Jobs on the Apple v. Apple Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

This Independent.co.uk article provides some commentary from Steve Jobs on the current legal dispute between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. The previous agreements between the two companies were settled outside of court, but Jobs hints it may end up in court this time around:

"Apple Corporation and Apple [Computer] signed a legal agreement more than a decade ago. I wasn't there, and it says what each company can do with their trademark. I inherited that, and right now there's a disagreement about this. It's a trademark dispute... We might have to get a judge to decide on it."

 

[sharky2313]

finally

Apple, the computer company that is, has let this absurd settlement linger entirely too long. Apple corps needs a wake up call.

 

[Wonder Boy]

steve-o seems a bit subdued. i don't detect an agressive tone. there seems to be a lack of confidence.

i understand i cannot tell his tone from the quote, but its just the feeling i got.

its just that ive come to expect a little more "grr" out of steve-o.

 

[JoeRadar]

Show damages?

Does Apple Corp. need to demonstrate damages to recieve money from Apple Computer?

 

[Fredo Viola]

You know what, I don't like Job's attitude usually and Apple policy is generally very annoying, but I think it's cool that he stands up like this and speaks out in plain English. I'm rooting for Jobs and Apple full force.

 

[howard]

don't really know how big apple records is...but....

could apple computers buy apple records?

 

[Tiauguinho]

Does Apple Corp. even have a website? I went searching for it but didnt found anything. No no, im not thinking of hacking it...

 

[hvfsl]

Apple Computers is much bigger than Apple corp, they could probably buy them, but I expect it would be cheaper to go to court. Anyway Apple Computers has a future, while the Beatles music will not last forever, UK copyright law says that 70 years after the artist has died, all copyrights on anything that artist did will no longer be valid. So unless Apple Corp start doing something else other than just Beatles stuff they will be dead in about 80 years. So maybe Apple Computers can make the court case last that long.

Anyway this is a bad move by Apple corps since a lot of the Beatles fans own Macs, SJ is one of them.

 

[sedarby]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple Computers is much bigger than Apple corp, they could probably buy them, but I expect it would be cheaper to go to court. Anyway Apple Computers has a future, while the Beatles music will not last forever, UK copyright law says that 70 years after the artist has died, all copyrights on anything that artist did will no longer be valid. So unless Apple Corp start doing something else other than just Beatles stuff they will be dead in about 80 years. So maybe Apple Computers can make the court case last that long.

Anyway this is a bad move by Apple corps since a lot of the Beatles fans own Macs, SJ is one of them.

As a long time Beatles and Paul McCartney fan I can tell you it sickens me to think that Apple Corp. has come to this. The original idea was not to make money but to allow the Beatles more control over their destiny and to open their arms to new talent. James Taylor started on Apple Records. Apple Corp. need to get a life and leave this alone. This could be more for publicity than anything else because as far as I know they are all but gone.

 

[achmafooma]

Re: Show damages?

Originally posted by JoeRadar
Does Apple Corp. need to demonstrate damages to recieve money from Apple Computer?

Generally, I think they would. This is where the case will fall apart in a courtroom... Apple Corp. has not been harmed by Apple Computer having the name Apple Computer.

Apple Computer should never have entered into an agreement with Apple Corp though... I think the computer company would have won in a courtroom then. But now the record company can yell "breach of agreement!" That's Apple Computer's weak point.

On a related side note, I stopped buying real CDs when iTunes Music Store launched. I probably would've purchased 2 or 3 Beatles albums since then, except they aren't in the iTMS.

Oh well.

 

[Daschund]

Re: Show damages?

Originally posted by JoeRadar
Does Apple Corp. need to demonstrate damages to recieve money from Apple Computer?

As far as what I know, this is not a damages lawsuit, but a copyright infringement one...

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Daschund

 

[tny]

Re: Re: Show damages?

Originally posted by Daschund
As far as what I know, this is not a damages lawsuit, but a copyright infringement one...

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Daschund

You're wrong. It's a contract dispute.

The contract was the settlement from previous cases.

The previous cases regarded a trademark issue, not copyright. Trademark lasts forever, unless it is never defended. Think about that for a second. If Apple Corps doesn't defend its trademark against Apple Computer, anyone will be able to use the name (in that industry).

It's in Apple Computer's best interests to settle by giving Apple Corps a nice chunk of change to make this go away forever.

IANAL.

