Here is what I find funny. At a MAJOR Beatles gift shop located right by Baker Street station in London and listed in every guide book we had I saw at least two Apple Stickers on the wall lol.

http://homepage.mac.com/drewpost/.Pictures/day705/Day%20Seven%20-%20London%20-%2014.jpg

And

http://homepage.mac.com/drewpost/.Pictures/day705/Day%20Seven%20-%20London%20-%2010.jpg

Just thought that was funny :-)

[joepunk]

I had completely forgotten about Apple Corps. Record company or even that they still existed until the 2003 incident.

I wonder how many of the young people who have iPods today even know about Apple Corps. Record company.

[DTphonehome]

Looks like these guys are in for a suin'!

http://www.applemusicrow.com/

[Object-X]

Let's hope our brother, the judge, see's this as nothing more than a money grab. The utter arrogance of Apple Corp's claim is stunning.

[gauriemma]

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.



Nothing personal, but seeing as how just about everyone and their Aunt Fanny knows that Apple Records was started in the late 1960s in England, and Apple Computers was started in the 1970s in the United States, I fail to see how anyone would even think of one when they heard about the other, let alone think they were somehow related.

Speaking as someone who has both plenty of Apple Computer-branded products AND Apple Records-branded vinyl...up until the time that Apple Records started bringing this issue up in the news, I hadn't even thought about the fact that the two companies shared a name. They exist in two different worlds and two different times.

[tk421]

Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.

Just like kjs862, I feel that Paul McCartney is still, to this day, an incredibly talented musician. Nobody with any real knowledge of the Beatles would claim that Paul was talentless without John. Paul and John both wrote tons of classic songs. And Paul had the more commercially successful solo career.

That said, I do think this lawsuit is silly.

[tk421]

the least talented of the set. mccartny and ringo.

I think Paul is the most talented, though I agree with you about Ringo.

[BlueRevolution]

Apple (computer) could get socked with a big penalty if they are found to be in trademark violation, because this will have been the THIRD time they have violated the trademark of Apple Records.

how do you figure? they never stopped using the name of Apple Computer, and they never entered into an agreement that they would. by my understanding, this is a case of breach of contract more so than trademark violation. the question of trademark violation has already been dealt with in 1991.

[longofest]

how do you figure? they never stopped using the name of Apple Computer, and they never entered into an agreement that they would. by my understanding, this is a case of breach of contract more so than copyright violation. the question of copyright violation has already been dealt with in 1991.

It is not a case of copyright... it is a case of trademark. i am assuming that you meant trademark, so I will go onto your other main point.

The trademark agreement made in 1991 is actually what is at the center of this case. Apple Corps (the record company) believes Apple Computer is in breach of that 1991 agreement. That 1991 agreement was actually the second agreement that had been made, the first agreement was a few years prior when Apple incorporated MIDI into the MacOS. That agreement was a small one, and the one most people remember is the 1991 settlement.

[Bobarito]

Looks like these guys are in for a suin'!

http://www.applemusicrow.com/

I bought a guitar from these guys a few years back...I think I have the sticker on my case! Do you think Apple is going to sue me??? :eek: OH GOD!!!:eek:

[Stella]

Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.


There are plenty of people who would quickly disagree with you, fortunately.

Beatles music is great, as is P.McCartney.

[Erendiox]

Stop being such blind fanboys.

I love Apple as much as the next man, but "Apple Computer" is very similar to "Apple Corps" - especially as both are referred to as "Apple".

How would you you feel if somebody today started to deliver video content over the internet, and they decided to call their company "Macintosh", in honour of the raincoat? Apple would sue them to *****. And you would want them to. And Apple would win.

I would agree with you, except for the fact that apple has been around for three decades. I think that if there was any real problem with the name "apple computer", it would have been fully contested and ruled upon in the 80s.

[tk421]

I'm So Tired of this case. It's All Too Much and makes me Shout. I can't Wait anymore, so I hope It Won't Be Long before Something is worked out. Yesterday wouldn't be too soon.

There was a previous Apple-Apple agreement. Will the judge say The Word and Let it Be? Will the judge decide You Can't Do That, put Steve in Chains, and leave him in Misery? Or will Apple Computer be found Not Guilty and come out Free as a Bird?

Is it likely that lawyers will charge lots of Money while working on the case Eight Days a Week? Yes It Is.

Will I be blamed for all these bad jokes? I will! You'd better Run for Your Life, Doctor Q!

Well, From Me to You, I have to say that I Feel Fine about this case. In Spite of All the Danger, the case is really just Junk. I can't Imagine who could get the two companies confused.

In My Life I have really loved the Beatles and Apple Computer. It's too bad they can't Come Together over this disagreement, Because both the Beatles and Apple have been behind many a Revolution.

Come on, judge, Don't Let Me Down! I think We Can Work It Out so that both companies can Get Back to normal. Oh well. All Things Must Pass.

[digitalbiker]

I would agree with you, except for the fact that apple has been around for three decades. I think that if there was any real problem with the name "apple computer", it would have been fully contested and ruled upon in the 80s.

It was! Apple Computer lost, paid a penalty fee and essentially were allowed to keep the trademark only if they didn't enter the music business. Later this was legally established to mean Apple Computers would not be allowed to distribute music.

When the iTunes music store started up a few years back, Apple computer immediately became in breach of contract.

Personally, I don't think Apple Computer has a leg to stand on. Apple Corps was first. Apple corp allowed Apple computer to use the trademark as long as they didn't enter the music business. Apple computer is most certainly now in the music business. How can they say they are not?

Today many more people know of Apple as the iPod, iTunes company. I would bet that many don't even know they make computers.

[SaddY]

Stop being such blind fanboys.

I love Apple as much as the next man, but "Apple Computer" is very similar to "Apple Corps" - especially as both are referred to as "Apple".

How would you you feel if somebody today started to deliver video content over the internet, and they decided to call their company "Macintosh", in honour of the raincoat? Apple would sue them to *****. And you would want them to. And Apple would win.

I mean, look at some of the recent compyright infringement cases: e.g. Spike Lee suing Spike TV, just because they used his first name!!

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

In addition, it is rumoured that Jobs choose the name Apple, precisely because he was a big Beatles fan, and liked the name. So, no plagarism there then (!)

I think Apple [Computer] are on the backfoot on this one. And, it may take another financial settlement to deal with this. Of course, not that either company is any desperate need of cash.

You might have a good point about some of the guys are being to much Apple Computer fan boys, but don't loose sight of the fact that this company already sued apple TWICE over this. They Twice got paid for Apple using this very same name. Besides, do you really think that because Apple Computer is now into online music distribution it hurts sales from Apple Corp ? or that they do loose any money over it ? or that anyone thinks this store is from the beatles ? hell no everybody know's it's from Apple or atleast "from the guys that make the ipod". This lawsuit is not because they actually lost money because apple used their name nor is it because they really think Apple Comp is giving Apple corp a bad name or anything like that. It's purely and ONCE AGAIN ! greedyness of the music industry... They waited for iTunes to get big, they waited for ipod sales to reach peak (atleast way high) and THEN started to sue.. why ? because that way they could ask for more money.. they just found another way of making an easy buck.

And that is why the whole legal system sucks ass !

NO judge who has any logic in his brain left or any sympathy for morals will make Apple Computer pay Apple Corp for something like this again. It makes no sense.. no mahter what the prior agreemant was.

[sethypoo]

[B]It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

"Even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".

:rolleyes:

Seriously, is anyone else here confused about which company is which? This couldn't be easier! The Beatles are off their rockers for suing Apple for a reason like this. Please, get a life. We're not blind fanboys. We're (mostly) reasonable people.

