# Breaking: Beatles sue Apple (again)...



## serpicolugnut (Sep 11, 2003)

Well, we all knew it was likely to happen (again), but according to Fox News' Roger Friedman, it's happened...

Beatles Sue Apple 

Anybody want to fathom what Apple will do? They've lost the previous 2 times they were taken to court by the Beatles, so it's a pretty safe assumption that they will lose this round as well...

I personally think Apple have to create a subsidiary (with a different name) that will handle all music related products. 

The way I see it, they have four options...
1) Go to court. Not likely, as they have lost 2 times previous...
2) Settle... Not likely, since the previous two settlements the Beatles were adamant about Apple not having any products music related...
3) Rename Apple Computer... Again, not likely. Apple Computer is a better known brand than Apple Corps, and is one of the best known brands in the world. What are they going to do? Change the name to Pear Computers? Defintely not.
4) Most likely.... Spin off all music products to a seperate subdivision of Apple with a different name. Apple keeps it's brand recognition safe for the bulk of it's products, it's music products are no longer in violation of the Beatles settlement, and Apple can continue to dabble in the music related field without any threat of lawsuits...


----------



## The Memory Hole (Sep 11, 2003)

I suppose the subsidiary idea is a good one... but this is just ridiculous.


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Sep 11, 2003)

I was under the impression that Paul McCartney and Steve Jobs were good friends...and seriously, who's EVER heard of Apple Music (the beatles company)...shouldn't Apple (Computer) win the right based on name recognition alone?


----------



## kanecorp (Sep 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dlatu1983 _
> *I was under the impression that Paul McCartney and Steve Jobs were good friends...and seriously, who's EVER heard of Apple Music (the beatles company)...shouldn't Apple (Computer) win the right based on name recognition alone? *



WTF, did you just seriously ask whos ever heard of apple music???


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 11, 2003)

Apple's case: evolution! 2001

music has evolved moving more towards "online music" it was inevitable for a computer company to do this. its so stupid for an old record company to sue a computer company service/product which in the majority of the case has improved or will improve the future of its own sales, the beatles for example. the technical evolution has paved way for new laws and meaning of the terms which mabey havent been made yet.

This is getting to be purly base apon making money over sueing someone.


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Sep 11, 2003)

Kane, I meant Apple Music as in The Beatle's apple music...I'm fairly into the beatles, moreso than 90% of kids my age...and I've NEVER heard of it, and other than hearing about them suing Apple Computer, probably never would have.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 11, 2003)

also not very professional: www.applecorps.com
And this was on: www.applecorp.com - 9/12/03






> Don't even bother looking at this unless you have high speed bandwidth because it was designed to be viewed from a CD. Also, you're going to need Quicktime installed in your browser and preferrably set it as your MP3 player as well. Once again, this was designed for a specific purpose and I'm just putting it on the web, well, because I own the company and I can.


----------



## voice- (Sep 11, 2003)

Personally, I've known about Apple Computer since I was 7 years old, I'd NEVER hear of Beatels' company if it wasn't for these lawsuits.


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Sep 11, 2003)

Why doesn't Paul McCartney keep his lawyers off of Apple? I was under the impression that he and Steve were good friends...I know he's (at least he WAS, back with Steve's infamous personal delivery service of macs to celebs) a mac user, so why can't he call his guard dogs off?


----------



## kanecorp (Sep 11, 2003)

> _Kane, I meant Apple Music as in The Beatle's apple music...I'm fairly into the beatles, moreso than 90% of kids my age...and I've NEVER heard of it, and other than hearing about them suing Apple Computer, probably never would have. [/B]_


_ 

how tf have you never heard of apple music, its a HUGE RECORD label, and beatles fan would know it.  BESDIES THE fact that a lot of the beatles cds out today have huge apples ON THE CDS_


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Sep 11, 2003)

Did you know that 75% of hospital visits are indirectly related to stress? Calm down there, Tiger. Fact of the matter is, when you say "Apple Music", nobody other than Paul McCartney himself thinks of Apple Records. It's a matter of name recognition.


----------



## mindbend (Sep 11, 2003)

I have never heard of Apple Music, the record label. I am confident that the average Joe has never heard of it either. (That's based on my highly scientific lunchtime survey). This type of thing should be based on reasonable degree of confusion, and it seems to me there is none. I guess the Europeans are every bit as letigious as we are (I assume Apple Music is based over there).


