Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?

[Itaca]

everybody wants a piece of the ITMS cake

This is reality.
Apple Corp. is too old and out of fashion.
they need fresh makeover and the name in the news.

 

[g4cubed]

Take a minute and think

Could it be that Apple Computer has been banking that 5 billion dollars with this usage in mind. Come on now. I know Apple Computer gave a lot up in that agreement, but I'm damn sure they didn't forget what that agreement said. And looking ahead, even a little, back when they were developing the iPod, they had to forsee this coming. And thus that big fat bank roll.

 

[IJ Reilly]

But I really don't get this getting angry at Apple Corps when it was Apple Computer that broke its own agreement.

Actually, we don't know if this is true because the matter hasn't been decided by a court of law. Maybe I need to remind some folks that many years ago, Apple sued Microsoft over the theft of Mac user interface elements. Everybody at the time thought Apple had a very good case -- and they did, right up until the judge decided that a one-page, prior contract they'd made with Microsoft gave Microsoft essentially unlimited rights to the Mac UI and the case was dismissed. Nobody saw that coming. So the point is, you never really know how a judge will rule until they actually rule.

 

[achmafooma]

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 .)

For the second time, I did not say that Apple Corps is a music powerhouse. I said that Apple Corps combined with Apple Computer could/would be one. I was speaking about a hypothetical combined entity, not Apple Corps as it exists today.

The biggest reason for that (although I didn't explain it in the original post) would be that Apple Computer would no longer be held back from diving whole-hog into the music industry. I don't see that they'd get much more from Apple Corps in a merger than the right to move in that direction, and that right would be enough to make Apple into a powerhouse overnight... it's almost one already, if only it could sign artists on its own!

As far as ownership of the Beatles' catalog, that was more a side-point than the real issue. I concede that I don't know much about it, nor do I wish to, but iTMS would be a lot more likely to have all the Beatles' music in it if the Beatles wanted those songs to be there (ie. if they were one company and not litigating). That's the important piece of what I was saying.

Anyway, after looking over more of the details I think that Apple Corps has a case here ... but for the life of me I can't imagine why they're bothering to pursue it. It strikes me as petty, no matter how legally justifiable it might be.

 

[neutrino23]

I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, it just really chaps my kiester to think that Apple has to give any of its hard earned money or reputation to those low lifes.

 

[anjaki]

What if the rumour is wrong and it's not Paul McCartney who'll be joining the board at Apple, but Ringo Starr!

 

[mklos]

It has nothing to do with confusion it has everything to do with the fact that Apple Computer under Steve Jobs agreed to not enter the music business. The angle to take on this in favor of Apple computer is to argue that they still aren't in the music business; otherwise that facts are what they are and Apple computer is in violation of an agreement.

EDIT: trademark law is trademark law, if you don't like it call your congressman. I think most of us would be singing a different tune if Microsoft started marketing TVs under the name Apple Consumer Electronics.

This original agreement was NOT under Steve Jobs' command. This was in the early 1990's when Steve Jobs was running his own company, NEXT.

It IS originally all about people maybe confusing Apple Computer with Apple Corp. At the time of the current lawsuit, Steve Jobs knew nothing about an agreement as I believe this original agreement made in 1991 was a secretive agreement not told to the public at first. Obviously they know now!

 

[panda]

apple settlement

interesting and sad...

1) what is defined as being the music business? does making a computer that plays music qualify, or the ipod, or is it itms?

the suit only came after the start of itms.

2) a settlement is basically a mutually acceptable solution to a problem. if the terms of the settlement become too onerous, there is another recourse... allowing the dispute to proceed in court and hope for better terms... then there is always the chance to appeal any unfavorable verdict.

of course this is not a nice clean solution, one that could create a drag on
apple's development.

3) a possibility is to pay damages and to agree to cease and desist involvement in the music industry. in this case, could a scenario be to spin off itms as a separate entity?

clearly there is no confusion in the eye of the consumer and this consumer feels that such a suit takes all the joy out of music, irregardless of what the old agreement states. it is so anti what the beatles were about from the start. so anti the culture at that time.

the age of innocence has truly been lost.

 

[MacRigor]

I don't think so...

From what I've read, the dispute is that Apple Corps says Apple computer agreed not to go into the music business which includes retail sales. Apple Computer says it only agreed not to produce music or become a record company, so its allowed to sell music, ie made by other people. Apple Corps will be hard pressed to show damages, because it no longer produces music and does not have any catalog (Michael Jackson owns the rights to the beatles), so there can be no market confusion, the essence of trademark infringement. I doubt that Apple will pay billions of dollars on such thin facts. Of course if they want to make McCartney an honorary board member to settle this trumped up suit, Welcome Aboard Pauly!

 

[MacEyeDoc]

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.

I can't believe I read the whole thread - lots of good comments either way, but the legal case (if they did make an agreement not to enter the 'music business' [however that is defined]) is probably open & shut, but that sure doesn't make it right. There is little if any possibility that Apple Corps will be hurt or their record selling ability inhibited by a computer company called Apple, or a music selling venue called iTunes Music Store. I don't think anyone would buy a computer called Apple because they though Paul or Ringo built in in their garage. It sounds to me that the original agreement was bogus, and the Apple Corps legal team would be right to leave Apple Computer alone. But greed is infinite amoung lawyers, and I guess they couldn't resist stealing the hard earned money from someone (Steve J) who had a great idea and implemented it in a splendid way, but made the mistake of working for a company with same name as Apple Corps. If it's going to be some huge payout (which the lawyers and the estates will mostly get, not even the actual Beatles), I'd almost rather Steve change the name of the company to Banana and tell Apple Corps where to put it.

