Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?

[MacRumors]

According to Daily Variety (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117910305&categoryID=16&cs=1) (subscription required) in a story also picked up by Ultimate-Guitar.com (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/apple_vs_beatles.html), Apple Computer and Apple Corps are on the verge of announcing a huge settlement in their ongoing trademark dispute, one that could "massively dwarf the $26.5 million paid to the Fab Four's company in 1991 in a row over trademark use."

A lawyer was quoted in these stories as opining, "People are expecting this to be the biggest settlement anywhere in legal history, outside of a class action suit. The numbers could be mind boggling." The name of this lawyer wasn't disclosed, nor how he would be in possession of inside knowledge of the alleged impending settlement.

There is a possibility that Apple Corps may become a large shareholder in Apple Computer, a result which might bring former Beatle Paul McCartney to the Apple board of directors.

[Mudbug]

I think an obvious question raised by this is 'is the Beatles catalog going to be available on iTMS or not?'

[sinisterdesign]

WTF? i love the beatles, but this kind of thing really chaffs my ass. has ANYONE ever confused Apple Computer w/ being a part of the Beatles music label? did someone mistakingly think that Paul & Ringo created the iPod? c'mon...

hey paul, is this how you're going to buy back your music from michael? the price may be right now that he's got some legal fees to pay.

[GFLPraxis]

Apple Computer and Apple Corps are on the verge of announcing a huge settlement in their ongoing trademark dispute, one that could "massively dwarf the $26.5 million paid to the Fab Four's company in 1991 in a row over trademark use."

In favor of whom?

[Grizelmac]

I'm not sure where I stand on all of this, but it would be nice to get a roadblock out of Apple's way, and let them get some good news, good buzz, and keep making great products.

If Paul was on the board, Apple would continue to gain street cred, and continue to rock ;-)

[trilogic]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

[zach]

I dunno.. I just hope the numbers in this aren't as big as I'm thinking they'll be.. If they're not, everything's great, and we get Beatles on iTMS (probably).

If they are.. We'll see.

[maelstromr]

Boooooooo Beatles! Give me a break! Apple records and Apple computer, yeah, lot's of consumers are SO confused about this.

[iconrad]

I hope this doesn't happen. I love apple, this would put a major dent in their 5 billion in cash.

[Peyote]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe


It's a European company that's filing the suit, and the legal proceedings are being held in Europe.

[isaacc7]

I think an obvious question raised by this is 'is the Beatles catalog going to be available on iTMS or not?'

I thought that Michael Jackson was in charge of that...

Isaac

[Koree]

WTF? i love the beatles, but this kind of thing really chaffs my ass. has ANYONE ever confused Apple Computer w/ being a part of the Beatles music label? did someone mistakingly think that Paul & Ringo created the iPod? c'mon...

hey paul, is this how you're going to buy back your music from michael? the price may be right now that he's got some legal fees to pay.

Down with the Beatles and their out of date tripe. Begone Paul Mcartney you money hungry talentless musician.


Guys, you do know that there is an aggreement with the two companies agreeing that Apple UK wouldn't make computers and Apple US wouldn't sell music, right? Apple US does owe money. But it'll be settled, Apple US does owe money to Apple UK.

[morkintosh]

Down with the Beatles and their out of date tripe. Begone Paul Mcartney you money hungry talentless musician.

ummm... as to talentless I'm going to let his sales speak to that, on the other topic:

Apple is clearly in violation of their agreement, its a legal fact. They brokered a deal whereby they would not enter the music arena with their similar name, they have done that and then are bound by the agreement. The Beatles had the name first and Apple computer has to pay to use it, what is the problem?

[isaacc7]

Down with the Beatles and their out of date tripe. Begone Paul Mcartney you money hungry talentless musician.

like them or not, there's no doubt that there's money to be had with those old recordings.

Isaac

[morkintosh]

Boooooooo Beatles! Give me a break! Apple records and Apple computer, yeah, lot's of consumers are SO confused about this.

It has nothing to do with confusion it has everything to do with the fact that Apple Computer under Steve Jobs agreed to not enter the music business. The angle to take on this in favor of Apple computer is to argue that they still aren't in the music business; otherwise that facts are what they are and Apple computer is in violation of an agreement.

EDIT: trademark law is trademark law, if you don't like it call your congressman. I think most of us would be singing a different tune if Microsoft started marketing TVs under the name Apple Consumer Electronics.

[ValiumLolliPoP]

Why would apple settle this?? do they have no confidence what so ever? was there really no chance of winning this?

[AoWolf]

This whole thing is so stupid it's not like the beetles suffered any loss due to apples name.

[Freg3000]

Why would apple settle this?? do they have no confidence what so ever? was there really no chance of winning this?

It's probably a huge deal involving the Beatles on iTMS, and an agreement for this stupid issue to be put to rest forever.

The cost of that could be high... :eek:

[johnnyjibbs]

It is true that Apple Computer has violated the agreement with the advent of iTunes and the iPod. However, who could confuse Apple Computer with the Apple music label?

The former Beatles stars would do much better if they put all their music on iTMS. I think this could well happen now, although I'm sure Apple will be the one paying for it.

[kerb]

do Apple Records have a problem with the fruit of the same name?

[robotrenegade]

What is Apple Corp?

Hardy

[corywoolf]

Its impossible for apple to totally change their name, but maybe they could go with something similair or just change it enough to take away ALL the confusion. I think apple computers should sell the beatles on the iTMS, but in return give all of the money to Apple Corps. I can see it already...


The Beatles are coming... and have like a whole front page decked out in beatles vintage pictures, etc. for a week. I wish apple comp. and apple corp made a deal that the only online music store with the beatles on it is iTMS. Take that Real Player.. :D

[raynegus]

Anyone have the GPS coordinates of Abbey Road studios? Maybe someone here could send a nuke their way.

What bugs me the most about this is the trouble I go through to convert winblows folks to macs, only to support a few old greedy lawyers in the end.

Look in the phone book and you'll find hundreds of companies with Apple in the name. WTF!!!!!

[JohnGillilan]

Apple Corp. is suing the website "Battles Beetles" (http://www.nor.com.au/users/muck/) due to a breach of a former agreement stating that the webmasters had no right to listen to music while their beetles were battling.

[alexf]

Paul McCartney on the board of Apple?

Sounds cool! :)

[ITR 81]

Now how long will it be before Apple Records and Apple Computers merge into something of a record company and computer company.

[Gabriel]

I'm sure that Apple figured this into their calculations before they launched the whole Music strategy. At the moment its hard to think of a settlement that would offset the tremendous gains (financial, PR, marketing, etc) that iPod + iTunes has brought Apple.

I also don't see this as an "Apple - good, Beatles - evil" kind of thing. The Beatles IP is pretty much all they have and they have to defend it to the death, thats just business. Apple made a bunch of calculations a long time ago and decided that dominating the digital music scene was well worth the cost.

[QCassidy352]

This seriously pisses me off. Apple Computer is not encroaching on the territory of Apple Corp. in any way that means an actual loss of revenue for Apple corp. Therefore, I see no reason that Apple corp should get a red cent. Apple computer may have violated the letter of the deal, but not the spirit - they are not competing with Apple corp, and no one would confuse the two. Greedy old bastards. I agree - let's nuke abbey road. :)

[tazznb]

Kill the beetles.....?

They are very greedy & lazy (willing to get something without putting anything into it. :mad:

[Wigletbill]

I hate this as much as the next guy... actually more because I own a chunk of AAPL but...

Talentless? Paul freakin McCartney? Wow.... I'm almost speechless.

[Lancetx]

I think this is ridiculous as well, but it's just another example of the litigious society that we live in today. :rolleyes:

[mustang_dvs]

I thought that Michael Jackson was in charge of that...

Read: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

"[A]lthough Michael Jackson receives 50% of the royalties generated by Beatles songs by virtue of his ownership of the publishing rights, Paul McCartney and John Lennon (and Lennon's estate, now that he's dead) have always received their 50% songwriter's share of the royalties for all Lennon-McCartney songs. Neither ATV's nor Michael Jackson's acquisition of Northern Songs changed that, and Michael Jackson does not now receive royalties that would otherwise be going to the Beatles had he not acquired the publishing rights to their songs (except that, obviously, if Paul McCartney had managed to outbid Jackson for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog, he and Lennon's estate would be splitting 100% of the royalties rather than 50%)."

On the topic at hand... I wonder which bonehead "law-talking guy" is going to get 'Steeved' because they told Apple, Inc. that they needn't worry about Apple Corps., Ltd.

[pascalpp]

I think Apple Computer should buy out Apple Records and then offer the entire Beatles catalog as an iTunes exclusive!

[russoesq]

Apple Corp is not suing over a trademark violation but a breach of Apple Computer's agreement not to enter the music business. The best thing that could happen is a settlement with Apple Computer getting the rights to sell The Beatles Catalog on itunes music store. That is the largest selling catalog in the world. The computer company would be assured of millions of dallars of revenue each year.

[benpatient]

wow. the fanboyism has hit an all-time high. Apparently Steve's RDF is spreading via the internet...or maybe through Mac "pro" mice?

Anyone who thinks Apple Computer isn't in violation of their previous legal agreement with Apple Corps is either ignorant of the case or flat-out dumb.

There was no reasonable way for Apple Computer to create iTMS and not get sued by Apple Corps for...well, we'll see how much. The thing is, the question isn't, and wasn't, whether or not Apple Computer would lose this battle...it was simply a question of how long the battle would last, and how much it would "cost" apple in the long run.

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. The Beatles have had a much greater and longer-lasting effect on our culture than Apple ever hoped to gain.

[SiliconAddict]

It is true that Apple Computer has violated the agreement with the advent of iTunes and the iPod. However, who could confuse Apple Computer with the Apple music label?


That's not the point. The reality is they most likely broke their agreement. Apple knew there was a slapdown a brewing and the stopped it before it became a costly legal gusher. Prob lost an arm and a leg in the process though. I think this speaks volumes as to how important iPod and iTunes is to Apple.


Beyond that. Am I the only one who was sort of like "Apple Corps who???
:confused: " when they first heard about Apple Inc and Apple Corps little legal wars.

Seems asinine to me but the law is the law. :rolleyes:

[zelmo]

It is fact that Apple violated their settlement with Apple Corp. when they entered the music business. It may be a load of crap, since no one in their right mind would ever confuse Apple Computer or the iTMS with Apple Corp. or The Beatles, but since when did logic or reason have anything at all to do with lawyers and litigation?
Hopefully, this pending settlement will include some language which prevents Apple Corp. from ever making another claim against Apple Computer.

Oh, and Paul McCartney has no business being on the board of any corporation, much less Apple's. His days of being cool are long gone. Trent Reznor, on the other hand... :cool:

[voodoofish]

Apple made a bunch of calculations a long time ago and decided that dominating the digital music scene was well worth the cost.

Maybe that's why they brought out iTunes relatively late compared with other computer jukebox software - they where waiting to see if it was worth the risk first-of-all (or if they would absolutely have to do it to continue selling Macs, cause I doubt many people would buy them if iLife so obviously lacked music software).

[Hemingray]

Too weird... Al Gore is "interesting" enough, but Sir Paul on Apple's Board? Wow... definitely a menagerie, IMHO. Not that I'm saying it would be bad, by any means. It would just be.... interesting. That's the only way I can describe it.

But then, weirder things have happened, right? :confused:

...right? :eek:

Edit: The more I think about it, the better I like the sound of this. I'm imagining a new Apple commercial series with a Beatles soundtrack! Okay, I'm probably dreaming. :p

[maelstromr]

It has nothing to do with confusion it has everything to do with the fact that Apple Computer under Steve Jobs agreed to not enter the music business. The angle to take on this in favor of Apple computer is to argue that they still aren't in the music business; otherwise that facts are what they are and Apple computer is in violation of an agreement.

EDIT: trademark law is trademark law, if you don't like it call your congressman. I think most of us would be singing a different tune if Microsoft started marketing TVs under the name Apple Consumer Electronics.


Well, first rule of 'law' , it's up for debate. Did Apple agree not to ever touch "music" (a concept I would be surprised at if they did) or not to enter "recording industry" or not to enter "music distribution"? You guys can't draw a "right or wrong" line on anything in legal terms. Of course, IF they ARE settling, Apple Computer didn't feel like it was going to be worth it to fight/argue.

I still think this is opportunistic attacking on Apple iTunes success, a la Eminem.

[zzcoop]

I don't see what the big deal is with you people. I'm an avid Apple fanboy AND a huge freakin' Beatles fan, and I have no problem admitting that Apple Computer is undeniably in the wrong here.

And even though I already own every possible Beatles recording that could conceivably be available on the iTMS, I can't even imagine how great it would be to have their entire catalog available exclusively through iTunes. A more "win/win" solution to this decades-old bickering match I can't possibly imagine.

And as a sidenote, if you've ever paid a visit to Ringo's own website, you'll notice that he not only utilizes QuickTime for the video clips, but Ringo himself can be seen using a PowerBook and seems quite content showing off clips from the Beatles Anthology DVDs using OS X's DVD Player app.

Apple Computer = Good.
Apple Corps. = Good.
Lawyers = Bad.

And I don't know how anyone could be a fan of music... ANY music... and say that they've never heard of Apple Corps.

[waxwings]

If Apple gets the rights to sell Beatles music on the iTMS, then it will be worth a huge settlement.

[eliamx]

This is all completely ridiculous. No one mistakes one for the other. But, as a "Beatles source said, 'It's OK with us if they want to go this route. It's just more money for us.' *

These filthy scumbags know there isn't any confusion for the consumer, but they just want a piece of the Apple pie.

I think the initial agreement should be overturned by the courts. Apple Corps never had exclusive rights to the name Apple anymore than I have the exclusive right over the word "The." If it were a competing music company (That sells music under their own label), then perhaps there is infringement. I think Apple Corps should be forced to return the initial $50 million (or whatever it is worth at this time). I would love to see the them pay up the nose for this malice. Greedy bastards! They should be on a Shame-on-You segment of the news.

*quote taken from <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html">FOXNews.com</a>

[JtheLemur]

The angle to take on this in favor of Apple computer is to argue that they still aren't in the music business;.

Indeed. I ain't no law-guy... Apple Corps produce music, they're a label, but do they actually SELL the music? Do other labels like Vagrant or Tribunal actually SELL the music? They produce it and market it, but they hand it off to distributors to sell (most of the time at least). Maybe Apple Computer will argue that they aren't REALLY in the music business, they're just a store, like FYE or Best Buy. =)

[jholzner]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

Hmmm...actually I think the court hearing is taking place in Englad. Apple tried to get it moved to Cali. but was denied.

[nagromme]

Well, perhaps MS can get away with whatever they like, while Apple gets busted for making everyone think they are the Beatles :rolleyes:

Are we talking big punitive damages to discourage future computer companies from pretending to be rock bands? :rolleyes:

Somehow I don't think anyone bought an iPod from thinking the Beatles made them. And I don't think anyone decided not to buy a Beatles record because they hate Mac OS.

Anyway, if this really is the biggest settlement ever, all that cash Apple has will sure come in handy. The stock will plummet--the products will remain strong. Since I'm a user and not a shareholder, that will have to do.

