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."
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Borg sueing anyone who has the ordacity to install "Outside Viewing Portals" in their home?
Re:What's next? (Score:2)
Re:What's next? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's next? (Score:2)
Re:What's next? (Score:2)
and wins.
Re:What's next? (Score:2)
Gah? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.
I don't see how Apple Computers is in anyway confusing people away from the Apple label. When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles. I think of frustration at using a crappy piece of software [in light of things like GNUpod] and horrible DRM.
Tom
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.
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)
Re:Apple Corps - New Release Coming 11 April 2006 (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not a lawyer, but I sure think that Apple Corps has a great case. There is both precedent where Apple Computer lost and paid damages and there is retention of trademark which is, as stated above, still in active usage.
Re:Gah? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed.
Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.
Disagree.
The original lawuit was lawyer driven legal harassment. You can't own a common word in countries I know of, except to differentiate your product within its specific class of products. Since there was no chance that tunes from the Beatles catalog could be confused with microcomputers, the original suit had no merit. Apple Computer paid Apple Music a token amount that probably covered part their expenses bringing the suit, which meant the Apple Music's lawyers got their payday. However the lawyer's clients could hardly have been happy walking away from what their lawyers told them was a threat to their trademark, so the laywer extracted from Apple Computer what was then an empty promise: that Apple Computer would stay out of the music business.
And the substance and letter of that then empty promise is what is at issue.
Now, if you'll note, Apple Computer is very careful to avoid branding their muisc services as "Apple" music service. It's "iTunes(tm)". The closest you get to associating the words "iTunes" and "Apple" is that there is an "iTunes" page on the apple web site. However, in the store itself, you are running inside the iTunes program, and the web content provided doesn't say "Apple" anywhere in it. This should be surprising; companies running stores usually are drilling their names into your brain at every opportunity. You've got the "Apple Computer" logo on the iTunes program frame, but it never appears inside the content pane. Get it? You are using Apple Computer software to access the music store, but the music end of the business is not branded with Apple Music's name.
In my view, this is pure sophistry, since you can't readily use the Apple iTunes software with anything but the Apple iTunes store. And Apple knows better than anyone else that the delivery mechanism is part of a unified customer experience -- that's their very strategy. Users don't differentiate between an Apple logo in the window frame and an Apple logo in the content pane.
So now I think Apple Corps Music has a legitimate trademark beef with Apple Computer; however that's not what's at issue. What's at issue is Apple's promise about staying out of the music business. The question is, did Apple Computer's lawyers cleverly trick Apple Corps lawyers into thinkng they'd agreed to stay out of the music business, when if fact all they did was agree to stay out of the music business as it existed then, to wit: distributing recordings of music on physical media. If so, it was a sneaky (professwional from the lawyer's point of view) thing to do; computer people even then must have been aware that music could be encoded and transmitted digitally without any physical distribution media.
The thing is, now that they've leveraged their computer business to get into the music business, it wouldn't be hard for Apple Computer to fix the trademark problem. They might have to pay a one time settlement and desist from associating their Apple Computer logo with their music store, which is easy as designing a new iTunes logo and updating their software. But if Apple Corps could sink its teeth into the very business of iTunes, rather than its trade dress, they'd be onto something magnitudes larger. Like the original lawsuit, it's a self-serving abuse of the legal systems put in place to help artists, and by which the Beatles had already profited beyond all but the wildest dreams of greed.
And it all hinges on exactly how the concept of "staying out of the music business" was worded in the original settlement. I'll bet that Mr. Jobs and his lawyers fleeced those Apple Corps bastards and left them buck-naked in the oncoming snow storm. God help the bastard who meets a smarter bastard.
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:Gah? (Score:2, Interesting)
SO... what was your point?
Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gah? (Score:2)
People over 50 and people like Slashdot readers who keep reading about this lawsuit.
Re:Gah? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Gah? (Score:3, Informative)
Parlophone.
Re:Gah? (Score:3, Interesting)
It would not apply anyway. The 5th Ammendment applies to criminal justice. This is a civil lawsuit.
The lawsuit, such as it is, claims that Apple is violating the terms of their previous settlement.
T
Apple are in wrong (Score:2)
Please visit my site - http://wipo.org.uk/ [wipo.org.uk]
Site is nothing to do with corrupt people at UN WIPO.org
Re:Apple are in wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple are in wrong (Score:2)
Re:Apple are in wrong (Score:2)
One Apple sells Beatles songs to British people in record stores.
The other Apple sells those same Beatles songs to British people over the internet.
Don't you think that there is perhaps grounds for confusion here?
Apple iTMS doesn't sell Beatles songs (Score:2)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Music_Store [wikipedia.org]
There are no tracks from The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Metallica or Radiohead in the iTunes online catalogue (with the exception of an album collaboration between Tony Sheridan and the Beatles, and two Radiohead songs).
Re:Apple iTMS doesn't sell Beatles songs (Score:2)
Even if they only sell one album, they are still selling Beatles songs. Remember that the overwhelming majority of artists in the iTMS music store only have one album in the store too.
How edifying (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How edifying (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Interesting that ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting that ... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting that ... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Apple Group are trying to get money out of Apple Computer for breaking the agreement that they came to in 1991.
The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers
(smacks forehead).... no, no it doesn't.
Wrong (Score:2)
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.
Confusion! (Score:5, Funny)
immediately think: "Wow that was a good record by Steve Jobs! Why
he ditched music and went on to start a computer company is completely
beyond me!" Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
Jobs at all... it was Woz! Sheesh I'm an idiot!
Re:Confusion! (Score:2)
Jobs at all...
No! It's wasn't your fault. Jobs deliberately, deceptively, decieved you. All along his goal was to usurp Apple Corps rightful place as master of the recording industry by insidiously starting up a "computer" company, with the sole intention of eventually moving into the music industry.
Clearly the owners of Apple Corps, whose ancestors worked so hard so that they might profit, are long overdue for a modest sum from the duplicitous Jobs
Re:Confusion! (Score:2)
So, Steve Jobs is actually Stevey Wonder!
I've always wondered.
Now everything is clear.
I will definately not be buying anymore Apple Walkmans!
Re:Confusion! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Confusion! (Score:2)
When the Newton died the band stopped touring.
Re:Confusion! (Score:3, Funny)
It was Ballmer, and the song wasn't exactly "All you need is love".
Re:Confusion! (Score:3, Funny)
Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band
With A Little Help From My Friends in the Justice Department
Windows in the Sky With MS Hearts
Getting Better For Our Next Release
Fixing a (Security) Hole
She's Leaving Microsoft
Being For the Benefit of Mr. Gates
Lock-in You, Lock-out You
Service Pack Sixty-Four
Lovely WMA
Good Patch Tuesday, Good Patch Tuesday
Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band (Reprise)
Blue Screen of Life
-1 Lame,
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 ?
Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (Score:2)
Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (Score:2)
So? They never promised not to. On the other hand, Apple, a computer company, did promise never to move into the music industry.
Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (Score:2)
Because of the massive publicity of these law suits over the years, no-one can possible claim that they don't know that Apple computers and Apple records are two different companies.
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
Re:Well if you say you will not go into music and. (Score:2)
RTFA. The (abbreviated) terms of the current agreement are there:
Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on "creative works whose principal content is music" while Apple Computer was allowed "goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content".
Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. Thi
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).
Court can't play Beatles song? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (Score:2)
Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (Score:2)
Re:Court can't play Beatles song? (Score:3, Interesting)
[1] There are some Beatles songs held by other companies AFAIK, just Sony ATV is the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_198800 4 8_en_1.htm [opsi.gov.uk]
Parliamentary and judicial proceedings.
45.--(1) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.
(2) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of reporting such proceedings;
It'll Probably Hold Up (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is that Apple Ltd. became Apple Corps which had many components. One of which was Apple Electronics. Then Apple (Macs) were made and it's clear that this could be an infringement on the products that Apple Electronics makes (if any).
Now that Apple's Ipod is so involved in music, I'm certain the other divisions of Apple Corps would like to have a go at the computer maker sinc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It'll Probably Hold Up (Score:2)
Plus any previous agreement with Apple Computer probably waived any rights for Apple Corps to use "Apple" for computer equipment etc. Apple Computer would probably win against other companies using the name Apple for electronics. Apple Corps may win this battle against Apple Computer for using Apple to distribute music.
Anyway, need to hoover
"Tens" of millions of pounds damages (Score:2, Interesting)
The article says
Any damages for this latest clash could amount to tens of millions of pounds because it concerns Apple Computer's hugely successful iTunes Music Store and iPod digital music players.
How cute of them. Try hundreds of milliions of pounds. Apple Computer keeps shaving as much off that settlement as they possibly can, and they're going to have to pay sooner or later. The best thing would be a settlement for a few hundred million pounds, a disclaimer ("iTunes and Apple Computer are not affi
Re:"Tens" of millions of pounds damages (Score:2)
Why? The courts are not a lottery. Any damages paid to Apple Records should be based on actual damages suffered by Apple Records due to the dilution of their trademark. Apple Records did not invent or market the iPod, and as far as I am concerned, the value of their trademark is minimal.
