Ruling in Apple vs Apple case due next week
A ruling in the high-profile case of Apple Computer vs. the Beatles' Apple Corps will be handed down at 10:30 am European time on May 8, according to a report by Macworld UK
Justice Edward Mann, who has been deliberating on the case since before Easter, will reveal if he has decided to grant an injunction barring Apple Computer from using its logo in-conjunction with music products such as iTunes.
Attorneys for the Beatles-owned Apple Corps have charged that Apple Computer's introduction of the iTunes Music Store breaches a 1991 agreement, in which the iPod maker settled for $26M and agreed not to use its trademarks for the sale of music.
Apple Computer has countered, arguing that iTunes represents a "data transmission" service, which is reportedly within the company's field of use. "That's what [the agreement] says and it is inescapable," Apple lawyer Anthony Grabiner told the Courts last month.
Grabiner also argued that "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.
Lawyers for the label have said Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, but it should stay out of the music business if the company uses its logo -- a silhouette of an apple with a bite out of its side.
According to attorneys, a ruling against Apple Computer could be "expensive " and would carry a detailed injunction setting restrictions on how the company could use its logo in associations with its music goods and services.
Justice Edward Mann, who has been deliberating on the case since before Easter, will reveal if he has decided to grant an injunction barring Apple Computer from using its logo in-conjunction with music products such as iTunes.
Attorneys for the Beatles-owned Apple Corps have charged that Apple Computer's introduction of the iTunes Music Store breaches a 1991 agreement, in which the iPod maker settled for $26M and agreed not to use its trademarks for the sale of music.
Apple Computer has countered, arguing that iTunes represents a "data transmission" service, which is reportedly within the company's field of use. "That's what [the agreement] says and it is inescapable," Apple lawyer Anthony Grabiner told the Courts last month.
Grabiner also argued that "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.
Lawyers for the label have said Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, but it should stay out of the music business if the company uses its logo -- a silhouette of an apple with a bite out of its side.
According to attorneys, a ruling against Apple Computer could be "expensive " and would carry a detailed injunction setting restrictions on how the company could use its logo in associations with its music goods and services.
Comments
I wonder if there is a contingency deal in place that would bring The Beatles to iTunes depending on how the judge rules. If the judge rules for Apple we do this; if the judge rules for Apple Corp. we do that.
No way.
Originally posted by msantti
No way in hell will a British court rule in favor of Apple Computer.
No way.
Give me a break. Apple will obviously win this one, unless the judge is one of the complete morons that Grabiner was talking about.
If there was any danger, Apple probably would've settled out of court.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Give me a break. Apple will obviously win this one, unless the judge is one of the complete morons that Grabiner was talking about.
If there was any danger, Apple probably would've settled out of court.
I agree; any true threat that Apple (computer) might have sniffed is not large enough for it to concern them enough.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Give me a break. Apple will obviously win this one, unless the judge is one of the complete morons that Grabiner was talking about.
If there was any danger, Apple probably would've settled out of court.
As This Register article suggests, the original contract is self-contradictory. It was drafted in an era when current technology wasn't foreseen and can potentially be interpreted either way as to what either company has the right to do.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03...apple_day_two/
British law probably has a default way of deciding such contradictions. It may be that the "spirit of the law" is applied, so that even though Apple Corps didn't specifically say that Apple Computer wasn't allowed to use data transmission with regards to music, the other parts of the contract suggested that this would have been the case had they known it was possible.
The law isn't a moron, although this contract is founded on a moronic premise, that one company owns the entire rights to do ANYTHING at all with computerized music. (The whole problem started back when the Apple ][ was capable of making beep beep tones from its speaker.)
Who knows, Apple may be pulling its store from France AND the UK.
But, you folks are missing something, I believe the judge has to find that it has harmed Apple Corps. And here he will find that people know iTunes is run buy a Computer Company and that they only deal in music, and that it is not the Beetles music company, therefore no harm no foul.
At least that is what I think. And no doubt the idiot investors who don't have a clue about Apple will push up it's stock a couple points, or down depending on how it goes.
What if they released it as the "Apple BeatPod" or something like that, with the Beatles' green Apple logo prominantly on the front and in the ads?. Don't you think Apple Computer might go after them? But maybe the Beatles' Apple would be OK since no one thought in 1991....etc, etc. Shouldn't it work both ways???
Originally posted by Marvin
What ambiguity?
how much more detail do you want?
1. Why doesn't Apple Computer sue (or counter sue?) Apple Records in a California Court?
(Kind of like Anna Nichole Smith did in a California court after receiving an unfavorable ruling
in an Texas Court!)
2. Why doesn't Apple Computer change it's name to Mac or Macintosh?
3. If Apple Computer is in violation of this agreement (or they thought this was a possibility)
you would have to think Steve Jobs would only do this to get the Ipod rights to the Beatles
catalogue (Jobs is a huge Beatles fan, argues Ringo's skills never appreciated).
Scott E Pace MD
Originally posted by BushHater
Here is the decision: The judge will use common sense and find that it is not "data transmission" it is music, just like vinyl and tape are not materials, they are music when that is what they are made for. Tunes on Apple's store are tunes, period.
But, you folks are missing something, I believe the judge has to find that it has harmed Apple Corps. And here he will find that people know iTunes is run buy a Computer Company and that they only deal in music, and that it is not the Beetles music company, therefore no harm no foul.
At least that is what I think. And no doubt the idiot investors who don't have a clue about Apple will push up it's stock a couple points, or down depending on how it goes.
What you are forgetting is that Apple's service also holds audio books (Audible, etc.), interviews (radio shows), commercials (ESPN, Apple Computer, Super Bowl), music videos, tv shows, governement hearings and addresses, lectures, University repositories, podcasts, movies (OK, at this point there is only one movie but you get my point) - all of which help define the service; none of which Apple Corps. has. I cannot see how Apple Computer would be infringing on Apple Corps. space when taking this into account.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...wReleases&id=1
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...ts/AppleStore/
Heck, the iTMS ALREADY sells all of Apple's iPods there.
OK, now I'm just talking crazy.
Originally posted by rongold
What you are forgetting is that Apple's service also holds audio books (Audible, etc.), interviews (radio shows), commercials (ESPN, Apple Computer, Super Bowl), music videos, tv shows, governement hearings and addresses, lectures, University repositories, podcasts, movies (OK, at this point there is only one movie but you get my point) - all of which help define the service; none of which Apple Corps. has. I cannot see how Apple Computer would be infringing on Apple Corps. space when taking this into account.
We have a victory!
About time, jeez.
Originally posted by rongold
Maybe even merge iTunes with Safari in some fashion or limited capacity and then Apple would have a web browser for the Windows platform.
Looks like they took another step in moving this direction. This cross-platform app called iTunes, which has its own embedded browser that powers the music store, now also displays PDFs inline as a new subscription based content feature. Very much like Safari.
Web 3.0
In a statement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said, "We are glad to put this disagreement behind us. We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store."
SJ: Tell you what, how about we waive the legal fees of $7,500,00 and get you guys right on the itunes music store?
Oh, yea... and by the way you will drop the appeal and also appear on stage with me at all keynote presentations and hence forth refer to me as the first beatle.
Sir Paul: um what?
SJ: That's right it's now gonna be Steve Paul George and Ringo from now on!
Yoko: WHAT! what about Poor John?
SJ: SHUT UP! You caused enough trouble!
You wanna hear my Bitchin Garage Band Loops now!
Michael Jackson: Ha Hee Hee Heee! What about Me! I thought I owned the Beatles collection?
SJ: Shut up Michael or Ill reposess your ferris wheel!!
SJ: Now, Paulie sing the song for me!
Sir Paul: Um, yes your STEVENESS
Clears Throat:
I?m a loser, I?m a loser
And I?m not what I appear to be
Of all the love I have won or have lost
There is one love I should never have crossed
Steve was a guy with a million my friend
I should have known he would win in the end
I?m a loser and I lost someone who?s near to me
I?m a loser and I?m not what I appear to be
Although I laugh and I act like a clown
Beneath this mask I am wearing a frown
My tears are falling like rain from the sky
Is it for Steve who made myself cry
I?m a loser and I lost someone who?s near to me
I?m a loser and I?m not what I appear to be
What have I done to deserve such a fate
I realise I have left it too late
And so it?s true pride comes before a fall
I?m telling you so that you won?t lose all
I?m a loser and I lost someone who?s near to me
I?m a loser and I?m not what I appear to be
Steve: That's better! Now the rest of you go clean my garage!