[nagromme]

And I don't think getting the Beatles on iTMS would be any great thing... what Beatles fan doesn't ALREADY own Beatles music? The market would be more casual listeners, and Beatles fans who still listen to vinyl and not CD, but yet are not hard-core audiophiles and so downloading's fine with them. Those markets add up to something, but not huge.

And Micsrosoft has already announced that they are "confident" about a Beatles exclusive with them.

[morkintosh]

Well, first rule of 'law' , it's up for debate. Did Apple agree not to ever touch "music" (a concept I would be surprised at if they did) or not to enter "recording industry" or not to enter "music distribution"? You guys can't draw a "right or wrong" line on anything in legal terms. Of course, IF they ARE settling, Apple Computer didn't feel like it was going to be worth it to fight/argue.

I still think this is opportunistic attacking on Apple iTunes success, a la Eminem.

well I guess we could go and take the Clintonian approach and ask "what is the definition of is", but come on, while there is always arguments to be made on both sides they aren't always STRONG arguments.

[zzcoop]

And Micsrosoft has already announced that they are "confident" about a Beatles exclusive with them.

And how many times were they "confident" about Longhorn's release?

I don't see this happening.

[jchen]

You know, all this sounds like very plausible bumps in the road for Apple. This Mac user (used to use Windows) says the same thing:

http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/the_dangerous_road_ahead_for_apple_computer/

Apple will take it on the chin from Apple records because Apple Computer has much more to lose. It's not an issue of right or wrong. It's the "possibility" of a loss that'll cause Apple Computer to settle.

The only question is how much and what terms.

[daddy-mojo]

wow. the fanboyism has hit an all-time high. Apparently Steve's RDF is spreading via the internet...or maybe through Mac "pro" mice?

Anyone who thinks Apple Computer isn't in violation of their previous legal agreement with Apple Corps is either ignorant of the case or flat-out dumb.

There was no reasonable way for Apple Computer to create iTMS and not get sued by Apple Corps for...well, we'll see how much. The thing is, the question isn't, and wasn't, whether or not Apple Computer would lose this battle...it was simply a question of how long the battle would last, and how much it would "cost" apple in the long run.

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. The Beatles have had a much greater and longer-lasting effect on our culture than Apple ever hoped to gain.

yah, but that was 40 years ago. times change, and apparently the contract they set up with Apple Corp didn't account for that. The tables are turning, Apple is doing the influencing now. Apple is changing the landscape & I would have to say that Apple is a cultural icon already. Just sucks that the contract was set up the way it was. I doubt Apple will be making that kind of mistake again.

[achmafooma]

I don't know enough about any of this to take an "Apple Comp. is right" or "Apple Corps is right," but it seems to me that there's an easy way to solve this.

Merge.

Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.

Then the traditional, greedy labels could be slowly removed from the scene entirely. What I love about iTMS is that the "staff picks" and so on are obviously chosen by music lovers, not greedy record execs trying to cram the latest pop "musicians" down our throats. I've discovered more great music in the last two months of "New Music Tuesdays" and weekly free tracks and iTMS staff picks and iTMS music videos than I'd found in the previous year listening to the radio.

Imagine if those same music lovers had control over record-label and distribution functions of the industry!

The world would be a better place.

I love the Beatles. I love my Macs. It would be a fascinating thing to see the two Apples come together into one company, rather than mindlessly litigating at one another.

[morkintosh]

http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/the_dangerous_road_ahead_for_apple_computer/


the author doth over simplify too much, methinks

[laukev7]

Couldn't Apple simply spin the music department off into a company or a subsidiary with a different name, like iTMS? They doesn't make much profit out of it, and it's not like the music store is really related with computers or anything. Apple would still make profit selling iPods and at the same time expand the Mac user base.

[JtheLemur]

Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.

Powerhouse? Apple US is the powerhouse here... Apple Corps' extensive control over what, that handful of Beatles albums that are already available on every recording format known to man? Bah! :p

[hvfsl]

I was reading slashdot and apperently the reason Macs don't have hardware sound is because of the Beatles. That really sucks :mad: , because thats one of the main reasons why PCs are faster than Macs in games. I hope the Beatles die off quickly so Apple can start making it's Macs without any stupid restrictions like this.

More info here:
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=71

[TopCatz]

This could be good news for lots if reasons:

It ends the interminable legal wrangling which is too costly for everybody - and let's face it we all hate lawyers ;)
The Beatles' music will hopefully pop up on the iTMS - and they are still undeniably one of the most popular bands of all time:
More and more people will flock to the iTMS in recognition of this fact, giving it an even greater advantage against the competition:
McCartney - like him or loathe him - is one of the most influential and powerful figures in the entertainment industry and his inclusion on the Apple board must surely be an advantage:
He is British, therefore he will give Apple a more European perspective:
Everybody is happy :cool:

P.S. will iTMS UK might be able to have iTunes Essentials like the US store? Are they currently prohibited from doing so as they would be acting as a sort of record label and that is restricted be the current legal dispute?
Here's hoping.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Merge.

Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.



I was thinking the exact same thing. Some very confident dude on appleinsider a couple months ago went on a long rant about apple's future. He knew all sorts of stuff, cause he was an insider of apple, and apple legal would never find out who he was. Anyways, he seemed to think Apple Computer was all set to buy out Apple Records, and make a company just like what you described. Of course, this guy also said "say bye bye to all in one imacs, the next one's gonna be headless." Well, it was only two weeks ago that i learned this guy was most likely full of it. But something seems to be happening between the two companies.
The only thing is that some conflict would probably arise between apple and the other record companies who's stuff they sell on their store.

But ya, i'm all for a merger.

And by the way, i don't understand how anyone who knows anything about music could say the beatles had no talent. I'm not so into some of their early stuff, but they really developed into some insanely creative musicians, and they helped pave the way for just about everything we hear today, either directly or indirectly through all sorts of musical evolution.

And another thing, if they get the beatles onto ITMS, they better resolve that issue involving tiny gaps between tracks, cause that will not work with album like Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper that play like one whole masterpiece, not a bunch of separated singles.
That 0.3 seconds of silence is my arch nemesis!

[maelstromr]

well I guess we could go and take the Clintonian approach and ask "what is the definition of is", but come on, while there is always arguments to be made on both sides they aren't always STRONG arguments.

Actually, I think it could be a pretty strong argument...technology changes, if your logic was the be all end all, the RIAA would have killed mp3's and anything like iTunes LONG ago. Things change, rules bend and lose their meaning, and lawyers come in to sort it out.

PS- Hate the game, not the player.

[benpatient]

yah, but that was 40 years ago. times change, and apparently the contract they set up with Apple Corp didn't account for that. The tables are turning, Apple is the influencing now.

actually, Apple Computers has been losing court battles for years...up into the 90s, even. Apple Corps successfully sued Apple Computers for putting a SPEAKER in the Mac.

Seriously. If they can get Apple that easily, then this one's open/shut. The result of that and other clashes over the years spelled out very clearly what apple was and wasn't allowed to do with music on the Mac. They flat-out violated the terms of that agreement, and unless a statute of limitations was included in the language, we're probably looking at 50 years or more from now when Apple won't be under the stipulations of that settlement—unless they deal with it now.

[morkintosh]

Actually, I think it could be a pretty strong argument...technology changes, if your logic was the be all end all, the RIAA would have killed mp3's and anything like iTunes LONG ago. Things change, rules bend and lose their meaning, and lawyers come in to sort it out.

Not really. This isn't a case of changing technology, this is a case of a trademark dispute that resulted in a mutual agreement between two companies. The RIAA analogy is completely specious as the RIAA didn't (that I know of) have agreements in place with any company that uses mp3 encoding, or old WAV encoding for that matter. Technology isn't the compelling factor here, breech of agreement is.

[the_mole1314]

BEATLES ON THE ITMS! PLEASE!!!!

[Xtremehkr]

I had never heard of Apple records before this. It seems more like extortion than anything else. Even if Apple resells music through computers they are not a record label themselves.
I am guessing that this settlement is so big because it is going to kill all future disputes between the two companies. Apple should own its name and Apple Records name by the time this is all done. Paul McCartney is a prick, I guess he is still upset about Michael Jackson owning all of his songs. Give my regards to Eileen Paul, or whatever her name is.

Submitted by IJ Reilly? as in Ignatious J Reilly? how's your valve?

[achmafooma]

Powerhouse? Apple US is the powerhouse here... Apple Corps' extensive control over what, that handful of Beatles albums that are already available on every recording format known to man? Bah! :p
Well I didn't really mean that Apple Corps was currently a powerhouse -- I'm well aware that they're not. BUT, Apple Computer merged with them (thus eliminating Apple Computers' reluctance to become such a music powerhouse) could possibly become one.

My point was simply that Apple+Apple could become a music powerhouse together, but neither would separately (except as a distributor like we see in iTMS today).

Beatles albums would sell in iTMS. Heck, I only have a handful of Beatles albums but would love to have them all. The reason I haven't worked toward that goal lately is that I don't go to music stores anymore, except iTMS. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[JtheLemur]

Paul McCartney is a prick, I guess he is still upset about Michael Jackson owning all of his songs. Give my regards to Eileen Paul, or whatever her name is.

Yeah, talk about getting 0wn3d. Prolley spent too much of his money on tea and curry and chips to buy the catalog! hehe.

[Floop]

Whatever the agreement between Apple US and Apple Corps contained, it doesn't change the fact that Apple Corps are acting greedily.

Just because something is written down, doesn't make it ethical or fair.

Then again, when did 'ethics' or 'fairness' have anything to do with lawsuits like this.

Last - notice how it is the iTunes Music Store not the Apple Music Store?

If they do pay cash, I hope that a) it isn't too much and b) the Beatles get into the iTMS.

Floop

[hulugu]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe


Don't worry, we have so many we're bound to start exporting them soon.

[maelstromr]

Not really. This isn't a case of changing technology, this is a case of a trademark dispute that resulted in a mutual agreement between two companies. The RIAA analogy is completely specious as the RIAA didn't (that I know of) have agreements in place with any company that uses mp3 encoding, or old WAV encoding for that matter. Technology isn't the compelling factor here, breech of agreement is.


I wasn't arguing the RIAA as to fact and similar circumstance, I was pointing out that "it's that was because it was that way before" is not necessarily a viable argument. (Clarification, "an agreement always means and acts exactly the same way as it did when created" is NOT a truth legally speaking.)

[Loge]

And by the way, i don't understand how anyone who knows anything about music could say the beatles had no talent. I'm not so into some of their early stuff, but they really developed into some insanely creative musicians, and they helped pave the way for just about everything we hear today, either directly or indirectly through all sorts of musical evolution.

Amazing how they influenced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven through some kind of time travel.

And a merger makes no sense, they are in completely separate businesses.

[decksnap]

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other.

Sorry if you're a Beatles fan, but this statement makes no sense. If the Beatles didn't exist, it would've been someone else- maybe a different direction, but technology would still have arrived at the same place.

Couldn't Apple spin off iTunes as its own company to avoid this rift? :eek:

[leftbanke7]

I guess it's a good thing Apple has that 5 Billion just sitting around. This could have been a potential right cross to the chin had they not been stockpiling the cash (assuming, of course, that this settlement is indeed a monster).

[Dahl]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe
Don't worry, it's coming...

[darkwing]

Apple should just announce they are no longer going to do business in the UK and pull all their offices and support out. Then, screw apple UK. Of course, I have no idea how all this works. Someone enlighten me. :)

Steve

[morkintosh]

I wasn't arguing the RIAA as to fact and similar circumstance, I was pointing out that "it's that was because it was that way before" is not necessarily a viable argument. (Clarification, "an agreement always means and acts exactly the same way as it did when created" is NOT a truth legally speaking.)

which generally is up to the courts to determine I will agree, however empirically speaking they tend to favor the plaintiff in these sorts of disputes, otherwise Mickey Mouse would have been in the public domain long long ago.

[Gasu E.]

Guys, you do know that there is an aggreement with the two companies agreeing that Apple UK wouldn't make computers and Apple US wouldn't sell music, right? Apple US does owe money. But it'll be settled, Apple US does owe money to Apple UK.


I don't have a quarrel with the view that Apple Computer owes Apple Corp money. However, the amount of the settlement should be commensurate with the damages actually suffered by the plaintiff.

[varmit]

Do you think Apple Computers bought the Apple Record Lable. Thus the fight is over, and can never spur up again. Thus the huge amount that is involved. Thus why PM is coming to Apple computers as a board member, to help with the music side of Apple Computers.

[ioinc]

Apple should own its name and Apple Records name by the time this is all done. Paul McCartney is a prick, I guess he is still upset about Michael Jackson owning all of his songs. Give my regards to Eileen Paul, or whatever her name is.

Submitted by IJ Reilly? as in Ignatious J Reilly? how's your valve?

The name 'Apple' is their name. Steve Jobs named the company after their company.

I would be very surprised if Paul McCartney has a personal hand in this.

I can't figure out why everybody is getting so hot about this one. Apple computer made an agreement with Apple Music and then violated that agreement... Apple computer apparently sees it that way... thus the big payoff.

If you want to dance the dance you must pay the piper.
It's how life works.

[stoid]

Apple should just announce they are no longer going to do business in the UK and pull all their offices and support out. Then, screw apple UK. Of course, I have no idea how all this works. Someone enlighten me. :)

Steve

Shhh, don't tell the MacRumors UK members that. I think that edesign in particular might flip out! :eek:

[narco]

God, I hope not. Paul was always the worst Beatle -- I'd rather have Ringo, and that's not saying much.

.narco

[morkintosh]

The name 'Apple' is their name. Steve Jobs named the company after their company..

Actually after no one could come up with anything better Jobs elected to name the company after his favorite fruit as he was a fruititarian at the time. Or so the legend goes ...

[JtheLemur]

Thus why PM is coming to Apple computers as a board member, to help with the music side of Apple Computers.

Heh, what the hell has Paul McC done lately to be of any real use to the "music side" of Apple? :D

[swissmann]

I love the Beatles and Apple Computer. Why can't they just get along? Seems to me that they could benefit each other. Put Beatles songs on ITMS like everyone says.

[ajakeski]

Really, what do you expect? They are crappy business men, selling the rights to their songs to Michael Jackson so they have to sue someone to generate the income for their retirements.

[MentalFabric]

Does anyone know what the largest settlement ever reached at the moment is? For some kind of idea what kind of numbers we're talking here...

[DesterWallaboo]

Yup... total fascist pigs... it's not like as if they are losing anything because Apple is selling music online. Looks like I'll have to encourage friends to pirate Beatles music.

[DesterWallaboo]

Does anyone know what the largest settlement ever reached at the moment is? For some kind of idea what kind of numbers we're talking here...


Well... the tobacco industry has to be pretty close.... multi-billion dollar settlement.

[Gasu E.]

Amazing how they influenced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven through some kind of time travel.


"Paul and John's Excellent Adventure"

[nemaslov]

When Jobs and Wozniak first started Apple they approached the Beatles and the deal was always based on Apple staying away from Music. Jobs and Woz chose the name Apple when there was already an Apple Company so the Beatle' Apple Corp are totally right on here. As soon as Apple got into the music biz, they chanaged their scope!!

