More Apple vs. Apple Details

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,579
10,893
News.com provides some additional details to the previously reported Apple vs. Apple lawsuit.

Apple Corps confirmed the suit and is specifically opposed to the use of the word "Apple" in conjunction with the iTunes Music Store.

Meanwhile, Apple released a brief statement claiming that the two companies simply have "differing interpretations of [their previous] agreement".
 

cubist

macrumors 68020
Jul 4, 2002
2,075
0
Muncie, Indiana
I don't understand why Apple Corps. thinks they have an eternal lock on the association of "apple" and music, just because some guys from Liverpool had some popular songs 40 years ago. Do they have any real business, other than suing people?
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,772
11
Illinois
Ok, I was completely confused at first (the main story could have been written a little better), but now understant.

I'd love to be involved in this case. This sounds like a fun one.
 

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
This is so stupid. It is the iTunes Music Store. Not the Apple iTunes Music Store. Just because Apple made it does not mean it is connected with the name.

Now, making a connection here.....:)

In the other thread, people said that Apple Corps. sued Apple when they started using sound in their computers. Along the same lines, wouldn't they have sued again when Apple created the "Apple Pro Speakers," which DO have Apple officially in their title?

Once again, how stupid this whole thing is.
 

Chisholm

macrumors regular
May 31, 2002
241
11
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
This is going to prove to be nothing in the end. Apple Computer will benefit from the media coverage. Ringo and Sir Paul will just look like greedy idiots. But hey, that's just an opinion.

have a good weekend!
-john
 

x86isslow

macrumors 6502a
Aug 10, 2003
889
10
USA
hey freg.. looks like bill's going to have company from apple records in hell (from ur signature)
:p
 

joeyjojoe

macrumors regular
Jun 20, 2003
197
0
Los Angeles, CA
I don't see how you peopel are putting a positive spin on this for Apple Computers. Seriously, it is copyright infringement to use someone else's name in the same field they are in. What if I started a company called "Apple disk drives", of course Apple Computers would sue me, and all of you would be cheering Apple on and calling me an idiot for violating Apple's copyright. Be objective people.

Apple Corp. has legal claim to the name in the musical sphere. I don't see why they are pursuing anything other than to show their power. Its not like Apple Computers is going to start a music publishing company to directly compete, and thats the only reason Apple Corp. should be worried about.
 

Fender2112

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2002
1,087
295
Charlotte, NC
Wouldn't it be easier to make money by selling Beatle's songs via iTunes Music Store than to file law suits every few years?

Just a thought.

May Apple Computer should buy Apple Corps. Then the lawyers could get a real job. ;)
 

dombi

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2003
121
59
Originally posted by Fender2112
Wouldn't it be easier to make money by selling Beatle's songs via iTunes Music Store than to file law suits every few years?

Just a thought.

May Apple Computer should buy Apple Corps. Then the lawyers could get a real job. ;)
Sell? No, give away for free...I would not pay for that crap.
 

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
Originally posted by x86isslow
hey freg.. looks like bill's going to have company from apple records in hell (from ur signature)
:p
Yes, maybe I can get PowerBook G5 to revise his quote to involve Apple Corp. :)
 

Macco

macrumors regular
Jun 15, 2003
164
0
I guess this means the Beatles won't be on the iTMS for a while. Maybe I'll actually have to buy a real CD again.

*pauses for dramatic effect*

naaaaaaaahhh.

Originally posted by joeyjojoe
I don't see how you peopel are putting a positive spin on this for Apple Computers. Seriously, it is copyright infringement to use someone else's name in the same field they are in. What if I started a company called "Apple disk drives", of course Apple Computers would sue me, and all of you would be cheering Apple on and calling me an idiot for violating Apple's copyright. Be objective people.

Apple Corp. has legal claim to the name in the musical sphere. I don't see why they are pursuing anything other than to show their power. Its not like Apple Computers is going to start a music publishing company to directly compete, and thats the only reason Apple Corp. should be worried about.
I beg to differ. Apple manufactures computer hardware, so therefore, they have a trademark for the name "Apple" pertaining to operating systems and computer hardware. I'm sure some people out there have seen the branch of banks called "Apple Bank" (or something like that). There's no copyright infringement issue there, because they operate in different industries.

Apple Corp. probably has a copyright for the name "Apple" in music recording. The iTMS only sells music, therefore, there's no copyright infringement.






I think...
 

edgar_is_good

macrumors member
Jun 17, 2003
72
0
Seattle, WA
Protection of trademark?

I'm no lawyer, but my IP lawyer friends have told me that one has to protect trademarks and the like. If you allow the trademarked phrase to enter the public domain, and if you make little or no effort to enforce your right, then the names become free game (to prevent me from say copyrighting some phrase and just waiting for someone to use it and have a lot of money so I can sue). Over on Appleturns, it was pointed out that a google search of apple records turns up numerous labels, which, presumably, have not been sued. If apple computer makes the case that apple corp is not protecting its music label copyright, they might win.

They'll have a hard time arguing they've protected their trademark with (again from ATAT) Screaming Apple Records, Big Apple Records, Bad Apple Records, and Black Apple Records all out there doing business.

Of course, these things never go to trial, right.
 

cgmpowers

macrumors regular
Mar 21, 2002
129
0
Making a name for itself...

Is anyone going to confuse Apple Computers, or Apple iTunes/Music Store with the Beatles?

No.

Will people be confused about name branding and think Steve Jobs wrote one of the Beatles songs?

No.

Did the average citizen know who the hell Apple Corps was until yesterday?

Prob. not.

Is this about money?

Yes, as most 'happy-go-sue-crazy' people and companies are these days.
 

chadfromdallas

macrumors member
Sep 4, 2003
64
0
Re: Making a name for itself...

Originally posted by cgmpowers
Will people be confused about name branding and think Steve Jobs wrote one of the Beatles songs?

People would think apple owns it. Thats what they would think. ;)
 

KREX725

macrumors regular
Apr 20, 2003
154
0
Hey, if Apple Corp had a competing online music store, I could see them complaining. To the best of my knowledge, they don't.

I'm kinda reading between the lines and thinking Apple Corp is anti-MP3 and doing this in hopes of slowing the progression of online music sales. Has anyone told them that they're in the middle of a stampede?

Also, is it really Paul and Ringo or is it Michael Jackson who owns their butts? I'm really not sure who actually owns the Apple Corp thing.
 

knotzo

macrumors newbie
Sep 12, 2003
3
0
Portland, OR
Apple Corps protecting intellectual property

If Apple Corps. does not pursue this, they run the risk of losing the rights to the Apple Corps. trademark -- which is their property. I really don't understand why they waited. It will only hurt Apple Corps, as they did not actively pursue this as soon as itunes came out. Waiting for damages to rise is not a good reason :confused:

Today's Apple Computer statement leads me to think Apple Computer may have something up their sleeve on this one.
 

Docrjm

macrumors regular
Jun 22, 2003
142
0
Re: Making a name for itself...

Originally posted by cgmpowers
Is anyone going to confuse Apple Computers, or Apple iTunes/Music Store with the Beatles?

No.

Will people be confused about name branding and think Steve Jobs wrote one of the Beatles songs?

No.

Did the average citizen know who the hell Apple Corps was until yesterday?

Prob. not.

Is this about money?

Yes, as most 'happy-go-sue-crazy' people and companies are these days.
Hey but litigation is the American way. Heck its as american as apple pie!!
The only people who ultimately gain are the sharks,(lawyers).
 

iChan

macrumors 6502a
Jan 12, 2003
804
12
Dublin, Ireland.
Jobs knows what he is doing

my take on this whole situation is that Steve Jobs and Apple know exactly what they are doing regarding this whole copyright infringement case...

I think Apple knew that they were infringing on Apple corps's copyright, but decided to go ahead anyway, just to put them to rest once and for all. From what I have read, apple Computer have a good chance of winning, what with the Apple pro speakers and Apple corps waiting so long before finally suing Apple Comp.

Hopefully, after winning this case, this situation will not rear it's ugly head again.

I have heard a few differnet views on the whole rights issue about beatles songs... I personally don't know if MJ owns them of Ringo and Paul but what I do know is that it would be a great idea for Apple compu to buy out apple corps if they do indeed have rights to the recordings and sell them exclusively on iTMS!!! that would be so cool! (sorry, Apple fanboy side of me coming out there)

Another thing I to hypothesize here is this: wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if Apple bought Adobe??? my god, what a dream come true that would be.!!!

Go Apple Go!!!
 

Les Kern

macrumors 68040
Apr 26, 2002
3,063
76
Alabama
Apple Computer.... Apple Corps..... oh I GET it! It's so obvious now. Must have something to do with when I went into and Apple store the other day to pick up a copy of the White Album, but they were out.
The whole thing is idiotic.
 

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Re: More Apple vs. Apple Details

Originally posted by Macrumors
News.com provides some additional details to the previously reported Apple vs. Apple lawsuit.

Apple Corps confirmed the suit and is specifically opposed to the use of the word "Apple" in conjunction with the iTunes Music Store.

Meanwhile, Apple released a brief statement claiming that the two companies simply have "differing interpretations of [their previous] agreement".
I am intimately famniliar with litigation in my industry. I find it often hinges on fine details. If the point is no use of "Apple" on the iTunes website, just spin off iTunes LLC and if you win the suit which your lawyers will NEVER surrender an inch on, then do whatever you want, but in the mean time you have killed ALL claims of damages in case you lose.

Earth to Steve, please come in.

Rocketman

Hurry up and release Windows iTunes even V0.9 if you have to.
 

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Originally posted by Macco

Apple Corp. probably has a copyright for the name "Apple" in music recording. The iTMS only sells music, therefore, there's no copyright infringement.

I think...
There's an interesting theory. If you claim Apple Corps MANUFACTURES music and Apple Inc SELLS music you might have a claim. However I suspect the prior agreement between Apple and Apple established a specific definition for what constitutes "the same industry" and that narrow isue is the primary hinge point for the lawsuit.

For example the contract could have actually WIDENED the definition as a concession for Apple Corp to enter into an agreement at all.

Case law and a copy of the contract would help here. If it is so marginal Apple is relying on theory and not caselaw to substantiate their position, I suggest what I suggested in my prior post. Spin-off iTunes LLC.

ANY company website can link to APPLE COMPUTER hardware.

Rocketman
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.