The Beatles Sue Apple Computer?

[MacRumors]

A Fox News column reports (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html) that The Beatles (Apple Corps) are suing Apple Computer over their move into the music arena with the iPod and iTunes Music Store.

Apple Computer and Apple Corps are not strangers and, in fact, have had previous legal settlements over corporate name confusion. In earlier agreements, Apple Computer had agreed to not enter the music industry, and had reportedly paid out a large settlement to Apple Corps.

According to this column, Apple was served legal papers over the past few days over breach of contract.

[jpmack]

Paul McCartney must be down to his last ten billion....

[fixyourthinking]

Apple needs to countersue this time around for frivilous malicious intent and libel - the other 2 suits had NOTHING to do with ANY Beatles copyright

[vanillamike]

Well I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later.

Mike

[alia]

I first heard about this when the iTunes Music Store first came out, so it's not a new topic. I think it's silly that they would sue, especially since Apple isn't MAKING music, just selling it. Anyway, I hope they don't have to pay fat fines, or whatever, to Apple Company (Music, Studios... whatever it's called).

Alia

[iJon]

i honestly think they will not win this case. the riaa loves apple as well as most of the recording industry. plus they should have sued apple back in the early sytem days in they encorparated sound in the system.

iJon

[stoid]

Maybe they should take this opportunity to do business with Apple, because if I recall correctly, the Beatles are not included in the iTMS.

[TylerL]

...simplest solution?
BUY APPLE RECORDS!

A little Microsoftian, but it'll get the job done.
...and if Michael Jackson is looking to sell his ranch, I'm sure Apple could make a deal to buy him out too.
Beatles music rights, and thousands of dollars worth of plastic and new noses!

[alset]

Well, this is interesting. Can't say I blame them. I get confused between pop supergroups and computers all the time.

[DesterWallaboo]

Just lawyers looking to get rich.

[xtekdiver]

Screw the Beatles. I can't believe that these egotistical morons would sue Apple over this; I mean, it was a compliment for Jobs to name his company in this way. Talk to the hand! :mad:

[NavyIntel007]

Come on... Beatles... you had your time... let it go.

[Ambrose Chapel]

come on already...i can't believe apple agreed to that to begin with. i think they could've successfully argued that apple computers and apple records would not be confused by the public. what the hell does apple records even do anymore??

[Wash!!]

Cry babies tha's all

[Wonder Boy]

eh, it was only a matter of time.

[JGowan]

Although I'm a huge Beatles fan, I think it's ridiculous for Apple Corps to bring this suit against Apple Computer. In the early 70s, YES ("if you use 'Apple' then don't go into the Music business") -- that's when it was the very real possibility that Apple Corps would actually be some sort of publishing force themselves for other bands besides themselves.

It's 2003 -- Apple Corps has only ever really been about the Beatles... it never really tried to represent and push other acts forward. If you read anything about Apple Corps and the Beatles, you find that they initially had a big beautiful dream that died quickly (even before they themselves disbanded)...

Why push Apple Computers around now?

[applemacdude]

OH-Oh:confused: I think Apple Computer will win this not Apple Reords. Maybe Apple Computer will make a deal With Apple Records. $$$ For both of them. Oh well

[VicMacs]

unbelievable...

[sickracer2015]

Apple did ask for it:

When Apple Computers first came into existence, the Beatles' lawyers_sued -- and won -- over the use of the corporate name. The Fab Four, it_was_widely known, already had their own_company called_Apple Corps. (Ironically, Jobs admitted to naming his company as a tribute to the Beatles.) The result of the suit was a huge cash settlement and a promise that the Apple logo and name would only be used for computers -- and_never for a music company.

Several years later, when computers starting having music come through attachable speakers, the Beatles again sued_and won, this time_over breach of a trademark agreement since Apple Computers had agreed to steer clear of the music business. Their winnings against Apple Computers have come to an estimated_$50 million so far.

[P-Worm]

That's bad. Why can't we just learn to get along?

P-Worm

[mathew]

I can remember way back when the RUMORS of the ITMS started, people were talking about Apple's promise to stay out of the music industry...

Should be very interesting to see what happens.

[xtekdiver]

The Beatles can suck my...er...iPod!

[Makosuke]

I'm not a copyright/trademark lawyer, but it sure seems to me that any particular benefit to Apple (the computer company) on account of sharing a name with the Beatles label went away about two decades ago when Apple Records stopped doing anything. At all.

I would be honestly surprised if there were more than a half dozen people left in the world who might seriously confuse Apple computer and the iTunes Music Store with Apple Records.

And why didn't they sue years ago when the iPod first came out? Probably not enough money in it.

[Chris Wardzala]

Come on, this is getting really sad. I dont think I am going to confuse Apple Computer with a Record Lable.

"Say," I would say to an incompitant friend, "Have you seen the new iPod?"

Friend: "You mean the one released by the record Lable?"

Fighting ensues and He never confuses them again.

[amichalo]

I belive that, were Leonnon alive today, he would be a happy fan of the iPod and iTMS. I can see him cruising around Central Park with the other citicens of Gotham with little white ear buds.

[sickracer2015]

the beatles arent suing the label the beatles are on are suing.. dont get the 2 confused with each other

[jer2665]

ya know, maybe this is why the ipods are so freaking expensive. Maybe apple knew they'd be sued, and figured out a price that would give them tons of money, and plenty to pay of the beatles.

[tizza]

You honestly have to wonder what these ex rock stars are doing with their lives - obviously not happy with their billions that's for sure!

Grrrrr - it's all Yoko's fault ...
;)

[VicMacs]

HELP! i need somebody HELP!

[greenstork]

Originally posted by stoid
Maybe they should take this opportunity to do business with Apple, because if I recall correctly, the Beatles are not included in the iTMS.

Lawsuits are always a stable starting grounding for a lasting business relationship. I'm sure they're just chummy ;)

[greenstork]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Come on... Beatles... you had your time... let it go.

Don't you mean let it be

[sickracer2015]

Originally posted by tizza
You honestly have to wonder what these ex rock stars are doing with their lives - obviously not happy with their billions that's for sure!

Grrrrr - it's all Yoko's fault ...
;)

THE BEATLES ARENT SUING, THE LABEL IS.. GET IT STRAIGHT

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by iJon
plus they should have sued apple back in the early sytem days in they encorparated sound in the system.

They did.

[tychay]

It seems every rumor regarding this is traceable to Fox News and Roger Friedman. Is there any other articles other that come from a source other than the two by this guy?

I'm suspicious because the article reports that the term Steve Jobs admitting "Apple Computer" came from Apple Records, as well as provides no background as to the relationship between the two companies (or if even Apple Records still exists after they were absorbed by Capitol).

Perhaps I'm not up on my history, but I seem to remember that Apple was supposed to be the "third" Apple (after the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and Isaac Newton's story). In fact, the original logo was looked like a woodcut of Isaac Newton under an apple tree. It seems the author has done no research. I have never heard a real company giving a comment about a lawsuit that hasn't even been served--Apple is not SCO.

On another note, can anyone find the lawsuits between Apple Records and Apple Computing (I assume they're in England and not in Lexis/Nexis). I ask this because while I know that early lawsuits between Apple and Apple Records occurred, I don't have any evidence that Apple Records ever took Apple Computing up on the offer, "sosumi".

[mdntcallr]

I know as a loyal macuser, law school graduate and music industry person my views will be considered unpopular.

Apple Records has a valid trademark protection case here. In addition to the facts of Apple going into Music retail, they had entered into an agreement to restrict any entry into the music field.

If you go by the letter of the agreement, they are not living up to it.

However a slight defense is that it is called iTunes Music Store.

In all truth it is being offered by a company called apple, but it is not the center of the branding. That slightly mitigates, but likely there will be a needed settlement with apple records.

Hey it's just my take on it, Apple computers looks likely to lose, regardless of how old Apple records is and how long it has been since a new recording has been created by them. The beatles were quite huge.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jpmack
Paul McCartney must be down to his last ten billion....

It could be Paul McCartney, but its more likely to be Yoko Ono.

Paul McCartney is still out there singing and doing tours. George Harrison is pushing up daisies. Ringo Starr is content, and is doing tours also.

Its Yoko Ono. People have discovered how to put earplugs on, and are starting to not pay her the vocal extortion money that she has been accustomed to. :p

Expect Apple to pay, and pay through the nose. No way this will go to a jury trial. Big Silicon Valley Company vs small foreign widow. Can you just see the headlines?

[herr_neumann]

That is why Apple (Computers) has Wilson Sonsini on the payroll. (www.wsgr.com ) Now hopefully they can win this time. And yes I know they have been with Apple since they took Apple public, but they won with the HP Compaq thingy, so maybe they will do better this time around.

