Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Businesses Media Media (Apple) Apple

Beatles vs Apple 496

Posted by CmdrTaco from the take-a-bite-out-of-the-oh-never-mind dept.
loid_void writes "Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols, says a report in Forbes. The Beatles' company, Apple Corps., is involved in a legal battle with Jobs' Apple Computer, claiming the hardware manufacturer is in breach of a 1991 agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music." The two companies have been involved in a number of court battles over the years involving the use of the Apple trademark." Good summary of all the wacky misadventure the two mega corporations have had.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beatles vs Apple More

Beatles vs Apple

Comments Filter:

  • Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) * <oculus.habent@g m a il.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:17PM (#10237926) Journal
    They've jot $4 billion in cash. If they were rumors about purchasing all of Vivendi Universal Music for the same amount, why don't they just freaking buy them. You don't even have to buy them out; just buy a significant interest in the company to shut them up. "Here's a $250 million investment. Let's forget this." It's better than a settlement; it's a resolution.

    • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shotfeel ( 235240 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:24PM (#10238063)
      From the article:

      Despite splitting in 1970, the Beatles interests are still administered by Apple Corps., which is owned by McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison.

      Bdfore you can buy them, they have to be willing to sell. I don't know if that's the case here -I'm reasonably sure McCartney et al. want to keep control of their music. That's a problem for Apple Computer.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:30PM (#10238161)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Buy nonvoting shares?
      • The Beatles don't own all their music.

        Sony and Michael Jackson own some of it.

        But, too bad Sony didn't take Jobs up on his offer (and maybe this suit had something to do with him making the offer).

        If the Beatles won't take money...they MIGHT take their own music back. If Jobs could get Jackson and Sony to sell the music to Apple....they could give it to Apple Records in return for settling the suit.

        In the end it comes down to $$, but I don't think money alone (or maybe it'd take a bunch of money) would

        • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Informative)

          by suckmysav ( 763172 ) <suckmysav&gmail,com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:55PM (#10241653) Journal

          " The Beatles don't own all their music. Sony and Michael Jackson own some of it."

          You are confusing the publishing rights of Beatles songs with the actual Beatles recordings of those songs. The publishing rights (owned by Whacko Jacko) provide control over (and royalties from) third party artists who want to perform/record songs that were written by The Beatles. They do not give Whacko ownership of the actual recordings made by The Beatles themselves and they do not provide him with royalties from the use of the songs by the (surviving) Beatles either.

    • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)

      by djtripp ( 468558 )
      The rumors about buying Vivendi was actually Apple talking to Vivendi to get them to buy into iTunes Music Store. What Apple Corps (Beatles) is doing now is borarder line extotion. Aparently they took the sound "Sosumi" to heart, and did.

      I don't know anyone who thinks Apple and the Beatles are related. I think Apple also had to pay licensing to McIntosh (Arguably the best sound system on the market, but lets not get into that, their stuff is amazing, and ironically, very expensive, and high quality) to

      • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)

        by evslin ( 612024 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:40PM (#10238284)
        Not knowing anyone who thinks the Beatles and Apple are related doesn't mean anything. A deal was struck between Apple Corp and Apple Computer, and Apple Computer broke it - no extortion involved.

        • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CarrionBird ( 589738 )
          But was it a voluntary deal?

          Plenty of people strike "deals" at the point of a legal gun.

          • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @06:09PM (#10241220) Journal
            Apple Corps acted in a reasonable manner - it settled their legitimate claim against Apple Computer in return for Apple Computer's promise to not enter into the music industry. If Jobs and Woz named Apple Computer "Coca-Cola Computer" instead, they would have been driven completely out of business.

            Yes, I do believe that it was a voluntary deal - Apple Corps. and Apple Computer settled Apple Corp's quite reasonable trademark infringement claim in a perfectly reasonable (at the time) manner. Twenty years ago, why would anyone suspect that Apple Computer would ever get into the music industry?

            Contracts, however, are made to be broken. Apple Computer could certainly violate the settlement it entered into with Apple Corps, but only at a cost. Now Apple Corps has a great breach of contract lawsuit against Apple Computer, and Apple Computer gets to pay the penalty.

