adzoox said:
By this reasoning, I could start a computer retail business called "Apple" and be beyond trademark lawsuits because I'm not producing anything, just reselling.
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
By this reasoning, I could start a computer retail business called "Apple" and be beyond trademark lawsuits because I'm not producing anything, just reselling.
broken_keyboard said:
That would depend on what it dealt with. If you do a search you will see some companies/people claiming that they have the largest settlement for whatever industry/reason. It said the largest not a class action. If you look at the SEC versus WorldCom, it was 750 million.
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97796
I also saw the third largest class action was 450 million and the second was 517 million. Then you have age discrimination, etc. So, with the limited information from the article, who knows.
I wouldn't believe too much in this article. For one, you have a team of lawyers on each side. So you have a small group and could be traced back. A lawyer knows better then to open their mouth, because if they do, they will be the ones on the other side of the table facing a team of lawyers.
Reading some of the replies here it is patently obvious that nobody has the faintest inkling as to what the Beatles went through financially in the 60's, far from having a history of ripping people or other companies off they were the original cash cow.
Much as it hurts, they are only defending that which is their own, ie an agreement that Apple made with them.
If anyone is to blame it is the team of lawyers that drew up the original agreement, and the head of Apple at the time, who displayed an incredible lack of vision.
I for one have never seen the original agreement and I doubt if anyone else here has, but if Apple is about to settle, it is because it has to.
And that doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Much as it hurts, they are only defending that which is their own, ie an agreement that Apple made with them.
If anyone is to blame it is the team of lawyers that drew up the original agreement, and the head of Apple at the time, who displayed an incredible lack of vision.
I for one have never seen the original agreement and I doubt if anyone else here has, but if Apple is about to settle, it is because it has to.
And that doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Hopefully this will be good news and Apple can become a label, exclusive access to Beetles music, sound cards in Macs, and make lots of money.
silvergunuk said:
give him a break, his first wife died, and now he's got a new one with one leg - "not tonight dear, I need to oil my knee".
Sorry, that was tasteless. Anyway:
McCartney is a fairly talentless musician in the scheme of things. As for a song-writer, he's fairly useless without lennon. "Wings" stuff was fairly poor, and did you hear run devil run? It was shockingly bad and the album sales reflected that!
Its a pretty stupid case when it boils down to it, but if you sign a piece of paper that says you're not going to do something, and then do the complete opposite 20+ years down the line then yes, you're going to get sued! If there's money to be made then neither party would miss the opportunity - people dont make it in business without making some fairly harsh decisions.
While it would still make a fair dent in the $5bn bank balance of apple computer inc, this wouldn't take long to recoup - apple were in the red 2 years ago, maybe even less than that. Maybe this will bring The Beatles to iTMS which would certainly speed up the process of recovering money lost in damages & legal fees! They might lose a few shareholders, but these would be gained once its all blown over, there might even be a few more new ones if the beatles catalogue arrives.
amnesiac1984 said:
The Beatles were hardly original in their songs - they just made it marketable and accessible to the masses. Behind every good band is a team of marketeers who know exactly how to exploit stuff. They wrote good pop songs that only stood out because everyone knew/knows what lennon 7 mccartney's voice sound like. They did write a few unusual hits, and were moderatly inventive some of the time, but they did write & record a lot of crap too! So yes, another band probably would have done exactly the same if The Beatles hadn't happened.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-beatles. I can appreciate what they did for music, and where their skills were BUT they were nothing new.
raynegus said:
Can't see the Apple will care, seeing as Abbey Road is actually nothing to do with Apple, and owned by EMI now...Hector said:
Should you find a nuke lying around though, here's the coords:
Lat: 51:31:56N (51.5322)
Lon: 0:10:41W (-0.178)
Over & out
Lanbrown said:
Wow - big figures. You're probably right, maybe there isn't too much to the article. But it does seem like a potential Steve-esque publicity stunt to grab the headlines with the "biggest settlement ever" also maybe make it a nice round figure like $1bn and then to have McCartney join the board of directors.
But whether Apple Corp. actually deserves any money (morally speaking)? No they don't. Steve and Apple Computer earned that money, not them.
Yoko, OH NO!
