Beatles suing Apple

[soulseek]

im bored of this topic... nothing new really... move on !

[mi5moav]

There are 18 instances of Apple Corps. companies in the U.S. none of those are owned or operated by any of the beatles. If anyone could sue Apple it would be those companies if they could prove they were created before 77 and they had some product called Apple Computer (many are apple user groups created after 78). How can an out of country business in England sue Apple for a product that isn't even available in England. If Walmart signed a contract with a business this year and then went out of business the contract is basically blah, yeh... company A could go after shareholders but that is the reason corporations are created to protect assets... if they have none would be quited difficult to go after Sam Walmart. Worse comes to worse Apple can just set up Apple Music in some other country and set up shop just like all those online casinos. After reading the below article I did not realize that the Apple Corps conceded that its trademarks had never been used in North America. The next problem and this is going to pop up also. Apple Films is also owned by the beatles, fortunetly i don't think they have sued apple due to quicktime... but if apple were to open a film download store like itunes... we'll start this thing all over again.

http://www.lowball.com/WEEKLY/4-29-99.htm very interesting read.

[citizentony]

Originally Posted by mi5moav

There are 18 instances of Apple Corps. companies in the U.S. none of those are owned or operated by any of the beatles. If anyone could sue Apple it would be those companies if they could prove they were created before 77 and they had some product called Apple Computer (many are apple user groups created after 78). How can an out of country business in England sue Apple for a product that isn't even available in England. If Walmart signed a contract with a business this year and then went out of business the contract is basically blah, yeh... company A could go after shareholders but that is the reason corporations are created to protect assets... if they have none would be quited difficult to go after Sam Walmart. Worse comes to worse Apple can just set up Apple Music in some other country and set up shop just like all those online casinos. After reading the below article I did not realize that the Apple Corps conceded that its trademarks had never been used in North America. The next problem and this is going to pop up also. Apple Films is also owned by the beatles, fortunetly i don't think they have sued apple due to quicktime... but if apple were to open a film download store like itunes... we'll start this thing all over again.

http://www.lowball.com/WEEKLY/4-29-99.htm very interesting read.

Apple Records is still a viable company that does business in North America. Go to the local music store and pick up most any Beatles album. On it will be, Apple Records with a little logo of an apple. They hold their copyright, have renewed their copyright, and are protecting their copyright. Why is it so hard to understand? Years ago Apple Computers and Apple Records agreed that 'Computers' would not enter into the Music business. Apple Computers has broken this agreement with the iPod, and the iTMS. Apple Computers is 100% at fault in this. There is no shade of grey, it is all in black and white.

Also, Apple Music has to protect their copyright in order to keep it. Any copyright holder that does not protect their copyright will be in danger of loosing it. That's how they work.

[MacNEO]

I am unfamiliar with the whole Apple Records history other than I thought it was the company that distributed Beatles records. Where can I find out more?

[Randman]

Apple is a few more artists than the Beatles. The crux is if Apple Computers' non-involvement agreement with Apple Records is binding. Don't forget Apple Comp had to pay Apple Rec once already. I don't think there's too many people that get the two confused these days, but when it comes to legal issues...

[mdnky]

Looks like they're still a privately held company. Anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

Be nice to see if they had stock out there...would be a good hostile takeover target...<G>

[evildan]

Originally Posted by mi5moav

There are 18 instances of Apple Corps. companies in the U.S. none of those are owned or operated by any of the beatles.

mi5moav, again you prove your ability to state misinformation...
Apple Records is a british company NOT an American company.

If anyone could sue Apple it would be those companies if they could prove they were created before 77 and they had some product called Apple Computer (many are apple user groups created after 78). How can an out of country business in England sue Apple for a product that isn't even available in England.

They can sue them because of a little thing called international copyright laws.

The simple unavoidable fact is that Apple Records sued Apple Computer. Apple computer and Apple records reached an agreement that Apple Computers would never sell music. Apple Records, even if you don't believe it, IS STILL A COMPANY IN BUSINESS. And the representatives of that company (WHO ARE NOT THE BEATLES ANYMORE) are suing Apple Computer for breaching their agreement.

This is a pretty simple case of saying your not going to do something then turning around and doing it anyway. The fact that it's Apple computer, doesn't change anything. Now, having said that, no one, outside of Apple Computer and Apple Records has seen the agreement, so maybe Apple Computers didn't say they would NEVER get into the music business, maybe there was some kind of stipulation or loophole that makes it okay for Apple Computer to sell music now. That's up to a judge to decide... that's why we have an international trade court.

[mi5moav]

All the Apple Corps in america are American companies everyone knows where the Beatles came from. We are talking about trademark law not copyright big difference. EMI and Columbia I believe distributed beatle records in the states. I even have a couple of 45's and the funny thing is that is says Columbia Music and this record manufactured by Apple. There are about 5 different apple logos that i've seen from the beatles. Most are photographic images of granny smith looking Apples, either the whole thing or sliced. If I trademarked a logo here in the states and then someone in taiwan or russia took that and used it over there unless I had it trademarked in those countries. Unfortunately, even if I did that in those countries I still may be sore out of luck. If I started up Bobs music in Canada and then hired George's Music to distribute my CD's in the states someone could still open up Bob's Music in the states and I couldn't do anything about it. Unless of course I trademarked that in the states which Apple Corps never did. I agree that Apple can not open up or distribute music in the UK. Now of course some countries do allow for common law but rules. Of course if Apple Corps filed under the Madrid protocol I could see some arguments there, however I don't think so, plus I don't think the U.S. got involved until after 1999(not quite sure about the date) The problem is that there have been some 200 instances of Apple trademarks around the world. I really think this constitutes dilution. The most important thing is that the word "Apple" can not be copyrighted anyway, just like "windows" so that is why Apple has used a plain apple logo and plain apple in the itunes window. Apple Corps can't do anything about it since anyone can use the word Apple. Now if I put Apple Computer or Apple Corps on my new product I would be in for a surprise. But if I created a new car company and called it Apple no one could do anything about it. Of course if someone else created another car company and called it Apple i too couldn't do anything about it.

There is some pretty good information on Apple Corps at:

http://www.beatlemoney.com/applecofacts.htm