            And why is this unfair? Jobs or his successors (I forgot who was in charge in 1991) certainly knew what they were doing when they originally settled with Apple Corps, and Jobs certainly knew what he was doing when he decided to break the contract. They could have easily created "iTunes Music" as a separate corporation not taking advantage of the Apple name. Of course, Jobs knew that this was going to lead to a lawsuit from Apple Corps. He's probably betting that the advantage of keeping iTunes under the Apple umbrella is worth more than what he'll have to pay to Apple Corps. Only time will tell if Jobs made the right decision, or stepped firmly upon his penis.

      • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gamgee5273 ( 410326 )
        (BTW, post #1000 for me. Whoo-hoo!)

        Speaking as a Beatles fan and an Apple fan, I really don't think a settlement like the one described in the article would be a bad thing.

        Paul McCartney on Apple's board? One of the biggest names in music history from the last 40 years on Apple's side? Not a bad idea, not a bad idea at all. Beatles tracks as iTunes exclusives? Definitely not a bad idea.

        It comes down to the fact that Apple did break the agreement. They may have done it purposefully once they knew

        • Thank Apple Corp for iPods! (Score:5, Funny)

          by paragon_au ( 730772 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @03:11PM (#10239249)
          "They may have done it purposefully once they knew they weren't getting the Beatles' tracks on the iTMS - to see what they could get Apple Corps to do."

          Ofcourse! One day Jobs was kicking around the idea of selling Beatles music online, when Apple Corp said no. He decided to invent the iPod and start up iTunes Online Store.
          It all makes sense now.

        • Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 )
          It comes down to the fact that Apple did break the agreement. They may have done it purposefully once they knew they weren't getting the Beatles' tracks on the iTMS - to see what they could get Apple Corps to do

          This goes back way farther than that. The Apple IIgs and the Mac itself came under fire from Apple Corps simply by having sound systems advanced enough to play music with. It just escalated from there as more technologies, like QuickTime, were piled on.

  • I want to help the beatles (Score:4, Funny)

    by AssProphet ( 757870 ) * on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:18PM (#10237954) Homepage Journal
    Why do companies these days always resort to the law to handle their problems.

    the Beatles' company should hire Mr.T [geocities.com]

    • Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:4, Funny)

      by wertarbyte ( 811674 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:44PM (#10238329) Homepage

      Sorry, the site you requested is inactive.
      This GeoCities site has been deactivated due to inactivity.

      What is this, some kind of reversed /. effect?
  • Make the next iPod yellow and engrave on the back "B3ATL35 R00LZ!!!11!!!" That should satisfy Apple Records.

  • AppleCorp as a megacorp? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by six11 ( 579 ) * <(johnsogg) (at) (cmu.edu)> on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:19PM (#10237978) Homepage
    Maybe I'm cynical, but, uh, AppleCorp as a megacorp? What's the threshold of calling a company a megacorp?

  • Summary? What Summary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:19PM (#10237981) Homepage Journal
    I don't seen any "summary of wack misadventure" in the short article referenced.

  • Coming Soon: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:20PM (#10237985)
    Steve Jobs is expected to announce at the next MacWorld that every new iPod will now ship with a single MP3 file on the harddrive called sosumi.

  • Not always the original dispute that gets you (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:20PM (#10237986)
    As World Wrestling Federation learned. They'd made a deal with World Wildlife Fund not to use the WWF initials internationally, but then... well, the internet took off, and WWF.com become popular. Nevermind the fact we know the difference between WWF.com and WWF.org, the UK judges didn't care. Because of the agreement, World Wrestling Federation was forced to change their name and pay a hefty fee to World Wildlife Fund. It's now World Wrestling Entertainment, and I hear World Wildlife Fund doesn't even use that name that much anymore.

  • Spinoff? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:20PM (#10237991)
    Couldn't Apple just spin off the music part into a separate operating company like "iTunes, Inc." and be done with it?

    • Re:Spinoff? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gUmbi ( 95629 )

      Couldn't Apple just spin off the music part into a separate operating company like "iTunes, Inc." and be done with it?

      Consider that iTunes as a division does not make any significant revenues. It is designed as a vehicle for iPod and Mac sales.

