British judge to hear Apple vs. Apple — Did anyone else besides me think that this was already resolved? Man, people love to double-dip when the cookie jar is full.
LONDON, England (UPI) — Apple Computer Co. and Apple Corps, which represents the Beatles` business interests, are about to clash in a British court.
Both parties are set for a hearing this week before Justice Edward Mann, who will decide whether Apple Computer`s iTunes online music service violates a 1991 agreement between the two companies that Apple Corps says blocked the computer maker from selling music.
The California maker of iTunes and iPods says a 1991 agreement permitted using the Apple name to sell online data transfers, which are what downloaded songs amount to.
For its part, the Beatles` Apple Corps wants damages and a court order for the computer firm to stop using the Apple trademark to sell recordings online.
I can’t even read all of these comments without great frustration.
Did anyone really think the Beatles invented computers and iPods?
Does anyone think Steve Jobs sang Hard Day’s Night?
Just because two things have similar names, doesn’t mean they are in competition with each other. What’s next? Mott’s suing Apple Corps and Apple computer because Mott’s sells applesauce? Cisco sues Sysco? Discovery Channel vs Discover Card. Blah, blah blah. I can tell the difference. Can’t you? Oh yes… there’s a McInstosh electronics. Who sues who?
Based on the facts, Apple Corps is in the wrong… quoting the 1991 settlement agreement, the Beatles were given the right to use the Apple name wherever their songs were involved and on “any current or future creative works whose principal content is music.” However, Apple Computer was allowed to use its brand on “goods or services…used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content,” as long as it was not on physical media such as a CD.
Pretty black and white no matter how biased you may be for one side or the other.