[Phil Of Mac]

I must admit that it's fascinating to see an obscure part of Apple history, and a perennial Mac trivia question, become a current news story.

[dp123]

Apple (Records) Corp. apparently has not sued companies like Screaming Apple Records, Bad Apple Records, Big Apple Records, or Black Apple Records.

I would say these are closer to infringement than Apple. Apple Records likes going after the big fish (Apple Records also won, I believe, like 80% of the revenue from the Beattles when they dissolved -- leaving them with 4-5% each... by taking THEM to court too), but the complete lack of action from them on these other matters is damaging. (Of course, they are suing for breach of contract which is another issue.)

But I would ask the question: has Apple gotten into the Music business? Is a retail reseller in the music biz, or are they in retail? In my mind, selling a music player and selling digital music content at retail is NOT in the Music Business. Producing content, creating music production gear, etc... but selling/distributing content is simply retail.

Anyway, that's the argument I would make.

[Edge100]

As much as this sucks for Apple Computer, Apple Music really had no choice.

If they didnt sue this time, they would be setting a precident that they dont care about possible trademark infringement. A judge in any subsequent case is likely to simply say "Well, you didnt sue Apple Computer over iTMS and the iPod, so why should I listen to your case now?"

I would wager that Apple Music is suing simply on the advice of its legal counsel. I doubt Paul, Ringo, or the estates of John and George have any say in this whatsoever.

[Sayhey]

I'm also betting on Apple Corp winning this one. Apple computer has had to pay every other time they violated the agreement, why not this time. Don't know why Jobs didn't settle this before the release of iTMS. I like the idea of maybe buying the Beatles old company and using it for the start of new area of business for Apple Computer.

[Glial]

Hmmm, if you know anyone with the last name Beatle, you should encourage them to sue Apple Records and "The Beatles" , also since Apple Computer and Volkswagen obviously have a business relationship, we should encourage VW to sue them also, yes I know the spelling is different, but it will still cost them money to defend.

Why not? All is fair in frivolous torts.

[iJon]

well they did kind of get into the music industry with logic. but they bought emagic and kept the emagic name, so i dont know if that counts.

iJon

[JGowan]

Originally posted by amichalo
I belive that, were Leonnon alive today, he would be a happy fan of the iPod and iTMS. I can see him cruising around Central Park with the other citicens of Gotham with little white ear buds. Here is a Desktop I made about a year ago with the Beatles walking across Abbey Road, listening to their iPods.

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1744&size=big&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I'm also betting on Apple Corp winning this one. Apple computer has had to pay every other time they violated the agreement, why not this time. Don't know why Jobs didn't settle this before the release of iTMS. I like the idea of maybe buying the Beatles old company and using it for the start of new area of business for Apple Computer.

I disagree...Too much baggage for Apple. Diversification is great, but when you lose your focus too much, that hurts your product and your sales.

[Stella]

Apple Computers last had this battle with Apple Music decades ago... surely the courts must realize companies cannot be sagnant and not progress. Really, this case sounds pathetic and hopefully Apple Computers do not have to worry.

The lines between computer companies and multimedia has decreased so much...

BTW - When CDs first came out, it took years for the Beatles music to be released on CD format.

Beatles do not like new technology.

[rainman::|:|]

breach of contract aside, which Apple's lawyers are going to have to invalidate, there's no case here... there barely was 20 year ago, when this happened the first time (sosume)... Apple Records needs to prove that Apple Computer deliberately acted in a manner to confuse consumers with the name similarity. Which is obvious BS. No judge will accept it. Especially when a name is a common noun, judges aren't too thrilled by having their time wasted by this type of thing. If Apple named themselves Zuzooniacorp, after Zuzooniacorp Records, then started putting out CD's, it would be different.

:rolleyes:

and dammit, don't drag the 10 commandments case into this, that is a TOTALLY separate discussion... all you're doing is looking insecure by bringing it up inappropriately. This is not the political forum. :mad:

pnw

[pwfletcher]

Originally posted by dp123
Apple (Records) Corp. apparently has not sued companies like Screaming Apple Records, Bad Apple Records, Big Apple Records, or Black Apple Records.


I am a big shot trademark lawyer ... Apple may have a shot.

With regard to the contract, courts tend to construe non-compete agreements very narrowly in that they restrict trade and are thereby against public policy.

In addition, if the material quoted above is true, Apple may have a defense. Failure to police one's mark can cause one to lose their rights in said mark.

Hey Apple, I'll fight this one for you for free! It would be fun :)


www.trademarksolutions.org (http://www.trademarksolutions.org)

[cb911]

wow. i never knew that Apple had been sued by the Beatles before.:eek:

oh well, Apple knows what they're doing. ;)

[SnowB]

I know you're all having fun debating this story but... it's crap. Not happening. False.

The fact is, though, this is a non-story. There have been rumors of this for months now, and they're not true kids.

So why are Fox running the story? Tychay is right - Mr Friedman either believes 3rd hand information, or is running rumors as truth. Either way, you won't find him retracting this story in a few months when it turns out that there's no case in the UK High Court, will you?

...but by all means keep up the "they had it coming" vs. "those Beatle bastards" exchange. A few more posts from law students who want to teach us peasants what they've learned in sophomore would really help to keep a smile on my face :)

[yoshi1013]

Right now all I'm picturing are some people who work for Apple Corp hearing about this and meekly trying to hide their iPods ;)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Macnotxp
I completely agree...however, in all fairness the same could be said for you with a sig like that as well...

Eh, sigs aren't part of the discussion. Otherwise they'd inevitably be off-topic somewhere :)

[bilingual]

Apple Records: Baby's in black . I am a loser . Eight Days a Week I try Every Little Thing.
Apple Computers: Honey Don't.
Apple Records: I don't want to spoil the part of Rock and Roll Music.
Apple Computers: I'll follow the Sun
Apple Records: Hey, Hey, No Reply.
Apple Computer: What you're doing ... Everybody's trying to be my baby, Mr Moonlight.
Apple Records:Words of love ...

The entire message is compiled from the titles of the songs from "Beatles for Sale." How ironic !!!

______________________________
http://www.sovokoftheweek.com

[Freg3000]

It would be hilariously funny if it weren't true. Actually, it still is funny, and terribly pathetic.

A new low. :(

[brucku]

noting that apple had changed the "music" tab to read "Itunes" perhaps had something to do with this lawsuit. (jobs making a change to look like he was trying to offer a "i'm sorry" )

[blob]

Apple's nothing to do with your business

Lay your greedy money grabbing lawyers off

How bout taking a shot at ...

Big Apple Records

OR

Bad Apple Records

OR

Black Apple Records

OR

Screaming Apple Records

OR (insert your own Apple Records rip-off title from Google)

Go do something useful with your life McCartney!

You just lost all my respect

[TheFish]

Now how do you like them apples?

[brucku]

[i])

Go do something useful with your life McCartney!

You just lost all my respect [/B]

I believe that none of the beatles or yoko have anything to do with this lawsuit. It is only being written as "beatles sue Steve Jobs " to attract attention and make it look like a personal battle or plea for money.

[Frohickey]

You know...

I hope that Steve Jobs and the Apple Computer Legal Team takes this issue and shoves it right up Yoko's and Apple Corp's nether regions.

They can rename Apple Computer Inc. to TheComputerCompanyFormerlyKnownAsAppleComputer Inc. TCCFKAAC Inc. Keep the same logo. :D

[foofan]

One interesting note:

Michael Jackson has been quoted endorsing such applications as iTms. He also owns the rights to all the Beatles songs. So why aren't the songs available to iTunes?

If MJ owns the Beatles songs, then is Apple Corps really worth much anymore?

[Edge100]

Originally posted by Stella

Beatles do not like new technology.

HUH??? Have YOU ever heard a Beatles album?

[actionslacks]

Originally posted by pwfletcher
I am a big shot trademark lawyer ... Apple may have a shot.


I can't believe you actually refer to yourself as a "big shot". That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Do you intorduce yourself like that to the ladies?

I think i hear Apple knocking at your door already.

lol.

[e2chris]

ok whats funny is I am 27 years old and I never heard of Apple Records. I mean of course I have heard of the beatles. But I never knew who there label was. Infact I think many people dont know this 20 and younger.

Oh and just in case so I dont get sued... ©Beatles

LOL!

[blob]

What do people think?

.. can we find a mail address to let Apple Corp know how we feel about this?

.. or maybe a petition

I just don't see they have a right to demand money from Apple's innovation in the digital world .. specially after all these yrs!

