Apple vs. Apple Trial Ongoing

[fatfish]

More Clarification

Whilst not the issue here, many don't seem to understand who Apple Corps are.

Apple Corps is a company set up by the Beatles in 1968 to replace an older company called Beatles Ltd.

Apple Records is a record label, which happens to be owned by Apple Corps other companies owned by Apple Corps are Apple Electronics, Apple Films, Apple Publishing, Apple Retail, Singsong Music (Publishers) Limited, Sunflower Investments Limited, Bluebell Investments Limited, Adgorn Limited, Apple Music (Holdings) Limited and more.

Oddly enough Apple Records do not own the rights to the Beatles music, although they own the rights to music recorded by other artists on that label. EMI own the rights to the Beatles music.

Ownership of rights does not necessarily mean they are entitled to income from sales, I believe Paul, John, George and Ringo received 5% each of sales and Apple Records received 80%.

Apple Corps is now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company), and I am not sure of their ownership although I suspect Paul still has some shares.

Of note here is the number of companies under the umbrella of Apple and although Apple Records appears to be the prominent one and most relevant to this issue, one should not forget Apple Electronics who made electronic devices such as radios.

Whatever else this lawsuit may be, it is complicated and may well prove to be a landmark case. I have my own thoughts about possible outcomes some of which I have shared with you, however it is perhaps foolish to second guess the outcome and I don't suggest for a minute the result can be anticipated.

 

[NickSl]

Absolutely incorrect.

The Judge is not best placed to award damages, his field of expertise is a general knowledge of the law and an ability to judge right from wrong.

The best people to decide any damages would be people who have a specific knowledge at awarding damages, the judge will almost certainly not award any damages himself although he may direct those that do to consider certain factors.

You might be right, but do you have anything to substantiate that?

Oh, and where did you get your damages figures from?

"British NOT European"
Do some travelling, "You're British, so you're European", I guess you have an anti-EC gripe, but it doesn't make you're statement correct.

La, La, talk is cheap I don't expect a reply from you.

 

[maestro55]

This is one of the thoughest cases for me to pick sides, because I am a huge fan of The Beatles, aswell as each of them. Wings was a great band, and Ringo and George had great solos. John's music may be my favorite, but I love it all. However, putting my love for the group aside, this is a stupid suit. The Granny Apple and the Apple Computer apple are not the same by any means.

I don't know if anyone as pointed this out (as I failed to read all the replies, and if anyone did point this out than very good, well atleast you know I agree). Apple Corps I think could make money by working with Apple to get music on the iTMS. I would think that they could get more money over time (however Apple works this out with record companies) for offering music on the iTMS rather than trying to get money for Apple now. Also, they can't really be hurting that bad for money. So it seems dumb to try to fight Apple Computer Inc. However, I am siding the Apple Computers here, because they appear (from what I have read) to be using the most logic, while Apple Corps. seems only to be trying to get money, when I strongly feel there are better ways to go about this.

 

[fatfish]

You might be right, but do you have anything to substantiate that?

Oh, and where did you get your damages figures from?

"British NOT European"
Do some travelling, "You're British, so you're European", I guess you have an anti-EC gripe, but it doesn't make you're statement correct.

La, La, talk is cheap I don't expect a reply from you.

What do you mean "substantiate that", it's the way it works.

The damages I quoted were merely 'a guess/my opinion' as I stated at the time, I may well be entirely wrong unlike the above matter which I made as a statement of fact.

I travel a lot.
As for not being European, perhaps you should think a little before showing your ignorance.

EXTRACT FROM DICTIONARY
.......European |j??r??pi??n| adjective of, relating to, or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants. • of or relating to the European Union : a single European currency. noun a native or inhabitant of Europe. • a national of a state belonging to the European Union. • a person who is committed to the European Union : they claimed to be the party of good Europeans. • a person who is white or of European parentage, esp. in a country with a large nonwhite population. DERIVATIVES Europeanism noun.......

However before you display your ignorance further, and raise the matter of me inhabiting the continent of Europe, any fool can see that is the case and would surely realise this is a political statement. I am not a national of a state belonging to the European Union - Britain is not a state.

 

[NickSl]

1. "What do you mean "substantiate that", it's the way it works."
Cite a reference, possibly provide a link so I can verify. Just because you state something in a forthright manner doesn't necessarily make it correct. I'm genuinely interested to know for certain

2. "The damages I quoted were merely 'a guess/my opinion' as I stated at the time, I may well be entirely wrong unlike the above matter which I made as a statement of fact."
Ok, no problem, wondered if there was any deeper calculation involved.

3."I travel a lot.
As for not being European, perhaps you should think a little before showing your ignorance."

.......European |j??r??pi??n| adjective of, relating to, or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants. • of or relating to the European Union : a single European currency. noun a native or inhabitant of Europe. • a national of a state belonging to the European Union. • a person who is committed to the European Union : they claimed to be the party of good Europeans. • a person who is white or of European parentage, esp. in a country with a large nonwhite population. DERIVATIVES Europeanism noun.......

However before you display your ignorance further, and raise the matter of me inhabiting the continent of Europe, any fool can see that is the case and would surely realise this is a political statement. I am not a national of a state belonging to the European Union - Britain is not a state."
I mainly wanted to get a response on point one, so I thought I'd rattle the cage. "British not European", sounds very Blimpish (and I'm not using the negative meaning).

Good day, to you Sir.

 

[fatfish]

Cite a reference, possibly provide a link so I can verify. Just because you state something in a forthright manner doesn't necessarily make it correct. I'm genuinely interested to know for certain

I mainly wanted to get a response on point one, so I thought I'd rattle the cage. "British not European", sounds very Blimpish (and I'm not using the negative meaning).

Good day, to you Sir.

1. Essentially of course you are correct, and it was not appropriate for me to claim a statement of fact. It would be the judges duty (assuming their is no jury of which I'm not certain) to provide a judgement which would consist of both a verdict and an award (if necessary), however at the judges discretion the case would be heard in the interest of efficiency.

It goes without saying that if the case for the claimant was dismissed there would be no other damages to consider other than costs, it would therefor be inefficient to consider the evidence relating to any damages at the same time as the evidence for a breach of contract, if that evidence was extensive.

I suggest the evidence relating to any damages would be very extensive in this case and that any award for damages would be, or even has already been agreed to be, postponed for the submission of further evidence and expert opinion. After all the case has been given only a week and I am not aware that the claimant has asked for any specific damages or remedy.

Additionally, punitive damages are not applicable to a breach of contract in the UK and damages would be limited to compensation which might not be very much since the claimant appears to have suffered little or no loss. However the claimant might wish to rely on a breach of competition law which generally also does not result in punitive damages unless the defendant has deliberately committed a breach for profit. This would open a real can of worms, these cases are usually extensive and generally unsuccessful, however I believe Apple Corps may have a good case in this instance.

Whether a breach of contract has taken place will likely be decided quite quickly, whether damages are due and how much they would be is a murky lake in the middle of nowhere, it would quite clearly be efficient to separate the two.

It was wrong to state the point I made as I did, but it will be extremely unlikely that any damages (if any) will be awarded next week.

2. It may well be that I am exactly what David Low had in mind. However I would stand side by side with any Frenchman who wished the rest of the world to see him as French and not European. We entered into an economic pact with many other countries, whilst I do not agree with that pact, that is another issue. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world now see us as a state of Europe and I merely wish to correct that perception.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Hmmm... Apple should do an ad for the true 64 bit OSX when it comes out playing the Beatle's "When I'm sixty four". Now THAT would give the lawyers a reason to sue them.

 

[twilson]

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

Well I'd never even heard of "Apple Corps" until 2003 when they started suing Apple (I'm 30 before you start assuming I'm about 10-years old).

 

[twilson]

The changes in technology neccessitate revisions in agreements.

I agree, but you can't "backdate" the agreement to include something never in it originally.

If revised, the changes would only be effect from 2006 onwards, and not before.

 

[NickSl]

1. Essentially of course you are correct, and it was not appropriate for me to claim a statement of fact. It would be the judges duty (assuming their is no jury of which I'm not certain) to provide a judgement which would consist of both a verdict and an award (if necessary), however at the judges discretion the case would be heard in the interest of efficiency.
Yes, interesting point about whether a jury is involved, I haven't seen any reference to a jury, but that doesn't mean anything.

It goes without saying that if the case for the claimant was dismissed there would be no other damages to consider other than costs, it would therefor be inefficient to consider the evidence relating to any damages at the same time as the evidence for a breach of contract, if that evidence was extensive.

I suggest the evidence relating to any damages would be very extensive in this case and that any award for damages would be, or even has already been agreed to be, postponed for the submission of further evidence and expert opinion. After all the case has been given only a week and I am not aware that the claimant has asked for any specific damages or remedy.
Yes, sounds likely that expert evidence would be required. Apple Corps don't appear to have asked for a specific amount and that could take quite some time to assess. As the Times Reports
"Apple Corps is seeking court orders to stop Computer using the "apple" marks in connection with the iTunes Music Store and is also asking for damages after an investigation into Apple Computer’s profits from the world's dominant music download service."

Additionally, punitive damages are not applicable to a breach of contract in the UK and damages would be limited to compensation which might not be very much since the claimant appears to have suffered little or no loss. However the claimant might wish to rely on a breach of competition law which generally also does not result in punitive damages unless the defendant has deliberately committed a breach for profit. This would open a real can of worms, these cases are usually extensive and generally unsuccessful, however I believe Apple Corps may have a good case in this instance.
Yes, I'd picked up that punitive damages would not be applicable. However, you mention an interesting spin on what could happen.

Whether a breach of contract has taken place will likely be decided quite quickly, whether damages are due and how much they would be is a murky lake in the middle of nowhere, it would quite clearly be efficient to separate the two.

It was wrong to state the point I made as I did, but it will be extremely unlikely that any damages (if any) will be awarded next week.

Cheers for your breakdown on the case, much appreciated.

2. It may well be that I am exactly what David Low had in mind. However I would stand side by side with any Frenchman who wished the rest of the world to see him as French and not European. We entered into an economic pact with many other countries, whilst I do not agree with that pact, that is another issue. Unfortunately most of the rest of the world now see us as a state of Europe and I merely wish to correct that perception.
Totally understand what you're saying. Certainly from the perspective of someone living in Australia the UK is increasingly seen as a state within Europe.

Anyway once again cheers for taking the time to respond. I'm sure we'll both be watching the case with interest.

 

[dr_lha]

There's no jury in this case. This sort of trial is decided by the Judge.

 

[Doctor Q]

An interesting report here today.

Apple Corps executives saw the iTunes Music Store demonstration in January 2003, before the service launched, Grabiner said.

Apple Corps is alleging the computer company agreed in 1991 to not use its logo related to the sale of music. During the trial, attorneys for the record label have cited violations, playing TV commercials featuring music on the iTunes Music Store. Apple Computer has in part deflected the charges by finely describing how its bite-marked apple logo disappears during purchases from the iTunes Music Store. The logo is only used to advertise the iTunes service, not the content, Apple Computer has argued.

That's really debating the fine points, isn't it? But sometimes legal cases depend on nitpicking like this.

 

[840quadra]

With the topic revolving around the sales of music, and such, I am wondering if Apple corps will have grounds to sue for the Garageband program at a later date. Garageband is clearly built for the purpose of creating music, and editing it.

Perhaps we will see the creation of the sound file called Sosumi-2 from Apple. The original Sosumi sound was created by Jim Reekes during one of the before mentioned lawsuit periods in which Jim named the song as such to protest against the pressure of Apple Lawyers (so said)

This link has some great info in regards to Apple sounds, and a bit of history from Apples Sound Engineer mentioned above, including the infamous sosumi sound .

http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/05/tiny-music-makers-pt-4-mac-startup.html

Not so.

If that comment was in regards to the "greedy bastard" portion of the post you quoted, I am afraid that it is so. Many people that have been reading (Digging or whatever) this story have the opinion that Beetles members (or whatever they are called now) are being greedy and driving Apple corps to push this subject.

Most people do not know the facts or the history of this topic, and unfortunately, they are the majority of popular opinion at this point.