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.
Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:2)
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:2, Funny)
I too get my religious views from popular culture. Its more entertaining than a dry old book written in a very dated dialect, and people get th
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:2)
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:2)
They agreed not to sell music.
They broke that agreement.
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 us
You say you want a revolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But nothing TOO different please. Please don't change the status quo TOO much. Don't rock the boat if you're in it. I don't want to put my music on this interweb thingy...
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2)
Let who put it on the internet? A company that you were nice to and gave a break to by letting them use your name if they stayed out of the music business. Despite the fact that the two founders were from a generation intimately familiar with the Beatles and probably 100% aware of Apple Records. You gave them the benefit of the doubt.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a very interesting part from that WP article regarding the 1991 settlement:
"The 1991 settlement outlines the rights each company has to the Apple trademark. While Apple Corps was given the right to use the name on any "creative works whose principal content is music", Apple Computer was given the right to use the name on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," but not on content distributed on physical media.[1] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials."
It's fair to own a copyright when there could be confusion between two similar companies, so that a second company can't steal the thunder from the first company.
But come on, it's been years since they heyday of Apple Corp. All of my beatle albums have a big "EMI" logo on them. Nobody is going to mistake Apple Computer for Apple Records. This is a cheap attempt for Apple Records to get money from Apple.
For the record, I don't like Apple. But these lawsuits are pretty farging lame.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you attempt to copyright a common word like "Apple", then be prepared for trouble. Beatles may have captured the thoughts of millions of fans across the globe, but they don't own the language.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2)
Even so, the common folklore story is (or was) that Steve Jobs came up with the Apple name while listening to Beatles records.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2)
Again, can you back this up? If this was true, then why isn't it more widely known. Are all these articles about Apple vs. Apple just ignorant of this piece of information, or are you wrong?
Even so, the common folklore story is (or was) that Steve Jobs came up with the Apple name while listening to Beatles records.
Well, I heard a folklore story that Steve Jobs eats small children. Doesn't mean it's true.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2)
I thought the name "Apple" came from Steve's job in an apple orchard. The biography [macnewsworld.com] at Mac News World states "1976: On April Fool's Day, Jobs and Wozniak incorporate Apple Computer. The name has its roots in the Beatles' record label and Jobs' time working in Oregon apple orchards."
The article Apple Trademark Battle With The Beatles Goes to UK High Court [ecommercetimes.com] suggest that Apple Computer and Apple Corps. had reached an agreement after several previous trademark disputes.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2)
...sounds like a licensing agreement to me.
And if you search for "Apple music" on google, you're gonna get thousands of hits about iTunes, not about the record label. That's the problem with Apple Computers going into music. I'm usually against these trademark/patent/IP lawsuits, but I think Apple Corps. has a legitimat
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it. They seem to have lost all business acumen lately. As for Apple Corps it is missing out on one revenue stream by not allowing Beatles music to be sold on iTunes. [thestar.com], as well as any revenue from allowing sampling from Beatles tracks.
Of course, there is one Beatles track on iTMS featuring one of the members of the Fab Four - the http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?se ction=cm&id=23 [slashdot.org]
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]
The apple in question was Newton's Apple (Score:2)
There is even the earliest ad for Apple computer to attest this which shows Newton sitting under an apple tree holding up the happle that just bonked him in the noggin.
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
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3)
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, I doubt that George Harrison had much to do with this decision.
Ringo or Paul, I don't know about, but I suspect the decision may have had more to do with protecting their trademark than anything else. Since trademark is one of those things that you have to actively defend, its most probable that the lawyers for Apple Records made the decision and who knows if any of
apple vs apple.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:apple vs apple.. (Score:3, Funny)
I hope (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Funny)
They're obviously in the wrong here.
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:2, Funny)
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:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (Score:2)
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:2)
And, apparently, law people.
Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (Score:2)
When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microware's laughable suit against Apple over the "OS-9" / MacOS 9" "confusion" was on more firm ground than this.
Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst outcome in this case appears to be that Apple Inc will need to remove their logo from the iTunes program and maybe pay some money. It's not going to shut down their music ventures and doesn't seem like something that people should get too worried about.
Doesn't it Affect the Damages? (Score:2)
I would think it would affect the damages a hell of a lot. Since the monetary damage for using a trademark from a company nobody has heard from for decades must be nearly zero.
Maybe that should be another area of reform for Copyright/Trademark/Patent, namely a license to an IP right automatically doesn't extend beyond the IP right it licenses.
IANAL
Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (Score:3, Interesting)
I may be misremembering things, but if that's what it's like, it seems pretty clear that Apple *has* violated the contract by starting iTunes.
Let's copyright fruit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's copyright fruit (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, but I would LOVE it if she'd adopt Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.