[zwida]

And a merger makes no sense, they are in completely separate businesses.

I don't know about that. A record label might fit nicely into a company that is increasingly focused on music.

[macridah]

The beatles are entitled to absolutely nothing from apples success. I hate the beatles now.

[Warbrain]

Indeed. I ain't no law-guy... Apple Corps produce music, they're a label, but do they actually SELL the music? Do other labels like Vagrant or Tribunal actually SELL the music? They produce it and market it, but they hand it off to distributors to sell (most of the time at least). Maybe Apple Computer will argue that they aren't REALLY in the music business, they're just a store, like FYE or Best Buy. =)

exactly! i was hoping someone else would have the same thought as me...

all apple is doing is just distributing the music while making barely any money off of the sale. apple corps just thought that it broke the former agreement.

[joeboy_45101]

I think this could be a very good thing. Well, I don't like hearing that Apple (Computer) has to settle with anybody but if all this is true then that means the Music Store could have exclusive use of the Beatles' archives. One more nail in Microsoft's music store coffin. Wouldn't it be friggin' awesome to have rare Beatles tracks available in the Music Store.

[Ja Di ksw]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

The more I travel, the more I understand and agree with (some of) the bashing of america by people from other countries.

Such S***

[nemaslov]

Hey, try starting a company called Virgin or McDonalds or HMV or Tower music. The Beatlkes started Apple as a music company: FACT. Apple'sdeal was originally for computers only. This is simple business not UK vs. USA. They all work Internationally.

[vienna]

Apple Computer are in the music business about as much as Best Buy. They don't make music, just sell it.

Whatever the wording of the agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Corp there's no way it took into account current technology.

Apple Corp are obsolete and greedy - bending the letter of the law to extort money from the most popular online music store. I'm British but am embarrassed to admit it given the depths that Apple Corp will stoop.

-----

I read the Steve named Apple so that they would be before Atari in the phone book.

[fixyourthinking]

Apple Corp is not suing over a trademark violation but a breach of Apple Computer's agreement not to enter the music business. The best thing that could happen is a settlement with Apple Computer getting the rights to sell The Beatles Catalog on itunes music store. That is the largest selling catalog in the world. The computer company would be assured of millions of dallars of revenue each year.

The keyword you left out is production business. Apple is NOT producing any music or involved in the process of creation (eventhough Apple computers are used heavily in the creation of music)

[nemaslov]

What don't you all get? Apple Corp is NOT bending the law. Both Apples agreed that APPLE Computer would do anything music related. THEY friggen agreed. If the Beatles' Apple started making Computers, they would get sued by Apple too. Christ what is your problem. That is the law and a MUTUALLY agreed commitment.

[decksnap]

The more I travel, the more I understand and agree with (some of) the bashing of america by people from other countries.

Such S***

Hate the president, not the people :p What'd I ever do to you?

Seriously, legal or not, the truth is Apple Corp. has existed basically in name only for a long, long, time. They really are not an active business, which is why it is such a cheap cash-in for them to pull another settlement.

[fixyourthinking]

When Jobs and Wozniak first started Apple they approached the Beatles and the deal was always based on Apple staying away from Music. Jobs and Woz chose the name Apple when there was already an Apple Company so the Beatle' Apple Corp are totally right on here. As soon as Apple got into the music biz, they chanaged their scope!!

There is a large national staffing chain called Apple Staffing

I'm sure there is an "Apple Staffing" department at Apple that does all the hiring for jobs at Apple.

This would be like like Apple Staffing litigating against Apple because Apple Computer also finds people jobs and places them in positions within the company both part time and full time.

What don't you all get? Apple Corp is NOT bending the law. Both Apples agreed that APPLE Computer would do anything music related. THEY friggen agreed. If the Beatles' Apple started making Computers, they would get sued by Apple too. Christ what is your problem. That is the law and a MUTUALLY agreed commitment.

How about reading the forum posts for comprehension! YOU ARE BENDING and twisting the actual agreement. The agreement was based on production of music as a music label

Would someone please post the actual original settlement for all to see???

[nemaslov]

If you think Apple Corp is NOT an active business you are very ignorant. Even though they are not in your face everyday like Apple Computer, they did have the Number One CD a few years ago with Beatles 1 and the Anholgy series on DVDlast year, and yes they maintain all of the reissues, books, licencing on behalf of the Beatles. The reason they really do not own most of their publishing is that greedy business people made them sign aways their publishing when they were very young like so many bands even today. They finally got wise long after they actually split up. The Beatles and Apple Corp deserve every penny they now get.

If you craeted a company wouldnt you want to be protected? Why do you all love to knock the all down once you get old and rich. I love both Apples but you don;t really think Jobs and Apple did screw a few people along the way no do you?

[mustang_dvs]

Well... the tobacco industry has to be pretty close.... multi-billion dollar settlement.

Read the first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1033898&postcount=1), again... "People are expecting this to be the biggest settlement anywhere in legal history, outside of a class action suit..." (emphasis added)



They are crappy business men, selling the rights to their songs to Michael Jackson so they have to sue someone to generate the income for their retirements.

The Beatles didn't sell the rights to Michael Jackson, the tax shelter they started did. Read my post on Page 2 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=88724&page=2&pp=32).



Yeah, talk about getting 0wn3d. Prolley spent too much of his money on tea and curry and chips to buy the catalog! hehe.

The publishing rights to Northern Songs' catalog sold for $47.5 million in 1984. That's almost $86 million in 2004 dollars. (Again, see my post on Page 2 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=88724&page=2&pp=32); Inflation Calculator (http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm).)



Then we would have "Apple" -- one wing an innovative, successful computer company, the other wing an honest-to-God music powerhouse which, uh, happens to have exclusive rights to the Beatles' extensive catalog.

Apple Corps, Ltd. is not a music powerhouse (at least not since the Beatles broke up), nor does it have "exclusive" rights to the Beatles' music and George Harrison's pre-1969 music. (Once again, see my post on Page 2 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=88724&page=2&pp=32).)



lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

As was mentioned, the suit has been filed in a British court (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2072&ncid=2072&e=1&u=/variety/20040912/va_mu_ne/inside_move__beatles__suit_could_upset). In my estimation, that places the legal process in question in Europe. RTFA:
Earlier this year, the computer company failed in a bid to have the latest case heard in the United States, when a judge in London's High Court in London granted jurisdiction in the U.K.

[fatfish]

Well... the tobacco industry has to be pretty close.... multi-billion dollar settlement.

Ain't that a class action, if I'm not mistaken the article said biggest settlement outside a class action.

(EDIT)OOPS thats just been said

[Lanbrown]

Apple is clearly in violation of their agreement, its a legal fact. They brokered a deal whereby they would not enter the music arena with their similar name, they have done that and then are bound by the agreement. The Beatles had the name first and Apple computer has to pay to use it, what is the problem?

That right there could be one-way to get out of it. Lindows (now Linspire) was going to argue in a court in Europe that Windows couldn't be trademarked, as it’s a common word. Can MS sue a window company because they sell windows? Apple is a common word, it's a fruit, so in that case, the Beatles did not have it first unless they were around and trademarked the name, placed it on a fruit and collected royalties from it. So who had the name first? You can have two companies with the same name, as long as they are in different markets/industries, then there isn’t a problem.

As for selling music, one would have to read the settlement to see what it really said. The wording could provide a loophole.

Does Apple UK even have a website? What do they sell/license? MJ owns some of the rights to the Beatles music. To me, it looks more like Apple UK is in the business of suing the other Apple.

[decksnap]

If you think Apple Corp is NOT an active business you are very ignorant. Even though they are not in your face everyday like Apple Computer, they did have the Number One CD a few years ago with Beatles 1 and the Anholgy series on DVDlast year...

You've sort of proved my point- they don't do much of anything, except make money off reissues and rehashes. They're what you call dormant.

[blurtigo]

I think that has less to do with the current situation, and more to do with where things could go in the future. With Apple letting artists sell their music on the ITMS through GarageBand and the rumoured ProBand.

That would effectively make ITMS a record label, and would definitely violate the agreement even if it hasn't been violated already. Giving artists the freedom to sell their music directly is well worth the pay-out now. In the long-term it could be one of the best moves Apple has ever made.

[ethernet76]

Down with the Beatles and their out of date tripe. Begone Paul Mcartney you money hungry talentless musician.

Steve Jobs admitted to naming his company Apple because he was a Beatles fan.

In their agreement, Apple and Steve Jobs promised not to make any moves in the music industry. They clearly violated this agreement.

I don't know why people are bemoaning Apple Corps. They have a valid claim on a copyright. Apple Computer violated their previous settlement and now they have to pay the price.

Is this good for Apple Computer? Probably not. But, anyone who didn't see this coming is most likely blind.

[Gasu E.]

I’ve got a feeling that Apple Corp will finally stop chasing Apple Comp across the universe. There has to be an end to this misery; Apple Comp can’t carry that weight of impending litigation forever. I’m sure the two will come together, and get back to fixing a hole in the current helter skelter arrangement. The status quo is good for no one except the taxman, they can’t just let it be—it won’t be long, something is sure to fall. So don’t let me down, guys, not a second time—this had better be the end, or I’ll cry instead!

[nemaslov]

I guess that Rhino Records is also a dorment company. Even if you dislike the Betales or their music they are not a dormant company. There are countless Record companies , book publishers and the like who wonderfully thrive on reissues. Any of todays's bands and artists would do well by setting up a compnay to protect their future royalties so they don't get ****ed like most artists do.

[mustang_dvs]

Does Apple UK even have a website? What do they sell/license? MJ owns some of the rights to the Beatles music. To me, it looks more like Apple UK is in the business of suing the other Apple.

"Apple UK" is: Apple, Inc. (UK and Ireland) (http://www.apple.com/uk/)

Apple Corps, Ltd. has a 'website' at: http://www.applecorps.com/

Jacko owns the publishing rights to the Northern Songs catalog of Lennon/McCartney-authored Beatles songs, excluding the songs appearing on the first album, written prior to the formation of Northern Songs, Ltd. as a tax shelter for the writing duo.

[Lanbrown]

Do you think Apple Computers bought the Apple Record Lable. Thus the fight is over, and can never spur up again. Thus the huge amount that is involved. Thus why PM is coming to Apple computers as a board member, to help with the music side of Apple Computers.

Umm, what music side? iTMS? Sorry, but that is totally different business.

[decksnap]

I guess that Rhino Records is also a dorment company. Even if you dislike the Betales or their music they are not a dormant company. There are countless Record companies , book publishers and the like who wonderfully thrive on reissues. Any of todays's bands and artists would do well by setting up a compnay to protect their future royalties so they don't get ****ed like most artists do.

Well feel free to fill us in on all the amazing things Apple Corps has done over the past 15 years.

[dblairw]

From MacRumors lead-in: 'Apple Computer and Apple Corps are on the verge of announcing a huge settlement in their ongoing trademark dispute, one that could "massively dwarf the $26.5 million paid to the Fab Four's company in 1991 in a row over trademark use." ' :eek:

I realize this is the dry business perspective on this issue, but the real question is how much we Mac users will end up paying to the old Apple Corps organization. :mad: Let's face it - it won't be the executives or shareholders.

On the other hand, Steve and the board of directors could elect to devote what is needed in the "huge settlement" from the $4 billion cash hoard and not ask Macintosh customers to foot the bill for this.

My outrage at Apple Corps as a near-prehistoric institution is unlimited. :mad: Yes, the language from the original settlement is there in black and white for the court to see beyond any defense. This is simple greed on the part of Apple Corps; I wonder whose pockets the cash for the "huge settlement" will actually flow into ???

[Lanbrown]

Hey, try starting a company called Virgin or McDonalds or HMV or Tower music. The Beatlkes started Apple as a music company: FACT. Apple'sdeal was originally for computers only. This is simple business not UK vs. USA. They all work Internationally.

Wrong. One could trademark a name, but that doesn't mean it's trademarked internationally. One can trademark a name for international use though. Depends on how you go about it.

[nemaslov]

Archived and documented a great Band of the 20th Century. A band who created a wonderful body of work and really opened the door fo bands to experiment more and not just do what the labels told tell them to do. It may be hard to believe but they actually almost along changed culture is a shots 8 year recoring span. 14 albums in 8 year. Oasis has ad less in more time and they are bad copies of what the Beatles put out.

[nemaslov]

Well althose names I mentioned have been trademarked in both the US and UK as well as many other Countries. Apple Corp. too is out in both countries any many more. They had to once Capitol US issued their works.

[IJ Reilly]

Submitted by IJ Reilly? as in Ignatious J Reilly? how's your valve?

Splendid as always, thank you. It's so wonderful to have a thread of my own. Long overdue.

[september29th]

Steve Jobs admitted to naming his company Apple because he was a Beatles fan.


I've never seen an admission by Jobs being as bluntly as saying "Apple computers is named after Apple records" - but what I do know is... he celebrates his birthday, one day early so that it's the same as George Harrison.

.mCr.

"2 down, 2 to go" - the Meatmen

[Lanbrown]

There is a large national staffing chain called Apple Staffing

I'm sure there is an "Apple Staffing" department at Apple that does all the hiring for jobs at Apple.

This would be like like Apple Staffing litigating against Apple because Apple Computer also finds people jobs and places them in positions within the company both part time and full time.


I agree. Don't forget Apple Vacations:
http://www.applevacations.com/

Apple Raceberry JaM, which is a Computer Services and Software company:
http://www.raceberryjam.com/

Golden Apple Comics:
http://www.goldenapplecomics.com/

AppleOne:
http://www.appleone.com/

Apple Core Hotels:
http://www.applecorehotels.com

Apple Hill Center for Chamber Music:
http://www.applehill.org/

Big Apple Sports:
http://eteamz.active.com/bigapplesports/index.cfm?

[autrefois]

I was reading slashdot and apperently the reason Macs don't have hardware sound is because of the Beatles. That really sucks :mad: , because thats one of the main reasons why PCs are faster than Macs in games. I hope the Beatles die off quickly so Apple can start making it's Macs without any stupid restrictions like this.

So you want people to die just so your games can be faster? How sweet.

Apple Computer repeatedly breaks legal agreements, so you blame Apple Corps?

Why are people assuming the Beatles are going to be exclusively on iTunes—to reward Apple Computer for breaking their agreement? I'm not saying it's impossible, especially if Apple Corps gets tons of shares as part of the settlement.

But I really don't get this getting angry at Apple Corps when it was Apple Computer that broke its own agreement.

[Lanbrown]

Apple Corps, Ltd. has a 'website' at: http://www.applecorps.com/

Then that's a no.

[IJ Reilly]

Did anybody catch Steve's GarageBand introduction at MW-SF in January? Ol' Uncle Steve was obviously digging every minute of it. So I think the real hang up is over whether Steve is officially called "The Fifth Beatle."

[Lanbrown]

I realize this is the dry business perspective on this issue, but the real question is how much we Mac users will end up paying to the old Apple Corps organization. :mad: Let's face it - it won't be the executives or shareholders.

