Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple v Apple Decision on May 8?

In the style of of dear Pub Landlord...

"BACK OFF YOU WORK SHY SCOUSER, SITTING ON YOUR ARSE AND ROBBING DECENT HARD WORKING COMPUTER COMPANIES OF THEIR EARNINGS...of course they are Yanks, grrrr!"

😛
 
evilgEEk said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it wasnt growing very fast in 91 if memory serves me correctly... was 56k even around?? I think it was still 14.4k that was the hot ticket and most common connection speed back then if that. And I think digital distribution was a brand new idea at the time... You would be hard pressed to find a web site with images let alone music.
 
It's rediculous - the apple corps logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. The record company's logo is an apple, Apple's logo is THE APPLE LOGO.
There is no way you could pursuade me that Apple stole the logo, or that they should pay any money to the members of one of the most successful and richest bands ever.
 
I think we've been over all the issues involved in this dispute many times. I'm just glad it might finallly be over.

And let's hope they have a comprehensive enough settlement agreement that we don't have another suit in the future about another unforseen intersection of Apples and music.
 
mac-er said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's merely how Apple (Computer) is framing the issue. In reality, it boils down to standard contractual interpretation. In other words, the real issue is whether or not Apple (Computer) violates an agreement they made not to sell music under the Apple name. There is a large body of standard legal contract doctrine that will decide this issue. The wildcard, from our perspective, is that none of us knows what the contract actually said. Assuming a written order (which the judge is not compelled to issue), we'll find out something about that when we finally read it.

Anyone who frames an opinion either way with respect to this issue without knowing the substance of the contract is simply shooting their mouth off.

As a side note, the main post misuses the term "precedent." One case serves as precedent for another case by interpreting the law in such a way as to apply to analogous facts. A case, however, does not provide "precedent" for damages within that case. Rather, the factual and legal determinations form a basis for damages, and any subsequent appeal.

Could the damages be large? In a word, yes.
 
Doctor Q said:
I think we've been over all the issues involved in this dispute many times. I'm just glad it might finallly be over.

And let's hope they have a comprehensive enough settlement agreement that we don't have another suit in the future about another unforseen intersection of Apples and music.
Click to expand...

They didn't settle; that's why this went to trial.
 
kozmic stu said:
I can't see a way in which Apple Computer can win
Click to expand...

how about the facts that:
1) apple doesn't produce music, but only distributes it, and
2) online music is not specified in the agreement, so Apple Computer has not violated the letter of their agreement
 
evilgEEk said:
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.
Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion about what this case is about, is it that Apple Computer are distributing music which goes against the 'spirit' of the 1991 agreement, or that people might confuse Apple Computer with Apple Corps.

If its about the 1991 agreement, then I would think Apple Computer should be OK. To hell with the 'spirit' - if everyone followed the spirit of things lawyers would out of a job. They make their money out of what is not written down (not that theres anything wrong with that) - but heres the wording from the original agreement regarding where apple was allowed to play:

Apple Computer Field of Use means (i) electronic good,s including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium; (ii) data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services; (iii) ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution; (iv) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services; and (v) promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing.
Click to expand...

OK, I think that you could argue that what Apple do now falls within the description given above. The music is just data when it comes down to it.

Now, if its about people thinking Apple Computer is Apple Corp (and think about this Apple Corp, there are worse things in the world right now than people thinking you are part of apple Computer ;-)) then a later section deals with trade mark usage:

4. RIGHTS TO USE TRADE MARKS"Apple Computer shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use.
"Apple Corps shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Corps Field of Use.
"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).
Click to expand...

Again, I dont see anything there that screams out they are not playing fair. They dont distribute physical media, and they have the right to put Apple Computer Marks on their software.

Am I missing something?
 
Could we be seeing this soon???

MacTunes? iTunes by Mac? Either way, the cash could be the largest hurt for Apple. As long as the iPod can wear the Apple, iTunes already has enough brand recognition to be okay.
 

Attachments

  • itunes.gif
    itunes.gif
    7.5 KB · Views: 105
  • itunesmac.gif
    itunesmac.gif
    7.8 KB · Views: 106
ITASOR said:
If Apple is ruled against, they can't call the iPod an "Apple iPod" anymore? That sucks...
Click to expand...

why can't the ipod stay with Apple? the way i see it, only the music store would be affected, if Apple Corps wins. The iPod is just a hard drive that can play music, whether it comes from CDs bought from Apple Corps or downloaded through iTunes. It doesn't have anything to do with the distribution of music.

Seperate Apple and iTunes, nothing else changes. You won't even have to change the commercials, don't they all say "iPod+iTunes," as in two seperate things. hey, even leave the Apple logo on those commercials, it's just two companies advertising together. Like those Radio Shack commercials that advertise Sirius, or a movie trailer that advertises a featured car in the movie.