[CompUser]

How long has iTunes been out for right now what 5 years. I know things can take a while in the legal years, but really, did they care back in 2001 when iTunes was introduced? Now that iTunes is so popular they have popped out of the woodwork and want their $$$ or w/e.

[NickSl]

Apple Computers argument looks weak to me. They've clearly moved into the music business, something they promised not to do in the 1991 settlement.

The more interesting question is, in the event Apple Computers lose, how much damages would they be liable for. Personally I can't see how Apple Corps have been financially disadvantaged by Apple Computers.

It's not uncommon for English judge's to award nominal damages. If that's what happens the case wouldn't be much of a big deal. All it would mean is Apple are forced to drop its logo from the iTunes Music Store

In many respects Apple Computers are lucky the trial is taking place in England, damages amount tend to be much lower there.

[p0intblank]

I voted Positive for that quote alone. LOL!

[PubGuy]

This is information from the iPod Observer ( http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/26153 )

"According to an Associated Press story by Jill Lawless, Mr. Grabiner (Apple Computers attorney) pointed to the "distribution of digital entertainment content" as something that was permissible under the agreement previously crafted between the companies after Apple Corps' last lawsuit in 1991.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," Mr. Grabiner explained. "It's obvious that the [iTunes Music Store] content comes from a wide variety of content providers. It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."

Sounds like Apple Records are crying over bad apples.....:rolleyes:

[SaddY]

It was! Apple Computer lost, paid a penalty fee and essentially were allowed to keep the trademark only if they didn't enter the music business. Later this was legally established to mean Apple Computers would not be allowed to distribute music.

You're wrong..
Apple Computer never lost the lawsuit.. they settled.. (BIG difference).
Besides the legal establishment you are takling about was once again after a SECCOND lawsuit.. which was once again settled... (this lawsuit was about apple producing software that allowed you to make music !!)

[EGT]

This is information from the iPod Observer ( http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/26153 )

"According to an Associated Press story by Jill Lawless, Mr. Grabiner (Apple Computers attorney) pointed to the "distribution of digital entertainment content" as something that was permissible under the agreement previously crafted between the companies after Apple Corps' last lawsuit in 1991.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," Mr. Grabiner explained. "It's obvious that the [iTunes Music Store] content comes from a wide variety of content providers. It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."

Sounds like Apple Records are crying over bad apples.....:rolleyes:

I really like the thought of Steve & co. dreaming up iTunes specifically for this reason. "What? It's digital content! We don't sell CDs or tapes!" Muahha that'll teach 'em.

No seriously, I'm interested in how this will turn out. I don't know, both sides kind of have a good argument but Apple has the edge I think and obviously I'd prefer Apple to win.

Go Mac Judge!

[Doctor Q]

"It's obvious that the [iTunes Music Store] content comes from a wide variety of content providers. It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."If Apple offers one of the Jobs keynote speeches as a video, or an Apple-originated podcast, in the iTunes Music Store, whether they charge for it or not, are they going over THAT line?

It seems clear to me that Apple Computer is in the "music business" but the court case really depends on details, such as the interpretation of wording in previous agreements and in legal statutes.

By the way, there is a little-known Beatles song named "Just A Rumor". I'm sure that's important to know for this case. Or at least in this thread. :)

[SaddY]

I forgot one thing.. if Apple Computer settle's again this time.. it will ironicly have 1 positive aspect :P

They have to pay a huge some of money (the bad thing)
The stock will take a dive (a good thing :P so I can buy new stock cheap :P)

;) not to nice for the current stock owners :p but it will once again be a good time to buy Apple Stock, Apple Computer Stock that is :P

[swingerofbirch]

Although I do agree with the Beatles that this is certainly a confusing case, I don't think I would even know how to buy an Apple Corps record if I wanted to, which makes, in my mind, this a very moot and shut case.

[winmacguy]

I think Apple Computer's lawyer is right in that it's going to be a very hard sell that anyone is confusing these two companies. There might still be a breach of contract, depending on what exactly the previous agreement said and how the Court interprets the language of that agreement. This is "data transmission," which is clearly the domain of Apple Computer under the agreement, but one could argue that they are, in some senses, acting like a record label too.
Agreed. I personally have known about the Beatles since the days of Sgt Pepper and 'Yellow Submarine' and in that time I have had NO recall of any Apple Corps labels or logo that might in someway cause me to mistake Apple Computer with Apple Corps, I am not saying that Apple Corps didn't exist as I was aware of a 'coloured fruit company' that made a computer in the late 70's but had no knowledge of a 'fruit company' that sold music on vinyl. :rolleyes:

[MacGuy88]

note that iTMS does not offer Beatles music.

I think Apple Corps is just being ridiculous and having to resort to bumming off of other, profiting, companies.

[BlueRevolution]

iTMS == HMV (well, iTMS > HMV, but that's a different story)

iTMS != Apple Corps

questions? questions? they're still not a record label.

[NickSl]

note that iTMS does not offer Beatles music.

The problem is that Apple Corp is run by out of touch Beatles cronies from the sixties.

The Beatles were also the last major act to convert their catalog to CD, same thing's happening with moving to online downloads.

I believe Apple Corp have been approached by a number of the online music stores, but so far have resisted.

[KindredMAC]

OK kiddies, today's lesson, what are the differences between these two words?

Apple Computer
Apple Corps

- You pronounce Corps as CORE and not like a dead body...
- One distributes music at very reasonable prices while the other rapes artists out of their royalty checks.
- One was started by a crazy wide eyed kid in a garage, the other was started by a bunch of washed up old performers who felt like they weren't still making enough money.
- One is a computer company that provides a vast array of multimedia options to people, the other is a record company that provides.....ummm....provides......*pulls away from the microphone and whispers around* who the hell does Apple Corps produce????.
- Apple Corps should be happy with the fact that Apple Computers has made listening to MUSIC fun and hip again!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupid British **********ers!

[fatfish]

Gee, you guys (most of you anyway) are hugely misinformed about this case.

1. The case is not about the logo. That was Apple Corps original complaint and was settled out of court by way of a payment and an agreement between the two companies, Apple Corps later complained Apple had broken this agreement and again the matter was settled by an out of court payment and a further refinement of the first agreement.

Apple Corps are now complaining Apple have broken that refined agreement and are seeking damages. This time Apple have decided not to settle and to have the matter decided by court.

My thoughts are that Apple should have done this originally, as I don't believe the logo is/was sufficiently similar to have won Apple Corps the case, but now the case is about a broken agreement the water is a little more murky.

2. John, Paul, George & Ringo (or their dependants) are not taking Apple to court, they are merely shareholders in Apple Corps and the decision is a business decision (an opportunity of easy money) made by those administering the company.

3. Apple are not acting as a record label. Record labels have contracts with musicians they record and promote their work (EMI, Decca, RCA etc.) Apple is acting as a distributor, they sell products from the record labels (walmart, WH Smith, Amazon etc.).

---------------

The problem here is that both sides have a valid argument and the outcome is far from certain. If common sense prevailed it would be obvious that Apple Corps have not suffered a loss because of Apples actions nor have Apple gained from any association with Apple Corps. Fortunately here in the UK (and I don't know whether the same would go for the US) the judge does have the option to make a common sense judgement.

However, and I do not know the wording of the agreement between the 2 Apples, but it does appear that Apple have entered the music business, they clearly distribute music. But the music they sell is sold via data transmission and not by physical means as Apple have pointed out. What will be taken into account is the spirit of the agreement, on this point it will be argued that it was not possible to predict the sale of music by data transmission and that while the agreement used the words 'physical' this was included to differentiate between music distribution (sales: which were perceived as only possible by physical means at the time) and the production of software (MIDI) to create or assist the creation of music and not to sell it.

