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.
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 didn't press that issue (I can't imagine that by 1966 they didn't know it was equipment that was available!)
I wouldn't say "Apple" or "The Beatles" cash in on Lennon's name/image much - Yoko does that herself. I don't mean "cash in" in a particularly bad way (though it seems you did!). She's just doing good business. The Beatles themselves as a group have 4 good names to cash in on. I would argue that trying to cash in on the names of just one of them simply doesn't work very well - they were very much bigger than the sum of their individual names/contributions, and that's why "The Beatles" as an entity will continue to be a big draw for a long time.
Will they continue to sell millions per year? Probably not over the long haul, but it's damn impressive that much of their music still sounds fresh today (good production and equipment used all those years ago), and that many of the songs still are able to speak to new generations.
Remember the Sony vs. Sony's suit a few years ago (Score:3, Interesting)
Who uses the name for what? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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:You say you want a revolution? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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 the original Beatles were consulted (even by Ouija Board).
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 1991 settlement. Apple Corp's position is that the current shift in the music business to non-physical media has changed the music climate and the settlement should allow for that.
I'd just point out that Apple's position on DRM has been decidely pro consumer. The "little guy stealing" you claim "Jobs" is against have quite a bit of freedom WRT Apple products. The iPod and iTunes happily play non-DRM'd music (iTunes even plays OGG with a codec extension). Apple has not gone out of their way to prevent users from copying DRM AAC music. There are numerous solutions for removing the DRM. Apple even featured your "victim" in the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad campaign which I'm quite certain Steve-o signed off on.
Re:You say you want a revolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?s
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its more entertaining than a dry old book written in a very dated dialect
The first Book of Kings, from which the Soloman story is taken, is a pretty good read. You can go with the one of the modern translations [ibs.org] if Elizabethan English puts you off. It begins:
Compare this passage to the King James Version [ibs.org]:
Either way, dry it is not.