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.
“Did anyone else besides me think that this was already resolved?”
It was resolved. Years ago they settled and Apple Computers agreed not to distribute music. You might not have noticed, but Apple Computer is distributing music.
I don’t feel sorry for Apple Computers, as they tend to be quite protective of their IP too.
I’m a big beatle fan, so I may be partial, but Apple Corps seems in the right. From my understanding, it was your basic trademark issue, stay away from what I do, cause I did it first.
Clearly, Apple Corps sells songs, and did it first.
Apple Computer should have known that they overstepped the trademark issue and offer to settle earlier.
Apple corp. may actually be right, but it’s interesting that the suit came AFTER itunes was a huge success and not when it began.
“it’s interesting that the suit came AFTER itunes was a huge success and not when it began”
Actually, this has been brewing for years. But Apple Computer refuses to budge, so Apple Corps was forced to file the lawsuit.
Does Apple Corps think people are confusing them with Apple Computer? Give me a break. When most people talk about the source of where they downloaded their music, they say, “I downloaded it from iTunes” and not “I downloaded it from Apple.” The majority of people don’t see Apple Computer as a music distribution company– they’re the company that makes iPods. I really think Apple Corps is being a bit pretentious with this suit.
“Does Apple Corps think people are confusing them with Apple Computer?”
This is not a trademark case. It’s purely a breach of contract case.
The mistake Apple Computers made was when it agreed to settle the initial trademark lawsuit way back in the 80s. Because Apple’s computers did not even have sound cards at the time, I don’t see how Apple Corps could have proved any confusion in the marketplace.
Time went on and Apple computers allegedly breached that settlement by including sound cards in their computers. Once again, I don’t see how selling music and selling music playback devices could cause confusion in the marketplace. So, once again, Apple should have stuck to their guns.
But it didn’t. It entered into a new agreement with Apple Corps agreeing to never distribute music. I don’t think anyone can doubt that iTunes is breaching that agreement.
Can you buy Beatles songs over iTunes, by chance?
SN:
Actually Wayne would disagree. But he’s probably just a noob mac fanboi who can only rage against the machine. Or with it, in the case of Apple Computer…
Wayne. Apple agreed not to distribute music. They breached that agreement. Apple sues everyone and their mother whenever they get the chance. This is just Karma coming back at them. AND, I would wait until the service get’s even more entrenched just to cause more headaches. Standard Operating Procedure for a lawsuit. Start with a letter, end with a lawsuit. Just ask Apple Computer for an example. They have loads.
Can you buy Beatles songs over iTunes, by chance?
No. But you probably will after this lawsuit is over. My guess is that Apple Corps is just using the prior settlement agreement as a chance to get good terms out of iTunes.
Oh, and a boat-load of money too.
Actually, I think Apple Computer agreed not to distribute music ON PHYSICAL MEDIA, which is why I think Apple Computer might have a case…
Though I will say that since the terms of the contract in question were kept secret, only the laywers know for sure…
Apple employs a bunch of brainy and clever lawyers, and what I am sure of is that the iTunes Music Store was not launched without those lawyers being consulted and the legal strategy developed for this contingency.
I don’t know who to root for … I can stand either one of them. Meh.
For years apple computer had the sound sosumi which looks like Apple Corps have finally taken the challenge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
Has Apple/Zapple Records released any new music? Are the Beatles even alive anymore? Is Paul dead? I would be more concerned with fading into obscurity that fighting it out with Apple Computer… what ever happened to music? Or, is it only about money and power and … BS.
This whole thing does not feel good at all. I mean if Apple Records had anything going for it besides a freaking piece of fruit then I could see they had a point. Not if they have abandoned the industry, their fans, music, and the history of the Beatles. FORGET IT! If they were being financially hurt by Apple Computer selling digital music, they could have something. Where is Apple Records new release? They won;t even sell their own songs on the Apple store where they would make even more money than if they sold them bu their selves! Right?
This sounds like some kind of Yoko Ono thing going on.
I wonder what John and George would think of all of this?
my 2c…
“Has Apple/Zapple Records released any new music?”
What does that have to do with anything?
“I would be more concerned with fading into obscurity that fighting it out with Apple Computer… what ever happened to music?”
I don’t know if you realize, but two members of the Beatles are dead. And with their impact on music, even to this day, I doubt if they’ll be obscure within this century.
“I mean if Apple Records had anything going for it besides a freaking piece of fruit then I could see they had a point. “
Apple Corps has much more than a “freaking” piece of fruit. Apple Corps and Apple Computers signed a contract where Apple Computer agreed not to distribute music. You might not be aware of this, but iTunes is distributing music. Thus, the contract is being breached.
“Where is Apple Records new release?”
Once again, what is the point of a “new release”?! How does that change anything?
“This sounds like some kind of Yoko Ono thing going on.”
She’s a greedy f$ck, but I don’t think she owns Apple Corps. I could be wrong.
“I wonder what John and George would think of all of this?”
