Query failed: connection to localhost:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused). Apple sued by The Beatles. - General Discussion Discussions on AppleInsider Forums Toggle navigation All Forums Recent Posts Sign In Apple sued by The Beatles. bunge Posted: September 11, 2003 6:34PM in General Discussion edited January 2014 Here.iPod, iTMS. I guess they're none too happy.Trademark infringement seems like a crock to me. Breaking a contract might be a problem though. «123»Comments Reply 1 of 46 pscates Posts: 5,847member September 11, 2003 6:41PM I was reading about that today at a couple of sites. So odd. I've long wished that a) The Beatles and Apple were a little more in step with one another (Jobs could do worse than having Paul McCartney as a vocal endorser/cheerleader and, let's face it, Paul could reap some benefits from being associated with Apple...everyone wins) and b) The Beatles (as a group AND as later solo artists) were part of the iTunes Music Store lineup. A most glaring absence and it doesn't feel quite "complete" without them there, you know?As others have said elsewhere, there isn't a person on the planet that somehow gets the two confused or is hurt or otherwise screwed over by both companies having this name and even the computer one getting into music areas.It's just legal volleyball and stuff like that.I'd love to see McCartney (if he would/could even be the one to make it happen) just step up and go "you know what? Let's rip this silly ass "contract" to pieces...I love Macs! And all this bickering and nonsense ends TODAY. Carry on."Sounds like a bit of greed at play here from a particular side. And, from what I gather, a certain occupation/profession seems to lie at the heart of this... Reply 2 of 46 macsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member September 11, 2003 6:47PM This is silly. Whatever the original contract it probably wouldn't hold up. Interesting that the report says "Apple Computers". No such company, of course. Throw it out! iTMS will continue to operate. It doesn't infringe on the Beatles rights in any way. Just a bunch of high paid lawyers trying to justify their existence. Stupid I'd say. Reply 3 of 46 unleaded Posts: 6member September 11, 2003 7:06PM LAME!!!What about Screaming Apple Records, Big Apple Records, Black Apple Records, Bad Apple Records, Crab Apple Records.....those folks are all in business and Apple Corps are not after them. They are recording and producing music."John and George are rolling over with Beethoven" Reply 4 of 46 macsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member September 11, 2003 7:11PM I believe that the original lawsuit was never judicated. It didn't go to trial. Apple Computer, much smaller then Apple Corps at the time, agreed to an out of court settlement. Apple Computer eventually changed the name of the hardware to Lisa, then Macintosh (Mac) so as not to compete with the Beatles' corporate name. As stated above, Apple Corps never sued any other company directly in the music business through the years that used Apple in their name. I may be wrong on this. However, if it is the case, there's no case. Reply 5 of 46 amorph Posts: 7,112member September 11, 2003 7:42PM I remember reading that Steve basically threw money at Apple Corps last time they bleated a couple of years ago, to shut them up. I thought that had settled it (as in "Yeah, we broke the contract. We don't care. Here. Now go away.") I don't know if Apple will do it again, though, because you don't want to train the lawyers to think that you'll throw money at them every time they loom a little. Steve might want a once-and-for-all ending to this (in fact, I'd gotten the impression that that's what he wanted last time).This just proves that it's not about music anymore. Just money. Because, of course, the Beatles don't have any. Reply 6 of 46 blue2kdave Posts: 652member September 11, 2003 8:11PM Look, I'm disappointed that Apple Records is suing Apple like the rest of you. I wish they wouldn't, and just understand that things evolve. But they do have a case. When Apple Computer was formed, Apple Records was certainly better known. A contract was sigend at the time, because the Beatles had all of leverage. Just because we don't like it doesn't change the fact that Apple Computer agreed to never get into the music business. The iPod is probably safe, but the iTMS is definitley a foray into the music business. So I have been kind of waiting for this. The sad thing is, the current Apple will probably get away with breaking the contract. Just becasuse we like to see Apple as the underdog, they are still a huge corporation. Justice is all about the negotiation, and Apple can now hire the best (or worst as the case may be). Reply 7 of 46 luca Posts: 3,833member September 11, 2003 8:12PM Yeah, if Apple Corps actually thought that Apple Computer, Inc. was stealing sales from them because of name confusion, they'd be also going after all those music companies with "Apple" in the name as well. But they target Apple Computer because it's a big company with lots of money to burn. Lame. Reply 8 of 46 macsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member September 11, 2003 8:24PM Under the threat of legal action Apple agreed to pay off Apple Corps. An agreement or contract was signed between the parties. Contracts are broken all the time if the company feels that it was pressured into signing it. Unions defy contracts, companies defy contracts. It's time this went to the judiciary. In that case, the Beatles will not prevail in my opinion, Even if it is tried in England... which I don't think it will be because Apple is a US corporation. I'm sure a lawyer around here can give his opinion? Reply 9 of 46 salmonstk Posts: 568member September 11, 2003 8:33PM I have an idea. Settle it by having Apple buy Apple Corp. (i.e. the Beatles catalogue)Then they can put the music on iTunes and use some of that 4 billion in cash. Plus they would get exclusive rights