Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?

[mustang_dvs]

I guess reading the topic before posting is passé

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

Read the first post, 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 .

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 [url=https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/88724/[/url]; [url=http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/index.cfm]Inflation Calculator.)

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 .)

lawyers and the us law

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

As was mentioned, the suit [url=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]has been filed in a British court. 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]

What is the biggest settlement

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.]

In my life, I've seen worse

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)

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]

Apple Corps raids the Cupertino bank

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." '

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. 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. 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 , 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. 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]

Something more to this

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.