[alandail]

Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
what the hell does apple records even do anymore??

apparently all they do anymore is file lawsuits

[alset]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
Screw the Beatles. I can't believe that these egotistical morons would sue Apple over this; I mean, it was a compliment for Jobs to name his company in this way. Talk to the hand! :mad:

The Beatles were a band of firsts and have influenced every form of popular music, both in style and recording techniques. Hostility does not make for an interesting or thought provoking post.

Dan

[e2chris]

Does Bill Gates own Apple Records?

lol j/k

[Edge100]

Originally posted by foofan
One interesting note:

Michael Jackson has been quoted endorsing such applications as iTms. He also owns the rights to all the Beatles songs. So why aren't the songs available to iTunes?

If MJ owns the Beatles songs, then is Apple Corps really worth much anymore?

The Michael Jackson-Beatles thing is a little confusing. This is how I understand it:

Michael Jackson controls Northen Songs Inc., the company that originally published Lennon-McCartney compositions (and some of George's songs, up until 1968, when he formed Harrisongs Inc., which published all of his subsequent songs). What this means is that MJ owns the publishing right to the actual songs. HOWEVER, he does NOT own the recordings. These are owned by EMI/Apple. Moreover, MJ does not actually own the song. The song is ALWAYS owned by the author, unless he/she sells the song, which is not the case here. There is a very fine, but important line here. Publishing rights and ownership are very different.

So, in essence, if you want to play a Beatles song at the local bar on open mic night, you (well, the bar actually) must pay royalties to MJ. However, the radio station that plays The Beatles recordings must pay royalties to both MJ and EMI/Apple, because they are not only playing the song, but also the recording of the song.

So, in essence, The Beatles are not necessarily absent from iTMS because MJ wants it that way. I suppose he could stop any Northern Songs Inc. song from showing up there, but so too could Apple (Records). I have noticed over the years that Apple holds onto its Beatles recordings VERY tightly...that's why you NEVER see a Beatles recording on a "Best of the '60s" compilation. However, you very often see people covering Beatles songs, because Apple has NO SAY in this matter. It is all up to MJ in this case.

Hope this helps.

[ThomasJefferson]

This is all Yoko's fault.

[gopy]

Originally posted by sickracer2015
THE BEATLES ARENT SUING, THE LABEL IS.. GET IT STRAIGHT

Right, and no one ever refers to Apple as "Jobs" (personally, I try to write Apple/Jobs) or Microsoft as "BillG" or Sun or Oracle or…

Previous posters are right: this was an issue 20 years ago, but no more. And, if Apple's name was actually "Sam Goody" then there might be a trademark case...

And re: politics, the fact the Jobs is a strong leftist is bound to insert polemics into a legal discussion.

edit: Legal discussion re: Apple.

[hsilver]

Spike Lee / Spike TV. Where is this going?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Lancetx
How exactly was he "Bush worshipping"? Like it or not, some people here do not agree with nor care to read this leftist crap and it would be nice for discussions to stay on topic. We also don't care to read slams against the President of our country in a forum where it's completely off topic! And I also agree wholeheartedly that especially on a day like 9/11, it's particularly inappropriate.

No human being, especially no politician, deserves to be above criticism. Not even on September 11th...especially not on September 11th.

Originally posted by Lancetx
And what is with these signatures like yours that show up on every post you make if that's not introducing your own political activism into every discussion? You have the right to your own opinions when it comes to Bush, but this isn't the time or place to make them public because I seriously doubt that anyone on this type of forum cares to hear about it, I know I certainly don't appreciate it. The moderators of this forum need to crack down big time on this kind of stuff because it doesn't belong here at all from either side...

Online etiquette for years has held that sigs are pretty much free speech zones, with no regard to whether or not it's on topic.

[grapeice]

Originally posted by Lancetx
And I also agree wholeheartedly that especially on a day like 9/11, it's particularly inappropriate.

You know, I'm gonna get off topic for a second. I mourn the loss of those many people, and I am angry that something so tragic happened on our land. But to say that September 11th is a good reason to not speak negatively about Bush is about un-American as you can get.

I'm tired of people defending Bush (or any other government official) in the name of September 11th. Everyday I see young people say things just like what Brittney Spears said:

"I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

Questioning our country's leaders is our responsibility, not "classless!" We're not going to get anywhere as a country until we all work together to solve our problems and acknowledge our strengths. The sooner everyone realizes this, and the sooner more and more people become interested in government (today's politicians have made it boring, I know), the better we'll all be. Stop making excuses for bashing our leaders. What happened was tragic, yes, but don't let ignorance keep you from finding and fixing the cause.

Just my 2 cents. Back to the topic at hand...

[Stella]

Why don't you read the read of my post.

"It took YEARS for Beatles albums to come out on CDs..."

This is the basis of my post... Why did it take years for the Beatles allow their music come out on CDs?? Also the fact that Apple Music have sued Apple Computers decades ago...

What a surprise, once iTMS is out, Beatles, who own Apple Music (IRC), try suing Apple Computers once again.


Originally posted by Edge100
HUH??? Have YOU ever heard a Beatles album?

And YES I have, their music is excellent.

But this lawsuit sucks.

[gopy]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No human being, especially no politician, deserves to be above criticism. Not even on September 11th...especially not on September 11th.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
-- Theodore Roosevelt

Obviously OT, but...

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Frohickey
They can rename Apple Computer Inc. to TheComputerCompanyFormerlyKnownAsAppleComputer Inc. TCCFKAAC Inc. Keep the same logo. :D

Change the name to the logo itself, which is of course an unpronounceable symbol :)

Originally posted by Edge100
However, you very often see people covering Beatles songs, because Apple has NO SAY in this matter. It is all up to MJ in this case.

That should have happened sooner. Anything to prevent William Shatner's rendition of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"...

[Stella]

That was pure humour... lots of laughs! :->

That should have happened sooner. Anything to prevent William Shatner's rendition of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"... [/B]

[Macmaniac]

So much hostility towards the Beatles is not being properly placed. I doubt the remaining band would even bother suing Apple, its all the label. I still love the beatles, blame the label not the artist.

[Edge100]

Originally posted by Stella
Why don't you read the read of my post.

"It took YEARS for Beatles albums to come out on CDs..."

This is the basis of my post... Why did it take years for the Beatles allow their music come out on CDs?? Also the fact that Apple Music have sued Apple Computers decades ago...


Oh, I read the post...

You said "Beatles do not like new technology."

I think this is a little bit of a generalization!

There are reasons that Apple withheld the Beatles from CD until 1987. For one, it was done so that the release of Sgt Pepper on CD on June 1, 1987 would mark 20 years since its original release..."it was 20 years ago today..."

In addition, a lot of the albums were remastered for CD, and not simply released as they originally sounded.

Finally, it kept the public waiting, to build a little bit of anticipation. The Beatles were, and are, the monsters. Apple wouldnt have just let the Beatles out without a little fanfare!

[alandail]

Originally posted by sickracer2015
the beatles arent suing the label the beatles are on are suing.. dont get the 2 confused with each other

Apple Corps was founded by John, Paul, George and Ringo and are now owned by Yoko, Paul, George's estate and Ringo - so no matter how you look at it, it's the beatles suing. And the whole thing is crazy.

The few beatles recordings that were released by Apple Corps no longer are even published by Apple Corps, but rather by Capitol/EMI Records.

According to this

http://www.idler.co.uk/html/library/apple.htm

Apple Corp shut down in 1970.

"On August 4 1970 Apple Corps was closed down and on 31 December McCartney instituted court action to dissolve The Beatles partnership."

[obeygiant]

Doesn't Michael Jackson own most of the rights to the Beatles songs?
Just wondering.

[Edge100]

Originally posted by obeygiant
Doesn't Michael Jackson own most of the rights to the Beatles songs? Does Paul McCartney own Apple Records?

Just wondering.

Read my post above for details on the MJ thing. Paul McCartney (I believe) has a financial interest in Apple, but no, he is not the owner.

[SiliconAddict]

Who the heck is Apple Corps anyways?!?! I've never even heard of these pissants.

I'm seriously getting sick of all these lawsuits. It doesn't matter where its coming from its reaching a critical mass where a judge needs to have the ability to execute the lawyer that loses a lawsuits. On the spot. Make em think twice before heading into court with this kind of BS nonsense.
Obviously not going to happen but I can wish can’t I. ;)

[obeygiant]

Originally posted by Edge100
Read my post above for details on the MJ thing. Paul McCartney (I believe) has a financial interest in Apple, but no, he is not the owner.


