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?

Apple

Apple Inc. should have lost the first time.

There are common names out there like Orange, Apple, and Tropical used for many companies. Most are followed up my a second part to their name like: Orange Micro, Apple Computer, or Tropical Products. To use things like apples if your name is Apple Computer for you logo should be acceptable. Apple Computer's rainbow colored apple with a bite out of it is clearly not a copy of the cut in half apple of Apple Inc, niether is their name, type of business, way of advertizing or even the counrty wich they are headquartered in.

Sad to say the same crap happens. The problem is that copywrite laws have lost thier focus. Some guy is suing E-bay for their "Buy It Now," button, and Wrigley's is suing Ice-Breaker's (Hershey's) for using Cooling type flavors in chewing gum.

This is a scary thing for all businesses to see happen. Apple Inc. would sue you too if they thought they could win.
 
Apple Corp. should and will win.

It does not matter that you think the Beatles are old news. The fact is that they created a company called Apple in 1967/1968, which still is in the music business today. Just because Apple Computer is "bigger" and more relevent also does NOT matter. Twice already Apple Computer settled with Apple Corp agreeing NOT to be in the music business. They each outlined their own individual perameters They came to a mutual agreement. A settlement.

Apple computer is now in the music business which is the problem. Another point is that in 1991 when the last settlement was made, no one thought of digital distribution of music so Apple Corp is in fact violating that agreement. They not only distribute albums of others, but sell exclusive tracks and create playlists like the celebrity lists which are specific to iTunes. Even though Apple Computer is fighting this on a technicality (digital downloads vs. CDs or albums), the spirit of that 1991 agreement was that Apple Computer would not be IN the music business.

This is strictly business. Even if you forget the individual Beatles or their heirs, Apple Corps must protect their company and had to sue AppleComputer. Apple Computer does the same with their company as you'd never find another computer related company called Apple. They even sue people who use iPod in their name. Why do you think that iPod Lounge is now iLounge. If someone started an iPod Record label, they would certainly get a cease and desist letter/

Steve Jobs offered the Beatles one million dollars just prior to launching iTunes, which Apple Corp. turned down (sounds like an offer from an Austin Powers movie). I thing Apple Corp is in the right here and I think they will win, but a settlement will probably happen which would benefit both parties.

Again this is not greed and Apple Corps still releases CDs every year and has a very profitable catalogue in print, which Steve Jobs would love to have on iTunes.
 
The "Fab Four" were The Beatles, not The Apple Corps...

Take a survey in most any city of the world, and chances are people have heard of The Beatles. And many of those surveyed could even pop off a few lines from one of their songs - never mind if they're tonally-ungifted.

However, prior to the 3rd Round of this silly courtroom shenanigans, how many of those people surveyed would give a correct answer to the following: "Can you name a musical artist who sold records under the Apple label?"... Hell, rewrite the question any way you want, and 99% of those surveyed would not give you a correct answer. Especially if you first asked what business Apple Corp was in.

Hundreds of millions of people can tell you at least something about The Beatles. Few can tell you about Apple Corp. Now, if Steve Jobs & Woz had decided to name the company Beatles Computers, then I'd rule in favor of the Fab Four, Now Reduced to Two.

I say Apple Corp should change its name for the sake of relevancy, if nothing else...

PS: If the High Courts are high on something, and rule in Apple Corp's favor, then their next target should be Apple Insureance in Southern California - I've seen their building on the 405 Freeway, in Orange County, and... pssst... it has an apple as a logo.
__________________________________

The one point of "possible confusion" is if people thought of Apple Comp. versus Apple Corp., but I've never seen Apple "Computer, Inc." referred to as Apple Comp., so that comes across as lame... Although, what one person posted earlier, about The Beatles being listed under "Apple" in iTMS for their record label - yeah, that might be confusing... Then, again, how many people shop for music, on iTMS or even in any brick & mortar store, by saying to themselves, "I wonder what Sony has released this week?..."

Regardless of the judge's decision, this retarded nonsense has to end once and for all. Especially if Sir Paul McCartney expects to retain his credibility if he walks out his front door with white ear buds dangling from his coifed sideburns.....
 
nemaslov said:
Even though Apple Computer is fighting this on a technicality (digital downloads vs. CDs or albums), the spirit of that 1991 agreement was that Apple Computer would not be IN the music business.
Click to expand...

Review the following closely...

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...

The "spirt" of the agreement appears to allow Apple Computer to use the Apple Computer logo on hardware, software and/or with a distribution service that can reproduce (say rip from CD, copy a file), play (iTunes, iPod), or deliver (iTMS) content as long as Apple Computer doesn't use the Apple Computer trade mark in conjunction with physical media delivering pre-recorded content.

So can you outline how Apple Computer has violated that? In practice or in spirt?
 
dausone said:
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.
Click to expand...

You would have been hard pressed to find a web site, period. The WWW was announced by the inventor (Tim Berners-Lee) August 1991.
 
Azadre said:
That would be devestating. Although, since the beatles are no longer a group should the case still be upheld?
Click to expand...
they may not be a group but there matrial is housed in a company that deffently exsists they werent thick about there music they covered all bases and sadly there more than likely going to win sorry to all those who posted before me but i havent read all the posts or pages apple vs apple is getting very tyring
 
hahaha...

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.



/end
Click to expand...

That sounds like some kind of superhero...

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's JUSTICE MANN!!!😀
 
FearFactor47 said:
A large sum of money? How much are we talking?

Tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions?
Click to expand...


dr_evil_pinky.jpg

One hundred.....BILLION DOLLARS!
 
dausone said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, 56K wasn't around at that time. I think my modem was a 2800 baud, not exactly broadband. 😉

But the ideas still existed, just as the idea of the Internet existed long before it was realized.

That's my point, the idea of digital distribution was definitely not a new thing.
 
There are an awful amount of people here that think Apple Computers can do no wrong.

If Apple Computers lose then Apple Computers have violated their previous agreement. End of subject.

Apple Corp have a good reason to protect their trademark - if they didn't they would lose it, simple as that. Apple Computers would do the same, and they have done, to protect their trademarks.

Neither is this because Apple Corp want their catalogue on online music stores. Do you *really* think they would have a hard time in doing so? Of course not.. all online music stores want Beatles music, and they would see that as 'Gold'.

I really doubt Apple Corp are doing this for money, because they are about to go under, any suggestion towards this is absolute absurd - please correct me if I'm wrong.

From the postings I've read, nemaslov is about the most sane. Others, well, are just fan-boy/girl efforts.
 
MacPhreak said:
You would have been hard pressed to find a web site, period. The WWW was announced by the inventor (Tim Berners-Lee) August 1991.
Click to expand...

Gopher, Usenet, NNTP, FTP, bulletin boards, email!!, etc. all existed before that date and it was common for software and in particular images and sound files to be distributed via the Internet. WWW was a late comer to the scene but it did change it radically.

Anyway the idea of digital distribution was well thought about in the industry well before 1991 (heck back in the 70s at least).
 
Meh,

Chalk this up as further evidence that in the 21st Century it is more profitable to make lawsuits than it is to make products...
 
I love the fact there are so many armchair lawyers!! 🙂

Do you know how much money you could earn if you were all lawyers?!!!
( though you wouldn't have any social life - working long hours etc ).
 
Having read the 1991 agreement, it's clear that it specifically spells out that Apple Computer cannot put its trademark on physical media that distributes music. Apple Corps is indicating that they could not have envisioned the internet and non-physical distribution mediums, and that the spirit of the agreement is being breeched. OK, I understand that. But if we are talking about the SPIRIT of the agreement - here's the deal. The agreement was, in spirit, intended to prevent Apple Computer from acting as a record label, signing artists and promoting them etc, because that would be confusing to the public at large - is this an Apple record or an Apple record? And it might be construed that Apple Computer was attempting to use Apple Corp specifically to this end to gain greater profits at the expense of Apple Corp. HOWEVER, acting as a record label and acting as a retailer are two very different things. I believe that it's clear from Apple Computer's activities, that they have intended to and are acting as a retailer - in effect, as a distributor/broadcaster and are not acting as a record label at all. I think if we are talking about the SPIRIT of the agreement here, one has to look at both sides.
Bob Martin
 
soooooooo unfair! Here's why:

Apple Corps claim is that people have been confused in the marketplace with their company and Apple Computer.... BS!!!!!! BS!!!! BS!!!!!! You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that.... this is not an infringement of the trademark... there is no confusion... we all know what Apple does! They are not a record label. It's a way to take big heeps of money from them being successful.
 
~Shard~ said:
I think one guy did. His name was Steve Jobs or something like that. 😎
Click to expand...

Well, they do barely break even on selling music online. But the sell of ipods is a different story. Hmmmm.... wonder why they don't want to release the DRM for others?
 
If I was the Judge...

...I would throw out the case because only now does applecorps get upset. they shoud have tried to sue when I tunes Music Store first opened not after 1.25billion songs or so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😀 😀 😀 😀
 
photomaniac said:
Apple Corps claim is that people have been confused in the marketplace with their company and Apple Computer....
Click to expand...

Ahhh! Should I buy an iMac or iMcCartnac?!?

I've come to realize that the entire business world (and most of the rest of the world) is corrupt, and that to win, you have to pull for your side whether it's right or wrong.

Invading Hawaii while it was under native rule with US Marines (I think that was the branch) with support from a Navy vessel was wrong. The U-2 incident of the Cold War was wrong. The Cuban Missile Crisis was wrong ("Vee aff no meesiles in Cooba!").

Pull for your side, because that's what the others are doing.

And just to clear it up, I think that Apple Computer is in the right on this one.
 
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