Apple Corps lose lawsuit against Apple Computer

[steve_hill4]

You just forgot to mention Parliamentarism...

Not sure Bliar knows that word.

Technically, I believe you can now appoint any person to the cabinet in the UK. All you need to do is just give your friends a place in the Lords, then they can serve. Democracy, who needs it eh.

 

[yac_moda]

NOW the loopy rumorers are saying LATE MAY


BUT YOU DON'T MIND WAITING DO YOU

 

[rt_brained]

It's the only time I'll be able to get away with this...

APPLE SUCKS!

Oooooh...I feel naughty.

 

[JGowan]

Apple Corpse has run out of ways to re-release the Beatle's recordings and is therefore in desperate need of revenue.

Both your statements are just not true. The Beatles have been doing just fine, both in presenting their recordings and video archives to the world and also, in the return on that investment (ie. CA$H).

In the last few years alone, the Beatles have been selling their albums ala carte at an amazing rate for albums that old AND they've released the following collections: The Capitol Albums (v.1 & 2); Yellow Submarine (remasterd); First US Visit; Let It Be... Naked (a very different album than the original, let me personally say); The Anthology (v. 1, 2 & 3); One (a collection of all of their #1 hits and finally, the Concert For Bangladesh. They've also released their 10 hour Anthology video (first on VHS and most recently on DVD (a Must-Have for Beatles fans) as well as the companion Anthology coffetable book (also a Must-Have). They are also in the process of remastering the whole Beatles catalogue.*

In addition to all this, they have teamed up with Cirque du Soleil for The Mirage Hotel's presentation of "LOVE" in Las Vegas.

Finally, Paul McCartney has been very busy himself and is make serious money with his touring and individual projects. The last one, "Chaos And Creation In The Backyard", is a great little album that I am thrilled I got on my last birthday. It also has a VERY CLEVER bit of logo design wherein his name "Paul McCartney" can be read upside down (image included-right side up AND upside down. It makes quite an impression when physically holding the disc and rotating it 180˚. Discovering it accidently was like, wow. Certainly, Paul McCartney will not let HIS 64th Birthday go by without releasing SOMETHING. I would imagine at least some sort of "NOW I'M 64" single or possibly a whole new album with a new cut about being a senior. Paul turns 64 on June 18, 2006. He graces cover of AARP's May/June Magazine! (See first link below)

Final thought: This has had nothing to do with money. It was simply two companies actually believing they were right and standing their ground. I respect Apple Corps for trying to protect themselves in this manner. The Beatles and their music are still very much alive -- and still influence musicians to this day.

Final, Final thought: I'm glad Apple Computers won. I love both Apples, but the computer company is still my fav.

I'll take a fresh apple with a single bit out of it over Half of one any day.

---

Here's hoping (almost in vain) that this will all end up on iTunes. However, it's worth noting that Steve Jobs still believes in miracles...

" 'We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,'' Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. 'We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.' ''

Mann's judgement in full -- verbatim
Excellent Flash Timeline of Paul's 64 Years!
NY Times Article about Apple Computer's win
beatles.com
Ticket Sales for "LOVE"

* "We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages," Aspinall explained. "I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."

 

[VanNess]

Take it easy, I am a lawyer too (but NOT American)...the biggest problem is in the U.S. with its frivolous lawsuit system that allows everyone to sue for nothing, without expecting any procedural punishment or reversal of legal fees...it's also a problem of mentality, since people in the U.S. are unable nowadays to admit their own mistakes or stupidity (just look at their government and the institutionalized lies)...their legal system is so market-driven that they just prefer to sue, it's much easier.

I remember seeing the following law firm outdoor when driving in Florida: "Fell off the stairs? Call us!"; such ad would be simply forbidden in Brazil for lack of ethics...

Brazil, Europe and most legal systems have little to do with that crap.

For the unbelievers out there, please check out www.stellaawards.com for a great showroom of oportunists in the U.S.

In the US Judicial system, there are a number of ways to deal with a frivolous lawsuit, provided the complaint was indeed "frivolous" from a legal perspective. In other words, frivolous doesn't equate to your feelings about the law. In any event, if there is a problem with the complaint (including filing a frivolous lawsuit), there are a number of ways to deal with it - before the suit gets off the ground or, if it gets that far, goes to trial.

Demurer

Motion for Judgement on the pleadings

Motion for declaratory judgement

Motion to Dismiss

Motion for summary judgement

And if a complaint or subsequent motion work by either plaintiff or defendant bought before the court is in fact improper or frivolous, the aggrieved party can file a motion for sanctions, which could include reimbursement of attorney's fees (if not already provided for by statute) in addition to other penalties.

That's just off the top of my head. There are plenty of safeguards in the legal system to counter a truly frivolous lawsuit, but the public perception of how civil procedure works and specifically how frivolous lawsuits are addressed is basically nonexistent. The results of cases like the famous McDonalds case highlighted in the link you provided further the often false notion that frivolous lawsuits are common, largely because the outcome is perceived to be highly disproportionate with the initial facts surrounding the case. But the public never got the whole story on the McDonald's litigation, only the the seemingly incredible result. Basically, for reasons beyond the topic here, McDonalds bought that one squarely on themselves. They steadfastly believed there was no case, and all along treated the whole matter contemptuously and indifferently. They were wrong from the start.

My Brother-In-Law is a lawyer who stole $12,000 of my money through legal mumbo jumbo.

There is no such thing as "legal mumbo jumbo"

Regarding Apple v Apple, from my read of it, the case centered pretty much entirely on the iTMS, which Apple Corps believed was Apple computer's entry into the record business and thus a violation of the agreement. There was just no way in hell Apple Corps could pitch that argument, as Apple maintains only reseller agreements with the content providers on iTMS and does not operate as a record label nor has any interest in becoming a record label.

In order for Apple Corps to win, they would have to show that in essence your local Tower Records Store is in fact a record label. What were they thinking?

 

[ssteve]

And now, for the coups de gras, Steve Jobs will buy the rights to the Beatles music library from cash-strapped Michael Jackson and feature Beatles music in every iPod commercial from now to infinity.

This is funny! Very very funny!

 

[tboneh08]

Wheeeew...

What a relief...

 

[Scruff]

I would love Beatles music in the music store, I think it would be fantastic. And a Beatles iPod ad...

'Can't Buy Me Love' would be a brilliant song for it . Or 'Help!' ^_^.

 

[SPUY767]

Both your statements are just not true. The Beatles have been doing just fine, both in presenting their recordings and video archives to the world and also, in the return on that investment (ie. CA$H).

In the last few years alone, the Beatles have been selling their albums ala carte at an amazing rate for albums that old AND they've released the following collections: The Capitol Albums (v.1 & 2); Yellow Submarine (remasterd); First US Visit; Let It Be... Naked (a very different album than the original, let me personally say); The Anthology (v. 1, 2 & 3); One (a collection of all of their #1 hits and finally, the Concert For Bangladesh. They've also released their 10 hour Anthology video (first on VHS and most recently on DVD (a Must-Have for Beatles fans) as well as the companion Anthology coffetable book (also a Must-Have). They are also in the process of remastering the whole Beatles catalogue.*

In addition to all this, they have teamed up with Cirque du Soleil for The Mirage Hotel's presentation of "LOVE" in Las Vegas.

Finally, Paul McCartney has been very busy himself and is make serious money with his touring and individual projects. The last one, "Chaos And Creation In The Backyard", is a great little album that I am thrilled I got on my last birthday. It also has a VERY CLEVER bit of logo design wherein his name "Paul McCartney" can be read upside down (image included). Of course it might be hard to visualize onscreen. It, however, makes quite an impression when physically holding the disc and rotating it 180˚. Certainly, Paul McCartney will not let HIS 64th Birthday go by without releasing SOMETHING. I would imagine at least some sort of "NOW I'M 64" single or possibly a whole new album with a new cut about being a senior. Paul turns 64 on June 18, 2006. He graces cover of AARP's May/June Magazine! (See first link below)

Final thought: This has had nothing to do with money. It was simply two companies actually believing they were right and standing their ground. I respect Apple Corps for trying to protect themselves in this manner. The Beatles and their music are still very much alive -- and still influence musicians to this day.

Final, Final thought: I'm glad Apple Computers won. I love both Apples, but the computer company is still my fav.

I'll take a fresh apple with a single bit out of it over Half of one any day.

---

Here's hoping (almost in vain) that this will all end up on iTunes. However, it's worth noting that Steve Jobs still believes in miracles...

" 'We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,'' Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. 'We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.' ''

Excellent Flash Timeline of Paul's 64 Years!
NY Times Article about Apple Computer's win
beatles.com
Ticket Sales for "LOVE"

* "We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages," Aspinall explained. "I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."

Will you just take me out in the parking lot and kick me in the nuts next time. None of that was necessary. I was just making a quick play on words, which ,while many will think I was beaten to, if they will reference more apple corps news from about two weeks ago, I have previously referred to them as Apple Corpse. So how about this. Stuff it. You getting bent all out of the frame because I make a short and sweet two line post at 6 in the morning just goes to show how foolish we can be sometimes.

 

[210]

The Beatles On The iTunes Music Store

Why do people care if The Beatles' music is on iTunes?? Considering this recent argument, I'm sure Apple Corp. will sell their music on any download music store except iTunes.

But who cares? Yes, Apple Computer will lose out on money, but considering how popular iTunes Music Store is already, I doubt they'll lose much sleep. And any Beatles fan out there would already own their music. Most likely on CD so there's no problem putting the music on your iTunes/iPod.

 

[milo]

Will you just take me out in the parking lot and kick me in the nuts next time. None of that was necessary. I was just making a quick play on words, which ,while many will think I was beaten to, if they will reference more apple corps news from about two weeks ago, I have previously referred to them as Apple Corpse. So how about this. Stuff it. You getting bent all out of the frame because I make a short and sweet two line post at 6 in the morning just goes to show how foolish we can be sometimes.

Sheesh. Kick you in them? Sounds like you need to grow a pair, Sally.

 

[JGowan]

Will you just take me out in the parking lot and kick me in the nuts next time. None of that was necessary. I was just making a quick play on words, which ,while many will think I was beaten to, if they will reference more apple corps news from about two weeks ago, I have previously referred to them as Apple Corpse. So how about this. Stuff it. You getting bent all out of the frame because I make a short and sweet two line post at 6 in the morning just goes to show how foolish we can be sometimes.

The only negative thing I said to you was "both your statements are just not true". I think the only person getting "bent all out of the frame" is you. I didn't agree with your statement and went on to submit an informed post: siting links, graphics and information. What's wrong with that?

SPUY, this is a public forum about complicated issues. It's designed so that people can dissagree and do it constructively. If you can't recognize that a short and sweet two line post might, from time-to-time, get a negative response, you might reconsider continuing to post here.

Oh and since you're so concern with getting due credit for "Apple Corpse": I say "brilliant", "delicious", "absolutely classic". I think Mad Magazine is taking applications.

 

[APPLENEWBIE]

Should help the stock?

Do you think it will help the stock?

 

[SPUY767]

Sheesh. Kick you in them? Sounds like you need to grow a pair, Sally.

Watch this, you can tell everyone that I have no testicles, but when I call you an idiot, my post will get pulled, and I'll likely have to take a posting vacation.

 

[JGowan]

Why do people care if The Beatles' music is on iTunes?? Considering this recent argument, I'm sure Apple Corp. will sell their music on any download music store except iTunes.

But who cares? Yes, Apple Computer will lose out on money, but considering how popular iTunes Music Store is already, I doubt they'll lose much sleep. And any Beatles fan out there would already own their music. Most likely on CD so there's no problem putting the music on your iTunes/iPod.

Here's my thoughts about your question:

Apple doesn't care about the average Beatle-manic. You're right, they already have all of the music. And they wouldn't think about 128 AAC for their precious Beatles music.

Apple wants the casual Beatles fan. The one who knows some of the hits and might have an album. Probably buying "1" got them all of the songs they THINK they'd care to have, right? Surely, if the other Beatles songs didn't make Number 1, they weren't very good, right?

But if you could get the millions of casual fans out their to take a listen to all of the songs (in a 30 second preview), that would translate into a LOT of sales. It's a form of education. Educate the masses of everything they did, not just the hits. Cha-ching.

Also, lots of mega-fans are baby-boomers are close to it. By getting the Beatles onto iTunes, it would be "such a story" that millions of younger music-lovers would have to check out what the hoopla was (is)... again, cha-ching. Impulse buying, baby. You do it on a planetary scale and you're banking, son.

 

[milo]

Watch this, you can tell everyone that I have no testicles, but when I call you an idiot, my post will get pulled, and I'll likely have to take a posting vacation.

You made an off topic post filled with nothing but whining, expect someone to call you on it. If you can't handle people responding to your posts, maybe you're not ready to handle posting on the internet.

 

[VanNess]

Here's my thoughts about your question:

Apple doesn't care about the average Beatle-manic. You're right, they already have all of the music. And they wouldn't think about 128 AAC for their precious Beatles music.

Apple wants the casual Beatles fan. The one who knows some of the hits and might have an album. Probably buying "1" got them all of the songs they THINK they'd care to have, right? Surely, if the other Beatles songs didn't make Number 1, they weren't very good, right?