You are SUPER fast, Edge100. I didn't even have time to edit my post! WickeD!

[alandail]

actually, here's a better history of Apple Corps.

http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecofacts.htm

This page says "The Apple label lasted until 1976"

And also says "Apple was set up purely and simple as a tax saving project"

[psxndc]

Originally posted by pwfletcher
I am a big shot trademark lawyer ... Apple may have a shot.

With regard to the contract, courts tend to construe non-compete agreements very narrowly in that they restrict trade and are thereby against public policy.


1) Please cite cases. I don't buy that the courts look favorably upon confusing trademarks.

2) The case is about breach of contract. It's already been established hasn't it that Apple Computers was infringing on Apple Records? If it was decided they weren't, why is there a contract stating they won't compete? A contract exists and Apple Records alleges that Apple Computers is in breach of that contract. The court could go back and find that the contract is not valid of course, but I'd be suprised if it hadn't already been tested by Apple Computers at the appeallate level.

I wonder though what the consideration was for Apple Computer's promise? For Apple records to forebear the right to sue Apple Computers?

*shrug*

-p

[psxndc]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict

*snip*

a judge needs to have the ability to execute the lawyer that loses a lawsuits. On the spot. Make em think twice before heading into court with this kind of BS nonsense.
Obviously not going to happen but I can wish can’t I. ;)

Rule 11 (http://epistolary.org/1108.html) my friend, Rule 11

-p

[prechrchet]

A couple of people have mentioned changing Apple's name in jest, but seriously, what would be wrong with renaming the company "Macintosh"? They are already synonymous with that name, and would require almost no remarketing to get people to understand the change.

Then they can make whatever music they want to, and Apple Records can't do a thing about it.


Just a thought

[arn]

Political and off topic posts deleted.

arn

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by sickracer2015
THE BEATLES ARENT SUING, THE LABEL IS.. GET IT STRAIGHT

sickracer2015 -

Then, why are The Beatles suing Apple?!

;)

[reyesmac]

If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MacQuest
sickracer2015 -

Then, why are The Beatles suing Apple?!

;)

They're not, it was a sensationalistic, yet inaccurate choice of thread title.

[mtalbot]

http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecomain.htm

In February '68 The Beatles, Ltd. changed its name to Apple Corps, Ltd.

Apple Corps, Ltd:
* Apple Electronics,
* Apple Films Ltd.,
* Apple Management,
* Apple Music Publishing,
* Apple Overseas,
* Apple Publicity,
* Apple Records,
* Apple Retail,
* Apple Tailoring Civil and Theatrical,
* Apple Television (planned),
* Apple Wholesale (planned).

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
They're not, it was a sensationalistic, yet inaccurate choice of thread title.

I know.

I'm just messing with sickracer2015 about the fact that...THE BEATLES ARE SUING APPLE COMPUTER.

:D

[digitalbiker]

It seems to me that Apple Computer has instigated it's own fair share of legal strong arm tactics to protect it's own trademark products and technology. How many little guys have we read about that were just trying to improve on the technology and were slammed by Apple legal? How many rumour sites are served papers to withdrawl comments or photos? How many look-alike GUI interfaces has Apple sued and received concessions for.

Apple Corp was first. Apple computer made an agreement. Apple computer broke the agreement. Apple computer gets sued.

Hey, you have to follow the same set of rules that you expect others to follow. I have no problem with the law suit. Apple should have known better than to sign such a stupid agreement in the first place.

[Stella]

thanks for the clarification of reasons for Beatles... Quite a few artists, had their music remastered, one of my favourite being Mike Oldfield (Tubular Bells etc), had all his music remastered and put on CD.

But this (quote below) reminds of of Star Wars...

Not that its a bad thing.. thoug gave Lucas $$$$$$$$ in returns!!

OT: once revenue of EP 1- 3 has dried up, 7 to 9 are sure to follow, what ever he says now!!

Originally posted by Edge100
Oh, I read the post...

You said "Beatles do not like new technology."

I think this is a little bit of a generalization!

There are reasons that Apple withheld the Beatles from CD until 1987. For one, it was done so that the release of Sgt Pepper on CD on June 1, 1987 would mark 20 years since its original release..."it was 20 years ago today..."

In addition, a lot of the albums were remastered for CD, and not simply released as they originally sounded.

Finally, it kept the public waiting, to build a little bit of anticipation. The Beatles were, and are, the monsters. Apple wouldnt have just let the Beatles out without a little fanfare!

[Balin64]

You know what guys?

Nothing makes me happier than listening to my favorite band, The Beatles, on my sexy Apple Computers: iMac 17", 12" AlBook and also my iPod.

Literature, The Beatles and Macs are some of the things in my life I treasure dearly.

This is just a damn shame. The arguments from the first lawsuit no longer stand; Apple Corps is a dinosaur; they shold be lobbying whoever owns Beatles music (mostly freakin' Jacko, except Gerorge Harrison's) to get on iTMS. With a Wintel release around the corner, it should be their main interest to ensure the surviving Beatles' estates grow as a result of royalties from digital downloads rather than from hitting up Apple Computer for money again.

Apple has been heavy into music for a lomg tiime: remember "rip, mix burn"? Heck Yes! I ripped my entire Beatles collection as soon as iTunes came out and have treated my friends to wonderful Beatles music whenever I have parties. Most of them have more than four Beatles CD's now: and not because I burned CD's for them, they bought them (and four of them have switched form PC to Macs just because of their love for music).

Why did they not sue before? I think that with iTMS about to make a huge change in the way people buy music by porting it to the rest of the herded world, Apple Corps wants one more paycheck from Apple. Trust me: this is archaic ideas vs. progress. I hope the judge sends the Brit lawyers back to London to meander about a dawn-hued Covent Garden with a wicked Carlsberg-induced hangover after a very much deserved defeat.

I actually care not wether Paul or Ringo are supporting this or not. I like the Paul and Ringo, as well as John and George (may they be jammin' in heaven) coming from the Pro Speakers coming from my bloody brilliant iMac.

Just my Two Pence.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MacQuest
I know.

I'm just messing with sickracer2015 about the fact that...THE BEATLES ARE SUING APPLE COMPUTER.

:D

Oh dear God! What will we do now!?

[spice weasel]

I heard that Apple Corp. is now owned by Bill Gates. :D

[iLife]

Originally posted by e2chris
ok whats funny is I am 27 years old and I never heard of Apple Records. I mean of course I have heard of the beatles. But I never knew who there label was. Infact I think many people dont know this 20 and younger.

Oh and just in case so I dont get sued... ©Beatles

LOL!

I'm younger than you and I know exactly what they're talking about... if you're at all a beatles fan you'd know about apple records, even if it was just noticing most of their records have an apple logo on them...


(in fact the logo on the middle of a lot of their vinyl records is a green apple)

anyways i guess its not that big of a deal in the end, but it really was a big deal since they, along with people like jimi hendrix, were some of the first artists to really take creative control of theur own music and move past something other thna just being a musician, paving the way for more enterprising people...

as for the lawsuit, i think it blows...

[raynegus]

The thread title is meant as a joke. 2 of the 4 Beatles are dead, and I seriously doubt Paul or Ringo have anything against iTunes or the iPod.

It's the Apple label that is greedy.

[alandail]

Originally posted by raynegus
The thread title is meant as a joke. 2 of the 4 Beatles are dead, and I seriously doubt Paul or Ringo have anything against iTunes or the iPod.

It's the Apple label that is greedy.

And just who do you think owns the Apple label? Go back and read my posts on the last page - the whole label was set up to be a tax shelter for the 4 Beatles, each of which owed 25% of the label.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by alandail
And just who do you think owns the Apple label? Go back and read my posts on the last page - the whole label was set up to be a tax shelter for the 4 Beatles, each of which owed 25% of the label.

Which then was Killed off for now Record companies.

'Apple Corp' is basically owned by EMI/Capital Directly now.

Jack-o Owns the Rights to many of the songs.


Get ur facts straight!

[DakotaGuy]

If this so called Apple Corps is going to continue to sue then Apple Computer could just change their corporate name to Macintosh Computer, Inc and keep the same logo. They could do anything they wanted with music after that. Heck anymore the brand Mac has more recognition in the computer world then Apple does, but I hope it would never come to that!

I don't think much will come out of this except they will get some money out of Apple. Again.

[mainstreetmark]

Originally posted by alset
Well, this is interesting. Can't say I blame them. I get confused between pop supergroups and computers all the time.

When the Jacksonville Jaguar's first logo was released during it's first season in 1996, the Jaguar Motor Company sued them over the logo. Apparently, both companies had, get this, a Jaguar as their logo!

