More Apple vs. Apple Details

[MacRumors]

News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5075721.html?tag=fd_top) provides some additional details to the previously reported Apple vs. Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030911193013.shtml) lawsuit.

Apple Corps confirmed the suit and is specifically opposed to the use of the word "Apple" in conjunction with the iTunes Music Store.

Meanwhile, Apple released a brief statement claiming that the two companies simply have "differing interpretations of [their previous] agreement".

[iLife]

when will it end man!, although i do like the attitude they're taking letting the courts decide what they should do.

[cubist]

I don't understand why Apple Corps. thinks they have an eternal lock on the association of "apple" and music, just because some guys from Liverpool had some popular songs 40 years ago. Do they have any real business, other than suing people?

[mcrain]

Ok, I was completely confused at first (the main story could have been written a little better), but now understant.

I'd love to be involved in this case. This sounds like a fun one.

[Freg3000]

This is so stupid. It is the iTunes Music Store. Not the Apple iTunes Music Store. Just because Apple made it does not mean it is connected with the name.

Now, making a connection here.....:)

In the other thread, people said that Apple Corps. sued Apple when they started using sound in their computers. Along the same lines, wouldn't they have sued again when Apple created the "Apple Pro Speakers," which DO have Apple officially in their title?

Once again, how stupid this whole thing is.

[Chisholm]

This is going to prove to be nothing in the end. Apple Computer will benefit from the media coverage. Ringo and Sir Paul will just look like greedy idiots. But hey, that's just an opinion.

have a good weekend!
-john

[marco114]

I am glad Apple released a statement..

[x86isslow]

hey freg.. looks like bill's going to have company from apple records in hell (from ur signature)
:p

[joeyjojoe]

I don't see how you peopel are putting a positive spin on this for Apple Computers. Seriously, it is copyright infringement to use someone else's name in the same field they are in. What if I started a company called "Apple disk drives", of course Apple Computers would sue me, and all of you would be cheering Apple on and calling me an idiot for violating Apple's copyright. Be objective people.

Apple Corp. has legal claim to the name in the musical sphere. I don't see why they are pursuing anything other than to show their power. Its not like Apple Computers is going to start a music publishing company to directly compete, and thats the only reason Apple Corp. should be worried about.

[Fender2112]

Wouldn't it be easier to make money by selling Beatle's songs via iTunes Music Store than to file law suits every few years?

Just a thought.

May Apple Computer should buy Apple Corps. Then the lawyers could get a real job. ;)

[dombi]

Originally posted by Fender2112
Wouldn't it be easier to make money by selling Beatle's songs via iTunes Music Store than to file law suits every few years?

Just a thought.

May Apple Computer should buy Apple Corps. Then the lawyers could get a real job. ;)

Sell? No, give away for free...I would not pay for that crap.

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by x86isslow
hey freg.. looks like bill's going to have company from apple records in hell (from ur signature)
:p

Yes, maybe I can get PowerBook G5 to revise his quote to involve Apple Corp. :)

[Macco]

I guess this means the Beatles won't be on the iTMS for a while. Maybe I'll actually have to buy a real CD again.

*pauses for dramatic effect*

naaaaaaaahhh.

Originally posted by joeyjojoe
I don't see how you peopel are putting a positive spin on this for Apple Computers. Seriously, it is copyright infringement to use someone else's name in the same field they are in. What if I started a company called "Apple disk drives", of course Apple Computers would sue me, and all of you would be cheering Apple on and calling me an idiot for violating Apple's copyright. Be objective people.

Apple Corp. has legal claim to the name in the musical sphere. I don't see why they are pursuing anything other than to show their power. Its not like Apple Computers is going to start a music publishing company to directly compete, and thats the only reason Apple Corp. should be worried about.

I beg to differ. Apple manufactures computer hardware, so therefore, they have a trademark for the name "Apple" pertaining to operating systems and computer hardware. I'm sure some people out there have seen the branch of banks called "Apple Bank" (or something like that). There's no copyright infringement issue there, because they operate in different industries.

Apple Corp. probably has a copyright for the name "Apple" in music recording. The iTMS only sells music, therefore, there's no copyright infringement.