You know, instead of Paul, it'll probably be Yoko Ono who'd want to sit on the board! She'd constantly follow Steve Jobs around all the time, convince him to do a bunch of stupid things like put an acorn in every Mac, or organize a Computing Bed-In where the entire Mac community is urged to stay in bed with their Powerbooks for a week to protest the Windows monopoly; and she'd definitely force Steve to bring back OS number 9... number 9... number 9...
And the new iMac... it's all white! Just like the Beatles' white album... a decision which Yoko Ono influenced! Maybe she's already on the board!
alexf said:Paul McCartney on the board of Apple?
Sounds cool!
You know, instead of Paul, it'll probably be Yoko Ono who'd want to sit on the board! She'd constantly follow Steve Jobs around all the time, convince him to do a bunch of stupid things like put an acorn in every Mac, or organize a Computing Bed-In where the entire Mac community is urged to stay in bed with their Powerbooks for a week to protest the Windows monopoly; and she'd definitely force Steve to bring back OS number 9... number 9... number 9...
And the new iMac... it's all white! Just like the Beatles' white album... a decision which Yoko Ono influenced! Maybe she's already on the board!
Much as I dislike that two faced smarmy git called Paul McCartney I think comments such as these are completely out of order, the Beatles were a cultural phenomena and can't just be seen just in the sole context of their music.
Anyone old enough to remember knows that you're obviously sitting on your mouth.
And anyway who is this great band that never happened?
Rent out Anthology for the weekend.
mrjamin said:
Anyone old enough to remember knows that you're obviously sitting on your mouth.
And anyway who is this great band that never happened?
Rent out Anthology for the weekend.
benpatient said:
I think you need to dial it down since you have not read the agreement between the two companies. You, like everyone else here, have no idea what was actually agreed to. The difference is people here are expressing their feelings and opinions, and you are attacking others as if you know better.
You haven't seen the wording, what is in bounds, what is not. How terms were defined.
Documents like this are 50-100 pages long. They are always grey in some area or another. No lawyer or law firm is perfect. Obviously Apple thought it was fair game to offer the iTMS and iPod. So it is fair for people here to think there is over-reach on the part of Apple Corps.
I am not saying this is the case, and I suspect it is not. But I know that I have not read the agreement, and I suspect neither have you.
broken_keyboard said:
Why would Steve want to grab the headlines with the largest settlement over? While it is publicity, it is very bad publicity. If they were receiving it, that's a different story.
What’s the big deal of "him" joining the board? I would consider his past actions as a poor businessman, not one that should run a company.
This could turn out VERY well
Apple Corps (The Beatles) have Apple dead to rights. Apple knows it, The Beatles know it. Taken to its end, the settlement or penalty could be huge.
The Beatles catalog is without doubt the ultimate prize in the music business. The Beatles have been shopping the catalog, seeking to give exclusive rights to one online outlet, for a huge sum.
Selling the Beatles catalog to another online outlet would be very, very bad news, and worldwide bad publicity.
"Apple on Apple!" Come on guys, you think Steve doesn't want this type of tag?
Apple has a lot of cash and there is not a lot to acquire. Bringing down the cash, getting the catalog exclusively, and settling this decades long problem permanently is awsome news, awsome publicity, and will be an awesome shot in the arm for the stock.
Such a deal is worth a lot to Apple. A lot. The price needs to be reasonable considering everything, the catalog needs to be obtained exclusively, the name conflict needs to be solved forever. Anything else is gravy, and I can think of a lot of things these two could do. Given all that, it's a no-brainer.
Apple Corps (The Beatles) have Apple dead to rights. Apple knows it, The Beatles know it. Taken to its end, the settlement or penalty could be huge.
The Beatles catalog is without doubt the ultimate prize in the music business. The Beatles have been shopping the catalog, seeking to give exclusive rights to one online outlet, for a huge sum.
Selling the Beatles catalog to another online outlet would be very, very bad news, and worldwide bad publicity.
"Apple on Apple!" Come on guys, you think Steve doesn't want this type of tag?
Apple has a lot of cash and there is not a lot to acquire. Bringing down the cash, getting the catalog exclusively, and settling this decades long problem permanently is awsome news, awsome publicity, and will be an awesome shot in the arm for the stock.
