+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! (/showthread.php?tid=8007)
The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - D-Rod - 03-27-2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105800,00.html
Britain
The Times March 27, 2006
Beatles take rival Apple to court over core business
By Liz Chong
IT IS the ultimate battle of the generations over an image of a half-eaten piece of fruit.
In one corner Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, the ultimate stars of vinyl who defined music in the 1960s. In the other, the creators of a small white box that has revolutionised the way we buy and listen to music.
This week the Apple Corps goes to the High Court seeking multimillion-pound damages against Apple Computer, the creators of the iPod, over their hugely successful iTunes Music Store.
Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs, still owns the licensing rights to Beatles’ products. It is claiming that the introduction of iTunes broke a $26 million settlement under which Apple Computer agreed to steer clear of the music business, for which the Beatles’ company retains the famous trademark. It is the latest clash in one of Britain’s longest-running corporate legal battles.
Any damages for this latest clash could amount to tens of millions of pounds because it concerns Apple Computer’s hugely successful iTunes Music Store and iPod digital music players.
Dennis R
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - Pops - 03-27-2006
I remember reading of that agreement with the Beatles, as well, I believe, of a similar one with McIntosh, the high end speaker company, (to pemit the use of the name "Macintosh" by Apple), The committment way back then was that the Apple Computer would never get into any aspect of the music business.
I haven't heard of any complaints from McIntosh, so my guess is that Apple bought out and re-settled their earlier agreement.
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - ajakeski - 03-27-2006
two more bullets....
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - SteveJobs - 03-27-2006
That is why they need/should spin off the iTunes/iPod into its own wholly owned subsidiary, ala FileMaker and Newton.
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - bazookaman - 03-27-2006
it doesn't seem fair that you can use a trademark to put a strangle hold on a company that really doesn't compete with you in any way.
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - WHiiP - 03-27-2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_litigation_of_Apple_Computer#Trademark_dispute_with_Apple_Corps
In 1978 Apple Corps (The Beatles-founded record label and holding company) filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to $50–$200 million, but was later revealed to be $80,000. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business.
In 1986 Apple added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities to its computers, and in 1989 Apple Corps sued again, claiming violation of the 1981 settlement agreement. In 1991 another settlement of around $26.5 million was reached. At this time, an Apple employee named Jim Reekes added a sampled system sound called xylophone to the Macintosh operating system, but Apple's legal department objected citing the agreement with Apple Corps. Reekes renamed the sound to sosumi, which he asserted was Japanese and meant nothing musical, but in fact can be read phonetically as "So, sue me".
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.
In September 2003 Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps again, this time for introducing iTunes and the iPod which Apple Corps believed was a violation of the previous agreement by Apple not to distribute music. Some observers believe the wording of the previous settlement favors Apple Computer in this case.[2] Other observers speculate that Apple Computer may be forced to offer a much larger settlement this time which may even result in Apple Corps becoming a major shareholder in Apple Computer or, perhaps may result in Apple Computer splitting the iPod and related business into a separate firm. [3]
The date for this trial has been set for March 27, 2006 in the UK.
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - Lux Interior - 03-27-2006
Apple my dear
though I spend my days in litigation
please renumerate me
Apple my love don't rip-off me
Apple my dear
Stick your neck out you silly iPod
look what you've done
When you find yourself in the thick of it
Sue someone for a bit of what is all around you
Silly ipod take a good look around you
Take a good look you're bound to sue
Cuz emm-pee-threes were meant to be
for our income silly iPod
Hold your hand out you greedy sods
sue for more dough
When you find yourself in the thick of it
Sue someone for a bit of what is all around you
Silly ipod
Apple my dear
you have always been my source of extra dough
please remember me
Apple my love don't forget me
Apple my dear
Re: The Beatles vs. Apple's Itunes again? I thought it was settled! - samintx - 03-27-2006
Does anyone confuse Apple Computer company with the Beatles label? I think not. That would be the criteria IMO. Besides the Apple computer co. has a BITE out of the styilized apple.