I think...

[edgar_is_good]

I'm no lawyer, but my IP lawyer friends have told me that one has to protect trademarks and the like. If you allow the trademarked phrase to enter the public domain, and if you make little or no effort to enforce your right, then the names become free game (to prevent me from say copyrighting some phrase and just waiting for someone to use it and have a lot of money so I can sue). Over on Appleturns, it was pointed out that a google search of apple records turns up numerous labels, which, presumably, have not been sued. If apple computer makes the case that apple corp is not protecting its music label copyright, they might win.

They'll have a hard time arguing they've protected their trademark with (again from ATAT) Screaming Apple Records, Big Apple Records, Bad Apple Records, and Black Apple Records all out there doing business.

Of course, these things never go to trial, right.

[cgmpowers]

Is anyone going to confuse Apple Computers, or Apple iTunes/Music Store with the Beatles?

No.

Will people be confused about name branding and think Steve Jobs wrote one of the Beatles songs?

No.

Did the average citizen know who the hell Apple Corps was until yesterday?

Prob. not.

Is this about money?

Yes, as most 'happy-go-sue-crazy' people and companies are these days.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by cgmpowers
Will people be confused about name branding and think Steve Jobs wrote one of the Beatles songs?



People would think apple owns it. Thats what they would think. ;)

[KREX725]

Hey, if Apple Corp had a competing online music store, I could see them complaining. To the best of my knowledge, they don't.

I'm kinda reading between the lines and thinking Apple Corp is anti-MP3 and doing this in hopes of slowing the progression of online music sales. Has anyone told them that they're in the middle of a stampede?

Also, is it really Paul and Ringo or is it Michael Jackson who owns their butts? I'm really not sure who actually owns the Apple Corp thing.

[knotzo]

If Apple Corps. does not pursue this, they run the risk of losing the rights to the Apple Corps. trademark -- which is their property. I really don't understand why they waited. It will only hurt Apple Corps, as they did not actively pursue this as soon as itunes came out. Waiting for damages to rise is not a good reason :confused:

Today's Apple Computer statement leads me to think Apple Computer may have something up their sleeve on this one.

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by cgmpowers
Is anyone going to confuse Apple Computers, or Apple iTunes/Music Store with the Beatles?

No.

Will people be confused about name branding and think Steve Jobs wrote one of the Beatles songs?

No.

Did the average citizen know who the hell Apple Corps was until yesterday?

Prob. not.

Is this about money?

Yes, as most 'happy-go-sue-crazy' people and companies are these days.
Hey but litigation is the American way. Heck its as american as apple pie!!
The only people who ultimately gain are the sharks,(lawyers).

[iChan]

my take on this whole situation is that Steve Jobs and Apple know exactly what they are doing regarding this whole copyright infringement case...

I think Apple knew that they were infringing on Apple corps's copyright, but decided to go ahead anyway, just to put them to rest once and for all. From what I have read, apple Computer have a good chance of winning, what with the Apple pro speakers and Apple corps waiting so long before finally suing Apple Comp.

Hopefully, after winning this case, this situation will not rear it's ugly head again.

I have heard a few differnet views on the whole rights issue about beatles songs... I personally don't know if MJ owns them of Ringo and Paul but what I do know is that it would be a great idea for Apple compu to buy out apple corps if they do indeed have rights to the recordings and sell them exclusively on iTMS!!! that would be so cool! (sorry, Apple fanboy side of me coming out there)

Another thing I to hypothesize here is this: wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if Apple bought Adobe??? my god, what a dream come true that would be.!!!

Go Apple Go!!!

[robotrenegade]

Steve is buying to much coke!!!

[Les Kern]

Apple Computer.... Apple Corps..... oh I GET it! It's so obvious now. Must have something to do with when I went into and Apple store the other day to pick up a copy of the White Album, but they were out.
The whole thing is idiotic.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Macrumors
News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5075721.html?tag=fd_top) provides some additional details to the previously reported Apple vs. Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030911193013.shtml) lawsuit.

