This just proves that it's not about music anymore. Just money. Because, of course, the Beatles don't have any.
First of all, there are no "the Beatles" any more. The group members and their families surely have money, but it's a safe bet to say that in a broad sense they don't have anything to do with Apple Corps any longer. The latter, I believe, is now nothing but a number of lawyers and managers. Moreover, Apple Corps don't seem to really be in music since the Beatles split. All they have is the name of the Beatles.
Jobs should buy a permanent indulgence from Apple Corps and forget it for good because they are not directly or indirectly competing with each other. Apple Computer is not a record label. The only confusing thing is the name collision, but how many people, apart from Beatles' fans, know about Apple Records?
In English business registration the use of a generic term such as Apple, cannot of itself be registered ,it has to have an add-on descriptive of some sort to distinguish what sort of business it is & what it provides.
Jobs was dumb offering up money in the first instance..all those years ago..
If the Apple Corps wants to have its day in court it will go bust..arse up...
And if your wondering who is behind all of this..
look no further than Yoko One...she's a B*tch of the first order..Someone put a stake thru her heart..Puh-Leeeze
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."
Paul's not as cool as you might think...
Ringo on the other hand...he shilled stuffed-crust pizza... WRONG LADS!!
I don't understand what they'd be suing over? Isn't there supposed to be a reason? Like if another company uses a similar name, the other company may lose business as customers may go to the 'other' one by accident? That I could see, but who and what the hell are Apple Corps? And The Beatles? Oh god, how utterly absurd. Talk about trying to squeeze as much money as you possibly can using iconic names and images. I am SO not a Zealot or an Apple apologist, but even *I* think these lawsuits are ridiculous and should be thrown out. Any decent judge would tell the suing party to get over themselves, and perhaps try to make money another way, instead of desperately trying to live off a name, and a name only.
Few quotes from the Beatles lawyers taken from this article :
"When it first happened with the iPod, we said, "What could they be thinking?" said a Beatles legal insider, who agreed that posters announcing the iPod from "AppleMusic" were among the most egregious violations. "They knew we had the agreement, and that we'd won a lot of money from them already."
"It's OK with us if they want to go this route. It's just more money for us."
and hidden bonus track "Keyboard not present, Press F5 to continue".
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Who's talking about Apple? I was talking about Apple Corps' behavior.
You see there is a chance of confusion between the two!
I really don't get this case, I think it's a waste of time and that both companies surely have better things to do. They just need to settle this once and for all. Yes it was always coming, Apple (Computers) were asking for it with the iPod and iTMS, it's just taken a while for Apple (Corps) to file suit.
Apple also made a mistake when settling before though, dropping the suit against microsoft for copying the Mac OS, asking in return that Microsoft keep producing Mac software.
Of course these cases were years ago, nobody could have forseen events ahead. Everybody respects the Beatles, just sort it out pleeease.
If the Apple Corps wants to have its day in court it will go bust..arse up...
I'd agree that in terms of trademark infringement, Apple Corp. doesn't have much of a case (or at least shouldn't, in my humble ethical, not legal, opinion).
But rightly or wrongly, fearing a trademark case, Apple Computer did sign an agreement with Apple Corp. about not "getting into the music business". By signing that agreement, Apple Computer may well have given up more than they really needed to under trademark law -- so arguing trademark law might very well be a moot point now.
Whether Apple Computer is in violation or not should come down to a matter of a fair interpretation of the exact wording of the contract they signed, or a matter of any applicable law that might invalidate the contract.
People here keep talking about Apple being in a position now to be able to hire lots of expensive lawyers. I hate that view of the world. I'd like very much to see Apple win this case, but I'm disgusted by the notion of turning law largely into a battle of money spent on lawyers.
The second time Apple forked over $$$ to the Beatles it was for releasing a computer that could play music if you hooked up external speakers. Shouldn't that cover the iPod as well?
A one-paragraph statement by the Apple record label said the suit was filed on July 4 in the High Court in London. The company is owned by Sir Paul McCartney; Ringo Starr; John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono; and the estate of George Harrison.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction to enforce the terms of a 1991 agreement concerning the future use of the name ``apple'' and the companies' respective well-known apple logos, the statement said.
Specifically, the complaint was made over the use by Apple Computer of the word ``apple'' and apple logos in conjunction with its new application for downloading prerecorded music from the Internet, the Beatles' company said.
An Apple spokesperson said "Over a decade ago, Apple signed an agreement with Apple Corps, a business controlled by the Beatles and their heirs, which specified the rights each company would have to use the 'Apple' trademark. Unfortunately, Apple and Apple Corps now have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute."
This is a trademark suit. Can Apple Comp. use their logo in conjunction with both iTMS and the iPod? Apple Corps say they can't. Apple Comp. disputes that interpretation.
There's absolutely no mention made about whether or not Apple Comp. has the right to get into the music business. So it would seem that iTMS is not in jeopardy of being put out of business and the iPod from not being manufactured. Wall Street was not bothered by the events. And to confirm what lolo said above, Apple Stock was up .54 at 4 PM on Friday to over $23.00 a share.
The second time Apple forked over $$$ to the Beatles it was for releasing a computer that could play music if you hooked up external speakers. Shouldn't that cover the iPod as well?
This is what I was thinking about, the second dispute, and you are the first to bring it up. Unfortunately, we don't know what was agreed to this second time. Apple paid off Apple Corp and came away apparently with the right to play music through a computing device. If lawyers for Apple were doing their job, there shouldn't be a new case today. Possibly Apple did not get broad enough rights when paying Apple Corp something like 50 million. Or maybe they did. The part that may be very difficult to prove is how Apple is in any way causing financial damage to Apple Corp.
Steve and the Apple Computer Legal Dept aren't stupid, they knew exactly what was going to happen. They took what info they had to their Accounting Dept, ran the legal scenario and then rolled the dice. They decided that the inevitable suit was not scary enough to sway them from the loot. They probably determined that they could possibly win, and if they lose then they could broker a deal to continue distributing music, take the hit and still come out ahead. I think Jobs and Company was very smart on the ITMS, they probably used iTunes as the name as a possible escape.
As for Apple Corp., a move such as this is not unprecedented. THe Wall Street Journal pulled somthing similar on a website with a similar name a few years ago. As for Apple Corp's financial status, I hear that they are not hurting, The 1 album, the anthologies, all the books. It will be a good case on both sides with great legal talent on both sides. Just hope they can work out a mutually beneficial partnership from this.
An attorney friend of mine said Apple Computer may have been duped into agreeing to Apple Corps terms simply because they didn't want to spend the money to go to court or got bad advice. He believes the Apple name and logo is too generic to be copyrighted in terms of no one else having the right to use it. Actually, if Apple Corp agreed to licensse its' music recordings to iTMS it would benefit greatly from the sales. I'm sure Apple Comp. tried to acquire rights to the Beatles catalog. As far as the present suit it will be up to a determination of what the agreement (s) actually say. We do not have access to them at this time. I think this suit will go nowhere.
Comments
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.
First of all, there are no "the Beatles" any more. The group members and their families surely have money, but it's a safe bet to say that in a broad sense they don't have anything to do with Apple Corps any longer. The latter, I believe, is now nothing but a number of lawyers and managers. Moreover, Apple Corps don't seem to really be in music since the Beatles split. All they have is the name of the Beatles.
Jobs should buy a permanent indulgence from Apple Corps and forget it for good because they are not directly or indirectly competing with each other. Apple Computer is not a record label. The only confusing thing is the name collision, but how many people, apart from Beatles' fans, know about Apple Records?
The whole story is a stupid capitalist farce.
Jobs was dumb offering up money in the first instance..all those years ago..
If the Apple Corps wants to have its day in court it will go bust..arse up...
And if your wondering who is behind all of this..
look no further than Yoko One...she's a B*tch of the first order..Someone put a stake thru her heart..Puh-Leeeze
Originally posted by pscates
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."
Paul's not as cool as you might think...
Ringo on the other hand...he shilled stuffed-crust pizza... WRONG LADS!!
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Like every problem Apple has I assume it's MS trying to put a dent in Apple while they pull together their music service.
Could you imagine a band called Microsoft....
It's one hit song would be called..
" You have attempted a illegal proceedure "
with the flip side called...
" Cannot find printer "8)
Originally posted by Eugene Paul's not as cool as you might think...
Ringo on the other hand...he shilled stuffed-crust pizza... WRONG LADS!!
Well, I can't speak to his true "coolness" E, but he ranks up there pretty high in my book.
When you write something halfway approaching "Eleanor Rigby" or "For No One", get back to me.
He's pretty damn cool by any standard, IMO.
"When it first happened with the iPod, we said, "What could they be thinking?" said a Beatles legal insider, who agreed that posters announcing the iPod from "AppleMusic" were among the most egregious violations. "They knew we had the agreement, and that we'd won a lot of money from them already."
"It's OK with us if they want to go this route. It's just more money for us."
F**k those money hungry bastards.
......."They knew we had the agreement, and that we'd won a lot of money from them already."
We'll If thats what they said, Its a BIG lie...They didn't " WIN " any money..it was settled b4 court...
But let them piss on..
Apple could counter-sue in court , having the judge rule on the original agreement as being a "restriction of trade " for Apple Computers.com
See how they like them Apples...8)
Originally posted by Aquafire
Could you imagine a band called Microsoft....
It's one hit song would be called..
" You have attempted a illegal proceedure "
with the flip side called...
" Cannot find printer "8)
and hidden bonus track "Keyboard not present, Press F5 to continue".
Originally posted by Amorph
Who's talking about Apple? I was talking about Apple Corps' behavior.
You see there is a chance of confusion between the two!
I really don't get this case, I think it's a waste of time and that both companies surely have better things to do. They just need to settle this once and for all. Yes it was always coming, Apple (Computers) were asking for it with the iPod and iTMS, it's just taken a while for Apple (Corps) to file suit.
Apple also made a mistake when settling before though, dropping the suit against microsoft for copying the Mac OS, asking in return that Microsoft keep producing Mac software.
Of course these cases were years ago, nobody could have forseen events ahead. Everybody respects the Beatles, just sort it out pleeease.
Originally posted by Aquafire
If the Apple Corps wants to have its day in court it will go bust..arse up...
I'd agree that in terms of trademark infringement, Apple Corp. doesn't have much of a case (or at least shouldn't, in my humble ethical, not legal, opinion).
But rightly or wrongly, fearing a trademark case, Apple Computer did sign an agreement with Apple Corp. about not "getting into the music business". By signing that agreement, Apple Computer may well have given up more than they really needed to under trademark law -- so arguing trademark law might very well be a moot point now.
Whether Apple Computer is in violation or not should come down to a matter of a fair interpretation of the exact wording of the contract they signed, or a matter of any applicable law that might invalidate the contract.
People here keep talking about Apple being in a position now to be able to hire lots of expensive lawyers. I hate that view of the world. I'd like very much to see Apple win this case, but I'm disgusted by the notion of turning law largely into a battle of money spent on lawyers.
A one-paragraph statement by the Apple record label said the suit was filed on July 4 in the High Court in London. The company is owned by Sir Paul McCartney; Ringo Starr; John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono; and the estate of George Harrison.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction to enforce the terms of a 1991 agreement concerning the future use of the name ``apple'' and the companies' respective well-known apple logos, the statement said.
Specifically, the complaint was made over the use by Apple Computer of the word ``apple'' and apple logos in conjunction with its new application for downloading prerecorded music from the Internet, the Beatles' company said.
An Apple spokesperson said "Over a decade ago, Apple signed an agreement with Apple Corps, a business controlled by the Beatles and their heirs, which specified the rights each company would have to use the 'Apple' trademark. Unfortunately, Apple and Apple Corps now have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute."
This is a trademark suit. Can Apple Comp. use their logo in conjunction with both iTMS and the iPod? Apple Corps say they can't. Apple Comp. disputes that interpretation.
There's absolutely no mention made about whether or not Apple Comp. has the right to get into the music business. So it would seem that iTMS is not in jeopardy of being put out of business and the iPod from not being manufactured. Wall Street was not bothered by the events. And to confirm what lolo said above, Apple Stock was up .54 at 4 PM on Friday to over $23.00 a share.
Originally posted by InactionMan
The second time Apple forked over $$$ to the Beatles it was for releasing a computer that could play music if you hooked up external speakers. Shouldn't that cover the iPod as well?
This is what I was thinking about, the second dispute, and you are the first to bring it up. Unfortunately, we don't know what was agreed to this second time. Apple paid off Apple Corp and came away apparently with the right to play music through a computing device. If lawyers for Apple were doing their job, there shouldn't be a new case today. Possibly Apple did not get broad enough rights when paying Apple Corp something like 50 million. Or maybe they did. The part that may be very difficult to prove is how Apple is in any way causing financial damage to Apple Corp.
As for Apple Corp., a move such as this is not unprecedented. THe Wall Street Journal pulled somthing similar on a website with a similar name a few years ago. As for Apple Corp's financial status, I hear that they are not hurting, The 1 album, the anthologies, all the books. It will be a good case on both sides with great legal talent on both sides. Just hope they can work out a mutually beneficial partnership from this.