Apple argues "even a moron" can spot company difference
Giving opening arguments on Thursday, lawyers for Apple Computer asserted the company's right to distribute music through its iTunes music store, rejecting claims by The Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd. that doing so violated a 1991 trademark agreement.
According to the Associated Press, Apple lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the "distribution of digital entertainment content" was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to interfere with the other's business.
Grabiner said "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what [the agreement] says and it is inescapable," he said.
In his own opening arguments on Wednesday, Apple Corps' lawyer Geoffrey Vos said Apple Computer's music distribution business "was flatly contradictory to the provisions of the agreement."
Vos argued that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side, the AP reported.
According to the Associated Press, Apple lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the "distribution of digital entertainment content" was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to interfere with the other's business.
Grabiner said "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what [the agreement] says and it is inescapable," he said.
In his own opening arguments on Wednesday, Apple Corps' lawyer Geoffrey Vos said Apple Computer's music distribution business "was flatly contradictory to the provisions of the agreement."
Vos argued that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side, the AP reported.
Comments
There are people dying in the world! And this record company is giving out because apple is using apple's own logo in iTunes!
Give it a rest you idiots!
I wonder if Paul McCartney had anything to do with this!!
After all didn't he recently rewrite the credits to some of John Lennon's songs to his name! Great respect for the dead, idiot!!
Apple Computer lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the 'distribution of digital entertainment content' was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to tread on the other's sphere of business. Grabiner said 'even a moron in a hurry' could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.
Exactly. People know who the Beatles (and Apple Corps) are, and people know who Apple Computer is. There is no criminal or anticontractual intent here. It is possible for either company to operate in its own space.
Originally posted by crees!
I think we might be able to pull quotes of the decade out of this.
Quote of the decade: "The Beatles suck."
At least it'll make for another rousing court battle. In any case, Apple should demand at the end of everything that the Beatles catalogue be made available on iTMS and immunity from further litigation brought forth by Apple Corps concerning the use of the AAPL logo.
The retail operation is called iTunes Music Store, not Apple Music Store.
The mp3 player is the Apple iPod, not Apple Music Player.
The most confusing part is someone might look at the name "Apple Records" and think it's a subsidiary or partner with "Apple Computer." That confusion, however, has likely existed since well before the iTunes Music Store came on the scene. So nothing has changed.
Case closed.
I think I will stick to Hendrix and Clapton unless Eric decides to sue someone for some random reason to get money, although since he isn't British maybe he isn't out to screw American companies out of money, maybe he will sue a British one.
Originally posted by drakethegreat
The only thing I know for sure is that I won't be buying any Beetles music anytime soon, not that I ever did anyways.
That's probably due to the fact that you can't spell it properly.
I think I will stick to Hendrix and Clapton unless Eric decides to sue someone for some random reason to get money, although since he isn't British maybe he isn't out to screw American companies out of money, maybe he will sue a British one.
You're on a roll.
Eric Clapton is British.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Apple Computer does not record or produce music, just distribute it.
I'm not entirely sure if I'm right but isn't this the same as apple corps ie. Record labels distribute music and don't record or produce it - that's the artist's job...
Vos argued that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo
So, if they stop using the logo, and come up with an iTunes logo, the Beatles will disappear and the lawsuit is over?
Considering the logos don't look alike (the computer company has a bite taken out and a big leaf), I'm not even sure you could call that logo an apple in a generic sense. Because I have never seen an apple that has that big a "leaf" on top, or that has a perfectly taken "bite" out of it (who has teeth like that?).
In fact, the Apple store and iPod commercials just show this logo, that might resemble an apple, but if you were to put it beside a real live apple, you would see a huge difference.
What? Artistic license and common sense would have me know better? Hmmm... Maybe the courtroom needs some of that!
Apple Computer got: software, hardware, blah blah blah, *AND* 'data transmission' across networks.
Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, *AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
Problem is, iTMS can be defined as both 'data transmission' *AND* 'intangible music communication', depending on how you want to look at it. That's the crux of the suit, and the point on which it will hinge.
As has been pointed out though, Apple could remove Apple's logo and name from the iTMS even more - they still plainly hold the rights to use the logo on the software (iTunes window border), and on music playback devices (iPod). Yup, they got that last one in the 1991 agreement.
Basically, this comes down to how tied the Apple name and logo are with iTMS, and iTMS alone. If you note, when you visit the iTMS the name and logo are already conspicuously absent, except for the copyright notice at the bottom. The logo at the top in the equalizer window is part of the software iTunes, not iTMS.
Worst case scenario, IMO: iTMS has to be broken out into a subsidiary, so that the Apple name can be stripped completely from the iTMS while retaining proper copyright notices.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Eric Clapton is British.
Pssh, he just has a really good fake accent. Even better than Madonna's.
What has Apple Corps done in the past three decades? I like the second part of this exceprt from Wikipedia...
"After the dismissal of Magic Alex in 1969 (during Allen Klein's "housecleaning" of Apple Corps), Apple Electronics fell victim to the same forces that troubled the company as a whole, including the impending Beatles breakup.
While it never made a dent in the marketplace, Apple Electronics was still considered a viable business entity years later, when Apple Corps sued Apple Computer over trademarking, for selling music players and other non-computer devices under the Apple brand name."
I guess a "viable business" is one that exists solely to sue others. Anyone remember the various Imatec lawsuits?
Visit the stunning Apple Corps website!
Originally posted by Kickaha
The 1991 agreement between the two companies stipulated the realms in which they could use their trademarks.
Apple Computer got: software, hardware, blah blah blah, *AND* 'data transmission' across networks.
Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, *AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
Problem is, iTMS can be defined as both 'data transmission' *AND* 'intangible music communication', depending on how you want to look at it. That's the crux of the suit, and the point on which it will hinge.
Interesting. It seems a "plain reading" here would favor Apple (Computer).
Originally posted by Kickaha
Basically, this comes down to how tied the Apple name and logo are with iTMS, and iTMS alone.
Possibly. Apple (Computer) might not care that much.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Worst case scenario, IMO: iTMS has to be broken out into a subsidiary, so that the Apple name can be stripped completely from the iTMS while retaining proper copyright notices.
I think this is probably right. Given what you have said, I think it would be unlikely for the judge to find in favor of Apple (Corps.) AND require punitive payments of any substance.
May require some fine-tuning and clarification of the wording of the contract.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The 1991 agreement between the two companies stipulated the realms in which they could use their trademarks.
Apple Computer got: software, hardware, blah blah blah, *AND* 'data transmission' across networks.
Apple Corps got: music creation, musical works, blah blah blah, *AND* 'intangible music communication'. At the time, I'm sure they meant radio.
If it comes down to that, I really cant see any of the corps taking hold of it to them selfes. Basically, then Apple (Our) is in it good rights to distribute music through iTunes.
No one knows how the future develops, but I guess this case is going to be a good landmark..
Originally posted by Ireland
Is Apple Corps. short of money! No! Exactly!
There are people dying in the world! And this record company is giving out because apple is using apple's own logo in iTunes!
Give it a rest you idiots!
I wonder if Paul McCartney had anything to do with this!!
After all didn't he recently rewrite the credits to some of John Lennon's songs to his name! Great respect for the dead, idiot!!
Yeah!!
You have a great point!!
If a company has money, they shouldn't be allowed to sue another company for breach of contract!!
Everyone's an idiot but you!!
Why doesn't Apple Computer just buy Apple Corps once and for all and end this whole discussion. Surely the valuation of the company is less than a settlement?
Oh, and then Apple Computer would own a record company and be able to sign bands directly via a button in iTunes, and power would return to the people, right on!
Originally posted by wilco
Yeah!!
You have a great point!!
If a company has money, they shouldn't be allowed to sue another company for breach of contract!!
Everyone's an idiot but you!!
Post of the week
Apple Corps Ltd. is doing exactly what Apple would do themselves. The courts is there to decide conflicts like this. Let this work itself out. I doubt either of the involved are so passionate about this as the majority here.
Originally posted by Ireland I wonder if Paul McCartney had anything to do with this!!
After all didn't he recently rewrite the credits to some of John Lennon's songs to his name! Great respect for the dead, idiot!! [/B]
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
These are songs that Paul McCartney wrote by himself but due to an agreement early on the two of them signed an agreement to give credit to both John and Paul for any song that John or Paul wrote even if one of them wrote it all by himself.
The issue I have with it is that he isn't asking Yoko to change all the songs John wrote by himself to show that only John wrote it. Basically Paul is trying to make himself look better and, oh by the way, get all the royalties for those songs for himself. I'm not against the latter if it wasn't for the former. John and Paul have a signed agreement and he should have thought about this before John died and talked to him. Obviously that is too late now.