Print 34 comment(s) - last by somerset.. on Feb 8 at 12:05 PM

A young Steve Jobs - image courtesy
Apple Corp. and Apple Inc. "Come Together"

The battle between Apple Corp., the company that represents The Beatles, and Apple Inc. has finally come to an end. The two companies have feuded since the 1980s when Apple Computer first came on the scene.

Apple Corp. filed its first lawsuit against Apple Inc. in 1980, 1989 and then again in 2003. The last lawsuit claimed that Apple infringed upon a 1991 agreement reached between the two companies by operating its iTunes Music Store and using the Apple logo.

Apple Corp. lost the case. "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 at the time of the ruling.

Today, it appears that the two companies have settled their long-standing feud. The new agreement replaces the one first reached in 1991. Apple will own all "Apple" trademarks and will license certain trademarks back to Apple Corp. for its own use. Apple Inc. will also continue to operate its iTunes Music Store and use its logos to promote the online service. Both companies will also pay for their own legal fees.

"We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future," said Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs.

"It is great to put this dispute behind us and move on. The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of peaceful co-operation with them," said Apple Corp. manager Neil Aspinall.

The only thing left is for Beatles albums to start showing up on iTunes … just don’t hold your breath.

Comments     Threshold

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

Teach me
By ViperROhb34 on 2/5/2007 12:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nice tidbit of News for Apple Computer fans I suppose but to most of us isn't that sort of one of those 'Worthless Information' tidbits you see in Trivial Pursuit ?

RE: Teach me
By Ralph The Magician on 2/5/2007 12:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
It won't be just a "tidbit" when you can finally download Beatles albums off iTunes.

RE: Teach me
By ahkey on 2/5/2007 12:52:14 PM , Rating: 5
Encoded at a stunning 128 Kbps. Awesome.

RE: Teach me
By ksherman on 2/5/2007 1:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
biggest reason I never download music from iTunes. The newest version of the software isnt too bad, but the quality of their songs are crap. Plus, interestingly enough, the only songs I have ever had trouble playing on my iPod came from iTunes. I was better off recoding them into MP3.

RE: Teach me
By dcalfine on 2/5/2007 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
An AAC audio file encoded at 128Kbps is significantly better than an MP3 file with the same bitrate; don't be so quick to judge.

That said, there are still lots of people who would choose to rip CDs over dowloading individual files or albums. I respect that, because the quality is superior. (I even do it myself sometimes.) But the convenience and price of music sold from iTunes is relatively unmatched.

RE: Teach me
By Smurfer2 on 2/5/2007 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, I have a question. I have a 200 watt 3 speaker system and have used MSN Music and Itunes. Many have slammed the quality of the music that is downloaded legally, but out of the aforementioned system, I do not hear any difference between a song I got at MSN and the exact same song from a CD. Is it really that noticeable?

RE: Teach me
By aGreenAgent on 2/5/2007 3:27:25 PM , Rating: 4
It depends entirely on the person.

I know people who can't tell the difference between a CD and a 96kbps MP3.

Personally, I can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320 kbps (any higher than 192 and I tend to stop noticing), having been a musician for years.

So it's all perspective. If you can't tell the difference, then you get the extra convenience of being able to listen to iTunes music :)

RE: Teach me
By Smurfer2 on 2/5/2007 3:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for answer Green.

That's what I have always believed. I will need to check that out again anyways..

I asked because people seem to be slamming something for being "low" quality, when some people do not find it to be.... One thing is for sure, radio quality is awful. :)

RE: Teach me
By Macuser89 on 2/5/2007 3:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Try listening to them with a nice pair of headphones. then you will see a difference, at lest in my opinion. Thats why i don't buy from apple. When they do come around and increase the bitrate on the music and the resolution on the videos then i mite give it a try. Until then i use iTunes because it makes a nice jukebox.

RE: Teach me
By Hare on 2/5/2007 3:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean to be rude but if you describe your setup with "200 watt 3 speaker system" most likely you won't notice any difference.

128kbit AAC is a lot better than 128kbit mp3. I haven't bought a single song from the iTunes store and prefer higher quality but I was really surprised about the quality when I previewed a few songs.

People should just check out a few ABX-tests before claiming that 128kbit AAC is utter garbage. Most iTunes clients listen to their songs with their iPods so it's not like the majority of listeners enjoy the songs with their >1000$ stereos.

RE: Teach me
By Smurfer2 on 2/5/2007 4:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that is my setup, hehe, I quite like it. Also, as for previews... I do believe the quality is less than what you actually get when you pay for it. (think bandwidth...)

Also, you're not being rude, ever since I posted, every post has provided me more information that I highly value. :)

RE: Teach me
By kelmon on 2/6/2007 9:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
Frankly, I'm damned if I notice a drop in quality between CD and what I've bought from the iTS. I'm no audiophile and as such this doesn't mean that there isn't a drop but just that I can't tell the difference. At the end of the day if I can't tell the difference then I see no reason to hold the format against Apple or anyone else that chooses to use it.

RE: Teach me
By Xenoid on 2/5/2007 4:59:30 PM , Rating: 3
The price of downloading music on bt is unmatched. I can also get a higher quality and faster download speed.

RE: Teach me
By Spartan Niner on 2/5/2007 7:45:33 PM , Rating: 1
by Xenoid on February 5, 2007 at 4:59 PM
The price of downloading music on bt is unmatched. I can also get a higher quality and faster download speed.

Did it ever occur to you that such an activity is illegal, and that posting so directly about it might not be such a good idea? Guess not.

I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty of "downloading" in the past, but I no longer do so. Getting 128kbps or 192kbps rips in mp3 format just isn't appealing for me - I'm one of those people who can tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps... since I want to have the original source material for high-quality listening, it just means I need to be more selective about my music purchases. Not having money isn't an excuse - if you're posting on AT/DailyTech chances are you've got more than enough change to spare to buy a CD every now and then.

RE: Teach me
By cheetah2k on 2/6/2007 12:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
if you're posting on AT/DailyTech chances are you've got more than enough change to spare to buy a CD every now and then.

WTF? Since when did it matter how much $ you have to post on this site? I didnt realise Anandtech and Dailytech were exclusive to tax paying citizens?

At the end of the day, whether you choose to listen to 96, 128, 192 or 320kbps, CD, ripped, copied, iTunes, whatever music is up to the individual.

RE: Teach me
By PrinceGaz on 2/6/2007 3:41:42 AM , Rating: 2
iTMS still uses 128kbps? I thought most legal online music downloads were 192kbps these days. If iTMS is still 128kbps, I'll have to add that to the list of reasons why I'd never use it.

RE: Teach me
By Smurfer2 on 2/6/2007 8:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
iTMS still uses 128kbps? I thought most legal online music downloads were 192kbps these days. If iTMS is still 128kbps, I'll have to add that to the list of reasons why I'd never use it.

Uh, as already stated, iTMS is 128kbps AAC, not MP3. Itunes uses 128kbps AAC and MSN did use 200+kbps WMA. How each equates to MP3 depends.... Like GPU's and RAM, more kbps does not automaticly equal better when comparing different formats.

RE: Teach me
By marvdmartian on 2/7/2007 9:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, isn't that a bit snobbish of you?

For many of us, 128 is just fine. I'm in my mid 40's, and have some permanent hearing loss. Truth be told, the only difference I notice between 128 bitrate mp3's and an audio cd file is the file size. Yet I still enjoy my music!

And let's face it, for the vast majority of mindless drones that have bought and enjoy their ipods and their itunes, that bitrate is just fine, isn't it?

RE: Teach me
By somerset on 2/8/2007 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... good one

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki