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

fatfish said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is a music playback device that is used to play songs from the iTunes Music Store. As a really, really, really worse case scenario (which I don't think will happen, but is a possibility), it can be argued that the iPod is also in breach of the 1991 agreement because it is a physical delivery not of music, but of a music device. I don't think that big of a stretch will fly, but it can be argued and it isn't totally unreasonable of an assertion to argue.... something for a judge to decide whether the agreement in 1991 pertained to something like the iPod.
 
gwangung said:
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.
Click to expand...

True

Unfortunately when cases revolve around 2 points of view, both of which have merit, it is unusual for the outcome to be entirely in favour of one party or the other and whilst I agree with you I suspect the judge will come down somewhere in the middle.

(unless of course his ipod develops a malfunction and Apple service refuse to replace it, just before he delivers his verdict)

In actual fact what will happen here unless the judge completely exonerates Apple, he will merely find them in breach of agreement and the matter will be referred to another hearing for an award of damages.
 
I'm a bit new to all these proceedings, but I hav some questions.

Is this case being brought in the US or the UK (I could read the article, but I'm sure someone will respond soon enough)? I hope that someone with real trademark law experience in that country can comment. I would presume that since iApple is in the US, it is a US case being brought in either DE or CA.

Anyhow, I was wondering what the statute of limitations is on breach of contract issues and trademark violations in the state of filing. This feels like an adverse possession case, but I would be pressed to make a strong argument. It is the kind of thing that I could see being tossed in just to see if it can stick. I guess the case was filed in 2003? I guess the 2 years (if iTMS was launched in 2k1) would meet that requirement. Also, what has been going on for the last 3 years? I can't imagine that this has been a discovery heavy case - who is stalling and why hasn't the judge done anything about it?

More curious, I was wondering what the standard remedy is for the complaint filed? I would imagine that the judge will push for settlement if he doesn't like the law in the case (a la what I presume was the motivation in the RIM case), but otherwise wouldn't a contract claim that seeks injunction estop bApple from filing for monetary damages? If they didn't put that in their remedy, wouldn't they be stuck?

I really don't know trademark law and please don't think of me as a moron for my curiosity.:eek:
 
nbs2 said:
I'm a bit new to all these proceedings, but I hav some questions.

Is this case being brought in the US or the UK (I could read the article, but I'm sure someone will respond soon enough)? I hope that someone with real trademark law experience in that country can comment. I would presume that since iApple is in the US, it is a US case being brought in either DE or CA.

Anyhow, I was wondering what the statute of limitations is on breach of contract issues and trademark violations in the state of filing. This feels like an adverse possession case, but I would be pressed to make a strong argument. It is the kind of thing that I could see being tossed in just to see if it can stick. I guess the case was filed in 2003? I guess the 2 years (if iTMS was launched in 2k1) would meet that requirement. Also, what has been going on for the last 3 years? I can't imagine that this has been a discovery heavy case - who is stalling and why hasn't the judge done anything about it?

More curious, I was wondering what the standard remedy is for the complaint filed? I would imagine that the judge will push for settlement if he doesn't like the law in the case (a la what I presume was the motivation in the RIM case), but otherwise wouldn't a contract claim that seeks injunction estop bApple from filing for monetary damages? If they didn't put that in their remedy, wouldn't they be stuck?

I really don't know trademark law and please don't think of me as a moron for my curiosity.:eek:
Click to expand...

Read my post(s) above, but briefly the case is in the UK, it's not about a trademark, it's a breach of contract and hence there is no statute of limitation, I know of no grounds for a judge to instruct a settlement since it is not his job to get involved in damages, just a guilty or not guilty verdict (essentially)
 
SaddY said:
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 !!)
Click to expand...

OK. Big Whoop.

Technically they didn't lose they settled. While it may be a big difference to you it isn't to me.

If Apple Corps had no merit to their lawsuit then Apple would have told them to take a flying leap. Instead Apple Computer had to cough up a fair amount of cash and had to agree to stay out of the music business.

It still doesn't change the fact that now the suit is about a breach of contract. That was all I was trying to say.
 
fatfish said:
In conclusion, my prediction is an award of damages of between $200m & $460m.
Click to expand...

How do you work that estimate out?

I can't see how Apple Corps have been in any way financially inconvenienced. An award $200m - $460m would be punitive.
 
I've noticed some people here commenting on the "moron in a hurry" comment, some negatively. What you don't realise is that this statement has a historical context, in that it is a rather famous argument used in a case from 1978, where the (communist) Morning Star newspaper tried to sue The Daily Star newspaper for using their name. A quick Google of "moron in a hurry" for example throws up the following informative quote:

In 1978, the publishers of the Morning Star - the Peoples Press Printing Society - challenged the launch of the 'tits 'n bums' rag, the Daily Star. The PPPS suggested that the name of the new paper would be 'confused' with their own and would affect sales of its publication (I remember thinking at the time that it would probably push them up). This was rejected by the High Court. It was underlined that when examining any potential "confusion" it was important to look at the type of persons affected, to ascertain their "standard of literacy and education". It was judged that "only a moron in a hurry would be misled" into confusing the Morning Star and the Daily Star (Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Ltd, 1979).
Click to expand...

from http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/281/partynotes.html
 
Is there any reason Apple Computer couldn't settle this problem once and for all and buy Apple Corps?
 