Apple Corps confirmed the suit and is specifically opposed to the use of the word "Apple" in conjunction with the iTunes Music Store.

Meanwhile, Apple released a brief statement claiming that the two companies simply have "differing interpretations of [their previous] agreement".

I am intimately famniliar with litigation in my industry. I find it often hinges on fine details. If the point is no use of "Apple" on the iTunes website, just spin off iTunes LLC and if you win the suit which your lawyers will NEVER surrender an inch on, then do whatever you want, but in the mean time you have killed ALL claims of damages in case you lose.

Earth to Steve, please come in.

Rocketman

Hurry up and release Windows iTunes even V0.9 if you have to.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Macco

Apple Corp. probably has a copyright for the name "Apple" in music recording. The iTMS only sells music, therefore, there's no copyright infringement.

I think...

There's an interesting theory. If you claim Apple Corps MANUFACTURES music and Apple Inc SELLS music you might have a claim. However I suspect the prior agreement between Apple and Apple established a specific definition for what constitutes "the same industry" and that narrow isue is the primary hinge point for the lawsuit.

For example the contract could have actually WIDENED the definition as a concession for Apple Corp to enter into an agreement at all.

Case law and a copy of the contract would help here. If it is so marginal Apple is relying on theory and not caselaw to substantiate their position, I suggest what I suggested in my prior post. Spin-off iTunes LLC.

ANY company website can link to APPLE COMPUTER hardware.

Rocketman

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by KREX725

Also, is it really Paul and Ringo or is it Michael Jackson who owns their butts? I'm really not sure who actually owns the Apple Corp thing.

Michael Jackson and Sony Corp. Japan's economy sucks and Jackson is on record low cashflow. They both need the money.

Rocketman

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by doc_mac
Hey but litigation is the American way. Heck its as american as apple pie!!

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"

[sanford]

Imagine there's no lawsuit/It's easy if you try.

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
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"
I was not commenting on the location of the suit, merely, stating that it is the American way. sometimes truth hurts....perhaps?
An illness that the rest of theworld is catching!

[chadfromdallas]

Someones always badmouthing america :rolleyes:

[weev]

Some questions...

1. When did Apple Records last release a song or sign an artist?

2. What artists are signed to Apple Computers, or what records have they released?

3. How many 'reasonably thinking' people believe when they are buying an iPod or downloading iTunes music from the ITunes Store they are giving money to Yoko Ono et al?

Some observations...

Have notices the word 'music' is now practically ommitted from Apple.com

I like The Beatles but come on you heirs to the Liverpool Lads fortune - Let It Be.

(oh sheet, is 'Be' copyrighted too - a counter-sue perhaps :cool: )

[Powerbook G5]

Apple vs. Apple? My money is on the Granny Smith, those things can kick any other apple's ass!

[iAdam]

I thought that Apple Records sold all the rights to the beatles songs to Micheal Jackson a long time ago. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone else know anything about that?

[earlopogous]

I Hate how everyone takes frifolous lawsuits as a time to bash lawyers. Lawyers should make do difference in this kind of decision. These lawsuits are brought by the corporate executives themselves. It is the fault of companies like Apple corps and SCO, not lawyers.

Since everyone thinks that lawyers are scumbags, i would like to see this country function with no lawyers. It would be a lawless state probably inforced by military forces. How would you like that?

P.S. there are also protections for frivolous lawsuits in the US. most crazy suits are thrown out. This one however, is actually a kegitimate claim, and no matter how stupid the reasons for this suit are, it is legitimate.

[iAdam]

Did anyone else notice that the tab on apple.com has changed from Music to iTunes?

[Arcady]

Originally posted by iAdam
Did anyone else notice that the tab on apple.com has changed from Music to iTunes?

Yes, they did: Apple.com "Music" Tab becomes "iTunes" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35918)

[Mason]

Many of you keep calling this a copyright case. However, this case is about trademarks and not copyrights. Though the outcome of this case remains to be seen, those of you who call this suit frivilous are quite wrong. An owner of a registered trademark has the right to bring suit against those with similar names that come into their line of business. A perfect example of this is Delta faucets and Delta Airlines. No one is going to confuse the two at the moment, but should Delta Airlines start making sinks and bathtubs, there would most likely be a problem.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I do think Apple Corps has a pretty good case.