  • Like Lennon said... (Score:5, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#10238007)
    look for the person who will benefit. And you will, uh, you know, you'll, uh, you know what I'm trying to say...

  • Imagine (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aggrazel ( 13616 ) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#10238008) Journal
    Imagine no lawsuits ... it isn't hard if you try ...

  • For More, See Variety (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#10238015)
    The article at the end said for more see Variety.

    so do it. [variety.com]

  • Principle? (Score:4, Funny)

    by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:22PM (#10238038)
    Oh, good. Apple Computer has nothing to worry about. Despite the vagaries of language, there's no way a court will uphold "principle content" over "principal content".

    Next?

  • Ummmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:22PM (#10238040)
    Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols

    Shouldn't that be iDols?

    *ducks*

  • Trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by liquidsin ( 398151 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:24PM (#10238072) Homepage
    Granted, I don't use ITMS, but I've never seen it billed as "the Apple music store", only as "the iTunes Music Store". I'm entirely lost as to how this could be a trademark issue. If the article (which is skimpy on details) is accurate, then the 1991 court ruling said they had an "agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music."". So how is "iTunes Music Store" easily confused with "Apple Records"?

    • Re:Trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 )
      Precisely... the uses of "Apple" by both parties appears (to me) very different.

      IANAL, so here's a question (I don't know the answer):
      Even in the music industry, don't they differentiate between production and distribution?

      I mean, can one company be "Apple Music productions" and a different one be "Apply Music distributions" and legally use the name and not be confused as the functions of either company are very different?

      Last time I checked, Jobs wasn't in the business of producing any kind of music. A

    • Re:Trademark? (Score:5, Informative)

      by waffffffle ( 740489 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:40PM (#10238278)
      That's not the issue. The issue is with the initial settlement, where Apple Records sued Apple Computer. Stupidly (in my opinion) on Apple Computer's part, they signed a settlement that 1) gave the Beatles a lot of money and 2) said that Apple Computer could never enter the "music" business. As far as what the "music" business actually is defined as is questionable. As many people know, when Apple first shipped the LC, with a microphone, they added the "Sosumi" (so sue me) sound to System 7. In January 2001 Apple released iTunes and in October they released the first ipod. In 2002 Apple purchased Emagic. In 2003 they launched the iTunes music store. Which of these actions constitutes entering the "music business" ? To me the problem was with the original settlement. The wording is not clear. Apple Computer was also stupid to agree to something like this. They SHOULD have agreed not to become a record label, since that would never be their interest. iTMS is a store, not a label. If Apple Computer didn't sign such a stupid deal back in the 80s this wouldn't be an issue today.

      • Re:Trademark? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b-baggins ( 610215 )
        Apple has a history of making stupid agreements. Microsoft won their GUI lawsuit with Apple because of a similar stupid agreement Apple made with MS a few years previously.

    • Re:Trademark? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:46PM (#10238351) Homepage
      First, this current case isn't really a trademark case. It's a breach of contract case.

      A long long time ago Apple Music sued Apple Computers when Apple Computers included sound cards in its computers. The case never went to trial and the parties entered into a settlement. Apple Computers agreed not to enter into the music business.

      Now Apple is in the music business, which means that the settlement has been breached.

      Secondly, I decided to check out iTunes to see how prominate the word "Apple" is used. First, the url for the store is http://www.APPLE.com/itunes/ and secondly, the name on the top left of the browser is "APPLE - iTunes." Emphasis added.

      If Apple Computers were smart it would have spun off an entirely separate corporate entity for the iPod and iTunes store.

      • Re:Trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nhavar ( 115351 )
        But what is "the music business". Is Wal-Mart in "the music business" or CompUSA or Coca-Cola or Pepsi? Is iTunes in anyway in competition with Apple Music. iTunes is just a mechanism for distribution like any other channel. In theory Apple Music is in the business of producing the music and finding the distrubution partners (like Apple iTunes, Sam Goody, Best Buy, etc.). It's not obvious that there's any overlap whatsoever in what Apple Music does vs. Apple iTunes Music Store.

        It's like when Apple computer

  • Trademark confusion? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#10238081) Journal

    Wait....Apple COMPUTER runs the iTunes Music Store? Oh, damn...

