On Apple vs Apple 324
Since nothing else really interesting is happening, here is a CNN story about Apple vs Apple where you can read about the latest developments in the latest round of the never ending court battles as two bazillion dollar companies fight over who gets to use the word 'Apple' to sell music.
Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (Score:5, Informative)
The CNN article gets a little over-excited about Apple Computer's barrister saying that "even a moron in a hurry" could tell the difference between the two brands.
The lawyer wasn't being gratuitously offensive - the "moron in a hurry" is an established figure in English passing off/trade mark law, like the "man on the Clapham omnibus". The phrase comes from an action for "passing off" (i.e. infringement of an unregistered trade mark) a few years ago, where the court held that there would be no infringement where the only person likely to be confused by two different usages of a mark is the said "moron in a hurry".
Re:bazillion dollar company's? (Score:3, Informative)
"anyway Apple (UK/Beatles) have the right here and they will win"
AFAIK, there are two issues here:
As to the first, I do not think that Apple's use of an Apple logo in the iTunes Music store in any way profits from Apple Record's investment in their trademark. Also, I do not think there is any chance of people mistaking Apple Computer for Apple Records of vice versa here.
As to the second, there were earlier agreements, but they were kept confidentional. The first I ever read about this is "Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," he said." in the CNN article.
I do not know whether that claim is accurate.
In both cases, let's see what the judge thinks of it.Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:5, Informative)
"We haven't unfortunately been able to persuade Apple Corps in relation to their Beatles catalogue," said Grabiner. "But we have persuaded everybody else."
This dispute has nothing to do with Beatles music being on iTunes. The Beatles music is not available via any digital store, iirc. Yes, a few of the German Tony Sheridan tracks, and 'interview' tracks, but that's about it. The major catalog is not available through any digital download means, not just iTunes. If the Beatles were trying to get back (heh) at Apple Computer, they'd license their material to Napster, or MSN, or Yahoo, or some competing network.
The Beatles have historically been 'behind the times' technologically, what we might call 'late adopters'. For example, their catalog wasn't available on CD until 1987 - years after CDs were accepted as mainstream. Even going back to the 60's, they were one of the last major bands to 'upgrade' to 8 track recording, having recorded practically their entire career on 4 track recording, even though 8 track recording was certainly available earlier.
As an aside, I find it a bit funny that people accuse the Beatles of 'cashing in' every so often. While I certainly feel that way myself occasionally, I have to remind myself there's a lot of opportunity they're sitting on which they could still release and all the hardcore fans and baby boomers would still eat it up. I think they've shown a fair amount of restraint so far. I'm thinking of the hours of live concert footage which is available, for example - there's probably another DVD or two which could be put out, plus remastering all the old albums . Witness the Yellow Submarine remaster - *much* better sounding than the original CD - they could reissue all the original CDs and make still millions more, but haven't (yet?) done so. Maybe they never will?
Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (Score:5, Informative)
The word "moron" fell out of medical use, as did imbecile and idiot because the term started getting abused by lay people.
Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (Score:1, Informative)
It probably makes more sense when you realise that 'moron' used to be a clinical term for mentally retarded people, rather than an abusive insult.
Re:Really, I see "Apple" and an Apple logo in iTMS (Score:3, Informative)
I realize that you can not view any iTMS pages in other browsers. And I realize that the iTMS browser does not allow any content other than Apple's.
It seems like the logo placement is very relevant to this case, and I can't imagine this technical distinction not being made in court.
From what I've read, this case seems to hinge more on the particulars of the agreement both parties made in '91, than on trademark infringement in general.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Informative)
"Common" only to you.
The standard story about how Apple got its name was that Steve Jobs (who was working at an apple orchard at the time) threatened to call the company "Apple Computer", after the orchard's fruit, if no one could come up with a better name by 5 pm. Didn't have a damn thing to do with Apple Records.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Informative)
Business, maybe, but money, no:
The company hasn't posted huge profits: For the year ended Jan. 1, 2005, Apple Corps claimed a loss of nearly $950,000. [bostonherald.com]
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple Computer paid Rob Janoff [wikipedia.org] to create the Apple logo. There just happened to be a record company who had chosen to name their computer after a common fruit, who just happened to be founded eight years before(in 1968), and who doesn't seem to do anything anymore except sue Apple Computer.
When Apple Computer was founded in 1976, the two companies didn't do anything that would cause them to be confused, so after Apple Corps' 1978 lawsuit was settled in 1981, Apple Computer was allowed to use the trademark "Apple", as long as they didn't sell music media. As of now, they still don't.
Apple Corps' website has been a placeholder page since at least 1999. [archive.org] If it weren't for the potential lawsuit that the idea of "Intellectual Property" gives them, I doubt that anyone would even remember "Apple Corps".
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bazillion dollar company's? (Score:3, Informative)
I think the actual case is fairly interesting. The judge could set quite a precedent here on distribution via electronic means.