What is Digg?151 Comments
- geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13RTFA
"Over a decade ago, Apple signed an agreement with Apple Corps, a business controlled by the Beatles and their heirs, which specified the rights each company would have to use the 'Apple' trademark. Unfortunately, Apple and Apple Corps now have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute." - loup, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15As dumb as I think this whole thing is, Apple Computers did make an agreement not to delve into the realm of music as a part of the original settlement back in '91, which they have now done. I saw this lawsuit coming from a long way off.
The original settlement came after Apple Computers added a speaker to their computer, Apple Corp. got a little antsy about this because they were afraid that Apple Computers might begin doing something with music and would benefit from the "Apple" name and also that it might lead to trademark dilution. Eventually a settlement was reached. - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The twist that a lot of people miss is that the way that trademark law works, if Apple Corps *do not* actively protect their trademark, they *lose it*. Since there is clearly some interpretation of the agreement which puts Apple Computer as infringing here, they have to pursue that until it has been verified as being illegitimate. Or else they stand to lose their trademark.
As for the facetious "but Apple computers have speakers! and they make iPods!", it's important to note that Apple Corps sell music, rather than players. Which is why this is aimed squarely at iTunes. Therefore, this is a little more valid than (and different to) the CD drive/speaker thing, since they're getting a lot closer to Apple Corps's area of business.
Whether or not it seems silly, I just think it should be noticed that Apple Corps don't have all that much of a choice, to some degree. - joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Don't be retarded. They have to protect their copywrites and tradmarks or they lose them. That's how it works. If they don't go after Apple computers for this and then some one else goes and does the same thing and Apple Corp does decide to sue them the other apple corp can use it as defence that Apple Corp didn't go after Apple computers for the same infringment. That would mean that Apple Corp WAS being predjudice against a certain company. Which is ironically what you were saying that they are doing against Apple Computers.
What the ***** did I just write. - e_mnc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think you should read this Ars article
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060327-6467.html
"Data transfers were allowed under the agreement, and music as data as opposed to physical media is likely to form the crux of Apple's argument." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Nice use of the logo in the article title.
4Life! - vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12It's option-shift K...
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Apple Corps, Ltd. filed the suit in 2003. This is the trial (ie - the end of the lawsuit). This is not a new suit. It is three years old.
- sych0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11right.. boycott the guys who trademarked the name first. brilliant.
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Just spin off iTunes/iPod into it's own company and come up with an iTunes/iPod logo. [reply]"
If they do that what Apple will miss is what's called the 'halo affect' - one product evangelising the whole company.
iPods are almost certainly the most prevalent Apple products and because almost everyone thinks they're great it leads to everyone also thinking all other Apple products are great. This is pretty important when it comes to a new product (such as an easily scratched Nano or a screenless Shuffle) where everyone still buys them because of the halo affect. - loup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10gah, was trying to edit my post when the option disappeared. The gist of what I was writing:
First settlement, in 1978 Apple Corps sued Apple Computers for trademark infringement, I believe the problem was with the inclusion of a speaker in the computer. Apple Computers agreed not to distribute music
Second settlement, in 1989 Apple Corps sued Apple computers for including a CD drive that was capable of playing music, it was settled in 1991.
In 2003 Apple Corps sued Apple Computers over the iPod and iTunes music store. - MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7heh this is funny because i was watching a video of woz giving a speech and he mentioned being in steve jobs car as he told him about the apple name. and the first thing woz said when jobs proposed the name apple was that there was already an apple records.
- plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7George Harrison IS dead. His descendants however aren't, and thats the key point here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yeah..you probably shouldn't go into a marketing field. If you think taking Apple off the iPod/iTunes is a harmless thing you are nuts.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8*****, if that's all they want give it to them Apple (Computer). Just spin off iTunes/iPod into it's own company and come up with an iTunes/iPod logo.
- zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"You don't need to defend copyrights to maintain them, only trademarks."
