Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

More Apple vs. Apple Details

Smells like Yoko

Some questions...

1. When did Apple Records last release a song or sign an artist?

2. What artists are signed to Apple Computers, or what records have they released?

3. How many 'reasonably thinking' people believe when they are buying an iPod or downloading iTunes music from the ITunes Store they are giving money to Yoko Ono et al?

Some observations...

Have notices the word 'music' is now practically ommitted from Apple.com

I like The Beatles but come on you heirs to the Liverpool Lads fortune - Let It Be.

(oh sheet, is 'Be' copyrighted too - a counter-sue perhaps :cool: )
 
Maybe I'm wrong...

I thought that Apple Records sold all the rights to the beatles songs to Micheal Jackson a long time ago. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone else know anything about that?
 
I Hate how everyone takes frifolous lawsuits as a time to bash lawyers. Lawyers should make do difference in this kind of decision. These lawsuits are brought by the corporate executives themselves. It is the fault of companies like Apple corps and SCO, not lawyers.

Since everyone thinks that lawyers are scumbags, i would like to see this country function with no lawyers. It would be a lawless state probably inforced by military forces. How would you like that?

P.S. there are also protections for frivolous lawsuits in the US. most crazy suits are thrown out. This one however, is actually a kegitimate claim, and no matter how stupid the reasons for this suit are, it is legitimate.
 
Many of you keep calling this a copyright case. However, this case is about trademarks and not copyrights. Though the outcome of this case remains to be seen, those of you who call this suit frivilous are quite wrong. An owner of a registered trademark has the right to bring suit against those with similar names that come into their line of business. A perfect example of this is Delta faucets and Delta Airlines. No one is going to confuse the two at the moment, but should Delta Airlines start making sinks and bathtubs, there would most likely be a problem.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I do think Apple Corps has a pretty good case.
 
"When I find my self in times of trouble, mad lawyers comes to me, speaking the words of greed, Let it be, let it be......" :)



These lawsuits are brought by the corporate executives themselves. It is the fault of companies like Apple Corps and SCO, not lawyers.

Though it is the company's decision, I think these corporate executives will seek the legal advice from their lawyers before they can go ahead with the suit.
 
Originally posted by Uragon

Though it is the company's decision, I think these corporate executives will seek the legal advice from their lawyers before they can go ahead with the suit.
Click to expand...

You have to keep in mind that companies like these are being represented by the most prestigious law firms in the world. You don't attain and keep that reputation by encouraging your clients to engage in frivilous suits.
 
Originally posted by Mason
Many of you keep calling this a copyright case. However, this case is about trademarks and not copyrights. Though the outcome of this case remains to be seen, those of you who call this suit frivilous are quite wrong. An owner of a registered trademark has the right to bring suit against those with similar names that come into their line of business. A perfect example of this is Delta faucets and Delta Airlines. No one is going to confuse the two at the moment, but should Delta Airlines start making sinks and bathtubs, there would most likely be a problem.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I do think Apple Corps has a pretty good case.
Click to expand...

If it comes down to trademark. Apple Corps has absolutely no case whatsoever. This has nothing to do with copyright, trademark, or anything to do with intellectual property. This is a contract dispute. Apple Corps and Apple Computer engaged in a contract about which had what rights and where. Apple Corps claims the iTunes Music Store is infringing on that agreement. It all depends on where Apple Computer uses the common English noun "Apple" in relation to the music store portion of their business.

The reason Apple Corps has already lost when it comes down to a trademark dispute is that Apple Corps has already failed in at least four cases to defend said trademark: Bad Apple Records, Black Apple Records, Screaming Apple Records, Big Apple Records. These are clearly more infringing on Apple Corps' trademark, since they are in the same industry.

Michael Jackson owned publishing rights to various songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. He sold them to Sony, so he no longer has said rights, but those rights had nothing to do with Apple Corps anyway. Apple Corps was a tax shelter set up by the Fab Four, with grand plans for many business ventures that never panned out. Apple Corps now appears to be mostly owned by EMI, with Yoko, Sir Paul, Ringo, and the estate of George Harrison having a minority stake.
 
I feel dumb I didn't even know there was even a Apple Corp. Is it me or is the Music Industry or any one associated with it loosing there damn mind they really seem sue happy don't they.
 
I don't know, it might be just me. But Apple Corp. was LATE in bringing this about. Apple computer has entered the music industry years ago, but in the hardware and sometimes the software that are used in producing music. iTunes was released literally years ago, and from the begining it was focused on bringing MP3's to the Mac. With this, it spurred file sharing programs like Limewire.

My question is, why the heck Apple Corp. didn't bring around a law suit at that time!!? It's case would've been extremely positive for them.