The Jags have since adopted a severed jaguar head, vs the Jaguar body in full stride. Jaguar (the car) had won.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by mainstreetmark
When the Jacksonville Jaguar's first logo was released during it's first season in 1996, the Jaguar Motor Company sued them over the logo. Apparently, both companies had, get this, a Jaguar as their logo!

The Jags have since adopted a severed jaguar head, vs the Jaguar body in full stride. Jaguar (the car) had won.

And Jaguar the operating system never actually ran into any problems at all.

Maybe the Carolina Panthers will sue...

[MrMacMan]

To add to my point/argument I quote My Red Beatles '1962-1966' Album (CD's)

"The Copyright in these sound recordings is owned my EMI Records LTD.
1993 The Copyright in this compliation is owned by EMI Records LTD.
1993 Apple Coprs LTD. under exclusive license to EMI Records LTD."

and on the CD:

"Manufactured by Capitol Records, Inc."


I own about every Beatles CD's in history.

:D :rolleyes:

[Jerry Spoon]

Originally posted by TylerL
...simplest solution?
BUY APPLE RECORDS!


YOKO WON'T HAVE IT !!!

[T.Rex]

It is incorrect to say that Michael Jackson "owns" all the Beatles songs, it is simply not the case. First of all, he never "owned" the songs, he simply owned a majority share of the company that owned the publishing rights to the Lennon/McCartney songs (Northern Songs Ltd.) Both Lennon (Yoko Ono, once John was killed) and McCartney owned minority shares in the company, but were unsuccessful in attempting to buy the majority stake in the company, once the main shareholder decided to sell. Jackson (acting on advice, ironically, from McCartney who had told him earlier that music publishing was a good investment) then outbid McCartney and Ono for the majority share.

McCartney and Ono still received royalty payments from the songs, they simply didn't own the publishing rights to them. However, by the early 90s Jackson ran into financial difficuly and sold his share to Sony.

Apple Corps, on the other hand, was the record company the Beatles created to release their albums from the White Album (1968) on. It also owns their intelectual property, likenesses, pictures, films, etc. It is not a pointless company like some people here claimed, but a legitimate holding company. Also, the idea that Apple Computer should "buy" Apple Corps is simply absurd. I assure you the holdings of Apple Corps are quite valuable, and I doubt you would find it an easy sell to McCartney and Yoko Ono, having been cheated out of Northern Songs Ltd.

Also, Apple Records didn't just release Beatles records either, it launched the career of many artists, including James Taylor and Badfinger.

(Sorry, just had to get that off my chest after reading the many erroneous posts in this thread.)

[settledown]

back in the day...
It was Apple Corp. vs. Apple Inc.,
Since then Apple has changed its name to Apple Computers Inc.. And not to long ago changed it again to just Apple Computers.

I wonder if Apple Corp. vs Apple Computers is the loophole Jobs is going to use.

You guys see what I'm getting at?

[alandail]

Originally posted by MrMacman
To add to my point/argument I quote My Red Beatles '1962-1966' Album (CD's)

"The Copyright in these sound recordings is owned my EMI Records LTD.
1993 The Copyright in this compliation is owned by EMI Records LTD.
1993 Apple Coprs LTD. under exclusive license to EMI Records LTD."

and on the CD:

"Manufactured by Capitol Records, Inc."


I own about every Beatles CD's in history.

:D :rolleyes:

Actually, I read that to say the opposite of what you said. it says EMI has an exclusive license to the copyrights from Apple Corps. From what I read, the Beatles Apple Corps recordings were always released by EMI. Apple Corps was formed as a tax shelter - instead of EMI paying royalties to the Beatles, they payed Apple Corps, which dramatically reduced the taxes that had to be paid on the royalties.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by hsilver
Spike Lee / Spike TV. Where is this going?

Spike Lee sued to prevent the renaming of TNN to Spike TV. Turns out they gave Spike Lee a few million and it went on as planned.

[MacAficionado]

These guys:

http://www.acd.org/index.htm

http://www.lgbac.org/

http://www.applecorps.org/

http://applecorps.kordsmen.org/

Why not sue them?

***** the Beatles!

[JGowan]

Originally posted by Stella
Beatles do not like new technology. Actually, Paul sometimes acts like he really loves Apple Computers and that he's trying to help Apple out...

About his last CD/DVD w/extras: "I tell you what other far out thing for me was... just the other day, one of the guys came up, they said: 'wait a minute, we've just heard that Apple Mac users won't be able to access this 'cause the technology is different for the Mac.' So I got onto our our guys and I said 'Get on the phone. Start making inquiries!

"What's happened is they just actually sorted it so that Apple Mac WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT! So like, WE'RE advancing Mac technology! I mean, I'm not a 'tech guy' but that, to me, is really exciting. Apparently Steve Jobs is gonna come 'round to one of the gigs 'cause he's excited about this thing.

"You think about it, you know, there's something that an Apple Mac couldn't do and now they can because of our DVD: we're advancing Technology!"

From the Tom Nakashima (Eagle 96.9) interview with Paul McCartney:

http://www.macca-central.com/macca-concerts/2002-10-21_Sacramento/PaulMcCartney-Tom.mp3

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by MacAficionado
These guys:

http://www.acd.org/index.htm

http://www.lgbac.org/

http://www.applecorps.org/

http://applecorps.kordsmen.org/

Why not sue them?

***** the Beatles!

They aren't making any money...

edit: So If EMI owns Apple Records, are they tipping the hands of fate here? Are they trying to get more than their $.66 a song?

[rog]

I don't get it. I have always thought of the Beatles label as "Apple Core" which was the intended play on words of the official name 'Apple Corps".

Apple isn't Apple Core computers. Nobody in their right mind would confuse the 2 companies, they don't overlap in what they sell. Does Apple Corps even sell anything other than Beatles music?

[macnews]

Does anyone know if the Itunes Music store is a seperate sub company? If not, that could be an option for Apple computer. Spin off the iTunes Music store with Apple computer as the parent company. Would be much easier than changing the name to Macintosh. Plus, since Apple also acquired eMagic this might also be an argument against Apple records not protecting their mark.

In the long run this does suck, but should just be a bump in the road. I mean really, with all the cash Apple is sitting on, even $150 million (3x what they have already paid out according to Fox) would be a drop in the bucket and worth while to just make them (Apple Records) go away!

[nagromme]

Oh dear... is this OUR fault??

Apple Corps - MacClan.net (http://macclan.net)

:D

[blob]

Is Fox News suggesting that Eversheds of London is instigating this action with the Beatles just going along?

If this is true, I can see Eversheds getting a lot of rather pointed emails. Pure Greed!!

Perhaps they should go after MS who really does steal ideas!

Anyway, I don't believe Jobs and co haven't seen this one coming

Apple Corps should recieve their counter-claim monday morning prompt!

[e2chris]

iLife, you are indeed a awkward individual if you care about the label more than the music... HELLO! I could care less who makes the stupid CD and does the advertising. In the end its the song, me and like most normal people, is all we care about. And no, I have never bought a Beatles CD/Tape/Record/8 track. So I have never seen this Apple logo... and you know what? I really dont care about seeing it either. I do have these cool apps I have used called Kazaa/napster/imesh/gnutella/limewire that i use to obtain my music. Call me cheap and dumb but again... 99.9% the population use this stuff to.

Not knowing a label name means I have better things to do with my time. And I dont think you are any better if you do know such useless information. I focus on making money.

You know what if Microsoft pulled something like this and we couldnt call everyday windows that we look through outside windows anymore... not really the same thing but that is what it is getting to.

[Phil Of Mac]

Maybe they should sue music-stealing idiots like you instead of Apple.

[yumpin yiminy]

i'm sure it has been mentioned already but this lawsuit was inevitable.
you'd think. just think that Apple would have cut them in on the deal.
I swear. Apple's biggest flaw always ends up being its naming of products and services.
From the original Apple Records lawsuit to Carl Sagan to Rendevous to this one. I'm not even going to get into the iBook name.
I know that with the technological explosion names are a penny a dozen and everyone owns every word but Apple should have known better than to try and skirt around a contractual agreement.
Like I said, it surprises me that they didn't cut the Beatles a deal on iPod sales.
Man.
This is not koo-koo-ka-kool.

[Genie]

I can't believe apple didn't get this straight before they started itms!:confused:

[SeaFox]

"I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."
-- Brittney Spears



" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
-- Theodore Roosevelt


I know it's not on topic, but I just really wanted to see those two quotes together on one post for contrast. :D

[Belly-laughs]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Come on... Beatles... you had your time... let it go.

