Jobs on the Apple v. Apple Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

This Independent.co.uk article (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=444148) provides some commentary from Steve Jobs on the current legal dispute between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. The previous agreements between the two companies were settled outside of court, but Jobs hints it may end up in court this time around:

"Apple Corporation and Apple [Computer] signed a legal agreement more than a decade ago. I wasn't there, and it says what each company can do with their trademark. I inherited that, and right now there's a disagreement about this. It's a trademark dispute... We might have to get a judge to decide on it."

[sharky2313]

Apple, the computer company that is, has let this absurd settlement linger entirely too long. Apple corps needs a wake up call.

[Wonder Boy]

steve-o seems a bit subdued. i don't detect an agressive tone. there seems to be a lack of confidence.

i understand i cannot tell his tone from the quote, but its just the feeling i got.

its just that ive come to expect a little more "grr" out of steve-o.

[JoeRadar]

Does Apple Corp. need to demonstrate damages to recieve money from Apple Computer?

[Fredo Viola]

You know what, I don't like Job's attitude usually and Apple policy is generally very annoying, but I think it's cool that he stands up like this and speaks out in plain English. I'm rooting for Jobs and Apple full force.

[howard]

don't really know how big apple records is...but....

could apple computers buy apple records?

[Tiauguinho]

Does Apple Corp. even have a website? I went searching for it but didnt found anything. No no, im not thinking of hacking it... :D

[hvfsl]

Apple Computers is much bigger than Apple corp, they could probably buy them, but I expect it would be cheaper to go to court. Anyway Apple Computers has a future, while the Beatles music will not last forever, UK copyright law says that 70 years after the artist has died, all copyrights on anything that artist did will no longer be valid. So unless Apple Corp start doing something else other than just Beatles stuff they will be dead in about 80 years. So maybe Apple Computers can make the court case last that long. ;)

Anyway this is a bad move by Apple corps since a lot of the Beatles fans own Macs, SJ is one of them.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple Computers is much bigger than Apple corp, they could probably buy them, but I expect it would be cheaper to go to court. Anyway Apple Computers has a future, while the Beatles music will not last forever, UK copyright law says that 70 years after the artist has died, all copyrights on anything that artist did will no longer be valid. So unless Apple Corp start doing something else other than just Beatles stuff they will be dead in about 80 years. So maybe Apple Computers can make the court case last that long. ;)

Anyway this is a bad move by Apple corps since a lot of the Beatles fans own Macs, SJ is one of them.

As a long time Beatles and Paul McCartney fan I can tell you it sickens me to think that Apple Corp. has come to this. The original idea was not to make money but to allow the Beatles more control over their destiny and to open their arms to new talent. James Taylor started on Apple Records. Apple Corp. need to get a life and leave this alone. This could be more for publicity than anything else because as far as I know they are all but gone.

[achmafooma]

Originally posted by JoeRadar
Does Apple Corp. need to demonstrate damages to recieve money from Apple Computer?
Generally, I think they would. This is where the case will fall apart in a courtroom... Apple Corp. has not been harmed by Apple Computer having the name Apple Computer.

Apple Computer should never have entered into an agreement with Apple Corp though... I think the computer company would have won in a courtroom then. But now the record company can yell "breach of agreement!" That's Apple Computer's weak point.

On a related side note, I stopped buying real CDs when iTunes Music Store launched. I probably would've purchased 2 or 3 Beatles albums since then, except they aren't in the iTMS.

Oh well.

[Daschund]

Originally posted by JoeRadar
Does Apple Corp. need to demonstrate damages to recieve money from Apple Computer?

As far as what I know, this is not a damages lawsuit, but a copyright infringement one...

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Daschund

[tny]

Originally posted by Daschund
As far as what I know, this is not a damages lawsuit, but a copyright infringement one...

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Daschund
You're wrong. It's a contract dispute.

The contract was the settlement from previous cases.

The previous cases regarded a trademark issue, not copyright. Trademark lasts forever, unless it is never defended. Think about that for a second. If Apple Corps doesn't defend its trademark against Apple Computer, anyone will be able to use the name (in that industry).

