Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple vs. Apple Trial Ongoing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
JQW said:
Yes, Magic Alex a legend, amazing the Beatles believed him (must have been the drugs, man).
After monday's done, I'll be glad that I'm done with law course(s), I'm currently writing out a court document as we speak, not fun at all
My court document is a supreme court of Can. decision, specif SOCAN vs Canadian Assc. of Internet Providers (2004), not fun at all, but it DOES mention Apple a times
My court document is a supreme court of Can. decision, specif SOCAN vs Canadian Assc. of Internet Providers (2004), not fun at all, but it DOES mention Apple a times
Cedd said:
Yeah, that's my understanding as well.
If it's not the judges job to decide damages, who's job would it be? He'd be best placed to make that decision. Flatfish was talking some BS.
Apple are lucky the case is being held in England, they stand a good chance of paying nothing, or at least negligible damages if found guilty. The UK just doesn't have a tradition of paying mega damages.
Even if they have to pay the legal costs of Apple Corps, it'll still be a lot less than the $26 million they paid in the 1989-1991 decision.
I hope Apple Corp wins. I know when I bought my iPod, I was expecting a Beatles-made device, but no, I got some computer companies gadget. Of course, my I.Q. is a negative number, but that's beside the point.
This HAS to be initiated by Paul. Never in my life have I seen a more greedy bastard. Remember, he wanted to change the name of the songwriters on the Lennoan and McCartney songs to McCartny and Lennon because, after all, John is dead.
If this isn't tossed out of court, I will have lost my faith in the system... again.
$1.00 would be about right.
This HAS to be initiated by Paul. Never in my life have I seen a more greedy bastard. Remember, he wanted to change the name of the songwriters on the Lennoan and McCartney songs to McCartny and Lennon because, after all, John is dead.
If this isn't tossed out of court, I will have lost my faith in the system... again.
NickSl said:
$1.00 would be about right.
I want my Beatles' iPod!
"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."
First...for those of you who are bashing The Beatles...please remember that probably any and all successful artists today will say their musical roots trace back to The Beatles. Quite simply, they changed the world.
Second...Apple did the same thing.
What doesn't make sense to me is that, even if Apple Corps. wins (which they probably will), and get paid a huge amount in 'damages', could that money compare to how much they would make if they would just give in and allow Steve to design a Beatles' iPod (which I'm sure he'd love to do) and sell their catalog through iTunes? If the lawsuit is about money, that would be the more financially astute option, wouldn't it?
If it's not about the money, you've got to wonder why Neil Aspinall and the rest don't think The Beatles would benefit from making their music available online. There's a show on MTV or VH-1 now where kids are saying how surprised they are by the music they're discovering in their parents' album collections. Stuff they are then purchasing and downloading onto their iPods. If The Beatles don't join the crowd, they might be forgotten by new target consumers and their importance and relevance to the entire realm of music today could be relegated to the history books.
It doesn't make sense. This is a win-win situation...or a lose-lose situation. Why not be the two companies that revolutioned their respective fields and COME TOGETHER! Steve Jobs named his company after The Beatles as a tribute. When the most respected computer company in the world pays you a compliment...be flattered!
P.S. Love the posts with The Beatle song references!!
"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."
First...for those of you who are bashing The Beatles...please remember that probably any and all successful artists today will say their musical roots trace back to The Beatles. Quite simply, they changed the world.
Second...Apple did the same thing.
What doesn't make sense to me is that, even if Apple Corps. wins (which they probably will), and get paid a huge amount in 'damages', could that money compare to how much they would make if they would just give in and allow Steve to design a Beatles' iPod (which I'm sure he'd love to do) and sell their catalog through iTunes? If the lawsuit is about money, that would be the more financially astute option, wouldn't it?
If it's not about the money, you've got to wonder why Neil Aspinall and the rest don't think The Beatles would benefit from making their music available online. There's a show on MTV or VH-1 now where kids are saying how surprised they are by the music they're discovering in their parents' album collections. Stuff they are then purchasing and downloading onto their iPods. If The Beatles don't join the crowd, they might be forgotten by new target consumers and their importance and relevance to the entire realm of music today could be relegated to the history books.
It doesn't make sense. This is a win-win situation...or a lose-lose situation. Why not be the two companies that revolutioned their respective fields and COME TOGETHER! Steve Jobs named his company after The Beatles as a tribute. When the most respected computer company in the world pays you a compliment...be flattered!
P.S. Love the posts with The Beatle song references!!
