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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Original agreement
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$$$$$ settlement gets iTunes a 25 (or more) year exclusive distribution deal on every song done by the Beatles.
The way I remember the agreement, is that Apple Computer agreed not to produce or make music. I don't remember not selling music to be a part of the 1991 proceedings.
From the 1991 agreement, Apple Computer was specifically allowed to use Apple computers and services for the transfer of digital files.
Apple Computer is not violating the 1991 settlement. The name of the music store is the iTunes music store, not the Apple music Store. They are not producing music, they are not a record label. They are selling digital files, the rights to those files have been legally licensed from record companies. The fact that the Apple name isn't on the music store, and the music and artists represented by Apple Corps isn't present on the music store should be more than enough to put Apple Computer in the clear.
IMHSHO the 1991 settlement was trash anyway. Even then the obvious trend was convergence. More and more things were being done with a computer that had never been done that way before. Apple Computer can show that the majority of musicians (even Paul McCarty, who is using a mac in the studio now) are composing using computers. The 1991 settlement has been rendered invalid by forces beyond the control of either Apple.
Whatever happens, whatever way it goes, I hope that as part of this big$$$$$ settlement gets iTunes a 25 (or more) year exclusive distribution deal on every song done by the Beatles.
Terms of the contract available
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
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
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!
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!
Planned Move on Apple's Part
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.
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.
Lanbrown said:
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.
atat_jack said:
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 said:
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.
gco212 said:
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
atat_jack said:
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.
From the mouths of Newbies...
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!
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!
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.
ompus said:
I still don't exactly understand the relationship between freak-of-nature Michael Jackson and Apple records. This sheds a little light, but it's still a mess.
Yahoo buys MusicMatch for $160 million.
I say that deal 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.
I say that deal 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.
Should Apple buy Roxio?
The Associated Press says Roxio may be next on the auction block. 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, 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.
The Associated Press says Roxio may be next on the auction block. 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, 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.
gco212 said:
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."
Porchland said:
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.
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.
A reminder for those of you who insist on going off-topic
We've got a whole forum for discussing music and musicians and this ain't it.
Keep your discussion on the lawsuit or your posts will be deleted. Thanks
We've got a whole forum for discussing music and musicians and this ain't it.
Keep your discussion on the lawsuit or your posts will be deleted. Thanks
atat_jack said:
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
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:
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 Computers well-known iPod player. Computers 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 Computers 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".)