Apple Corp.'s Lawsuit with Apple's iTunes?

artman @_@artman @_@
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I have been reading (MacDirectory had an article in their recent issue) about Apple Corp. (the surviving Beatles company) is suing Apple over iTunes AND iPod...





MacWorld Link



Fox News link



So. What has happened since then? Haven't heard anything. My take is that unfortunatly the Beatles will win. They have their previous legal demands supported in other suits with Apple (Apple had to pay-up).



I have one Beatle in mind that seems to be the culprit and it probably is Paul Mccartney...he was always the one Beatle who was milking the Beatles for what it was worth for himself.



But if Apple loses...what would the consequences be?



Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    the generalthe general Posts: 649member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    I have been reading (MacDirectory had an article in their recent issue) about Apple Corp. (the surviving Beatles company) is suing Apple over iTunes AND iPod...





    MacWorld Link



    Fox News link



    So. What has happened since then? Haven't heard anything. My take is that unfortunatly the Beatles will win. They have their previous legal demands supported in other suits with Apple (Apple had to pay-up).



    I have one Beatle in mind that seems to be the culprit and it probably is Paul Mccartney...he was always the one Beatle who was milking the Beatles for what it was worth for himself.



    But if Apple loses...what would the consequences be?







    Jobs will have the final beatles re-union set up, and once that takes place, he will get apple records for .99 cents.

  • Reply 2 of 6
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I think apple may have covered their ass well enough on this one.



    Note:

    iPod does not have an audio/music related name

    the music store is called iTunes music store rather than the Apple music store



    These seem intensionally obtuse to me and I suspect they were named in such a manner in order to weaken any suit filed by Apple (the other apple).



    ... or ... maybe not



    It seems like a tough case to win as loosely protected trademarks are considered expired. Then again, maybe this is precisely why they are filing suit, to make future, more meritous cases easier to win.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    It all seems so silly. How many people are going to say: "Hey, isn't Apple the Beatles' record company? Cool, I'm going to buy an iPod and purchase some iTunes from the Beatles!"



    And this idea that it's easier to defend an already-defended copyright is crazy, because it just promotes litigiousness.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    sledgehammersledgehammer Posts: 505member
    We've heard this before haven't we?
  • Reply 5 of 6
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Last I heard the trial was set for some point in spring 2004. Steve said that they had met with Apple Corps lawyers and they were not going to come to an agreement. He also talked about how the contract was signed when he wasn't at Apple and the current legal team interpreted it differently than Apple Corp does. The only way to settle it would to go before a judge.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    merovingianmerovingian Posts: 436member
    Apple is changing the way music is distributed.



    The iTunes Music Store and iPod is a big wave. I feel the efects of this iTMS set-up will echo through the coming decades.



    Why does one man and his pathetic useless company want to stop or hinder this wave, all over the use of the word 'Apple'. Besides, isn't the trademark the logo, not the name?



    Apple Computer have much more to offer than Apple Corps(e).



    It'sall a bit pathetic, really... m.
Sign In or Register to comment.