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

Been there, done that. Seems like this beef crops up about once a year. Is anything ever going to actually happen?

If history is any indication, this will be the last we'll hear of it for a while. So....same time next year? ;)
 
Hmm yes, just looking at the similar threads below, there's been post made in June and September 2003 and also March 2004

Searching the Forum didn't bring those post up, but it seems this will just be another never ending issue
 
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Apple has worked "Settlements/Payoffs to the freakin' Beatles" into their annual iTunes budget.
 
Well, Apple (Computer)'s the bad guy here, really. I mean: How can they truly believe _not_ to have entered the music market with the iPod, iTunes and the iTunes Music Store?!
 
It's all about Steve Jobs' bullishness when it comes to getting his way. He signed the initial agreement with AppleCorps with a smile, knowing fullwell that someday it would be an issue down the road. So every 4 or 5 years, AppleCorps shows up, sues for $25 million or so, and everyone's happy. Especially now that Apple can drop $25 mil on a whim, more or less.
 
Technically, Apple Computer is in the data transfer business. The "data" just happens to be music. Apple Computer doesn't produce music, nor do they sell music in a tangible form (CDs, vinyl, etc.), which was the stipulations of the original agreement.

I can understand that legal, digital music downloads were something unheard of when the contract was first signed, but hey, loopholes are loopholes, and I think Apple Computer is gonna come out on top concerning this.
 
Apple Computer has some ground to stand on. They're NOT in the recording business. Do you think Apple Corps would have any right to sue if Apple had opened a retail store that sold CDs? Is the iTMS so different?

If Apple Corps can win, I think it will be because of things like Apple Computer's U2 iPod, which, IIRC, came pre-stocked with all of U2's albums (I think they did a similar thing with Madonna, too).

One thing's for sure: the Apple Corps brand is certainly hurt (if not utterly destroyed) by Apple Computer's foray. Nobody will ever associate the name "Apple" with Apple Corps at this point when talking about music.
 
ElDiablo: While that's Apple Comp's argument line, I think it's just stupid. Really. Apple Comp. does *not* sell music? (in a "hard" form...) Loads of crap. They *ARE* in the music business. They sell "tracks" and "albums" of "music" through the "iTunes M.U.S.I.C. Store". If Apple Comp.'s lawyers _really_ get away with this, I'm actually quite p***d. I'm an Apple Comp. fan alright, but I don't like it if they behave like that.

what I _really_ don't get, though, is how both companies don't see that they could make even _more_ money by working together...
 
I agree Fryke. Both companies would be better off working together. You can argue back and forth whether Apple Comp. is in the music business. I think they even if they aren't technically "in the business" they sure have it surrounded by software and hardware.

As for Apple Corp, if you aren't a Beatle fan have you ever heard of them? But imagine the joys of a Fab Four iPod, and the release of the entire Beatles catalog on iTunes. Win/win, and a win for us fans too.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Technically, Apple Computer is in the data transfer business. The "data" just happens to be music. Apple Computer doesn't produce music, nor do they sell music in a tangible form (CDs, vinyl, etc.), which was the stipulations of the original agreement.
Click to expand...

There's no difference in the data that's on a CD than that of a song stored on a hard disk besides the bit format of the data. I think they are still breaking their agreement but it's a stupid agreement to begin with.

It's still bits they're selling even if they were selling it on a physical CD. In this case of the iTMS the bits are stored on their servers and are delivered in a different manner but it's still the same thing.
 
fryke said:
ElDiablo: While that's Apple Comp's argument line, I think it's just stupid. Really. Apple Comp. does *not* sell music? (in a "hard" form...) Loads of crap. They *ARE* in the music business.
Click to expand...
From what I understand of the agreement, you can't just simplify it down to "Apple Computer cannot have anything to do with music." That would be gross oversimplification. Apple Computer is not "in the music business" like Apple Corps is, or any other recording/production company. If that were true, thousands of geeky customer service/salespersons at Best Buy could claim to be "in the music business" to get chicks simply because Best Buy sells music CDs.

I don't know every facet and detail of the Apple's agreement/contract, but I don't believe the intent of Apple Corps was to prevent Apple Computer from having anything to do with music -- I believe the intent was to keep "Apple Corps" associated with music production, and to make sure that Apple Computer would not be a direct competitor to Apple Corps (which makes sense, imagine if two software companies were both known as "Adobe"). As far as I know, Apple is not competing with record labels or the recording industry in general -- in fact, they're bolstering sales and actually pay them portions of the proceeds from the sale of music tracks that were not produced or copyrighted by Apple Computer.

I don't think Apple Corps has a leg to stand on, but I'm not a lawyer.

Again, the agreement/contract between the two companies is more detailed and specific than you're making it out to be. It would be wrong to sum up the agreement/contract by saying "Apple Corps' agreement with Apple Computer stipulates that Apple Computer would have nothing to do with 'the music business'."
 
I have to be honest that I tire of such legal wranglings. We had, in the UK at least, "Apricot Computers," but I don't remember any law suit by Apple, saying their brand name and logo were close to Apple's, plus they were in the computer business. On a rather different (but kind-of-related) note, it annoyed me when Ralph Lauren forced a guy to give up his URL for his own interest in polo, the sport, so that Ralph Lauren could use it for marketing. To me, that's rather about business being opportunist.

Personally, I don't think there will be a lot of confusion between the iTunes Music Store and Apple Corps'. The Apple Corps web site even states it is just a "placeholder," which doesn't create the instant impression for me that Apple Corps are a major player in the music business (whether or not they are). According to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
The first two years of the company's existence coincided with a sharp decline in personal relations within the Beatles, ultimately leading to the break-up of the band in 1970. Apple quickly slid into financial chaos, which was only resolved after many years of litigation. When the Beatles' partnership was dissolved in 1975, dissolution of Apple Corps was also considered, but it was decided to keep it going, while effectively retiring all its divisions. The company exists today, mostly performing as the licensing agent for Beatles-related products, and supervising reissues of Apple Records, plus new issues of Beatles recordings and related media. The company is apparently now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company) and its company secretary is listed as Standby Films Ltd., believed to be a vehicle of managing director Neil Aspinall. The company is currently headquartered at 27 Ovington Square, in London's prestigious Knightsbridge district.
Click to expand...

From what I gather, the original agreement between Apple Corps and Apple Computer Inc. was vague, perhaps deliberately so, and this has partly led to the situation where we are now. There was an interesting article on Forbes:

Lawyers for Apple Computer Inc. on Thursday asserted the company's right to distribute music through its iTunes music store, rejecting claims by The Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd. that doing so violated a 1991 trademark agreement.

Apple Computer lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the "distribution of digital entertainment content" was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to tread on the other's sphere of business.

Grabiner said "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps.

"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," he said.
Click to expand...
Vos argued in his opening statement Wednesday that that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side.

Apple Corps' logo is a green Granny Smith apple.
Click to expand...
Apple Corps is suing Apple Computer to force them to drop the trademark apple from the iTunes Music Store and is also asking for damages, though a monetary figure has not been named.

Vos said the 1991 agreement - itself the product of a protracted legal battle between the firms - set out the areas each company could operate in using their respective apple trademarks, and that by selling music under the apple mark, the computer company was overstepping its boundaries.

Grabiner said the fact that Apple Computer distributed music didn't make it a record label, and so did not violate the agreement - which set Apple Corps' domain as music content and Apple Computer's as hardware, software and the digital distribution of data.

He said no "reasonable person" would assume that Apple Computer created or owned the 3.5 million songs on its hugely successful iTunes music store.

"It's obvious that the content comes from a wide variety of content providers," he said. "It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."

Citing an oft-repeated legal argument, Grabiner said that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that."
Click to expand...
 
Oh, and I just found this on The Register:
The Register said:
Well, let's take a look, shall we? Court documents seen by Reg Hardware reveal that the 1991 agreement defines each firm's "field of use" for their apple trademarks - essentially, what goods and services each is allowed to put their name and logo to.

Apple Comp.'s covers "electronic goods, including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium". (our italics)

It also encompasses "data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services" and "ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution" (our italics again).

