• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are The Beatles about to sue Apple Computers?

DashRiprock

DashRiprock

Member
Are The Beatles about to sue Apple Computers over the iPod, iTunes and Apple Music?

Apple Computers long ago signed an agreement with the Beatles' Apple Records that they would never have a company called Apple Music and that they would never go into the music business.
 
They've been rattling about this for years. Everytime somebody's (Paul McCartney? Michael Jackson?) royalty checks slow down a bit, they treaten to sue Apple Computer.
 
Originally posted by: Jzero
They've been rattling about this for years. Everytime somebody's (Paul McCartney? Michael Jackson?) royalty checks slow down a bit, they treaten to sue Apple Computer.
Click to expand...

The difference here is Apple agreed years ago that they would not get into the music business.

The iTunes Music Store would definitely be considered getting into the music business.
 
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Jzero
They've been rattling about this for years. Everytime somebody's (Paul McCartney? Michael Jackson?) royalty checks slow down a bit, they treaten to sue Apple Computer.
Click to expand...

The difference here is Apple agreed years ago that they would not get into the music business.

The iTunes Music Store would definitely be considered getting into the music business.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not called "Apple Music" and you'd have to see the settlement agreement to know what's defined as "the music business." They certainly aren't producing new music, contracting with artists, etc (i.e. a record label or recording studio). In fact they are just distributing files, and they could easily distribute other forms of media using the same system. Apple is only the content provider. IMO, they are no more in the "music business" than NetFlix is in the "film business."

I think somebody's looking for a quick buck. They are betting that since iTunes is already a loss-leader for Apple, that they will settle out quickly rather than waste the time and expense of going to court. Just give the piggy bank a shake and see if anything falls out.
 
Two Apples Heading Back To Court
  • Apple Computer use the Apple name only for computer products--not music-related enterprises
  • Steve Jobs--who was heavily influenced by the counterculture attitudes of the late 1960s and early '70s--has been said to have admitted that the computer company was named Apple in partial tribute to the Beatles.
  • ...with its distinctive labeling--a green-skinned Apple on the A-side and the halved apple for the B-side. It made Beatles records instantly recognizable on sight--as equally recognizable as the Apple Computer logo is today.
  • Its early successes in the personal computer business caught the eye of Applecorps lawyers, and in 1981 the two companies signed a secret pact giving Apple Computer the right to use the Apple name for computer products, but reserved for Applecorps the right to use it for music-related enterprises.
  • Apple Computer is going to have a tough time arguing that it's no longer in the music business.
  • ...the original 1981 agreement had been breached. That case came to an end in 1991, when the two parties settled, and the computer company agreed to shell out what reports said at the time was out about $26 million.
Apple Computer obviously is on the wrong side here.
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Two Apples Heading Back To Court
Click to expand...

From that link
Apple Computer attorneys are likely to negotiate another big settlement, one that will likely have the company paying royalties as long as it operates the iTunes store. It can certainly afford it, with more than $4.5 billion in cash reserves.
Click to expand...

I stand by my claim that someone is just shaking the ole' piggy bank.

As to who?

And maybe, just maybe, such a settlement will include a deal for The Beatles to appear exclusively on the iTunes store service. While the Beatles may have sung about revolution in the late '60s, they certainly haven't seemed interested in the digital music revolution taking place around them. The only digital downloads available of Beatles recording are either very early recordings that Applecorps has no control over, or pirated files on services such as Kazaa or Morpheus. With CD sales on the decline, the Beatles run the risk of losing their appeal to younger generations who generally prefer getting music online.
Click to expand...

Is it any coincidence that the guy who stands to gain a lot of royalties from downloading Beatles songs is reportedly almost bankrupt?

One has to wonder.....
 
They were wrong. They broke the agreement. They will pay, as you or I would, if we broke an agreement. They were lucky to be allowed to use that name in the first place.
 
Back when Macs were first able to play sound, Apple Computer's lawyers had a fit becuase they thought it would break their agreement with Apple Records. So the engineers came up with an alert sound for the computer and named it "Sosumi" and told the lawyers it was Japanese for "the absence of all musicality." Apparantly the lawyers were idiots, or they never pronounced it out loud, because if they did they would realize they were saying "so sue me."
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
They were wrong. They broke the agreement. They will pay, as you or I would, if we broke an agreement. They were lucky to be allowed to use that name in the first place.
Click to expand...

Nah. There's no morality here. Somebody wants to make a quick buck. It's strictly business. The so-called "agreement" is and always has been just an excuse. Applecorps may have a legitimate claim, but I wonder if any court would actually agree that Apple computer would have been confused with Apple records.....not in 1981, and definitely not in 2004.

In 1981, Applecorps gambled (and won) on the fledging Apple Computer not having the resources to fight a court battle, regardless of their chances of winning.

And now in 2004, they are pretty much making the same gamble, and they will win on this gamble, too.

Strictly business. I'd like to believe that this is about doing the "right" thing and honoring their "word" but it's not likely. If Beatles records were flying off the shelves (or maybe if Michael Jackson wasn't up to his ears in debt?), I'd be gambling that this lawsuit would never have been filed, and the original agreement would never have been forged.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it 🙂
 
I think Apple Computer should put down on the first line of the Response to the claim,

"All you need is love", and offer to settle with a 1000 hugs.

The Beatles are simply sell-out businessman, sell-out, well, only if you believe they ever bought-in to the hippie BS they sung about.

 
Who said anything about, doing the "right" thing and honoring their "word" ?

This is the law, and they broke it. They shouldn't be permitted to weasle out of it any more than you or I would be able to.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Back when Macs were first able to play sound, Apple Computer's lawyers had a fit becuase they thought it would break their agreement with Apple Records. So the engineers came up with an alert sound for the computer and named it "Sosumi" and told the lawyers it was Japanese for "the absence of all musicality." Apparantly the lawyers were idiots, or they never pronounced it out loud, because if they did they would realize they were saying "so sue me."
Click to expand...

Cool. I always wondered why that sound was named that!
 
Well, the surviving Beatles or their heirs could sue the Yellow Submarine sandwich shop in San Francisco on Irving Street at 6th Avenue. The paintings and decorations are from the movie.



It was twenty years ago today,
PCM
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Who said anything about, doing the "right" thing and honoring their "word" ?

This is the law, and they broke it. They shouldn't be permitted to weasle out of it any more than you or I would be able to.
Click to expand...

No law was proven to be broken in any court. No criminal charges have been filed against Apple Computer for this. The lawsuits filed were civil suits, and it is worth mentioning that it doesn't seem that there has ever been a judicial verdict on the matter, just an out-of-court settlement resulting in the agreement about which this dispute revolves.

That original agreement was nothing more than Applecorps using the legal system to extort money from Apple Computer. I don't believe for a second that a competent judge would have considered Apple Computer to be confusingly similar to Applecorps. But Applecorps knew it would never go to court - the legality is irrelevant. They just wanted to make a buck off of Apple Computer and they were successful.

Fast forward 20 years. The original settlement money has been squandered away. Applecorps needs another golden egg. This oughtta be a slam dunk for them.

So they once again file a civil suit, this time because Apple Comp. allegedly broke the original agreement (this time they need not mention trademark law at all).

Maybe they shouldn't be able to weasle their way out of their agreement, but no law was broken. Not now, not then.
My point is that I don't think Applecorps should be able to use the legal system to extort money from Apple Computer just because they know they're good for it, which is what this has always been all about.
 
It seems to me applecorp is entitled to whatever they can get. Those apple records were very distinctive, anyone from that generation remembers them vividly.

It seems to me apple tried to take advantage of the name and goodwill of the company.

They should pay.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Back when Macs were first able to play sound, Apple Computer's lawyers had a fit becuase they thought it would break their agreement with Apple Records. So the engineers came up with an alert sound for the computer and named it "Sosumi" and told the lawyers it was Japanese for "the absence of all musicality." Apparantly the lawyers were idiots, or they never pronounced it out loud, because if they did they would realize they were saying "so sue me."
Click to expand...
char(7)
 
It's not extortion, it's their trademark. That's what you pay for, to get a trademark appropriated. What's the point, if somebody else can come along and use it without any regard for your rights? They settled before because they were wrong, and will settle or lose this time, because they are wrong.
 
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: Jzero
They've been rattling about this for years. Everytime somebody's (Paul McCartney? Michael Jackson?) royalty checks slow down a bit, they treaten to sue Apple Computer.
Click to expand...

The difference here is Apple agreed years ago that they would not get into the music business.

The iTunes Music Store would definitely be considered getting into the music business.
Click to expand...

yeah the problem is the trademark infringment. you can have two buisnesses with the same name as long as they do not provide similar services. so you can have Joe's Shop that sells donuts, and Joe's Shop that makes clothing, and they don't conflict. But Apple selling music and Apple selling... music? Obviously a problem. Expect a big-ass settlement.
 
Originally posted by: DashRiprock
Are The Beatles about to sue Apple Computers over the iPod, iTunes and Apple Music?

Apple Computers long ago signed an agreement with the Beatles' Apple Records that they would never have a company called Apple Music and that they would never go into the music business.
Click to expand...

You mean, Beatles are still alive?
I thought, they were all dead except for everlasting robotic mummy of Paul McCartney.
 
Originally posted by: paulney
You mean, Beatles are still alive?
I thought, they were all dead except for everlasting robotic mummy of Paul McCartney.
Click to expand...
Actually, only Ringo is still alive, and he never wrote any of the music anyway.

<conspiracy theory>Paul died in the late '60s</conspiracy theory>
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
It's not extortion, it's their trademark. That's what you pay for, to get a trademark appropriated. What's the point, if somebody else can come along and use it without any regard for your rights? They settled before because they were wrong, and will settle or lose this time, because they are wrong.
Click to expand...

This is also similar to the debacle between Microsoft and Lindows, except Michael Robertson is crazy (stupid?) and rich (stupid?) enough to take the bull by the horns. And while he has lost in Europe, federal judges are still wrangling over whether you can trademark a generic term like "Windows" or "Apple."

If you honestly believe that the Apple Computer mark and/or products is confusingly similar to the Applecorps mark and/or products, than I don't really have any beef with you. There are no records or CDs anywhere with the Apple Computer logo on them. Just iTunes, a service that allows a user to download files.

But I have never confused the two and I can't imagine how a reasonable person would. My assertion is that Apple Computer did NOT use Applecorp's trademark any more than Appleby Systems has. Yet I haven't heard Applecorps suing Appleby.

My assertion is that Apple Computer is not in the wrong. They did not settle out because they were in the wrong, they settled out because they could not afford to litigate. They may well have won in court, but been bankrupted in the process.

They will settle out again, for financial reasons, although this time because more content available on iTunes means more songs to download - a win-win situation both for Apple and Applecorps.

But I believe that Applecorps is hardly interested in defending their trademark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top