[Uragon]

"When I find my self in times of trouble, mad lawyers comes to me, speaking the words of greed, Let it be, let it be......" :)



These lawsuits are brought by the corporate executives themselves. It is the fault of companies like Apple Corps and SCO, not lawyers.

Though it is the company's decision, I think these corporate executives will seek the legal advice from their lawyers before they can go ahead with the suit.

[Mason]

Originally posted by Uragon

Though it is the company's decision, I think these corporate executives will seek the legal advice from their lawyers before they can go ahead with the suit.

You have to keep in mind that companies like these are being represented by the most prestigious law firms in the world. You don't attain and keep that reputation by encouraging your clients to engage in frivilous suits.

[panphage]

Originally posted by Mason
Many of you keep calling this a copyright case. However, this case is about trademarks and not copyrights. Though the outcome of this case remains to be seen, those of you who call this suit frivilous are quite wrong. An owner of a registered trademark has the right to bring suit against those with similar names that come into their line of business. A perfect example of this is Delta faucets and Delta Airlines. No one is going to confuse the two at the moment, but should Delta Airlines start making sinks and bathtubs, there would most likely be a problem.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I do think Apple Corps has a pretty good case.

If it comes down to trademark. Apple Corps has absolutely no case whatsoever. This has nothing to do with copyright, trademark, or anything to do with intellectual property. This is a contract dispute. Apple Corps and Apple Computer engaged in a contract about which had what rights and where. Apple Corps claims the iTunes Music Store is infringing on that agreement. It all depends on where Apple Computer uses the common English noun "Apple" in relation to the music store portion of their business.

The reason Apple Corps has already lost when it comes down to a trademark dispute is that Apple Corps has already failed in at least four cases to defend said trademark: Bad Apple Records, Black Apple Records, Screaming Apple Records, Big Apple Records. These are clearly more infringing on Apple Corps' trademark, since they are in the same industry.

Michael Jackson owned publishing rights to various songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. He sold them to Sony, so he no longer has said rights, but those rights had nothing to do with Apple Corps anyway. Apple Corps was a tax shelter set up by the Fab Four, with grand plans for many business ventures that never panned out. Apple Corps now appears to be mostly owned by EMI, with Yoko, Sir Paul, Ringo, and the estate of George Harrison having a minority stake.

[gello2424]

I feel dumb I didn't even know there was even a Apple Corp. Is it me or is the Music Industry or any one associated with it loosing there damn mind they really seem sue happy don't they.

[admford]

I don't know, it might be just me. But Apple Corp. was LATE in bringing this about. Apple computer has entered the music industry years ago, but in the hardware and sometimes the software that are used in producing music. iTunes was released literally years ago, and from the begining it was focused on bringing MP3's to the Mac. With this, it spurred file sharing programs like Limewire.

My question is, why the heck Apple Corp. didn't bring around a law suit at that time!!? It's case would've been extremely positive for them.


With the iPod, I don't understand why Apple Corp. want's to include it in the lawsuit? It's only a means of transporting and listening to music. What if Sony Music and Sony would've been two separate companies when created? Would Sony Music be entitled in a share of earnings of Walkmans and Diskmans simply because they can play their music??


From what I see here is that Apple Corp. waited to see if iTunes Music Store and iPod started making money and being more popular before trying to put their hands into Apple Computer's profits. The lenght of time since the release of iTunes, iTunes MS, and iPod and this law suit can be counted in months and years, simply this fact almost kills Apple Corp.'s try.

As for what might happen to Apple Computer, well they'll get some publicity for "free" from this case.

[tduality]

Originally posted by iChan
my take on this whole situation is that Steve Jobs and Apple know exactly what they are doing regarding this whole copyright infringement case...


We can only hope so. Though I don't have a clue how he will get out of this easily.

[Dont Hurt Me]

the drain on society,lawyers are the spicket. this is really an example of apple record label,beatles and their lawyers trying to get something for nothing.