----------



## Arden (Sep 11, 2003)

Apple Music is iTunes, the Music Store, and the iPod.  Apple Corps. is the record label that no one's heard of.  I think they keep doing this because they start to run low on the $25 million they got from the last lawsuit (as in it's their only source of income).  I'm sure all two remaining Beatles care a lot if Apple (Computers) has music-based products or not.



> _From www.applecorps.com_
> 
> Home Page for Apple Corps Ltd
> This is a placeholder page only for Apple Corps Ltd. This site is not live at this time.
> ...


 What the hell?  They can't even hire a web designer to run their website?

I like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin better anyway.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Sep 12, 2003)

Since when did the Beatles encompass the entire world of Music?

Imagine retailer's sueing each other because one of them promised they wouldn't sell soap?

Just another reason why people can't handle competition.


----------



## Quicksilver (Sep 12, 2003)

The Beatles reputation could be damaged for being selfish. But what effect could this have on Apple computer?

what's the worst that could happen?


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 12, 2003)

Here is hoping that Apple will not have any REAL problems with those bugs


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Sep 12, 2003)

who owns www.applemusic.com ??

I rest my case.


----------



## edX (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ApeintheShell _
> *Since when did the Beatles encompass the entire world of Music?
> *



it was pretty much before you were born. the beatles were the undeniable top band in the land. even the rolling stones were jealous. and sales of beatle's music continue to provide fat checks in royalties (to Michael Jackson these days i think). their music has lasted longer and stronger than any other modern artists. the mere fact that you people who were born after they stopped making records (yes, records) know about them at all is testament to who they were and the effect of their music. apple records was cool way before there was an apple computer.

that doesn't mean i think they should sue apple computer, just that you shouldn't take your lack of knowledge about something as being universal.


----------



## Arden (Sep 12, 2003)

The only reason I know any Beatles songs is because my parents are both big fans; they grew up in that time.  Well, close to it.


----------



## uoba (Sep 12, 2003)

A point is plainly being missed... Apple Computers has thrown it's money and popularity at a music based product, which just so happens to be encroaching on another service/product/company going by the same/or similar name. Company law dictates this is wrong (well at least in the UK  ) and is contestable.

Because Apple (Computer's) product has become hugely popular, does not give automatic right to use the name over the original's (The Beatles). If this was the case, then companies like M$ would surely have a field-day. 

Claiming Apple Computer's product 'is more popular so it should win' is naive... The Beatle's Apple company makes its money, maybe not as a vast network and user-base such as iTunes, but has a right to make that money without someone else muscling in on there brand name.


----------



## Excalibur (Sep 12, 2003)

Chalk up one more for.... Never heard of Apple Music, the label, either.


----------



## fryke (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, then you're all too young.  Just because you don't _know_ about Apple (the music label) doesn't eliminate it. And Apple (the computer company) had a DEAL with that company not to get into their business. We all know it doesn't really sound as if the music company would lose anything because of the computer company, but still: There was a deal. And only because that deal "shouldn't matter anymore" it's not as if the deal was never made. The deal's there, Apple (computer) DID break it and Apple (music label) sues them. Just fine, I think. Let the computer company settle this with money or whatever. But let them SETTLE it. Once and for all.


----------



## Excalibur (Sep 12, 2003)

Never said I eliminated their claim.  I think their claim is valid being they had a settlement, in the past, that this wouldn't happen and it did. I agree with you that they should settle FINALLY before this before things get ugly. All these damn lawsuits from all these companies in the last few years is getting a bit old.

Cant we all get along. ::angel::


----------



## Mat (Sep 12, 2003)

If Jobs and McCartney are buddies, what's $50 million between friends?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 12, 2003)

> If Jobs and McCartney are buddies, what's $50 million between friends?



$50 million is the average quaters profit posted by Apple of the last couple years.

Of course, Apple does have $4US Billion in the bank, so they can afford the hit, if needed....


----------



## mindbend (Sep 12, 2003)

I did some research on the subject, but could not find the actual contract that Apple Computer signed regarding "never getting into the music business".  Does anyone know where I can get this or what it says exactly? Not paraphrased, I know the paraphrasing, I want the actual words.

Based on the paraphrase, Apple Computer did indeed box themsleves into a corner. They apparently have paid many millions in the last twenty years for their infringements on that terrible agreement. iTunes and AppleMusic is clearly another violation.