It's in Apple Computer's best interests to settle by giving Apple Corps a nice chunk of change to make this go away forever.

IANAL.

[tlindner]

Seeing the "AppleMusic.com" bilboards all over the bay area made me think about Apple Corps trademark.

But then I remembered Microware's lawsuite concering their OS-9 trademark.

Apple conviced a judge that Mac OS 9 (tm) does not dilute Microware's OS-9 (tm) becuase they are in different markets:

OS-9: Embedded Real Time Operating System
Mac OS 9: Desktop computer operating system "For the rest of us"

But they are both Operating System, dammit! Since Apple won that suit, they seems to be able to write new trademark law.

Apple is also defending themselves against the OpenGroup's "UNIX" trademark. I fully expect Apple to argue that "UNIX" is a generic term, and has lost it's trademark status. Who know how that one will turn out.

[macFanDave]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
steve-o seems a bit subdued. i don't detect an agressive tone. there seems to be a lack of confidence.


Actually, this is quite aggressive. Normal people would say, "I cannot comment on pending litigation."

This is one case where the practice of law sucks. The spirit of trademark law is to prevent confusion among consumers about the identities of the entities in question. Since Apple Computer is now one of the most recognized brands in the world, the potential for confusion is nil, so the case ought to be dismissed out of hand. And shame on the shyster lawyer who pushed it in the first place.

Another factor in Apple's defense is that they are not encroaching on Apple Corps' business. Apple Computer is not producing music, maintaining the copyrights of musical works or even serving as a primary distributor of music. They are acting as a secondary distributor of electronic data which comes from major and independent record labels. The iPod is a device and Apple Corps has never made any devices.

Case dismissed! Paul and Ringo, start writing checks to Steve Jobs to cover his legal expenses for this stunt. You guys aren't involved with SCO, too, are you?

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally posted by tlindner
Seeing the "AppleMusic.com" bilboards all over the bay area made me think about Apple Corps trademark.

But then I remembered Microware's lawsuite concering their OS-9 trademark.

Apple conviced a judge that Mac OS 9 (tm) does not dilute Microware's OS-9 (tm) becuase they are in different markets:

OS-9: Embedded Real Time Operating System
Mac OS 9: Desktop computer operating system "For the rest of us"

But they are both Operating System, dammit! Since Apple won that suit, they seems to be able to write new trademark law.

Apple is also defending themselves against the OpenGroup's "UNIX" trademark. I fully expect Apple to argue that "UNIX" is a generic term, and has lost it's trademark status. Who know how that one will turn out.

Which will then lead to OpenGroup getting sued by SCO since they believe then own everything regarding Unix. Lets not even go there, please....
Cheers,

Ahmed

[suzerain]

Originally posted by macFanDave

Another factor in Apple's defense is that they are not encroaching on Apple Corps' business. Apple Computer is not producing music, maintaining the copyrights of musical works or even serving as a primary distributor of music. They are acting as a secondary distributor of electronic data which comes from major and independent record labels. The iPod is a device and Apple Corps has never made any devices.


This statement isn't true. Well, it's kind of true...but...

The iTunes Music Store contains "exclusive" tracks. Granted, Apple doesn't own copyright on these tracks, but they are definitely acting as the primary distributor.

I think, therefore, Apple Corps. could have an argument about Apple being a direct competitor. (In other words, they could argue that even though Apple is merely a licensor of this music, they are effectively acting as a label for exclusive tracks.)

And, how long do you think it will be before there are unsigned artists available via the Apple Store? It's going to happen very soon, since there are content aggregators that are signing agreements with indie artists saying they can get the into the iTunes store.

So, I think it could be argued Apple is directly competing as far as iTunes goes.

As for the iPod, I don't even understand that...although I can highlight the idiocy of Apple Corps. by pointing out that the original suit was filed because Apple added speakers to their computers (no ****). They thought that because the computer was capable of playing music, it made Apple a competitor.

Anyway, sad as it is, given how trademark law appears to work, it seems that Apple Corps. is doing what they have to do to protect their trademark.

[gopy]

Originally posted by tlindner
Seeing the "AppleMusic.com" bilboards all over the bay area made me think about Apple Corps trademark.

I think that AppleMusic.com is pushing Apple's luck a little bit. iTunes.com, or iTunesStore.com might be better, with the company represented with just the Apple logo. After all, on the back of the iPod, the logo is the only (legible) representation of the company.

[kdavis]

Originally posted by gopy
I think that AppleMusic.com is pushing Apple's luck a little bit. iTunes.com, or iTunesStore.com might be better, with the company represented with just the Apple logo. After all, on the back of the iPod, the logo is the only (legible) representation of the company.

I think the logo has also been an issue, though. Apple Corps. also uses an image of a solitary apple (though, a photo of one) to represent itself.

[gopy]

Originally posted by kdavis
I think the logo has also been an issue, though. Apple Corps. also uses an image of a solitary apple (though, a photo of one) to represent itself.

That's true-- personally, I don't think they look alike at all, akin to the four-paned window that Apple uses for Windows compatibility (should M$ sue Apple?).

[Le Big Mac]

Originally posted by tny
You're wrong. It's a contract dispute.

The contract was the settlement from previous cases.

The previous cases regarded a trademark issue, not copyright. Trademark lasts forever, unless it is never defended. Think about that for a second. If Apple Corps doesn't defend its trademark against Apple Computer, anyone will be able to use the name (in that industry).

It's in Apple Computer's best interests to settle by giving Apple Corps a nice chunk of change to make this go away forever.

IANAL.

Without seeing the agreement, it's pretty tough to predict. I will say if there's any basis for this suit, then apple computer's lawyers did a horrible job with the settlement.

But back to the question. If apple music is suing for breach of a contract (whatever the settlement was), then generally damages is the remedy. But the measure of damages is their loss, not apple computer's gain, so apple music shouldn't be getting a cut of apple's itunes sales.

That said, the agreement may have some provision that allows apple music to stop apple computer's use of the name apple in conjunction with the sale of music. Apple C. might then have to pay a bit more than damages to give that up. Or convince a judge it's not using "apple" in conjunction with the sale of music (as in "it's called itunes music store--where does the word apple appear?")

[rueyeet]

The last couple times, it was probably more worth Apple (Computer)'s while to pay off Apple (Corps) and be done with it than fight extensive legal battles. But not now--not when the iTMS stands to be such a strategic asset and sell so many iPods.

It was probably short-sighted of Apple (Computer) to enter into those past contracts, but who would have foreseen back then that computers would become so integral to music in either creation, playback, or distribution? So that's Apple (Corps)'s strong point: precedent, and binding contracts.

However, those contracts were based on trademark defense, and it's possible to lose a trademark if the public usage invalidates it. Kleenex lost this battle, Xerox is still fighting it I think, and Google is beginning to fight it. The fact is that Apple as a brand name and trademark is going to be tied in the eyes of the vast majority of the public to the computer company. The knowledge that Apple Corps is the name of the Beatles' label is only useful as a Trivial Pursuit question.

Looks like Apple (Computer) is ready to make a fight out of it, now that they have something to protect. It's not a case of "yeah, yeah, trademark infringement, here's some cash, now go away" anymore. It's a case of preventing Apple (Corps) from having any claim to any of Apple (Computer)'s music-oriented strategies and revenues.

And no, let's not talk about SCO..... :o ;)

[Dr_Maybe]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple Computers is much bigger than Apple corp, they could probably buy them, but I expect it would be cheaper to go to court.

That's not true, did you just make that up?

Apple Corp. makes almost the same amount of money as Apple Computers does.

[Juventuz]

Let's keep in mind while we're discussing the possible outcomes that the case is in England. How many people here are very familiar with English laws and their judicial system. One statement that's fair to make is that the English judicial system tends to favor the English companies when the case is against a foreign company.