  • Sosumi (Score:5, Funny)

    by AlfredoLambda ( 654892 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#10238095)
    Clank!

  • Can't wait for all the fanboy posts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#10238098)
    Considering how litigious Apple is with protecting their trademark I don't see any room to bash the other side here. Oh and btw this company was around before Apple the computer compnay was even created.

    Also considering that the article mentions a "1991 agreement that that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music." " this doesn't seem to be too baseless a claim. Apple will pay and in return they will get access to the Beatles catalog. Not a bad deal IMO.

  • Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <stevehenderson@NOspam.gmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#10238101)
    Honestly, maybe I am just ignorant or naive, but I do not see the point of this lawsuit. I cannot see any obvious conflict of interest. It is not as though anyone buys an iPod and thinks the money is going to the Beatles or anything. Can anyone explain this? The article was a little thin on details.

  • Wow, interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 31415926535897 ( 702314 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:26PM (#10238110) Journal
    I had no clue the Beatles had a company called Apple Corps. There's a Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry about it.

    Regarding the case, it sounds like Apple is screwed. It sounds like they haven't won any of these cases in the past (or, at the very least they settled out of court paying large sums to the Beatles' company).
    It sounds like Forbes thinks this will be one of the largest court cases in histroy (from TFA), but I'll be that Apple will end up settling out of court (probably for a large amount still, but if they habitually break these rulings/agreements, they're going to have to pay).

    It doesn't look like the news hurt Apple [yahoo.com] too much today.

  • So? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bendebecker ( 633126 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:26PM (#10238111) Journal
    Maybe they'll rename the company Orange. Of course, then they'll have to deal with people comparing the offerings of the new company to those of the old, but that won't go to far. Afterall, you can't compare Apple's to Orange's.

  • Has Apple avoided this problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:29PM (#10238143) Homepage
    The store in question is not the "Apple Music Store" - it's the "iTunes Music Store". It would appear that, under the terms of the agreement, Apple has done everything it could to avoid using the Apple logo - save for the part in the store where it says "Copyright Apple Computer, Inc" - which is more than enough to establish it being different from "Apple Records".

    As far as the previous posts about Apple Computer buying out Apple Record - why the hell not? It would ensure that the Beatles music would only be available via the iTMS - not that I am stating this is a "good" or "bad" thing (bad, if they stop selling CD's, good otherwise), and would truly cement Apple into the music business, while removing a pain in the ass.

    • Re:Has Apple avoided this problem? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Keeper ( 56691 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @02:00PM (#10238517)
      Except they've registered domains like http://applemusic.com, and the site shows up under http://www.apple.com/itunes/ ... and if that isn't an effective enough demonstration for you, do an Apple Music search on google and see where you land -- "apple music" is associated with iTunes enough to be the first hit.

      Aside from the obvious trademark infringements, it doesn't matter anyway. Apple Computer signed agreements with Apple Corp last time this happened, stating that Apple Computer would not enter the music business. End of story. Apple Computer is in breach of contract.
      • Apple Computers is in the music business the same way as Amazon.com is in the book business. They only sell. Of course, as with patents, nobody can figure out what the fuck is going on when you take a normal business and put it on the internet. I wouldn't say Apple Computers is in the music business anymore than I'd say Walmart is in the food industry, even though they have a candy aisle.

  • Please... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:31PM (#10238174)
    Please...

    As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."

    I can never understand this B.S. At least with Lindows, they purposely chose that name in competition with Windows (a Linux that's so much like Windows, it's scary... AHHH). So I can understand MS being pissed/

    Apple isn't making money by the association with Apple Records or the Beatles. They're just Apple, and they decided to expand into a lucrative market. A market that only makes sense for a tech savvy company to get into in the beginning.

    I think the contract was an asshat thing to do. Oh no! 2 companies are called Apple, one publishes music, the other has recently started selling music. Apple is such a unique and creative word, it's not even in the dictionary. I know, I'll start a new company called "Creative," because I just made that word up!

    But Anyway...

    A contract is a contract, and Apple violated their's. Yeh, it was a contract that was stupid as heck in the first place, but a contract none-the-less.