So true
The apple lawyer gets the point, no reasonable person could confuse the 2 companies. With a name like apple you have to be a little loose, because it's not that unique like Toyota or something. The Beatles are suing becasue Apple keeps paying them off, why not sue again and pocket another 30 million?
The apple lawyer gets the point, no reasonable person could confuse the 2 companies. With a name like apple you have to be a little loose, because it's not that unique like Toyota or something. The Beatles are suing becasue Apple keeps paying them off, why not sue again and pocket another 30 million?
What about an Apple iPod hooked into a VW Beetle driven by a Walrus flying a flag with a picture of Lenin on it? I'm sooooo confused.
But seriously Apple corps sadly has a case. I mean you can't even start a business in this country with the name "Mc..." in it without being brought down by a certain clown named Ronald.
But seriously Apple corps sadly has a case. I mean you can't even start a business in this country with the name "Mc..." in it without being brought down by a certain clown named Ronald.
Atlasland said:
These would be good points if there WERE NOT a 1991 settlement. All points of contention need to be resolved within the context of the 1991 settlement, not YOUR random life experiences.
daebhoo said:"
P.S. Love the posts with The Beatle song references!!
I claim the mother of all Beatles reference posts:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1034247#post1034247
You say you want some restitution.
Yeah, we know
That your music changed the world.
You tell me it's trademark dilution.
Yeah, we know
That your music changed the world.
But when you talk about injunction
Don't you know that you can count me out?
etc., etc., etc.
Yeah, we know
That your music changed the world.
You tell me it's trademark dilution.
Yeah, we know
That your music changed the world.
But when you talk about injunction
Don't you know that you can count me out?
etc., etc., etc.
Apple Computer is No different
Look at sites like iLounge-formally iPod lounge. They don't even make music but had to change their name. So Apple Computer , like Apple Corp is protecting their brand(s).
It is very short sited to pick on Apple Corp or the individual Beatles simply because they continue to protect their patent and brand. Three years ago Apple Corp had the worlds biggest selling CD with Beatles 1 and it could be said they layed the groundwork for the way the recording industry developed. Even sort of invented the music video when they made short music films rather than tour.
If Apple Computer would simply drop the Apple name and logo from iTunes and this lawsuit would end, but I am sure a settlement is in order since they both will do very well afterwards. Any company has an obligation to their sharholders to protect themelves.
Another thing Apple Corp actually had an Apple Electronics division when they started up. It did not last long and I assume they did not keep the name registered.
Someone here mentioned SUN Records. Yeah but Sun Computer never entered the music business. Even look at McDonalds. You can't even have any other kind of fast food chain with the Mc in the name. There once was a healthfood small chain called McDharma's. That name was shut down fast.
Look at sites like iLounge-formally iPod lounge. They don't even make music but had to change their name. So Apple Computer , like Apple Corp is protecting their brand(s).
It is very short sited to pick on Apple Corp or the individual Beatles simply because they continue to protect their patent and brand. Three years ago Apple Corp had the worlds biggest selling CD with Beatles 1 and it could be said they layed the groundwork for the way the recording industry developed. Even sort of invented the music video when they made short music films rather than tour.
If Apple Computer would simply drop the Apple name and logo from iTunes and this lawsuit would end, but I am sure a settlement is in order since they both will do very well afterwards. Any company has an obligation to their sharholders to protect themelves.
Another thing Apple Corp actually had an Apple Electronics division when they started up. It did not last long and I assume they did not keep the name registered.
Someone here mentioned SUN Records. Yeah but Sun Computer never entered the music business. Even look at McDonalds. You can't even have any other kind of fast food chain with the Mc in the name. There once was a healthfood small chain called McDharma's. That name was shut down fast.
Intent is also important
In the 1991 agreement, the intent was that Apple Corp would be in the music business and Apple Computer would be in the Computer and information transfer business. No one even thought of the possibility of an online music distribution store or even that Apple Computer would have one.
It is important to update that agreement now. It is necessary. Apple Corp. only filed suit after rejecting a paltry offer of one million dollars from Steve Jobs. That's like in Austin Powers: ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Crap, That's what Jobs pays for black turtlenecks!!!
Just because some of you are joking about anyone confusing these two companies, that is not really the point. They both exist and where they do business is what is outlined in that settlement.
The changes in technology neccessitate revisions in agreements. Writers and photographers who created for print twenty years ago, never origianlly sold rights to their work digitally online, so publishers, magazines, newspapers and so on were obligated to revised their use rights. Same is needed here.
Just because you might be young and feel the Beatles are old school, has no bearing on this situation.