Just to clarify for The Readers At Home (I realise you know this), Apple is a trademark, and one that Apple Corps held first. - klang, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9One company has a Granny Smith (cut in half) as their logo and the other has a McIntosh (bitten of).
One company hasn't sold new music for years the other is becoming the definition of new way of selling music.
.. how do you like them apples? - ravenmuffin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Except people never buy from Apple Music. It was a publishing label set up to sell the Beatles' music.
People buy a Beatles album. They don't buy an Apple Beatles. - prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The fact is, Apple Computer really has dilluted Apple Corp's trademark.
If I say "Apple music" most people don't think of The Beatles, they think of the ipod and itunes. Pretty straightforward trademark dillution. - bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12A deal is a deal. Apple Corp clearly owned the trademark for music and was good enough to strike a stipulated deal in 1991. Apple Computer was foolishly shortsighted as in 1991 it was clear to many people then, at least those in the content creation industries, that general purpose computing was soon to become the standard for media production, post-production, storage and performance. The distribution part came a bit later but was the clincher.
I think that Apple Computer needs to cede in this case, as painful as that may be. The outfit to boycott is probably Apple Computer for breaching the deal. - ravenmuffin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11The deal was about distributing music using a physical medium. The lawyers will be arguing to the court whether selling music over the internet through iTunes comprises physical distribution.
Keep in mind this is a opportunistic cash play from Apple Corps, just as it was last time when they secured $25 million for letting Apple sell computers capable of playing music. Their actual business hasn't been affected in the slightest by Apple Computer. - loup, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8er sorry, it was the inclusion of the CD drive, not the inclusion of a speaker
- asmodeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You don't need to defend copyrights to maintain them, only trademarks.
- brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
- notorious., on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Granny Smith should sue them all
- bf01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you ask 100 die-hard Beatles fan the name of the Beatles' publishing label, not very many people would guess Apple Music. And then take 100 totally random people off the street and ask them the company that makes the iPod. I'll bet that way more people will know the iPod/Apple connection.
I agree with several others here that this is a opportunistic money grab by the Beatles' heirs. - bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I don't believe it as opportunistic. I believe it is a move to protect their mark and they are well within their rights in doing so.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What is dumb about protecting your property. Believe me, you may not know or care about Apple, the original one, but you can bet your ass that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak knew about them and probably dreamed of being like them. There were many of us at the time that Apple computer first came out thought at that time that the Beatles started selling computers. If someone started selling a shoe called Apple with an apple for the logo, you would probably think that Apple computer was now selling shoes. Especially if Apple shoes called their trainer the iRunner or something like that. Try to think beyond your limited 13 years of life and experience.
- -=IRonGRundy=-, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I read somewhere that the amended agreement that Apple e and Apple Corps settled on specifically stated that Apple was not allowed to distribute any music in the form of Records, Cassettes and Cd's. Apple is claiming that the iTunes music store does not breach this agreement because they are only serving data. If this is true then Apple should be in the clear I say!
- plingboot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lets not forget that Apple Computer picked (npi) their name / logo in the early 70s, at this time Apple was a household name for being The Beatles' (the biggest band in the world) record label. Why oh why would a young upstart decide to use a famous brand name like that as their own?? -- they were either very stupid or looking for controversy. They've been lucky to get off so lightly.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It may have been a UK commercial
- plingboot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4er... only about 25 years.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32 things:
1) Apologies for all my "actually"s. Geeky force of habit.
2) Why would Apple Corps, Ltd. license the Beatles catalog as part of a settlement? It still generates plenty of revenue on CD without having to give another company a cut of the proceeds. You want Beatles? Buy them on CD.
