Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
57,383
20,214


Macworld.co.uk reports that a decision on the Apple Corps v. Apple Computer Inc. case will be announced on Monday, May 8.

Apple Corps, the recording company founded by the Beatles, sued Apple Computer Inc last year for allegedly breaching a trademark settlement made by the companies in 1991. The 1991 settlement's language barred Apple Computer from distributing music on physical media, but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time but was clearly within the spirit of the agreement.

Should the court decide against Apple Computer, the judge is expected to forcibly remove Apple's logo from iTunes, and precedent would be set for a large sum of money be paid to Apple Corps.

Raw Data: Recent court decision quoting 1991 ruling.
 

Aquaporin

macrumors 6502
Jun 27, 2005
461
96
USA
That would be devestating. Although, since the beatles are no longer a group should the case still be upheld?
 

BenRoethig

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2002
2,729
0
Dubuque, Iowa
What would probably happen is that the Ipod/Itunes section would be spun off like filemaker. However, in my mind, there is nobody on earth how is going to mistake a dormant record label for Apple computer.
 

luminosity

macrumors 65816
Jan 10, 2006
1,364
0
Arizona
Sad that apple corps feels the need to keep itself afloat by using another company. they're ancient history now, and irrelevant. just a lot of sour grapes and whining.
 

sintaxi

macrumors member
Dec 15, 2005
71
0
I am currently taking a law class and we have discussed this case. My Proff seems to think that apple corp will win. I think I disagree because apple computers is only providing a means for record labels to distribute their product. Apple isnt actually distributing music.

Ironic how Apple Computers paved the way for legal downloads. and now they are being sued.
 

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,971
171
California
OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good...



Whatever. They'll probably work out some deal to sell their songs on iTunes cuz the heads at Apple Corps. are up there with the asshats at the RIAA.
 

~Shard~

macrumors P6
Jun 4, 2003
18,377
46
1123.6536.5321
Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this story and am curious to see how the judge will rule.
 

jimN

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2005
941
17
London
cpuldn't apple just buy these guys out and then fire them. Now that would be amusing.
 

corywoolf

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2004
1,352
3
I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.
 

benpatient

macrumors 68000
Nov 4, 2003
1,870
0
stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement.

there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store.

seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store.

But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they?

Apple Media Store?

can't use "Apple" anymore.

iTunes Media Store.

stays iTMS.

remove the apple logo from it.

no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.
 

corywoolf

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2004
1,352
3
~Shard~ said:
Yikes, this could be bad news for Apple - and so unnecessary in my mind. It's not like the Beatles are still around, or this old record label has any significance these days (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). I'll defintely be following this sorry and am curious to see how the judge will rule.

Don't be sorry! ;)
 

dr_lha

macrumors 68000
Oct 8, 2003
1,626
129
Stridder44 said:
OK the Beatles are good, sure....but not THAT good...
Yes - the were.

But that's not the issue. Apple Corps are run by a bunch of ex-Apple roadies that are desperately trying to make money by any means necessary. They're wankers, but this in no way dimishes how good the Beatles were.
 

corywoolf

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2004
1,352
3
benpatient said:
stupid or not, it was stupid for Apple Computer to so clearly violate a set agreement.

there's a reason it's called the iTunes Music store.

seems like a better name would have been Apple Music Store.

But now that wouldn't make sense either. podcasts and tv shows aren't exactly "music" are they?

Apple Media Store?

can't use "Apple" anymore.

iTunes Media Store.

stays iTMS.

remove the apple logo from it.

no big deal. Seems pretty arrogant of Apple Computer to have not done this from the beginning.

You sir, just hit the nail on the head.
:eek: :D
 

dr_lha

macrumors 68000
Oct 8, 2003
1,626
129
munkees said:
This will only effect apple in the UK, seeing that the prior judgement has no legal bounds outside UK law.
Losing a large chunk of change will effect Apple everywhere however.
 

p0intblank

macrumors 68030
Sep 20, 2005
2,548
2
New Jersey
I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?
 

echeck

macrumors 68000
Apr 20, 2004
1,831
21
Boise, Idaho
Macrumors said:
...but Apple Corps has argued that downloadable music could not be envisioned at the time...
I disagree whole-heartedly with this statement. How could online distribution not be envisioned in 1991? Around that time the Internet was still in its infancy, but it was growing very fast. Digital distribution wasn't exactly a brand new idea at that time.

I don't care if it was in the "spirit" of the agreement or not, they should have specified.

I hope Apple, Inc. wins straight out.
 

vtprinz

macrumors 6502
Nov 30, 2004
395
0
This has nothing to do with the actual case, but did anyone notice the name of the judge from the '91 trial?


Mr. Justice Mann.


That's amazing.



/end
 

kozmic stu

macrumors newbie
Feb 27, 2006
21
0
England
I don't understand

I still don't get why so many people think Apple Corp MUST be after money and only money in this case... Seems to me that actually The Beatles (and so Apple Corps) already have LOTS of money. Had they only been after a large settlement, surely they would have allowed the case to take place in the USA, where the chances of winning are higher, as are the settlements, in general.

I also don't buy the argument that they're tying to buy back the rights to the Beatles catalogue as Paul McCartney's no fool and the rights revert back to him in a few years anyway.

Seems to me that this is about the fact the when The Beatles music is put up on iTunes, under the 'Record Label' section it will say 'Apple'. When Apple Computer advertises the iTMS, they play a music video, followed by a picture of an Apple: which can easily be seen to imply that Apple is the publishing company for the music being played. Both these things lead to brand ambiguity, and are clearly against the 1991 agreement,

I can't see a way in which Apple Computer can win

But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just using my head...

Stu

P.S. I actually want Apple Computer to win, but not because they SHOULD, just because I don't want them to lose.
 

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,897
1,603
Falls Church, VA
p0intblank said:
I really hope Apple wins this. It's a stupid arguement. Seriously, did anyone see music eventually being sold online and being successful?

Dude, in this conversation you really gotta qualify your "Apple's". Reading what you wrote, I have no idea which Apple you are talking about.
 

runninmac

macrumors 65816
Jan 20, 2005
1,494
0
Rockford MI
corywoolf said:
I bet Apple announces that it will split into two. iTunes Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. A new iTunes update will no longer show the Apple logo, instead it will show the iTunes logo. The iPod will be left to iTunes Inc. to develop and report to Apple Computer Inc. The new Apple campus being built is for the new iTunes Inc. and it will still work closely with Apple Inc. Apple also announces the limited edition Beatles iPod with engraved image of the logo and band members with signatures. This along with the entire Beatles catalogue being on the iTMS will be the talk of the news. Apple will also release a new iPod commercial featuring a popular Beatles tune. This is of course just speculation, but it at least has some reasonable thought put into it.

Yay for people actually thinking good. I hate the people that actually post things that will never happen and expect people to agree with them. I would just hope that they TIGHTLY and i mean TIGHTLY intergrate the companys. StevyJ being the CEO of both. (obviously)
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,452
0
I would be shocked if Apple Computer didn't win this case.

The case seems to boil down to one point, from what I have read in the media. Would a reasonable person using iTunes think that Apple Corps is behind it? (Thus, the reasoning behind removing the Apple logo from the software.)

The dumbest person in the world wouldn't think that.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.