On the other hand, Steve and the board of directors could elect to devote what is needed in the "huge settlement" from the $4 billion cash hoard and not ask Macintosh customers to foot the bill for this.


Ummm, care to explain that? Apple has the cash on hand from sales and licensing. The customers are the ones that put the money there to begin with.

[zami]

Paul McCartney and his wife have only one piece of humanity between them and that is her wooden leg. Not to be nationalistic but I reckon you have to be british to understand the sheer awfulness of this man, the same probably goes for your president non-elect.

[fatfish]

Either the story is complete trash or there is something more than a settlement coming out of this.

Apple's major problem is not that they are selling music, but that they agreed not to sell music, (if indeed that is what they agreed). This will undoubtedly be punished more severely.

However I can't imagine any law suit resulting in a billion dollar settlement or anything like it. Get real, I'm a mac fan too, but I am realistic enough to realise Apple ain't such a big fish and neither is their iTMS (maybe it is in downloaded music circles, but downloaded music ain't no big fish either)

The problem for apple will be future constraints on it's business, because of Apple Corps, as many have pointed out. If the story about big money has any basis in fact, then it ain't simply a settlement. Rumours of Paul McCartney being a board member of Apple may be a little over the top, exactly what will be agreed is anyones guess, but if big money is involved it has to be more than a settlement.

Just one more thing....... Perhaps someone will correct me.......but as I understand it, Paul McCartney is nothing to do with Apple Corps, Apple Corps is sort of a trust fund for the Beatles. Anyone who understands trust funds, will realise that for a trust fund to be effective the beneficiaries must have no involvement in the company, to do so would negate any tax benefit arising because of the trust. So what I'm basically saying is that in my opinion Paul McCartney cannot take a seat on the board if Apple and Apple were to merge.

Now if Apple simply bought Apple Corps' assets then there would be no reason that PM couldn't become a member of the board of Apple Computers (in a tax sense), but there is also absolutely no reason that PM could insist on this (nor Apple Corps). Unless for some reason Apple Computer wanted him (and I'm not saying they don't because it seems like a fairly good move to me)

[Lanbrown]

But I really don't get this getting angry at Apple Corps when it was Apple Computer that broke its own agreement.

So how is putting a hardware synthesizer in a computer hurting Apple Corp? Don't use the stance that both companies are named Apple and it stems from that.

[Itaca]

This is reality.
Apple Corp. is too old and out of fashion.
they need fresh makeover and the name in the news.

[g4cubed]

Could it be that Apple Computer has been banking that 5 billion dollars with this usage in mind. Come on now. I know Apple Computer gave a lot up in that agreement, but I'm damn sure they didn't forget what that agreement said. And looking ahead, even a little, back when they were developing the iPod, they had to forsee this coming. And thus that big fat bank roll. :D

[IJ Reilly]

But I really don't get this getting angry at Apple Corps when it was Apple Computer that broke its own agreement.

Actually, we don't know if this is true because the matter hasn't been decided by a court of law. Maybe I need to remind some folks that many years ago, Apple sued Microsoft over the theft of Mac user interface elements. Everybody at the time thought Apple had a very good case -- and they did, right up until the judge decided that a one-page, prior contract they'd made with Microsoft gave Microsoft essentially unlimited rights to the Mac UI and the case was dismissed. Nobody saw that coming. So the point is, you never really know how a judge will rule until they actually rule.

[achmafooma]

Apple Corps, Ltd. is not a music powerhouse (at least not since the Beatles broke up), nor does it have "exclusive" rights to the Beatles' music and George Harrison's pre-1969 music. (Once again, see my post on Page 2 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=88724&page=2&pp=32).)
For the second time, I did not say that Apple Corps is a music powerhouse. I said that Apple Corps combined with Apple Computer could/would be one. I was speaking about a hypothetical combined entity, not Apple Corps as it exists today.

The biggest reason for that (although I didn't explain it in the original post) would be that Apple Computer would no longer be held back from diving whole-hog into the music industry. I don't see that they'd get much more from Apple Corps in a merger than the right to move in that direction, and that right would be enough to make Apple into a powerhouse overnight... it's almost one already, if only it could sign artists on its own!

As far as ownership of the Beatles' catalog, that was more a side-point than the real issue. I concede that I don't know much about it, nor do I wish to, but iTMS would be a lot more likely to have all the Beatles' music in it if the Beatles wanted those songs to be there (ie. if they were one company and not litigating). That's the important piece of what I was saying.

Anyway, after looking over more of the details I think that Apple Corps has a case here ... but for the life of me I can't imagine why they're bothering to pursue it. It strikes me as petty, no matter how legally justifiable it might be.

[neutrino23]

I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, it just really chaps my kiester to think that Apple has to give any of its hard earned money or reputation to those low lifes.

[anjaki]

What if the rumour is wrong and it's not Paul McCartney who'll be joining the board at Apple, but Ringo Starr!

[mklos]

It has nothing to do with confusion it has everything to do with the fact that Apple Computer under Steve Jobs agreed to not enter the music business. The angle to take on this in favor of Apple computer is to argue that they still aren't in the music business; otherwise that facts are what they are and Apple computer is in violation of an agreement.

EDIT: trademark law is trademark law, if you don't like it call your congressman. I think most of us would be singing a different tune if Microsoft started marketing TVs under the name Apple Consumer Electronics.

This original agreement was NOT under Steve Jobs' command. This was in the early 1990's when Steve Jobs was running his own company, NEXT.

It IS originally all about people maybe confusing Apple Computer with Apple Corp. At the time of the current lawsuit, Steve Jobs knew nothing about an agreement as I believe this original agreement made in 1991 was a secretive agreement not told to the public at first. Obviously they know now!

[panda]

interesting and sad...

1) what is defined as being the music business? does making a computer that plays music qualify, or the ipod, or is it itms?

the suit only came after the start of itms.

2) a settlement is basically a mutually acceptable solution to a problem. if the terms of the settlement become too onerous, there is another recourse... allowing the dispute to proceed in court and hope for better terms... then there is always the chance to appeal any unfavorable verdict.

of course this is not a nice clean solution, one that could create a drag on
apple's development.

3) a possibility is to pay damages and to agree to cease and desist involvement in the music industry. in this case, could a scenario be to spin off itms as a separate entity?

clearly there is no confusion in the eye of the consumer and this consumer feels that such a suit takes all the joy out of music, irregardless of what the old agreement states. it is so anti what the beatles were about from the start. so anti the culture at that time.

the age of innocence has truly been lost.

[MacRigor]

From what I've read, the dispute is that Apple Corps says Apple computer agreed not to go into the music business which includes retail sales. Apple Computer says it only agreed not to produce music or become a record company, so its allowed to sell music, ie made by other people. Apple Corps will be hard pressed to show damages, because it no longer produces music and does not have any catalog (Michael Jackson owns the rights to the beatles), so there can be no market confusion, the essence of trademark infringement. I doubt that Apple will pay billions of dollars on such thin facts. Of course if they want to make McCartney an honorary board member to settle this trumped up suit, Welcome Aboard Pauly!

[MacEyeDoc]

So how is putting a hardware synthesizer in a computer hurting Apple Corp? Don't use the stance that both companies are named Apple and it stems from that.

I can't believe I read the whole thread - lots of good comments either way, but the legal case (if they did make an agreement not to enter the 'music business' [however that is defined]) is probably open & shut, but that sure doesn't make it right. There is little if any possibility that Apple Corps will be hurt or their record selling ability inhibited by a computer company called Apple, or a music selling venue called iTunes Music Store. I don't think anyone would buy a computer called Apple because they though Paul or Ringo built in in their garage. It sounds to me that the original agreement was bogus, and the Apple Corps legal team would be right to leave Apple Computer alone. But greed is infinite amoung lawyers, and I guess they couldn't resist stealing the hard earned money from someone (Steve J) who had a great idea and implemented it in a splendid way, but made the mistake of working for a company with same name as Apple Corps. If it's going to be some huge payout (which the lawyers and the estates will mostly get, not even the actual Beatles), I'd almost rather Steve change the name of the company to Banana and tell Apple Corps where to put it.

[FYA]

Get A Life Paul...

thinking about it... he's after an iLife ! :eek:

[Mord]

Anyone have the GPS coordinates of Abbey Road studios? Maybe someone here could send a nuke their way.

What bugs me the most about this is the trouble I go through to convert winblows folks to macs, only to support a few old greedy lawyers in the end.

Look in the phone book and you'll find hundreds of companies with Apple in the name. WTF!!!!!

i live near there, i'm happy to do some firebombing just send me over some napalm.

[MacFan26]

Why, WHY Apple Corps? I know I know, Apple broke their agreement, blah blah blah, but can't they just give it up already? Or better yet, why don't they take a stab at creating their own brilliants online music store? (;) ) I guess Apple will just have to spend its extra billions on paying off this ridiculous thing instead of using it for R&D.

[fatfish]

I don't think most of you have got it yet, any law suit is not going to be worth much more than $ 100m, if that. If Apple agree to pay more it's because they'll be getting more.

[g4cubed]

From what I've read, the dispute is that Apple Corps says Apple computer agreed not to go into the music business which includes retail sales. ...
To my understanding, it was that Apple computer could not enter the entertainment business not the music business. You and several others, I think, have it wrong.

[bcsmith]

And a merger makes no sense, they are in completely separate businesses.


Being in a separate business doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't want to merge. Look at GE. They make airplane engines, light bulbs, power generators (the big ones in power plants), movies and TV shows. Plus they own quite a few buildings and make a decent chunk of change lending money to people that want to buy their products. And that only scratches the surface of what they do.

Apple, the computer company, might just want to diversify its income stream and acquire Apple, the music company. Beatles royality checks are probably pretty consistant and independant of technology spending cycles.

-- Ben

[fatfish]

If this settlement, merger or whatever, is going to be the "biggest in history" and even "mindboggling", why does the story only appear from a couple of backstreet sources (one of which just repeats the other), where are the major news vendors?

Think I'll wait before getting too excited.

[zelmo]

I’ve got a feeling that Apple Corp will finally stop chasing Apple Comp across the universe. There has to be an end to this misery; Apple Comp can’t carry that weight of impending litigation forever. I’m sure the two will come together, and get back to fixing a hole in the current helter skelter arrangement. The status quo is good for no one except the taxman, they can’t just let it be—it won’t be long, something is sure to fall. So don’t let me down, guys, not a second time—this had better be the end, or I’ll cry instead!

Nicely put together, Gasu E.

[billystlyes]

The best Beatles have passed John and George! Ringo is wacky and Paul worries about money too much.

[MacSlut]

I have a feeling this will be a good thing for Apple...actually both Apples. Apple Computer has a buttload of cash that they have to do something with. Hopefully they are purchasing Apple Corp.

This would be a good purchase for both companies...

Usually during a takeover you look at the buyer expecting to get more than just the expected net profit within the fixed number of years of opportunity and finance costs. This usually means there is some sort of synergy between the two companies.

For Apple Corp, there really isn't much synergy to be found in any other company. Anyone else buying Apple Corp is not going to make enough money from the synergy to justify the purchase costs.

Apple Computer is a different story (insert your own Apples/Oranges joke here). Apple could put the entire Beatles catalog on the iTMS *exclusively*. This very much raises the bar and puts Apple in a league far above the rest. It also opens the door to Apple becoming a major *and* credible label.

I hope this happens.

[broken_keyboard]

What is the current biggest settlement?

[Loge]

Apple Computer is a different story (insert your own Apples/Oranges joke here). Apple could put the entire Beatles catalog on the iTMS *exclusively*. This very much raises the bar and puts Apple in a league far above the rest. It also opens the door to Apple becoming a major *and* credible label.

I hope this happens.

And have Sony make their catalogue exclusive to their store. This sort of thing will just hurt competition. Also, having one band, however famous, does not make a major label, even if this was a good idea for Apple, which it isn't.

[mhouse]

wow. the fanboyism has hit an all-time high. Apparently Steve's RDF is spreading via the internet...or maybe through Mac "pro" mice?

Anyone who thinks Apple Computer isn't in violation of their previous legal agreement with Apple Corps is either ignorant of the case or flat-out dumb.

There was no reasonable way for Apple Computer to create iTMS and not get sued by Apple Corps for...well, we'll see how much. The thing is, the question isn't, and wasn't, whether or not Apple Computer would lose this battle...it was simply a question of how long the battle would last, and how much it would "cost" apple in the long run.

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. The Beatles have had a much greater and longer-lasting effect on our culture than Apple ever hoped to gain.

Not to deflate your bubble, but you've missed the point entirely. Apparently, we 'fanboys' are able to grasp a simple and obvious fact: Apple Corps. has never lost a nickel because of Apple Computer.

Apple's earlier agreement with Apple Corps. "not to enter the music business" would be interpreted by any sane human being as an agreement not to record and publish music. If Apple did *that* then they would indeed be competing unfairly with Apple Corps. in a way that would create confusion.

As it stands, Apple's reinvigoration of the moribund music industry has probably *put* money into Apple Corps.' coffers. This is a stupid and greedy move on the part of McCartney et al.

Hopefully the settlement will pave the way for some type of exclusive deal for the Beatles' catalog. That is the best that can come of this I'm afraid.

[themacman]

ummm... as to talentless I'm going to let his sales speak to that, on the other topic:

Apple is clearly in violation of their agreement, its a legal fact. They brokered a deal whereby they would not enter the music arena with their similar name, they have done that and then are bound by the agreement. The Beatles had the name first and Apple computer has to pay to use it, what is the problem?
guys guys, its not the Apple music store its the Itunes. No one really calls it the Apple Itunes Music store. ITMS has nothing to do with the beatles or anything at all.

[jettredmont]

Well... the tobacco industry has to be pretty close.... multi-billion dollar settlement.

Specifically says non-class-action (as others have pointed out in a much more timely manner :) ).

Question remains unanswered: Anyone know what the "largest non-class-action civil suit settlement" might be?

Anyone?

[jettredmont]

The keyword you left out is production business. Apple is NOT producing any music or involved in the process of creation (eventhough Apple computers are used heavily in the creation of music)

By this reasoning, I could start a computer retail business called "Apple" and be beyond trademark lawsuits because I'm not producing anything, just reselling.

[Lanbrown]

What is the current biggest settlement?

That would depend on what it dealt with. If you do a search you will see some companies/people claiming that they have the largest settlement for whatever industry/reason. It said the largest not a class action. If you look at the SEC versus WorldCom, it was 750 million.
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97796

I also saw the third largest class action was 450 million and the second was 517 million. Then you have age discrimination, etc. So, with the limited information from the article, who knows.

I wouldn't believe too much in this article. For one, you have a team of lawyers on each side. So you have a small group and could be traced back. A lawyer knows better then to open their mouth, because if they do, they will be the ones on the other side of the table facing a team of lawyers.

[anjaki]

Reading some of the replies here it is patently obvious that nobody has the faintest inkling as to what the Beatles went through financially in the 60's, far from having a history of ripping people or other companies off they were the original cash cow.

Much as it hurts, they are only defending that which is their own, ie an agreement that Apple made with them.