John, who knew. But if you’re right about Ono being behind this, John probably would have went along with it. George was alive when this lawsuit/settlement process started back in the 80s. He didn’t seem to mind then.
“my 2c…”
Next time you should spend a whole dollar and take the time to read the prior postings so you’ll have a better idea about what’s going on here.
“Actually, I think Apple Computer agreed not to distribute music ON PHYSICAL MEDIA”
Interesting, do you have a link to that? Thanks!
How much is Apple Corps worth? Couldn’t Steve just take last month’s iTunes’s profits and buy Apple Corp out? Think of it – Beatles stuff available only from Apple. Wouldn’t that benefit everybody (Apple and Apple anyway).
I watched the Beatles Anthology… Apple Corps. was all about new talent not having to “get on their knees” to beg to be heard/seen what happened to that? I think that is what GarageBand, podcasting, and iTunes store is all about… If Apple Corps doesn’t provide what the fans want anymore why are they trying to stop Apple Computer from doing it also? For money? OK, let them earn it.
Or, is it more I’ve heard about this… No singing, no dancing, no bright colors, no driving on the right side of the road, no digital media, rock and roll is EVIL…
I want my MTV… my PodCasts, my iTunes store, my digital media available on the net.
There is no turning back anymore. This christmas, I couldn’t even find a preamp for my turntable to play the few records I have left. And yes, I have “The White Album” and all of the others.
The point is, I don’t care about the Apple Corp’s contract with Apple Computer if they arn’t contributing to human genome anymore.
And all they seem to be doing is being greedy and annoying.
Give Paul, Ringo, and yes, Yoko a billion $ and then be done with it.
then let Apple Computer raise the price of their songs 5c to pay for it.
The point is, I don’t care about the Apple Corp’s contract with Apple Computer…
Maybe, but there obviously are those that do give a flying f**k about a contract. If Apple Corps didn’t intend to live up to the contract, they shouldn’t have signed it. This is not a case about a giant company attacking some unsophisticated individual, it is two lawyer savvy companies trying to keep their turf.
#10 – Kim, You may have the answer. I just wonder if they (Apple Computers lawyers) had that much foresight way back in 1991 when the settlement was made. Jobs sure wasn’t there in 1991 to see to it.
I hope they batter each other into insolvency.
I read somewhere that copyrights had a time limit, and I think it’s seventeen years. Didn’t Disney go through a big deal recently renewing the copyrights for the seven dwarves or some damned thing? Or maybe both entities decided a grand battle royal would do them some good in the public’s eye, maybe even sell a few more songs, both Beatle and other bug stuff.
It’s not that simple. You can’t just look at some upstart company and go “You, Apple Coar, you displease me” and them out of existence in a cloud of greenbacks. Even if you’re Apple, you can’t just decide “Okay, you’re being bought out now, so suck up and deal.” Companies have to be for sale first.
Besides, wouldn’t that just mean that Apple ends up paying Coar more money than they would have in teh first place?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3225735/
The part about physical media is Apple Computer’s spin. Distributing music FULL STOP is Apple Corps’ spin.
John Wofford you are very confused. 17 years was the term of a US patent until 1995 when it became 17 from issue/20 from earliest filing whichever is longer. A copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or 95 years if owned by a corporation. Disney was at the center of the controversy over the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and Cinderella is one of their titles that was ripped from the public domain and would certainly have been mentioned in debate.
Someone has already asked, but it’s something I’ve asked myself quite a bit as well and I’m very curious to know the answer.
Why doesn’t Jobs just buy Apple Corps?
What’s that line from that movie, “Indecent Proposal?” “Everything’s for sale.”
I agree with Ernest — I think Apple Comp should *buy* Apple Corp. That way, it would have rights to the catalog (which I suspect would only be available under iTunes).
The argument that Apple Computers has stolen the icon from Apple Corp is ludicrous based on the fact that a simple apple is not distinct enough to be trademarked. Apple Computers should have been able to make a small distinction to the apple, which would allow them to use the apple for their trademark. Apple Corp should have the right to a single apple that they creatively originated, and should not have the rights to all apples in the music business.
“The argument that Apple Computers has stolen the icon from Apple Corp is ludicrous “
What’s ludicrous is that you bothered posting without reading the article or any of the comments. The case is a contract dispute, not a trademark dispute. Apple Computers agreed via a contract not to distribute music. Apple is now distributing music. It’s that simple.
“What’s ludicrous is that you bothered posting without reading the article or any of the comments.”
You are absolutely right, I didn’t read the article or any of the other comments because that would be a waste of my time. Still, this doesn’t prove that I’m wrong.
“You are absolutely right, I didn’t read the article “
I’m sorry, I must have been transferred to some alternate universe where even someone who admits he’s utterly ignorant about a topic and is shown exactly how he is wrong, is still somehow right.
Jordi, beam me up and take me home!
How did Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs get to use the Apple name in the first place? The Beatles had it first. You know Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs were playing Beatles vinyl and must have said lets call the company Apple, they are musicians they won’t mind getting ripped off, and they have lots of money anyway! So much for innovation! More like appropriation with taste.