    Both sides should just settle and move on.

    Then, Apple should make a game called "Squash the Silver Beatles" or something :)

    • Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @02:30PM (#10238776) Journal
      "Apple Music."

      Maybe I'm just old, but my first association when I hear those words together is the red and blue albums, with the Apple Records logo on the label.

      Apple computers might actually benefit from a perceived connection with Apple Records. More to the point, if Apple totally tanks then any apparent connection between the companies could hurt Apple Corps.

      That's why they cut a contract, and that's why the music company is determined to force the computer company to uphold that contract.

    • Here's your answer... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by genixia ( 220387 )

      As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."

      Prior to the '80s you would have. This is the crux of the whole problem - Apple (computers) agreed to not encroach on Apple's (music company) turf within the music business, purely to avoid this whole situation.

      Apple (the music company) want to be the _only_ company in the music business associated with the name Apple. They in all probability had the legal right to that (which is why Apple (computers) settled in 1991), and the agreement meant that they defini

    • Re:Please... (Score:3, Informative)

      by BigRedFish ( 676427 )

      As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."

      In the Apple Computer forum on the net's premier techie BBS, probably not. I like Apple computers and OSX, and I know I'll get modded down into oblivion for saying anything critical of Apple Computer here in the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field forum, but c'mon.

      In the context of music publishing, yes, if someone says, "They're on Apple" I think "Apple Records." And so do lots of other people, especially those who are, oh, about Steve Jobs's age. Let

  • Should be no surprise (Score:3, Informative)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:39PM (#10238265) Homepage
    This is an old, old issue. This was mentioned in the trade press about the time that the iPod was announced, and again when the iTunes Music Store was announced. During the mid-1990s, all music-related Macintosh gear (MIDI interfaces, etc.) was available only from third parties because Apple didn't want to violate the settlement.

    Apple must have seen this coming, must have consciously violated the settlement, and must surely must have made some calculations of what it would eventually mean in costs.

    Furthermore, there's a sort of precedent for Apple's taking calculated risks with trademarks. Steve Jobs decide on the name "Macintosh;" announced it within Apple; claimed (falsely!) within Apple that he had cut a deal with McIntosh Laboratories, a maker of high-end audio gear. Only after the name was set in stone did Apple approach McIntosh. Whatever the details, Apple gambled and won, because McIntosh Labs did agree to let them use the name.

  • Man... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:39PM (#10238270)
    Paul McCartney must be rolling in his grave.

    • Re:Man... (Score:3, Informative)

      by entrager ( 567758 )
      It took me a few seconds to figure out what you were talking about. At first I thought you meant to say that John Lennon was rolling in his grave. But then I remembered, Paul is dead [beatles-discography.com].

      Mod me -1 Slow-thinker. But give me a break, I'm on cold medication...

  • U.S. vs. U.K. Laws (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slackerboy ( 73121 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:43PM (#10238315)
    Since this case is going to be in the U.K. courts, how do the laws on the two sides of the pond compare for trademark issues? Is there a real rift in what they mean or how they can be applied?

  • A better history... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:44PM (#10238334)
    of the Apple/Beatles legal battles is here." [bbc.co.uk]

    Of course, much of the legal dispute has gone on between lawyers and is not a matter of public record, so it's not very complete.

    I do remember, though, what crummy audio hardware the Mac had in the early 90's, thanks to Apple Corps. Apple always had to lag behind the industry, for fear of being sued. It's only since Jobs came back in '97 that his attitude was, "Screw it, we're going full steam ahead."

  • It's not the music store, it's the contract (Score:5, Insightful)

    by X_Caffeine ( 451624 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:49PM (#10238389)
    All the posts regarding potential confusion between Apple Records and Apple Computer (and pointing out that it's called the iTunes Music Store, not Apple Music Store) are completely missing the point.

    A deal was hashed out years ago after Jobs'n'Woz called their upstart company Apple. It wouldn't be unlike you starting a music store called Dell -- Michael might have some issues with that.

    Apple and Apple made an agreement -- Jobs'n'Woz could keep their corporate name if they agreed not to get in the music business. And now they've broken that contract. QED

    I'm sympathetic to Apple Computer, but they don't have a leg to stand on here.

  • No Longer Apple Music (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ChilyMack ( 720195 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:59PM (#10238509)
    At some point last year, actually, Apple changed the "Music" tab on their website to "iPod + iTunes", and it was widely assumed it had to do with the impending legal action brought by Apple Corps that just happened to coincide. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20030801072141/www.appl e.com/music/

  • Private Contractual Agreements (Score:4, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @01:59PM (#10238510)
    The article says that the lawsuit is about a contractual agreement between the two companies. This is the same agreement that purportedly forced renaming of the System 7 sound to the "Sosumi" name. But aside from nterpretations by engineers of the interpretations of Apple's lawyers, these contracts haven't been publicly disclosed.

    The rumored agreements perhaps explain why the computer company relies on advertising with the iconic bitten fruit logo in iPod and GarageBand ads rather than by plastering the word "Apple" in its Garamond-like-typeface. The pictoral trademarks of the two companies are quite different. But whether the agreements being litigated covered all trademarks or just trademarks with the words Apple hasn't been publicly disclosed.

    Perhaps AppleCorps' insistence on litigating these agreements is because its being puppeteered by a larger computer competitor. Perhaps in some backroom deal Sony offered partial control over the 159 of the 260 songs now controlled by Jackson-Sony. But the agreements (if any) between a well-funded compteitor and AppleCorps haven't been publicly disclosed.

    There's a lot of speculation about this case, but beyond the stalest of rumors and FUD being kicked up (yet again) there's very little that's actually new here.

  • Imagine no possessions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @02:04PM (#10238562)
    The guy who sang that had an entire apartment in NY just to hold his wife's fur coats. I'm sorry, but I truly, deeply would like to see Apple Corp - which is actually just another face of Leviathan - lose out to a corporation that actually has to survive on what it is doing today, not just milking a revenue stream that has its roots in the past. This is just a case of RIAA junior versus new business model, and invites me to think possible things too libellous to recite here (think SCO).

    That said, I have to admit that I am very sorry but I have bought my last Mac. I cannot think of a single compelling reason to buy a new iMac given the performance and capabilities of the AMD 64 bit line, and the fact that Microsoft seem at last to be turning into a more mature company. Apple computer needs its music business, and for the sake of competition the world needs Apple Computer rather more than it needs yet another royalties collection agency.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by nametaken ( 610866 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @02:36PM (#10238841)

    Apple Computer has decided to adopt the DBA of
    "Lemon Computer", citing "bug problems".

  • WIN::WIN::WIN Scenario.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @03:07PM (#10239198) Homepage
    WIN::WIN::WIN Scenario....

    Apple delves into their $4 billion cash reserves. They then buy the "Beatles" rights off of Michael Jackson (giving Jacko some much needed raw $$$).

    They then negotiate a deal with Paul McCartney to exchange ownership of the "Beatles" library for a merger with Apple Music and exclusive right to online digital distribution of the said Beatles library.

    Apple wins doubly (ends legal battle gains exclusive Beatle content rights). McCartney doubly wins (re-gains ownership of music and gains shares in Apple Corp. online venture!

    vwaaalaaa....

    Now was that so hard?

  • The Original Lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)

    by wheatwilliams ( 605974 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @03:34PM (#10239447) Homepage
    The original lawsuit of Apple Corps against Apple Computer took place when it came to George Harrison's attention that third-party companies were writing MIDI sequencing programs that ran on Apple computers--Apple II's at the time, and later Macintoshes. This was in the early 1980s.

    MIDI sequencing programs are used by professional musicians to compose, arrange and record music. IN those days Apple didn't make or market these programs; they just made the hardware and the operating system. But the Beatles did not sue the third party MIDI sequencer software companies for their products; they sued Apple Computer because they had a product named "Apple" which could be used for composing music, and playing back the music so composed.

    It's mind-boggling. MIDI sequencers first appeared around 1982, and have existed in all kinds of specialized keyboard instruments and electronic music hardware as well as on every computer platform/operating system known to Man. But it was the pairing of the concept of a MIDI sequencer with the brand-name "Apple" that set the Beatles on the path of litigation. Never mind that the Beatles' Apple Corps never marketed any computer platforms that could run software for composing music. How could any sane person confuse Apple Computer with the Beatles' Apple Corps?

