Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27, 2006 @09:08AM (#15002002)
    "Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."

    Wrong. They weren't awarded anything. They settled. As far as I know, this didn't even get to court.
  • by macadamia_harold ( 947445 ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @09:23AM (#15002084) Homepage
    Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers.

    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.
  • by shippo ( 166521 ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @09:48AM (#15002223)
    Yes, but the other three went into Abbey Road Studio No. 2 on January 3rd 1970 to record George's 'I Me Mine', which surfaced on 'Let It Be' a few months later.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27, 2006 @10:53AM (#15002684)
    A) Everyone knew about Apple Corps. The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus," right? Seriously, Apple Corps was more than a little famous in 1978. Every later Beatles album had Apple Records printed in the center of the label, with a green apple logo. There were about seventy gazillion of these records around. Naming a company "Apple" at that time would rather obviously preclude involving the company in music.

    B) They're now very much in the same business. Apple Corps distributes music. Apple Computers now distributes music, so there is market overlap. That's a serious undermining of Apple Corps' trademark, and the impact is far from negligible. You, for example, don't seem to know about Apple Corps. There's no way anybody talking about Apple Music is going to think of the Beatles' company anymore. Apple computer has stolen the name.

    C) What's this nonsense about the post office? If the post office renamed itself Apple Mail, you can bet Apple Computer would be all over them with suits. The post office, Amazon and DHL are not named Apple, so they have nothing to do with this.
  • by bloobloo ( 957543 ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @11:04AM (#15002769) Homepage
    List of goods and/or services
    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.
  • by uptheriver ( 963871 ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @12:02PM (#15003304)
    In fact, the statement that Apple Corps, Ltd. "haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years?" is inaccurate. There have been MANY, and in fact, the next one will be released on 11 April 2006, The Beatles new box set "The Capitol Albums, Vol. 2."

    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:3, Informative)

    by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @12:09PM (#15003365)
    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.

  • Apple Corps (Score:2, Informative)

    by aliensporebomb ( 1433 ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @12:57PM (#15003735) Homepage
    If you want to read more about Apple Corps and just
    what the heck they really were all about it's here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps [wikipedia.org]

    Really a tax dodge for the Beatles at the time.

    None of the other divisions really panned out.
    In fact:

    "When the Beatles' partnership was dissolved in 1975, dissolution of Apple Corps was also considered, but it was decided to keep it going, while effectively retiring all its divisions. The company exists today, mostly performing as the licensing agent for Beatles-related products, and supervising reissues of Apple Records, plus new issues of Beatles recordings and related media. The company is apparently now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company) and its company secretary is listed as Standby Films Ltd., believed to be a vehicle of managing director Neil Aspinall. The company is currently headquartered at 27 Ovington Square, in London's prestigious Knightsbridge district."

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!