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m. However let's not forget my opening statement that this is not about a logo, but a breach of contract, this rules out Apple being made to remove the logo from all things itunes/ipod as some have suggested. But however unlikely, the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).

[longofest]

...the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).

That won't happen because if Apple see's the court being overly-sympathetic to Apple Corps, they will settle for any cost. Remember, being barred from the music business by a court would also mean that they can't sell the iPod (as a music player anyways).

[fatfish]

Just to clear up the Jacko connection. He has the publishing rights, he does not receive income from the sale of Beatles records. This agreement is time limited anyway and the publishing rights will revert back to the Beatles in 2013.

[fatfish]

That won't happen because if Apple see's the court being overly-sympathetic to Apple Corps, they will settle for any cost. Remember, being barred from the music business by a court would also mean that they can't sell the iPod (as a music player anyways).

I don't think it will happen either I was just pointing out the possibilities, but your wrong about the ipod, there is no music on the ipod when you buy it, you put it on yourself. Selling ipods no way constitutes selling music.

[Ted Witcher]

Money grab, clearly. The thought of billionaire Paul McCartney, awash in acclaim for his last record and a huge tour (another 100 million -- ka-ching!), pacing the corridors of his castle and lamenting, "Those ****ers are infringing on our trademark! We should sue!" is, well, quite sad.

The Beatles is a trademark. Apple Corp. is the name of a holding company. If someone started a record company called "The Beatles" then they should get sued, I suppose. (I still don't think anyone could be confused by that, but that's just me.) How iTunes is preventing The Beatles/Apple Corp. from making money is beyond me. If I have a computer company with a digital downloading component and call it Swan Song, should I expect to get sued by surviving members of Led Zeppelin? It's stupid, really.

[fatfish]

Money grab, clearly. The thought of billionaire Paul McCartney, awash in acclaim for his last record and a huge tour (another 100 million -- ka-ching!), pacing the corridors of his castle and lamenting, "Those ****ers are infringing on our trademark! We should sue!" is, well, quite sad.

The Beatles is a trademark. Apple Corp. is the name of a holding company. If someone started a record company called "The Beatles" then they should get sued, I suppose. (I still don't think anyone could be confused by that, but that's just me.) How iTunes is preventing The Beatles/Apple Corp. from making money is beyond me. If I have a computer company with a digital downloading component and call it Swan Song, should I expect to get sued by surviving members of Led Zeppelin? It's stupid, really.

Once again, it's not Paul McCartney who is bringing this action. Also anyone starting a record label called "Beatles" would likely have no problems at all.

[Swami Love]

Well the Beatles conquered the world back in the day.

Don't underestimate their lasting legacy and as a symbol of the Vision that started Apple, and fuels its 'think different' mindset.

I'll bet this is particularly painful to SJ, to have to wrangle with what is for all practical purpose, the Beatles!

Not to speak of their holding out on selling their gear on iTunes.

Pretty glaring omission. Maybe the settlement will pave the way for ITMS.:cool:

[Ted Witcher]

As a principal shareholder or whatever he is, I'm sure he could stop it if he wanted to. Which he should, because it's embarrassing and makes him look like a greedy bastard.

[fatfish]

As a principal shareholder or whatever he is, I'm sure he could stop it if he wanted to. Which he should, because it's embarrassing and makes him look like a greedy bastard.

Not so.

[kwik67]

The reason is their being sued, is that they have already ran out of money from the last lawsuit and they need more income.

Gee, why didn't they first sue when itunes came out

also, Apple's black and white of an apple outlined is quite different from a green macintosh apple.

also, to really piss off apple corp. Steve J. should buy all the beatle recordings that Michael Jacko Wacko owns (you know Michael needs the money).

Doesn't it suck Paul that you we're friends with michael when you had no cash and he took your precious songs, life's a bitch. What comes around goes around.

[NickSl]

The problem here is that both sides have a valid argument and the outcome is far from certain. If common sense prevailed it would be obvious that Apple Corps have not suffered a loss because of Apples actions nor have Apple gained from any association with Apple Corps. Fortunately here in the UK (and I don't know whether the same would go for the US) the judge does have the option to make a common sense judgement.

However, and I do not know the wording of the agreement between the 2 Apples, but it does appear that Apple have entered the music business, they clearly distribute music. But the music they sell is sold via data transmission and not by physical means as Apple have pointed out. What will be taken into account is the spirit of the agreement, on this point it will be argued that it was not possible to predict the sale of music by data transmission and that while the agreement used the words 'physical' this was included to differentiate between music distribution (sales: which were perceived as only possible by physical means at the time) and the production of software (MIDI) to create or assist the creation of music and not to sell it.

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m. However let's not forget my opening statement that this is not about a logo, but a breach of contract, this rules out Apple being made to remove the logo from all things itunes/ipod as some have suggested. But however unlikely, the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).

Great post "fatfish"

As regards the common sense aspect to this case.

I suspect Apple Computers to lose the case, but that damages will be nominal. Thereby partially nullifying the ruling.

If often happens in English law, where a ruling goes one way, but the damages awarded are paltry indicating the Judge clearly believed the case should never have been brought in the first place.

[gwangung]

Gee, you guys (most of you anyway) are hugely misinformed about this case.

1. The case is not about the logo. That was Apple Corps original complaint and was settled out of court by way of a payment and an agreement between the two companies, Apple Corps later complained Apple had broken this agreement and again the matter was settled by an out of court payment and a further refinement of the first agreement.

Apple Corps are now complaining Apple have broken that refined agreement and are seeking damages. This time Apple have decided not to settle and to have the matter decided by court.

My thoughts are that Apple should have done this originally, as I don't believe the logo is/was sufficiently similar to have won Apple Corps the case, but now the case is about a broken agreement the water is a little more murky.

2. John, Paul, George & Ringo (or their dependants) are not taking Apple to court, they are merely shareholders in Apple Corps and the decision is a business decision (an opportunity of easy money) made by those administering the company.

3. Apple are not acting as a record label. Record labels have contracts with musicians they record and promote their work (EMI, Decca, RCA etc.) Apple is acting as a distributor, they sell products from the record labels (walmart, WH Smith, Amazon etc.).

---------------

The problem here is that both sides have a valid argument and the outcome is far from certain. If common sense prevailed it would be obvious that Apple Corps have not suffered a loss because of Apples actions nor have Apple gained from any association with Apple Corps. Fortunately here in the UK (and I don't know whether the same would go for the US) the judge does have the option to make a common sense judgement.

However, and I do not know the wording of the agreement between the 2 Apples, but it does appear that Apple have entered the music business, they clearly distribute music. But the music they sell is sold via data transmission and not by physical means as Apple have pointed out. What will be taken into account is the spirit of the agreement, on this point it will be argued that it was not possible to predict the sale of music by data transmission and that while the agreement used the words 'physical' this was included to differentiate between music distribution (sales: which were perceived as only possible by physical means at the time) and the production of software (MIDI) to create or assist the creation of music and not to sell it.

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m. However let's not forget my opening statement that this is not about a logo, but a breach of contract, this rules out Apple being made to remove the logo from all things itunes/ipod as some have suggested. But however unlikely, the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).

Quoted in its entirety, for its factual content (which is sadly lacking in most of the other posts).

The key point for Apple Computer is data transmission. While clearly the sentiment in 1991 was that its focus was on MIDI and other computer oriented standards, I would wonder if this would necessarily preclude transmission of MIDI data by electronic means. My guess is that it would not...and that would open the door for the iTunes store.

[fatfish]

The reason is their being sued, is that they have already ran out of money from the last lawsuit and they need more income.

Gee, why didn't they first sue when itunes came out

also, Apple's black and white of an apple outlined is quite different from a green macintosh apple.

also, to really piss off apple corp. Steve J. should buy all the beatle recordings that Michael Jacko Wacko owns (you know Michael needs the money).

Doesn't it suck Paul that you we're friends with michael when you had no cash and he took your precious songs, life's a bitch. What comes around goes around.

Apple Corps are not short of money, this lawsuits been going on for years. SJ doesn't want the publishing rights, when wacko bought those rights it was like the US buying London bridge, they didn't buy what they thought they were buying, the publishing rights go back to the Beatles in 7 years, they are losing value as I type.

And yes wacko and sir Paul did fall out after the purchase, wacko outbid sir Paul.

[longofest]

I don't think it will happen either I was just pointing out the possibilities, but your wrong about the ipod, there is no music on the ipod when you buy it, you put it on yourself. Selling ipods no way constitutes selling music.

It is a music playback device that is used to play songs from the iTunes Music Store. As a really, really, really worse case scenario (which I don't think will happen, but is a possibility), it can be argued that the iPod is also in breach of the 1991 agreement because it is a physical delivery not of music, but of a music device. I don't think that big of a stretch will fly, but it can be argued and it isn't totally unreasonable of an assertion to argue.... something for a judge to decide whether the agreement in 1991 pertained to something like the iPod.

[fatfish]

Quoted in its entirety, for its factual content (which is sadly lacking in most of the other posts).

The key point for Apple Computer is data transmission. While clearly the sentiment in 1991 was that its focus was on MIDI and other computer oriented standards, I would wonder if this would necessarily preclude transmission of MIDI data by electronic means. My guess is that it would not...and that would open the door for the iTunes store.

True

Unfortunately when cases revolve around 2 points of view, both of which have merit, it is unusual for the outcome to be entirely in favour of one party or the other and whilst I agree with you I suspect the judge will come down somewhere in the middle.

(unless of course his ipod develops a malfunction and Apple service refuse to replace it, just before he delivers his verdict)

In actual fact what will happen here unless the judge completely exonerates Apple, he will merely find them in breach of agreement and the matter will be referred to another hearing for an award of damages.

[nbs2]

I'm a bit new to all these proceedings, but I hav some questions.

Is this case being brought in the US or the UK (I could read the article, but I'm sure someone will respond soon enough)? I hope that someone with real trademark law experience in that country can comment. I would presume that since iApple is in the US, it is a US case being brought in either DE or CA.

Anyhow, I was wondering what the statute of limitations is on breach of contract issues and trademark violations in the state of filing. This feels like an adverse possession case, but I would be pressed to make a strong argument. It is the kind of thing that I could see being tossed in just to see if it can stick. I guess the case was filed in 2003? I guess the 2 years (if iTMS was launched in 2k1) would meet that requirement. Also, what has been going on for the last 3 years? I can't imagine that this has been a discovery heavy case - who is stalling and why hasn't the judge done anything about it?

More curious, I was wondering what the standard remedy is for the complaint filed? I would imagine that the judge will push for settlement if he doesn't like the law in the case (a la what I presume was the motivation in the RIM case), but otherwise wouldn't a contract claim that seeks injunction estop bApple from filing for monetary damages? If they didn't put that in their remedy, wouldn't they be stuck?

I really don't know trademark law and please don't think of me as a moron for my curiosity.:o

[fatfish]

I'm a bit new to all these proceedings, but I hav some questions.

Is this case being brought in the US or the UK (I could read the article, but I'm sure someone will respond soon enough)? I hope that someone with real trademark law experience in that country can comment. I would presume that since iApple is in the US, it is a US case being brought in either DE or CA.

Anyhow, I was wondering what the statute of limitations is on breach of contract issues and trademark violations in the state of filing. This feels like an adverse possession case, but I would be pressed to make a strong argument. It is the kind of thing that I could see being tossed in just to see if it can stick. I guess the case was filed in 2003? I guess the 2 years (if iTMS was launched in 2k1) would meet that requirement. Also, what has been going on for the last 3 years? I can't imagine that this has been a discovery heavy case - who is stalling and why hasn't the judge done anything about it?

More curious, I was wondering what the standard remedy is for the complaint filed? I would imagine that the judge will push for settlement if he doesn't like the law in the case (a la what I presume was the motivation in the RIM case), but otherwise wouldn't a contract claim that seeks injunction estop bApple from filing for monetary damages? If they didn't put that in their remedy, wouldn't they be stuck?

I really don't know trademark law and please don't think of me as a moron for my curiosity.:o

Read my post(s) above, but briefly the case is in the UK, it's not about a trademark, it's a breach of contract and hence there is no statute of limitation, I know of no grounds for a judge to instruct a settlement since it is not his job to get involved in damages, just a guilty or not guilty verdict (essentially)

[digitalbiker]

You're wrong..
Apple Computer never lost the lawsuit.. they settled.. (BIG difference).
Besides the legal establishment you are takling about was once again after a SECCOND lawsuit.. which was once again settled... (this lawsuit was about apple producing software that allowed you to make music !!)

OK. Big Whoop.

Technically they didn't lose they settled. While it may be a big difference to you it isn't to me.

If Apple Corps had no merit to their lawsuit then Apple would have told them to take a flying leap. Instead Apple Computer had to cough up a fair amount of cash and had to agree to stay out of the music business.

It still doesn't change the fact that now the suit is about a breach of contract. That was all I was trying to say.

[NickSl]

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m.

How do you work that estimate out?

I can't see how Apple Corps have been in any way financially inconvenienced. An award $200m - $460m would be punitive.

[dr_lha]

I've noticed some people here commenting on the "moron in a hurry" comment, some negatively. What you don't realise is that this statement has a historical context, in that it is a rather famous argument used in a case from 1978, where the (communist) Morning Star newspaper tried to sue The Daily Star newspaper for using their name. A quick Google of "moron in a hurry" for example throws up the following informative quote:

In 1978, the publishers of the Morning Star - the Peoples Press Printing Society - challenged the launch of the 'tits 'n bums' rag, the Daily Star. The PPPS suggested that the name of the new paper would be 'confused' with their own and would affect sales of its publication (I remember thinking at the time that it would probably push them up). This was rejected by the High Court. It was underlined that when examining any potential "confusion" it was important to look at the type of persons affected, to ascertain their "standard of literacy and education". It was judged that "only a moron in a hurry would be misled" into confusing the Morning Star and the Daily Star (Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Ltd, 1979).

from http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/281/partynotes.html

[egsaxy]

Is there any reason Apple Computer couldn't settle this problem once and for all and buy Apple Corps?

[F14CRAZY]

Apple Computer should just buy the other and get it over with

[tk421]

The reason is their being sued, is that they have already ran out of money from the last lawsuit and they need more income.

Gee, why didn't they first sue when itunes came out

also, Apple's black and white of an apple outlined is quite different from a green macintosh apple.

also, to really piss off apple corp. Steve J. should buy all the beatle recordings that Michael Jacko Wacko owns (you know Michael needs the money).

Doesn't it suck Paul that you we're friends with michael when you had no cash and he took your precious songs, life's a bitch. What comes around goes around.

They DID sue when iTunes music store first came out!

[ZorPrime]

Apple Computer should just buy the other and get it over with


All of these posts and no mention of... Yoko Ono :eek:

[briansolomon]

My beef with this deal is that none of the Beatles music is available on iTunes.

Short and simple.

[nemaslov]

Michael Jackson only owns part of the publishing and not the recorded Beatles versions of the songs. Even if you think they are old farts or something Apple Corp and Apple Computer reached a second agreement in 1991 that the Beatles Company was in the music business and Apple Computer was NOT. Now no one at the time predicted that music would be online and downloaded so Apple Corp. rightly so, sued Apple Computer when iTunes went live. In fact Jobs offered Apple Corp a million to use the name/logo for a music company(iTunes). Apple Corp refused and that is why the lawsuit is on now. Apple Corp is still in business but does not release alot of music, but manages an amazing catalogue, athough three years ago they had the World's biggest selling CD with Beatles 1.
Like any patent holder, Apple Corp had to sue. I love Apple Computer and even own stock, but they are wrong here. I'm sure afer all is said and done they will settle. They should have right aways for alot less than they will have to pay now.

[nemaslov]

Yes BUT Apple Computer via iTunes has released it own new an original compilations, playlists and special releases, not just what is in every other store. The are Now a "record company" which violates the last agreement. If they lose the logo and Apple name on iTunes they would be fine, or they should pay a settlement fee if they wish to keep it.

[BRLawyer]

I think Paul has a alot of great songs. He wrote a lot of great music with wings and even his latest solo project chaos and creation in the backyard is a sweet solo album.

Agreed...Paul has done some great music over the years, and his concert was probably the best i have seen in my life.

Even though people still regard Lennon as the genius (probably because he was murdered), some of his songs were just psychedelic crap. If you wanna bash someone, please bash Yoko...she IS the greedy and talentless one...

[mdriftmeyer]

Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.

That is such a load of crap. Wings had several classic tunes.

[gnasher729]

Is there any reason Apple Computer couldn't settle this problem once and for all and buy Apple Corps?

Yes. The reason is that Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and the estate of the late George Harrison don't want to sell.

[gnasher729]

You're wrong..
Apple Computer never lost the lawsuit.. they settled.. (BIG difference).
Besides the legal establishment you are takling about was once again after a SECCOND lawsuit.. which was once again settled... (this lawsuit was about apple producing software that allowed you to make music !!)

More importantly, they came to an agreement where Apple Computer received permission to do the things that the lawsuit was about. And I think commenting on the new lawsuit is difficult without having the _exact_ text of that agreement in hand. It is obvious that neither Apple Computer nor Apple Corps thought of the iTunes Music Store when the agreement was drawn, so it depends on the exact wording of that agreement whether it is covered or not.

[Cedd]

Read my post(s) above, but briefly the case is in the UK, it's not about a trademark, it's a breach of contract and hence there is no statute of limitation, I know of no grounds for a judge to instruct a settlement since it is not his job to get involved in damages, just a guilty or not guilty verdict (essentially)


That's not quite right. Breach of contract claims have to be brought within 6 years of the date of the breach - the fact that the claim is being heard as we write suggests that this is not a big issue. It is the judge's job to get involved in damages and if the parties do not settle before the end of the case that is exactly what he will do. The damages will be assessed on the actual losses caused by the breach of contract - it is therefore more than possible that the judge could decide that there has been a technical breach of the original agreement but that Apple Corp has not suffered any quantifiable loss and therefore should not get any damages - however he may award costs against the losing party which could be quite substantial. It is highly unlikely that an English court would award the kind of punitive damages being mentioned here.

[macpastor]

Does Apple Records own any music any more? Doesn't Wacko Jacko own all the Beatles music now? So wants the point of this law suit?

-Hugh

I thought that too, what does Apple Music actually have to prove here. The best part though is the judge owns a Mac and an iPod!

[macpastor]

My beef with this deal is that none of the Beatles music is available on iTunes.

Short and simple.

Should they settle, they could fix that... then Apple records starts making money off the Beatles music. The money they would make long-term from that would be a great financial incentive to settle.

[fixyourthinking]

What portion of this previous ruling wording is hard to understand?

“The companies [Apple Computer & Apple Corps Records] clashed again in 1989 after Apple Computer introduced a music-making program. The computer company settled in 1991, for $26 million. Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on ‘Creative works whose principal content is music’ while Apple Computer was allowed ‘goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content’.”

[fixyourthinking]

Should they settle, they could fix that... then Apple records starts making money off the Beatles music. The money they would make long-term from that would be a great financial incentive to settle.

Actually it is ... have you done a search?

[great high wolf]

One little question....

Why is everyone so bothered about confusing Apple Computer and Apple Corps?

It's not like you'd buy an iMac thinking it to be a Beatles record...

Or, even if you see Apple iTunes Music Store, and know the Beatles' record label is called Apple, you also know enough to know that iTunes is nothing to do with them.

Hang on, let's try that in a different way:

I don't think the people who could be confused about will know enough to know the Beatles' record label is called Apple.

[JQW]

we know whos gunna be the first one with the 6th Gen iPod ;)

Yes - Magic Alex! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Alex)

[JQW]

Apple are not the only computer company to share their name with a record label.

http://www.shangri.com/images/sun.jpg

[NickSl]

Yes - Magic Alex! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Alex)

Yes, Magic Alex a legend, amazing the Beatles believed him (must have been the drugs, man).

[SilvorX]

After monday's done, I'll be glad that I'm done with law course(s), I'm currently writing out a court document as we speak, not fun at all

My court document is a supreme court of Can. decision, specif SOCAN vs Canadian Assc. of Internet Providers (2004), not fun at all, but it DOES mention Apple a times

[NickSl]

That's not quite right. Breach of contract claims have to be brought within 6 years of the date of the breach - the fact that the claim is being heard as we write suggests that this is not a big issue. It is the judge's job to get involved in damages and if the parties do not settle before the end of the case that is exactly what he will do. The damages will be assessed on the actual losses caused by the breach of contract - it is therefore more than possible that the judge could decide that there has been a technical breach of the original agreement but that Apple Corp has not suffered any quantifiable loss and therefore should not get any damages - however he may award costs against the losing party which could be quite substantial. It is highly unlikely that an English court would award the kind of punitive damages being mentioned here.


Yeah, that's my understanding as well.

If it's not the judges job to decide damages, who's job would it be? He'd be best placed to make that decision. Flatfish was talking some BS.

Apple are lucky the case is being held in England, they stand a good chance of paying nothing, or at least negligible damages if found guilty. The UK just doesn't have a tradition of paying mega damages.

Even if they have to pay the legal costs of Apple Corps, it'll still be a lot less than the $26 million they paid in the 1989-1991 decision.

[sunfast]

the judge owns a Mac and an iPod!

Then he's obviously a sensible chap. Let's hope for a sensible verdict.

[Les Kern]

I hope Apple Corp wins. I know when I bought my iPod, I was expecting a Beatles-made device, but no, I got some computer companies gadget. Of course, my I.Q. is a negative number, but that's beside the point.

This HAS to be initiated by Paul. Never in my life have I seen a more greedy bastard. Remember, he wanted to change the name of the songwriters on the Lennoan and McCartney songs to McCartny and Lennon because, after all, John is dead.
If this isn't tossed out of court, I will have lost my faith in the system... again.

It's not uncommon for English judge's to award nominal damages.

$1.00 would be about right.

[daebhoo]

"2. John, Paul, George & Ringo (or their dependants) are not taking Apple to court, they are merely shareholders in Apple Corps and the decision is a business decision (an opportunity of easy money) made by those administering the company."

First...for those of you who are bashing The Beatles...please remember that probably any and all successful artists today will say their musical roots trace back to The Beatles. Quite simply, they changed the world.

Second...Apple did the same thing.

What doesn't make sense to me is that, even if Apple Corps. wins (which they probably will), and get paid a huge amount in 'damages', could that money compare to how much they would make if they would just give in and allow Steve to design a Beatles' iPod (which I'm sure he'd love to do) and sell their catalog through iTunes? If the lawsuit is about money, that would be the more financially astute option, wouldn't it?

If it's not about the money, you've got to wonder why Neil Aspinall and the rest don't think The Beatles would benefit from making their music available online. There's a show on MTV or VH-1 now where kids are saying how surprised they are by the music they're discovering in their parents' album collections. Stuff they are then purchasing and downloading onto their iPods. If The Beatles don't join the crowd, they might be forgotten by new target consumers and their importance and relevance to the entire realm of music today could be relegated to the history books.

It doesn't make sense. This is a win-win situation...or a lose-lose situation. Why not be the two companies that revolutioned their respective fields and COME TOGETHER! Steve Jobs named his company after The Beatles as a tribute. When the most respected computer company in the world pays you a compliment...be flattered!

P.S. Love the posts with The Beatle song references!! :)

[javanate]

The apple lawyer gets the point, no reasonable person could confuse the 2 companies. With a name like apple you have to be a little loose, because it's not that unique like Toyota or something. The Beatles are suing becasue Apple keeps paying them off, why not sue again and pocket another 30 million?

[jydesign]

What about an Apple iPod hooked into a VW Beetle driven by a Walrus flying a flag with a picture of Lenin on it? I'm sooooo confused.

But seriously Apple corps sadly has a case. I mean you can't even start a business in this country with the name "Mc..." in it without being brought down by a certain clown named Ronald.

[Gasu E.]

Stop being such blind fanboys.

I love Apple as much as the next man, but "Apple Computer" is very similar to "Apple Corps" - especially as both are referred to as "Apple".

How would you you feel if somebody today started to deliver video content over the internet, and they decided to call their company "Macintosh", in honour of the raincoat? Apple would sue them to *****. And you would want them to. And Apple would win.

I mean, look at some of the recent compyright infringement cases: e.g. Spike Lee suing Spike TV, just because they used his first name!!

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

In addition, it is rumoured that Jobs choose the name Apple, precisely because he was a big Beatles fan, and liked the name. So, no plagarism there then (!)

I think Apple [Computer] are on the backfoot on this one. And, it may take another financial settlement to deal with this. Of course, not that either company is any desperate need of cash.

These would be good points if there WERE NOT a 1991 settlement. All points of contention need to be resolved within the context of the 1991 settlement, not YOUR random life experiences. :p

[Gasu E.]

"
P.S. Love the posts with The Beatle song references!! :)

I claim the mother of all Beatles reference posts:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1034247#post1034247

[Gasu E.]

You say you want some restitution.
Yeah, we know
That your music changed the world.
You tell me it's trademark dilution.
Yeah, we know
That your music changed the world.
But when you talk about injunction
Don't you know that you can count me out?

etc., etc., etc.

[nemaslov]

Look at sites like iLounge-formally iPod lounge. They don't even make music but had to change their name. So Apple Computer , like Apple Corp is protecting their brand(s).

It is very short sited to pick on Apple Corp or the individual Beatles simply because they continue to protect their patent and brand. Three years ago Apple Corp had the worlds biggest selling CD with Beatles 1 and it could be said they layed the groundwork for the way the recording industry developed. Even sort of invented the music video when they made short music films rather than tour.

If Apple Computer would simply drop the Apple name and logo from iTunes and this lawsuit would end, but I am sure a settlement is in order since they both will do very well afterwards. Any company has an obligation to their sharholders to protect themelves.

Another thing Apple Corp actually had an Apple Electronics division when they started up. It did not last long and I assume they did not keep the name registered.

Someone here mentioned SUN Records. Yeah but Sun Computer never entered the music business. Even look at McDonalds. You can't even have any other kind of fast food chain with the Mc in the name. There once was a healthfood small chain called McDharma's. That name was shut down fast.

[nemaslov]

In the 1991 agreement, the intent was that Apple Corp would be in the music business and Apple Computer would be in the Computer and information transfer business. No one even thought of the possibility of an online music distribution store or even that Apple Computer would have one.

It is important to update that agreement now. It is necessary. Apple Corp. only filed suit after rejecting a paltry offer of one million dollars from Steve Jobs. That's like in Austin Powers: ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Crap, That's what Jobs pays for black turtlenecks!!!

Just because some of you are joking about anyone confusing these two companies, that is not really the point. They both exist and where they do business is what is outlined in that settlement.

The changes in technology neccessitate revisions in agreements. Writers and photographers who created for print twenty years ago, never origianlly sold rights to their work digitally online, so publishers, magazines, newspapers and so on were obligated to revised their use rights. Same is needed here.

Just because you might be young and feel the Beatles are old school, has no bearing on this situation.

[FasterSoonerNow]

Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him.

This is the most moronic thing I've ever read on this website. Period.

Holy Christ.

[morespce54]

they are no longer, as far as i know, a true record label. instead they exist solely to reap the profits of artists who haven't produced anything new in almost 4 decades. the incessant release of "lost recordings" and greatest hits compilations are testament to this.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they still do recording for some artists. Whether they are still considers a record label, I don't know but I'm pretty sure the studio stills working.

[nemaslov]

They are not an active label recording new artists, however have a back unreleased catalogue from others. They do maintain the Beatles' catalogue as well as some of the solo albums and reissue programs (like next week's Capitol Albums Volume two box set release). They also release their films via DVD. But all of this is moot. They are still an ongoing music business entity that makes money each year. You think just becuse they are not some new hot seller, they should not protect their business interests?

[morespce54]

...but don't loose sight of the fact that this company already sued apple TWICE over this.

And yet, Apple (Computer) still infringe the settlement for the third time ;)

Besides, do you really think that because Apple Computer is now into online music distribution it hurts sales from Apple Corp ? or that they do loose any money over it ?

Well, they surely don't make more money. There is no Apple Corp music on iTMS :rolleyes:


And that is why the whole legal system sucks ass !

sooo true :D

[rxse7en]

iTunes could offer Apple Corp. the ability to sell their library with little to no markup for Apple Computer. Would drive more traffic to iTunes and appease Apple Corp--considering they DON'T offer the Beatle's library online!


B

[Doctor Q]

iTunes could offer Apple Corp. the ability to sell their library with little to no markup for Apple Computer.Not only could Apple Computer offer Apple Corps having the Beatles music in the iTMS, increasing sales of their music holdings, but Apple Corps could offer Apple Computer having the Beatles music in the iTMS, increasing their online music market share and the sales of iPods. In other words, it should have been a win-win situation all along.

[daebhoo]

rxse7en posted:
"iTunes could offer Apple Corp. the ability to sell their library with little to no markup for Apple Computer. Would drive more traffic to iTunes and appease Apple Corp--considering they DON'T offer the Beatle's library online!"


Doctor Q posted:
"Not only could Apple Computer offer Apple Corps having the Beatles music in the iTMS, increasing sales of their music holdings, but Apple Corps could offer Apple Computer having the Beatles music in the iTMS, increasing their online music market share and the sales of iPods. In other words, it should have been a win-win situation all along."

Sounds good to me! :)

[tk421]

This HAS to be initiated by Paul. Never in my life have I seen a more greedy bastard. Remember, he wanted to change the name of the songwriters on the Lennoan and McCartney songs to McCartny and Lennon because, after all, John is dead.

No, you have your facts wrong. Paul wanted to change the credit on songs that he wrote without John to McCartney/Lennon instead of Lennon/McCartney. After all, he wrote them. But Yoko Ono said no.

He never wanted to change the credit on songs that John wrote, or even on songs that they wrote together equally.

[gwangung]

They are not an active label recording new artists, however have a back unreleased catalogue from others. They do maintain the Beatles' catalogue as well as some of the solo albums and reissue programs (like next week's Capitol Albums Volume two box set release). They also release their films via DVD. But all of this is moot. They are still an ongoing music business entity that makes money each year. You think just becuse they are not some new hot seller, they should not protect their business interests?

Hey, for some people, if it's not on slashdot or cnet, it doesn't exist.

[fatfish]

That's not quite right. Breach of contract claims have to be brought within 6 years of the date of the breach - the fact that the claim is being heard as we write suggests that this is not a big issue. It is the judge's job to get involved in damages and if the parties do not settle before the end of the case that is exactly what he will do. The damages will be assessed on the actual losses caused by the breach of contract - it is therefore more than possible that the judge could decide that there has been a technical breach of the original agreement but that Apple Corp has not suffered any quantifiable loss and therefore should not get any damages - however he may award costs against the losing party which could be quite substantial. It is highly unlikely that an English court would award the kind of punitive damages being mentioned here.

Yes and no.

When I said that an SOL doesn't apply, I meant that if in 100 yrs. the contract was still effective and was breached action could still be taken, of course once a breach of contract takes place the clock starts ticking. The original Question related to whether the 91 agreement had a limitation and whether breaching that agreement 10 years later meant that Apple Corps were out of luck.

Also, I am fairly certain the judges job is to give a decision on the claim and that if he decides a breach has taken place is will go to another hearing for an award of damages.

As for damages, it is a somewhat more complex matter than you give it credit. First of all any hearing will not only have to decide whether Apple Corps has suffered a loss, but also whether Apple have gained a benefit and the two are not the same. Additionally, how can you say Apple Corps have not suffered a loss, they would now likely have great difficulty in opening an Apple Corps download service to distribute the Apple Corps music (and this does not simply include Beatles music, there are a number of artists who recorded on the Apple label). I personally don't believe that Apple Corps intended doing so and common sense would tell you there is no loss, but how can you say for sure.

What many have not realised is the verdict is far more important than any award. It seems there is no precedent in this case, (I don't know this for sure, but I'm sure one side or the other would have raised it if there was) and the verdict is likely to set a precedent for such future cases.

[fatfish]

Yeah, that's my understanding as well.

If it's not the judges job to decide damages, who's job would it be? He'd be best placed to make that decision. Flatfish was talking some BS.

Absolutely incorrect.

The Judge is not best placed to award damages, his field of expertise is a general knowledge of the law and an ability to judge right from wrong.

The best people to decide any damages would be people who have a specific knowledge at awarding damages, the judge will almost certainly not award any damages himself although he may direct those that do to consider certain factors.

[fatfish]

Whilst not the issue here, many don't seem to understand who Apple Corps are.

Apple Corps is a company set up by the Beatles in 1968 to replace an older company called Beatles Ltd.

Apple Records is a record label, which happens to be owned by Apple Corps other companies owned by Apple Corps are Apple Electronics, Apple Films, Apple Publishing, Apple Retail, Singsong Music (Publishers) Limited, Sunflower Investments Limited, Bluebell Investments Limited, Adgorn Limited, Apple Music (Holdings) Limited and more.

Oddly enough Apple Records do not own the rights to the Beatles music, although they own the rights to music recorded by other artists on that label. EMI own the rights to the Beatles music.

Ownership of rights does not necessarily mean they are entitled to income from sales, I believe Paul, John, George and Ringo received 5% each of sales and Apple Records received 80%.

Apple Corps is now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company), and I am not sure of their ownership although I suspect Paul still has some shares.

Of note here is the number of companies under the umbrella of Apple and although Apple Records appears to be the prominent one and most relevant to this issue, one should not forget Apple Electronics who made electronic devices such as radios.

Whatever else this lawsuit may be, it is complicated and may well prove to be a landmark case. I have my own thoughts about possible outcomes some of which I have shared with you, however it is perhaps foolish to second guess the outcome and I don't suggest for a minute the result can be anticipated.

[NickSl]

Absolutely incorrect.

The Judge is not best placed to award damages, his field of expertise is a general knowledge of the law and an ability to judge right from wrong.

The best people to decide any damages would be people who have a specific knowledge at awarding damages, the judge will almost certainly not award any damages himself although he may direct those that do to consider certain factors.

You might be right, but do you have anything to substantiate that?

Oh, and where did you get your damages figures from? :p

"British NOT European"
Do some travelling, "You're British, so you're European", I guess you have an anti-EC gripe, but it doesn't make you're statement correct.

La, La, talk is cheap I don't expect a reply from you.

[maestro55]

This is one of the thoughest cases for me to pick sides, because I am a huge fan of The Beatles, aswell as each of them. Wings was a great band, and Ringo and George had great solos. John's music may be my favorite, but I love it all. However, putting my love for the group aside, this is a stupid suit. The Granny Apple and the Apple Computer apple are not the same by any means.

I don't know if anyone as pointed this out (as I failed to read all the replies, and if anyone did point this out than very good, well atleast you know I agree). Apple Corps I think could make money by working with Apple to get music on the iTMS. I would think that they could get more money over time (however Apple works this out with record companies) for offering music on the iTMS rather than trying to get money for Apple now. Also, they can't really be hurting that bad for money. So it seems dumb to try to fight Apple Computer Inc. However, I am siding the Apple Computers here, because they appear (from what I have read) to be using the most logic, while Apple Corps. seems only to be trying to get money, when I strongly feel there are better ways to go about this.

[fatfish]

You might be right, but do you have anything to substantiate that?

Oh, and where did you get your damages figures from? :p

"British NOT European"
Do some travelling, "You're British, so you're European", I guess you have an anti-EC gripe, but it doesn't make you're statement correct.

La, La, talk is cheap I don't expect a reply from you.

What do you mean "substantiate that", it's the way it works.

The damages I quoted were merely 'a guess/my opinion' as I stated at the time, I may well be entirely wrong unlike the above matter which I made as a statement of fact.

I travel a lot.
As for not being European, perhaps you should think a little before showing your ignorance.

EXTRACT FROM DICTIONARY
.......European |j??r??pi??n| adjective of, relating to, or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants. • of or relating to the European Union : a single European currency. noun a native or inhabitant of Europe. • a national of a state belonging to the European Union. • a person who is committed to the European Union : they claimed to be the party of good Europeans. • a person who is white or of European parentage, esp. in a country with a large nonwhite population. DERIVATIVES Europeanism noun.......

However before you display your ignorance further, and raise the matter of me inhabiting the continent of Europe, any fool can see that is the case and would surely realise this is a political statement. I am not a national of a state belonging to the European Union - Britain is not a state.

[NickSl]

1. "What do you mean "substantiate that", it's the way it works."
Cite a reference, possibly provide a link so I can verify. Just because you state something in a forthright manner doesn't necessarily make it correct. I'm genuinely interested to know for certain

2. "The damages I quoted were merely 'a guess/my opinion' as I stated at the time, I may well be entirely wrong unlike the above matter which I made as a statement of fact."
Ok, no problem, wondered if there was any deeper calculation involved.

3."I travel a lot.
As for not being European, perhaps you should think a little before showing your ignorance."