In the 1991 agreement, the intent was that Apple Corp would be in the music business and Apple Computer would be in the Computer and information transfer business. No one even thought of the possibility of an online music distribution store or even that Apple Computer would have one.
It is important to update that agreement now. It is necessary. Apple Corp. only filed suit after rejecting a paltry offer of one million dollars from Steve Jobs. That's like in Austin Powers: ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! Crap, That's what Jobs pays for black turtlenecks!!!
Just because some of you are joking about anyone confusing these two companies, that is not really the point. They both exist and where they do business is what is outlined in that settlement.
The changes in technology neccessitate revisions in agreements. Writers and photographers who created for print twenty years ago, never origianlly sold rights to their work digitally online, so publishers, magazines, newspapers and so on were obligated to revised their use rights. Same is needed here.
Just because you might be young and feel the Beatles are old school, has no bearing on this situation.
leenoble said:
This is the most moronic thing I've ever read on this website. Period.
Holy Christ.
dashiel said:
Actually, I'm pretty sure they still do recording for some artists. Whether they are still considers a record label, I don't know but I'm pretty sure the studio stills working.
No other artists
They are not an active label recording new artists, however have a back unreleased catalogue from others. They do maintain the Beatles' catalogue as well as some of the solo albums and reissue programs (like next week's Capitol Albums Volume two box set release). They also release their films via DVD. But all of this is moot. They are still an ongoing music business entity that makes money each year. You think just becuse they are not some new hot seller, they should not protect their business interests?
They are not an active label recording new artists, however have a back unreleased catalogue from others. They do maintain the Beatles' catalogue as well as some of the solo albums and reissue programs (like next week's Capitol Albums Volume two box set release). They also release their films via DVD. But all of this is moot. They are still an ongoing music business entity that makes money each year. You think just becuse they are not some new hot seller, they should not protect their business interests?
yes but...
And yet, Apple (Computer) still infringe the settlement for the third time
Well, they surely don't make more money. There is no Apple Corp music on iTMS
sooo true
SaddY said:
And yet, Apple (Computer) still infringe the settlement for the third time
SaddY said:
Well, they surely don't make more money. There is no Apple Corp music on iTMS
SaddY said:
sooo true
iTunes could offer Apple Corp. the ability to sell their library with little to no markup for Apple Computer. Would drive more traffic to iTunes and appease Apple Corp--considering they DON'T offer the Beatle's library online!
B
B
Not only could Apple Computer offer Apple Corps having the Beatles music in the iTMS, increasing sales of their music holdings, but Apple Corps could offer Apple Computer having the Beatles music in the iTMS, increasing their online music market share and the sales of iPods. In other words, it should have been a win-win situation all along.rxse7en said:
Les Kern said:
No, you have your facts wrong. Paul wanted to change the credit on songs that he wrote without John to McCartney/Lennon instead of Lennon/McCartney. After all, he wrote them. But Yoko Ono said no.
He never wanted to change the credit on songs that John wrote, or even on songs that they wrote together equally.
Cedd said:
Yes and no.
When I said that an SOL doesn't apply, I meant that if in 100 yrs. the contract was still effective and was breached action could still be taken, of course once a breach of contract takes place the clock starts ticking. The original Question related to whether the 91 agreement had a limitation and whether breaching that agreement 10 years later meant that Apple Corps were out of luck.
Also, I am fairly certain the judges job is to give a decision on the claim and that if he decides a breach has taken place is will go to another hearing for an award of damages.
As for damages, it is a somewhat more complex matter than you give it credit. First of all any hearing will not only have to decide whether Apple Corps has suffered a loss, but also whether Apple have gained a benefit and the two are not the same. Additionally, how can you say Apple Corps have not suffered a loss, they would now likely have great difficulty in opening an Apple Corps download service to distribute the Apple Corps music (and this does not simply include Beatles music, there are a number of artists who recorded on the Apple label). I personally don't believe that Apple Corps intended doing so and common sense would tell you there is no loss, but how can you say for sure.
What many have not realised is the verdict is far more important than any award. It seems there is no precedent in this case, (I don't know this for sure, but I'm sure one side or the other would have raised it if there was) and the verdict is likely to set a precedent for such future cases.
NickSl said:
Absolutely incorrect.
The Judge is not best placed to award damages, his field of expertise is a general knowledge of the law and an ability to judge right from wrong.
The best people to decide any damages would be people who have a specific knowledge at awarding damages, the judge will almost certainly not award any damages himself although he may direct those that do to consider certain factors.