Breaking: Beatles sue Apple (again)...
- Thread starter serpicolugnut
- Start date
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.
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
Registered
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::
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::
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
$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....
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.
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
I am the law!
I'm assuming you guys know how the "sosumi" sound effect got its name right?
a-bort
pixel specialist
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
Registered
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.
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
Super Moderator
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).
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
Super Moderator
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...
evildan
Super Moderator
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.
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
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...
Odd, for such a big buisness they don't have a running site?
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...
Odd, for such a big buisness they don't have a running site?
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.
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.
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
"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
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.