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's... (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:5, Funny)
'Records' were large black circular discs with grooves in them made from Vinyl, a metal needle would run over the disk and make sounds (mostly popping and scratching sounds).
Vinyl is a fragile black plastic that was popular at the time.
There were no video games back then, which is why music was so popular.
Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:2)
Damn kids... Get off my Lawn!
Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:2)
Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:3, Interesting)
That most of the information is noise rather than signal, on the other hand...
Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:2)
Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FYI, The Beatles were a popular beat combo... (Score:2)
You Never Give Me Your Money (Score:5, Funny)
You only give me your funny paper
and in the middle of negotiations
you break down
I never give you my number
I only give you my situation
and in the middle of investigation
I break down
Baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man too.
And John might have sung... (Score:2)
See Apple sing for a piece of Jobs' bling, see how they fly.
I'm crying.
Sitting with lawyers, waiting for the judge to come.
Corporation success, stupid bloody iPod.
Jobs, you been a naughty boy, you made ~your~ Apple rich.
We want the profits, you have the profits.
We are the bastards!
GOO GOO GA JOOB
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:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't have to "do" anything, they hold an active trademark on the brand name "Apple."
I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?
Yes. They distributed music other than the Beatles.
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
Re:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (Score:2)
Re:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (Score:2)
Re:Why don't Apple just buy Apple now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Solution: iTunes Inc. (Score:3, Interesting)
The price that Apple Computers will continue to pay until the end of time is that they will have to keep forking money over to Apple Records because they used a name too close to that of the Beatles' organization.
"Until the end of time" my behind. Apple Computer could probably just spin off its iPod and iTMS business into a wholly owned subsidiary "iTunes Inc." and leave the bit-apple logo off future iPod players. The "iPod" and "iTunes" brands are strong enough that Apple Computer could probably get aw
Money Grabbing Old Foggies (Score:2)
An an exercise think of the last album released on the Apple records label.
I'm waiting..............
Just what I thought. Apple records are no longer in the music business.
Ed Almos
Get the facts straight... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. They weren't awarded anything. They settled. As far as I know, this didn't even get to court.
spin off itunes (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think Apple records would have a harder time suing iTunes Corporation
Apple Jacks cereal should sue too (Score:2, Funny)
Atlast (Score:5, Funny)
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:Am I the only one who realizes... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one who realizes... (Score:2)
You don't have to type in apple... ipod.com [ipod.com] will redirect you there just fine.
Re:Am I the only one who realizes... (Score:2)
"Designed by Apple in California".
I find it hard to care (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL but the case wont have too much impact on future law. Apple Computer said that they will never be in the music biz so were alowed to use the name. Now they are they've renaged on the deal so they will have to pay. It's the cost of doing business in that segment. The only question is how much.
Neither of the parties will have any less bread on their table as a result.
There was almost a settlement last year. (Score:2)
Apple Corps were also due to remaster the Beatles' back catalogue, issuing it on both CD and DVD-A. Due to disappointing sales in the UK of the later format, this was shelved, but the CD remaster will still go ahead. The current legal disp
18-month Old Dupe (Score:2)
Maybe it's news because a lot of people forgot about it, but this is the continuation of a lawsuit that's been delayed for a long time.....
Why don't these guys get sued too? (Score:2)
What Apple Record's trademark covers (Score:3, Informative)
Class 09: Sound recording and sound reproducing apparatus and instruments; radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments; video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments; and parts included in Class 9 for all the aforesaid goods.CANCELLED IN RESPECT OF:All goods except sound recording, sound reproducing, radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments and parts for all the aforesaid goods, none being computers or goods of the same description as computers, but not cancelled in respect of video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments. I.e. Apple Records' trademark only covers physical recordings.
Easy solution! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Um... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right. It's like if I punch you in the face and you sue me and win then afterwards I'm entitled to punch you,kick you, run you down in my car etc whenever I like and you can't do anything about it. It's obvious really.
Re:Um... (Score:2)
It would be more akin to You punching me in the face, me suing, then you punching me in the face again.
Re:LOL at data transmission (Score:3, Interesting)
It's deliberate that the word "Apple" is not associated with any music selling.
The case is being brought on the merit that Apple Computer is ultimately selling music. Should settlement occur, it won't be a giant blow-out curtosy of the steps Apple have already taken. (This is why no one is particularly worried.)
Re:LOL at data transmission (Score:2)
I never heard of them until the second lawsuit a few years ago after iTunes had opened.
Apple Copr is a defunct Music corp whose small handful of artists would be better served selling mp3's themselves.
They may have a legitimate claim, but that doesn't make them any more known or useful. I don't know of a single band who uses them.
Re:is this new? (Score:2)
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:The solution (Score:3, Insightful)