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:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:2)
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:2)
In 2003, Apple Corps indicated they had no plans to make Beatles available online [bbc.co.uk]. The foolishness of this anti-digital stance was summarised quite succintly here [macobserver.com]:
The Beatles seem almost intent on relegating their incredible legacy to irrelevancy. Unlike the move to CDs, which The Beatles deftly milked for all it was worth, what The Beatles are doing now is ensuring that the only way to
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:2)
From what I remember in the early 80's, they thought the quality of CDs was 'inferior' to the quality of vinyl. Many audiophiles had/have this opinion.
From the lawsuits against Apple, copywright Apple Corp's statements about "online music" and their reluctance to make any music available online makes me think that they really just fear the loss of control over their own music.
They make millions every year just from the royalties
huh? (Score:2)
Cd's were hardly mainstream in 1987. There were pricey toys. It wasn't until 1988/1989 that CD's became the mainstream format.
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, in fact it goes much deeper than that. The reason they're not on iTunes has nothing at all to do with the agreement between Apple Corps and Apple Computer, it has to do with the agreement between Apple Corps and EMI, who own the rights to the recordings of all Beatles songs. Here's the deal: Neil Aspinall, the man who pretty much is Apple Corps, believes that the contract between Apple Corps and EMI does not give EMI digital distribution rights. Their contract is so old that it contains no clauses (in his opinion) that would grant them such rights. In other words, Neal Aspinall wants to be able to put the Beatles songs online directly licensed from Apple Corps, bypassing EMI completely, with the proceeds going 100% to Apple Corps. But EMI won't go down without a fight, and some people believe that if he makes such a move it could be one of the biggest legal battles in the history of the music industry. (EMI believes that the contract language added to allow them sell CDs does include digital distribution rights.) A lot would be at stake, because if Apple won then it could open the floodgates for tons of older bands to examine their contracts and fight for full digital rights because of muddy or unclear contract language. In any case, Aspinall is in no rush. He doesn't want to take on the fight just yet, but also doesn't want to conceed anything yet by signing off on digital rights.
(This information was described in an article about Neil Aspinall that I read at some point last year, I think in Blender magazine.)
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:3, Interesting)
I probably misspoke, in that the Beatles themselves probably would have preferred 8 track recording earlier than they got it. Had they made it more of a cause earlier on, they probably would have convinced EMI to install 8 track equipment, but instead
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:2)
I'd guess the reason they've stayed out of the download market is more down to them selling a disproportionate amount of high-added-value box-sets etc, rather than them not being up on technology. That's just a guess on my part, but selling individual tracks on downloads might well have an impact on sales of such items.
Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (Score:2)
One day I hope to be as talentless as Paul McCartney.
Like this [wikipedia.org], for example.
The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is moot, but Apple Corps will try to extract some fake fealty from Apple Computer.
The lawyers win. We don't.
Maybe Disney should by Apple Corps.... all in the family, then.
Re:The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't ca (Score:2)
"We" as in technology savvy people know the difference. What if you have some technophobe guy who grew up on the Beatles and Apple records who stumbles on iTunes and sees "Apple"? The first thing he's going to think of is Apple Records, because, duh, he's looking at music. He'll assume that Apple Records started the web site and is licensing music from other label
Apple's marketshare isn't 3%... in most measures (Score:3)
Sure, there can be nominal confusion. But Apple Records
Re:The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't ca (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple Computer [apple.com] has a website, Apple Corps [applecorps.com] does not. *boggles*
Just how pointless this is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I see "Apple" and an Apple logo in iTMS (Score:2)
Are you basis this on what a Mac advocate told you, sure you have not actually run iTunes? After launching iTunes and selecting the Music Store I find a big black Apple logo.
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 o
Re:Just how pointless this is... (Score:2)
Remember the Sony vs. Sony's suit a few years ago (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news: Apple VS McIntosh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news: Apple VS McIntosh (Score:4, Insightful)
"MacTunes" (Score:2)
Re:"MacTunes" (Score:5, Interesting)
Naming products isn't the problem, since it's not called the "Apple Music Store" but the "iTunes Music Store"; the problem is Apple's ownership of it.
Feasibly, Apple Computer could spin off iTunes and the iPod into a separate business. Hovever, the Apple Computer brand is one of the most recognizable in the world, with many millions having been spent on building brand awareness, so it's worth fighting to keep it an Apple-branded product.
It also helps to position future Apple-branded products, because of the success associated with iTMS.
Googlefight! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, no it doesn't. [googlefight.com]
Who uses the name for what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who uses the name for what? (Score:2)
That tends not to happen those with Knighthood.
So, what's next after this? (Score:2, Funny)
Interesting news... (Score:3, Funny)
That's because all the interesting news happened yesterday.
it's a contract dispute, not trademark (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding from what I have read is this is not a trademark dispute, but rather a contract dispute, which will be governed by different aspects of the law. There are some important unanswered questions:
1. What are the material terms of the contract?
2. What was the duration of the contract? US law requires a finite duration, otherwise it's valid for a "reasonable" amount of time (How's that for vague!).