    But, sadly, Apple Computer is obviously in breach of the agreement they clearly made in 1991, and they will have to pay for it. Not only do they have the iPod, Apple now owns and operates emagic.de, which makes Garage Band and the Logic line of professional music composition and recording programs--and that is in direct violation of the original settlement, in a sense, more so than the iPod.

    In 1991, if they could not have reached a more favorable agreement, Apple Computer should have simply settled with the Beatles' Apple Corps and agreed to change the name of the computer company to something else, thereby regaining the right to sell their computers and develop music software without any risk of further legal action. They could have become the Macintosh Computer Company and avoided this colossal debacle.

    I wonder if Sir Paul McCartney and Richard Starkey et al realize what tremendous harm they are doing to the development of the computer industry and its competitive environment. Any severe blow to Apple is a big boost to Microsoft and a disincentive to healthy competition.

    Then there's the fact that virtually every musical recording you've heard in the last fifteen years has had an Apple Macintosh computer involved in its creation at some stage, usually in the recording studio, sometimes on the concert stage as well. I can't imagine why McCartney and company are so hell-bent on damaging that achievement.

  • Everyone assumes... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mehtajr ( 718558 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @03:45PM (#10239565)
    The assumption being made here is that Apple Computer broke a contract that none of us has ever seen. Apple says they don't believe they did; that it was open to intepretation in some of its key points. It's premature to call them guilty, since none of us really knows what the hell we're talking about. Just 'cause Apple Records says it doesn't make it true.

    I thought about starting a crazy rumor around MacWorld Expo in January and again at WWDC that Steve Jobs' big announcement would be that Apple was settling the lawsuit by purchasing Apple Corps. from Capitol Records, and that the Beatles catalog would be available exclusively from iTunes. After all, Apple had previously reportedly offered $5-$6 billion to purchase Universal Music--they could certainly afford the smaller Apple Corps.

    It really would not surprise me if part of the settlement is Apple Computer striking a distribution deal with, or purchasing outright, Apple Corps. Think about it... a stock swap purchase would certainly "make Apple Corps a significant shareholder in Apple Computer," and would likely result in someone from the company (McCartney) joining the Apple Computer board.

  • What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by samberdoo ( 812366 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @03:51PM (#10239629)
    No reference to "Sue me, sue you blues" -G Harrison ?

  • Beavis and Beatles (Score:3, Funny)

    by artMonster ( 813178 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @04:49PM (#10240313)
    In 1994, Apple Computer began developing the Power Macintosh 7100. They chose the internal code name "Sagan", in honor of the astronomer. Though the project name was strictly internal and never used in public marketing, when Sagan learned of this internal usage, he sued Apple Computer to use a different project name. Though Sagan lost the suit, Apple engineers complied with his demands anyway, renaming the project "Butthead Astronomer". Sagan sued Apple for libel over the new name, claiming that it subjected him to contempt and ridicule. Sagan lost this lawsuit as well. Maybe Butthead Beatles could be used somewhere here as well...

  • whup tee doo! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:00PM (#10241690)
    I recognize that Apple singed a contract with Apple and broke it, but I still think this is total bullshit.

    Trademark law (or perhaps just the lawyers) are totally out of control.

    Trademark exists so that your company may uniquely identify your products in a way that other companies may not copy. It does not.... or at least SHOULD not be used so that a company can exercise sole control or a word, phrase or graphic.

    That's fucking nonsense.

    Who owns the rights to the word "Apple"?
    Nobody.
    Apple owns "Apple Computer", and the other Apple owns "Apple Corps". Companies should have little or no right to prevent another company from using a VERY common word that just happens to be a fraction of their trademark.

    This is why I believe that if the Lindows lawsuit had been fought out to completion in the courtroom, microsoft would have lost. "Windows" is a common word, "Apple" is a common word. It's just plain stupid to believe that when you chose a trademark including that word, you gained sole rights to the word.

    Imagine if Bass (the beer company and holders of one of the oldest registered trademarks) decided to sue ANY company who's product had a red triangle on it ANYWHERE.
    It would be absolutely stupid.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close