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

Apple vs. Apple Trial Ongoing

javabear90 said:
This will be a HUGE problem if the other lawyers are good, and apple looses.
I have a bad feeling about this.:(
Click to expand...
Worst case scenario: Apple removes the Apple logo from all association with iTunes Music Store--that's it.

Mr. Vos said Neil Aspinall, managing director of Apple Corps, had rejected an offer from Mr. Jobs in 2003 proposing to buy the rights to the Apple Records name for $1 million. The iTunes Music Store appears with the Apple Computer logo, but not the company's name.

In the suit, Apple Corps is seeking an injunction requiring Apple Computer to remove the bitten-apple logo from iTunes. If it succeeds, said Nick Valner, a lawyer representing Apple Corps, the company would seek undisclosed monetary damages.

Without the logo, Mr. Vos said, "iTunes is a jolly good name."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/technology/30apple.html

It's a pretty absurd and quite narrow a case really. Apple Records are contending that the use of Apple Computer's apple logo in association with iTunes Music is somehow confusing consumers. However, Apple Records have the 1991 agreement on its side which, in my opinion, Apple Computers has reneged on. Apple Computers, with all their exclusives, AOL live sessions, etc. are acting as a record company, i.e. stepping on Apple Records' toes.
 
I'm So Tired of this case. It's All Too Much and makes me Shout. I can't Wait anymore, so I hope It Won't Be Long before Something is worked out. Yesterday wouldn't be too soon.

There was a previous Apple-Apple agreement. Will the judge say The Word and Let it Be? Will the judge decide You Can't Do That, put Steve in Chains, and leave him in Misery? Or will Apple Computer be found Not Guilty and come out Free as a Bird?

Is it likely that lawyers will charge lots of Money while working on the case Eight Days a Week? Yes It Is.

Will I be blamed for all these bad jokes? I will! You'd better Run for Your Life, Doctor Q!
 
Hugh said:
Does Apple Records own any music any more? Doesn't Wacko Jacko own all the Beatles music now? So wants the point of this law suit?

-Hugh
Click to expand...
Apple Records owns the trademark. There was big settlements over the trademark, and Apple Records is now claiming that Apple is in breach of the settlement with the iPod and iTunes Music Store (the settlement was that Apple Computer would not get into the music business, which was later defined as would not physically distribute music).

Apple is walking a tight-rope. While they are not physically distributing music in a traditional sense, the combination of physically distributing portable music players and electronically distributing music through iTunes could still be considered physical distribution. It will be interesting to see what the court decides. Apple (computer) could get socked with a big penalty if they are found to be in trademark violation, because this will have been the THIRD time they have violated the trademark of Apple Records.
 
There is a reason, I believe, that Apple promotes its services the way it does. Apple has gone to some length to create recognition for iTunes, specifically referring to it as such with a dedicated URL, the "iPod+iTunes" references and so forth--so much so that there was talk about spinning iTunes off into its own IPO at one point.

I don't pretend to know why Apple has done it this way, but I do suggest that this approach was much wiser than referring directly to the company name, as in "Apple Music" or "Apple Tunes" with regard to differentiating Apple Computer from Apple Corps. I'm not an intellectual property savant, but it seems like this distance should help them. I'm assuming it's a bench trial, but even in a jury trial it might benefit Apple.

Ironically, in a case like this Apple Corps should be concerned with Apple Computer taking recognition away from them, but the reverse may well be true with the global success of the iPod and continuing preeminence of the iTMS.
 
Macrumors said:
A lawyer for Apple Computer dismissed the claim of corporate confusion and stated that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".
Click to expand...

I believe the full quote was:
"Even a blind, dyslexic, drunk moron, late for the moron convention (where he is delivering the keynote address), who is on fire and being attacked by crows and an ornery wild boar, could not be mistaken about that."
 
swingerofbirch said:
Which of the Beatles are still alive? Why can't the living Beatles and Apple just get along? I'm sure all the Beatles want is some money, and Apple just wants to be left alone. Can't they compromise?
Click to expand...

the least talented of the set. mccartny and ringo. i'm not as down on mccartny as some people, but his post-beatles behavior is rather sad. interestingly enough apple records effectively ceased to exist until the late 80's in order to sell CD versions of the beatles music.

they are no longer, as far as i know, a true record label. instead they exist solely to reap the profits of artists who haven't produced anything new in almost 4 decades. the incessant release of "lost recordings" and greatest hits compilations are testament to this.

as to the question of jackson's ownership of the beatles catalog. he owns(owned? rumor had it he sold it off to pay for legal funds) the publishing rights. e.g. if someone wanted to publish a book of beatles' music they would have to pay MJ a royalty - even one of the former beatles which must have been a kick in the teeth.
 
dongmin said:
Worst case scenario: Apple removes the Apple logo from all association with iTunes Music Store--that's it.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/technology/30apple.html

It's a pretty absurd and quite narrow a case really. Apple Records are contending that the use of Apple Computer's apple logo in association with iTunes Music is somehow confusing consumers. However, Apple Records have the 1991 agreement on its side which, in my opinion, Apple Computers has reneged on. Apple Computers, with all their exclusives, AOL live sessions, etc. are acting as a record company, i.e. stepping on Apple Records' toes.
Click to expand...

It's not such an absurd case... It's a classic trademark violation case. If you say this is an absurd, then you are pretty much putting all trademark cases in the absurd category.
 
Here is what I find funny. At a MAJOR Beatles gift shop located right by Baker Street station in London and listed in every guide book we had I saw at least two Apple Stickers on the wall lol.

Day%20Seven%20-%20London%20-%2014.jpg


And

Day%20Seven%20-%20London%20-%2010.jpg


Just thought that was funny :)
 
I had completely forgotten about Apple Corps. Record company or even that they still existed until the 2003 incident.

I wonder how many of the young people who have iPods today even know about Apple Corps. Record company.
 
Let's hope our brother, the judge, see's this as nothing more than a money grab. The utter arrogance of Apple Corp's claim is stunning.
 
Atlasland said:
It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.
Click to expand...


Nothing personal, but seeing as how just about everyone and their Aunt Fanny knows that Apple Records was started in the late 1960s in England, and Apple Computers was started in the 1970s in the United States, I fail to see how anyone would even think of one when they heard about the other, let alone think they were somehow related.

Speaking as someone who has both plenty of Apple Computer-branded products AND Apple Records-branded vinyl...up until the time that Apple Records started bringing this issue up in the news, I hadn't even thought about the fact that the two companies shared a name. They exist in two different worlds and two different times.
 
leenoble said:
Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.
Click to expand...

Just like kjs862, I feel that Paul McCartney is still, to this day, an incredibly talented musician. Nobody with any real knowledge of the Beatles would claim that Paul was talentless without John. Paul and John both wrote tons of classic songs. And Paul had the more commercially successful solo career.

That said, I do think this lawsuit is silly.
 
longofest said:
Apple (computer) could get socked with a big penalty if they are found to be in trademark violation, because this will have been the THIRD time they have violated the trademark of Apple Records.
Click to expand...

how do you figure? they never stopped using the name of Apple Computer, and they never entered into an agreement that they would. by my understanding, this is a case of breach of contract more so than trademark violation. the question of trademark violation has already been dealt with in 1991.
 
BlueRevolution said:
how do you figure? they never stopped using the name of Apple Computer, and they never entered into an agreement that they would. by my understanding, this is a case of breach of contract more so than copyright violation. the question of copyright violation has already been dealt with in 1991.
Click to expand...

It is not a case of copyright... it is a case of trademark. i am assuming that you meant trademark, so I will go onto your other main point.

The trademark agreement made in 1991 is actually what is at the center of this case. Apple Corps (the record company) believes Apple Computer is in breach of that 1991 agreement. That 1991 agreement was actually the second agreement that had been made, the first agreement was a few years prior when Apple incorporated MIDI into the MacOS. That agreement was a small one, and the one most people remember is the 1991 settlement.
 
leenoble said:
Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent tune since John Lennon stopped helping him. The guy is totally talentless. His company is about as creative. Think of it as Britain's SCO.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of people who would quickly disagree with you, fortunately.

Beatles music is great, as is P.McCartney.
 
Atlasland said:
Stop being such blind fanboys.

I love Apple as much as the next man, but "Apple Computer" is very similar to "Apple Corps" - especially as both are referred to as "Apple".

How would you you feel if somebody today started to deliver video content over the internet, and they decided to call their company "Macintosh", in honour of the raincoat? Apple would sue them to sh*t. And you would want them to. And Apple would win.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, except for the fact that apple has been around for three decades. I think that if there was any real problem with the name "apple computer", it would have been fully contested and ruled upon in the 80s.
 
Doctor Q said:
I'm So Tired of this case. It's All Too Much and makes me Shout. I can't Wait anymore, so I hope It Won't Be Long before Something is worked out. Yesterday wouldn't be too soon.

There was a previous Apple-Apple agreement. Will the judge say The Word and Let it Be? Will the judge decide You Can't Do That, put Steve in Chains, and leave him in Misery? Or will Apple Computer be found Not Guilty and come out Free as a Bird?

Is it likely that lawyers will charge lots of Money while working on the case Eight Days a Week? Yes It Is.

Will I be blamed for all these bad jokes? I will! You'd better Run for Your Life, Doctor Q!
Click to expand...

Well, From Me to You, I have to say that I Feel Fine about this case. In Spite of All the Danger, the case is really just Junk. I can't Imagine who could get the two companies confused.

In My Life I have really loved the Beatles and Apple Computer. It's too bad they can't Come Together over this disagreement, Because both the Beatles and Apple have been behind many a Revolution.

Come on, judge, Don't Let Me Down! I think We Can Work It Out so that both companies can Get Back to normal. Oh well. All Things Must Pass.
 
Erendiox said:
I would agree with you, except for the fact that apple has been around for three decades. I think that if there was any real problem with the name "apple computer", it would have been fully contested and ruled upon in the 80s.
Click to expand...

It was! Apple Computer lost, paid a penalty fee and essentially were allowed to keep the trademark only if they didn't enter the music business. Later this was legally established to mean Apple Computers would not be allowed to distribute music.

When the iTunes music store started up a few years back, Apple computer immediately became in breach of contract.

Personally, I don't think Apple Computer has a leg to stand on. Apple Corps was first. Apple corp allowed Apple computer to use the trademark as long as they didn't enter the music business. Apple computer is most certainly now in the music business. How can they say they are not?

Today many more people know of Apple as the iPod, iTunes company. I would bet that many don't even know they make computers.
 
Atlasland said:
Stop being such blind fanboys.

I love Apple as much as the next man, but "Apple Computer" is very similar to "Apple Corps" - especially as both are referred to as "Apple".

How would you you feel if somebody today started to deliver video content over the internet, and they decided to call their company "Macintosh", in honour of the raincoat? Apple would sue them to sh*t. And you would want them to. And Apple would win.

I mean, look at some of the recent compyright infringement cases: e.g. Spike Lee suing Spike TV, just because they used his first name!!

It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.

In addition, it is rumoured that Jobs choose the name Apple, precisely because he was a big Beatles fan, and liked the name. So, no plagarism there then (!)

I think Apple [Computer] are on the backfoot on this one. And, it may take another financial settlement to deal with this. Of course, not that either company is any desperate need of cash.
Click to expand...

You might have a good point about some of the guys are being to much Apple Computer fan boys, but don't loose sight of the fact that this company already sued apple TWICE over this. They Twice got paid for Apple using this very same name. Besides, do you really think that because Apple Computer is now into online music distribution it hurts sales from Apple Corp ? or that they do loose any money over it ? or that anyone thinks this store is from the beatles ? hell no everybody know's it's from Apple or atleast "from the guys that make the ipod". This lawsuit is not because they actually lost money because apple used their name nor is it because they really think Apple Comp is giving Apple corp a bad name or anything like that. It's purely and ONCE AGAIN ! greedyness of the music industry... They waited for iTunes to get big, they waited for ipod sales to reach peak (atleast way high) and THEN started to sue.. why ? because that way they could ask for more money.. they just found another way of making an easy buck.

And that is why the whole legal system sucks ass !

NO judge who has any logic in his brain left or any sympathy for morals will make Apple Computer pay Apple Corp for something like this again. It makes no sense.. no mahter what the prior agreemant was.
 
Atlasland said:
It was only a few years ago that I worked out that "Apple Corps" had nothing to do with "Apple Computer", and I'm sure many people are the same.
Click to expand...


"Even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that".

:rolleyes:

Seriously, is anyone else here confused about which company is which? This couldn't be easier! The Beatles are off their rockers for suing Apple for a reason like this. Please, get a life. We're not blind fanboys. We're (mostly) reasonable people.
 
How long has iTunes been out for right now what 5 years. I know things can take a while in the legal years, but really, did they care back in 2001 when iTunes was introduced? Now that iTunes is so popular they have popped out of the woodwork and want their $$$ or w/e.
 
Apple Computers argument looks weak to me. They've clearly moved into the music business, something they promised not to do in the 1991 settlement.

The more interesting question is, in the event Apple Computers lose, how much damages would they be liable for. Personally I can't see how Apple Corps have been financially disadvantaged by Apple Computers.

It's not uncommon for English judge's to award nominal damages. If that's what happens the case wouldn't be much of a big deal. All it would mean is Apple are forced to drop its logo from the iTunes Music Store

In many respects Apple Computers are lucky the trial is taking place in England, damages amount tend to be much lower there.
 
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