[szumlins]

Originally posted by joeyjojoe
I don't see how you peopel are putting a positive spin on this for Apple Computers. Seriously, it is copyright infringement to use someone else's name in the same field they are in. What if I started a company called "Apple disk drives", of course Apple Computers would sue me, and all of you would be cheering Apple on and calling me an idiot for violating Apple's copyright. Be objective people.


That's probably true because the products compete in the same arena. However, I doubt Apple Computer would get involved if someone were to release Apple napkin rings. The corporate monacher for a band that hasn't existed in 20 years (and no longer owns the rights to their own songs...see MJ) has absolutely nothing to do with a computer company.

[fixyourthinking]

Based on the statement that Apple used the word Apple to promote a product, the company "Software Toolworks" should sue everybody, most software says in their Readme's, "This Software Tool Works to provide you ...."

Microsoft also uses a similar phrase, "Works is a software office suite that works as a tool to increase your correspondence and organize your life"

Apple corps points out that they have won previous lawsuits - well didn't Microsoft win a few lawsuits with Apple that most of us don't agree with the ruling?

Does anyone think that Apple and for that matter Microsoft are picked on? Or is it truly just the fact that every lawyer, even the good ones, are just scum?

On a side note: has everyone seen the new site about the notable Jack Campbell: JackWhispers (http://www.jackwhispers.com/psst)

[Photorun]

I was not commenting on the location of the suit, merely, stating that it is the American way. sometimes truth hurts....perhaps?
An illness that the rest of theworld is catching!

But Apple Corps isn't IN America, they're based in England (specifically London) where the Beattles are from... NOT America. I doubt it's catching, would you want to be suing pants off people in a country where the judges wear wigs?

And to quote Don Henley "kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight." I doubt it was Apple Corps looking over at Apple but rather their grubby lawyers keeping a buggy eye out for something to jump on... and boy howdy they found one.

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by Mason
You have to keep in mind that companies like these are being represented by the most prestigious law firms in the world. You don't attain and keep that reputation by encouraging your clients to engage in frivilous suits.


Two words: Johhny Cochran

Two More: Jesse Jackson

Both have great reputations both CONSISTENTLY defend frivolity and even defend the rights of the malicious and guilty.

[earlopogous]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the drain on society,lawyers are the spicket. this is really an example of apple record label,beatles and their lawyers trying to get something for nothing.

You are an idiot, as i mentioned, if you think lawyers are th scum of the earth, then try to live without them, i think you'll get the idea

The legal system is theoretically flawless, but the evils of humans interfear with the system. It doesnt matter who the person is, Bush (Enron execs are still not in jail), judges (make politically motivated decisions), corporate executives (the SCO and Apple Corps law suits) and so forth. lawyers are just part of the problem, but as a whole the system is necissary and works pretty well, for all its flaws.

[earlopogous]

Originally posted by Photorun
And to quote Don Henley "kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight." I doubt it was Apple Corps looking over at Apple but rather their grubby lawyers keeping a buggy eye out for something to jump on... and boy howdy they found one.

That is wrong, lawyers are no more greedy than the corporate executives. It is the corporations such as Wal-mart and microsoft that use their monopolies to either not pay for overtime(Wal-mart) or destroy competion in any industry they see fit (microsoft). At the moment, there 26 lawsuits against walmart to get repayment for the lost pay, and damages. The result would be rewards to employees. And to the law firms, which also have to pay expenses (cases against large corporations are expensive and risky). In the end, the lawyers enforce the law and prevent wrongdoings from the corporations. The money they get is no different than your salary.

[earlopogous]

Originally posted by adzoox
Two words: Johhny Cochran

Two More: Jesse Jackson

Both have great reputations both CONSISTENTLY defend frivolity and even defend the rights of the malicious and guilty.

those are individuals, dont make generalizations.

If i said that all republicans are racists
and point out trent lot and Strom turmand, im sure people would say the same thing.

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by Rocketman
Michael Jackson and Sony Corp. Japan's economy sucks and Jackson is on record low cashflow. They both need the money.