If anyone is to blame it is the team of lawyers that drew up the original agreement, and the head of Apple at the time, who displayed an incredible lack of vision.

I for one have never seen the original agreement and I doubt if anyone else here has, but if Apple is about to settle, it is because it has to.

And that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[BornAgainMac]

Hopefully this will be good news and Apple can become a label, exclusive access to Beetles music, sound cards in Macs, and make lots of money.

[mrjamin]

Down with the Beatles and their out of date tripe. Begone Paul Mcartney you money hungry talentless musician.

give him a break, his first wife died, and now he's got a new one with one leg - "not tonight dear, I need to oil my knee".

Sorry, that was tasteless. Anyway:

McCartney is a fairly talentless musician in the scheme of things. As for a song-writer, he's fairly useless without lennon. "Wings" stuff was fairly poor, and did you hear run devil run? It was shockingly bad and the album sales reflected that!

Its a pretty stupid case when it boils down to it, but if you sign a piece of paper that says you're not going to do something, and then do the complete opposite 20+ years down the line then yes, you're going to get sued! If there's money to be made then neither party would miss the opportunity - people dont make it in business without making some fairly harsh decisions.

While it would still make a fair dent in the $5bn bank balance of apple computer inc, this wouldn't take long to recoup - apple were in the red 2 years ago, maybe even less than that. Maybe this will bring The Beatles to iTMS which would certainly speed up the process of recovering money lost in damages & legal fees! They might lose a few shareholders, but these would be gained once its all blown over, there might even be a few more new ones if the beatles catalogue arrives.

I beg to differ, in fact I'm almost certain another band would have been as big if the beatles never existed.

The Beatles were hardly original in their songs - they just made it marketable and accessible to the masses. Behind every good band is a team of marketeers who know exactly how to exploit stuff. They wrote good pop songs that only stood out because everyone knew/knows what lennon 7 mccartney's voice sound like. They did write a few unusual hits, and were moderatly inventive some of the time, but they did write & record a lot of crap too! So yes, another band probably would have done exactly the same if The Beatles hadn't happened.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-beatles. I can appreciate what they did for music, and where their skills were BUT they were nothing new.

Anyone have the GPS coordinates of Abbey Road studios? Maybe someone here could send a nuke their way.
i live near there, i'm happy to do some firebombing just send me over some napalm.
Can't see the Apple will care, seeing as Abbey Road is actually nothing to do with Apple, and owned by EMI now...

Should you find a nuke lying around though, here's the coords:
Lat: 51:31:56N (51.5322)
Lon: 0:10:41W (-0.178)

Over & out

[broken_keyboard]

That would depend on what it dealt with. If you do a search you will see some companies/people claiming that they have the largest settlement for whatever industry/reason. It said the largest not a class action. If you look at the SEC versus WorldCom, it was 750 million.
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97796

I also saw the third largest class action was 450 million and the second was 517 million. Then you have age discrimination, etc. So, with the limited information from the article, who knows.

I wouldn't believe too much in this article. For one, you have a team of lawyers on each side. So you have a small group and could be traced back. A lawyer knows better then to open their mouth, because if they do, they will be the ones on the other side of the table facing a team of lawyers.

Wow - big figures. You're probably right, maybe there isn't too much to the article. But it does seem like a potential Steve-esque publicity stunt to grab the headlines with the "biggest settlement ever" also maybe make it a nice round figure like $1bn and then to have McCartney join the board of directors.

But whether Apple Corp. actually deserves any money (morally speaking)? No they don't. Steve and Apple Computer earned that money, not them.

[iPost]

Paul McCartney on the board of Apple?

Sounds cool! :)

You know, instead of Paul, it'll probably be Yoko Ono who'd want to sit on the board! She'd constantly follow Steve Jobs around all the time, convince him to do a bunch of stupid things like put an acorn in every Mac, or organize a Computing Bed-In where the entire Mac community is urged to stay in bed with their Powerbooks for a week to protest the Windows monopoly; and she'd definitely force Steve to bring back OS number 9... number 9... number 9...

And the new iMac... it's all white! Just like the Beatles' white album... a decision which Yoko Ono influenced! Maybe she's already on the board!

[anjaki]

Much as I dislike that two faced smarmy git called Paul McCartney I think comments such as these are completely out of order, the Beatles were a cultural phenomena and can't just be seen just in the sole context of their music.

The Beatles were hardly original in their songs - they just made it marketable and accessible to the masses. Behind every good band is a team of marketeers who know exactly how to exploit stuff. They wrote good pop songs that only stood out because everyone knew/knows what lennon 7 mccartney's voice sound like. They did write a few unusual hits, and were moderatly inventive some of the time, but they did write & record a lot of crap too! So yes, another band probably would have done exactly the same if The Beatles hadn't happened.


Anyone old enough to remember knows that you're obviously sitting on your mouth.

And anyway who is this great band that never happened?

Rent out Anthology for the weekend.

[BWhaler]

wow. the fanboyism has hit an all-time high. Apparently Steve's RDF is spreading via the internet...or maybe through Mac "pro" mice?

Anyone who thinks Apple Computer isn't in violation of their previous legal agreement with Apple Corps is either ignorant of the case or flat-out dumb.

There was no reasonable way for Apple Computer to create iTMS and not get sued by Apple Corps for...well, we'll see how much. The thing is, the question isn't, and wasn't, whether or not Apple Computer would lose this battle...it was simply a question of how long the battle would last, and how much it would "cost" apple in the long run.

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. The Beatles have had a much greater and longer-lasting effect on our culture than Apple ever hoped to gain.

I think you need to dial it down since you have not read the agreement between the two companies. You, like everyone else here, have no idea what was actually agreed to. The difference is people here are expressing their feelings and opinions, and you are attacking others as if you know better.

You haven't seen the wording, what is in bounds, what is not. How terms were defined.

Documents like this are 50-100 pages long. They are always grey in some area or another. No lawyer or law firm is perfect. Obviously Apple thought it was fair game to offer the iTMS and iPod. So it is fair for people here to think there is over-reach on the part of Apple Corps.

I am not saying this is the case, and I suspect it is not. But I know that I have not read the agreement, and I suspect neither have you.

[Lanbrown]

Wow - big figures. You're probably right, maybe there isn't too much to the article. But it does seem like a potential Steve-esque publicity stunt to grab the headlines with the "biggest settlement ever" also maybe make it a nice round figure like $1bn and then to have McCartney join the board of directors.

But whether Apple Corp. actually deserves any money (morally speaking)? No they don't. Steve and Apple Computer earned that money, not them.

Why would Steve want to grab the headlines with the largest settlement over? While it is publicity, it is very bad publicity. If they were receiving it, that's a different story.

What’s the big deal of "him" joining the board? I would consider his past actions as a poor businessman, not one that should run a company.

[Lepton]

Apple Corps (The Beatles) have Apple dead to rights. Apple knows it, The Beatles know it. Taken to its end, the settlement or penalty could be huge.

The Beatles catalog is without doubt the ultimate prize in the music business. The Beatles have been shopping the catalog, seeking to give exclusive rights to one online outlet, for a huge sum.

Selling the Beatles catalog to another online outlet would be very, very bad news, and worldwide bad publicity.

"Apple on Apple!" Come on guys, you think Steve doesn't want this type of tag?

Apple has a lot of cash and there is not a lot to acquire. Bringing down the cash, getting the catalog exclusively, and settling this decades long problem permanently is awsome news, awsome publicity, and will be an awesome shot in the arm for the stock.

Such a deal is worth a lot to Apple. A lot. The price needs to be reasonable considering everything, the catalog needs to be obtained exclusively, the name conflict needs to be solved forever. Anything else is gravy, and I can think of a lot of things these two could do. Given all that, it's a no-brainer.

[uhlawboi80]

first off, one of the largest non-class action settlements was the well known Texaco case, and with a verdict into the hundreds of millions of dollars, I could almost gaurantee that this wont come close. I've never seen a trademark infringement case produce a verdict anywhere near that dollar amount.

Beyond that, If you read the Lanham act, specifically section 32 (15 U.S.C. 1114 (1)):

(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—

(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,

shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.

given that the likelihood of confusion between apple computers and a music catalogue is very unlikely, there isnt much chance of a big settlement, because there wouldnt be a big court verdict. We also have to consider that Apple Corps. trademark may be limited in its use in commerce to a good or service that was specified in the registration. This isnt much protection, but it is considered and i dont see that the marks really act on the same or similar goods or services (except potentially the apple music store, but i dont think Apple Corp. would by any stretch be seen to be in the business of selling online digital music files).

[iPost]

...given that the likelihood of confusion between apple computers and a music catalogue is very unlikely, there isnt much chance of a big settlement...

What about the issue of *future* confusion? Is that taken into consideration? For example, if Apple Corps. decided to open up their own online music store to sell Beatles downloads (and downloads from other Apple artists like Badfinger and James Taylor), and they decided to name their store, "The Apple Music Store," wouldn't that result in a lot of confusion?

[Porchland]

Now how long will it be before Apple Records and Apple Computers merge into something of a record company and computer company.

If the story's comments that Apple Records shareholders would become major shareholders of Apple Computers are right, it sort of is a merger. It implies that the settlement would be at least partly in stock. If it's a stock swap with a premium, you've got a settlement/merger.

I've been calling on this board for months for Apple to procure itself some content, namely in the form of a record label. Apple could control the rights to "Apple exclusives," control when the other download services get the content and for how long, and control the physical distribution of CDs.

I hope there's a deal soon.

[Porchland]

first off, one of the largest non-class action settlements was the well known Texaco case, and with a verdict into the hundreds of millions of dollars, I could almost gaurantee that this wont come close. I've never seen a trademark infringement case produce a verdict anywhere near that dollar amount.

Beyond that, If you read the Lanham act, specifically section 32 (15 U.S.C. 1114 (1)):

(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—

(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,

shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.

given that the likelihood of confusion between apple computers and a music catalogue is very unlikely, there isnt much chance of a big settlement, because there wouldnt be a big court verdict. We also have to consider that Apple Corps. trademark may be limited in its use in commerce to a good or service that was specified in the registration. This isnt much protection, but it is considered and i dont see that the marks really act on the same or similar goods or services (except potentially the apple music store, but i dont think Apple Corp. would by any stretch be seen to be in the business of selling online digital music files).

Great.

1. This would be a breach of contract case, as the parties had previously made an agreement with regard to their respective use of the word and mark "Apple." I would presume that there's some provision for substantial liquidated damages in the event of a breach, and that's why the talk is that the settlement numbers are huge.

2. Second, this case will proceed under British law. U.S.C. means United States Code, which wouldn't be applied in British courts unless the British courts were applying United States law. That's likely doubtful unless the agreement specifically provided that the standard for breach would be the U.S. infringement statute. Possible, but not likely. I'm guessing this case is in British courts because the contract provides that it has to be.

[Lanbrown]

What about this: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
"Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term "Computer" is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling "Computer" brand computers (or "Apple" brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called "genericity"), and thus become unprotected."

Would that not mean that Apple would be considered a "generic" term?

That would mean that Apple cannot enter in the music business. One must define what "music business" means though.

[iMeowbot]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

The last time I checked, the Beatles' holding company, and the London court where they are pursuing money from Apple Computer, were located within the EU.

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[Lanbrown]

Great.

2. Second, this case will proceed under British law. U.S.C. means United States Code, which wouldn't be applied in British courts unless the British courts were applying United States law. That's likely doubtful unless the agreement specifically provided that the standard for breach would be the U.S. infringement statute. Possible, but not likely. I'm guessing this case is in British courts because the contract provides that it has to be.

This has been pending for sometime now and if it deals with the iTMS, that was only available in the US in the beginning. So, that would means that Apple Corp would have to file the trademark dispute in the US, no? How can you sue someone for something that is not available, in this case, Britain?

[BWhaler]

A few thoughts (I'll try not to repeat the prior points)

1. The one thing that makes me suspect of this is the part about Paul being on the Board. Who would be removed today? Paul does not fit the profile of the board members today. And I highly doubt Apple Computers is giving us enough of the company where Apple Corps could demand a seat.

2. The copyrights on the beginning of the Beatles catalog expires in 2012 in the UK. I don't know about the remainder of Europe but the copyright length is shorter than in the US. (In the US, we have Mickey Mouse to thank for the asinine copyright length, but that's a different rant.) Is Apple Corps looking to cash in while they can?

3. I doubt that Apple will buy the catalog since part of the Apple, inc. value proposition is they are unbiased and promote music fairly. And make no mistake about it, they play the "we're not MS so trust us" card.

4. I suspect Apple Computer is anxious to settle. There is too much risk here. By signing agreements on usage of the name, they have acknowledged the issue and trademark ownership. They can't claim it is a non issue at this point, and a court could force Apple Computer to rename themselves and Apple would love billions in brand equity. There's simply too much to lose.

5. Am I too young (I'm 33) to get why the Beatles' music is considered so good? It just doesn't do anything for me...just too much bubble gum pop for my tastes. Don't get me wrong, I think they are obviously very talented musicians, but I have to wonder how much of the Beatles were a cultural phenomenon


Personally, I hope this is put to rest forever, and Apple gets an exclusive on the entire Beatles catalog. Good for the Beatles, good for Apple.

(And I must admit, I have been laughing at some of the posts here. I guess there are dozens and dozens of people who have read the agreement between the two companies and have a command of all of the legal issues and precedents.) :-)

[iPost]

What about this: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
"Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term "Computer" is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling "Computer" brand computers (or "Apple" brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called "genericity"), and thus become unprotected."

Would that not mean that Apple would be considered a "generic" term?


"Apple" is only a generic term when applied to fruit. It is not a generic term when applied to computers or music.

Lindows tried to invalidate Microsoft's Windows trademark not by arguing that "windows" is a generic term for selling glass windows, but by arguing that by the time Windows came out, people in the computing world were already referring to "rectangles" on a computer screen as "windows." So, in that sense, "windows" is a generic term in the context of computing.

What gets me is how Microsoft was able to trademark the name of their word processor, "Word." Not only does that seem to be generic in context, but it also is very close in name to "WordPerfect."

Sorry... somehow every conversation gets back to Microsoft behavior ;-)

[Lanbrown]

"Apple" is only a generic term when applied to fruit. It is not a generic term when applied to computers or music.

If you want to take it that direction, then how about other companies that are named Apple? A list was provided earlier. I don't see Apple Corp going after them. With trademarks, you have to defend it, if you don't, you lose it. Apple Computer could argue that point as well.

[nsb3000]

Well... the tobacco industry has to be pretty close.... multi-billion dollar settlement.

Right but the tobacco industry was a class-action suit, it is in a different category.

[iPost]

If you want to take it that direction, then how about other companies that are named Apple? A list was provided earlier. I don't see Apple Corp going after them. With trademarks, you have to defend it, if you don't, you lose it. Apple Computer could argue that point as well.

I don't follow. "Apple" is only a generic term only when applied to fruit. Therefore, companies are free to trademark the name "Apple" if it is applied to other products/markets.

The Beatles trademarked "Apple" for use in the music industry only. Therefore, they cannot go after any other company named "Apple" unless they enter the music industry. Likewise, Apple Computers has the trademark for Apple when applied to computers.

