Beatles' Apple vs. Apple (Apple wins...) merged thread...


U.S.D.A. Prime
Hmm... are we actually pondering the idea that Apple Computer may indeed, at some point in the forseeable future, "buy out" Apple Corps -- or are we simply fascinating about it?

I see a buyout as something that most definitely will not happen.

I pose this question: when do you guys ever think it would not be desireable for Apple to "buy out" some company? It seems that every time there's talk about Apple buying out someone, the overwhelming consensus is that it would be a great move for Apple... when in reality, it would likely be akin to haphazardly spending money.

I think that if Apple Computer went to court over this that they would "win," however, I think that a settlement makes more sense and will be the most likely course of action... I know a settlement makes it appear as if Apple Computer is admitting guilt -- not all settlements are admissions of guilt, though... settlements are a way to avoid going to trial for a large number of reasons.


Staff member
well, considering they _are_ guilty, I think a settlement will only cost them _so_ much compared to stopping all iTMS business under the Apple name... ;)


More interesting stuff from The Register:

The Register said:
The Beatles' recording company, Apple Corp., was given an opportunity to object to Apple Comp.'s use of the apple logo in association with the iTunes Music Store. But it chose not to, the iPod maker's advocate claimed yesterday. Apple Corp. received an ITMS demo in January 2003 - four months before the service went live, Anthony Grabiner QC told the English High Court.

Grabiner and Apple Corp. lawyer Geoffrey Vos QC made their concluding remarks this week following written and presented testimony from the likes of Apple Corp. chief Neill Aspinall and from Eddie Cue, head of Apple's iTunes and iPod division.

Apple Comp. argues that it uses its logo in conjunction with the service but not with the content. It says its logo disappears when users buy a song. It maintains ITMS hasn't infringed the 1991 agreement drawn up between the two companies to govern use of apple iconography because the service fits into the definition of what Apple Comp. can do.

Apple Corp., on the other hand, maintains that ITMS is all about selling recorded music, pure and simple, and that this puts the service within Apple Corp.'s sphere of operation. It wants the court to grant an injunction against Apple Comp. If it is successful, it is likely to pursue a request for damages, though Apple Comp. may very well appeal against a ban.

Indeed, Aspinall claims Apple Comp. CEO Steve Jobs attempted to buy the name 'Apple Records' in March 2003, offering $1m for it. Aspinall wrote in an affidavit that he rejected the offer. "I did not expect that Apple Computer would attempt to use the name 'Apple' and apple marks in connection with pre-recorded music," he wrote.

This, alleged Grabiner, despite Apple Comp.'s demonstration of ITMS to Apple Corp. officials two months previously.

At the end of yesterday's hearing, Justice Edward Mann, the presiding judge, said he would issue a ruling by the end of month.
Interesting if all true. If Apple demonstrated the iTunes Music Store to Apple Corp. some months prior and received no complaints, then my sympathy for Apple Corp. further wanes.


...and Apple Corps have now lost their court battle.

BBC said:
The Beatles have lost their court challenge against Apple Computer over its iTunes download service.


But Mr Justice Edward Mann ruled that the computer firm used the apple logo in association with its store, not the music, and so was not a breach.

The Beatles' label had wanted London's High Court to award damages and stop its rival using the Apple logo in its music operations.

Apple Corps said the rise of iTunes broke an agreement the two sides hammered out in 1991 after their last dispute.

That deal gave the record label exclusive rights to use the apple trademark for the record business, Geoffrey Vos QC, representing Apple Corps, told the court.

Apple Computer, whose products helped launch the personal computer industry, was founded in 1976 and its logo is an apple with a section removed from the side.

Apple Corps was set up by The Beatles in 1968 and is represented by a complete green Granny Smith apple.

An agreement between the two companies to share use of the Apple trademark was first established in 1981.

But as Apple Computer's business increasingly entered the world of entertainment, the company sought a less restrictive trademark agreement and a court battle ensued in 1989.


Tracks by The Beatles have not been licensed for downloading and are not available on the service.

Mr Vos demonstrated how to use iTunes during the hearing - downloading Chic's 1978 disco hit Le Freak in the courtroom.

He pointed out to Mr Justice Mann how many times the Apple logo appeared on the computer screen as he went through the process.


Find a golden apple.
Now, with all due respect to the Beatles.... This just made them look really stupid, "how embarrasing" for lack of a better phrase.



Steve Jobs has apparently commented on the news:

MacWorld UK said:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs wants jaw-jaw, not war-war.

Jobs this morning invited The Beatles business affairs company, Apple Corps, to join the Apple Computer-led digital music revolution.

Welcoming the judgement in the Apple versus Apple case, an official statement from the computer and iPod company boss dreams of a positive outcome between both firms.

"We are glad to put this disagreement behind us," said Jobs, who implied that he would much rather find a way to negotiate a mutually profitable deal than continued legal action.

"We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store," Jobs said.

Apple Corps this morning refused to accept the judgement in the case, declaring in a statement that it will definitely file an appeal.
"We will accordingly be filing an appeal and putting the case again to the Court of Appeal."

there's a surprise ::rolls eyes::

Can someone explain to me what Apple corps is afraid of? I just don't get it.


Of The Beattles, only Paul is still with us. The Beatles did not bring this suit and they did not lose it. Apple Corps, the record label they founded brought the suit. Apple Corps wants to remain relevant. The sad truth is that it is not. American TV network, NBC, ran a man-on-the-street news report during the hearings. Londoners were asked what do they think when they hear "Apple." Virtually every respondent replied "iPod."


Staff member
MisterMe: You're aware of the fact that what you say supports Apple Corps.' case, right? ;) ... The more Apple Computer goes into the music business, the more Beatles' Apple is forgotten. That's what Apple Corp. is fighting against...


In their main News Bulletin, the BBC reckoned that Apple Corps kept a close eye on Apple Computer looking for opportunities to "take a piece of the Apple Pie" 'cause Apple are so loaded! Seems about right to me, the only thing Apple Corps have been interested in in this whole affair is how much money they can make from it.

The Judge was spot on - there's no way that people are gonna confuse the two, or even be confused into believing that Apple Computer MAKE music. As for Apple Corps "becoming irrelevant", that happened when the whole shebang collapsed in on itself in the seventies. As a music label, Apple Corps was and IS a failure - it's only The Beatles catalogue that gives it any relevance at all.