backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 31 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Mar 30 at 9:35 PM
The two companies will meet in court today over Apple's iTunes music service

Apple Corp., the record company that represents The Beatles, will battle Apple Computer in court, claiming a 15-year old agreement has been breached when the popular iTunes music store began selling music tracks.  The companies issued a pact in 1991 that ended a long battle between them over a trademark that led to both companies agreeing to enter a "field of use" agreement.  According to BetaNews:

While the company that controls all of the Beatles' recordings seems rather quick to sue Apple for anything musically related, Apple Corps has no online presence at all. Beatles tracks are nowhere to be found on any music service.

The companies both battled for the first time in 1980 when Apple Corps sued Apple Computer over the use of its name.  In 1989, The Beatles' Apple company made sure that Apple Computer wouldn't be able to create music while still being able to edit and play back music files.  Apple Corp. ultimately wants damages and for Apple Computer to stop using the Apple trademark to sell songs through iTunes.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another stupid lawsuit
By Rob94hawk on 3/29/2006 4:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is getting out of hand. Sounds like another get rich off someone else's money scheme.




RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By Visual on 3/29/2006 4:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
fact is, i wouldn't have ever heared of apple corp. if it weren't to this (and previous) lawsuits.

i guess it's high time that apple computers buys out apple corp and ends all the drama.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By kelmon on 3/29/2006 5:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
Not an entirely bad idea given the access that that this should (I think) provide to The Beatles back catalogue, which has to be worth quite a lot of money in terms of online downloads. Mind you, despite being an Apple user, I'd prefer all music services to have access to The Beatles catalogue as I don't think it right that a proprietary service should have exclusive access to a group that everyone should have access to.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By Samus on 3/29/2006 6:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
exactly what are they suing for? what are the damaged?


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By masher2 (blog) on 3/29/2006 9:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
Trademark infringement, I assume. I can start a company called Ford as long as I don't sell cars. Similarly when you buy music from Apple, there shouldn't be any confusion over whether or not its from Apple Corp or Apple Computers.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By gooser on 3/29/2006 2:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
they're not suing for copy write infringement. They are suing for breach of agreement from 1991.
That contract allowed them to maintain their perspective businesses AS LONG AS apple computers NEVER got involved in music for the next 15 years.
.....they never saw that one coming.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By gooser on 3/29/2006 2:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
excuse me,... *trademark infringement


The Beatles....
By Exodus220 on 3/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: The Beatles....
By littlebitstrouds on 3/29/2006 10:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
"EMI estimated in 1985 that the band had sold over a billion records worldwide[1]. Their ballad "Yesterday" — written and sung by Paul McCartney (though always officially credited as a band recording written by Lennon-McCartney) — is the most-covered song in the history of recorded music (about 2,500 versions of it exist)."

Yup, you're right, no one wants this music at all.


RE: The Beatles....
By bob661 on 3/29/2006 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yup, you're right, no one wants this music at all.
Who said that no one didn't?


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By Lonyo on 3/29/2006 6:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
So people in business shouldn't stick to their agreements and should feel free to break them whenever they want?

IIRC, since this story has been around a while, Apple Computers were not supposed to get into the music selling business, because there was already an Apple (Corp) in that area, but they did. So now they're possibly going to pay the price. Seems fair to me, and it's not like this was a new thing, it's 15 years old!


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By plinden on 3/29/2006 10:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well, at the time of the original agreement, Apple Corp were in the music production and distribution market. But now they are just a holding company for the Beatles' back catalog.

It's not like you can go online to store.applecorp.com and download Beatle songs. And it's not like the word "Apple" has any closer relationship to The Beatles than it has to computers.

By the way, there's a fan site www.applecorp.com. I wonder why they don't try to take that site down ... oh right, no money in that. Hmm, I wonder how long that site has been on the go. If you don't defend your trademark you lose your rights to it.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By masher2 (blog) on 3/29/2006 2:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's not like you can go online to store.applecorp.com and download Beatle songs. And it's not like the word "Apple" has any closer relationship to The Beatles than it has to computers."

Neither of which are relevant to the point at hand. The simple fact exists that Apple Records is a registered trademark, it predates Apple Computer and thus has the right to distribute music under that name without fear of infringement.



RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By Viditor on 3/29/2006 7:42:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sounds like another get rich off someone else's money scheme

Apple Corp needs money? First I've heard of it...they had more money than God before Apple computers were ever invented.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By Perium on 3/29/2006 10:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
If money wasnt involved, what would be the motivation to sue?


