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

This is information from the iPod Observer ( http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/26153 )

"According to an Associated Press story by Jill Lawless, Mr. Grabiner (Apple Computers attorney) pointed to the "distribution of digital entertainment content" as something that was permissible under the agreement previously crafted between the companies after Apple Corps' last lawsuit in 1991.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," Mr. Grabiner explained. "It's obvious that the [iTunes Music Store] content comes from a wide variety of content providers. It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."

Sounds like Apple Records are crying over bad apples.....:rolleyes:
 
digitalbiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're wrong..
Apple Computer never lost the lawsuit.. they settled.. (BIG difference).
Besides the legal establishment you are takling about was once again after a SECCOND lawsuit.. which was once again settled... (this lawsuit was about apple producing software that allowed you to make music !!)
 
PubGuy said:
This is information from the iPod Observer ( http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/26153 )

"According to an Associated Press story by Jill Lawless, Mr. Grabiner (Apple Computers attorney) pointed to the "distribution of digital entertainment content" as something that was permissible under the agreement previously crafted between the companies after Apple Corps' last lawsuit in 1991.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," Mr. Grabiner explained. "It's obvious that the [iTunes Music Store] content comes from a wide variety of content providers. It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."

Sounds like Apple Records are crying over bad apples.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I really like the thought of Steve & co. dreaming up iTunes specifically for this reason. "What? It's digital content! We don't sell CDs or tapes!" Muahha that'll teach 'em.

No seriously, I'm interested in how this will turn out. I don't know, both sides kind of have a good argument but Apple has the edge I think and obviously I'd prefer Apple to win.

Go Mac Judge!
 
PubGuy said:
"It's obvious that the [iTunes Music Store] content comes from a wide variety of content providers. It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."
Click to expand...
If Apple offers one of the Jobs keynote speeches as a video, or an Apple-originated podcast, in the iTunes Music Store, whether they charge for it or not, are they going over THAT line?

It seems clear to me that Apple Computer is in the "music business" but the court case really depends on details, such as the interpretation of wording in previous agreements and in legal statutes.

By the way, there is a little-known Beatles song named "Just A Rumor". I'm sure that's important to know for this case. Or at least in this thread. :)
 
I forgot one thing.. if Apple Computer settle's again this time.. it will ironicly have 1 positive aspect :p

They have to pay a huge some of money (the bad thing)
The stock will take a dive (a good thing :p so I can buy new stock cheap :p)

;) not to nice for the current stock owners :p but it will once again be a good time to buy Apple Stock, Apple Computer Stock that is :p
 
QCassidy352 said:
I think Apple Computer's lawyer is right in that it's going to be a very hard sell that anyone is confusing these two companies. There might still be a breach of contract, depending on what exactly the previous agreement said and how the Court interprets the language of that agreement. This is "data transmission," which is clearly the domain of Apple Computer under the agreement, but one could argue that they are, in some senses, acting like a record label too.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I personally have known about the Beatles since the days of Sgt Pepper and 'Yellow Submarine' and in that time I have had NO recall of any Apple Corps labels or logo that might in someway cause me to mistake Apple Computer with Apple Corps, I am not saying that Apple Corps didn't exist as I was aware of a 'coloured fruit company' that made a computer in the late 70's but had no knowledge of a 'fruit company' that sold music on vinyl. :rolleyes:
 
MacGuy88 said:
note that iTMS does not offer Beatles music.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Apple Corp is run by out of touch Beatles cronies from the sixties.

The Beatles were also the last major act to convert their catalog to CD, same thing's happening with moving to online downloads.

I believe Apple Corp have been approached by a number of the online music stores, but so far have resisted.
 
OK kiddies, today's lesson, what are the differences between these two words?

Apple Computer
Apple Corps

- You pronounce Corps as CORE and not like a dead body...
- One distributes music at very reasonable prices while the other rapes artists out of their royalty checks.
- One was started by a crazy wide eyed kid in a garage, the other was started by a bunch of washed up old performers who felt like they weren't still making enough money.
- One is a computer company that provides a vast array of multimedia options to people, the other is a record company that provides.....ummm....provides......*pulls away from the microphone and whispers around* who the hell does Apple Corps produce????.
- Apple Corps should be happy with the fact that Apple Computers has made listening to MUSIC fun and hip again!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupid British F******ers!
 
Ill informed

Gee, you guys (most of you anyway) are hugely misinformed about this case.

1. The case is not about the logo. That was Apple Corps original complaint and was settled out of court by way of a payment and an agreement between the two companies, Apple Corps later complained Apple had broken this agreement and again the matter was settled by an out of court payment and a further refinement of the first agreement.

Apple Corps are now complaining Apple have broken that refined agreement and are seeking damages. This time Apple have decided not to settle and to have the matter decided by court.

My thoughts are that Apple should have done this originally, as I don't believe the logo is/was sufficiently similar to have won Apple Corps the case, but now the case is about a broken agreement the water is a little more murky.

2. John, Paul, George & Ringo (or their dependants) are not taking Apple to court, they are merely shareholders in Apple Corps and the decision is a business decision (an opportunity of easy money) made by those administering the company.

3. Apple are not acting as a record label. Record labels have contracts with musicians they record and promote their work (EMI, Decca, RCA etc.) Apple is acting as a distributor, they sell products from the record labels (walmart, WH Smith, Amazon etc.).

---------------

The problem here is that both sides have a valid argument and the outcome is far from certain. If common sense prevailed it would be obvious that Apple Corps have not suffered a loss because of Apples actions nor have Apple gained from any association with Apple Corps. Fortunately here in the UK (and I don't know whether the same would go for the US) the judge does have the option to make a common sense judgement.

However, and I do not know the wording of the agreement between the 2 Apples, but it does appear that Apple have entered the music business, they clearly distribute music. But the music they sell is sold via data transmission and not by physical means as Apple have pointed out. What will be taken into account is the spirit of the agreement, on this point it will be argued that it was not possible to predict the sale of music by data transmission and that while the agreement used the words 'physical' this was included to differentiate between music distribution (sales: which were perceived as only possible by physical means at the time) and the production of software (MIDI) to create or assist the creation of music and not to sell it.

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m. However let's not forget my opening statement that this is not about a logo, but a breach of contract, this rules out Apple being made to remove the logo from all things itunes/ipod as some have suggested. But however unlikely, the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).
 
fatfish said:
...the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).
Click to expand...

That won't happen because if Apple see's the court being overly-sympathetic to Apple Corps, they will settle for any cost. Remember, being barred from the music business by a court would also mean that they can't sell the iPod (as a music player anyways).
 
Clearing up the pedophile connection

Just to clear up the Jacko connection. He has the publishing rights, he does not receive income from the sale of Beatles records. This agreement is time limited anyway and the publishing rights will revert back to the Beatles in 2013.
 
longofest said:
That won't happen because if Apple see's the court being overly-sympathetic to Apple Corps, they will settle for any cost. Remember, being barred from the music business by a court would also mean that they can't sell the iPod (as a music player anyways).
Click to expand...

I don't think it will happen either I was just pointing out the possibilities, but your wrong about the ipod, there is no music on the ipod when you buy it, you put it on yourself. Selling ipods no way constitutes selling music.
 
Money grab, clearly. The thought of billionaire Paul McCartney, awash in acclaim for his last record and a huge tour (another 100 million -- ka-ching!), pacing the corridors of his castle and lamenting, "Those ****ers are infringing on our trademark! We should sue!" is, well, quite sad.

The Beatles is a trademark. Apple Corp. is the name of a holding company. If someone started a record company called "The Beatles" then they should get sued, I suppose. (I still don't think anyone could be confused by that, but that's just me.) How iTunes is preventing The Beatles/Apple Corp. from making money is beyond me. If I have a computer company with a digital downloading component and call it Swan Song, should I expect to get sued by surviving members of Led Zeppelin? It's stupid, really.
 
Ted Witcher said:
Money grab, clearly. The thought of billionaire Paul McCartney, awash in acclaim for his last record and a huge tour (another 100 million -- ka-ching!), pacing the corridors of his castle and lamenting, "Those ****ers are infringing on our trademark! We should sue!" is, well, quite sad.

The Beatles is a trademark. Apple Corp. is the name of a holding company. If someone started a record company called "The Beatles" then they should get sued, I suppose. (I still don't think anyone could be confused by that, but that's just me.) How iTunes is preventing The Beatles/Apple Corp. from making money is beyond me. If I have a computer company with a digital downloading component and call it Swan Song, should I expect to get sued by surviving members of Led Zeppelin? It's stupid, really.
Click to expand...

Once again, it's not Paul McCartney who is bringing this action. Also anyone starting a record label called "Beatles" would likely have no problems at all.
 
Well the Beatles conquered the world back in the day.

Don't underestimate their lasting legacy and as a symbol of the Vision that started Apple, and fuels its 'think different' mindset.

I'll bet this is particularly painful to SJ, to have to wrangle with what is for all practical purpose, the Beatles!

Not to speak of their holding out on selling their gear on iTunes.

Pretty glaring omission. Maybe the settlement will pave the way for ITMS.:cool:
 
As a principal shareholder or whatever he is, I'm sure he could stop it if he wanted to. Which he should, because it's embarrassing and makes him look like a greedy bastard.
 
No One Understands

The reason is their being sued, is that they have already ran out of money from the last lawsuit and they need more income.

Gee, why didn't they first sue when itunes came out

also, Apple's black and white of an apple outlined is quite different from a green macintosh apple.

also, to really piss off apple corp. Steve J. should buy all the beatle recordings that Michael Jacko Wacko owns (you know Michael needs the money).

Doesn't it suck Paul that you we're friends with michael when you had no cash and he took your precious songs, life's a bitch. What comes around goes around.
 
fatfish said:
The problem here is that both sides have a valid argument and the outcome is far from certain. If common sense prevailed it would be obvious that Apple Corps have not suffered a loss because of Apples actions nor have Apple gained from any association with Apple Corps. Fortunately here in the UK (and I don't know whether the same would go for the US) the judge does have the option to make a common sense judgement.

However, and I do not know the wording of the agreement between the 2 Apples, but it does appear that Apple have entered the music business, they clearly distribute music. But the music they sell is sold via data transmission and not by physical means as Apple have pointed out. What will be taken into account is the spirit of the agreement, on this point it will be argued that it was not possible to predict the sale of music by data transmission and that while the agreement used the words 'physical' this was included to differentiate between music distribution (sales: which were perceived as only possible by physical means at the time) and the production of software (MIDI) to create or assist the creation of music and not to sell it.

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m. However let's not forget my opening statement that this is not about a logo, but a breach of contract, this rules out Apple being made to remove the logo from all things itunes/ipod as some have suggested. But however unlikely, the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).
Click to expand...

Great post "fatfish"

As regards the common sense aspect to this case.

I suspect Apple Computers to lose the case, but that damages will be nominal. Thereby partially nullifying the ruling.

If often happens in English law, where a ruling goes one way, but the damages awarded are paltry indicating the Judge clearly believed the case should never have been brought in the first place.
 
fatfish said:
Gee, you guys (most of you anyway) are hugely misinformed about this case.

1. The case is not about the logo. That was Apple Corps original complaint and was settled out of court by way of a payment and an agreement between the two companies, Apple Corps later complained Apple had broken this agreement and again the matter was settled by an out of court payment and a further refinement of the first agreement.

Apple Corps are now complaining Apple have broken that refined agreement and are seeking damages. This time Apple have decided not to settle and to have the matter decided by court.

My thoughts are that Apple should have done this originally, as I don't believe the logo is/was sufficiently similar to have won Apple Corps the case, but now the case is about a broken agreement the water is a little more murky.

2. John, Paul, George & Ringo (or their dependants) are not taking Apple to court, they are merely shareholders in Apple Corps and the decision is a business decision (an opportunity of easy money) made by those administering the company.

3. Apple are not acting as a record label. Record labels have contracts with musicians they record and promote their work (EMI, Decca, RCA etc.) Apple is acting as a distributor, they sell products from the record labels (walmart, WH Smith, Amazon etc.).

---------------

The problem here is that both sides have a valid argument and the outcome is far from certain. If common sense prevailed it would be obvious that Apple Corps have not suffered a loss because of Apples actions nor have Apple gained from any association with Apple Corps. Fortunately here in the UK (and I don't know whether the same would go for the US) the judge does have the option to make a common sense judgement.

However, and I do not know the wording of the agreement between the 2 Apples, but it does appear that Apple have entered the music business, they clearly distribute music. But the music they sell is sold via data transmission and not by physical means as Apple have pointed out. What will be taken into account is the spirit of the agreement, on this point it will be argued that it was not possible to predict the sale of music by data transmission and that while the agreement used the words 'physical' this was included to differentiate between music distribution (sales: which were perceived as only possible by physical means at the time) and the production of software (MIDI) to create or assist the creation of music and not to sell it.

In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m. However let's not forget my opening statement that this is not about a logo, but a breach of contract, this rules out Apple being made to remove the logo from all things itunes/ipod as some have suggested. But however unlikely, the worst outcome for Apple is being ordered to desist from being in the music business (i.e. told to close the itunes music store).
Click to expand...

Quoted in its entirety, for its factual content (which is sadly lacking in most of the other posts).

The key point for Apple Computer is data transmission. While clearly the sentiment in 1991 was that its focus was on MIDI and other computer oriented standards, I would wonder if this would necessarily preclude transmission of MIDI data by electronic means. My guess is that it would not...and that would open the door for the iTunes store.
 
It's you that doesn't understand

kwik67 said:
The reason is their being sued, is that they have already ran out of money from the last lawsuit and they need more income.

Gee, why didn't they first sue when itunes came out

also, Apple's black and white of an apple outlined is quite different from a green macintosh apple.

also, to really piss off apple corp. Steve J. should buy all the beatle recordings that Michael Jacko Wacko owns (you know Michael needs the money).

Doesn't it suck Paul that you we're friends with michael when you had no cash and he took your precious songs, life's a bitch. What comes around goes around.
Click to expand...

Apple Corps are not short of money, this lawsuits been going on for years. SJ doesn't want the publishing rights, when wacko bought those rights it was like the US buying London bridge, they didn't buy what they thought they were buying, the publishing rights go back to the Beatles in 7 years, they are losing value as I type.

And yes wacko and sir Paul did fall out after the purchase, wacko outbid sir Paul.
 
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