Rocketman

But Micheal Jackson has already come out and said he likes the ITMS and Sony is currently the #1 selling label on the ITMS

[earlopogous]

Originally posted by adzoox
Does anyone think that Apple and for that matter Microsoft are picked on? Or is it truly just the fact that every lawyer, evn the good ones, are just scum?


I might mention that is s REQUIRED for lawyers to defend their clients to the best of their ability, otherwise they are commiting malpractise. Lawyers cannot make a desicion on guilt are fivolity and decide to tell the judge, or half-ass the defense. its immoral and illegal

[fixyourthinking]

Originally posted by earlopogous
I might mention that is s REQUIRED for lawyers to defend their clients to the best of their ability, otherwise they are commiting malpractise. Lawyers cannot make a desicion on guilt are fivolity and decide to tell the judge, or half-ass the defense. its immoral and illegal


That's a misinterpretation of the "Code Of Conduct" if I've ever seen it.

Lawyers like Johnnie Cochran that defend murderers and get them off is going beyond their "required" defense. It is NOT the place, responsibilty, or the job of a lawyer to obtain a verdict - it is their JOB to defend ... period. Defense is not equal to innocence!

What a troll.

[earlopogous]

Originally posted by adzoox
That's a misinterpretation of the "Code Of Conduct" if I've ever seen it.

Lawyers like Johnnie Cochran that defend murderers and get them off is going beyond their "required" defense. It is NOT the place, responsibilty, or the job of a lawyer to obtain a verdict - it is their JOB to defend ... period. Defense is not equal to innocence!

What a troll.

Now thats a shacky one, Although, it is true that it isnt the responsibility to obtain a verdict, it is very difficult to decide what "required defense" is. I am friends with the son of Don Samuel (person who defended Ray Lewis). Many people still think that he was guilty, but in the lawyers defense, he didnt know whether he was guilty or not. He had to defend him the best he could, which happened to be quite well, since he is one of the best lawyers in Atlanta.

The line between "required" defense and over zealous defense is a fine line, and in general it is in the lawyers best intrest to defend their clients well and without judgement.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by adzoox
But Micheal Jackson has already come out and said he likes the ITMS and Sony is currently the #1 selling label on the ITMS

The party suing is the licensor owner of the original copyrights these folks are distributing. I believe that is the relationship.

Rocketman

[sedarby]

Originally posted by iChan
my take on this whole situation is that Steve Jobs and Apple know exactly what they are doing regarding this whole copyright infringement case...

I think Apple knew that they were infringing on Apple corps's copyright, but decided to go ahead anyway, just to put them to rest once and for all. From what I have read, apple Computer have a good chance of winning, what with the Apple pro speakers and Apple corps waiting so long before finally suing Apple Comp.

Hopefully, after winning this case, this situation will not rear it's ugly head again.

I have heard a few differnet views on the whole rights issue about beatles songs... I personally don't know if MJ owns them of Ringo and Paul but what I do know is that it would be a great idea for Apple compu to buy out apple corps if they do indeed have rights to the recordings and sell them exclusively on iTMS!!! that would be so cool! (sorry, Apple fanboy side of me coming out there)

Another thing I to hypothesize here is this: wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if Apple bought Adobe??? my god, what a dream come true that would be.!!!

Go Apple Go!!!

It was rumored that Sony acquired the rights to the Beatles catalog due to Michael Jacksons last album not doing well. Apparently he didn't make enough to cover his advance on royalties so the rights to the Beatles songs was used to cover the debt. Anyway I don't believe Paul or Ringo have anything to do with Apple Corps, I believe it is Neil Aspinal you need to be focusing on (he was a tour manager for the Beatles IIRC). Remember other artists did record for Apple. James Taylor was discovered and recorded by Apple as well as Billy Preston and several local favorites. Apple Corp was a failure and fell to the accountants and lawyers to sort out.

[crees!]

Originally posted by knotzo
Today's Apple Computer statement leads me to think Apple Computer may have something up their sleeve on this one.

Where can this statement be found at?

[acg5mac]

This is really getting boring. Apple Corps, I believe is a British company and Apple Computer is an American company. Apple Corps creates and distributes music compositions and Apple Computer provides a medium for their computer customers to legally purchase such music. Seems to me Apple Corps would want to work out a distribution agreement with Apple Computer rather than piss them off!

On top of that, I believe there is a time limit on copyrights..... Someone should look into that.....

As far as Apple Corps (formerly Apple Records) is concerned.... it will be a cold day in hell before I buy a product with their label on it.... ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

[Dont Hurt Me]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by earlopogous
That is wrong, lawyers are no more greedy than the corporate executives. It is the corporations such as Wal-mart and microsoft that use their monopolies to either not pay for overtime(Wal-mart) or destroy competion in any industry they see fit (microsoft). At the moment, there 26 lawsuits against walmart to get repayment for the lost pay, and damages. The result would be rewards to employees. And to the law firms, which also have to pay expenses (cases against large corporations are expensive and risky). In the end, the lawyers enforce the law and prevent wrongdoings from the corporations. The money they get is no different than your salary. [/yoQUOTE] your right! lawyers are just as greedy as ceo's. hangem all!

[Chimaera]

you guys do realise that if Apple Corp didn't sue they would literally be loosing their trademark don't you?

Under trademark law, if Apple Corp could be shown to have been aware that its trademark was being used for profitable means and it did nothing to stop it, then it can be argued that Apple Corp has forfeited its rights in respect to the name. and Apple Corp have the trademeark for the name Apple in the music industry.

Like it or not a company called Apple that is in the music industry will get confused with another company called Apple entering the music industy, its a fact of life.

Furthermore Apple comp DID sign an agreement back in the late 80's specifically saying they'd stay out of the music biz, which they have violated big time. Do you seriously expect that if the tables were reversed Apple comp wouldn't be suing like crazy?

I will bet right now Apple comp were more than aware of the possibility this could happen and have a healthy wodge of cash put aside to pay off the suit and the fact is in this case they ARE at fault, like it or not.

Try to be a bit more neutral - a lawsuit isn't automatically frivolous if levied against Apple Computers, nor is it justified automatically if its brought BY Apple Computers

[bretm]

Originally posted by acg5mac
On top of that, I believe there is a time limit on copyrights..... Someone should look into that.....

I belive it's 50 years, and if the owner is still alive at that time, it can be renewed one time for another 50 years. At least that's what I remember from my music biz class.

And if I remember correctly, what happened with the selling of beatles songs has to do with publishing rights. Usually rights are split between the publishing company and the artist. Many artists sign bad contracts early on in some way hampers their rights (sorry I don't have all the details). The Beatles wouldn't permit use of their songs in commercials and stuff for a long time, until Michael Jackson purshed the publishing rights to the first half or more of their catalog.

I think at some point the Beatles started their own publishing company, and therefore those songs are locked up.

I found this, which seems to correlate with my music biz classes years ago.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html

[iLilana]

Apple Corps files lawsuit on file downloaders for telling the RIAA to "Go suck an APPLE!" After a judge finally declares the lawsuit invalid, Apple Corps sues the english language for flagrant use of a copyrighted word.



Both the RIAA and Apple corps should be put out of business. This is stupid.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by iLilana
Both the RIAA and Apple corps should be put out of business. This is stupid.


RIAA should, not Apple Corps, they have done nothing wrong.

[Mason]

Originally posted by bretm
I belive it's 50 years, and if the owner is still alive at that time, it can be renewed one time for another 50 years. At least that's what I remember from my music biz class.

And if I remember correctly, what happened with the selling of beatles songs has to do with publishing rights. Usually rights are split between the publishing company and the artist. Many artists sign bad contracts early on in some way hampers their rights (sorry I don't have all the details). The Beatles wouldn't permit use of their songs in commercials and stuff for a long time, until Michael Jackson purshed the publishing rights to the first half or more of their catalog.

I think at some point the Beatles started their own publishing company, and therefore those songs are locked up.

I found this, which seems to correlate with my music biz classes years ago.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html

1. This is not a copyright issue. This is a trademark case. Trademarks do not have a time limit; they last as long as they are valid.
2. Copyright terms are not renewable.
3. Copyright terms are 95 years for corporations and life + 70 years for individuals.

[Nermal]

I find it interesting that, according to this article, Apple is suing Apple due to the use of the word "Apple". I was listening to the radio last night and this case was on the news, and the announcer said that the problem was the logo, not the name. I haven't seen Apple Corps' logo, does it look similar to Apple Computers'?

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by Nermal
I haven't seen Apple Corps' logo, does it look similar to Apple Computers'?

The label logo was a photograph of a whole green apple (no bite) on A sides, and the flat face of a cut-in-half apple on B sides. Apples being apples, the shapes are of course pretty much the same.

( Edit: sample Apple Records labels here (http://www.scs.unr.edu/~fdaniels/labels.html). )

[panphage]

Originally posted by Chimaera
you guys do realise that if Apple Corp didn't sue they would literally be loosing their trademark don't you?

Under trademark law, if Apple Corp could be shown to have been aware that its trademark was being used for profitable means and it did nothing to stop it, then it can be argued that Apple Corp has forfeited its rights in respect to the name. and Apple Corp have the trademeark for the name Apple in the music industry.


1. Bad Apple Records
2. Screaming Apple Records
3. Black Apple Records
4. Big Apple Records

The Apple Trademark is already in serious trouble.

[edStar]

Originally posted by Freg3000

In the other thread, people said that Apple Corps. sued Apple when they started using sound in their computers.


Yep, that's why we have a little sound called sosumi on our macs :) Geddit??

[Galapogos]

First of all, I have some serious problems with Apple Corps believing that they have a right to the word "APPLE." After all, it is a fruit. What is a company that sells Red Delicious Apples decided to release a mix cd with every sale of a Red Delicious Apple (not unheard of, as Coke and Hershey's releases CD w/ purchase all the time). Would Apple Corps actually SUE that company? They are involved in two totally different lines of business.

Same with Apple Computers. Apple Corps oversees the release and distribution of music created by their members, the Beatles. On the computer side, Apple Computers makes it possible for OTHER PEOPLE to create their own music and then Apple Computers has no hand in it after that point. On the side of iTunes Music Store, Apple Computers created a STORE to sell music from MANY, MANY ARTISTS, not just one. They are not a distributor, that is the job of the Record Label who distributed the music to Apple Computers to then RESELL the product.

I can see if Apple Computers put a sliced apple as the logo for iTMS, but no. They are using a guitar. And not even a guitar that the Beatles ever used, as a matter of fact.

Michael Jackson is not behind this suit. He in fact has said that the iTMS is a wonderful thing. He is not part of Apple Corps.

This whole situation if ridiculous. My first name is Travis, but I haven't sued every person named Travis that people have mistaken for me for identity theft!

[wiz7dome]

This is my first post on this forum and I can't help but point out that its not as if Apple (computer) had a contract with Apple (corp) to do business. If I understand correctly, it was a settlement over the use of "apple" which Apple (corp) as a Trademark on. To me this is no small point. Im not sure if the settlement can be revoked, but I suspect this is the route Apple (computer) will travel. I've heard about the ruling over adding speakers to Mac's (which was insane) but considering the climate of the computer world, becoming more of a Digital Hub for all things electronic, a Judge may entertain the notion that the terms of the settlement are too broad reaching. Keep in mind, Apple Corp. has not sued any of the other businesses that are in the same field for trademark issues. This may make their claims of potential confusion shallow in the eyes of a court.

[cfountain72]

Quote: "Another thing I to hypothesize here is this: wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if Apple bought Adobe??? my god, what a dream come true that would be.!!!"

As of close of business Apple Computer was worth about $8.4 Bil.
Adobe was worth over $9.2 Bil.
Nice thought, but it would be more likely for a merger to occur, or Apple to pick off some products.

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by cfountain72
Quote: "Another thing I to hypothesize here is this: wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if Apple bought Adobe??? my god, what a dream come true that would be.!!!"

As of close of business Apple Computer was worth about $8.4 Bil.
Adobe was worth over $9.2 Bil.
Nice thought, but it would be more likely for a merger to occur, or Apple to pick off some products.
We can but dream