Beatles vs Apple 496
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.
Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
" 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)
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)
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of people strike "deals" at the point of a legal gun.
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that even if iTMS were spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary, they would still be engaging in selling music using the Apple brand.
So either they completely get rid of iTMS, they give Apple Music their asking price for use of the brand to sell music (which was rumored to be more than 4
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:4, Funny)
For that matter, who associates Apple with the Beatles? The Beatles brands stands on its own as well. I think the whole issue is a load of crap, and Apple has reasonably and legitimately upheld its part of the agreement. It's not the Apple Music Store, the Apple iTunes Music store or anything like that.
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Turn on your iPod. That apple is the Apple logo.
Apple does care about iTunes and iPod. The coolness of the iPod makes people want a Powerbook (or iMac or iBook or whatever).
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about? They even call the clickwheel the "Apple Click Wheel" The HP iPod is called the "Apple iPod by HP" or something to that affect. There are massive Apple logos all over the products.
There is no less "Appleness" about the iPod than any Mac they sell, and they are far from "taking great lengths to get those products to stand on their own" Every iPod commercial ends with a huge fre
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an essential difference...it's a different functional arm of a larger company, the way NBC is a part of GE or Nullsoft is a part of AOL. Therefore, the issue in dispute is not whether Apple is wrong to have a music arm, but whether they did a good enough job abstracting said service from the name Apple to have there be little room for confusion between the two.
Incidentally, if Apple Corps. wanted to make computers and call them "The Beatle Computer," with no Apple logo on it, I'm sure that would be fine. We'll see if the courts agree.
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Buy Them Out (Score:3, Informative)
I want to help the beatles (Score:4, Funny)
the Beatles' company should hire Mr.T [geocities.com]
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, the site you requested is inactive.
What is this, some kind of reversedThis GeoCities site has been deactivated due to inactivity.
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:5, Funny)
Southwest Airlines (an airline who actually has a clueful CEO for a change) did almost this. They had an (unintentional) trademark collision with another airline due to a promotion they were running.
Instead of running to the lawyers, Herb Kelleher (CEO of Southwest), challenged the CEO of the other airline (who's name escapes me right now) to an arm wrestling match.
Herb lost; the trademark dispute was resolved in the other airline's favour. No lawyers involved, and it undoubtedly saved both companies a buttload of money.
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:5, Informative)
"Those good-natured feelings have everything to do with the man who's been with Southwest since its inception, Herb Kelleher. His down-to-earth, "everyman" demeanor has endeared him to the airline's employees. His zany antics have helped set the tone for the airline's offbeat culture. One outrageous incident was his arm-wrestling showdown with the CEO of Stevens Aviation in 1992. Both Stevens and Southwest were using the advertising tagline "Plane Smart." To settle the matter, Kelleher suggested an arm-wrestling competition with the winner keeping the rights to the slogan. Kelleher lost the match, but the event generated so much good will and publicity that Stevens let Southwest continue use of the tagline."
From [note: beware of slashdot induced spaces]:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/i
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you who don't know, Mrs McCartney only has one leg. She lost one after being hit by a speeding police car.
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:3, Insightful)
Vegetarians. Worthless anti-evolutionary bleeding hearts.
Yo, dick, grow a brain. This is Heather McCartney we're talking about, Paul's current wife, not Linda McCartney, his previous one who died of cancer.
If you're going to post dumb AC comments at least try not to be so dumb that you can't get the basic facts straight.
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:3, Informative)
Source : http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthe
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:5, Funny)
You know, I wish we... I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel
Re:I want to help the beatles (Score:3, Funny)
Total Votes: 65725
Chris Matthews %14
Zell Miller %86
I would vote Zell Miller, if for no other reason than that he apparently can call down fire and brimstone from the heavens to smite those who oppose him.
Easy solution (Score:2, Funny)
AppleCorp as a megacorp? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AppleCorp as a megacorp? (Score:5, Funny)
Summary? What Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Coming Soon: (Score:5, Funny)
Not always the original dispute that gets you (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not always the original dispute that gets you (Score:3, Funny)
Hee hee. [griffure.com]
Spinoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spinoff? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Spinoff? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you believe their latest 10-Q [sec.gov], the Apple brand is worth about $80 million alone. I wouldn't say that "massively dwarfs" the $25+ million settlement in the first go-round with Apple Corps, but it's still a huge hunk of change.
Like Lennon said... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Like Lennon said... (Score:4, Funny)
"I am the walrus."
Cheers,
IT
Imagine (Score:5, Funny)
For More, See Variety (Score:3, Informative)
so do it. [variety.com]
Principle? (Score:4, Funny)
Next?
Ummmm (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be iDols?
*ducks*
Trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Trademark? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trademark? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
It's like when Apple computer
Trademark confusion? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait....Apple COMPUTER runs the iTunes Music Store? Oh, damn...
Sosumi (Score:5, Funny)
Can't wait for all the fanboy posts (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the Beatles HAS released new music. Check out allmusic.com and you'll find that the Beatles has released MANY new CDs since their breakup.
Thirdly, it does not matter if the Beatles released new music or not. Since Apple is still selling the OLD CDs they are still in business.
This is NOT an instance where Apple music has abandoned its trademark, it is still being used every day to generate millions of dollars.
Re:not (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, even if there was a time when Apple stopped selling music prior to the advent of CDs, it is irrelevant in relation to the settlement signed in the 80s. The current case is a breach of contract case, NOT a trademark case. And even if Apple Computer could have used abandonment of trademark as a defense, it has since th
Wow, interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:3, Funny)
Has Apple avoided this problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, crackpot conspiracy theories aside, I have no interest here other than seeing some sort of sanity in the legal system. It's not a contract case. It was a court settlement. The case was originally about trademarks. Therefore the whole damn mess stems from trademark law. Following yet? I fuckin' hope so. Since the original 1991 court cas
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Check again. [investopedia.com] Don't know if Apple Corps is a publically traded company, but your supposition is not correct on its face.
Please... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re:Please... (Score:3, Funny)
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Should be no surprise (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:Man... (Score:3, Informative)
Mod me -1 Slow-thinker. But give me a break, I'm on cold medication...
U.S. vs. U.K. Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
A better history... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
Private Contractual Agreements (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
Apple Computer has decided to adopt the DBA of
"Lemon Computer", citing "bug problems".
WIN::WIN::WIN Scenario.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Beavis and Beatles (Score:3, Funny)
whup tee doo! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:If John Lennon were alive (Score:5, Funny)
Given this is Slashdot you may want to keep it to terms that the local nerds will know. For example, "As it is, Yoko's mysterious nether region is a ceaseless money vacuum. SCO sucks."
Re:Yay copyright (Score:3, Informative)
This is, however, about trademark. The fact is that Apple Corps. still exists, and holds the trademark on the name. Apple Computer just chose a really bad name, and probably should have done some research. Granted, we wind up in another Mozilla Firesomething situation, but seriously, Steve and Woz made a bad call when the named their company Apple.
Re:Yay copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
I would just say they made an unfortunate choice. but I wouldn't say they made a bad call. We're talking about naming a computer company ~30 years ago. Jobs is noted as a "visionary", but I doubt he could have forseen trademark issues with a record company at that time.
The Beatles can go pound sand (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Only the most bloody-minded greedhead would ever confuse Apple Corps the Beatles' bloody management company and Apple Computer Corporation. Does Apple Corps offer any products, anything at all I could possibly confuse with an Apple Computer product? I hadn't even heard Apple Corps until this story (what a corny name, btw).
The bad move Steve made was doing a deal with them in the first place, instead of telling Sir Pau
Re:Tough choice (Score:4, Funny)
Waitaminnit... I didn't know the surviving members of The Clash were involved in this litigation! How dare Apple Computer confuse people with their iSandanista product!
Not so cut and dried... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it's not quite so clear... That's what Apple Comp's lawyers think, too, which is why they're fighting the suit.
The original trademark suit and settlement had Apple Comp agreeing not to enter the music recording industry. They haven't - they sell music, but then, so does Target and Walmart, and they certainly aren't record labels. Neither, sez Apple, are we.
-T
iTMS will only deal with labels, not artists: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps that policy is insulation against this very problem - if they were to work with artists directly, they could be considered a record label, but as long as they're working with established labels they are demonstrably just another reseller.
Re:This is not right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas Apple Computer's violation of an existing contract was the height of morality.
Re:This is not right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple. Computer. Signed. A. Contract. With. Apple. Records.
Apple. Computer. Broke. That. Contract.
It's that simple. Maybe Apple Computers shouldn't, or *needn't* have signed it in the first place. But they did.
That having been said, I hope Apple Computer win, Paul McCartney et al have to pay legal bills, and Macca is bankrupted. Because frankly, I'm sick of hearing about him, his latest honours, his wife, and his tedious disputes with the equally irritating Yoko Ono, when he hasn't
Original Agreement, according to Bloomberg News (Score:3, Informative)
From February 25, 2004: