Apple v Apple Decision on May 8?

MacRumors · 04:53 PM

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

Macworld.co.uk reports that a decision on the Apple Corps v. Apple Computer Inc. case will be announced on Monday, May 8.

Apple Corps, the recording company founded by the Beatles, sued Apple Computer Inc last year for allegedly breaching a trademark settlement made by the companies in 1991. The 1991 settlement's language barred Apple Computer from distributing music on physical media, but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time but was clearly within the spirit of the agreement.

Should the court decide against Apple Computer, the judge is expected to forcibly remove Apple's logo from iTunes, and precedent would be set for a large sum of money be paid to Apple Corps.

Raw Data: Recent court decision quoting 1991 ruling.

DontBurnTheDayy · Apr 28, 2006, 04:37 PM

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Azadre · Apr 28, 2006, 04:39 PM

That would be devestating. Although, since the beatles are no longer a group should the case still be upheld?

BenRoethig · Apr 28, 2006, 04:41 PM

What would probably happen is that the Ipod/Itunes section would be spun off like filemaker. However, in my mind, there is nobody on earth how is going to mistake a dormant record label for Apple computer.

luminosity · Apr 28, 2006, 04:42 PM

Sad that apple corps feels the need to keep itself afloat by using another company. they're ancient history now, and irrelevant. just a lot of sour grapes and whining.

sintaxi · Apr 28, 2006, 04:50 PM

I am currently taking a law class and we have discussed this case. My Proff seems to think that apple corp will win. I think I disagree because apple computers is only providing a means for record labels to distribute their product. Apple isnt actually distributing music.

Ironic how Apple Computers paved the way for legal downloads. and now they are being sued.

Stridder44 · Apr 28, 2006, 04:51 PM

OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good...

Whatever. They'll probably work out some deal to sell their songs on iTunes cuz the heads at Apple Corps. are up there with the asshats at the RIAA.

~Shard~ · 05:04 PM

Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this story and am curious to see how the judge will rule.

jimN · Apr 28, 2006, 04:54 PM

cpuldn't apple just buy these guys out and then fire them. Now that would be amusing.

corywoolf · Apr 28, 2006, 04:54 PM

I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.

benpatient · Apr 28, 2006, 04:54 PM

stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement.

there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store.

seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store.

But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they?

Apple Media Store?

can't use "Apple" anymore.

iTunes Media Store.

stays iTMS.

remove the apple logo from it.

no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.

corywoolf · Apr 28, 2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Shard~

Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this sorry and am curious to see how the judge will rule.

Don't be sorry!

dr_lha · Apr 28, 2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stridder44

OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good...

Yes - the were.

But that's not the issue. Apple Corps are run by a bunch of ex-Apple roadies that are desperately trying to make money by any means necessary. They're wankers, but this in no way dimishes how good the Beatles were.

corywoolf · Apr 28, 2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benpatient

stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement.

there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store.

seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store.

But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they?

Apple Media Store?

can't use "Apple" anymore.

iTunes Media Store.

stays iTMS.

remove the apple logo from it.

no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.

You sir, just hit the nail on the head.

munkees · Apr 28, 2006, 05:01 PM

This will only effect apple in the UK, seeing that the prior judgement has no legal bounds outside UK law.

dr_lha · Apr 28, 2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkees

This will only effect apple in the UK, seeing that the prior judgement has no legal bounds outside UK law.

Losing a large chunk of change will effect Apple everywhere however.

p0intblank · Apr 28, 2006, 05:03 PM

I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

evilgEEk · Apr 28, 2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macrumors

...but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time...

I disagree whole-heartedly with this statement. How could online distribution not be envisioned in 1991? Around that time the Internet was still in its infancy, but it was growing very fast. Digital distribution wasn't exactly a brand new idea at that time.

I don't care if it was in the "spirit" of the agreement or not, they should have specified.

I hope Apple, Inc. wins straight out.

vtprinz · Apr 28, 2006, 05:05 PM

This has nothing to do with the actual case, but did anyone notice the name of the judge from the '91 trial?

Mr. Justice Mann.

That's amazing.

/end

kozmic stu · Apr 28, 2006, 05:06 PM

I still don't get why so many people think Apple Corp MUST be after money and only money in this case... Seems to me that actually The Beatles (and so Apple Corps) already have LOTS of money. Had they only been after a large settlement, surely they would have allowed the case to take place in the USA, where the chances of winning are higher, as are the settlements, in general.

I also don't buy the argument that they're tying to buy back the rights to the Beatles catalogue as Paul McCartney's no fool and the rights revert back to him in a few years anyway.

Seems to me that this is about the fact the when The Beatles music is put up on iTunes, under the 'Record Label' section it will say 'Apple'. When Apple Computer advertises the iTMS, they play a music video, followed by a picture of an Apple: which can easily be seen to imply that Apple is the publishing company for the music being played. Both these things lead to brand ambiguity, and are clearly against the 1991 agreement,

I can't see a way in which Apple Computer can win

But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just using my head...

Stu

P.S. I actually want Apple Computer to win, but not because they SHOULD, just because I don't want them to lose.

~Shard~ · Apr 28, 2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0intblank

Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

I think one guy did. His name was Steve Jobs or something like that.

p0intblank · Apr 28, 2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Shard~

I think one guy did. His name was Steve Jobs or something like that.

Hahaha, you know what I meant!

longofest · Apr 28, 2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0intblank

I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

Dude, in this conversation you really gotta qualify your "Apple's". Reading what you wrote, I have no idea which Apple you are talking about.

runninmac · Apr 28, 2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corywoolf

I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.

Yay for people actually thinking good. I hate the people that actually post things that will never happen and expect people to agree with them. I would just hope that they TIGHTLY and i mean TIGHTLY intergrate the companys. StevyJ being the CEO of both. (obviously)

mac-er · Apr 28, 2006, 05:23 PM

I would be shocked if Apple Computer didn't win this case.

The case seems to boil down to one point, from what I have read in the media. Would a reasonable person using iTunes think that Apple Corps is behind it? (Thus, the reasoning behind removing the Apple logo from the software.)

The dumbest person in the world wouldn't think that.

Apr 28, 2006, 04:36 PM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	Apple v Apple Decision on May 8? http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif Macworld.co.uk reports that a decision on the Apple Corps v. Apple Computer Inc. case will be announced on Monday, May 8. Apple Corps, the recording company founded by the Beatles, sued Apple Computer Inc last year for allegedly breaching a trademark settlement made by the companies in 1991. The 1991 settlement's language barred Apple Computer from distributing music on physical media, but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time but was clearly within the spirit of the agreement. Should the court decide against Apple Computer, the judge is expected to forcibly remove Apple's logo from iTunes, and precedent would be set for a large sum of money be paid to Apple Corps. Raw Data: Recent court decision quoting 1991 ruling. Last edited by longofest : Apr 28, 2006 at 04:53 PM.

Apr 28, 2006, 04:37 PM	#2
DontBurnTheDayy macrumors member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Michigan	Stupid, stupid, stupid. __________________ Macbook Pro (rev. D) - 15"/1.83Duo/80/2GB/128

Apr 28, 2006, 04:42 PM	#5
luminosity macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Arizona	Sad that apple corps feels the need to keep itself afloat by using another company. they're ancient history now, and irrelevant. just a lot of sour grapes and whining. __________________ 17'' MBP 2.8 4 GB RAM 500 HD, 15'' MBP 2.33, 2 GB RAM 120 HD

Apr 28, 2006, 04:50 PM	#6
sintaxi macrumors member Join Date: Dec 2005	I am currently taking a law class and we have discussed this case. My Proff seems to think that apple corp will win. I think I disagree because apple computers is only providing a means for record labels to distribute their product. Apple isnt actually distributing music. Ironic how Apple Computers paved the way for legal downloads. and now they are being sued. __________________ PowerMac Dual 2.0 G5 3.5Gig Ram MackBook 2.0 CoreDuo 2Gig Ram sintaxi vancouver design

Apr 28, 2006, 04:51 PM	#7
Stridder44 macrumors 68040 Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California	OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good... Whatever. They'll probably work out some deal to sell their songs on iTunes cuz the heads at Apple Corps. are up there with the asshats at the RIAA. __________________ The Un-Funny Truth About Scientology (Warning: Graphic images) MacBook Pro 15.4"/2.5 GHz/250GB/4GB RAM iMac G4 17"/800 Mhz/80GB/512GB RAM

Apr 28, 2006, 04:39 PM	#3
Azadre macrumors member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maryland	That would be devestating. Although, since the beatles are no longer a group should the case still be upheld?

Apr 28, 2006, 04:41 PM	#4
BenRoethig macrumors 68030 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dubuque, Iowa	What would probably happen is that the Ipod/Itunes section would be spun off like filemaker. However, in my mind, there is nobody on earth how is going to mistake a dormant record label for Apple computer.

Apr 28, 2006, 04:53 PM	#8
~Shard~ macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 1123.6536.5321	Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this story and am curious to see how the judge will rule. __________________ My riches consist not in the extent of my possessions, but in the fewness of my wants. - J. Brotherton Last edited by ~Shard~ : Apr 28, 2006 at 05:04 PM.

Apr 28, 2006, 04:54 PM	#9
jimN macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London	cpuldn't apple just buy these guys out and then fire them. Now that would be amusing. __________________ Powerbook G4 1ghz 1.25GB (ready for Leopard) 15gb 3G ipod, 4gb 2G nano (with nike+) & iPhone

Apr 28, 2006, 04:54 PM	#10
corywoolf macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jun 2004	I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.

Apr 28, 2006, 04:54 PM	#11
benpatient macrumors 65816 Join Date: Nov 2003	stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement. there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store. seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store. But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they? Apple Media Store? can't use "Apple" anymore. iTunes Media Store. stays iTMS. remove the apple logo from it. no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.

Apr 28, 2006, 05:01 PM	#15
munkees macrumors 6502a Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: On you computer screen, where you are reading this.	This will only effect apple in the UK, seeing that the prior judgement has no legal bounds outside UK law. __________________ iMacs, Apple TVs, MBP, MB, old G4 Saw tooth some iPods and iPhones. http://www.planetresearch.com

Apr 28, 2006, 05:03 PM	#17
p0intblank macrumors 68020 Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA	I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

Apr 28, 2006, 05:05 PM	#19
vtprinz macrumors 6502 Join Date: Nov 2004	This has nothing to do with the actual case, but did anyone notice the name of the judge from the '91 trial? Mr. Justice Mann. That's amazing. /end

Apr 28, 2006, 05:06 PM	#20
kozmic stu macrumors newbie Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: England	I don't understand I still don't get why so many people think Apple Corp MUST be after money and only money in this case... Seems to me that actually The Beatles (and so Apple Corps) already have LOTS of money. Had they only been after a large settlement, surely they would have allowed the case to take place in the USA, where the chances of winning are higher, as are the settlements, in general. I also don't buy the argument that they're tying to buy back the rights to the Beatles catalogue as Paul McCartney's no fool and the rights revert back to him in a few years anyway. Seems to me that this is about the fact the when The Beatles music is put up on iTunes, under the 'Record Label' section it will say 'Apple'. When Apple Computer advertises the iTMS, they play a music video, followed by a picture of an Apple: which can easily be seen to imply that Apple is the publishing company for the music being played. Both these things lead to brand ambiguity, and are clearly against the 1991 agreement, I can't see a way in which Apple Computer can win But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just using my head... Stu P.S. I actually want Apple Computer to win, but not because they SHOULD, just because I don't want them to lose.

Apr 28, 2006, 05:23 PM	#25
mac-er macrumors 65816 Join Date: Apr 2003	I would be shocked if Apple Computer didn't win this case. The case seems to boil down to one point, from what I have read in the media. Would a reasonable person using iTunes think that Apple Corps is behind it? (Thus, the reasoning behind removing the Apple logo from the software.) The dumbest person in the world wouldn't think that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode