Money. Apple Inc. no doubt offerred them money for the trademark, then licensed it back to Apple Corps for their uses for a nominal fee.
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 Inc and Apple Corps Form New Trademark Agreement
- Thread starter mrfrosty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Money. Apple Inc. no doubt offerred them money for the trademark, then licensed it back to Apple Corps for their uses for a nominal fee.
License *this*
I think it's really interesting that Apple Corps now has to license their logo back from Apple Inc. That must have been key in the agreement.
I think it's really interesting that Apple Corps now has to license their logo back from Apple Inc. That must have been key in the agreement.
My guess: (1) Money. Very good terms on distribution of the Beatles catalog, movies, interviews, etc., on iTS. Apple may have gone so far as to guarantee certain revenue benchmarks. (2) Exposure. Apple will probably license one or more Beatles tunes for an ad campaign, generating big fees and free publicity for for the label. (3) Prestige. Apple Corp. wants a digital distribution deal with a serious player, and Apple/iTS is the gold standard.
But mostly money.
These are simply AWESOME news! Apple will dominate the online music industry now, paving the way for Beatles on iTMS! All benefits from Apple Corps pass to Apple with little else to be given by Steve Jobs...AWESOME!
GO APPLE!
GO APPLE!
Well, it depends on what comes of it. If the Beatles agree to be iTunes exclusive for digital download, then yes, it is a huge deal.
Here's the all-time top 15 (US Sales only) In Millions of Albums Sold
BEATLES, THE 169.0
PRESLEY, ELVIS 118.5
BROOKS, GARTH 116.0
LED ZEPPELIN 109.5
EAGLES 91.0
JOEL, BILLY 79.5
PINK FLOYD 73.5
STREISAND, BARBRA 71.0
JOHN, ELTON 69.0
AC/DC 68.0
ROLLING STONES, THE 65.5
AEROSMITH 65.5
MADONNA 63.0
STRAIT, GEORGE 62.5
SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 62.5
Obviously, the Beatles dwarf all of the others. In addition, this is a world-wide phenomenon, which crosses over 3 generations of people now.
I'm voting for a 6G special edition Beatles Video Ipod based on the Iphone platform with 'The Beatles Anthology' TV series pre-loaded...
Let everyone see and remember how great and awesome the Beatles were - and this series certainly does that....then come back and buy their albums on Itunes digitally in Apple lossless format..
Now that would be a beautiful thing...and kind of revolutionary!
Let everyone see and remember how great and awesome the Beatles were - and this series certainly does that....then come back and buy their albums on Itunes digitally in Apple lossless format..
Now that would be a beautiful thing...and kind of revolutionary!
Bigggg frickinnnnnn whooop... I wanta some fresh Leopard news - news for Mac nerds, stuff that matters!
I noticed this yesterday - one of the Circuit City banner ads in rotation on iLounge's home page pictures an iPod with the Beatles' 'Love' cover displayed on the screen. Not that that means anything definite... but it seems curious...
Apple Corps made a trademark claim that was not valid. The court ruled in Apple Computer Inc's favor. Apple Corps was therefore due to pay Apple Computers legal expenses which were pretty large, on the orrder of $10,000,000 (that might be pounds not dollars, so might be twice as much).
As you know McCartney is also getting divorced and that was announced the same week the lawsuit went Apple Computer's way (I read the briefs and AComputer was being harassed by ACorps).
This does several things:
1- It gives Apple Corps unfettered rights and use of the logo they have been using for decades, a green, naturally colored Apple.
2- It clearly gives Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc) the rights of use of its graphicly stylized Apple with a segment cut out without dispute.
How anybody ever claimed they might be confused is strange to me, but it was an out of court settlement the first time and not ruled on by a judge.
3- Apple Corps does not have to pay millions of dollars in court costs to Apple Computer. They chose to settle that portion like they do in America not England.
4-Apple Corps now will benefit from positive publicity not negative around Apple, which is, shall we say, a cultural phenomena right now, actually larger than the Beatles ever were in sheer volume. (perhaps not as a % of the relative populations).
5- For all practical purposes Apple is positioning itself to be a dominant "media content" distributor and Apple Corps certainly will make more money off that than trademark lawsuits, even successful ones, which were not on the horizon.
6- Apple Inc has the responsibility of protecting future Trademark violations for BOTH companies thuse lowering future legal expenses for Apple Corps and assuring a more successful outcome as Apple Inc has better lawyers. The recent claim by Apple Corps should rightly result in their lawyers being censured BTW.
Start there.
Rocketman
Ridiculous Lawsuit from the Very Start
Since the "The Beatles" company was always called "Apple Corps, Ltd." and (at least up until recently) the Steve Jobs company was always called "Apple Computer, Inc.", this has been a ridiculous lawsuit from the very start.
Since the "The Beatles" company was always called "Apple Corps, Ltd." and (at least up until recently) the Steve Jobs company was always called "Apple Computer, Inc.", this has been a ridiculous lawsuit from the very start.
It has always seemed rather ridiculous to me. But apparently the issue was make more acute rather than clarified by an earlier agreement between the companies, in which Apple agreed to stay out of the music business.
Apple Computer, in a settlement, not a court ruling, agreed to stay out of the music "production" business but BOTH parties agreed Apple Computer could distribute, transmit, store retreive and even sell music. The document is posted in full back on the thread announcing the court ruling on the most recent claim. I posted some coments to that thread as well after reading and actually understanding all the public documents, which included the original settlement agreement and the pleadings from both sides on the current dispute. In summary Apple Corps was seeking compensation for something the agreement expressly allowed Apple Computer to do. They had really crappy lawyers.
Rocketman
Gosh, I'm shocked that Garth Brookes is so big in the USA. I remember him having some small success in the UK a few years ago and then fading away.
Apple Corps' continued fetish to rerelease albums over and over has something to do with this. The Beatles only have 12 studio albums, yet, with all the rereleases and compilations, the number balloons to 45. Led Zeppelin for instance only has 18 Albums out including the 8 original studio records, BBC Sessions, How the West was Won and a few less notable others.
Yeah, it is kind of sad. Also alarming is that #16 is Mariah Carey. I purposely chose to stop the list at #15.
What if?
Would be interesting if Apple Inc ended up owning a large stake in Apple Corp. That would really stick it to the other record companies. Could be good or could be bad.
Just a thought.
Would be interesting if Apple Inc ended up owning a large stake in Apple Corp. That would really stick it to the other record companies. Could be good or could be bad.
Just a thought.