In my opinion, Apple Computer must cimply think it's worth it. They had to know what was coming.

Personally, I hate this kind of stuff. Clearly the public is not going to confuse the two companies. They serve two different purposes. Apple Records is not currently (to my knowledge) trying to sell albums online. Obviously, the lawyers are driving this so they can get their fees. 

For Apple Records it's a stupid move, publicly and financially. The smarter move would have been to jump on board, do double promotions, put up the entire Beatles library to iTunes and when iTunes for Windows kicks in, they will make ungodly money. Actually, I am probably completely wrong on that. Apple Records may not make a penny from Beatle song royalties, right? Does anyone know about that?

It's an interesting situation, either way.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm assuming you guys know how the "sosumi" sound effect got its name right?


----------



## a-bort (Sep 12, 2003)

What can is say 

EDIT:
I actually understand Apple Music.
It would be great to take some extra pocket money everytime the change is there... Surely when you mostly earn money on only one (good) band that stopt playing for a while now..

So get as much as you can!

(grrrrrrrrrrrrrr...)


----------



## monktus (Sep 12, 2003)

I know it's a bit off topic but I'm amazed at the number of people that have posted who have never heard of Apple Corp. or at least don't know of its significance. And I'm 23!

Anyway, Fryke is right. Apple did make a deal with Apple which probably didn't mean much to them at the time, other than getting out of a massive lawsuit. I'm sure Steve and Steve couldn't have imagined what the company would be doing now and how much music would impact on their business. I saw this coming, indeed it did happen before and it was probably a similar situation - 'ok our computers can make music now, we'll settle' - again, iTMS isn't something that Apple could have forseen back in 1986 or whenever it was. This is bad for both Apples, I just hope they get it sorted this time, and for good.


----------



## evildan (Sep 12, 2003)

Apple Corp. has to protect it's interests. They're sole ability to stay alive rests in maintaining the standards of the music. The Beatles are still a number one selling band, despite the fact that they don't make any new music any more. So the company (Apple Corp) has to prevent future companies from using their name to promote music.

Apple Corp did come first, and in some ways has a greater revenue generating capability then Apple Computer.

Paul McCarteny does not own Apple Corp. so his friendship with Steve Jobs won't really do him any good. Although it would be interesting to find out if Paul got a cut from the settlement.

I'm sure Steve has covered his butt on this one, heck even this site was predicting the possibility of this happening when the first generation of iPods came out. 

There has to be some kind of loop-hole in all of this that Steve has thought of. One possibility might be that music eventually enters public domain, free for all to use, royalty free. I'm not sure what the time-frame for that is, it might be 50 years.

I don't see this actually hurting the Beatles reputation, since it's not them, heck it's not even still the company that the Beatles started in the first place.

I do find it interesting that the first Beatles "Apple Store" was all white and had a big Apple on the front. (Green Apple).


----------



## evildan (Sep 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *it was pretty much before you were born. the beatles were the undeniable top band in the land. even the rolling stones were jealous. and sales of beatle's music continue to provide fat checks in royalties (to Michael Jackson these days i think). their music has lasted longer and stronger than any other modern artists. the mere fact that you people who were born after they stopped making records (yes, records) know about them at all is testament to who they were and the effect of their music. apple records was cool way before there was an apple computer. *



I agree Ed. Speaking as someone who was only five years old when Lennon was shot, I still consider myself an avid Beatles fan. I'm a little on the fence on this one though. On the one hand Apple Computer did lose a lawsuit and promised to never get into the music industry. 

But on the other hand this is may be a bit beyond the original agreement. I highly doubt that the sale of a personal music player directly conflicts with the sale of Beatles music.

As an interesting side note. Apple Corp. didn't just sell music, they sold Apple cups, tea-shirts and other Beatle merchandise...


----------



## Browni (Sep 12, 2003)

Perhaps, they will clim that apple is a generic name? Was the iPod ever advertised as from Apple or from Macintosh? same goes for the iTMS, i am sure it never was.

Adam


----------



## evildan (Sep 12, 2003)

The big draw back to this for Apple Computer is that they lost the relevant case and agreed to never go into the sale of music. Which is what the iTunes music store is doing. Perhaps this is a sub-company of Apple, or it breaks off into its own company as a result of this lawsuit.