But if you could get the millions of casual fans out their to take a listen to all of the songs (in a 30 second preview), that would translate into a LOT of sales. It's a form of education. Educate the masses of everything they did, not just the hits. Cha-ching.

Also, lots of mega-fans are baby-boomers are close to it. By getting the Beatles onto iTunes, it would be "such a story" that millions of younger music-lovers would have to check out what the hoopla was (is)... again, cha-ching. Impulse buying, baby. You do it on a planetary scale and you're banking, son.

And my thoughts into the frey...

First, will make the assumption that Apple Corps is in fact going to release some or all of the Beatles music catalog for online downloading (legal of course) as has been reported lately.

Then it looks like Apple Corps has 2 choices: they can either try to jumpstart one of the many failed online music stores that collectively comprise less than 20 percent of the market and hope and pray that the introduction of Beatles songs will catapult one of them into iTunes' market share - despite the fact that said music store would not even be iPod compatible.

Or they can eat crow, get some money to pay off Apple (Computer's) lawyers and much much more by hooking up with iTMS with it's greater than 80 percent market share, proven ability to sell more than one billion songs, and iPod compatibility with millions of iPod owners.

Unless the powers that be at Apple Corps have more holes in their heads than it takes to fill the Albert Hall, it seems like the decision is pretty obvious, but considering how these guys have handled modern emerging technologies, it seems like nothing is too dumb.

 

[revjay]

Steve Actually Said It!

Here's my thoughts about your question:

Apple doesn't care about the average Beatle-manic. You're right, they already have all of the music. And they wouldn't think about 128 AAC for their precious Beatles music.

Apple wants the casual Beatles fan. The one who knows some of the hits and might have an album. Probably buying "1" got them all of the songs they THINK they'd care to have, right? Surely, if the other Beatles songs didn't make Number 1, they weren't very good, right?

But if you could get the millions of casual fans out their to take a listen to all of the songs (in a 30 second preview), that would translate into a LOT of sales. It's a form of education. Educate the masses of everything they did, not just the hits. Cha-ching.

Also, lots of mega-fans are baby-boomers are close to it. By getting the Beatles onto iTunes, it would be "such a story" that millions of younger music-lovers would have to check out what the hoopla was (is)... again, cha-ching. Impulse buying, baby. You do it on a planetary scale and you're banking, son.

"We are glad to put this disagreement behind us," Apple Computers CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement.

"We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store," he said (associated press)

Go for it Steevo!

 

[JGowan]

It could all be a giant charade

What if this $3M case was just a giant charade? Sure, they put $3M but what's that to them? Nothing. The case couldn't be written better (Apple vs Apple, c'mon!) -- The PRESS that this whole thing has generated has been worth millions in publicity. IF that's what they ultimately wanted. Get people thinking about Beatles music and iTunes and iPods.

To just come out with "Beatles is now on iTunes", ... yeah, it's cool, but then it's gone. To have a big court embattlement for awhile and THEN go online, it makes a much, much bigger story.

Paul and Steve have always struck me as oddly similar. I think they both know the old adage is true: there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[JGowan]

Apple Corps v Apple Computer: judgment in full

Mann's judgement in full -- verbatim -- it just does not get any better in understanding what went on -- well, we could've gotten a video of the judge, himself, reading this...

timesonline.co.uk

 

[knackroller]

What if Steve Jobs spins off a subsidiary company and let that company run either itunes or do whatever music stuff they want to get into (including iKaraoke!), that might be one way to get around this issue.

As an aside, Apple Corp isn't even a "real" record label apart from Beatles issues .... what's the latest non-Beatle related Apple record...was there even one?

 

[mcarnes]

Unless the powers that be at Apple Corps have more holes in their heads than it takes to fill the Albert Hall...

John Lennon would be proud of that reference.

I'd love to turn. you. on.

 

[mikeyrogers]

Um, since the target is against Apple and creating music, wouldn't the logical lawsuit be against Garageband?

 

[elgruga]

SPUY767 v. milo in the court of macrumors. May 8th 2006.

I hereby find that SPUY767 has no case to answer and that milo must pay all costs and apologise to SPUY767 in writing.

I suggest that milo's actions might be construed as an aide to understanding the whole silly Apple v. Apple case; to wit, some people really DO get bent out of shape over nothing, and have shrivelled testi... sorry, sense of humor.........

 

[elgruga]

Um, since the target is against Apple and creating music, wouldn't the logical lawsuit be against Garageband?

YES!

But dont tell McCartney, for gods sake - no more of this madness, please!

I doubt that the surviving beatles even know what Garageband is.