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...

They DID sue when iTunes music store first came out!
 
Apple Corp is right here

Michael Jackson only owns part of the publishing and not the recorded Beatles versions of the songs. Even if you think they are old farts or something Apple Corp and Apple Computer reached a second agreement in 1991 that the Beatles Company was in the music business and Apple Computer was NOT. Now no one at the time predicted that music would be online and downloaded so Apple Corp. rightly so, sued Apple Computer when iTunes went live. In fact Jobs offered Apple Corp a million to use the name/logo for a music company(iTunes). Apple Corp refused and that is why the lawsuit is on now. Apple Corp is still in business but does not release alot of music, but manages an amazing catalogue, athough three years ago they had the World's biggest selling CD with Beatles 1.
Like any patent holder, Apple Corp had to sue. I love Apple Computer and even own stock, but they are wrong here. I'm sure afer all is said and done they will settle. They should have right aways for alot less than they will have to pay now.
 
The music biz

Yes BUT Apple Computer via iTunes has released it own new an original compilations, playlists and special releases, not just what is in every other store. The are Now a "record company" which violates the last agreement. If they lose the logo and Apple name on iTunes they would be fine, or they should pay a settlement fee if they wish to keep it.
 
kjs862 said:
I think Paul has a alot of great songs. He wrote a lot of great music with wings and even his latest solo project chaos and creation in the backyard is a sweet solo album.
Click to expand...

Agreed...Paul has done some great music over the years, and his concert was probably the best i have seen in my life.

Even though people still regard Lennon as the genius (probably because he was murdered), some of his songs were just psychedelic crap. If you wanna bash someone, please bash Yoko...she IS the greedy and talentless one...
 
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...

That is such a load of crap. Wings had several classic tunes.
 
egsaxy said:
Is there any reason Apple Computer couldn't settle this problem once and for all and buy Apple Corps?
Click to expand...

Yes. The reason is that Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and the estate of the late George Harrison don't want to sell.
 
SaddY said:
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 !!)
Click to expand...

More importantly, they came to an agreement where Apple Computer received permission to do the things that the lawsuit was about. And I think commenting on the new lawsuit is difficult without having the _exact_ text of that agreement in hand. It is obvious that neither Apple Computer nor Apple Corps thought of the iTunes Music Store when the agreement was drawn, so it depends on the exact wording of that agreement whether it is covered or not.
 
fatfish said:
Read my post(s) above, but briefly the case is in the UK, it's not about a trademark, it's a breach of contract and hence there is no statute of limitation, I know of no grounds for a judge to instruct a settlement since it is not his job to get involved in damages, just a guilty or not guilty verdict (essentially)
Click to expand...


That's not quite right. Breach of contract claims have to be brought within 6 years of the date of the breach - the fact that the claim is being heard as we write suggests that this is not a big issue. It is the judge's job to get involved in damages and if the parties do not settle before the end of the case that is exactly what he will do. The damages will be assessed on the actual losses caused by the breach of contract - it is therefore more than possible that the judge could decide that there has been a technical breach of the original agreement but that Apple Corp has not suffered any quantifiable loss and therefore should not get any damages - however he may award costs against the losing party which could be quite substantial. It is highly unlikely that an English court would award the kind of punitive damages being mentioned here.
 
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...

I thought that too, what does Apple Music actually have to prove here. The best part though is the judge owns a Mac and an iPod!
 
briansolomon said:
My beef with this deal is that none of the Beatles music is available on iTunes.

Short and simple.
Click to expand...

Should they settle, they could fix that... then Apple records starts making money off the Beatles music. The money they would make long-term from that would be a great financial incentive to settle.
 
What about this is hard to understand?

What portion of this previous ruling wording is hard to understand?

“The companies [Apple Computer & Apple Corps Records] clashed again in 1989 after Apple Computer introduced a music-making program. The computer company settled in 1991, for $26 million. Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on ‘Creative works whose principal content is music’ while Apple Computer was allowed ‘goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content’.”
 
macpastor said:
Should they settle, they could fix that... then Apple records starts making money off the Beatles music. The money they would make long-term from that would be a great financial incentive to settle.
Click to expand...

Actually it is ... have you done a search?
 
One little question....

Why is everyone so bothered about confusing Apple Computer and Apple Corps?

It's not like you'd buy an iMac thinking it to be a Beatles record...

Or, even if you see Apple iTunes Music Store, and know the Beatles' record label is called Apple, you also know enough to know that iTunes is nothing to do with them.

Hang on, let's try that in a different way:

I don't think the people who could be confused about will know enough to know the Beatles' record label is called Apple.
 
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