If The Beatles tried to sell computers using their Apple music brand, and called them Apple Computers, Apple (U.S.) would be able to sue them for trademark infringement.

[paulypants]

The Beatles need to get over themselves, they were a the
first mass marketed 'pop' band--they were nothing but fluff...

[iMeowbot]

This has been pending for sometime now and if it deals with the iTMS, that was only available in the US in the beginning. So, that would means that Apple Corp would have to file the trademark dispute in the US, no? How can you sue someone for something that is not available, in this case, Britain?
There are treaties like WIPO that cover trademarks, and both the UK and US are party to them. This is why it was possible for both London and San Francisco to be considered as possible venues for the same suit.

[Lanbrown]

I don't follow. "Apple" is only a generic term only when applied to fruit. Therefore, companies are free to trademark the name "Apple" if it is applied to other products/markets.

The Beatles trademarked "Apple" for use in the music industry only. Therefore, they cannot go after any other company named "Apple" unless they enter the music industry. Likewise, Apple Computers has the trademark for Apple when applied to computers.

If The Beatles tried to sell computers using their Apple music brand, and called them Apple Computers, Apple (U.S.) would be able to sue them for trademark infringement.

Then the question that begs to be answered is the 1991 settlement and why Apple couldn't ship a computer with a synthesizer? How was Apple Computer hurting Apple Corp? Also, the settlement could have stated that neither side admits any wrongdoing. Any lawyer worth a dime would demand that to be included.

[Mac Kiwi]

Think of McCartneys music contacts and knowledge and what that could do for Apple music,plus maybe McCartney advertizing Macs to a section of the community who use PCs and have never tried a Mac.ya it sucks Apple have to pay,but they have to pay,and it keeps coming back so its time to get it sorted.There are positives guys because no matter how much we want them to get away with it scot free,that just wont happen.

[iPost]

The Beatles need to get over themselves, they were a the
first mass marketed 'pop' band--they were nothing but fluff...

If John Lennon were still alive, he'd probably agree with you.

"I don't believe in Beatles..." -- "God", John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band

[Lanbrown]

There are treaties like WIPO that cover trademarks, and both the UK and US are party to them. This is why it was possible for both London and San Francisco to be considered as possible venues for the same suit.

Not all trademarks are international.

On just the US front, look at this:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=qolaec.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=gmail&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

“Word Mark GMAIL
Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Delivery and storage of messages, data and information by electronic transmission over the global computer networks and mobile phones. FIRST USE: 20040331. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040331
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78394440
Filing Date March 31, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) CENCOURSE, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 4070 Woodridge Rd Miami FLORIDA 33133
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE”

“Word Mark GMAIL
Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: electronic mail services
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78398233
Filing Date April 7, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) Google Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE Building 41 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE”

[Lanbrown]

Think of McCartneys music contacts and knowledge and what that could do for Apple music,plus maybe McCartney advertizing Macs to a section of the community who use PCs and have never tried a Mac.ya it sucks Apple have to pay,but they have to pay,and it keeps coming back so its time to get it sorted.There are positives guys because no matter how much we want them to get away with it scot free,that just wont happen.

Contacts don't mean anything. Business is business and companies will charge the same, it doesn’t matter if a favor can be called in.

For him to advertise would mean he would want money, plain and simple. A big waste of money at that.

And get away with what scot free? So far that hasn't been defined. Apple didn't have the iTMS or the iPod when this first came up.

[iPost]

Then the question that begs to be answered is the 1991 settlement and why Apple couldn't ship a computer with a synthesizer? How was Apple Computer hurting Apple Corp? Also, the settlement could have stated that neither side admits any wrongdoing. Any lawyer worth a dime would demand that to be included.

The reason is that The Beatles were trying to get the courts to define the "music industry" in the broadest sense that they possibly could, and therefore get their Apple trademark applied to as much as they could. One could argue that the music industry is that where products are sold for the creation and consumption of music. (I'm just using that as an example; I don't know what they used for the exact wording). If that is the case, then a company selling a product with a music synthesizer would be competing in the "music industry," as a customer could create and consume music with it.

[furrina]

If Paul was on the board, Apple would continue to gain street cred, and continue to rock ;-)


um, right. The street with all the Beemers parked on it, right?

[Lanbrown]

The reason is that The Beatles were trying to get the courts to define the "music industry" in the broadest sense that they possibly could, and therefore get their Apple trademark applied to as much as they could. One could argue that the music industry is that where products are sold for the creation and consumption of music. (I'm just using that as an example; I don't know what they used for the exact wording). If that is the case, then a company selling a product with a music synthesizer would be competing in the "music industry," as a customer could create and consume music with it.

I was thinking something similar along the lines, but if other computers had that same ability, that would negate that argument. Obviously, the biggest factor is if Apple ever admitted any wrongdoing, and a settlement doesn't count.

[iPost]

I was thinking something similar along the lines, but if other computers had that same ability, that would negate that argument. Obviously, the biggest factor is if Apple ever admitted any wrongdoing, and a settlement doesn't count.

To take another example, if there were a company called Apple Televisions, and Apple added a TV tuner to its computers, it would most likely get sued by Apple Televisions, even though there are other computers with TV tuners.

[jwhitnah]

I'm not sure where I stand on all of this, but it would be nice to get a roadblock out of Apple's way, and let them get some good news, good buzz, and keep making great products.

If Paul was on the board, Apple would continue to gain street cred, and continue to rock ;-)

You really think that? If Al Gore can't raise Apple's marketshare, neither can Paul. I wonder if the Paul of 35 years ago would have approved of his future fat greedy a**? In this world, it is right if you can do it. Mite makes right.

[slughead]

There is a possibility that Apple Corps may become a large shareholder in Apple Computer, a result which might bring former Beatle Paul McCartney to the Apple board of directors.

Well there's the grand king champion of bad ideas.

Paul McCartney couldn't direct his butt into a pair of pants without help.

I guess this is what Apple Computer gets for messin' 'round.

[Rower_CPU]

Enough of the off-topic stuff, folks. We've got a whole forum for discussing music and musicians (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) and this ain't it.

Keep your discussion on the lawsuit or your posts will be deleted. Thanks :)

[iPost]

Well there's the grand king champion of bad ideas.

Paul McCartney couldn't direct his butt into a pair of pants without help.

I guess this is what Apple Computer gets for messin' 'round.

Apple should place Pete Best on its board of directors. That might prevent Paul from wanting to join ;-)

P.S. I also heard Denny Lane is available.

[nagromme]

To take another example, if there were a company called Apple Televisions, and Apple added a TV tuner to its computers, it would most likely get sued by Apple Televisions, even though there are other computers with TV tuners.

A good analogy. But to make it more realistic:

What if there were a company called The Fetals that made well-known and classic TV SHOWS, and was known as The Fetals in everyone's mind... but also used the name Apple Television. And then Apple Computer started making Mac TV tuners and broadcasting TV but NOT making their own shows. And nobody on the planet actually thought The Fetals made Macs or made all those other non-Fetals shows being broadcast. And the Fetals lost nothing from the fact that Apple Computers went into an obvious new area of computing, without bothering to change their brand name.

There's an evern better analogy :)

[melgross]

As none of us seem to have the original contract from '91 in hand, we can't say what the agreement was actually about. We think that we know, in general, but that's it.

If the courts thought that Apple was in violation of a trademark, or copyright, then they must have been.

If, by having the iTunes music site, and perhaps the iPod as well, Apple Corp. believes that Apple Computer is in violation of the '91 agreement, they have the right to sue. Maybe not an ethical, or moral decision in the sense that they won't be confused with each other, as they might have been back in '91, and surely they know it.

But an agreement is an agreement. Rights have to be enforced, even if it seems absurd at the time.

The real problem here is that Apple Computer really has no choice about going into the "music business" because every other computer company will be. Even if Apple wasn't such a success.

As others have said, Apple must have calculated the possible costs of doing so.

The costs could be high though. It could cost not only all of the profits from the embargoed business, but up to triple damages. At times it could also cost ALL of the sales as well. But that is very rare. If some agreement isn't made they could also be forced out of the "music business" as well, by being prevented from being involved, in any way, with the prohibited businesses.

Unless, as someone suggested, they buy part, or all of Apple Corp. as part of the settlement.

I'm not sure if Apple Computer would want to own an actual music company. Remember, it was rumored that Apple might want to bid for the music company that Sony eventually bought (I forget the name). What a law suit THAT would have made!

[Porchland]

This has been pending for sometime now and if it deals with the iTMS, that was only available in the US in the beginning. So, that would means that Apple Corp would have to file the trademark dispute in the US, no? How can you sue someone for something that is not available, in this case, Britain?

It's not a trademark dispute. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/81-04072004-278553.html) It's an action for breach of contract. Apple Records is suing Apple Computers for breach of contract of an agreement between the companies that set their respective boundaries for use of "Apple." Apple Computers breached it big time by using the Apple mark to brand iTunes/iTMS/iPod.

The issue is damages, and you'd have to see the agreement to have any idea what could be contemplated as damages for the breach.

[Porchland]

I'm not sure if Apple Computer would want to own an actual music company. Remember, it was rumored that Apple might want to bid for the music company that Sony eventually bought (I forget the name).

BMG. Home of Dave Matthews Band.

Now its SonyBMG (http://www.sonybmg.com/).

[Lanbrown]

As none of us seem to have the original contract from '91 in hand, we can't say what the agreement was actually about. We think that we know, in general, but that's it.

If the courts thought that Apple was in violation of a trademark, or copyright, then they must have been.



What courts? From what I understand, the 1991 agreement is not public knowledge, which most court cases are. So that would mean the settlement was out of court and one could pay to settle the lawsuit without acknowledging any wrongdoing. This would also prohibit Apple Corp from bringing it up, as Apple Computer didn't admit any wrongdoing.

[Lanbrown]

It's not a trademark dispute. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/81-04072004-278553.html) It's an action for breach of contract. Apple Records is suing Apple Computers for breach of contract of an agreement between the companies that set their respective boundaries for use of "Apple." Apple Computers breached it big time by using the Apple mark to brand iTunes/iTMS/iPod.

The issue is damages, and you'd have to see the agreement to have any idea what could be contemplated as damages for the breach.

It's also based upon the ORIGINAL dispute, which was the use of the name Apple. Since other companies have the name Apple, one could argue that Apple Corp has not defended their trademark.

[Porchland]

Apple.com now has a block on the news (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/) page promoting Apple Expo London, coming up November 18-20.

That same week in 2003, Apple refreshed the PowerMac G5, following iBook and iMac updates in October. I don't so much expect that sort of an announcement, but late November would be a great time to announce a new product in the $200-$500 range like a new 60GB iPod that does something the HP iPod doesn't do. iPod was a big deal at Apple Expo London 2003.

If there's an announcement of a deal with Apple Records, this would be the obvious place to do it. A Beatles-on-iTMS announcement wouldn't suck, but I understand that involves issues beyond Apple vs. Apple. (Michael Jackson apparently owns most of the Beatles catalog.)

No announcement yet of an Apple-employed keynote speaker, but the map does show a huge reserved area in the center of the exhibit floor.

Maybe we'll get a major application release/refresh from Apple or one of the major vendors. I keep expecting Keynote 2.0, so maybe here.

[JGowan]

I don't follow. "Apple" is only a generic term only when applied to fruit. Therefore, companies are free to trademark the name "Apple" if it is applied to other products/markets.

The Beatles trademarked "Apple" for use in the music industry only. Therefore, they cannot go after any other company named "Apple" unless they enter the music industry. Likewise, Apple Computers has the trademark for Apple when applied to computers.

If The Beatles tried to sell computers using their Apple music brand, and called them Apple Computers, Apple (U.S.) would be able to sue them for trademark infringement.By that logic, I could start up the Coca-Cola Baseball Bat Company.

[Porchland]

What courts? From what I understand, the 1991 agreement is not public knowledge, which most court cases are. So that would mean the settlement was out of court and one could pay to settle the lawsuit without acknowledging any wrongdoing. This would also prohibit Apple Corp from bringing it up, as Apple Computer didn't admit any wrongdoing.

Parts of that SORT of made sense, but not really.

1. Agreements don't have to be public to be enforceable through the courts. Otherwise, no one would make agreements without making them public.

2. Settlement out of court is an option whether or not the agreement is public.

3. I didn't even get the syntax of the last sentence. Maybe you could clarify.

[iPost]

There are more articles at:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/08/its_gonna_take_a_resolution/

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html


According to the Boston Globe, there are two court cases: one in the UK and one in the US, which could result in two different outcomes!

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Amazing how they influenced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven through some kind of time travel.


Sorry for leaving it up to you to figure out what i meant by "music we hear nowadays". Thanks for your sarcasm.

Anyways, it is neat to hear some of Bach's influence on the Beatles. I even went to a concert once, a baroque ensemble playing an all-Beatles show. The music lended itself very well to that type of instrumentation, of course they had tons of harpsichord and strings in their own recordings anyways.

You even hear one of Bach's two part inventions played on trumpets in the background of "All you need is love", but most people would probably only recognize that tune from cell phone rings, along with a couple other Bach pieces.

As far as a merger making no sense because the two Apple companies do two completely different things...
Mitsubishi makes vcrs and eclipses. Daewoo makes microwaves and Nubiras. I have a shimano fishing reel and a shimano crankset on my bike.
I think Apple, which builds computers that can make music, little hand held things that can play music, and which runs the most successful online music store has something to do with the music industry.

[iMeowbot]

Not all trademarks are international.

Well obviously not, one was to, among other things, apply to WIPO for such status.

On just the US front, look at this:

(snip two registrations of the same name for two separate uses, neither of which has any relevance to their possible WIPO trademark status).

[rogozhin]

It seems, since that last Ringo Starr LP "Blast From Your Past" was released way back in late 1975 (1975 was the last year that Apple Corps has effectively issued any new material), that Apple Corps primary functions have been to re-release their back catalogue in CD format and to sue Apple Computers, Inc:

Trademark dispute with Apple Corps -- (from wikipedia)


In 1981 Apple Corps, i.e. The Beatles filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit settled with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps for using the name in contexts not associated with music. This amount has been estimated to $50 - $200 million.


In 1989 Apple added MIDI capabilities to its computers, and Apple Corps sued and won again, with Apple Computer paying $26.5 million in damages. At this time, an Apple employee added a system sound called "xylophone" to the Macintosh operating system, but was forced by the legal department to change the name. It was changed to "sosumi", which was told to be Japanese for "the absence of musicality", but actually should be read out as so sue me.


In September 2003 Apple were sued by Apple Corps again, this time for introducing iTunes and the iPod, both clearly positioned in the music market where Apple Corps own the trademark.

Considering how much damage was done by people actually involved with the day-to-day operations of Apple Corps back in the late sixties and early seventies, I'm not sure if it's more amazing that they still exist, or that they still think of themselves as a relevant player in the music industry. An audit of their books will show that they have less claim to the act of actually creating, producing and distributing anything that could be considered music since the formation of Apple Computers, back in April 1976 (sorry, reheating leftovers and casseroles isn't being relevant). If Steve hadn't been so naive to think that the business side of the Beatles had any integrity back in 1981, we wouldn't have this problem now.

This is a different Apple Computer than the moonbeam cupcakes Apple Corps beat up on the last two times; I'm sure that Steve won't let them get away with the store (pun intedned) without getting something of value in return.

{Of course, all of this is just personal opinion and general speculation, and I can't comment on specific matters pertaining to the pending litigation, as I am not privy to any information; unlike some around here, I'm not going to attempt to exhibit any finely honed legal acumen (developed from watching Law and Order marathons on TBS, I am willing to wager) on cases I know nothing about...}

[Loge]

I've been calling on this board for months for Apple to procure itself some content, namely in the form of a record label. Apple could control the rights to "Apple exclusives," control when the other download services get the content and for how long, and control the physical distribution of CDs.

I hope there's a deal soon.

The trouble is that Sony/BMG will do exactly the same thing and they have a huge amount of content already; exactly what Apple were concerned with then they lobbied against the Sony/BMG merger. Apple's business here is distribution of content, and they should remain focussed on that. One or two exclusive tracks is okay to promote the store, but if we get into labels signing exclusively to single stores, it will lead to all sorts of anti-competitive practices.

I don't see why Apple would want to get into physical CD distribution at this late stage. They are building a business around downloading content and the potential to grow that in new and interesting ways; rather than older technologies which are well served by others.

[BWhaler]

By that logic, I could start up the Coca-Cola Baseball Bat Company.

If coca-cola was a generic word or a common word in the native language, then yes, you could.

But since it is made up to surround a certain product, then no, you can't.

[Uragon]

I think the complaints of most people here, is the perceive greediness of Apple Corp., and I agree with them. Regardless, whether this is from a legal point of view. Why don't Apple Corp just stick to "Let it Be..." :mad:

[Porchland]

{Of course, all of this is just personal opinion and general speculation, and I can't comment on specific matters pertaining to the pending litigation, as I am not privy to any information; unlike some around here, I'm not going to attempt to exhibit any finely honed legal acumen (developed from watching Law and Order marathons on TBS, I am willing to wager) on cases I know nothing about...}

Wager whatever. There are several lawyers that post on this site including myself.

[Porchland]

The trouble is that Sony/BMG will do exactly the same thing and they have a huge amount of content already; exactly what Apple were concerned with then they lobbied against the Sony/BMG merger. Apple's business here is distribution of content, and they should remain focussed on that. One or two exclusive tracks is okay to promote the store, but if we get into labels signing exclusively to single stores, it will lead to all sorts of anti-competitive practices.

I agree, there would be a tendency toward anti-competitive behavior if the various labels released music only through their own download services, but I'm thinking about a model much more like network television. NBC Universal, Warner Brothers, ABC/Touchstone, etc., all make content that isn't necessarily distributed on their own networks.

Having content of its own would just put Apple on a more even keel with the labels.

The other view, of course, is that Apple could be a sort of clearinghouse/arbiter by NOT owning any of its own content, much as it is now. Sony/BMG, Universal, Warner Music, EMI and the indies all want their content on Apple. That makes a lot of sense too.

I don't see why Apple would want to get into physical CD distribution at this late stage. They are building a business around downloading content and the potential to grow that in new and interesting ways; rather than older technologies which are well served by others.

I only meant that if Apple owned some of its own content, it would have the right to control all means of distribution of the content it owned. CD printing/retail is just one part of that chain. At the moment, legal downloads have less than 10 percent of the total retail music market, so there's still a lot of opportunity left in CDs. That will lessen significantly, I suspect, over the next few years.

[MentalFabric]

On the topic of whether this has actually caused Apple Corp. any damage, try typing 'Apple music' in google and all you see is reference to Apple computer and the iTMS. They do have a point, unfortunately.

A lot of people have said that the Beatles were OK, but put out a lot of crappy songs as well as good ones - I'd like to point that it was Paul who wrote the crap pop music... John was the one with talent. You can see the trend as they grew older, John developed, and the songs on their albums started to be a mix of lyrics with meaning (by John) and songs that consisted of mainly noises (c'mon - Ob la Di Ob la Da?? compare the lyrics of that monstrosity to, say, Tomorrow Never Knows, and you'll quickly spot the difference in writing styles. Paul seems to be writing nursery rhymes.)

On a random note, this is an excuse to mention that my Best friend is Sean Lennon's (Johns son) cousin. I think that makes John his uncle. Is your cousins dad your uncle?

[NokX]

lawyers and the us law :rolleyes:

man am I glad we don't have this huge lawyer-industry in europe

yeah...be glad...it's a joke.

this whole deal is a freakin' joke. apple corps is a music recording company, correct? apple COMPUTER will never be a music recording company. they make software and computers and devices. you'll never hear, "yeah, i got my record done at apple computer".

it's just a way for these money hungry %$#@ to milk the legal system. it's sad. now i don't even want to buy a new imac...i feel that my money is just gonna go straight to those beatle a-holes.

[JJTiger1]

The Beatles? I've got their #1 Red Album CD, and loaded it into iTunes.

I don't see the problem people are having with The Beatles playing in their computers.

The Apple CD's/DVD's that I have include GarageBand. There are a few default tracks in GarageBand...
... almost as lame as The Beatles.

The Beatles should come after me for having their music on my Mac.
=-=
What's next on the legal suit horizon:
Anderson and Pella suing MicroSoft for product infringement: Windows. :rolleyes:

[JJTiger1]

Oh. It's the name of the company that The Beatles are upset about. :eek:

Duh. :p

When was the last time you referred to your computer as an Apple? :confused:

Everyone who I know refers to their computer as a "Mac". :)

Maybe it's time for Steve to change the company name from Apple to Mac. :cool:

[wPod]

Apple computers is so named out of complement towards the beatles' company apple corps. they are in two seperate businesses. one makes computers one manages bands. apple computer does not manage bands, they simply are a music retailer. as far as i know apple corps is not a retailer of CDs. . . come on apple corps, youre just making your company look like a bunch of jerks!

[wiz7dome]

I have not read all of the comments posted the lawsuit. However, has anybody brought up the fact Apple (computer) can fight to have that "settlement" set aside or ruled null? From what I understand, Apple may have a case with respect to restriction of trade. I understand and agree that a deal is a deal. But the underlying issue involved the Trademark of Apple. The settlement not to get into the music business came as a result of the trademark dispute.

[Laurent]

It doesn't matter if Apple Corps. can be confused with Apple Computer; they choose the name first. I can see why they would want to keep the exclusivity of the name, especially since Apple Computer is entering deeper into the music scene.

I can see Apple Corps. representatives being important shareolders, in exchange with the exclusive presence of The Beatles recordings on iTunes Music Store. Sony merged with Associated Television Corporation (ATV) back in 1995, that Michael Jackson bought back in 1985 to Dick James and Charles Silver, that owned 85% of the shares of Northern Songs with Brian Epstein (he died in 1967), that published the majority of The Beatles' songs. This isn't "Michael Jackson owns The Beatles songs" anymore.

It's not even "Sony owns The Beatles songs" either. Which explains why those songs aren't on Sony's online music service...

The key point here is that holding the publishing rights to songs doesn't really give the rightsholder much "power" over those songs. The rightsholder has some latitude in negotiating royalty rates and determining who may use a song in film or print its lyrics, but that's about it. The chief benefit to owning the publishing rights of songs is that standard publishing agreements call for royalties to be split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter(s), so owning the publishing rights to popular songs can be a lucrative form of income.

[...]

Another key point here is that although Michael Jackson receives 50% of the royalties generated by Beatles songs by virtue of his ownership of the publishing rights, Paul McCartney and John Lennon (and Lennon's estate, now that he's dead) have always received their 50% songwriter's share of the royalties for all Lennon-McCartney songs. Neither ATV's nor Michael Jackson's acquisition of Northern Songs changed that, and Michael Jackson does not now receive royalties that would otherwise be going to the Beatles had he not acquired the publishing rights to their songs (except that, obviously, if Paul McCartney had managed to outbid Jackson for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog, he and Lennon's estate would be splitting 100% of the royalties rather than 50%).http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

So technically, Apple Corps' Paul McCartney and Lennon's estate could autorize the use of their songs on iTMS. How do you think The Beatles' Anthology was possible? Michael Jackson's will?

[anjaki]

These 2 make an interesting read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3610523.stm

http://www.lowball.com/WEEKLY/4-29-99.htm

I think it also has a lot to do with the original and extended registration of the trademark, Apple Corps long ago secured the computer rights of the name Apple regarding music and its production.

It's common practice sadly.

[Lanbrown]

The reason is that The Beatles were trying to get the courts to define the "music industry" in the broadest sense that they possibly could, and therefore get their Apple trademark applied to as much as they could. One could argue that the music industry is that where products are sold for the creation and consumption of music. (I'm just using that as an example; I don't know what they used for the exact wording). If that is the case, then a company selling a product with a music synthesizer would be competing in the "music industry," as a customer could create and consume music with it.

It is believed that the original agreement said that Apple Computer would handle anything computer related and Apple Corp anything music related. Maybe Apple Computer should sue Apple Corp because they have a website, which would be computer related. It's a two-way street with plenty of gray area.

[Lanbrown]

Parts of that SORT of made sense, but not really.

1. Agreements don't have to be public to be enforceable through the courts. Otherwise, no one would make agreements without making them public.

2. Settlement out of court is an option whether or not the agreement is public.

3. I didn't even get the syntax of the last sentence. Maybe you could clarify.

It all made sense. If you read what I was replying to, it said a court found Apple guilty. The settlement was made out of court, so a court did not find in favor of anyone. Apple did pay money, but just because one pays money, does not mean they admit any wrongdoing. Companies settle their disputes all of the time and the one that usually pays admits no wrongdoing and says the payment was cheaper then fighting the issue in court. I also know that out of court settlements are typically not public knowledge. I brought that up to show that a court didn't hear it. If they did, it would be public knowledge, unless there is a compelling reason to keep the records sealed.

[Laurent]

It is believed that the original agreement said that Apple Computer would handle anything computer related and Apple Corp anything music related. Maybe Apple Computer should sue Apple Corp because they have a website, which would be computer related. It's a two-way street with plenty of gray area.A swing and a miss...

Apple Corps. doesn't offer a computer-related service. Apple Computer however, is offering a music-related service with iTMS. If Apple Corps. eventually distribute software, then it would be logical for Apple Computer to sue.

Come on, I love Apple (Computer) as much as you do, but you have to admit that there are now involved in the music industry.

[2A Batterie]

Boy, some people are really full of it on this link. I've seen so many posts about the Beatles' lack of "talent" and how they're not that good. While this opinion, albeit a laughable one is any musician circle, is neither right nor wrong due to the fact that it is an opinion, it has nothing to do with the topic! When posts do stick to the topic, the majority contain comments that defy all logic and rationale due to the strong bias of most people on this site. I would strongly suggest taking Apple Computers and Apple Corps out of the equation, and replace them with "Party A" and "Party B". This should have nothing to do with greed or if Paul is cool or not or if Steve Jobs is a scheming genius or a dofus. A court certainly isn't going to care about these opinions. I would bet that if the tables were turned in this situation, people on this board would still say Apple Computers is in the right.
Look at the intrinsic nature of the dispute: Party A (Apple Computer) broke its agreement with Party B (Apple Corps). In a hypothetical new dispute if you replaced Party A with some variable (say microsoft) and made Apple Computers Party B, then by most of theses posts' logic, Microsof would be right.
Basic point in a nuthsell: By saying it is ok for Apple Computers to break an agreement, or just even showing strong bias towards them, opens the door to justify many abuses.

[Lanbrown]

On the topic of whether this has actually caused Apple Corp. any damage, try typing 'Apple music' in google and all you see is reference to Apple computer and the iTMS. They do have a point, unfortunately.

Apple Corp has a DNS entry as a placeholder. How is it the fault of Apple Computer that Apple Corp has decided not to enter the computer era?

[Lanbrown]

It doesn't matter if Apple Corps. can be confused with Apple Computer; they choose the name first. I can see why they would want to keep the exclusivity of the name, especially since Apple Computer is entering deeper into the music scene.


Apple Corp cannot sue over the name. There are plenty of other companies that have the name Apple, as has been pointed out in other posts. If Apple Corp defended the name Apple from the start with every company that used it, they may have a case. When it comes down to one not defending their trademark, you lose it. In this case, there are other companies that have Apple in their name and Apple Corp has done nothing against them.

[Lanbrown]

A swing and a miss...

Apple Corps. doesn't offer a computer-related service. Apple Computer however, is offering a music-related service with iTMS. If Apple Corps. eventually distribute software, then it would be logical for Apple Computer to sue.

Come on, I love Apple (Computer) as much as you do, but you have to admit that there are now involved in the music industry.

It’s not a miss. The iPod is not a musical device, as the content originally came from the consumer and iTunes was the app that controlled it. Apple Corp is loosely basing the name Apple on whatever they want, maybe a little bit of their own medicine will cure that.

[Laurent]

It’s not a miss. The iPod is not a musical device, as the content originally came from the consumer and iTunes was the app that controlled it. Apple Corp is loosely basing the name Apple on whatever they want, maybe a little bit of their own medicine will cure that.They... distribute... music... over... a... music... service... How obvious is that? It's a freaking MUSIC STORE! It's like Apple Corps opening a COMPUTER STORE... Even if they aren't creating software or hardware, it's computer related nontheless...

[sinisterdesign]

Not to deflate any bubbles here, guys, but the iPod probably wouldn't exist if Paul McCartney and John Lennon hadn't ever run into each other. ...

don't get me wrong, the Beatles were a HUGE milestone in the modern music era, but that's kind of a stretch, isn't it? music and technology as we know it today wouldn't exist had the Beatles not cut some records?

back on topic...
so i know MJ gets a cut of the profits of Beatles sales (not litigation, i'm sure), but who makes the final call who gets distribution rights, i wonder. do paul & ringo's groups hash out which online stores get the rights and does michael have any say? for some reason these logistics interest me. what an odd mix of groups (and their lawyers): Steve, Paul & Ringo and Michael Jackson. now THERE'S a poker party i would like to attend...

[Laurent]

don't get me wrong, the Beatles were a HUGE milestone in the modern music era, but that's kind of a stretch, isn't it? music and technology as we know it today wouldn't exist had the Beatles not cut some records?

back on topic...
so i know MJ gets a cut of the profits of Beatles sales (not litigation, i'm sure), but who makes the final call who gets distribution rights, i wonder. do paul & ringo's groups hash out which online stores get the rights and does michael have any say? for some reason these logistics interest me. what an odd mix of groups (and their lawyers): Steve, Paul & Ringo and Michael Jackson. now THERE'S a poker party i would like to attend...Read my post, or visit http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

[g4cubed]

It’s not a miss. The iPod is not a musical device, as the content originally came from the consumer and iTunes was the app that controlled it. Apple...