Er... "Let it be", isn´t it?

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by Genie
I can't believe apple didn't get this straight before they started itms!:confused:

No kidding! You'd think someone at Apple (Computer) would have said "Hey, wait a minute guys. This music store idea is good. But don't we have some contract saying we can't..."

Sounds like Apple Legal was asleep at the wheel.

As far as people confusing the two companies, I meet people all the time who think the company is actually named "Macintosh" instaed of Apple.

This is what you get when you remove original system startup sounds from the OS. If we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it.

P.S.- Since the Green Apple is Apple Corps symbol, maybe Apple Computer should pay a settlement for all those key lime iBooks they made. There were green apples on them, ya know.

[simX]

Originally posted by SeaFox
As far as people confusing the two companies, I meet people all the time who think the company is actually named "Macintosh" instaed of Apple.

ARG, those kinds of people annoy me to no end. The other group of people are those who think the computer is called an Apple. *ROAR*

Anyway, I have to agree that Apple had this coming to them -- they did indeed breach the contract that they made with Apple Corps. way back when, plain and simple. There's no other way around it, even if you don't think it applies now.

Apple may have a legal leg to stand on, though, because Apple Corps. didn't sue Apple when they originally came out with iTunes or the iPod. Because they waited 'til now, their legal case may be weaker. But, as always, IANAL, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.


Also, I believe that the name of our favorite fruit company is simply "Apple", now. They fairly recently (read: a few years ago) changed it from "Apple, Inc." or "Apple Computer, Inc." At least I thought they did -- their copyright notice down at the bottom of apple.com still says "Apple Computer, Inc." Anybody care to shed any more light on this?

[dstorey]

It's all Yoko's fault I tell you. It's her fault now, it was her fault the Beatles split up, it was even her fault Wako Jako turn white and had his nose fall off...shes a wicked witch that pyt a spell on him for outbifdding her and paul for the Beatles rights.... Hell it's even her fault its raining today

[Arcady]

Originally posted by settledown
back in the day... It was Apple Corp. vs. Apple Inc., Since then Apple has changed its name to Apple Computers Inc.. And not to long ago changed it again to just Apple Computers.

The company has been called "Apple Computer, Inc." since 1977. They have never been called "Apple Computers" or "Apple Inc." Where did people (including this Fox News "reporter") get the idea that it was called "Apple Computers" anyway?

I guess it's not as bad as people who write things like "MAC makes good computers for graphics" but it still makes me mad.

[.a]

though the beatles are a legend, i never liked the music and now i do not even like their lawyer ...
.a

[Doraemon]

Originally posted by sickracer2015
Apple did ask for it:

When Apple Computers first came into existence, the Beatles' lawyers_sued -- and won -- over the use of the corporate name. The Fab Four, it_was_widely known, already had their own_company called_Apple Corps. (Ironically, Jobs admitted to naming his company as a tribute to the Beatles.) The result of the suit was a huge cash settlement and a promise that the Apple logo and name would only be used for computers -- and_never for a music company.

Several years later, when computers starting having music come through attachable speakers, the Beatles again sued_and won, this time_over breach of a trademark agreement since Apple Computers had agreed to steer clear of the music business. Their winnings against Apple Computers have come to an estimated_$50 million so far.


You got it basically right, but it was a little bit different.

Apple was not sued for the use of the name Apple, but they [Apple Computer & Records] had a secret agreement (read Apple Comp payed quite a lot) that Apple Comp may use the name for products not related to music.

In 1989 Apple Comp was sued because Apple Records felt that by the release of the Apple IIgs (gs = graphic & sound) Apple Comp violated the terms of the agreement. The suit was settled when Apple Comp agreed to pay $26.5 million in 1991.


I guess there's only one this to say to this rumor:

Sosumi

;)

[mrjamin]

Originally posted by Doraemon
I guess there's only one this to say to this rumor:

Sosumi

;)
Was wondering when someone would mention that! Was waiting for the thread to stop going round in circles before i mentioned it!

[Uragon]

Actually, the real owner of the Apple trademark is the Vatican, handed over by Adam and Eve. And where's the snake?.....da lawyers.;)

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by alandail
Actually, I read that to say the opposite of what you said. it says EMI has an exclusive license to the copyrights from Apple Corps. From what I read, the Beatles Apple Corps recordings were always released by EMI. Apple Corps was formed as a tax shelter - instead of EMI paying royalties to the Beatles, they payed Apple Corps, which dramatically reduced the taxes that had to be paid on the royalties.

... How can you possibly tell me otherwise?

I stated that... that was WRITTEN on the CD's, why in hell would they post incorrect information on their own disks?

I can pull out the other disks... but that would be repettive eh?

[alandail]

Originally posted by MrMacman
... How can you possibly tell me otherwise?

I stated that... that was WRITTEN on the CD's, why in hell would they post incorrect information on their own disks?

I can pull out the other disks... but that would be repettive eh?

The disk says "1993 Apple Coprs LTD. under exclusive license to EMI Records LTD."

It's saying EMI licensed the copyright from Apple Corps, Ltd. If EMI owned Apple Corps LTD, why would they have to license the music from Apple Corps LTD?

[NoVi]

Originally posted by Makosuke
I'm not a copyright/trademark lawyer, but it sure seems to me that any particular benefit to Apple (the computer company) on account of sharing a name with the Beatles label went away about two decades ago when Apple Records stopped doing anything. At all.


This not -entirely- true. I just looked at my 6 part Anthology DVD, but it wears the Beatles Apple logo (you see it's confusing :D) and this DVD has been released recently.
I guess the 'One' CD released 2/3 years ago was also an Apple production.

[whooleytoo]

(Fast forward to 2008..)

"And in other news, Apple Computers is being sued by the G7, the informal grouping of the world's seven most powerful industrial nations, claiming the newly released PowerMac G7 infringes on their trademark.

Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, rejected these claims. 'Independent benchmarks show, the PowerMac G7 is twice as powerful as these nations. Plus, it's a lot cooler, and has a *LOT* more fans".

"It's also the quietest desktop computer ever.".

Leading industry analyst, Ivor O'Pinion, stated this may be helped by Apple being forced to remove all sound and music circuitry from their machines in a pivotal court case with Apple Records in 2003."

:)

Mike.

[crees!]

Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

good times.

[marco114]

This probably drew Apple Corps over the edge..

http://www.applemusic.com/

If that's not Apple entering the music business, I don't know what is..

But one fact remains, Apple does not produce music, they only sell it. I think other big record companies may be apt to help Apple win this one. :(

[kristianm]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

good times.

So you think you know better than the judges what is constitutional? Did you ever stop to think that the constitution says things you disagree with? That religious freedom should be meaingful?

Sorry to post off-topic but this was just too provoking.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by blob
Apple's nothing to do with your business

Lay your greedy money grabbing lawyers off

How bout taking a shot at ...

Big Apple Records

OR

Bad Apple Records

OR

Black Apple Records

OR

Screaming Apple Records

OR (insert your own Apple Records rip-off title from Google)

Go do something useful with your life McCartney!

You just lost all my respect

What makes you think Paul or MPL Communications, Ltd (His company) has anything to do with this lawsuit? Some one already said Apple Corp. was absorbed by Capital Records so go get mad at them! I seriously doubt any of the ex-Beatles or their estates have anything to do with this. Even if they do it is probably so far removed from them that they don't have any personal knowledge of it.

[crees!]

Originally posted by kristianm
So you think you know better than the judges what is constitutional? Did you ever stop to think that the constitution says things you disagree with? That religious freedom should be meaingful?

Sorry to post off-topic but this was just too provoking.
This shouldn't concern you anyways.. you're from Norway (in all fun) ;) Sorry.. but I'm not about to have some crazy left-wing librals run my life (particularly speaking of those particular judges in cali). My original post was for a laugh. Sorry some of you couldn't realize that.

[kaneda]

I guess Apple will raise the prices on all their products to recover this lawsuit.

I am glad I am not owning any Beatles CD...save those money for Apple Computer products..
:D

[csimmons]

Originally posted by gopy
" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
-- Theodore Roosevelt

Obviously OT, but...

Bush fans and right-wingers take note!

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but last time I checked, it was my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to criticize a government official. That was how America came into being in the first place, people.

Besides, before Sept 11th, the vast majority of Americans agreed that Bush was not a very good president, and nothing much has changed since then. To suggest that ANY man or woman elected president of our country could not act decisively after such an event is, quite frankly, stupid. To act in such a time of national crisis is the presidents job, regardless of his party affiliation.

Back to the subject...

[Loopy]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Come on... Beatles... you had your time... let it go.