.......European |j??r??pi??n| adjective of, relating to, or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants. • of or relating to the European Union : a single European currency. noun a native or inhabitant of Europe. • a national of a state belonging to the European Union. • a person who is committed to the European Union : they claimed to be the party of good Europeans. • a person who is white or of European parentage, esp. in a country with a large nonwhite population. DERIVATIVES Europeanism noun.......

However before you display your ignorance further, and raise the matter of me inhabiting the continent of Europe, any fool can see that is the case and would surely realise this is a political statement. I am not a national of a state belonging to the European Union - Britain is not a state."
I mainly wanted to get a response on point one, so I thought I'd rattle the cage. "British not European", sounds very Blimpish (and I'm not using the negative meaning). ;)

Good day, to you Sir.

[fatfish]

Cite a reference, possibly provide a link so I can verify. Just because you state something in a forthright manner doesn't necessarily make it correct. I'm genuinely interested to know for certain

I mainly wanted to get a response on point one, so I thought I'd rattle the cage. "British not European", sounds very Blimpish (and I'm not using the negative meaning).

Good day, to you Sir.

1. Essentially of course you are correct, and it was not appropriate for me to claim a statement of fact. It would be the judges duty (assuming their is no jury of which I'm not certain) to provide a judgement which would consist of both a verdict and an award (if necessary), however at the judges discretion the case would be heard in the interest of efficiency.

It goes without saying that if the case for the claimant was dismissed there would be no other damages to consider other than costs, it would therefor be inefficient to consider the evidence relating to any damages at the same time as the evidence for a breach of contract, if that evidence was extensive.

I suggest the evidence relating to any damages would be very extensive in this case and that any award for damages would be, or even has already been agreed to be, postponed for the submission of further evidence and expert opinion. After all the case has been given only a week and I am not aware that the claimant has asked for any specific damages or remedy.

Additionally, punitive damages are not applicable to a breach of contract in the UK and damages would be limited to compensation which might not be very much since the claimant appears to have suffered little or no loss. However the claimant might wish to rely on a breach of competition law which generally also does not result in punitive damages unless the defendant has deliberately committed a breach for profit. This would open a real can of worms, these cases are usually extensive and generally unsuccessful, however I believe Apple Corps may have a good case in this instance.

Whether a breach of contract has taken place will likely be decided quite quickly, whether damages are due and how much they would be is a murky lake in the middle of nowhere, it would quite clearly be efficient to separate the two.

It was wrong to state the point I made as I did, but it will be extremely unlikely that any damages (if any) will be awarded next week.

2. It may well be that I am exactly what David Low had in mind. However I would stand side by side with any Frenchman who wished the rest of the world to see him as French and not European. We entered into an economic pact with many other countries, whilst I do not agree with that pact, that is another issue. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world now see us as a state of Europe and I merely wish to correct that perception.

[MrCrowbar]

Hmmm... Apple should do an ad for the true 64 bit OSX when it comes out playing the Beatle's "When I'm sixty four". Now THAT would give the lawyers a reason to sue them. :p

[twilson]

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

Well I'd never even heard of "Apple Corps" until 2003 when they started suing Apple (I'm 30 before you start assuming I'm about 10-years old).

[twilson]

The changes in technology neccessitate revisions in agreements.

I agree, but you can't "backdate" the agreement to include something never in it originally.

If revised, the changes would only be effect from 2006 onwards, and not before.

[NickSl]

1. Essentially of course you are correct, and it was not appropriate for me to claim a statement of fact. It would be the judges duty (assuming their is no jury of which I'm not certain) to provide a judgement which would consist of both a verdict and an award (if necessary), however at the judges discretion the case would be heard in the interest of efficiency.
Yes, interesting point about whether a jury is involved, I haven't seen any reference to a jury, but that doesn't mean anything.

It goes without saying that if the case for the claimant was dismissed there would be no other damages to consider other than costs, it would therefor be inefficient to consider the evidence relating to any damages at the same time as the evidence for a breach of contract, if that evidence was extensive.

I suggest the evidence relating to any damages would be very extensive in this case and that any award for damages would be, or even has already been agreed to be, postponed for the submission of further evidence and expert opinion. After all the case has been given only a week and I am not aware that the claimant has asked for any specific damages or remedy.
Yes, sounds likely that expert evidence would be required. Apple Corps don't appear to have asked for a specific amount and that could take quite some time to assess. As the Times (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20409-2109802,00.html) Reports
"Apple Corps is seeking court orders to stop Computer using the "apple" marks in connection with the iTunes Music Store and is also asking for damages after an investigation into Apple Computer’s profits from the world's dominant music download service."

Additionally, punitive damages are not applicable to a breach of contract in the UK and damages would be limited to compensation which might not be very much since the claimant appears to have suffered little or no loss. However the claimant might wish to rely on a breach of competition law which generally also does not result in punitive damages unless the defendant has deliberately committed a breach for profit. This would open a real can of worms, these cases are usually extensive and generally unsuccessful, however I believe Apple Corps may have a good case in this instance.
Yes, I'd picked up that punitive damages would not be applicable. However, you mention an interesting spin on what could happen.

Whether a breach of contract has taken place will likely be decided quite quickly, whether damages are due and how much they would be is a murky lake in the middle of nowhere, it would quite clearly be efficient to separate the two.

It was wrong to state the point I made as I did, but it will be extremely unlikely that any damages (if any) will be awarded next week.

Cheers for your breakdown on the case, much appreciated.

2. It may well be that I am exactly what David Low had in mind. However I would stand side by side with any Frenchman who wished the rest of the world to see him as French and not European. We entered into an economic pact with many other countries, whilst I do not agree with that pact, that is another issue. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world now see us as a state of Europe and I merely wish to correct that perception.
Totally understand what you're saying. Certainly from the perspective of someone living in Australia the UK is increasingly seen as a state within Europe.

Anyway once again cheers for taking the time to respond. I'm sure we'll both be watching the case with interest.

[dr_lha]

There's no jury in this case. This sort of trial is decided by the Judge.

[Doctor Q]

An interesting report here (http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/04/05/applevapple/) today.Apple Corps executives saw the iTunes Music Store demonstration in January 2003, before the service launched, Grabiner said.Apple Corps is alleging the computer company agreed in 1991 to not use its logo related to the sale of music. During the trial, attorneys for the record label have cited violations, playing TV commercials featuring music on the iTunes Music Store. Apple Computer has in part deflected the charges by finely describing how its bite-marked apple logo disappears during purchases from the iTunes Music Store. The logo is only used to advertise the iTunes service, not the content, Apple Computer has argued.That's really debating the fine points, isn't it? But sometimes legal cases depend on nitpicking like this.

[840quadra]

With the topic revolving around the sales of music, and such, I am wondering if Apple corps will have grounds to sue for the Garageband program at a later date. Garageband is clearly built for the purpose of creating music, and editing it.

Perhaps we will see the creation of the sound file called Sosumi-2 from Apple. The original Sosumi sound was created by Jim Reekes during one of the before mentioned lawsuit periods in which Jim named the song as such to protest against the pressure of Apple Lawyers (so said)

This link has some great info in regards to Apple sounds, and a bit of history from Apples Sound Engineer mentioned above, including the infamous sosumi sound . :)

http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/05/tiny-music-makers-pt-4-mac-startup.html


Not so.

If that comment was in regards to the "greedy bastard" portion of the post you quoted, I am afraid that it is so. Many people that have been reading (Digging or whatever) this story have the opinion that Beetles members (or whatever they are called now) are being greedy and driving Apple corps to push this subject.

Most people do not know the facts or the history of this topic, and unfortunately, they are the majority of popular opinion at this point.