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

Just beat it ...

Originally posted by Rocketman
Michael Jackson and Sony Corp. Japan's economy sucks and Jackson is on record low cashflow. They both need the money.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

But Micheal Jackson has already come out and said he likes the ITMS and Sony is currently the #1 selling label on the ITMS
 
Re: Software Tool Works should sue everybody

Originally posted by adzoox
Does anyone think that Apple and for that matter Microsoft are picked on? Or is it truly just the fact that every lawyer, evn the good ones, are just scum?
Click to expand...

I might mention that is s REQUIRED for lawyers to defend their clients to the best of their ability, otherwise they are commiting malpractise. Lawyers cannot make a desicion on guilt are fivolity and decide to tell the judge, or half-ass the defense. its immoral and illegal
 
Re: Re: Software Tool Works should sue everybody

Originally posted by earlopogous
I might mention that is s REQUIRED for lawyers to defend their clients to the best of their ability, otherwise they are commiting malpractise. Lawyers cannot make a desicion on guilt are fivolity and decide to tell the judge, or half-ass the defense. its immoral and illegal
Click to expand...


That's a misinterpretation of the "Code Of Conduct" if I've ever seen it.

Lawyers like Johnnie Cochran that defend murderers and get them off is going beyond their "required" defense. It is NOT the place, responsibilty, or the job of a lawyer to obtain a verdict - it is their JOB to defend ... period. Defense is not equal to innocence!

What a troll.
 
Re: Re: Re: Software Tool Works should sue everybody

Originally posted by adzoox
That's a misinterpretation of the "Code Of Conduct" if I've ever seen it.

Lawyers like Johnnie Cochran that defend murderers and get them off is going beyond their "required" defense. It is NOT the place, responsibilty, or the job of a lawyer to obtain a verdict - it is their JOB to defend ... period. Defense is not equal to innocence!

What a troll.
Click to expand...

Now thats a shacky one, Although, it is true that it isnt the responsibility to obtain a verdict, it is very difficult to decide what "required defense" is. I am friends with the son of Don Samuel (person who defended Ray Lewis). Many people still think that he was guilty, but in the lawyers defense, he didnt know whether he was guilty or not. He had to defend him the best he could, which happened to be quite well, since he is one of the best lawyers in Atlanta.

The line between "required" defense and over zealous defense is a fine line, and in general it is in the lawyers best intrest to defend their clients well and without judgement.
 
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...

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!!!
Click to expand...

It was rumored that Sony acquired the rights to the Beatles catalog due to Michael Jacksons last album not doing well. Apparently he didn't make enough to cover his advance on royalties so the rights to the Beatles songs was used to cover the debt. Anyway I don't believe Paul or Ringo have anything to do with Apple Corps, I believe it is Neil Aspinal you need to be focusing on (he was a tour manager for the Beatles IIRC). Remember other artists did record for Apple. James Taylor was discovered and recorded by Apple as well as Billy Preston and several local favorites. Apple Corp was a failure and fell to the accountants and lawyers to sort out.
 
Re: Apple Corps protecting intellectual property

Originally posted by knotzo
Today's Apple Computer statement leads me to think Apple Computer may have something up their sleeve on this one.
Click to expand...

Where can this statement be found at?
 
Apple vs Apple

This is really getting boring. Apple Corps, I believe is a British company and Apple Computer is an American company. Apple Corps creates and distributes music compositions and Apple Computer provides a medium for their computer customers to legally purchase such music. Seems to me Apple Corps would want to work out a distribution agreement with Apple Computer rather than piss them off!

On top of that, I believe there is a time limit on copyrights..... Someone should look into that.....

As far as Apple Corps (formerly Apple Records) is concerned.... it will be a cold day in hell before I buy a product with their label on it.... ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
 
Originally posted by earlopogous
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. [/yoQUOTE] your right! lawyers are just as greedy as ceo's. hangem all!
Click to expand...
 
you guys do realise that if Apple Corp didn't sue they would literally be loosing their trademark don't you?

Under trademark law, if Apple Corp could be shown to have been aware that its trademark was being used for profitable means and it did nothing to stop it, then it can be argued that Apple Corp has forfeited its rights in respect to the name. and Apple Corp have the trademeark for the name Apple in the music industry.

Like it or not a company called Apple that is in the music industry will get confused with another company called Apple entering the music industy, its a fact of life.

Furthermore Apple comp DID sign an agreement back in the late 80's specifically saying they'd stay out of the music biz, which they have violated big time. Do you seriously expect that if the tables were reversed Apple comp wouldn't be suing like crazy?

I will bet right now Apple comp were more than aware of the possibility this could happen and have a healthy wodge of cash put aside to pay off the suit and the fact is in this case they ARE at fault, like it or not.

Try to be a bit more neutral - a lawsuit isn't automatically frivolous if levied against Apple Computers, nor is it justified automatically if its brought BY Apple Computers
 
Re: Apple vs Apple

Originally posted by acg5mac
On top of that, I believe there is a time limit on copyrights..... Someone should look into that.....
Click to expand...

I belive it's 50 years, and if the owner is still alive at that time, it can be renewed one time for another 50 years. At least that's what I remember from my music biz class.

And if I remember correctly, what happened with the selling of beatles songs has to do with publishing rights. Usually rights are split between the publishing company and the artist. Many artists sign bad contracts early on in some way hampers their rights (sorry I don't have all the details). The Beatles wouldn't permit use of their songs in commercials and stuff for a long time, until Michael Jackson purshed the publishing rights to the first half or more of their catalog.

I think at some point the Beatles started their own publishing company, and therefore those songs are locked up.

I found this, which seems to correlate with my music biz classes years ago.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html
 
new breaking story!!

Apple Corps files lawsuit on file downloaders for telling the RIAA to "Go suck an APPLE!" After a judge finally declares the lawsuit invalid, Apple Corps sues the english language for flagrant use of a copyrighted word.



Both the RIAA and Apple corps should be put out of business. This is stupid.
 
Re: new breaking story!!

Originally posted by iLilana
Both the RIAA and Apple corps should be put out of business. This is stupid.
Click to expand...


RIAA should, not Apple Corps, they have done nothing wrong.
 
Re: Re: Apple vs Apple

Originally posted by bretm
I belive it's 50 years, and if the owner is still alive at that time, it can be renewed one time for another 50 years. At least that's what I remember from my music biz class.

And if I remember correctly, what happened with the selling of beatles songs has to do with publishing rights. Usually rights are split between the publishing company and the artist. Many artists sign bad contracts early on in some way hampers their rights (sorry I don't have all the details). The Beatles wouldn't permit use of their songs in commercials and stuff for a long time, until Michael Jackson purshed the publishing rights to the first half or more of their catalog.

I think at some point the Beatles started their own publishing company, and therefore those songs are locked up.

I found this, which seems to correlate with my music biz classes years ago.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951027.html
Click to expand...

1. This is not a copyright issue. This is a trademark case. Trademarks do not have a time limit; they last as long as they are valid.
2. Copyright terms are not renewable.
3. Copyright terms are 95 years for corporations and life + 70 years for individuals.
 
I find it interesting that, according to this article, Apple is suing Apple due to the use of the word "Apple". I was listening to the radio last night and this case was on the news, and the announcer said that the problem was the logo, not the name. I haven't seen Apple Corps' logo, does it look similar to Apple Computers'?
 
Originally posted by Nermal
I haven't seen Apple Corps' logo, does it look similar to Apple Computers'?
Click to expand...

The label logo was a photograph of a whole green apple (no bite) on A sides, and the flat face of a cut-in-half apple on B sides. Apples being apples, the shapes are of course pretty much the same.

( Edit: sample Apple Records labels here. )
 
Originally posted by Chimaera
you guys do realise that if Apple Corp didn't sue they would literally be loosing their trademark don't you?

Under trademark law, if Apple Corp could be shown to have been aware that its trademark was being used for profitable means and it did nothing to stop it, then it can be argued that Apple Corp has forfeited its rights in respect to the name. and Apple Corp have the trademeark for the name Apple in the music industry.
Click to expand...

1. Bad Apple Records
2. Screaming Apple Records
3. Black Apple Records
4. Big Apple Records

The Apple Trademark is already in serious trouble.
 
Hmm... Apple... Isn't that a Fruit??

First of all, I have some serious problems with Apple Corps believing that they have a right to the word "APPLE." After all, it is a fruit. What is a company that sells Red Delicious Apples decided to release a mix cd with every sale of a Red Delicious Apple (not unheard of, as Coke and Hershey's releases CD w/ purchase all the time). Would Apple Corps actually SUE that company? They are involved in two totally different lines of business.

Same with Apple Computers. Apple Corps oversees the release and distribution of music created by their members, the Beatles. On the computer side, Apple Computers makes it possible for OTHER PEOPLE to create their own music and then Apple Computers has no hand in it after that point. On the side of iTunes Music Store, Apple Computers created a STORE to sell music from MANY, MANY ARTISTS, not just one. They are not a distributor, that is the job of the Record Label who distributed the music to Apple Computers to then RESELL the product.

I can see if Apple Computers put a sliced apple as the logo for iTMS, but no. They are using a guitar. And not even a guitar that the Beatles ever used, as a matter of fact.

Michael Jackson is not behind this suit. He in fact has said that the iTMS is a wonderful thing. He is not part of Apple Corps.

This whole situation if ridiculous. My first name is Travis, but I haven't sued every person named Travis that people have mistaken for me for identity theft!
 
This is my first post on this forum and I can't help but point out that its not as if Apple (computer) had a contract with Apple (corp) to do business. If I understand correctly, it was a settlement over the use of "apple" which Apple (corp) as a Trademark on. To me this is no small point. Im not sure if the settlement can be revoked, but I suspect this is the route Apple (computer) will travel. I've heard about the ruling over adding speakers to Mac's (which was insane) but considering the climate of the computer world, becoming more of a Digital Hub for all things electronic, a Judge may entertain the notion that the terms of the settlement are too broad reaching. Keep in mind, Apple Corp. has not sued any of the other businesses that are in the same field for trademark issues. This may make their claims of potential confusion shallow in the eyes of a court.
 
Re: Jobs knows what he is doing

Quote: "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.!!!"

As of close of business Apple Computer was worth about $8.4 Bil.
Adobe was worth over $9.2 Bil.
Nice thought, but it would be more likely for a merger to occur, or Apple to pick off some products.
 
Re: Re: Jobs knows what he is doing

Originally posted by cfountain72
Quote: "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.!!!"

As of close of business Apple Computer was worth about $8.4 Bil.
Adobe was worth over $9.2 Bil.
Nice thought, but it would be more likely for a merger to occur, or Apple to pick off some products.
Click to expand...
We can but dream
 
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