Beatles suing Apple

[Randman]

Story can be found here.

The Beatles are indeed about to sue Apple Computers over the iPod, iTunes and Apple Music.
Now I'm told that the suit is imminent and that the only remaining questions are which jurisdiction it falls in, the U.S. or the U.K.

[mi5moav]

Every one has this chicken vs egg and who got there first attitude. When it comes to technology and advancements vs people's well being their should be some law stating forget about who got their first. If you aren't doing anything with it and you aren't the best out their step aside. What if I held 400 patents on creating cancer drugs and I just held on to it and did nothing. Then company B came around with a plan to actually rid the world of cancer but couldn't do anything about it because I hold these patents. And if you cure the world of cancer using any of my patents I'll sue your ass and could give a nickle about anyones happiness except mine. Apple is a forward thinking company they took a few ideas from xerox since they were just sitting on it. Microsoft took Apple's ideas because they wanted to give it to the rest of the world to use because they thought it was great. Who cares about the money it's the betterment of the people and only with success comes true fortune. I could care less if Apple never had one creative idea come from their company. As long as they give us the products we need and want who cares. I can't stand individuals and companies that polish their few marbles and place them in their pocket or on their mantel. If you got something in your bag and you really think you can do something with it without wasting time let it out of the bag for the world to see or give it up already. I just wish Apple Corps. would let this go and let everyone be happy and let Apple keep on improving on it's products. I don't see how Apple Corps. has moved the music industry forward one step in the last 30 years.

[evildan]

Good points.. but when Apple computer came out Apple Records was still what most people thought of when the company Apple was referred to. Apple Records didn't do anything different then Apple Computer is doing now by protecting their rights against those companies they felt were 'misusing' their name.

As previously mentioned Apple Records still sells a lot of music, but I think the confusion argument wears thin. However, and here is where I fault Apple Computer, Apple Computer did agree to 'never' get into the business of selling or making music... which they clearly have.

I don't want Apple Computer to stop selling music, but there should be some kind of restitution payed to Apple Records. (IMHO)

[citizentony]

Good points.. but when Apple computer came out Apple Records was still what most people thought of when the company Apple was referred to. Apple Records didn't do anything different then Apple Computer is doing now by protecting their rights against those companies they felt were 'misusing' their name.

As previously mentioned Apple Records still sells a lot of music, but I think the confusion argument wears thin. However, and here is where I fault Apple Computer, Apple Computer did agree to 'never' get into the business of selling or making music... which they clearly have.

I don't want Apple Computer to stop selling music, but there should be some kind of restitution payed to Apple Records. (IMHO)

I agree with everything you have said. Apple records is still selling music and just because you have no knowledge of them outside of this lawsuit does not change that.

To me it's not who came first, who sells the most, or who is the biggest. It's that Apple Computer agreed to never go into the music business, and now that is one of their main claim's to fame. They broke the deal and will now have to deal with thc results.

BTW: Although it may seem unfair, this is the #1 reason copyrights and the like are around. To stop this kind of thing from happening. Like it or not, Apple Music was here first and was smart enough to protect their assets. Apple Computer knew in the begining that this could be a possibility (that is, if they did their research before deciding on the name).

[evildan]

I think Apple Computer's argument might be that it's not Apple Computer selling music... rather it's "iTunes Music Store" selling the music.... but that's kind of thin ice to be skating on...

I wonder what Apple Computer was thinking? You know this came up in a meeting at some point.

[mi5moav]

I think the judge is going to say hey, first of all Apple Corps, never sold one record it was a tax shelter and at the very most a clothing botique. Everyone knows this. The beatles never wanted anything to do with it. Yes Apple should have paid a hefty fee for the name and right to use the logo. Which it did however, in 1976 when the beatles desolved Apple Corps that should have been it. The only reason we are having this suit is that Jobs told the world that he named the company after the beatles defunct tax shelter. Epstein probably heard this and saw dollar signs, and they brought Apple Corps back to life. It's like having a lawyer waking up Beethoven, Mozart or Michaelangelo from the dead and telling them let's start suing everyone for playing and using your music. Total bull if Apple Corps was a real true creative company I would have no company, but they weren't they were simply created as a tax shelter, not a music company.

[Quicksilver]

I do hope that the judge considers these good points. And that Apple computer is seen as a hero of the music industry.

[evildan]

mi5moav,

Apple Records sold plenty of records... listening to one right now...

I won't dispute the tax shelter aspect of the company, but it was more then just a clothing store... The Beatles started Apple Records in part to help struggling musicians. ELO had a hit, written by Paul McCartney that was an Apple Record 'project'. So, I think you're absolutely wrong about it not being a music company. It was very much one... and still is.

Royalties paid to the remaining Beatles still account for a considerable amount of money. The records that were produced by Apple Corp still get that revenue. And speaking as a point of clarification, Apple Records is a business, it's not "The Beatles". Writers / reporters only use the title "Beatles suing Apple" because it sounds more dramatic. It's not like Paul McCartney called up Steve Jobs and they fought about all these issues and decided to sue. It's a lot less dramatic then that.

Oh, and Epstein died of a drug overdose in 1967, so I don't think he had much to say about Apple computer at all, since it wasn't started until the mid 70's.