 

[FYA]

@#$#!

Get A Life Paul...

thinking about it... he's after an iLife !

 

[Mord]

Anyone have the GPS coordinates of Abbey Road studios? Maybe someone here could send a nuke their way.

What bugs me the most about this is the trouble I go through to convert winblows folks to macs, only to support a few old greedy lawyers in the end.

Look in the phone book and you'll find hundreds of companies with Apple in the name. WTF!!!!!

i live near there, i'm happy to do some firebombing just send me over some napalm.

 

[MacFan26]

Oh the Horror!!

Why, WHY Apple Corps? I know I know, Apple broke their agreement, blah blah blah, but can't they just give it up already? Or better yet, why don't they take a stab at creating their own brilliants online music store? ( ) I guess Apple will just have to spend its extra billions on paying off this ridiculous thing instead of using it for R&D.

 

[fatfish]

Not got it yet

I don't think most of you have got it yet, any law suit is not going to be worth much more than $ 100m, if that. If Apple agree to pay more it's because they'll be getting more.

 

[g4cubed]

From what I've read, the dispute is that Apple Corps says Apple computer agreed not to go into the music business which includes retail sales. ...

To my understanding, it was that Apple computer could not enter the entertainment business not the music business. You and several others, I think, have it wrong.

 

[bcsmith]

Don't need to be the same to get along...

And a merger makes no sense, they are in completely separate businesses.

Being in a separate business doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't want to merge. Look at GE. They make airplane engines, light bulbs, power generators (the big ones in power plants), movies and TV shows. Plus they own quite a few buildings and make a decent chunk of change lending money to people that want to buy their products. And that only scratches the surface of what they do.

Apple, the computer company, might just want to diversify its income stream and acquire Apple, the music company. Beatles royality checks are probably pretty consistant and independant of technology spending cycles.

-- Ben

 

[fatfish]

Another thought

If this settlement, merger or whatever, is going to be the "biggest in history" and even "mindboggling", why does the story only appear from a couple of backstreet sources (one of which just repeats the other), where are the major news vendors?

Think I'll wait before getting too excited.

 

[zelmo]

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!

Nicely put together, Gasu E.

 

[billystlyes]

All you need is Cash!

The best Beatles have passed John and George! Ringo is wacky and Paul worries about money too much.

 

[MacSlut]

This will probably be a good thing

I have a feeling this will be a good thing for Apple...actually both Apples. Apple Computer has a buttload of cash that they have to do something with. Hopefully they are purchasing Apple Corp.

This would be a good purchase for both companies...

Usually during a takeover you look at the buyer expecting to get more than just the expected net profit within the fixed number of years of opportunity and finance costs. This usually means there is some sort of synergy between the two companies.

For Apple Corp, there really isn't much synergy to be found in any other company. Anyone else buying Apple Corp is not going to make enough money from the synergy to justify the purchase costs.

Apple Computer is a different story (insert your own Apples/Oranges joke here). Apple could put the entire Beatles catalog on the iTMS *exclusively*. This very much raises the bar and puts Apple in a league far above the rest. It also opens the door to Apple becoming a major *and* credible label.

I hope this happens.

 

[broken_keyboard]

What is the current biggest settlement?

 

[Loge]

Apple Computer is a different story (insert your own Apples/Oranges joke here). Apple could put the entire Beatles catalog on the iTMS *exclusively*. This very much raises the bar and puts Apple in a league far above the rest. It also opens the door to Apple becoming a major *and* credible label.

I hope this happens.

And have Sony make their catalogue exclusive to their store. This sort of thing will just hurt competition. Also, having one band, however famous, does not make a major label, even if this was a good idea for Apple, which it isn't.

 

[mhouse]

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.

Not to deflate your bubble, but you've missed the point entirely. Apparently, we 'fanboys' are able to grasp a simple and obvious fact: Apple Corps. has never lost a nickel because of Apple Computer.

Apple's earlier agreement with Apple Corps. "not to enter the music business" would be interpreted by any sane human being as an agreement not to record and publish music. If Apple did *that* then they would indeed be competing unfairly with Apple Corps. in a way that would create confusion.

As it stands, Apple's reinvigoration of the moribund music industry has probably *put* money into Apple Corps.' coffers. This is a stupid and greedy move on the part of McCartney et al.

Hopefully the settlement will pave the way for some type of exclusive deal for the Beatles' catalog. That is the best that can come of this I'm afraid.

 

[themacman]

ITMS

ummm... as to talentless I'm going to let his sales speak to that, on the other topic:

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?

guys guys, its not the Apple music store its the Itunes. No one really calls it the Apple Itunes Music store. ITMS has nothing to do with the beatles or anything at all.

 

[jettredmont]

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

Specifically says non-class-action (as others have pointed out in a much more timely manner ).

Question remains unanswered: Anyone know what the "largest non-class-action civil suit settlement" might be?

Anyone?