Apple vs Apple -- Judgment Day

DaphneDiane writes "According to the Times Online Apple Computer successfully defended themselves vs the suit brought by Apple Corps." If you are looking for background on the case we had talked about it earlier. I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. And, of course, Apple Corp has filed an appeal already.

let's face facts

[illtron]

I hate to see The Beatles lose, but let's face facts: If you could possibly confuse the two, you're likely too dumb to appreciate The Beatles' music and too stupid to figure out how to turn on a computer.

Beatles on iTunes next?

[mgabrys_sf]

I'd have to say - why bother. If I'm not mistaken the audience that would download it has P2P'ed them to death, and it'd be too little too late.

Unless they remaster everything - which they're proportedly doing - but the restirctions they're trying to lay down make the recent "big 4" vs iTunes look like a cakewalk.

Re:Turned out "well?"

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If you hate the laws, spend your lives trying to get them changed. Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor [emph mine]

You note that companies have 'almost unlimited funds' - they use these funds to:

1) Change the law to suit themselves.
2) Discredit / ridicule those who spend their lives trying to get laws changed.
3) Bury in legalities / court fees those who oppose them.

How can we not hate the companies that do this?

Saddened

[Overzeetop]

This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations, but for the simple concept of fair play that has been ignored. It's true that now nobody would confuse the two corporations, but the simple fact that Apple Computer exists is because Apple Corps agreed to let them continue using a name which could (at the time) have been confused, on the condition that Apple Computer not get into the music business. The distinction today is that Apple (computer) has greatly outstripped Apple (corps) is brand recognition. Heck, you may as well take Apple Corps trademark entirely, as the common person would likely mistake Apple (Corps) for the wildly popular international trademark Apple (computer).

My question would be - can Apple Corps start their internet Download Music Store and not get sued by Apple Computer? Is there a potential for mistakes in Apple iDMS and Apple iTMS?

Why Apple records sued...

[ebcdic]

... because otherwise no-one would remember they exist. There's still a market for Beatles songs, but who cares what the record label is?

Now here's hoping they can settle ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... their remaining differences, so I can finally download some Beatles tunes from the iTMS.

Re:The lawsuit had no merit whatsoever...

[Fred Or Alive]

Usually in those cases the companies don't use the same name in the same markets - ABC (Australia) could probably be sued by ABC (US) if they started a US TV station called ABC. In some markets the US Budwieser is just called "Bud" becuse the Czech company owns the trademark, although in others they do both use Budweiser. There's also Viz, the American publisher of Japanese comic books, and Viz, the British comic book.

As Apple Corps and Apple Computer both use the trademark in the same countries (in this case the UK), there is a more solid case, but still not much of one.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

next: Amazon sued for being a publisher

[swissfondue]

Apple is a label as much as Amazon is a publisher.

Re:Now here's hoping they can settle ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like their music so much, what's keeping you from buying a frickin CD and just ripping it to a non-DRM'd MP3 file?

Honestly, as big a fan as I am of Apple and iPods I have not purchased a single song off iTunes. Why would I pay for a low quality, DRM-restricted, digital music file in a closed, proprietary format when for the same money I can purchase a physical CD, complete with artwork, which I can rip any time I want, and which will still be around long after MP3s and AACs are made obsolete by something else?

Re:Turned out "well?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Most countries in the world have laws against breaching restricted agreements.

Most countries in the world have laws against barratry, which is essentially the crime Apple Records committed by bullying (the then tiny) Apple Computers into signing the agreement in the first place. Okay, there might be an argument for iTMS conflicting with Apple Records, but no lawyer on earth would reasonably believe there was a case against Apple Computers when they first started making computers. They were simply two completely different markets back then, with no possibility whatsoever of confusion. So Apple Records were making baseless legal threats against a small startup when they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.

If I had a say in the matter, that would be cause for revoking Apple Records' trademark altogether. If you can't be trusted to wield the power responsibly and lawfully, you shouldn't have it in the first place.

Re:Saddened

[cgenman]

When exactly was the last time Apple Corpse [wikipedia.org] did anything? The company exists as a Beatles back catalog holder, and nothing more. It would be impossible to confuse Apple the company and Apple the rights holder because Apple the company actually does things. Apple Corps wouldn't start an internet Download Music Store because that would be actually doing something.

Remember, we're not talking about a giant company fighting a little guy, we're talking about an active company fighting a long-dead rights holder. Should Apple Computers be prevented from revolutionizing the movie business through a new (and long overdue) distribution channel simply because Apple Corps put out some self-indulgent beatles movies in 1974? Should online music publishing be stopped because this rights clearing house who has a similar name feels uncomfortable with it? Should the Apple Stores which have tremendously pushed forward upscale retail design be shut down because Apple record had a store in 1967?

Ok, so that last one isn't so great to humanity. But the point is Apple Corps has long since been a non-entity. They don't DO anything. There would be no confusion between the two because outside of specialized circles looking to use Beatles recordings for things, nobody actually refers to the Apple Corps for any reason. Why should past performance guarantee that nobody with a similar (and honestly kind of generic) name can push into similar space into perpetuity. At this point in their existence, Apple Corps is little more than a cybersquatter.

Re:Is it about the money?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Maybe if Apple Corps had actually participated materially in the market in the last thirty years there would be confusion, but now it's a niche player and Apple Inc. owns "apple" mindshare.

Apple corps had some relevance in the market 15 years ago when they made a deal with Apple Computers.

And for all those Apple Corps apologists that suggest Apple Corps market a macintosh coat

All those Apple Corps apologists?

There was only one person making a macintosh coat jibe (me!) and I'm not an Apple Corps apologist. I'm just disgusted at the hypocrisy displayed by Apple Computers.

Re:let's face facts

[Matt Perry]

I hate to see The Beatles lose, but let's face facts: If you could possibly confuse the two, you're likely too dumb to appreciate The Beatles' music and too stupid to figure out how to turn on a computer.

Quick! Name the label for one of your favorite, non-Beatles albums. I'd bet you can't do it.

Labels don't promote themselves to the buying public. They promote their products (the bands). How many people even know who Apple Corps is? I would imagine only the hardcore Beatles fans who make it their business to know every details of the band's history. I've been listening to the Beatles for over 25 years, but I had never heard of Apple Corps until the last legal altercation they had with Apple Computer.

Re:Turned out "well?"

[litac]

But all of the "all in one" types with the built in monitor are a fricking nightmare. Where have you been for the last 18 months? The latest iteration of the iMac (the "all in one" models you must be talking about) are almost completely user accessible. In fact, when there were noise problems with the Rev. A version, Apple was sending out the mid-planes directly to the users for replacement. I'll agree that the "sunflower" model was not terribly accessible, nor was the original CRT iMac, but the flat panel is incredibly well designed from an accessibility standpoint. Adding RAM is a snap - just look at this diagram http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 084 [apple.com]. In fact, there is a whole list of things you can replace on your iMac - all involving opening up the back of the computer http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=868 12 [apple.com].

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Retail, not music

[SuperKendall]

Apple Computer sells digital content - Music, TV shows, audio books.

If Apple Computer is in the music business, then so is 7-11 for selling cheap CD's in the store.

Apple computer is in the retail business, not the music business.

What does Apple Corps own?

[SpeedyG5]

If Michael Jackson ala Sony owns the beatles library, what does apple corps own?