backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by pornpassplanet.. on May 10 at 10:08 PM

"Speaking words of wisdom, let it be"

The Beatle's holding company, Apple Corp., has lost its trial case against Apple Computer, makers of the widely popular iPod and computers. Several months ago, the Beatle's music company ended up taking Apple Computer to court because it claimed that iTunes infringed on rights that the Beatle's had owned for several decades.

When Steve Jobs' company was still in its infancy, The Beatles sued his company for the use of the name and an apple logo. The Beatles' parent music company, Apple Corp., won the case stating that Apple Computer was not to enter the music business. Unfortunately, the details of the case of some few decades ago failed to cover what's now known as Internet commerce.

The judge overseeing the case between Apple Corp. and Apple Computer, decided that iTunes merely sells music, and does not create it, and Apple Computer's use of its logo is for promotion of the popular service and not one particular artist, group or song.

"I think that the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves," said Justice Anthony Mann.

The Beatles' Apple Corp. says that while it respects the decision of the judge, it feels that he reached "the wrong conclusion." Interestingly, while over 3 million songs are purchased and downloaded from the iTunes online store everyday, none of The Beatles' music is licensed for downloading. Steve Jobs says he hopes that The Beatles will be willing to work with his company to get their music online for sale.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Beatle's?
By Mudvillager on 5/8/2006 11:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no expert in English (Swedish is my native language), but isn't it spelled The Beatles and not Beatle's?




RE: Beatle's?
By ahkey on 5/8/2006 11:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
Beatles'


RE: Beatle's?
By Odeen on 5/8/2006 12:10:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think in Swedish it's spelled "ABBA."


RE: Beatle's?
By AppaYipYip on 5/8/2006 4:12:15 PM , Rating: 1
Hahah! Best post here.

The Beatles have sucked and will always suck. Who cares what the hell their holding company has to say about anything.


RE: Beatle's?
By Odeen on 5/8/2006 6:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you :)

I would have also accepted Roxette, Ace of Base, the Cardigans, and ÄLGARNAS TRÄDGÅRD.


RE: Beatle's?
By Xorp on 5/9/2006 1:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, always a hater. If you don't appreciate The Beatles, there is a good chance you have bad taste in music. You don't have to like them, but it's silly not to appreciate their huge influence in pop and rock music.

You may now go back to listening to you Link Park, Story of the Year, and Staind CDs. Or whatever other terrible music you have.


RE: Beatle's?
By johnsonx on 5/8/2006 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
The band is "The Beatles". To show possession of something by the band as a group, it should be "The Beatles' ". As an individual member of the band is commonly known as a Beatle, then possession of something by that individual should be written "the Beatle's".

In other words, you are correct, the use of "Beatle's" in the article is wrong.


Error
By Shadowself on 5/8/2006 10:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When Steve Jobs' company was still in its infancy, The Beatles sued his company for the use of the name and an apple logo. The Beatle's parent music company, Apple Corp., won the case stating that Apple Computer was not to enter the music business.


I believe the first two iterations of the lawsuits brought by Apple Corps against Apple Computer were settled out of court. Neither side "won the case".




RE: Error
By TomZ on 5/8/2006 10:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Apple Computer wrote a large check to Apple Corps in the 1991 case. IMO, writing a large check effectively means losing the case.


RE: Error
By segagenesis on 5/8/2006 12:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that case was related to the Ensoniq chip contained in the IIGs computers at the time. After that, Apple no longer used discrete audio hardware in thier new computers and unless I'm wrong this is still correct?

Still my opinion on the matter is "cry more n00b" to Apple records.


RE: Error
By andrep74 on 5/8/2006 11:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the audio DSPs used in later Mac Quadras (660/840av) could be considered "discrete". 66MHz DSP: woo-hoo! Compare that to a Soundblister X(eXpensive)-Fi...


RE: Error
By michael2k on 5/8/2006 3:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
In the court of law, settling by writing a large check does not mean Apple lost. It means Apple was able to persuade Apple to drop the case, so the case was never really tried. By settling both Apple's wrote guidelines which dictate what future behavior will warrant additional legal action, and by ommission and declaration which actions will avoid further legal action.

Apple Computer figures that their last settlement set them up for their current dominance in the iTMS, while Apple Records believes the opposite.

The judge believes Apple Computer is right.


RE: Error
By akugami on 5/9/2006 4:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/apple/aclac1009...

This has come to light. Found it on the ars technica article duscussion. Specifically, look at article 4.3. This basically gives Apple Computer the right to do what they're doing now.


Apple Corp ? whois?
By lemonadesoda on 5/8/2006 8:41:31 PM , Rating: 3
Quite honestly, Apple Corp has near zero brand value. It might own the rights to the Beatles music. And therefore has asset value. But not brand value with its name "apple".

Do you know anyone that goes out and says to his mates, "ow, I really want to by the Apple Corps album, great isn't it!"? "Apple Corps, wow, I wonder what else they do?"

Rubbish. This is malicious contest by Apple Corp. I hope that Apple Computers counter-sues. Further, when Apple Computers was a small company, I'm sure the fact is that any "agreement" was probably under duress and coercion.




By akugami on 5/8/2006 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
I always thought it was stupid that Apple Corp. sued Apple Computers over trademark infringement. Regardless, the question then becomes what the heck is in the agreement between Apple and Apple. I'm going to assume that the judge had a copy of it and after hearing both sides agreed with Apple Comp that there was nothing infringing going on and no breach of contract.

However, as we all know, if you lose just appeal. So it's not the end of the matter. However, even with an appeal, Apple Comp is clearly in the drivers seat having won Round 1.

If Apple Corp was smart they'd go into a publishing agreement with Apple Comp and leverage the Beatles brand name and Apple Comp's current iPod popularity to sign independents onto the iTunes bandwagon. If they play their cards right and get lucky, they could make a killing with the indies. The best thing is it won't cost Apple Corp much with internet advertising and Apple Comp doing most of the promoting of iTunes. All business ventures are a risk but the potential earnings are astronomical considering how much the music industry makes.




Moderated
By mickeymouse on 5/8/06, Rating: -1
RE: this rocks!
By Sunbird on 5/8/2006 12:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
And how do you suggest we dodge your spamming and unwanted post?

(damn, now the ABBA comment looses my vote for it :( )


Moderated
By pornpassplanet on 5/10/06, Rating: -1
"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki