The Beatles Sue Apple Computer?

[SeaFox]

Back on topic:

Originally posted by Genie
I can't believe apple didn't get this straight before they started itms!😕

No kidding! You'd think someone at Apple (Computer) would have said "Hey, wait a minute guys. This music store idea is good. But don't we have some contract saying we can't..."

Sounds like Apple Legal was asleep at the wheel.

As far as people confusing the two companies, I meet people all the time who think the company is actually named "Macintosh" instaed of Apple.

This is what you get when you remove original system startup sounds from the OS. If we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it.

P.S.- Since the Green Apple is Apple Corps symbol, maybe Apple Computer should pay a settlement for all those key lime iBooks they made. There were green apples on them, ya know.

 

[simX]

Re: Back on topic:

Originally posted by SeaFox
As far as people confusing the two companies, I meet people all the time who think the company is actually named "Macintosh" instaed of Apple.

ARG, those kinds of people annoy me to no end. The other group of people are those who think the computer is called an Apple. *ROAR*

Anyway, I have to agree that Apple had this coming to them -- they did indeed breach the contract that they made with Apple Corps. way back when, plain and simple. There's no other way around it, even if you don't think it applies now.

Apple may have a legal leg to stand on, though, because Apple Corps. didn't sue Apple when they originally came out with iTunes or the iPod. Because they waited 'til now, their legal case may be weaker. But, as always, IANAL, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.


Also, I believe that the name of our favorite fruit company is simply "Apple", now. They fairly recently (read: a few years ago) changed it from "Apple, Inc." or "Apple Computer, Inc." At least I thought they did -- their copyright notice down at the bottom of apple.com still says "Apple Computer, Inc." Anybody care to shed any more light on this?

 

[dstorey]

It's all Yoko's fault I tell you. It's her fault now, it was her fault the Beatles split up, it was even her fault Wako Jako turn white and had his nose fall off...shes a wicked witch that pyt a spell on him for outbifdding her and paul for the Beatles rights.... Hell it's even her fault its raining today

 

[Arcady]

Re: here is a new thought

Originally posted by settledown
back in the day... It was Apple Corp. vs. Apple Inc., Since then Apple has changed its name to Apple Computers Inc.. And not to long ago changed it again to just Apple Computers.

The company has been called "Apple Computer, Inc." since 1977. They have never been called "Apple Computers" or "Apple Inc." Where did people (including this Fox News "reporter") get the idea that it was called "Apple Computers" anyway?

I guess it's not as bad as people who write things like "MAC makes good computers for graphics" but it still makes me mad.

 

[.a]

though the beatles are a legend, i never liked the music and now i do not even like their lawyer ...
.a

 

[Doraemon]

Originally posted by sickracer2015
Apple did ask for it:

When Apple Computers first came into existence, the Beatles' lawyers_sued -- and won -- over the use of the corporate name. The Fab Four, it_was_widely known, already had their own_company called_Apple Corps. (Ironically, Jobs admitted to naming his company as a tribute to the Beatles.) The result of the suit was a huge cash settlement and a promise that the Apple logo and name would only be used for computers -- and_never for a music company.

Several years later, when computers starting having music come through attachable speakers, the Beatles again sued_and won, this time_over breach of a trademark agreement since Apple Computers had agreed to steer clear of the music business. Their winnings against Apple Computers have come to an estimated_$50 million so far.

You got it basically right, but it was a little bit different.

Apple was not sued for the use of the name Apple, but they [Apple Computer & Records] had a secret agreement (read Apple Comp payed quite a lot) that Apple Comp may use the name for products not related to music.

In 1989 Apple Comp was sued because Apple Records felt that by the release of the Apple IIgs (gs = graphic & sound) Apple Comp violated the terms of the agreement. The suit was settled when Apple Comp agreed to pay $26.5 million in 1991.


I guess there's only one this to say to this rumor:

Sosumi

😉

 

[mrjamin]

Originally posted by Doraemon
I guess there's only one this to say to this rumor:

Sosumi

😉

Was wondering when someone would mention that! Was waiting for the thread to stop going round in circles before i mentioned it!

 

[Uragon]

Actually, the real owner of the Apple trademark is the Vatican, handed over by Adam and Eve. And where's the snake?.....da lawyers.😉

 

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by alandail
Actually, I read that to say the opposite of what you said. it says EMI has an exclusive license to the copyrights from Apple Corps. From what I read, the Beatles Apple Corps recordings were always released by EMI. Apple Corps was formed as a tax shelter - instead of EMI paying royalties to the Beatles, they payed Apple Corps, which dramatically reduced the taxes that had to be paid on the royalties.

... How can you possibly tell me otherwise?

I stated that... that was WRITTEN on the CD's, why in hell would they post incorrect information on their own disks?

I can pull out the other disks... but that would be repettive eh?

 

[alandail]

Originally posted by MrMacman
... How can you possibly tell me otherwise?

I stated that... that was WRITTEN on the CD's, why in hell would they post incorrect information on their own disks?

I can pull out the other disks... but that would be repettive eh?

The disk says "1993 Apple Coprs LTD. under exclusive license to EMI Records LTD."

It's saying EMI licensed the copyright from Apple Corps, Ltd. If EMI owned Apple Corps LTD, why would they have to license the music from Apple Corps LTD?

 

[NoVi]

Originally posted by Makosuke
I'm not a copyright/trademark lawyer, but it sure seems to me that any particular benefit to Apple (the computer company) on account of sharing a name with the Beatles label went away about two decades ago when Apple Records stopped doing anything. At all.

This not -entirely- true. I just looked at my 6 part Anthology DVD, but it wears the Beatles Apple logo (you see it's confusing 😀) and this DVD has been released recently.
I guess the 'One' CD released 2/3 years ago was also an Apple production.

 

[whooleytoo]

(Fast forward to 2008..)

"And in other news, Apple Computers is being sued by the G7, the informal grouping of the world's seven most powerful industrial nations, claiming the newly released PowerMac G7 infringes on their trademark.

Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, rejected these claims. 'Independent benchmarks show, the PowerMac G7 is twice as powerful as these nations. Plus, it's a lot cooler, and has a *LOT* more fans".

"It's also the quietest desktop computer ever.".

Leading industry analyst, Ivor O'Pinion, stated this may be helped by Apple being forced to remove all sound and music circuitry from their machines in a pivotal court case with Apple Records in 2003."

🙂

Mike.

 

[crees!]

Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

good times.

 

[marco114]

This is the biggest problem

This probably drew Apple Corps over the edge..

http://www.applemusic.com/

If that's not Apple entering the music business, I don't know what is..

But one fact remains, Apple does not produce music, they only sell it. I think other big record companies may be apt to help Apple win this one. 🙁

 

[kristianm]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

good times.

So you think you know better than the judges what is constitutional? Did you ever stop to think that the constitution says things you disagree with? That religious freedom should be meaingful?

Sorry to post off-topic but this was just too provoking.

 

[sedarby]

Re: McCartney Credability Shreded

Originally posted by blob
Apple's nothing to do with your business

Lay your greedy money grabbing lawyers off

How bout taking a shot at ...

Big Apple Records

OR

Bad Apple Records

OR

Black Apple Records

OR

Screaming Apple Records

OR (insert your own Apple Records rip-off title from Google)

Go do something useful with your life McCartney!

You just lost all my respect

What makes you think Paul or MPL Communications, Ltd (His company) has anything to do with this lawsuit? Some one already said Apple Corp. was absorbed by Capital Records so go get mad at them! I seriously doubt any of the ex-Beatles or their estates have anything to do with this. Even if they do it is probably so far removed from them that they don't have any personal knowledge of it.

 

[crees!]

Originally posted by kristianm
So you think you know better than the judges what is constitutional? Did you ever stop to think that the constitution says things you disagree with? That religious freedom should be meaingful?

Sorry to post off-topic but this was just too provoking.

This shouldn't concern you anyways.. you're from Norway (in all fun) 😉 Sorry.. but I'm not about to have some crazy left-wing librals run my life (particularly speaking of those particular judges in cali). My original post was for a laugh. Sorry some of you couldn't realize that.

 

[kaneda]

PAY MORE

I guess Apple will raise the prices on all their products to recover this lawsuit.

I am glad I am not owning any Beatles CD...save those money for Apple Computer products..
😀

 

[csimmons]

Originally posted by gopy
" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
-- Theodore Roosevelt

Obviously OT, but...

Bush fans and right-wingers take note!

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but last time I checked, it was my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to criticize a government official. That was how America came into being in the first place, people.

Besides, before Sept 11th, the vast majority of Americans agreed that Bush was not a very good president, and nothing much has changed since then. To suggest that ANY man or woman elected president of our country could not act decisively after such an event is, quite frankly, stupid. To act in such a time of national crisis is the presidents job, regardless of his party affiliation.

Back to the subject...

 

[Loopy]

let it go

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Come on... Beatles... you had your time... let it go.

Sorry I think it should say Let it be

 

[kristianm]

Originally posted by crees!
This shouldn't concern you anyways.. you're from Norway (in all fun) 😉 Sorry.. but I'm not about to have some crazy left-wing librals run my life (particularly speaking of those particular judges in cali). My original post was for a laugh. Sorry some of you couldn't realize that.

Then I apologize. And the US does concern us, bordering Russia you need larger friends.

 

[rog]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

good times.

Yeah what jerks, following the constitution and all! People should be required to make statements affirming their belief in god whether they believe in god or not!

 

[txcraig75]

Originally posted by crees!
Hopefully it won't be tried at the 9th Circuit Court in California... you know those wakos that banded the pledge of allegance saying it was unconsitutional.. and now they just let go a ton of death row inmates.

NO! No! No! <gender specific higher being reference deleted> I hate it when people can't get this straight.

The 9th Circuit did NOT declare the pledge unconstitutional! They declared a 1950's law adding the words "under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. School officials can still lead students in the pledge as it was before that law (ie. omitting "Under God").

And the 9th Circuit did NOT "let go a ton of death row inmates." Over 100 death row inmated in Arizona and Idaho were sentenced to death by judges, not juries. In another case from a different Circuit, the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional. In response to that ruling, an inmate in the 9th Circuit sued to have his death sentence lifted since he was sentenced to die by a judge, not a jury. The Supreme Court opinion did not do this automatically. It left lower courts to determine the cases inwhich the sentences were to be commuted. That is what the 9th Circuit did. And the inmates were not "let go." They are still in prison. Their sentences, in effect have been commuted to life, though Arizona and Idaho still have the ability to retry the penalty phase of an inmates trial so that a jury can decide whether the sentence should be death or not. It is likely many of these inmates will be put back on death row by a jury. The case however was to preserve certain procedural protections all Americans deserve: a fair trial by one's peers.

 

[tychay]

Originally posted by mrjamin
Was wondering when someone would mention that! Was waiting for the thread to stop going round in circles before i mentioned it!

Actually, I made a reference to "sosumi" in page 2 of this thread (I actually started composing the post when there were zero comments, but there was a big outcry after the news item was posted and it ended up on page 2).

In any case, I'll ask again. Does anyone have any evidence that Apple Computer, Inc. is being sued by Apple Corps, LTD. that is not traceable to Friedman and FOX News? Until someone presents something, I find the whole article suspect.

Has there been a lawsuit since the IIgs? That seems mighty strange: Mac's have had CD quality sound for years; the G5 has optical in/out; Apple owns EMagic Logic; they bundle SoundTrack with Final Cut Pro; they have had the iPod out for almost two years; iTunes Music Store has been out for half a year; iTunes itself has been out for three or four years and no lawsuit. I, at least, entertain the possibility that there is no lawsuit, that there never will be a lawsuit.

Reread the original FOX News article. Besides being full of errors it presents no evidence that there is even such a lawsuit. In fact, Friedman's writing would be perfectly at home in a tabloid and steps just enough this side of lying to absolve him a legal liability.

I find it very strange that FOX News was able to scoop every other newspaper on this, especially the Los Angeles Times which is no friend of Apple Computer, Inc. and has its finger on the pulse of the music industry much better than FOX.

(When I put on my tinfoil hat, I notice that EMI is the only major music label not owned by a media giant and that News Corp is the only media giant without a play in the music industry. At the very least, the ultra-conservative parent company of FOX probably has nothing to lose and everything to gain by dragging Apple Computer and EMI down through the mud a bit.) 🙂

I have scanned this message board, MacCentral, and SlashDot and found a lot of indignation on both sides, but no evidence. We seem to be treating rumor as fact. This is especially egregious on MacCentral and SlashDot. This board is excepted because our purpose here is to talk about rumors. (Of course, I wish Arn put this on "Page 2" 😉.)

Take care,

 

[crees!]

Originally posted by txcraig75
NO! No! No! <gender specific higher being reference deleted> I hate it when people can't get this straight.

The 9th Circuit did NOT declare the pledge unconstitutional! They declared a 1950's law adding the words "under God" to the pledge unconstitutional. School officials can still lead students in the pledge as it was before that law (ie. omitting "Under God").

And the 9th Circuit did NOT "let go a ton of death row inmates." Over 100 death row inmated in Arizona and Idaho were sentenced to death by judges, not juries. In another case from a different Circuit, the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional. In response to that ruling, an inmate in the 9th Circuit sued to have his death sentence lifted since he was sentenced to die by a judge, not a jury. The Supreme Court opinion did not do this automatically. It left lower courts to determine the cases inwhich the sentences were to be commuted. That is what the 9th Circuit did. And the inmates were not "let go." They are still in prison. Their sentences, in effect have been commuted to life, though Arizona and Idaho still have the ability to retry the penalty phase of an inmates trial so that a jury can decide whether the sentence should be death or not. It is likely many of these inmates will be put back on death row by a jury. The case however was to preserve certain procedural protections all Americans deserve: a fair trial by one's peers.

txcraig75, you are right. I couldn't fully remember the specifics so I decided to keep it short so I wouldn't fall into anything like this (getting my facts incorrect).. I mucked this one up..

Okay.. Back to Apple Corp everyone.

PS - I didn't mean to insult you kristianm, if I did.