 

[tlindner]

Balls

Seeing the "AppleMusic.com" bilboards all over the bay area made me think about Apple Corps trademark.

But then I remembered Microware's lawsuite concering their OS-9 trademark.

Apple conviced a judge that Mac OS 9 (tm) does not dilute Microware's OS-9 (tm) becuase they are in different markets:

OS-9: Embedded Real Time Operating System
Mac OS 9: Desktop computer operating system "For the rest of us"

But they are both Operating System, dammit! Since Apple won that suit, they seems to be able to write new trademark law.

Apple is also defending themselves against the OpenGroup's "UNIX" trademark. I fully expect Apple to argue that "UNIX" is a generic term, and has lost it's trademark status. Who know how that one will turn out.

 

[macFanDave]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
steve-o seems a bit subdued. i don't detect an agressive tone. there seems to be a lack of confidence.

Actually, this is quite aggressive. Normal people would say, "I cannot comment on pending litigation."

This is one case where the practice of law sucks. The spirit of trademark law is to prevent confusion among consumers about the identities of the entities in question. Since Apple Computer is now one of the most recognized brands in the world, the potential for confusion is nil, so the case ought to be dismissed out of hand. And shame on the shyster lawyer who pushed it in the first place.

Another factor in Apple's defense is that they are not encroaching on Apple Corps' business. Apple Computer is not producing music, maintaining the copyrights of musical works or even serving as a primary distributor of music. They are acting as a secondary distributor of electronic data which comes from major and independent record labels. The iPod is a device and Apple Corps has never made any devices.

Case dismissed! Paul and Ringo, start writing checks to Steve Jobs to cover his legal expenses for this stunt. You guys aren't involved with SCO, too, are you?

 

[AhmedFaisal]

Re: Balls

Originally posted by tlindner
Seeing the "AppleMusic.com" bilboards all over the bay area made me think about Apple Corps trademark.

But then I remembered Microware's lawsuite concering their OS-9 trademark.

Apple conviced a judge that Mac OS 9 (tm) does not dilute Microware's OS-9 (tm) becuase they are in different markets:

OS-9: Embedded Real Time Operating System
Mac OS 9: Desktop computer operating system "For the rest of us"

But they are both Operating System, dammit! Since Apple won that suit, they seems to be able to write new trademark law.

Apple is also defending themselves against the OpenGroup's "UNIX" trademark. I fully expect Apple to argue that "UNIX" is a generic term, and has lost it's trademark status. Who know how that one will turn out.

Which will then lead to OpenGroup getting sued by SCO since they believe then own everything regarding Unix. Lets not even go there, please....
Cheers,

Ahmed

 

[suzerain]

well...on this one point i disagree...

Originally posted by macFanDave

Another factor in Apple's defense is that they are not encroaching on Apple Corps' business. Apple Computer is not producing music, maintaining the copyrights of musical works or even serving as a primary distributor of music. They are acting as a secondary distributor of electronic data which comes from major and independent record labels. The iPod is a device and Apple Corps has never made any devices.

This statement isn't true. Well, it's kind of true...but...

The iTunes Music Store contains "exclusive" tracks. Granted, Apple doesn't own copyright on these tracks, but they are definitely acting as the primary distributor.

I think, therefore, Apple Corps. could have an argument about Apple being a direct competitor. (In other words, they could argue that even though Apple is merely a licensor of this music, they are effectively acting as a label for exclusive tracks.)

And, how long do you think it will be before there are unsigned artists available via the Apple Store? It's going to happen very soon, since there are content aggregators that are signing agreements with indie artists saying they can get the into the iTunes store.

So, I think it could be argued Apple is directly competing as far as iTunes goes.

As for the iPod, I don't even understand that...although I can highlight the idiocy of Apple Corps. by pointing out that the original suit was filed because Apple added speakers to their computers (no ****). They thought that because the computer was capable of playing music, it made Apple a competitor.

Anyway, sad as it is, given how trademark law appears to work, it seems that Apple Corps. is doing what they have to do to protect their trademark.

 

[gopy]

Re: Balls

Originally posted by tlindner
Seeing the "AppleMusic.com" bilboards all over the bay area made me think about Apple Corps trademark.

I think that AppleMusic.com is pushing Apple's luck a little bit. iTunes.com, or iTunesStore.com might be better, with the company represented with just the Apple logo. After all, on the back of the iPod, the logo is the only (legible) representation of the company.

 

[kdavis]

Re: Re: Balls

Originally posted by gopy
I think that AppleMusic.com is pushing Apple's luck a little bit. iTunes.com, or iTunesStore.com might be better, with the company represented with just the Apple logo. After all, on the back of the iPod, the logo is the only (legible) representation of the company.

I think the logo has also been an issue, though. Apple Corps. also uses an image of a solitary apple (though, a photo of one) to represent itself.

 

[gopy]

Re: Re: Re: Balls

Originally posted by kdavis
I think the logo has also been an issue, though. Apple Corps. also uses an image of a solitary apple (though, a photo of one) to represent itself.

That's true-- personally, I don't think they look alike at all, akin to the four-paned window that Apple uses for Windows compatibility (should M$ sue Apple?).

 

[Le Big Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Show damages?

Originally posted by tny
You're wrong. It's a contract dispute.

The contract was the settlement from previous cases.

The previous cases regarded a trademark issue, not copyright. Trademark lasts forever, unless it is never defended. Think about that for a second. If Apple Corps doesn't defend its trademark against Apple Computer, anyone will be able to use the name (in that industry).

It's in Apple Computer's best interests to settle by giving Apple Corps a nice chunk of change to make this go away forever.

IANAL.

Without seeing the agreement, it's pretty tough to predict. I will say if there's any basis for this suit, then apple computer's lawyers did a horrible job with the settlement.

But back to the question. If apple music is suing for breach of a contract (whatever the settlement was), then generally damages is the remedy. But the measure of damages is their loss, not apple computer's gain, so apple music shouldn't be getting a cut of apple's itunes sales.

That said, the agreement may have some provision that allows apple music to stop apple computer's use of the name apple in conjunction with the sale of music. Apple C. might then have to pay a bit more than damages to give that up. Or convince a judge it's not using "apple" in conjunction with the sale of music (as in "it's called itunes music store--where does the word apple appear?")

 

[rueyeet]

The last couple times, it was probably more worth Apple (Computer)'s while to pay off Apple (Corps) and be done with it than fight extensive legal battles. But not now--not when the iTMS stands to be such a strategic asset and sell so many iPods.

It was probably short-sighted of Apple (Computer) to enter into those past contracts, but who would have foreseen back then that computers would become so integral to music in either creation, playback, or distribution? So that's Apple (Corps)'s strong point: precedent, and binding contracts.

However, those contracts were based on trademark defense, and it's possible to lose a trademark if the public usage invalidates it. Kleenex lost this battle, Xerox is still fighting it I think, and Google is beginning to fight it. The fact is that Apple as a brand name and trademark is going to be tied in the eyes of the vast majority of the public to the computer company. The knowledge that Apple Corps is the name of the Beatles' label is only useful as a Trivial Pursuit question.

Looks like Apple (Computer) is ready to make a fight out of it, now that they have something to protect. It's not a case of "yeah, yeah, trademark infringement, here's some cash, now go away" anymore. It's a case of preventing Apple (Corps) from having any claim to any of Apple (Computer)'s music-oriented strategies and revenues.

And no, let's not talk about SCO.....

 

[Dr_Maybe]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple Computers is much bigger than Apple corp, they could probably buy them, but I expect it would be cheaper to go to court.

That's not true, did you just make that up?

Apple Corp. makes almost the same amount of money as Apple Computers does.

 

[Juventuz]

Let's keep in mind while we're discussing the possible outcomes that the case is in England. How many people here are very familiar with English laws and their judicial system. One statement that's fair to make is that the English judicial system tends to favor the English companies when the case is against a foreign company.

 

[ssamani]

Jobs's sense of humour

One of the things I noted when I read the article on the train today was the report that the opening music to the Paris Expo included a Beatles song, covered by Johnny Cash. I had a nice little chuckle about that.

Sanj

 

[Golem]

Re: Re: Re: Show damages?

Originally posted by tny
You're wrong. It's a contract dispute.

The contract was the settlement from previous cases.

The previous cases regarded a trademark issue, not copyright. Trademark lasts forever, unless it is never defended. Think about that for a second. If Apple Corps doesn't defend its trademark against Apple Computer, anyone will be able to use the name (in that industry).

It's in Apple Computer's best interests to settle by giving Apple Corps a nice chunk of change to make this go away forever.

IANAL.

A bunch of companies allready use ....apple records and are in the same businesss.