Such a deal is worth a lot to Apple. A lot. The price needs to be reasonable considering everything, the catalog needs to be obtained exclusively, the name conflict needs to be solved forever. Anything else is gravy, and I can think of a lot of things these two could do. Given all that, it's a no-brainer.
first off, one of the largest non-class action settlements was the well known Texaco case, and with a verdict into the hundreds of millions of dollars, I could almost gaurantee that this wont come close. I've never seen a trademark infringement case produce a verdict anywhere near that dollar amount.
Beyond that, If you read the Lanham act, specifically section 32 (15 U.S.C. 1114 (1)):
(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.
given that the likelihood of confusion between apple computers and a music catalogue is very unlikely, there isnt much chance of a big settlement, because there wouldnt be a big court verdict. We also have to consider that Apple Corps. trademark may be limited in its use in commerce to a good or service that was specified in the registration. This isnt much protection, but it is considered and i dont see that the marks really act on the same or similar goods or services (except potentially the apple music store, but i dont think Apple Corp. would by any stretch be seen to be in the business of selling online digital music files).
Beyond that, If you read the Lanham act, specifically section 32 (15 U.S.C. 1114 (1)):
(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.
given that the likelihood of confusion between apple computers and a music catalogue is very unlikely, there isnt much chance of a big settlement, because there wouldnt be a big court verdict. We also have to consider that Apple Corps. trademark may be limited in its use in commerce to a good or service that was specified in the registration. This isnt much protection, but it is considered and i dont see that the marks really act on the same or similar goods or services (except potentially the apple music store, but i dont think Apple Corp. would by any stretch be seen to be in the business of selling online digital music files).
uhlawboi80 said:
What about the issue of *future* confusion? Is that taken into consideration? For example, if Apple Corps. decided to open up their own online music store to sell Beatles downloads (and downloads from other Apple artists like Badfinger and James Taylor), and they decided to name their store, "The Apple Music Store," wouldn't that result in a lot of confusion?
ITR 81 said:
If the story's comments that Apple Records shareholders would become major shareholders of Apple Computers are right, it sort of is a merger. It implies that the settlement would be at least partly in stock. If it's a stock swap with a premium, you've got a settlement/merger.
I've been calling on this board for months for Apple to procure itself some content, namely in the form of a record label. Apple could control the rights to "Apple exclusives," control when the other download services get the content and for how long, and control the physical distribution of CDs.
I hope there's a deal soon.
uhlawboi80 said:
Great.
1. This would be a breach of contract case, as the parties had previously made an agreement with regard to their respective use of the word and mark "Apple." I would presume that there's some provision for substantial liquidated damages in the event of a breach, and that's why the talk is that the settlement numbers are huge.
2. Second, this case will proceed under British law. U.S.C. means United States Code, which wouldn't be applied in British courts unless the British courts were applying United States law. That's likely doubtful unless the agreement specifically provided that the standard for breach would be the U.S. infringement statute. Possible, but not likely. I'm guessing this case is in British courts because the contract provides that it has to be.
What about this: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
"Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term "Computer" is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling "Computer" brand computers (or "Apple" brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called "genericity"), and thus become unprotected."
Would that not mean that Apple would be considered a "generic" term?
That would mean that Apple cannot enter in the music business. One must define what "music business" means though.
"Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term "Computer" is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling "Computer" brand computers (or "Apple" brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called "genericity"), and thus become unprotected."
Would that not mean that Apple would be considered a "generic" term?
That would mean that Apple cannot enter in the music business. One must define what "music business" means though.
Porchland said:
This has been pending for sometime now and if it deals with the iTMS, that was only available in the US in the beginning. So, that would means that Apple Corp would have to file the trademark dispute in the US, no? How can you sue someone for something that is not available, in this case, Britain?
A few thoughts (I'll try not to repeat the prior points)
1. The one thing that makes me suspect of this is the part about Paul being on the Board. Who would be removed today? Paul does not fit the profile of the board members today. And I highly doubt Apple Computers is giving us enough of the company where Apple Corps could demand a seat.
2. The copyrights on the beginning of the Beatles catalog expires in 2012 in the UK. I don't know about the remainder of Europe but the copyright length is shorter than in the US. (In the US, we have Mickey Mouse to thank for the asinine copyright length, but that's a different rant.) Is Apple Corps looking to cash in while they can?
3. I doubt that Apple will buy the catalog since part of the Apple, inc. value proposition is they are unbiased and promote music fairly. And make no mistake about it, they play the "we're not MS so trust us" card.
4. I suspect Apple Computer is anxious to settle. There is too much risk here. By signing agreements on usage of the name, they have acknowledged the issue and trademark ownership. They can't claim it is a non issue at this point, and a court could force Apple Computer to rename themselves and Apple would love billions in brand equity. There's simply too much to lose.
5. Am I too young (I'm 33) to get why the Beatles' music is considered so good? It just doesn't do anything for me...just too much bubble gum pop for my tastes. Don't get me wrong, I think they are obviously very talented musicians, but I have to wonder how much of the Beatles were a cultural phenomenon
Personally, I hope this is put to rest forever, and Apple gets an exclusive on the entire Beatles catalog. Good for the Beatles, good for Apple.
(And I must admit, I have been laughing at some of the posts here. I guess there are dozens and dozens of people who have read the agreement between the two companies and have a command of all of the legal issues and precedents.)
1. The one thing that makes me suspect of this is the part about Paul being on the Board. Who would be removed today? Paul does not fit the profile of the board members today. And I highly doubt Apple Computers is giving us enough of the company where Apple Corps could demand a seat.
2. The copyrights on the beginning of the Beatles catalog expires in 2012 in the UK. I don't know about the remainder of Europe but the copyright length is shorter than in the US. (In the US, we have Mickey Mouse to thank for the asinine copyright length, but that's a different rant.) Is Apple Corps looking to cash in while they can?
3. I doubt that Apple will buy the catalog since part of the Apple, inc. value proposition is they are unbiased and promote music fairly. And make no mistake about it, they play the "we're not MS so trust us" card.
4. I suspect Apple Computer is anxious to settle. There is too much risk here. By signing agreements on usage of the name, they have acknowledged the issue and trademark ownership. They can't claim it is a non issue at this point, and a court could force Apple Computer to rename themselves and Apple would love billions in brand equity. There's simply too much to lose.
5. Am I too young (I'm 33) to get why the Beatles' music is considered so good? It just doesn't do anything for me...just too much bubble gum pop for my tastes. Don't get me wrong, I think they are obviously very talented musicians, but I have to wonder how much of the Beatles were a cultural phenomenon
Personally, I hope this is put to rest forever, and Apple gets an exclusive on the entire Beatles catalog. Good for the Beatles, good for Apple.
(And I must admit, I have been laughing at some of the posts here. I guess there are dozens and dozens of people who have read the agreement between the two companies and have a command of all of the legal issues and precedents.)
Lanbrown said:
"Apple" is only a generic term when applied to fruit. It is not a generic term when applied to computers or music.
Lindows tried to invalidate Microsoft's Windows trademark not by arguing that "windows" is a generic term for selling glass windows, but by arguing that by the time Windows came out, people in the computing world were already referring to "rectangles" on a computer screen as "windows." So, in that sense, "windows" is a generic term in the context of computing.
What gets me is how Microsoft was able to trademark the name of their word processor, "Word." Not only does that seem to be generic in context, but it also is very close in name to "WordPerfect."
Sorry... somehow every conversation gets back to Microsoft behavior ;-)
iPost said:
If you want to take it that direction, then how about other companies that are named Apple? A list was provided earlier. I don't see Apple Corp going after them. With trademarks, you have to defend it, if you don't, you lose it. Apple Computer could argue that point as well.
DesterWallaboo said:
Right but the tobacco industry was a class-action suit, it is in a different category.
Lanbrown said:
I don't follow. "Apple" is only a generic term only when applied to fruit. Therefore, companies are free to trademark the name "Apple" if it is applied to other products/markets.
The Beatles trademarked "Apple" for use in the music industry only. Therefore, they cannot go after any other company named "Apple" unless they enter the music industry. Likewise, Apple Computers has the trademark for Apple when applied to computers.
If The Beatles tried to sell computers using their Apple music brand, and called them Apple Computers, Apple (U.S.) would be able to sue them for trademark infringement.
The Beatles need to get over themselves, they were a the
first mass marketed 'pop' band--they were nothing but fluff...
first mass marketed 'pop' band--they were nothing but fluff...