You gotta check your facts...
By Griswold on 3/29/2006 8:09:37 AM , Rating: 1
Apple Corp is not your average little lawsuit monkey. Apple computers didnt even exist when this company was founded by the Beatles in 1968 (previously Beatles Ltd.). And made (and is still making) lots and lots of money.

And if Apple Corp had an agreement with Apple Computers, that Apple Computers wont get into the music business, then its their good right to sue the crap out of Apple Computers for breaking that agreement - whether or not they are selling Beatles song via itunes.


RE: You gotta check your facts...
By Scott66 on 3/29/2006 9:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
According to the summary Apple computers said they would not make music but allow for editing and playback. Itunes plays music and garageband edits preexisting and royalty free riffs so I can create my music. They have not broken their agreement with Apple Corp.


By Xenoterranos on 3/29/2006 9:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
More than likely you're right, and Mac (for ease of understanding in this context) will probably end up paying them some triffle of money, or agree to some sort of licensing of the name/logo in a music context. What they should really do is make a deal with Apple and start producing music! iTunes (which, BTW is one of the few words you can start a sentance with while omitting a capital letter) branded, iTunes produced, all from "Apple". I'm sure they've entertained the idea and rejected it for unknown reasons.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/29/2006 3:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "They have not broken their agreement with Apple Corp."

Well, they've been taken to court twice before by Apple Corp, and lost both times. I'm fairly sure they'll wind up settling, and once again forking over more cash to Apple Records.

> " They would not make music... but allow for editing and playback..."

iTunes also SELLS music. Big difference there.


RE: Another stupid lawsuit
By emtkirk on 3/29/2006 10:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
The really stupid think about the lawsuit is that in 2004 Apple Corp and Apple Computers came to an agreement and in the end Apple Corp gave Apple Computers the rights to sell all the Beatles music on Itunes... it by the way is the only place you can download The Beatles.

So the real question is why the hell is Ringo and Paul bringing up a lawsuit now...


I don't get it.
By AnaxagorasZeres on 3/29/2006 8:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't the agreement only pertaining to physical media? I thought the excluded digital recordings from the agreement all those years ago. If so, we can be sure Apple Corps just wants to line its pockets. If not, well, Apple Computers will have to pay some ludicrous settlement.




RE: I don't get it.
By masher2 (blog) on 3/29/2006 10:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "If so, we can be sure Apple Corps just wants to line its pockets..."

What sort of logic is this? If a corporation has a claim against another entity, and a reasonable expectation of succeeding in it, then they not only have a right, but a responsibility to enforce that claim.


haah I love it
By Homerboy on 3/29/2006 10:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
some of the ignorance in these posts is fantastic. I think everyone should have to post their age and/or experience on the given topic before posting.




RE: haah I love it
By Coolguy423 on 3/29/2006 11:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the internet... don't act so suprised.


New Invention
By bldckstark on 3/29/2006 12:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I just finished my 10th quantum computer and have decided to go public. They are 1,000 times faster than Deep Blue, never crash, run all X86 code and OS's concurrently, uses pan-dimensional data storage, and only cost $100 each. I'm gonna name my company Elvis.




RE: New Invention
By Cosmic_Horror on 3/29/2006 8:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
thats fine,

but you can't record and sell music under the name of Elvis.


Rename idea
By sircuit on 3/29/2006 4:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
I always preferred oranges next to apples. They're juicier and more fun to eat. Orange Computers... rolls right off the tongue.




RE: Rename idea
By Cosmic_Horror on 3/29/2006 8:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
assumptions
By melgross on 3/29/2006 2:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
The fact of filing a lawsuit, is not the "fact" that the lawsuit is valid.

Simply because Apple Corps has decided that this is in violation doesn't mean it is. That has to be decided.

It's interesting that in court, Vox said that Apple Computer has every right to sell music — as long as they don't use the Apple name and logo in doing so.




Time is money
By Omega215D on 3/30/2006 12:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Let's see... Apple Computers is selling a 6th generation iPod... iTunes is at v6.02 and ipods were the most popular thing in the past few years. So why now? I'm sure if the agreement was that clear cut then this would have been in courts a while ago.




Beatles??
By Clauzii on 3/30/2006 9:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
If the Beatles collection is still owned by Michael Jackson, this is a more basic lawsuit in general, Isn´t it? Or am I not understanding anything at all then?? :)




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki