Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Businesses Media Apple

Beatles Bite Apple 895

blamanj writes "Apple Computer, which once got into hot water with the Beatles Apple record label, has been sued once again by the same group. Apple Records says iTunes and the iPod violate the previous agreement." Apple's broke their agreement in the past when speakers were first used with their computers to play music.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beatles Bite Apple

Comments Filter:
  • by CatOne ( 655161 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:18PM (#6938437)
    Er, wait... that's grapes :-/
  • O_o (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dosius ( 230542 ) <bridget@buric.co> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:19PM (#6938438) Journal
    This whole situation is bullshit, Nobody on earth is going to confuse Apple Computer Inc. with Apple Corps Ltd. So the trademark point should be moot.

    -uso.
    • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PipianJ ( 574459 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:23PM (#6938485)

      I will agree with you, but only for the iPod. I've never seen Apple Corps release a music player. The RESALE of music however is a much trickier issue that will likely be ruled in Apple (the Beatles') favor, as it is for all intents and purposes impossible to distinguish Apple (Computer's) intent with the iTunes music store from the topic the agreement was made about.

      My opinion? Music PLAYERS (iTunes, iPod, speakers) would not violate. iTMS *DOES*. (Well, there is a subtle distinction in that Apple serves as a store, but in the modern computer age, distribution through the internet is just as good as manufacturing/label.

      I've been wondering why Corps didn't do it sooner, since I knew it was inevitable. All I can see is an uphill battle for Apple.

      • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ccweigle ( 25237 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:44PM (#6938678)
        The RESALE of music however is a much trickier issue that will likely be ruled in Apple (the Beatles') favor, as it is for all intents and purposes impossible to distinguish Apple (Computer's) intent with the iTunes music store from the topic the agreement was made about.
        Maybe in a court of law with high powered attourneys arguing the case, it will be indistiguishable. But to those of us with common sense, I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps. That they distributed, maybe, but I give no thought to that at all when making a purchase. I buy music from BestBuy, and my wife's bought a few tunes from ... Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store. Hell, I just tried to look them up on the web ... do you know how many actual record companies with "Apple" in their name there are? Where are those cut-and-dry law suits?
        • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:08PM (#6939296) Journal
          "I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps. That they distributed, maybe, but I give no thought to that at all when making a purchase."

          That's because they are irrelevant. As it was in another post, No one with any common sense would confuse the 2 entities. I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed. The original suit was frivolous to begin with. Speakers on a computer somehow would cause market place confusion and such. give it a rest guys.
          • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

            by black mariah ( 654971 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @12:54AM (#6940077)
            The relevant point here is that Apple Computers had a CONTRACT with Apple Corps that was VIOLATED. You break a contract, you pay. Simple as that.
          • Re:O_o (Score:5, Informative)

            by bigsteve@dstc ( 140392 ) on Friday September 12, 2003 @02:23AM (#6940358)
            No one with any common sense would confuse the 2 entities. I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed.

            Granted that this case is about contract law, what you have said actually demonstrates that Apple Corps are not being frivolous. If an average 20 year old is unaware that Apple Corp exists, they may well assume that various CDs they find in their local CD shop are distributed by Apple Computer. If customers then phone Apple Computer about new CD releases, etc this is not good for Apple Corp.

          • Re:O_o (Score:5, Interesting)

            by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Friday September 12, 2003 @07:15AM (#6941206) Journal

            I dare say that people under 20 don't even know an apple corps exists/existed.

            So you're saying no one under 20 has a copy of Let It Be, has ever looked at the front of the CD, and seen the little (whole) apple logo with "apple records" on it just underneath the (c) 1970 EMI Records Ltd. statement? Or of the Beatles' Anthology disks, all of which have apples on the disks themselves?

            Sorry, this is not a frivolous lawsuit. Apple Corps has an agreement with Apple Computer in which they agreed to stay out of the music business. Apple Computer is now releasing "iTMS exclusive" tracks given to them by their recording company partners, in which they are effectively behaving in a way indistinguishable from a record label, which is what Apple Records is. Sure, nearly everybody is able to make the distinction, but Apple's foray into the recording industry is obscuring the original Apple Records' brand - people think Apple and recordings, and they think iTMS. That's one of the points to trademarks.

            Anyway, Apple Computer will just buy Apple records off with another huge settlement; McCartney has said that Apple Records made more money from lawsuits against Apple Computer than on any of their recording releases (and that's saying something, given the couple of Beatles' albums).

            IANAL.

        • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:40PM (#6939770) Homepage Journal
          Maybe in a court of law with high powered attourneys arguing the case, it will be indistiguishable. But to those of us with common sense, I can't think of the last time I bought any music from Apple Corps

          Note though that this is about trademarks, and Apple Corps clearly has had trademarks well before Apple Computer even started. That Apple was ever apple to be named that was based on them not being in music business. Now they are extending there, and getting into trademark problem. In this case you either believe trademark law makes sense, or you don't; and only in latter case you can consider this case frivolous.

          Easiest thing for Apple should be just spinning off their music download business to another fully owned company, names, say, iTunes? Problem solved.

        • by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:46PM (#6939803) Homepage
          The thing is, when Apple Corps first sued Apple Computer over the Apple trademark, Apple Corps was by far the better known and Apple Computer was this wierd little company producing expensive little 8-bit computers that most people couldn't figure a use for,

          As part of the settlement of that lawsuit, Apple Computer agreed not to sell music. It's that settlement agreement -- a contract -- that Apple Corps is charging Apple Computer with violating.

          Sure, today Apple Corps probably wouldn't stand much chance in a trademark suit against Apple Computer, even if they did have the trademark first. But that's not what this lawsuit is about.
      • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:04PM (#6939258) Journal
        Playing lawyer today, are we? Apple's liability depends, in large part, on the exact wording of the various contracts and settlements Apple has signed over the years. Many of these documents are confidential. One cannot, therefore, determine, with any degree of certainty, which of Apple's venture, if any, infringe on these agreements.
    • Re:O_o (Score:5, Funny)

      by hoist2k ( 601872 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:25PM (#6938499) Homepage
      It actually is kind of confusing:
      Apple:Beetles [apple.com]::Apple:Beatles
    • Trademark point? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      This is about an agreement made between the two parties, not about the trademark, even if that's what started it.

      If Apple Computers agreed to stay out of the music busines.. you get the picture.

      Nowadays, nobody will confuse Apple with Apple.. but in the day when Apple Records decided to settle out of court with Apple Computers.. it was a different story.
    • Re:O_o (Score:5, Informative)

      by Negadecimal ( 78403 ) * on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:22PM (#6938990)
      This whole situation is bullshit, Nobody on earth is going to confuse Apple Computer Inc. with Apple Corps Ltd. So the trademark point should be moot.

      It's not a trademark battle. Apple Computer signed a binding agreement that promised that they'd stay out of the music business.

      Shortsighted, but still a legal contract.

      • Re:O_o (Score:5, Insightful)

        by edwdig ( 47888 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:47PM (#6939120)
        That's rather similar to the World Wrestling Federation vs the World Wildlife Fund over the initials WWF.

        There's no way to mistake those two, but when the Wildlife Fund first complained, the wrestling federation signed an agreement that they wouldn't use the initials internationally. Then the web came along and they registered wwf.com. After a long court battle, the Wildlife Fund won because of the prior agreement.

        In the Apple vs Apple case, there's much more room for confusion. Just on trademark law alone Apple Computer would probably lose. But if they did sign an agreement say they'd stay out of the music business, then they don't have a chance. Most likely result though is they'll either settle for cash, or spin off iTunes into a seperate division that doesn't use the Apple name.
  • Corp Dump (Score:3, Funny)

    by dotslashdot ( 694478 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:19PM (#6938439)
    Man, this is a Corp dump that's going to byte big time!
  • sosumi (Score:5, Funny)

    by utexaspunk ( 527541 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:19PM (#6938442)
    Frankly, I think it's ridiculous, and Apple music knows it, but probably figures they can milk them for a little more cash, so why not?

    FYI- IIRC, this was the origin of the "sosumi" sound (one of the first sounds apples made) (so-sue-me)
    • Re:sosumi (Score:5, Funny)

      by Admiral Llama ( 2826 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:46PM (#6938694)
      I just changed my Mac over to the Quack sound so I won't get sued either.
    • Re:sosumi (Score:5, Informative)

      by curtlewis ( 662976 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:00PM (#6939240)
      The origin of sosumi (at least the name) came about from a complaint by Microsoft that the sound sounded too much like a sound they used in Windows.

      Apple renamed the sound (but left the sound the same) to sosumi in response.

      This occured long before the Carl Sagan scandal. What a putz! I'd be honored to have someone CODENAME a project after me (not a marketable name, a CODENAME).

      • Re:sosumi (Score:5, Informative)

        by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:57PM (#6939583) Homepage Journal
        What if your name was used as the code name for one of three big computer models being worked on. The other two are named after well-known hoaxes and examples of bad science. You are a famous scientist.

        This is what happened. Carl Sagan was the 7100, the mid-range in the first three models that used the then-new PowerPC. The 6100 and 8100 were called Cold Fusion and PDM, which stood for Piltdown Man (a faked "missing link" fossil, if you don't know). It's entirely possible you'd still be honored (I think if it were me I'd just laugh), but I can understand why Sagan was upset.

        If you know all this already, sorry, consider it as extra information for the others. :P
      • Re:sosumi (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @10:57PM (#6939584)
        Sosumi did come from the Apple Records situation

        http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records

        "At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers. The case was settled out of court. Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me")."
      • Re:sosumi (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mbbac ( 568880 )
        Wrong. The Sosumi sound was because of Apple Corp.
  • Damn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by w.p.richardson ( 218394 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:20PM (#6938447) Homepage
    Michael Jackson must be pissed!

    (You know, he owns the rights to the Beatles songs)

    • Re:Damn... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bobman1235 ( 191138 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:41PM (#6938649) Homepage
      He sold most of them back a few years ago. Paul McCartney owns most of them now.

      • Re:Damn... (Score:5, Informative)

        by FatRatBastard ( 7583 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:05PM (#6938854) Homepage
        Not true. He went 50/50 with Sony music in purchasing them. He has since used his share as collateral with some loans he has taken out from Sony. Sony are licking their chops because there's no way MJ is going to pay off what he owes. Eventually (whenever they decide to call in the loan) Sony will own 'em all. But, as of right now MJ still has a 50% stake in them.
        • Re:Damn... (Score:3, Informative)

          by FatRatBastard ( 7583 )
          I also meant to say I think MJ/Sony only own the Beatles' earlier songs. I believe the later ones are owned by Paul and Yoko (but I could be wrong about this).
  • by blackmonday ( 607916 ) * on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:20PM (#6938448) Homepage
    Even Darl McBride knows this lawsuit sucks. He owns the Unix code in the IPod, after all.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:20PM (#6938449)
    World Wrestling Federation had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment because of an agreement they made with World Wildlife Fund to not use WWF internationally. Internet took off, Wrestling ended up at wwf.com, and Wildlife (wwf.org) sued. Bye bye Federation.
    • World Wrestling Federation had to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment

      But why did they have to pick the unfortunate choice of Entertainment? Saying that an athletic contest is just mere entertainment is a gross oversimplification. It just serves to cheapen the image of all of the dedicated athletes through history who have strived against adversity to be the best they could be. Surely the WW"E" could have honored their athletes better, along with all of the world's athletes regardless of the

  • by Shefwed82 ( 653445 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:20PM (#6938458) Homepage
    As a huge Beatles fan and new Mac user I have to say that this is an outrage. Right now I am embarrassed to say that the Beatles are my favorite music group. iTunes has been out for how long? The iPod has been in production for how long? And only now are they deciding to bring this to court.

    This seems like a desperate move to gain money and alienate fans. They have certainly alienated this fan. I can't see myself spending another penny on anything Beatles related, just because of this suit. I hope that others will do the same.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:21PM (#6938463)
    But when I saw that Apple was using applemusic.com, I'd had it figured that they must have bought out Apple Corps right to the trademark. I'm quite surprised they didn't, and now it does look like they really are at the losing end of a trademark battle that's extremely clear on the merits.
  • Confusion.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by epiphani ( 254981 ) <epiphani@d[ ]net ['al.' in gap]> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:21PM (#6938464)
    I'm confused by this. The article repeatedly states that The Beatles are sueing apple. It doesnt state that the Beatles former Label, Apple Corp, is suing them.

    The Beatles songs and the economic copyrights (all revenue generated by) are owned by Micheal Jackson. Is he involved in this, him being technically the owner of all things 'Beatles' anymore.

    Who is sueing who here? Can someone please clarify?
    • Re:Confusion.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by neverkevin ( 601884 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:40PM (#6938637) Homepage
      I believe you are incorrect, Micheal Jackson just owns the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not the actual recorded songs. see [snopes.com]
    • Re:Confusion.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:00PM (#6938810)
      Michael Jackson bought the rights to the library of songs. This has nothing to do with those or him.

      Apple Corps - after the music library was transferred to other companies - owns the Apple trademark in US, UK, Switzerland for music production and manages all subsequent performances of the partners- Paul, RIngo, George and Yoko - from that point on. Those four (actually through their reps including Yoko) hold 25% of the corporation.
      Apple Corps has subsidiaries including Apple Records CA, Apple Records NY, Apple Music Publishing, Apple Films, Python Music, Maclen Music, & Subafilms.
      They went thru this when the put the Ensoniq chip in the IIGS.
      They have something of a point on the trademark confusion if AAPL continues to use "AppleMusic", but the consensus is (though they do not disclose actual earnings) is that Apple Corps loses money most years, so this could be a fishing expedition for some no-work income. Memo to Darl McBride...
      I bet this could be ironed out over a long lunch by reasonable people.
      And/or (duh) they could release their records since the end of the Beatles library to ITMS and make some money from it as well as sales.
    • Apple Records was started in 1968 as a tax shelter for the Beatles. The tax laws in Britain at the time took 95% of the profits from sales(hence the line "It's one for you, nineteen for me" from Tax Man). The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, Let it Be, and Hey Jude are all Apple Records albums.

      When the Beatles were legally dissolved in 1974, Apple Corps continued. The judge ordered the profits divided 5% to each member, 80% to the holding company. They continued making money with the 1962 - 1
  • by Dhrakar ( 32366 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:21PM (#6938466)
    Uh, Wait just a minute... How can the Beatles be suing Apple if they are giving away an iPod with each Beatle sold? ;-)
  • by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:22PM (#6938470) Journal
    I mean seriously. When the agreement was first made, who knew which direction computers would take. Apple isn't being a record label, they are simply selling devices for playing music and distributing music from the record companies.

    Give me a break. I still can't believe that an earlier suit was won against Apple Computer because they included speakers with their PC.

    Something's gotta give here. Hopefully some judge will step in and say "This is retarded. Case dismissed."
    • by Cplus ( 79286 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:55PM (#6938770) Homepage Journal
      Well, what record labels do is distribute music. So if Apple Computers is getting into the music distribution business they need to find another name as Apple Music has to be considered one of the most established of record labels.

      Branding, while not important to me, is understandably important to a corporate or business entity as that is how they are identified. I couldn't start an ebook distribution company called Scholastic Ebooks, certainly Scholastic the publishing company would have something to say.

      I think we just have a (1)negative first reaction to lawsuits and (2) Apple computers is much more in our minds than Apple Music. That shouldn't negate Apple Music's rights to keep their branding untarnished.

      • If it was called "Glosprinklewisterfed Music" then I could buy that, but since the word "Apple" is an extremely common English word, well, then I can't.

        There's many many companies out there with the same name elements, and many of them even do similar things. They don't sue each other because not many of them are billion dollar companies like Apple Computer. That's the only reason this lawsuit exists.
  • by daeley ( 126313 ) * on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:22PM (#6938472) Homepage
    I think we can now safely transfer the "Apple Is Dying" meme from Apple Computer to Apple Records.
  • by why-is-it ( 318134 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:22PM (#6938475) Homepage Journal
    Look, the Beatles were arguably the greatest band ever. Their music is amazing. But I have never confussed their record company with the guys in Cupertino who make computers.

    NOT EVEN ONCE!

    This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards. They sued because Apple computers couple play music over external speakers - and won? I suspect that they are looking for another payday, and given past history, will probably get it.

    I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I would wager that if you walked up to a person on the street and asked them what they think about apple, they are probably going to talk about fruit or computers more often than they talk about record companies...

      True now. But not true in 1976 when Jobs intentionally stole Apple Corp's trademark.
    • by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:39PM (#6938633)
      Well, the argument is, you never confused Apple computer with Apple Music because the agreement was that they'd do separate things, and that apple computer would not enter the music industry. Now, Apple Computer has entered the music industry with iMusic. The article even says they're calling it "Apple Music." So, I hate to say it, but apple music (the beatles) does have a good case here. They've won worse cases in the past (such as apple computer shipping speakers with their computers).

      That being said, these companies have been around so long, anyone who is confused needs to be shot and have his wallet taken away from him.

    • This strikes me as Apple (the record company) being a bunch of greedy bastards

      Given the way the RIAA has been behaving lately, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Pretty soon we will be able to look forward to a "Behind the Music Label" expose. Somebody, somewhere is going to write a book about the thinking of the RIAA/majors during this time. I suspect it will be a stunning read, as in "How could they be so clueless?!?"

  • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:23PM (#6938482) Homepage Journal
    This is obviously just an attempt by Apple Corps to be bought out. ;-)
  • by vegetablespork ( 575101 ) <vegetablespork@gmail.com> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:25PM (#6938497) Homepage
    After they've C&D'd everybody and their brother for making Aqua skins, providing a workaround to allow folks to use their DVD writing software, and various other "intellectual property" based "offenses," they're hypocrites to not respect the other Apple's "intellectual property."
    • I'll bite on the first one. Those people were using graphics taken directly from OS X, which is pretty much copyright violation. You don't do that. Notice that Red Hat, GNOME, et al put copyright on their logos et al.

      After the incident most of the themes were regenerated from scratch, and there hasn't been an issue since.

      The DVD thing is bad, yeah.
    • by Maniakes ( 216039 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:58PM (#6939219) Journal
      Maybe Apple Computer should sue Apple Corp. for copying the look and feel of their lawsuits.
    • Apple went after Zettabyte because they were blatantly violating iDVD's license. They were putting SDs in the eMacs and distributing them with pirated copies of iDVD. If you bought one of those eMacs you were buying a pirated copy of iDVD because its license required it to come with a Mac originally including a SD.

      The C&D letters to the makers of Aqua skins were not presented for copying Aqua's look and feel. The first round of skins were pixmaps made from screenshots of OSX. When people generated the
  • by wembley ( 81899 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:26PM (#6938513) Homepage
    Well, it's not like Apple Records is doing much in tech or on the web. Their web site [applecorpsltd.com] is kind of spartan...

    I wonder what they're running that Apache 1.3.26 on...
  • RTFA People!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by boarder ( 41071 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:27PM (#6938521) Homepage
    Man, did any of you read the article? Yes, the law suits in the past were pretty silly... involving a computer's speakers making them "in the music business."

    That is not the case today. Apple Computer has been sued and lost twice already to the tune of $50 million. Now they open a website named AppleMusic which sells music. If that doesn't put them in the music business, I don't know what does. Not only that, but AppleMusic could easily be confused with Apple Corp's music business.

    This is a stupid mistake by a company that KNOWS they will lose a suit (since it has happened in the past with much more obscure violations). In those other suits, I would've sided with Apple Computer but not in this one.
    • Re:RTFA People!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spy Hunter ( 317220 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:34PM (#6938582) Journal
      What do you want them to do? Give up this hugely profitable and innovative business just because some company is going to file a lawsuit? Music is practically the core of Apple's strategy lately, and they can't give it up no matter what it costs them. They'll just have to suck it up and pay out to the leeches at Apple records. What they would do if they were smart is negotiate a new contract this time so they don't get sued in the future, because Apple's music strategy is not going away.
  • by stomv ( 80392 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:31PM (#6938555) Homepage
    ... if the two groups did have an agreement, signed by both parties, it would seem pretty open and shut.

    The question I have is: why? Why wouldn't Apple spin off some other company named Golden Delicious Music, or produce the iPod by Granny Smith or something? They pay their lawyers to come up with stuff like this, no?

    Seems like Apple Computers knowingly breached a contract. Blatently. Seems like poor managerial decision making.
  • by swdunlop ( 103066 ) <.swdunlop. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:39PM (#6938628) Homepage


    Aside from popping up every ten years to sue Apple Computers, has Apple Corps [applecorps.com] actually put out any sort of product? A quick Google for Apple Corps brings up several other sites long before Apple Corps' placeholder website; has Apple Corps made an effort to protect its trademark, aside from prosecuting this single case?

    Some of the hits on Google, in order of appearance:



    I understand that Apple Corps has a standing agreement with Apple Computer, and Apple Computer is very likely in breach of that contract with iTunes and iPod because, as was true in the infamous speaker case, the contract was worded so loosely that if a Macintosh makes a sound, it's in breach. But, has this company actually done anything with itself, or taken any measures to protect its trademark from much more egregious infringements by organizations with shallower pockets?
  • by softspokenrevolution ( 644206 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:48PM (#6938716) Journal
    All right, so most people in the computing community probably have no idea what Apple Records are. ANd those people that do look at a lot of record labels when they buy their beatles albums, certainly didn't put the CD down (if they were windows users) and say, "Oh god, apple makes this, it should die as the unholy rot it is."

    Clearly there shouldn't be an issue here, but the thing is that the first ruling was stupid. But apple signed an agreement that said they wouldn't intrude on the music business.

    That's where apple is stuck, they will settle and they'll continue on as normal. Seriously, no one would confuse the two, primarily because one is a music distributor (through ITunes) and one is a music producer (who has how many bands represented).

    If companies weren't companies than this thing would be solved more amicably. As they are however, companies, and one signed an agreement to not do what it is doing. Tough for apple, then again now they probably have a little more money to fight or settle this thing to their end.
  • by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @08:54PM (#6938758)
    ...A talking apple is suing Apple Computers for using the name Macintosh. As its primary defense, Apple Computers pointed out that the apple in question was actually a fiji, and had no such ownership of the trademark. The Apple lawyers had a hard time proving their case, however, as the apple's main defense was to turn into an inanimate object every time a question was asked...
  • Is it me? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by agent dero ( 680753 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:09PM (#6938879) Homepage
    Or has somebody else never heard of Apple records before the /. story?

    Maybe it's cause I am young, whoops.
  • by tyhockett ( 543454 ) <tyhockett AT comcast DOT net> on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:15PM (#6938922)
    A few notes:

    1. I'm sure everyone at Apple remembers clearly how much money they lost in previous Beatles' law suits
    2. Moving into the music business was certainly not a bad business decision by Apple management
    3. I'll bet that somewhere in the business plan for ITMS, there is a proforma with a line item for "Paying off ensuing Beatles' law suit... $many Millions"
    4. The offense is trademark offense is clear cut, and Apple Computer will lose or settle
    5. Life will go on, Apple Computer will stay in the music business, and will continue to make money
  • Imagine.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toast- ( 72345 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:20PM (#6938972)
    Imagine if you started a company, 20 years ago, called it Microsoft, and started selling Music.

    Do you think that would go over well with Microsoft, the software manufacturer?

    Apple Computer was started when the name "Apple Records" was very fresh in the minds of most music lovers in the world. They asked to use the name, got in trouble back then with Apple Records, and lost. Plain and simple. They therefore had a legal precedent that essentially should have made them negotiate with Apple Records if they ever decided to enter the music business.. and obviously they didn't, all because Apple Records continues to be a very well known and popluar selling record label! (Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!)

    The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS. Your mom isn't, and frankly, non-geeks (most of the rest of the world) could get confused, hence, I feel strongly in favour of Apple Records.

    • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheInternet ( 35082 )
      The reason many of us won't confuse Apple Computer from Apple Records is because we are all GEEKS.

      You can't be serious.

      Apple is well known brand and has ads about the music store in mainstream media almost daily. When was the last time Apple Records advertised at all, or even published something?

      Do note that the Beatles '1' album has sold over 30,000,000 copies, and Apple continues to release new compliations that continue to sell very well -- Apple records does make good money!

      Ummm, are you sure abo
  • by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:32PM (#6939040)
    When was the last time Apple Records did anything but repackage Beatles music? You never hear of anyone being signed to Apple Records, the last Apple Records artist I can remember releasing anything was Badfinger.
  • by lwagner ( 230491 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @09:34PM (#6939049)
    Darl McBride has corrupted Ringo with his business model!

    Why do I have this strange sensation that Jobs is going to say "Sosumi" ?

  • by Nightbrood ( 6060 ) on Thursday September 11, 2003 @11:27PM (#6939708)
    IANAL but owning my own business and consulting for several others I think things are pretty cut and dry from a business stand point.

    This is not about Apple Records crying foul over trademark or copyright infringements but is moreover most likely related to the laws governing incorporation of a business. If Apple Records was already registed in California as Apple Inc. or something similar Apple Computer would had to have gotten permission from Apple Records to be incorporated under a similar name.

    Most companies will let this happen but only if the company wanting to incorporate under a similar name agrees not to enter its market. This appears to be exactly what Apple Music asked of Apple Computer and Apple Computer obliged. So we really should not be making Apple Music into another big bad ligitation-happy corporation because they are simply enforcing the agreement Apple Computer willingly signed.

    Now whether we feel the merits of the lawsuits are justified is not important in contract law. The only thing that is important is whether the contract is legally binding and enforcable. It seems as if it is and Apple Computer has willingly cornered itself in its business strategy.

    After all who would of thought of music on personal computers back in the early 80's.

    Therefore instead of getting upset with Apple Records we should all see that Apple Computers latest lawsuit is one that they knew would be coming and have probably set aside some money to pay Apple Music off. Just don't be surprised if Apple Records wants some sort of royalties from iPods or something of the like.

    Finally I repeat even though we may not like it Apple Music is merely enforcing its contract that was mutually agreed to by Apple Computer.
  • Background Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday September 12, 2003 @02:46AM (#6940446) Homepage Journal
    Apple Logos Dispute Settled
    LONDON (AP)
    Saturday, October 12, 1991

    A multimillion dollar trademark battle between Apple Computer Inc. and the Beatles' Apple Corps holding company over their similar corporate logos has ended with an out-of-court settlement.

    Apple Corps, formed by the Beatles in 1963 to manage their music rights, accused Apple Computer of violating a 1981 agreement by using its apple logo on music-synthesizing equipment.

    Apple Computer's logo features a horizontally striped apple with a bite out of it and a leaf on top, while the Apple Corp logo is an apple with a stalk on top.

    The two-year-old dispute centered on Apple Computer's musical instrument digital interface or Midi. Apple Corps contended the personal computer maker had agreed to use the apple logo only on computer equipment in order to avoid interfering with the British company's music business.

    Gordon Pollock, a lawyer for Apple Corps, said in the High Court on Friday that the companies had reached an amicable settlement.

    Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in the court last Oct. 29. "It has been a long, hard road," Pollock said. He said the terms of the settlement were confidential.

    The San Francisco Chronicle cited one report that it said called for Apple Computer to pay $29 million. The newspaper did not reveal the source of the report.

    Apple Computer, based in Cupertino, Calif., disclosed in July that it had put about $38 million in reserve to settle the litigation.

    Apple Corps is owned by the three surviving members of the Beatles Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr and by the estate of John Lennon, who was shot to death in New York in December 1980.

    London news reports said the case cost the two companies an estimated 7 million pounds ($11.9 million) in lawyers' fees and other costs.

    Apple Corps was asking for a worldwide ban on the use of the Apple Computer logo on music-synthesizing equipment designed by Apple Computer.

    Lawyers for Apple Computer argued that the agreement was unenforceable and that Apple Corps' claim violated the 1957 Treaty of Rome that set up the European Common Market.
    --

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...