to the Beatles which would be a real boon to the iTunes Music Store. Reply 10 of 46 macsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member September 11, 2003 8:36PM Buying Apple Corp would cost billions of dollars. Apple won't do that. It's sorta like blackmail isn't it? Reply 11 of 46 audiopollution Posts: 3,226member September 11, 2003 8:41PM Quote:Originally posted by Amorph This just proves that it's not about music anymore. Just money. Because, of course, the Beatles don't have any. Apple did not create the iTMS out of a love for music.I think you're rolleye-ing the wrong side, here. Reply 12 of 46 luca Posts: 3,833member September 11, 2003 8:50PM They're BOTH in it for the money, obviously. Don't try and make it seem like Apple Records is all high and mighty while Apple Computer isn't. They each love money equally. Reply 13 of 46 ast3r3x Posts: 5,012member September 11, 2003 8:51PM Quote:Originally posted by audiopollution Apple did not create the iTMS out of a love for music.I think you're rolleye-ing the wrong side, here. It seems many people think because Apple makes amazing products that are like nothing else and aren't a giant corp (although they are pretty big) that they don't care about money.The reason Steve is back is because Apple wanted it Reply 14 of 46 amorph Posts: 7,112member September 11, 2003 9:18PM Quote:Originally posted by audiopollution Apple did not create the iTMS out of a love for music.Who's talking about Apple? I was talking about Apple Corps' behavior. Criticism of one is not endorsement of the other.However, if you want to talk about the computer company, Apple is at least making their money by actively offering products and services, not by leeching money from a currently successful company they bullied into signing a stupid agreement twenty years ago.So: I hope Apple rids themselves of this parasite quickly and permanently. If Apple Corps wants money, there is no shortage of honest ways to make it. Reply 15 of 46 pscates Posts: 5,847member September 11, 2003 9:34PM Preach it, brother.He's right, you know. I only know of ONE of these two companies currently being worth a damn and actually meaning something to people.Who's got the most bad-ass lawyers? The Beatles or Apple? Talk about a cage death match showdown!The two most notoriously "go for the throat" team of sha...I mean attorneys, on the planet.Somewhere, in all of this, lies a GREAT idea for a cartoon."Ladies and gentleman, welcome to the Cupertino Civic Auditorium. And now for our main event! In the blue corner, wearing the Levi's, black mock turtleneck and weighing in at..." Reply 16 of 46 murk Posts: 935member September 11, 2003 9:55PM I could see it coming as far back as the earliest rumors of ITMS. Steve had to know this was coming, too. A plan has to already be in place. I wonder if he tried to cut a deal with them during the last few months? Reply 17 of 46 audiopollution Posts: 3,226member September 11, 2003 10:00PM Quote:Originally posted by Amorph Who's talking about Apple? I was talking about Apple Corps' behavior. Criticism of one is not endorsement of the other.However, if you want to talk about the computer company, Apple is at least making their money by actively offering products and services, not by leeching money from a currently successful company they bullied into signing a stupid agreement twenty years ago.So: I hope Apple rids themselves of this parasite quickly and permanently. If Apple Corps wants money, there is no shortage of honest ways to make it. Apple Corps will eke a living out of whatever assets they kept out of Michael Jackson's hands.Apple Computers may very well be actively offering goods and services, but Apple Corps administrates years and years of work by the Beatles. In the end, they are both out to make money. One from silicon and one from polycarbonate.I'm not trying to make Apple Records out to be 'all high and mighty'. There does, however, have to be some balanced appraisal of the situation. Until we see the contracts that were signed years ago, we unfortunately won't have a clue.I suspect that this lawsuit is required to keep the contract valid. If they did nothing, it would be seen as an implied dissolution of said contract. (That's assuming that the contract disallowed Apple Computers from entering the music distribution business.)The venue for the trial will certainly influence to outcome. Reply 18 of 46 applenut Posts: 5,768member September 11, 2003 10:14PM they have a case.... especially with all the ads displaying www.applemusic.comif the tables were turned all you apologists would be flipping out. but because its apple being accused its bullshitriiiiiight Reply 19 of 46 ipeon Posts: 1,122member September 11, 2003 10:45PM Quote:Originally posted by Amorph This just proves that it's not about music anymore. Just money. Because, of course, the Beatles don't have any. I was thinking the same. Any music that is. Ouch. No, they where great, key word here is "where." Reply 20 of 46 amorph Posts: 7,112member September 11, 2003 10:50PM Oh, sure they have a case. The contract was signed. Nobody denies that, not least Apple.I'm hoping that Apple breaks the contract, permanently. If that means throwing a fair chunk of change at a bunch of lawyers fattening themselves on a defunct legacy, fine, as long as the issue is settled once and for all. (Sorry, applenut, but I'm not sympathetic to people who squat on IP, especially when they exist to prevent someone else from doing something productive and life-enhancing. Contribute or get out of the way.) Apple Corps will of course try to prevent that, so that they can get new Bentleys every time Apple changes their system beep.The hypothetical of Apple suing Apple Corps is absurd (why would they?) and fallacious besides. There is more than enough proof that I (and other supposed "apologists") will not hesitate to criticize Apple for stupid legal action, so that argument can be rejected out of hand. «123» Sign In or Register to comment.