If I permit myself to do some speculation, I'd suspect Apple Comp is treading on dangerous ground. They know and have known this, hence the contract in '92. It's not a tough argument to make for Apple Corp. We, Apple, sell music. They, Apple, sell music. See the confusion? Apple Corp, was there first and had first use and trademark. Most any lawyer ought to be able to make that argument successfully. But this isn't about the trademark, it's about the details of that contract, which I haven't seen in the article.
And a note to the applogists: I don't think Apple Corp is doing anything wrong. They have an established business that predated Apple computer. They are attempting to enforce the esisting contract with Apple Comp. Good for them, everyone should be held to their word.
Re:it's a contract dispute, not trademark (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it's a contract dispute, not trademark (Score:3, Insightful)
Taco apended that comment to the story posting, and thus it was not moderated at all.
Plenty of other Apple flames though.
wso who's winning ? (Score:2)
On The Subject Of Slashdot Article Submissions (Score:2)
And he wonders why people complain about story quality. Here's a hint for some extra material. Search user journals for "rejected submission".
Re:On The Subject Of Slashdot Article Submissions (Score:2)
where some smell bullshit, i smell an opportunity (Score:3, Funny)
Apple Corp may have a valid legal case... (Score:3, Funny)
What Apple Computer should do is ally themselves with Gene Simmons. Gene could then unleash the KISS Army against Apple Corp, and it would all be over real quick.
Apple should update their name to something.... (Score:4, Funny)
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
(not only funny but, insightful too)
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. T
Sour Grapes, yet again. (Score:3, Insightful)
They really are not *in* the music business, so they arent hurting apple records, so they should just shut up and appreciate the extra sales they get via beatles songs on itunes.
Just another bloodsucker standing in line to screw the big guy.
Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (Score:2, Insightful)
*insert flame for not getting it, etc*
Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (Score:2)
Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (Score:2)
A fella, a clever fella, would just release their catalog on iTunes and have some sort of "Apple on Apple" promotion and make piles of cash. Instead they are spending money to defend some stupid trademark concept and the only ones who win are, once again, the leech lawyers.
Apple Corp may be in the legal right, but that doesn't make it rational. There's decisions every day that are legally sound , but make a man want to run screaming in
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.
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:4, Insightful)
So you argue the larger/richer corp should win? (Score:2)
So their business is not growing but they still are in business. Are you arguing that the small businesss should roll over and accomodate the wishes of the larger growing corporation? That is in fact what you are arguing whether or not you had intended to do so. True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.
(1) So you are arguing that large corporation are above the law, that they may enter into contracts w
Re:So you argue the larger/richer corp should win? (Score:2)
Re:So you argue the larger/richer corp should win? (Score:2)
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:2)
It's never been debatable -- Apple Computers was named in homage to Apple Records. Apple Computer either signed the agreement or they would have had to rename the company.
Also, Apple Records was not some obscure outfit. Every Beatles LP had an Apple logo in the center. Every 1970s kid (aka Steve Jobs) knew who Apple Records was. Just because Apple Inc has outmarketed Apple Records in recent years doesn't change the reality of A
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:2)
What about outsold in recent years? What has Apple Records released since the Beatles? It seems the only reason Apple Corp. still exists is to milk the Beatles songs.
Now if Apple Records was still releasing new music, the
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:2, Funny)
if you can show us how to use iTunes and the iPod without a computer you are a better man than most of us
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:2, Troll)
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:2)
Interestingly, there is a speaker company called McIntosh, and they did have a disagreement (and eventual ca$h settlement) with Apple many years ago.
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:3)
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:2)
But I'd go further with your observation... Apple is selling music, but they are not a music publisher. They are a music reseller, like Tower Records, just in a different format. Even if they used "Apple" in the name of the store, I don't think it should cause problems with the music publisher.
Re:It's a No Brainer (Score:3)
No company should have the right to the word "Apple" - it's a common word. So, as long as the full name of the company is different it should be OK, IMO. No one's going to ever confuse Apple Corps with Apple Computer.
Re:The way I see it... (Score:2)
Well, Steve Jobs obviously thought something like that
Remember those big round black disks that had analog music encoded onto them? Some of them came with a big Apple logo in the middle. So, while people might not associate Apple Records with much nowdays, they ce
Re:Do You Have To Be A Crook To Be In Business? (Score:3, Interesting)
Xerox received Apple stock in exchange for showing Apple the details of its GUI. It was understood that Apple would apply that knowledge to creating its own GUI for the consumer market which Xerox had no interest in. "Stealing" was not involved.
As I understand the music disagreement, Apple Comp's position is that they are allowed to distribute digital content through their