Sorry I think it should say Let it be

[kristianm]

Originally posted by crees!
This shouldn't concern you anyways.. you're from Norway (in all fun) ;) Sorry.. but I'm not about to have some crazy left-wing librals run my life (particularly speaking of those particular judges in cali). My original post was for a laugh. Sorry some of you couldn't realize that.

Then I apologize. And the US does concern us, bordering Russia you need larger friends.

[rog]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

good times.

Yeah what jerks, following the constitution and all! People should be required to make statements affirming their belief in god whether they believe in god or not!

[txcraig75]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

NO! No! No! <gender specific higher being reference deleted> I hate it when people can't get this straight.

The 9th Circuit did NOT declare the pledge unconstitutional! They declared a 1950's law adding the words "under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. School officials can still lead students in the pledge as it was before that law (ie. omitting "Under God").

And the 9th Circuit did NOT "let go a ton of death row inmates." Over 100 death row inmated in Arizona and Idaho were sentenced to death by judges, not juries. In another case from a different Circuit, the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional. In response to that ruling, an inmate in the 9th Circuit sued to have his death sentence lifted since he was sentenced to die by a judge, not a jury. The Supreme Court opinion did not do this automatically. It left lower courts to determine the cases inwhich the sentences were to be commuted. That is what the 9th Circuit did. And the inmates were not "let go." They are still in prison. Their sentences, in effect have been commuted to life, though Arizona and Idaho still have the ability to retry the penalty phase of an inmates trial so that a jury can decide whether the sentence should be death or not. It is likely many of these inmates will be put back on death row by a jury. The case however was to preserve certain procedural protections all Americans deserve: a fair trial by one's peers.

[tychay]

Originally posted by mrjamin
Was wondering when someone would mention that! Was waiting for the thread to stop going round in circles before i mentioned it!

Actually, I made a reference to "sosumi" in page 2 of this thread (I actually started composing the post when there were zero comments, but there was a big outcry after the news item was posted and it ended up on page 2).

In any case, I'll ask again. Does anyone have any evidence that Apple Computer, Inc. is being sued by Apple Corps, LTD. that is not traceable to Friedman and FOX News? Until someone presents something, I find the whole article suspect.

Has there been a lawsuit since the IIgs? That seems mighty strange: Mac's have had CD quality sound for years; the G5 has optical in/out; Apple owns EMagic Logic; they bundle SoundTrack with Final Cut Pro; they have had the iPod out for almost two years; iTunes Music Store has been out for half a year; iTunes itself has been out for three or four years and no lawsuit. I, at least, entertain the possibility that there is no lawsuit, that there never will be a lawsuit.

Reread the original FOX News article. Besides being full of errors it presents no evidence that there is even such a lawsuit. In fact, Friedman's writing would be perfectly at home in a tabloid and steps just enough this side of lying to absolve him a legal liability.

I find it very strange that FOX News was able to scoop every other newspaper on this, especially the Los Angeles Times which is no friend of Apple Computer, Inc. and has its finger on the pulse of the music industry much better than FOX.

(When I put on my tinfoil hat, I notice that EMI is the only major music label not owned by a media giant and that News Corp is the only media giant without a play in the music industry. At the very least, the ultra-conservative parent company of FOX probably has nothing to lose and everything to gain by dragging Apple Computer and EMI down through the mud a bit.) :)

I have scanned this message board, MacCentral, and SlashDot and found a lot of indignation on both sides, but no evidence. We seem to be treating rumor as fact. This is especially egregious on MacCentral and SlashDot. This board is excepted because our purpose here is to talk about rumors. (Of course, I wish Arn put this on "Page 2" ;).)

Take care,

[crees!]

Originally posted by txcraig75
NO! No! No! <gender specific higher being reference deleted> I hate it when people can't get this straight.

The 9th Circuit did NOT declare the pledge unconstitutional! They declared a 1950's law adding the words "under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. School officials can still lead students in the pledge as it was before that law (ie. omitting "Under God").

And the 9th Circuit did NOT "let go a ton of death row inmates." Over 100 death row inmated in Arizona and Idaho were sentenced to death by judges, not juries. In another case from a different Circuit, the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional. In response to that ruling, an inmate in the 9th Circuit sued to have his death sentence lifted since he was sentenced to die by a judge, not a jury. The Supreme Court opinion did not do this automatically. It left lower courts to determine the cases inwhich the sentences were to be commuted. That is what the 9th Circuit did. And the inmates were not "let go." They are still in prison. Their sentences, in effect have been commuted to life, though Arizona and Idaho still have the ability to retry the penalty phase of an inmates trial so that a jury can decide whether the sentence should be death or not. It is likely many of these inmates will be put back on death row by a jury. The case however was to preserve certain procedural protections all Americans deserve: a fair trial by one's peers.

txcraig75, you are right. I couldn't fully remember the specifics so I decided to keep it short so I wouldn't fall into anything like this (getting my facts incorrect).. I mucked this one up..

Okay.. Back to Apple Corp everyone.

PS - I didn't mean to insult you kristianm, if I did.

[kristianm]

Originally posted by crees!
PS - I didn't mean to insult you kristianm, if I did.

You didn't.

[sjonni]

first he(Sir. Paul) wants to change the songs and lyrics from lennon-paul to paul-lennon on the records, and now this. Didn´t Michael Jackson buy the copyright of the Beatles i.e Paul, like 10 or more years ago?:o

[mustang_dvs]

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5075721.html

Geoff Baker, spokesman for Apple Corps, confirmed the suit was filed two months ago in London High Court. He referred further questions to a statement put out by Apple Corps, the company the legendary rock ban formed in 1968 to manage its business interests.

"Specifically, (the) complaint is made over the use by Apple Computer of the word 'Apple' and apple logos in conjunction with its new application for downloading pre-recorded music from the Internet," according to the statement, apparently referring to Apple's successful iTunes Music Store service for downloading digital songs

By the way, here (http://stuff.sateh.com/ClassicMacSoundsWav/Sosumi.wav) you can find the staccato, E-flat, diminsihed triad called "Sosumi."

Apple Corps is still partly run by Sir Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the estate of George Harrison -- they each have a 5% stake.

As for Michael Jackson's legal control over Beatle's songs, he has the controlling interest in Northern Songs, LTD, which maintains the publishing rights to a fair number of the Beatles' catalog. I point you to: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html

What Michael Jackson bought for $47.5 million in 1985 was the publishing rights to 159 or 251 Beatles songs, depending on who's counting. To maybe oversimplify a complicated business, publishing rights are basically the sheet music rights. When Paul McCartney wanted to print the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" and other Beatles classics in the program for his 1989 world tour, he discovered he'd have to pay a fee to Michael Jackson. The owner of the publishing rights (hereinafter the publisher) also gets a royalty when someone plays a Beatles song on a jukebox or the radio or does a cover version of a Fab Four tune.

Also see: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

[michaelperez1]

******* the beatles im tired of all this crap of whiners trying to get rich over other company's I think its basically they see as the ITMS as a threat and with music players a even bigger one tell you what Apple Corp I bet you was eve who took a chunk into Apple Computer and now we are ********* screw corps go Apple Computer

oh and I dont like the beetles I kill them in my front porch all the time lol (the animal so I dont get sued either)

[e2chris]

oh and I dont like the beetles I kill them in my front porch all the time lol (the animal so I dont get sued either) [/B][/QUOTE]

Beetles a animal? hmmmm I thought insects...

[tychay]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030912/ap_on_bi_ge/beatles_apple_lawsuit

[iLife]

Originally posted by e2chris
Beetles a animal? hmmmm I thought insects... [/B]

Insect: 1 a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented. . .

-- an animal is any living creature from the Kingdom Animalia basically meaning anything that moves... if he had said mammals then he would have been wrong.

[michaelperez1]

Originally posted by iLife
Insect: 1 a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented. . .

-- an animal is any living creature from the Kingdom Animalia basically meaning anything that moves... if he had said mammals then he would have been wrong. my mistake sheesh

[iLife]

Originally posted by michaelperez1
my mistake sheesh

no no dude, you were right... a beetle is an animal.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

The 9th Circuit Court is an appeals court. They don't actually hear the original trial.

Apple could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, however, if they lost, since they are within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit (California).

This is, of course, ignoring the international issue (since they're being sued by Apple Records in the UK).

And by the way, the death penalty sucks, and so does the Pledge of Allegiance. Sosumi!

[simX]

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
By the way, here (http://stuff.sateh.com/ClassicMacSoundsWav/Sosumi.wav) you can find the staccato, E-flat, diminsihed triad called "Sosumi."