Finally, it covers "promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing".
That, Apple Comp. argues, is sufficient to allow it to run the iTunes Music Store.

Apple Corp., on the other hand, has the rights to market under its brand "any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible" (our italics).

It's entirely possible to argue that iTunes' digital downloads can be defined within the scope of the phrase "computer software of any kind" and ITMS is both a "data processing service" and a "data transmission service". Unfortunately is is also exactly what what the Apple Corp. field of use forbids.

In short, the agreement is - or rather has become - contradictory: it renders both arguments valid. When it was drawn up, the idea of downloading songs that never become encoded on a physical medium was the stuff a madman's dream. No wonder the two companies have fallen out over the one data type/creative work that spans both fields of use.

It's a classic spirit of the agreement vs the letter of the agreement argument, and both firms could have saved time and money if they'd have sat down and thrashed out a new sets of terms and conditions. Apple Corp. can hardly argue its brand has been damaged by Apple Comp., even if its successfully shows breach of contract. Few people, we'd argue, these days associate the Apple name with the Beatles, and the 1991 agreement clearly specifies which styles of apple icon each of the two companies have a right to, and - so far as our unlearned opinion goes - they are clearly distinguishable, even in the music market.
Click to expand...
 
It's entirely possible to argue that iTunes' digital downloads can be defined within the scope of the phrase "computer software of any kind" and ITMS is both a "data processing service" and a "data transmission service". Unfortunately is is also exactly what what the Apple Corp. field of use forbids.
Click to expand...
This part I don't quite get. The agreement, from what they presented, seems like it defines what each company CAN do. It defines that Apple Corp CAN market musical performances, but it does not define that Apple Computer CAN'T. (Never mind that it is debatable whether Apple Computer does that at all; I don't think they've ever marketed any music under the Apple brand.)

So I don't think it's as contradictory as the Register claims. At least not if they're printing all the relevant bits.


I'm not sure you can even say that Apple is "in the music business". Are Best Buy or Amazon or Target or Wal-Mart in the music business because they sell CDs? Is Dell in the music business because they sell mp3 players? The fact is, Apple is not producing any music. They never have, as far as I know.

I wonder, is Apple Corp raising any fuss over GarageBand and Apple's other music-creation software?
 
I just say Apple Comp should buy Apple Corp flat out. The Beatles' catalog would be their most valuable asset (valued at ~$500Million) but Paul McCartney now owns that catalog (not AppleCorp), having bought it back from Michael Jackson. Without that, I can't see that AppleCorp would be worth more than $1 Billion, if that much even. Apple could be evil and initiate a semi-hostile takeover and have this whole mess done with once and for all.

As for the investors, I'm sure they understand that the Beatles are still a very profitable asset, plus it would allow Apple into yet another branch of the music industry, with name intact. Imagine Apple signing up-and-coming artists and giving them promoted distro on the iTMS. It'd be a total coup.

That's just me, tho.
 
ra3ndy said:
I just say Apple Comp should buy Apple Corp flat out. The Beatles' catalog would be their most valuable asset (valued at ~$500Million) but Paul McCartney now owns that catalog (not AppleCorp), having bought it back from Michael Jackson. Without that, I can't see that AppleCorp would be worth more than $1 Billion, if that much even. Apple could be evil and initiate a semi-hostile takeover and have this whole mess done with once and for all.
Click to expand...
Well, they got rid of the U2 iPod..

How about a Beetles one?
 
A takeover would seem good. But I'd consider a friendly one. Because "hostile" (even if "semi", btw.: what's "semi-hostile" really mean?!) is so, erh, hostile - and unnecessary, too. Imagine: Apple (Corps & Comp) could be _the_ music label. ;) Imagine...

"Apple ignited both the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and the beat-generation's music revolution by releasing the Beatles' songs and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the computer industry in innovation with its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating system, and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital music revolution with both its iPod portable music players and iTunes online music store as well as the Apple music label, producing not only the new Beatles, Michael Jackson and Supertramp songs but also supports the cloning of the King, i.e. Elvis." Just kidding. Of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top