True to a point. The iPod is by rights a storage devise, but introduced as a storage devise that held music that you can buy from ITMS, which is IMHO, is what the suit will be about. I still think Apple Computer foresaw this happening and this time the settlement will end this once and for all. As I stated in an earlier post, that's why the big bank roll that Apple Computer has on hand. It was/is to settle this and have a future in the music direction.

[Zaty]

If Apple Computer could buy Apple Corps for a decent price, they should do it. Think about it, Apple Computer having their own music label. They could start "The Apple GarageBand Award for Talented Young Musicians". Musicians could send in their records (made in GarageBand, of course) and the winners would get a contract and people could buy their music from iTMS.

[darknite]

The way I remember the agreement, is that Apple Computer agreed not to produce or make music. I don't remember not selling music to be a part of the 1991 proceedings.

From the 1991 agreement, Apple Computer was specifically allowed to use Apple computers and services for the transfer of digital files.

Apple Computer is not violating the 1991 settlement. The name of the music store is the iTunes music store, not the Apple music Store. They are not producing music, they are not a record label. They are selling digital files, the rights to those files have been legally licensed from record companies. The fact that the Apple name isn't on the music store, and the music and artists represented by Apple Corps isn't present on the music store should be more than enough to put Apple Computer in the clear.

IMHSHO the 1991 settlement was trash anyway. Even then the obvious trend was convergence. More and more things were being done with a computer that had never been done that way before. Apple Computer can show that the majority of musicians (even Paul McCarty, who is using a mac in the studio now) are composing using computers. The 1991 settlement has been rendered invalid by forces beyond the control of either Apple.

Whatever happens, whatever way it goes, I hope that as part of this big$$$$$ settlement gets iTunes a 25 (or more) year exclusive distribution deal on every song done by the Beatles.

[atat_jack]

It seems that a lot of people are arguing a lot of these points without having the facts at hand. For what it's worth, a UK court filing from back in April (when Apple tried to get the case moved to California) includes excerpts from the original agreement that is obviously the crux of this whole lawsuit. Before you decide that Apple Computer "obviously" violated the terms of the agreement, take at look at those terms, because it's a lot less obvious to me than it once was.

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm

Key points, as I see them:

"Apple Computer Field of Use"* means (i) electronic good,s including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium; (ii) data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services; (iii) ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution; (iv) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services; and (v) promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing.

"Apple Corps Field of Use" means (i) the Apple Musical Artists; the Apple Catalog; personalities or characters which appear in or are derived from the Apple Catalog; the names likenesses, voices or musical sounds of the Apple Musical Artists; any musical works or performances of the Apple Musical Artists; (ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible; (iii) promotional merchandise relating to any of the foregoing; (iv) merchandising relating to the Apple Musical Artists and the Apple Catalog and the related subject matter set forth in subsection (i), including, without limitation, the commercial exploitation of personalities, characters, names, designs, images, words, photographs, drawings, or other materials through articles such as posters, toys, games (including computer games), novelties, figures, figurines and clothing; and (v) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services.

"Apple Computer shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use.

Apple Corps shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Corps Field of Use.

"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

All the boldface is mine. I freely admit that I'm no lawyer, but based on this, it looks to me like Apple Computer at least has a solid argument that it's not violating these terms with iPods and the iTMS. After all, the iTMS is a data transmission and distribution service and Apple Computer has never used its name or logo to brand the actual music it sells, nor has it ever stuck them on physical music CDs. Just my two cents.

xxx hj xxx

[weldon]

1. The dispute stems from Apple Corps protecting their trademark in the music/entertainment business. If you don't protect your trademarks vigorously, you can lose them entirely. This means, if Apple Computer goes unchallenged, someone else could create an Apple Records production company and argue that Apple Corps let their trademark go because they turned a blind eye to Apple Computer entering the music business. This would be bad for the shareholders of Apple Corps and they are therefore obligated to protect the interests of the company through litigation. They HAVE to do this. It's not even a question.

2. Apple is a common word, but you can still protect it as a trademark for use in a specific industry. I can create Apple Carpet Cleaners and not have a problem with Apple Computer. I can't create Apple Electronics and sell white box PC's with an apple-shaped logo on them (even if the bite is missing). I probably can't protect Apple orchards and sell fruit because the term is too generic in that industry.

3. With Apple Computer's intentions to promote independent artists/bands and the release of exclusive recordings on iTMS, they look a lot like a record label.

4. The Beatles on iTMS would rock!

[failsafe1]

Does anyone suspect this was a planned move on the part of Apple and Steve? Force the issue of settling once and for all, get a famous board member and a music distribution channel? Plus the exclusive content issue and quite a bit of publicity? Probably not but it is something to think about.

[Mastif]

Steve probly just wnts an excuse to meet Paul Mcartney :D

[MentalFabric]

Apple Corp has a DNS entry as a placeholder. How is it the fault of Apple Computer that Apple Corp has decided not to enter the computer era?

Think about it for a second, it's not just their website. If Apple comp. had nothing to do with music all that would come up for 'apple music' on google would be sites related to apple corp., even if their placeholder didn't show.

[rogozhin]

It seems that a lot of people are arguing a lot of these points without having the facts at hand. For what it's worth, a UK court filing from back in April (when Apple tried to get the case moved to California) includes excerpts from the original agreement that is obviously the crux of this whole lawsuit. Before you decide that Apple Computer "obviously" violated the terms of the agreement, take at look at those terms, because it's a lot less obvious to me than it once was.

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm



Thanks for finding this... Any of the scores of trademark, copyright and intellectual property lawyers who are posting here wish to provide their professional opinions, now that some actual specifics of the settlement in question have been uncovered? Or are you just content to spout off on the specific legal issues that were heretofore unknown and merely speculative to this forum?

Maybe after Law and Order...

[Zigster]

It's probably going to cost Apple half a billion, if not more.

But it's possible that Sir Paul might want the Beatles tunes on ITMS, so that might help a settlement.

Steve should have changed the name of the company long ago.

[gco212]

It's probably going to cost Apple half a billion, if not more.

But it's possible that Sir Paul might want the Beatles tunes on ITMS, so that might help a settlement.

Steve should have changed the name of the company long ago.

Why would McCartney care if he's on itunes? He already has all the money he'll ever need ($1 billion+) and tons of people already own the CDs.

And although I am not an expert in law, you would have to assume that Apple computers knows what they're doing here. They are going to have the biggest settlement ever according to the source, and if there was a decent chance of them winning, they would at least fight it until all of their avenues had been exhausted. The must think they have no chance of winning, and I'll trust their legal experts on that one.

[atat_jack]

And although I am not an expert in law, you would have to assume that Apple computers knows what they're doing here. They are going to have the biggest settlement ever according to the source, and if there was a decent chance of them winning, they would at least fight it until all of their avenues had been exhausted. The must think they have no chance of winning, and I'll trust their legal experts on that one.

Except that you're not so much trusting Apple's legal experts as you're trusting an unnamed lawyer who allegedly made the remark to Variety. And you're trusting Variety not to have misquoted him. As far as I'm aware, Apple has said nothing about this supposed imminent settlement.

Not that I particularly doubt it's true, mind you, but it's probably wise to consider the source and the fact that every article on this topic I've seen so far (try Google News for "apple settlement") appears to cite the exact same single Variety piece...

xxx hj xxx

[ompus]

It seems that a lot of people are arguing a lot of these points without having the facts at hand. For what it's worth, a UK court filing from back in April (when Apple tried to get the case moved to California) includes excerpts from the original agreement that is obviously the crux of this whole lawsuit. Before you decide that Apple Computer "obviously" violated the terms of the agreement, take at look at those terms, because it's a lot less obvious to me than it once was.


Wow! A post grounded in reality rather than rank supposition.

IAAL. While I don't know what the REST of the agreement says, I think the story being circulated - which is based on a SINGLE anonymous quote- is crap.

Assuming iTMS is APPLE iTMS, ask your self whether it is (1) a data transmission service broadcasting service or telecommunications service (in which case Apple comp. is free and clear) or (2) if it's a current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances? The answer is patently (1). Apple Computer can broadcast, transmit, sell or distribute music. What they CAN'T do is create or make music.

Indeed Apple Computer has "the exclusive right ... to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver" music, provided they don't do it by physical media (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

In other words, but for physical media, Apple Corp has completely ceded the distribution of music to Apple Comp. Apple comp, only needs to avoid producing music.

So where is this big settlement going to come from? Simple, Apple Corp. will forever throw in the trademark towel, Apple Comp will get complete access to the Beatles songs, Sir Paul will become a figure-head on the Apple board, and Apple will pay a lot of money. The key is that the "huge money" is for the right to sell Beatles tunes on iTMS. Resolution of the trademark issue is little more than free floor mats on your new Ferrari.

[davey-nb]

So where is this big settlement going to come from? Simple, Apple Corp. will forever throw in the trademark towel, Apple Comp will get complete access to the Beatles songs, Sir Paul will become a figure-head on the Apple board, and Apple will pay a lot of money. The key is that the "huge money" is for the right to sell Beatles tunes on iTMS. Resolution of the trademark issue is little more than free floor mats on your new Ferrari.[/QUOTE]


Thanks Ompus, that clarifies a lot!
Great perception!

[gco212]

(ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible;

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but to me it seems that this says "Apple Corps has the right to current and future works of music and musical performances, no matter how they are sent." It doesn't say just those on the record label, but that Apple Comp isn't allowed to send music in any way.

[Porchland]

So where is this big settlement going to come from? Simple, Apple Corp. will forever throw in the trademark towel, Apple Comp will get complete access to the Beatles songs, Sir Paul will become a figure-head on the Apple board, and Apple will pay a lot of money. The key is that the "huge money" is for the right to sell Beatles tunes on iTMS.

I still don't exactly understand the relationship between freak-of-nature Michael Jackson and Apple records. This sheds a little light (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031210.html), but it's still a mess.

[failsafe1]

I had speculated earlier about this being a planned event on Steve's part and then I saw the Forbes article and they mentione they thought so too. So does that make it so? No but more food for thought.

[Porchland]

I say that deal (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,64946,00.html?tw=rss.BIZ) is as cheap as they come.

Things are starting to get a little wild. MSN and Yahoo will now be poised as all-purpose portals with WMA-based 99-cent downloads. Yahoo says the deal is about driving traffic to its site, and MSN has said essentially the same. iTunes breaks even but mainly drives sales of iPods. All of which means: Napster needs to get hitched. Soon.

This is all very relevant to the Apple Records issue, since Apple Computers surely wants to be loosed of the constraints from the Apple Records dispute.

What's next? After an Apple/Apple settlement, I'd love to see Apple Computers go out and finally get themselves a record label. The Beatles catalog is on SonyBMG, so I'll be curious to see how that all shakes out. Plus, with Sony buying MGM and raising the profile of film content, Sony Connect may be looking to bigger and better -- ahem, James Bond -- things.

Enlightening developments.

[Porchland]

The Associated Press says Roxio may be next on the auction block (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040914/yahoo_musicmatch_12.html). Should Apple make a play?

Roxio's a $128 million company, so the deal would probably be on similar terms to Yahoo's deal for MusicMatch ($160 million). Roxio just sold off its software assets and is changing its name to Napster (http://www.roxio.com/en/company/news/archive/prelease080904.jhtml), so it's basically going to be a pure-play music download company when that deal closes.

I think we're going to see Apple's music strategy come more into view in the next few months. The battle lines are being drawn in the music download wars, and Apple will (hopefully) have this innane Apple Records thing behind it soon.

[atat_jack]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but to me it seems that this says "Apple Corps has the right to current and future works of music and musical performances, no matter how they are sent." It doesn't say just those on the record label, but that Apple Comp isn't allowed to send music in any way.

It's more like "Apple Corps has the right to use its trade mark on current and future works of music and musical performances, no matter how they are sent, while Apple Computer has the right to use its trade mark on, among other things, the transmission service used to distribute said music." At least, that's how I read it. You're looking at the defining criteria of the Fields of Use, and which are used to define which company gets to use its trade marks on what.

"Apple Computer shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use.

Apple Corps shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Corps Field of Use."

[atat_jack]

I still don't exactly understand the relationship between freak-of-nature Michael Jackson and Apple records. This sheds a little light (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031210.html), but it's still a mess.

As far as I know, there isn't one. Apple Corps (meaning, the Beatles themselves) holds all rights to the Beatles' recordings; MJ has (or had; who knows what he's sold off in the past couple of years) a large stake in the publishing rights to most of the Beatles' songs. That's not the same thing. This is a gross oversimplification, but if you want to record and sell your own cover version of "Penny Lane," you get a license from MJ; if you want to sell a copy of the Beatles' actual recording of "Penny Lane," you go to Apple Corps and they tell you to get stuffed. :)

[Doctor Q]

It could be that Apple Computer finally decided it could afford to buy the full rights to the name "Apple" for music purposes. A one-time final payoff would put an end to their habit of stretching the limit of their previous agreement, getting sued, settling the case, and then repeating the pattern.

[Rower_CPU]

We've got a whole forum for discussing music and musicians (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63) and this ain't it.

Keep your discussion on the lawsuit or your posts will be deleted. Thanks :)

[JJTiger1]

It seems that a lot of people are arguing a lot of these points without having the facts at hand.
[snippage]
Just my two cents.

xxx hj xxx

Another frivolous lawsuit getting too much attention from lawyers who insist upon cranial-rectal inversion.

... Qualifies for the Stella Award.
(The Stella's are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who
spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's. That case
inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in
the United States.)
=-=
JJ

[Doctor Q]

There was speculation in this thread about whether the name "iTunes Music Store" protected Apple from this suit because it did not feature the word "Apple". We now know better.

From Royal Courts of Justice court papers:

The alleged breaches come about in the following manner. Computer has launched a web-based product in the United States called iTunes Music Store. By using that service members of the public can download songs over the internet, and store them on a computer with a view to playing them back over the computer, or via portable players such as Computer’s well-known iPod player. Computer’s mark is clearly associated with that product – it appears on all the relevant pages, and one gets to it either via the Apple website or via a website known as Applemusic.com. The content (that is to say, the music tracks) is licensed by the owner of the rights in that content. Corps’ case is that Computer’s conduct in this respect is a breach of the Trade Mark Agreement; that is the breach which is relied on in this action as currently constituted.
("Computer" means "Apple Computer" and "Corps" means "Apple Corps".)

[g4cubed]

There was speculation in this thread about whether the name "iTunes Music Store" protected Apple from this suit because it did not feature the word "Apple". We now know better.

From Royal Courts of Justice court papers:

The alleged breaches come about in the following manner. Computer has launched a web-based product in the United States called iTunes Music Store. By using that service members of the public can download songs over the internet, and store them on a computer with a view to playing them back over the computer, or via portable players such as Computer’s well-known iPod player. Computer’s mark is clearly associated with that product – it appears on all the relevant pages, and one gets to it either via the Apple website or via a website known as Applemusic.com. The content (that is to say, the music tracks) is licensed by the owner of the rights in that content. Corps’ case is that Computer’s conduct in this respect is a breach of the Trade Mark Agreement; that is the breach which is relied on in this action as currently constituted.
("Computer" means "Apple Computer" and "Corps" means "Apple Corps".)
Well that clears some of it up.