Um, why don't you just go into the Sound preference pane of System Preferences? Sosumi is still there. :p Probably Apple engineers had the foresight to see this was coming when they made Mac OS X, so they left the sound in. ;)

[Daveman Deluxe]

Ah, the diminished triad... the staple of music when the bad guy walks into the saloon.:D

[Phil Of Mac]

Whatever happened to the Wild Eep?

[MasterMac]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Whatever happened to the Wild Eep?

That was the best one :D

[mustang_dvs]

You mean this "Eep!? (http://stuff.sateh.com/ClassicMacSoundsWav/WildEep.wav)"

[Phil Of Mac]

According to MacAddict, the Wild Eep is a distant relative of the Domesticated Eep, species B. eep, which appears in the form of the Simple Beep.

[jen]

Originally posted by sedarby
What makes you think Paul or MPL Communications, Ltd (His company) has anything to do with this lawsuit? Some one already said Apple Corp. was absorbed by Capital Records so go get mad at them! I seriously doubt any of the ex-Beatles or their estates have anything to do with this. Even if they do it is probably so far removed from them that they don't have any personal knowledge of it.

newbie here, but just for everyone's info, the current directors of Apple Corps are (from the UK website companieshouse.co.uk):

LENNON, YOKO ONO
HARRISON, OLIVIA
GERRARD, HILARY LESTER (not sure who this is, but the address is Monaco and that's where Ringo lives so I assume it's someone acting on his behalf)
EASTMAN, JOHN LINDNER (Paul's brother-in-law, handles all his business affairs, also director of Paul's private company MPL, in which Paul is the sole shareholder)

Who knows how involved, if at all, any of the ex-Beatles are regarding this lawsuit. But one would presume that they had the final say in whether or not to sue being that they are the shareholders of Apple Corps. The wire stories quoted Apple spokesman Geoff Baker, who actually works for Paul, is Paul's PR guy. But to clear up any confusion, Apple Corps is owned by Paul, Ringo and the estates of John and George - not Michael Jackson, EMI or Capital Records.

[sacrilicious]

Originally posted by michaelperez1
******* the beatles im tired of all this crap of whiners trying to get rich over other company's I think its basically they see as the ITMS as a threat and with music players a even bigger one tell you what Apple Corp I bet you was eve who took a chunk into Apple Computer and now we are ********* screw corps go Apple Computer

Err, they have a legitimate gripe. What needs to happen is a combination of the two, though.

[uburoibob]

Not for nuthin, but isn't Apple Records use of Digital Media a violation of THEIR side of the agreement? The DVD's of Anthology and other performances? The software, games and web tie-in that are on multi-media releases that need a computer to utilize?

Just wondering...

[brooklyn]

Originally posted by Frohickey
It could be Paul McCartney, but its more likely to be Yoko Ono.

Paul McCartney is still out there singing and doing tours. George Harrison is pushing up daisies. Ringo Starr is content, and is doing tours also.

Its Yoko Ono. People have discovered how to put earplugs on, and are starting to not pay her the vocal extortion money that she has been accustomed to. :p

Expect Apple to pay, and pay through the nose. No way this will go to a jury trial. Big Silicon Valley Company vs small foreign widow. Can you just see the headlines?

It most definitely is Yoko.
She’s not getting her check from the U.S. Military anymore because the Army stopped using her songs to drive the Taliban out of caves in Afghanistan. Now she’s trying to make a fast buck off of Apple Computer. That Bi*ch!

[KLeb3X5]

I am a huge Beatles fan and I think everyone who is attacking the band is an idiot. This thread was porly named. It's not The Beatles that are sueing Apple Computer, but Apple Corp. Yes, The Beatles started Apple Records but the band is gone now. So how about everyone starts saying screw Apple Corps. , not screw The Beatles. So on that note, since I love Mac, SCREW APPLE CORPS. ;)

[zap2]

the beatles still have there ''time'' as some one put it. MAny people still like the beatles,Old and young (inculdes me) so stop mocking them. It really s not the beatles sueing apple,Ok?

Beatles Rock

[Coach Wade]

Paul McCartney must be down to his last ten billion....

I don't know if it's true or not, but my wife, who is big into music, swears that the reason they don't sing "Happy Birthday" in restaraunts like Applebee's is that McCartney actually copyrighted that song. If that's the case, then going after Apple is precisely the thing an aging ex-hippy with delusions of his own talent would do.

If he just had the grace to die about six decades ago... Not only would we not have had to deal with that noise they called music, but this wouldn't be an issue either.

~D.

[uburoibob]

I don't know if it's true or not, but my wife, who is big into music, swears that the reason they don't sing "Happy Birthday" in restaraunts like Applebee's is that McCartney actually copyrighted that song. If that's the case, then going after Apple is precisely the thing an aging ex-hippy with delusions of his own talent would do.

If he just had the grace to die about six decades ago... Not only would we not have had to deal with that noise they called music, but this wouldn't be an issue either.

~D.

Paul doesn't own the rights to Happy Birthday, Warner Brothers does. And if they'd had the grace to die six decades ago, the world would have been deprived of almost as much creativity as your scenario suggests.

Let's face it - the Beatles are the most creative, most important musical artists since Mozart and Beethoven. And that stands through today. There has been nothing in music that has changed and shaped it as dramatically, importantly, or positively as the Beatles.

Here's the story of the song Happy Birthday:

Happy Birthday to You, the four-line ditty was written as a classroom greeting in 1893 by two Louisville teachers, Mildred J. Hill, an authority on Negro spirituals, and Dr. Patty Smith Hill, professor emeritus of education at Columbia University.

The melody of the song Happy Birthday to You was composed by Mildred J. Hill, a schoolteacher born in Louisville, KY, on June 27, 1859. The song was first published in 1893, with the lyrics written by her sister, Patty Smith Hill, as "Good Morning To All."

Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893, but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)

In 1988, Birch Tree Group, Ltd. sold the rights of the song to Warner Communications (along with all other assets) for an estimated $25 million (considerably more than a song). (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)

In the 80s, the song Happy Birthday to You was believed to generate about $1 million in royalties annually. With Auld Lang Syne and For He's a Jolly Good Fellow, it is among the three most popular songs in the English language. (reported in Time, Jan 2, 1989 v133 n1 p88(1)

Happy Birthday to You continues to bring in approximately 2 million dollars in licensing revenue each year, at least as of 1996 accounting, according to Warner Chappell and a Forbes magazine article.

[Coach Wade]

You can't see it, Bob, but I'm bowing to your information. Like I said, my knowledge, such as it was, came from my wife, not even second hand. Probably eighth hand or even foot.

I'm afraid I don't agree about the impact of the Beatles' music. Well, I agree, but I don't think it was a positive thing. I've heard most of the Beatles' music over my 31 years ping-ponging around on this rock we call earth, and I haven't liked ANY of it. The closest thing to a good song they wrote, in my opinion (which certainly isn't humble, ask anyone) is "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

Let me say that again, the most non-auditorily torturous song produced, written, and performed by the Beatles was a DRUG ANTHEM!

Okay, some sixty million people loved and love the Beatles. Where do I get off telling cyber-space that their music makes a dental drill sound soothing? I just honestly think that they were a waste of time.

This is new for me. Most of the time when I post an opinion online I'm able to back it up with specific facts that lead me to my stance. I don't think I've ever said, "I just don't like it," before.

Don't even get me STARTED on Elvis. He's freakin' dead, people! D-E-A-D! He is not coming back to lead you to the promised Graceland. He died on the crapper ninety pounds overweight. Current theories involve smothering from his wookie-like chest hair.

Seriously, though, thanks for the information on the song. Where did you get that, anyway?

~D.

[brd2887]

In the near future, any sound produced by any actons (including, but not restricted to, typing, pushing any buttons, opening disk drives, etc) while using a Mac is liable to cause a lawsuit... and consumers who make any sort of noise while eating an apple may also be sued.

in fact... Apple Corps will claim rights to all sound, or any waves for that matter, therefore, sound cannot exist unless they are paid royalties, and all laws of physics involving waves and their properties belong to the company.

just you wait and see...

[itsa]

A Fox News column reports (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html) that The Beatles (Apple Corps) are suing Apple Computer over their move into the music arena with the iPod and iTunes Music Store.

Apple Computer and Apple Corps are not strangers and, in fact, have had previous legal settlements over corporate name confusion. In earlier agreements, Apple Computer had agreed to not enter the music industry, and had reportedly paid out a large settlement to Apple Corps.

According to this column, Apple was served legal papers over the past few days over breach of contract.

Apple Corps??? Who's that? Beatles??? Who's that?