[ssamani]

One of the things I noted when I read the article on the train today was the report that the opening music to the Paris Expo included a Beatles song, covered by Johnny Cash. I had a nice little chuckle about that.

Sanj

[Golem]

Originally posted by tny
You're wrong. It's a contract dispute.

The contract was the settlement from previous cases.

The previous cases regarded a trademark issue, not copyright. Trademark lasts forever, unless it is never defended. Think about that for a second. If Apple Corps doesn't defend its trademark against Apple Computer, anyone will be able to use the name (in that industry).

It's in Apple Computer's best interests to settle by giving Apple Corps a nice chunk of change to make this go away forever.

IANAL.

A bunch of companies allready use ....apple records and are in the same businesss.

[whatever]

It really depends where this case gets heard. If it was in the US expect a fair trial, which could go in either Apple's favor. But if it's in the UK, expect an anti-US trial which will favor the English Apple.

Why do I say this. Just last year, WWF took WWF to court in England. The World Wildlife Fund claimed that people were getting them confused with the World Wrestling Federation. One group is about animals and the other group is professional Wrestling. One company is a non-profit the other is billion dollar company (which made large donations to the non-profit). One company took the time to register the domain wwf.com and the other didn't. And guess who lost.

[barhoptheworld]

Since Apple Computer is now one of the most recognized brands in the world, the potential for confusion is nil, so the case ought to be dismissed out of hand.

This isn't completely true. You have to look at this from Apple Corps point of view. Of course when consumers see a computer with the apple name and logo they don't think of Apple Corps record lable, but now that apple computers is heavily involved in the distribution of music, an uninformed consumer may possible see a beattles cd distributed by apple corps and think the album was distributed by Apple Computers

[Wash!!]

Originally posted by barhoptheworld
This isn't completely true. You have to look at this from Apple Corps point of view. Of course when consumers see a computer with the apple name and logo they don't think of Apple Corps record lable, but now that apple computers is heavily involved in the distribution of music, an uninformed consumer may possible see a beattles cd distributed by apple corps and think the album was distributed by Apple Computers

This does not make any sense why would I think that a Bettles record would be distributed by Apple Computers it would be the same as if I go to Tower records music store and think that they distribue Sony Music labels or Warner or wait Virgin records they are just store only the same as iTms they are just an outlet nothing more nothing less the lawsuit is about greed plain and simple.:mad:

PS. there is no such thing as an uninform consumer when it comes to music, most people buy music for the artist they can care less who owns the label..

[iMeowbot]

There is something of interest in the Apple Corps Ltd. trademark as it was registered in the US.

In 1995, they registered the name Apple for "gramophone records featuring music; pre-recorded audio tape cassettes featuring music; audio compact discs featuring music; pre-recorded video tape cassettes featuring music; video laser discs featuring music" and not for music distribution.

The registrations for the logos, also from 1995, are for "gramophone records featuring music; pre-recorded audio compact discs featuring music."

This was done well after the 1989 agreement, and recently enough that the recording companies knew electronic distribution was inevitable. If Apple Corps filed comparable registrations in other countries (especially the UK where the suit was filed -- is there a handy reference for UK registrations simliar to what the USPTO provides?), then they really dropped the ball in staking a proper claim on the mark.

AAPL isn't selling physical recordings, so this might turn out to make a difference.

[rjrufo]

Originally posted by Tiauguinho
Does Apple Corp. even have a website? I went searching for it but didnt found anything. No no, im not thinking of hacking it... :D

Here is the site:

http://www.applecorps.com/

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
is there a handy reference for UK registrations simliar to what the USPTO provides?

Why yes there is, and the Apple Corps mark is rather wide ranging over there. It covers metal goods (huh?), CDs/recordings and "digital music (downloadable from the Internet)" (Ohhhh!), jewelry, musical instruments, paper and printed matter, leather goods (must be a Yoko thing), home furnishings, kitchen and personal grooming items, textiles of all kinds, floor and wall coverings, tobacco and smoking apparatus, and electronic distrubition of entertainment (other than downloads).

So it would appear that in the UK at least, Apple Computer is indeed infringing on Apple Corps' trademark.

[gerardrj]

Originally posted by Juventuz
Let's keep in mind while we're discussing the possible outcomes that the case is in England. How many people here are very familiar with English laws and their judicial system. One statement that's fair to make is that the English judicial system tends to favor the English companies when the case is against a foreign company.

Not being from, GB or studying thier (or any) law, I can only guess at this:

It seems to me the suit would have to be against Apple Computer Inc. in a U.S. court. In British court they would only be able to sue Apple Coputer UK, no?

The iTMS doesn't exist in the UK/England/Great Britan/anywhere else but the U.S., thus Apple Corp. U.S. would have to sue Apple Computer Inc.

[solvs]

I was just thinking that. ITMS isn't in the UK. The iPod is, but I don't see where they are infringing upon Apple Corp at all in either country. The problem is that Apple Computers without Steve made a stupid agreement to save itself in the short term. It may hurt them in the long term, but I think Steve wants to see it through.

Hard to tell who's in the right here. Steve has a point, but Apple Corps has a contract. Looks bad for both of them. The only ones that win here are the lawyers.

They should find a nice compromise so they both win.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by gerardrj
It seems to me the suit would have to be against Apple Computer Inc. in a U.S. court. In British court they would only be able to sue Apple Coputer UK, no?

Apple's US operations do conduct business in the UK, so it does mange to get covered. Apple Corps' UK trademark does cover computerish devices, so iPod infringes. The music store thing might be a bit iffier on the face of it, but there are international trademark treaties that muddy the waters (especially where both companies have operations in both countries).

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
Apple's US operations do conduct business in the UK, so it does mange to get covered. Apple Corps' UK trademark does cover computerish devices, so iPod infringes. The music store thing might be a bit iffier on the face of it, but there are international trademark treaties that muddy the waters (especially where both companies have operations in both countries).

What type of computerish devices? If Apple Corps signed an agreement that Apple does computers and Apple Corp does music, wouldn't Apple Corp having Apple as a trademark for computerish devices be a violation of the same agreement they are suing Apple Computer for violating?

[Squire]

As someone else pointed out, it's now the "iTunes Music Store." If this is a separate division of Apple Computer, wouldn't that work as their way out? I just opened iTunes and, except for the Apple logo in the player window, I don't see any reference to the word "Apple" anywhere.

Let's hear from some lawyers out there.

Squire

[Doraemon]

Originally posted by Dr_Maybe
That's not true, did you just make that up?

Apple Corp. makes almost the same amount of money as Apple Computers does.

Do you have numbers/websites/information to back this?

----

Personally, I think I would actually make sense for Apple Comp to buy Apple Corps. That would give them quite a good position in the music industry.

[iPC]

"Apple Corporation and Apple [Computer] signed a legal agreement more than a decade ago. I wasn't there, and it says what each company can do with their trademark. I inherited that, and right now there's a disagreement about this. It's a trademark dispute... We might have to get a judge to decide on it."
Just because it happened when SJ was not with Apple Computer does not mean that he can ignore it, or claim to have no knowledge of the deal. If that is the best he's got, I think he is screwed. One of these days he is going to get back all the junk he has been dishing out. Between this, the UNIX thing, and his lack of moving the company in a positive market position, he could be setting himself up to be forced out, again. The man needs to learn to check the ego at the door, and make smart business decisions. :mad: (G5 with IBM does not count, that has been obvious for years)

[MongoTheGeek]

The timing of the lawsuit (2 months ago) seems to coincide with the AppleMusic billboards. When I saw them they struck me as just daring Apple Corps to come after them. It was a flagrant violation of common peoples understanding of the agreement.

The fight seems to be about the contract. Its not copyright. Trademark wise the two are dissimilar enough to make a lawsuit a reach. Not that it would certainly fail but the odds are not good.

That being said, my guess is the whole thing is a ploy by Apple Computer. The way it plays out is like this. Steve wants to expand further into music and was tired of paying weregilt and decided to make the non compete go away. He launches the gratuitous apple music campaign as a taunt to get Apple Corp to file. Apple Computers is ready to reply/retaliate with big stacks of briefs as to why the contract is illegal and ergo unenforcable. Maybe even petitions to dissolve Apple Corp since it seems to just be a holding company to milk Apple Computers

[gopy]

Originally posted by iPC
Just because it happened when SJ was not with Apple Computer does not mean that he can ignore it, or claim to have no knowledge of the deal. If that is the best he's got, I think he is screwed. One of these days he is going to get back all the junk he has been dishing out. Between this, the UNIX thing, and his lack of moving the company in a positive market position, he could be setting himself up to be forced out, again.

What are you talking about? He never said he could ignore, he said the courts will probably have to decide. The UNIX thing is not at all a huge issue, certainly not enough to force Jobs out. And his *lack* of moving the company into a positive position? That defies all logic--he came back, cleaned house, brought *back* profitability, returned Apple to *leading* the market, and is doing so on a regular basis, leaving the competition in Apple's dust. The fact that Apple doesn't make toaster oven computers (like other companies) is recognized so widely that HP, Gateway and Sony are all scrambling to recreate Jobs' hardware strategy.
Jobs isn't going anywhere unless he retires.

[Loopy]

Originally posted by barhoptheworld
This isn't completely true. You have to look at this from Apple Corps point of view. Of course when consumers see a computer with the apple name and logo they don't think of Apple Corps record lable, but now that apple computers is heavily involved in the distribution of music, an uninformed consumer may possible see a beattles cd distributed by apple corps and think the album was distributed by Apple Computers

I have a great amount of respect for both companies. I do think Apple Corps have a case. How many CD's have the name SONY on them. Consumers may think that the Company that made their iPod owns the Beatles.

In a worse case does anyone know if Apple Computer would have to change the name of the Company.

[Squire]

Originally posted by Loopy
In a worse case does anyone know if Apple Computer would have to change the name of the Company.

Actually, that was my point as well. Of course, they'll never change the name of the computer company but what if they already changed the name of the electronic music distribution side to iTunes Music Store? What if that's another company?

Squire

[Wash!!]

Originally posted by Loopy
I have a great amount of respect for both companies. I do think Apple Corps have a case. How many CD's have the name SONY on them. Consumers may think that the Company that made their iPod owns the Beatles.

In a worse case does anyone know if Apple Computer would have to change the name of the Company.

In what world you people live in:rolleyes:
Who in its right mind would think that Apple Computer is the same as Apple Corp/Beatles..please give me break.
Apple Corp wants money plain and simple they are pisted off that they did not came with the idea of iTMS in the first place.

[Dr_Maybe]

Originally posted by Doraemon
Do you have numbers/websites/information to back this?



I got it from a Danish newspaper. I've tried to find something on the web:

Apple Corps. the number 1 profit growing UK company in 2001:
http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/migration/dbIndex.asp?siteID=2&searchName=&yr=2003&sort=num&area1=99

18 million punds profit in 2001. That's about 33 million USD.

Some info on Apple Computers:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual
25 million USD loss in 2001. made 65 million last fiscal year.

----

Personally, I think I would actually make sense for Apple Comp to buy Apple Corps. That would give them quite a good position in the music industry.

Why would they want a record company? That's not Apple's business. OK, they've gone into music distribution, but that doesn't mean they should be doing records.

The only reason I see for Apple Computers to buy Apple Corps., is to get rid of the trials. And that would be a bit silly. I'm not sure they can just go ahead and buy Apple Corps. But I don't have much info on them.

[JGowan]

Originally posted by sedarby
... This could be more for publicity than anything else because as far as I know they are all but gone. I think you're quite right but just hadn't seen why.

The Beatles will soon be re-releasing a stripped-down version of LET IT BE. From their website (beatles.com):

THE BEATLES' LET IT BE...NAKED

At last revealed - The Beatles album that has taken more than 30 years to finish, Let It Be...Naked, just the bare sound of the band inside The Beatles.
Let It Be...Naked is the no frills, back-to-basics album that The Beatles first set out to make back in 1969 - but which was never released as they intended, the band back to the bone.

Now, through the smart digital technology of Abbey Road studios, the never-heard band's take of the original sessions will be finally released worldwide by EMI Records in November.

Naked is Let It Be brought right up to now for the '1 Generation', de-mixed and re-mixed, un-dubbed of orchestration, choirs and effects and stripped-back to the raw to reveal The Beatles simply as what they were very best at being - just a great band.

"If we'd have had today's technology back then, it would sound like this because this is the noise we made in the studio", said Paul McCartney "It's all exactly as it was in the room. You're right there now".

"When I first heard it, it was really uplifting. It took you back again to the times when we were this band, the Beatle band", said Ringo Starr.

When The Beatles first set out to make the album in 1969, they intended to record an album that would be a return to live performance of just the bare necessities of the band, no studio effects or overdubbing of voices or instruments would be allowed. However, caught in the turmoil of the break-up of the band, the album was re-produced by Phil Spector and never released as The Beatles had originally meant it to sound. Until now.

Let It Be...Naked's track listing differs from the 1970 release; background dialogue, 'Dig It' and 'Maggie Mae' have been taken off the album and 'Don't Let Me Down' has been added to the running order, which now is as follows: Get Back, Dig A Pony, For You Blue, The Long And Winding Road, Two Of Us, I've Got A Feeling, One After 909, Don't Let Me Down, I Me Mine, Across The Universe, Let It Be.

Let It Be...Naked will be issued together with a bonus fly-on-the-wall disc that features extracts from tapes of The Beatles at the time of first making the Let It Be album and movie in the Sixties. The 20-minute bonus disc is a unique insight into The Beatles at work in rehearsal and in the studios in January 1969.

Let It Be...Naked will also come with a booklet that features historic photography of the recording sessions and extracts of band dialogue from the original booklet that first accompanied early copies of the 1970 album.

"The music always surpassed any ************ we were going through; once the count-in happened we turned back into those brothers and musicians."
RINGO STARR

"It's just us playing, in our best voices, it's very honest".
GEORGE HARRISON

"For all our success The Beatles were always a great little band. When we sat down to play, we played good".
PAUL McCARTNEY

"In spite of all things, The Beatles could really play music together"
JOHN LENNONIt reminds of Terminator 3 coming out just a couple of weeks before Shrawtzerneger (did I butcher that name or what!) announced he was running for CA Gov. Free publicity and getting back in the public eye.

I'm hoping this is more about selling the re-release than it is for Apple Corps being super-greedy. I can't see how anyone would think that Apple Computer was trading on the "strength" of some record label that really only was good for a single band, namely themselves.

[wudja.cudja]

Originally posted by whatever
It really depends where this case gets heard. If it was in the US expect a fair trial, which could go in either Apple's favor. But if it's in the UK, expect an anti-US trial which will favor the English Apple.

I personally do not think the courts would favour apple corps over apple computers.. the logos are simmilar in that they use an Apple (http://mywebpage.netscape.com/paulmelville63/kalamaki/applemulti.swf) but, very different in design. the case between the two WWF's was simmilar in argument in that they had a previous agreement in the use of WWF..

Quote (http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/articles/99746408170430.html)
"The wildlife fund argued that worldwide exposure for wrestling had increased due to television and the Internet, leading to more widespread use of the initials by the federation. The two sides had almost identical Web site addresses."


Maybe there is more behind this battle and we will find out soon enough. i recognise the corps logo but haven't seen it for sometime.. And the forthcoming release of the Beatles naked tunes might have more to do with the case..

all speculation i guess so we'll have to wait and see :rolleyes: i wonder what "Granny Smith" makes of all this. i reckon "barhoptheworld" has got it about right where the uninformed might get it confused and it appears this will be there strongest argument..

paul..