With the iPod, I don't understand why Apple Corp. want's to include it in the lawsuit? It's only a means of transporting and listening to music. What if Sony Music and Sony would've been two separate companies when created? Would Sony Music be entitled in a share of earnings of Walkmans and Diskmans simply because they can play their music??


From what I see here is that Apple Corp. waited to see if iTunes Music Store and iPod started making money and being more popular before trying to put their hands into Apple Computer's profits. The lenght of time since the release of iTunes, iTunes MS, and iPod and this law suit can be counted in months and years, simply this fact almost kills Apple Corp.'s try.

As for what might happen to Apple Computer, well they'll get some publicity for "free" from this case.
 
Re: Jobs knows what he is doing

Originally posted by iChan
my take on this whole situation is that Steve Jobs and Apple know exactly what they are doing regarding this whole copyright infringement case...
Click to expand...

We can only hope so. Though I don't have a clue how he will get out of this easily.
 
the drain on society,lawyers are the spicket. this is really an example of apple record label,beatles and their lawyers trying to get something for nothing.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That's probably true because the products compete in the same arena. However, I doubt Apple Computer would get involved if someone were to release Apple napkin rings. The corporate monacher for a band that hasn't existed in 20 years (and no longer owns the rights to their own songs...see MJ) has absolutely nothing to do with a computer company.
 
Software Tool Works should sue everybody

Based on the statement that Apple used the word Apple to promote a product, the company "Software Toolworks" should sue everybody, most software says in their Readme's, "This Software Tool Works to provide you ...."

Microsoft also uses a similar phrase, "Works is a software office suite that works as a tool to increase your correspondence and organize your life"

Apple corps points out that they have won previous lawsuits - well didn't Microsoft win a few lawsuits with Apple that most of us don't agree with the ruling?

Does anyone think that Apple and for that matter Microsoft are picked on? Or is it truly just the fact that every lawyer, even the good ones, are just scum?

On a side note: has everyone seen the new site about the notable Jack Campbell: JackWhispers
 
I was not commenting on the location of the suit, merely, stating that it is the American way. sometimes truth hurts....perhaps?
An illness that the rest of theworld is catching!
Click to expand...

But Apple Corps isn't IN America, they're based in England (specifically London) where the Beattles are from... NOT America. I doubt it's catching, would you want to be suing pants off people in a country where the judges wear wigs?

And to quote Don Henley "kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight." I doubt it was Apple Corps looking over at Apple but rather their grubby lawyers keeping a buggy eye out for something to jump on... and boy howdy they found one.
 
Two words: Jesse & Johnny

Originally posted by Mason
You have to keep in mind that companies like these are being represented by the most prestigious law firms in the world. You don't attain and keep that reputation by encouraging your clients to engage in frivilous suits.
Click to expand...


Two words: Johhny Cochran

Two More: Jesse Jackson

Both have great reputations both CONSISTENTLY defend frivolity and even defend the rights of the malicious and guilty.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the drain on society,lawyers are the spicket. this is really an example of apple record label,beatles and their lawyers trying to get something for nothing.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot, as i mentioned, if you think lawyers are th scum of the earth, then try to live without them, i think you'll get the idea

The legal system is theoretically flawless, but the evils of humans interfear with the system. It doesnt matter who the person is, Bush (Enron execs are still not in jail), judges (make politically motivated decisions), corporate executives (the SCO and Apple Corps law suits) and so forth. lawyers are just part of the problem, but as a whole the system is necissary and works pretty well, for all its flaws.
 
Originally posted by Photorun
And to quote Don Henley "kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight." I doubt it was Apple Corps looking over at Apple but rather their grubby lawyers keeping a buggy eye out for something to jump on... and boy howdy they found one.
Click to expand...

That is wrong, lawyers are no more greedy than the corporate executives. It is the corporations such as Wal-mart and microsoft that use their monopolies to either not pay for overtime(Wal-mart) or destroy competion in any industry they see fit (microsoft). At the moment, there 26 lawsuits against walmart to get repayment for the lost pay, and damages. The result would be rewards to employees. And to the law firms, which also have to pay expenses (cases against large corporations are expensive and risky). In the end, the lawyers enforce the law and prevent wrongdoings from the corporations. The money they get is no different than your salary.
 
Re: Two words: Jesse & Johnny

Originally posted by adzoox
Two words: Johhny Cochran

Two More: Jesse Jackson

Both have great reputations both CONSISTENTLY defend frivolity and even defend the rights of the malicious and guilty.
Click to expand...

those are individuals, dont make generalizations.

If i said that all republicans are racists
and point out trent lot and Strom turmand, im sure people would say the same thing.
 
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