Now, as to whether or not Apple Comp. will win... I don't know how exactly the law works in this fashion, but i understand that the way things are worded are very important. And the judgement from '91 clearly says "physical media." I understand it's all about Apple Corps never imagining another form of distribution, but why not just say Apple Comp. can not distribute music. Add to that Apple is defined in the '91 judgement as providing "data transmission services." that's all iTMS is. whether it's music, music videos, or TV shows.. it's just transmitting data, and the Apple logo is nowhere to be seen within those transmissions.
 
elo said:
They didn't settle; that's why this went to trial.
Click to expand...
Correct, and I didn't explain my point well. Even if Apple and Apple have a settlement forced upon them by court decision, I'm hoping it will put the problems to rest, and not become just another battle in a continued feud.

Followup worry: Whichever way this decision comes out, is it going to be appealed?
 
Superdrive said:
MacTunes? iTunes by Mac? Either way, the cash could be the largest hurt for Apple. As long as the iPod can wear the Apple, iTunes already has enough brand recognition to be okay.
Click to expand...

Nahh, I dont think so...🙂

More this...😱
 

Attachments

  • iTunes.gif
    iTunes.gif
    10.2 KB · Views: 132
Not amazing, just retarded

vtprinz said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it's just a title. The monarchy north of France hasn't quite made it to the 21st century yet in many ways.

In Britseze it's not merely "Mr Justice" btw, the guy would probably be offended. Thou shalt address him as "The Honourable Mr Justice Mann".

see here for a list of his mates:
http://www.catribunal.org.uk/about/memberlist.asp?Category='3'
 
Lumeswell said:
[8< *snip*]

Again, I dont see anything there that screams out they are not playing fair. They dont distribute physical media, and they have the right to put Apple Computer Marks on their software.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I'm with you. The only thing I can think of that might possibly violate the agreement is Apple selling preloaded iPods (think U2).
 
macgyver2 said:
I'm with you. The only thing I can think of that might possibly violate the agreement is Apple selling preloaded iPods (think U2).
Click to expand...

They were't sold pre-loaded, just pre-purchased. You still had to download the songs from iTunes.
 
joseph2166 said:
It's rediculous - the apple corps logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. The record company's logo is an apple, Apple's logo is THE APPLE LOGO.
There is no way you could pursuade me that Apple stole the logo, or that they should pay any money to the members of one of the most successful and richest bands ever.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the argument...
 
dr_lha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you. This trial has nothing to do with the Beatles (best band ever, by the way) but the record company which happened to be founded by them. Beatles recordings are now owned my Capitol and EMI, I think...

Removing the Apple logo from iTunes? Nooooooooo!
 
elo said:
Actually, that's merely how Apple (Computer) is framing the issue. In reality, it boils down to standard contractual interpretation. In other words, the real issue is whether or not Apple (Computer) violates an agreement they made not to sell music under the Apple name. There is a large body of standard legal contract doctrine that will decide this issue. The wildcard, from our perspective, is that none of us knows what the contract actually said. Assuming a written order (which the judge is not compelled to issue), we'll find out something about that when we finally read it.

Anyone who frames an opinion either way with respect to this issue without knowing the substance of the contract is simply shooting their mouth off.

As a side note, the main post misuses the term "precedent." One case serves as precedent for another case by interpreting the law in such a way as to apply to analogous facts. A case, however, does not provide "precedent" for damages within that case. Rather, the factual and legal determinations form a basis for damages, and any subsequent appeal.

Could the damages be large? In a word, yes.
Click to expand...

well spending fifteen minutes looking around the itunes store i find that it would be perfectly possible to not even know it is apple's creation.

in no way does it "look" like they are selling music under apples name so that would mean they arent selling music under apples name.
 
Dear Apple records,
I've got a feeling I will have to Cry baby Cry if this Long, Long, Long trial continues any further. It seems like Here, There And Everywhere Apple records is suing Apple computer once again. I Want To Tell You that Apple shaped logos are For No One, but, rather, for everyone to share. You need to Slow Down, because Baby, you're a Rich Man. I mean, come on! Ob-La-Di Ob- La-Da, life goes on. Run For Your Life! Im So Tired of rich record execs constantly yelling I Me Mine! The fact of the matter is that You Cant Do That. Tell me why you need so much money? Tomorrow Never Knows, but You Wont See Me purchasing any more Apple records unless this Helter Skelter comes to a stop.
Hello, Goodbye,
Kingsly
 
Apple Corps has been a failure since Day 1. they had the biggest head start in business history, but failed anyway.

Now they have to get money by leeching off other people's successes, regardless of what some legal contract says.
 
Reading between the lines I think the major problem this go around is the two parties have yet to settle out of court as in times past.Since the Judge said he will give his decision May 8th.One can presume that is a correct assumption..

Personally I think Apple Corp.is really going after Apple Computer this time.They know iTunes is the biggest music distributor of online music and they want to distribute the Beatles catalog online.They even said so in court..
One of two things are going to happen..
There will be a last minute settlement with The Beatles holding a very prominent view on the iTunes front page with ALL the monies from the sale of Beatles music going to Apple Corp...or...

Apple stock takes a dive due to shelling out 200-500 million dollars and changing the iTunes store to something like iMedia Store with no Apple Computer logo..


Lets hope these two trend-setting folks can do it properly.
But like the good Dr.Q...I too hope this ends once and for all because there are new and exciting things coming up for Apple Computer..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back