The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes 367
novus ordo writes "Apple is being sued in London by Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs. This is a third battle over the name 'Apple' in Britain. Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."
Interesting that ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers. The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers, and the stupidity of current trademark legislation.
Well if you say you will not go into music and... (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music )
and now they are acting like a record label
so the courts will hear all the evidance and decide
regards
John Jones
p.s. this is a story ?
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gah? (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.
Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.
Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?
Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs other media corporation, Disney, to just buy Apple Records?
As for the point of the remaining Beatles licensing the back catalogue to Apple to make available via iTunes, wouldn't it actually be Michael Jackson who would be in the position to do that?
Seeing as he's in financial trouble lately from what you hear with all the news reports maybe it would make commercial sense for Apple Corporation to buy the back catalogue from him, which I think would really wind up the existing Beatles.
Surely as a band they would want to make sure that their music is available to the largest possible userbase. The world has changed since 1960 and this would appear to be the way forward?
Re:Gah? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I thought that the Beatles' claim to the original trademark infringement was pretty tenuous. Apple Computer should have fought that one tooth and nail. At this point, it's a lot more relevant, but, again, their basis seems pretty diluted.
At any rate, although Apple Computer (not "Apple") runs the iTunes Music Store, I don't think that they're promoting it as the "Apple Music Store". They should tell Paul, Ringo, Yoko and whoever's running the show for George to cheese off -- it's time to get this monkey off the back, even if it means a long court stint.
Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)
I, for one, am not over 50 but certainly associate The Beatles and "Apple" so perhaps you should reconsider making blanket statements.
Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)
spin off itunes (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think Apple records would have a harder time suing iTunes Corporation
Re:Interesting that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who realizes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead, search for the word "Apple" on this page:
The fact is, the trademark they seem to be using for anything music related is a stylized fruit, along with the trademarks "iPod" and "iTunes". When have you ever heard a phrase like "the Apple iTunes store". It's just the iTunes store, it's just the iPod, and the posters just use a stylized fruit (sorry, there's no html entity I can insert for it.), which is Apple's trademark.
They can't help having a certain company name, which they don't use in their music business! Not because it wouldn't add value, but because (in music) it's not their trademark to use. They don't infringe. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh... the agreement specified that Apple "could not use the title "Apple" for any works "whose principal content is music and, or performances." - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.
Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's iTunes music store sells music. We all know that when you buy music, you're buying intellectual property (a "license" to listen to a creative work), not just a physical disc of aluminum and plastic. Isn't that why so many people here on Slashdot complain that when they buy a CD/DVD, and their kid wrecks it, they should be entitled to another copy, free of charge? Now, you're saying that record labels sell physical media, not the creative work itself? Which is it?
Re:Maybe Steve Jobs should be interrogated by Bria (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one who realizes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have now decided to start a couple million shell companies with all the names left in the dictonary an put a nice little tm next to them. As long as I'm first with the name I don't need a product that will be diluted to make my millions suing people.
Re:itunes ipod mac's (Score:4, Insightful)
So I suppose to download music I would go to www.itunes.com, righ? Hmmmm, why look at that, it redirects to www.apple.com. Why, look at the titlebar! "Apple - iPod + iTunes!" No Apple branding there, no siree!
Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (Score:3, Insightful)
and now they are acting like a record label
Actually, they are acting more like a Record Store, not a Record Company
iTunes Music Store is like Tower Records or Best Buy.
They are NOT currently fulfilling the role of a record label (which I believe is to leech money from the artists and provide no value to the end customer).
Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, it was because the were NICE!
And here I thought it was because they had no case at all, and chose a settlement that barely covered their lawyer fees and didn't revoke the naming rights because it was they best they could have hoped for at the time.
But your explanation, that they are really nice people, makes way more sense.
Re:The solution (Score:3, Insightful)