----------



## Urbansory (Sep 12, 2003)

Not surprised by this, took them longer than expected, greedy ass.... 

Let me stop, if anything, it will give Apple more press, and unfortunately that other Apple, that many haven't heard of till the first suit.


----------



## Dlatu1983 (Sep 12, 2003)

I just realized...Apple Corps = Apple Core...ha ha. Or am I just the last one here to get it?


----------



## Stridder44 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've never heard of Apple Music (the Record Label) either...

Hehe, mabye Apple (Computer) should buy out Apple (record label)! (note to those who are hot headed: Im joking)

Now, some say that Apple Corps is a "huge" company. When I go to the site Applecorps.com I get... 



> Home Page for Apple Corps Ltd
> 
> This is a placeholder page only for Apple Corps Ltd. This site is not live at this time.
> 
> ...



Odd, for such a big buisness they don't have a running site?


----------



## Arden (Sep 12, 2003)

Stridder: exactly.  Why can't they even maintain their own site?  Are they so broke that they need more lawsuit money?

Dlatu:  Ha ha, I get it...

Browni:  Apple is a company, Macintosh is a product.  Macintosh cannot sell anything because it is a type of computer.


----------



## zuppasch (Sep 12, 2003)

I think The Beatles suiing Apple is fair since Apple seems to have no problem buying software patents. Thanks too Apple patenting the best algorithm for rendering fonts, the rest of the world has to live with poor fonts from now untill the end of time, or when Apple fails to renew the patent or sells it to someone else.

This doesn't just hurt MS, it hurts everybody: Linux, BSDs, Solaris, SGI, Palm, .... everybody.

What Apple has done would be like Ford motor company patenting a "round steering wheel". Your Chrystler would have a square steering wheel. Your Saturn would have a joystick, etc... Every time you stepped into a new car you would have to learn how to drive all over again and go to the DMV for a new liscense.

Guess what? Someone has patented web "hyper links". Do you want to pay him a royalty every time you put a link on your web page? It's ridiculous. Say goodbye to macosx.com, they won't be able to afford to pay the royalties.

I say Apple deserves what they get because they would sue anyone who infringed on their copyrights and patents.

If Apple allowed freetype.org and everyone else to render fonts using the Apple algorithm, I'd be more forgiving. Until then, as far as the lawsuit is concerned, Let It Be.


----------



## slo (Sep 13, 2003)

Yes the Beatles have a right to sue and will likely win, but as the old saying goes...

"sometimes even bad publicity is good publicity"

How many people now know that Apple sells music now? It has been a headline on CNN and news broadcasts all over the western world.

Imagine how much it would cost Apple to pay for that kind of coverage.

Hopefully they can settle this once and for all. Maybe Paul, Ringo, and Yoko just want an early edition of Panther?

slo


----------



## wiz7dome (Sep 13, 2003)

Im not a lawyer, but I think Apple (computer) has a good case.  This was a breach of contract, but the contract was merely a "settlement" in the use of the "apple" name.  I'll admit that Im very young, but I imagine that at the time Apple (computer) did not have the money to defend themselves.  Fast forward to today when Apple has over 43 billion is cash reserves.  If they are in "breach" of settlement whats the worst that can happen?  To my knowledge there is no automatic finding for the plaintiff (apple corp).  Which means to me that they would goto court for an actual trial over trademark infringement.   Considering that there is no shortage of "apple" labels operating in the same business as Apple Corp but they are only going after Apple (computer).  I think they have some very interesting arguments on their side.


----------



## Arden (Sep 14, 2003)

Wouldn't it be more like $4.3 billion?  It's _Microsoft_ with over $50 billion in reserve.  (They could pay off California's budget deficit and still have more money left than most corporations.)


----------



## evildan (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by wiz7dome _
> * I'll admit that Im very young, but I imagine that at the time Apple (computer) did not have the money to defend themselves. *



I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just want to point out that Apple (Computer) had a ton of money "then". They were at their peak, when Apple Corp (Beatles) sued them.

Also, being a Beatles' fan, let me clear a common misconception.

It's not like Paul called up Ringo and said, "hey chap, let's sue Apple Computer for tons of cash 'eh?"

And Ringo likely responded "sure think Paul, you were always the smarter one when it comes to those sort 'o things, let's give it a good sue. And be sure to let me know how it turned out."

Paul, Ringo and Yoko, don't own Apple Corp. They (with the exception of Yoko) are musicians. They may have wrote, composed and recorded the music, but that doesn't make them owners of it.

When the Beatles came back from holiday with their Indian Guru, they decided to form Apple Corp. Apple Corp was going to be a recording company where any musician could have a shot at recording a an album. The Beatles would select a few of their pet projects and mentor the musicians through the music development process.

The idea was ahead of its time, and they did it because the Beatles themselves had a very hard time getting a professional record deal when they were first starting out. (Which I can imagine every executive that turned them down is kicking themselves to this day). Apple Corp *was*, at the time, owned by the Beatles, however it was sold off and divided when shortly after the band broke up (I believe).

Sony owned the library of music for awhile, and yes Michael Jackson sneakily out-bid Paul McCartney (and Yoko) with his "Thriller" money, thus ending his friendship to Sir Paul and making him one rich man.

But Michael Jackson may have sold some or all of his ownership to the Beatle songs to Sony, when he was in some of his legal battles. (You know what for).

Regardless of this, Apple Corp is always associated with The Beatles because they started the company and were the only widely successful band released under that label. (I think ELO may have been too... I don't know).

But, the actual surviving members of the Beatles don't charge themselves with the task of protecting the legal rights of a record label they started in the late 60's, they just don't. That's not the way these things work. 

And, to some, I know this may seem unfair, but in many ways Apple (Computer) is going against the public understanding of the settlement. Of course there is a good chance that we don't know the actual details, and Jobs may have built in some kind of loophole for himself that he now plans on utilizing.


----------



## mindbend (Sep 14, 2003)

Apple Computer has a ton of money today also. A $50 million settlement (just making up a number) might just be considered a good investment for the long term viability of their music service. They could make that back in the first year once the Windows version comes out. Maybe sooner.


----------



## dixonbm (Sep 14, 2003)

Going back a few months....there were rumors of Apple potentially buying a record label (Universal) along with the help of some record execs.  A kind of patnership. However adverse shareholder reaction put an end to any further talks/speculation. Enter the present a record label with considerable grievances against Apple Computer, which could cause irreparable damage the Apple Computer's future profitability.  Reality check....how much is Apple Corps really worth if they don't own the royalties.  All they are is a name to be put on shirts and mugs and cds.  A name protecting itself, because it has nothing else.  How much is that worth?  $1billion?  I seriously doubt it, but even if it were, wouldn't that be well worth the potential time and energy that might be needed to subdue their lawyers.

Enter another thought.....what if Steve is using this as an excuse to buy Apple Corps, so that he may wholly own a music label, albeit a tiny one, from which he can further his music empire dreams....

conspiracy theory...maybe

something to consider?  Absolutely.


----------



## monktus (Sep 14, 2003)

And remember, Apple Corp don't own the Beatles' songs, as far as I know Sony still do. I would think the only substantial Beatles copyright that Apple still has is the name itself and presumably the mechanical copyright for the later records (that's if EMI don't own it).


----------



## ApeintheShell (Sep 14, 2003)

Anyone see that episode of Family Guy where peter recalls being a security guard for George Harrison?
He's sitting in front of the teleivision singing the theme song for charles in charge and a guy in a black suit jumps over the wall with a knife. haha.

Mozart and Elvis must be rolling over in their graves thinking, "why didn't i sue all those rap artists for turning my music into crap? oh ho, im dead"


----------



## kcwookie (Sep 14, 2003)

One of the things that Apple may be banking on is that they have more name recognition then Apple Records does.  At some point in time Apple Records will loose since they appear to be more of a holding company then an active record label. 

If Apple Records is not actively doing business other then managing the Beetles library they will have step aside and let Apple Computers do business unfettered.


----------



## Arden (Sep 15, 2003)

I think Apple Corps.'s lawyers are just trying to stir the pot here because they're not making any money and they have nothing better to do; I don't think they really have a good case.  Sure, Apple Computer may have violated their settlement agreement, but what has Apple Corps. done recently that Apple Computer would get in the way of?


----------



## gwynarion (Sep 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kanecorp _
> *WTF, did you just seriously ask whos ever heard of apple music??? *


I had never heard of Apple Records/Corps until the first time I read about them suing Apple Computer.  Personally I think the Beatles are highly over-rated and these lawsuits ridiculous.


----------



## maclick (Sep 15, 2003)

it's all about money,


----------