As a matter of preference though, I think that a download copy of a Beatles album is even worse than a CD version. The Beatles albums came out in the era of the 12" LP, a time when many artists, including the Beatles, used the packaging real estate for cover art. The CD version of Sgt. Pepper's is tragic and does not compare to the original, including the lyrics fully printed on the back of the album and a 12"x24" photo of the Fab Four in the foldout. Digital versions just cannot compare. - Stymyx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Boycott the music from a band which hasn't existed in 36 years? I'm not sure if a boycott would be relevant at this point.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple Corps is not the Beatles' estate. It is an independent company formed in the late 60's by the Beatles' member to distribute their albums as well as the albums of other artists. The albums were distributed on Apple Records. Basically, "The Beatles (white album)" and all the albums after that (Abbey Road, Let It Be, Yellow Submarine), along with the members' solo work. Apple Corps, Ltd. dabbled in other fields with no success.
Recently, Apple Records has released the "Anthology" CD's and DVD's, "Let It Be...Naked" ("Let It Be" without the Phil Spector crap) and "John Lennon Acoustic". - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yoko probably needs money.
- plkrtn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Right. I've said this before and I'll say this again.
1. Apple Corps is the Beatles Estate.
2. Apple Computers is a computer company that sells Music.
3. Apple Corps haven't licensed the rights to digital downloads for ANY Beatles material.
4. Apple Corps and Apple Computers will do a deal which gives Apple Corps a percentage of sales for use of their name, and all of a sudden : iTunes gets exclusive rights to digitally distribute the entire Beatles back catalog.
Apple Computers aren't stupid. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, he wanted to buy the name "Apple Records".
See Internation Herald Tribune/New York Times 03/29/2006 - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is no problem with them using the Apple Corps logo as long as Apple computer pays them for the use.
- ravenpen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Apple Computers is clearly in the wrong here, infringing on their initial agreement with Apple Corps."
The most current revision of that agreement states that Apple Computer has the right to:
"goods and services used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content (music)”, but not the right to distribute music on "physical media".
Whether digital music files constitute physical media is the real question this case hinges upon and will decide whether Apple Computer is "clearly in the wrong here". - simolinic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As a quick Google search will reveal, they've got a few other people to sue, too:
http://applecorps.kordsmen.org/
http://www.lgbac.org/
http://www.aasd.k12.wi.us/tesla/first/nacnews.htm
Among others, including the myriad "Apple Corps" Mac fan clubs. Afterward, they can go after everyone else who has ever been overly pleased with a mediocre pun. - DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Alas, you're wrong because by saying that, you're implying that Apple Computers deserves to carry on because it's established and Apple Corps isn't. This shouldn't be the case.
As for your 'wacked' argument... Yes, quite. It's a damned shame that there's no 'roll-eyes' emoticon on Digg!
At the end of the day, you've clearly missed the point of what this is about. - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not on the iPod. Their agreement says Apple computers can make music playing hardware.
- MrC539, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3According to their agreement, Apple Computer is allowed to use their trademark on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," provided that they don't distribute it on physical media. I would argue that this wording favors Apple Computer because their software/hardware doesn't breach these limitations.
- shadedream, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Possibily because you had a large biased post bashing anyone with money and really didnt provide anything in the way of valid points defending your oppinion? just a thought...
I did find it interesting that you think of Apple as having a lot of money, but the Beatles and their descendants as not... really now = - OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9What is that supposed to be a condom?
- Iceduck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The thing is that Apple Corps. is barely a "brand" while Apple (Computer) is one of the most recognizable brands in some parts of the world, that's why it seems pointless to most people.
But never the less, Apple did sign that idiotic agreement. - DanAtkinson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Apple Computers is clearly in the wrong here, infringing on their initial agreement with Apple Corps.
It's a smart move by Apple Corps though... Waiting until the Apple multimedia brand was fully established before pouncing.
Anyone saying that they should boycott Apple Corps for this move really should pull their head out of the sand as Apple Corps owned the trademark first and agreed to share it with Apple Computers in '91 as long as they didn't enter the music business. Apple Computers have clearly infringed upon that agreement, so the argument for Apple Corps is fair. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The judge in the case has admitted to owning an iPod BTW.
- bristolz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That's probably a very good idea and I think it would work without any real pain. Besides the iPod and iTunes trademarks may well be on their way to better--more widespread--recognition than Apple Computer (or Apple Corp, for that matter).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is