Beatles suing Apple

Randman

Randman

HA! HA! HA!
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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)
 
evildan said:
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)
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
I do hope that the judge considers these good points. And that Apple computer is seen as a hero of the music industry.
 
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.
 
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.
 
mi5moav said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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?
 
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...
 
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>
 
mi5moav said:
There are 18 instances of Apple Corps. companies in the U.S. none of those are owned or operated by any of the beatles.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
It's not the logo that is in question. It's the name and the fact that we are dealing with two large companies that are now in the same market. Not a small company v. a large company in seperate markets. Not two large companies in seperate markets. Instead, like I said, two large companies in the same market. One of which signed an agreement stating they would not enter said market.

Apple Records was started by the Beatles while they were still under contract with Columbia. They made a deal to allow Apple to do whatever they did in the begining. Now Apple Records is not owned by the Beatles. The Beatles have nothing to do with any of this. Apple Records has about 20 other artists under contract at this time. It is an indipendent label that just happens to have been started by the Beatles.
 
Hmm, I don't think Apple would have gone into this (especially with SJ at the helm) without knowing what they were doing... plus I would hardly call Apple Computer in the SAME market as Apple Records. Apple Records is a record label that handles artists and the rights to created music while Apple Computer is being a retailer of music. There is a difference, Apple Computer relies on companies to get the music to sell. Apple Records makes music to sell.

There is no reasonable way Apple Computer can 'compete' with Apple Records, as Apple Computer doesn't have access to the artists themselves (hence why independants cannot submit to the store directly).
 
Krevinek said:
Hmm, I don't think Apple would have gone into this (especially with SJ at the helm) without knowing what they were doing... plus I would hardly call Apple Computer in the SAME market as Apple Records. Apple Records is a record label that handles artists and the rights to created music while Apple Computer is being a retailer of music. There is a difference, Apple Computer relies on companies to get the music to sell. Apple Records makes music to sell.

There is no reasonable way Apple Computer can 'compete' with Apple Records, as Apple Computer doesn't have access to the artists themselves (hence why independants cannot submit to the store directly).
Click to expand...

I get the difference but the industry is Music and the market is selling recorded sounds.

I agree 100% that Apple Comp. has to have had a plan before going ahead with this whole thing. I doubt they forgot the "agreement" with Apple Recordings and I would imagine that this will work it's self out in the end. Someday I will be downloading Strawberry Fields from iTMS and laugh at this whole thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top