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
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.
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.
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. 
Ummmmmm?
Kill the beetles.....?
They are very greedy & lazy (willing to get something without putting anything into it.
Kill the beetles.....?
They are very greedy & lazy (willing to get something without putting anything into it.
Talentless?
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.
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.
isaacc7 said:
Read: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm
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.
Buyout
I think Apple Computer should buy out Apple Records and then offer the entire Beatles catalog as an iTunes exclusive!
I think Apple Computer should buy out Apple Records and then offer the entire Beatles catalog as an iTunes exclusive!
Not a trademark question
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.
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.
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.
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.
johnnyjibbs said:
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???
" when they first heard about Apple Inc and Apple Corps little legal wars. Seems asinine to me but the law is the law.
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...
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...
Gabriel said:
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).
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?
...right?
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.
But then, weirder things have happened, right?
...right?
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.
morkintosh said:
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.
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.
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.
Apple Corps is full of crap
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>
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>
morkintosh said:
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. =)
trilogic said:lawyers and the us law
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.
Still rumor, but...
Well, perhaps MS can get away with whatever they like, while Apple gets busted for making everyone think they are the Beatles
Are we talking big punitive damages to discourage future computer companies from pretending to be rock bands?
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.
Well, perhaps MS can get away with whatever they like, while Apple gets busted for making everyone think they are the Beatles
Are we talking big punitive damages to discourage future computer companies from pretending to be rock bands?
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.
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.
And Micsrosoft has already announced that they are "confident" about a Beatles exclusive with them.
maelstromr said:
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.
Apple to settle, Beatles to get shares, cash, iTMS...
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.
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.