Apple Computer wins in Apple v. Apple case

Terry_Lasater

Terry_Lasater

All about the Caption
Apple Computer wins in Apple v. Apple case
By Karen Haslam, Macworld UK and Jonny Evans, Macworld UK


Apple Computer Inc. has prevailed in its case regarding logo use in iTunes against Apple Corps.

High court judge Edward Mann delivered his judgment at 10.30 a.m. London time Monday, ruling in favor of Apple Computer.

The Beatles’ business affairs company, Apple Corps, had accused Apple Computer of breaking a 1991 agreement in its use of the Apple logo in association with what it regards as music-related products, the iPod and iTunes.

The British company, still owned by former Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, along with the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison, wanted to win an injunction to prevent Apple Computer using the apple logo in connection with its iPod and iTunes products.

The judge didn’t agree. Mann said that the association between the logo use and the download service is a “proper one”, and that the logo was clearly used in relation to the service, not to the music.

“The primary reason there is no breach (of the 1991 deal) is because the use of the logo is still a permitted use as described in clause 4.3 of the 1991 agreement,” the judge declared.

Apple Computer had defended its use of the logo in association with its music products, as being simply data transmission, which is allowed under clause 4.3 of the 1991 agreement.

The judge agreed with the defense, and said that Apple Computer’s use of the logo in association with its products “does not go beyond what is reasonable and fair.”

Lawyers representing Apple Corps have asked the judge to grant them leave to appeal against his decision. Apple Computer meanwhile is demanding at least £1.5 million in fees from Apple Corps.

Apple Corps has now issued a statement, confirming it plans to appeal against the decision.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Frivolous

I have not once ever ever ever thought of The Beatles (Apple Corps, LTD)
when seeing, hearing or using iPOD or ITunes or in thinking of Apple Computer's.

I'm a Beatle fan, but that's just-a-ridiculous.

Why, it's sour grapes!
 
Jobs invites Beatles to iTunes:

Steve Jobs invites Beatles to iTunes
By Jim Dalrymple


After successfully defending itself from a lawsuit by Apple Corps, Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs on Monday invited the Beatles to join the iTunes Music Store.

“We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store,” said Steve Jobs in a statement provided to Macworld.

The judgment brings to an end the lawsuit that accused Apple Computer of violating a 1991 agreement in its use of the Apple logo in association with what it regards as music-related products, the iPod and iTunes.

Apple Corps — owned by Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, along with the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison — wanted to win an injunction to prevent Apple Computer using the apple logo in connection with its iPod and iTunes products.

The judge disagreed and said the use of the Apple Computer logo was a proper one.

“We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,” said Jobs.

While Jobs may want to have the lawsuit behind him, it’s not over yet. Apple Corps confirmed in a statement that it plans to appeal against the decision.

Apple Corps confirmed last month that work was being done to remaster the Beatles collection in preparation for digital downloads.

The fact that the Beatles music will go online does not guarantee Apple’s market-leading iTunes Music Store will get the collection. When Yoko Ono made John Lennon’s catalogue available digitally last year, she did so on Real/Rhapsody, Napster, MSN and Yahoo! Unlimited, but not on iTunes.
Click to expand...
 
"I have a check, made out to you, The Beatles, for $3,000...."

Sorry, that just popped into my head. :)
 
John_Hudson said:
Frivolous

I have not once ever ever ever thought of The Beatles (Apple Corps, LTD)
when seeing, hearing or using iPOD or ITunes or in thinking of Apple Computer's.

I'm a Beatle fan, but that's just-a-ridiculous.

Why, it's sour grapes!
Click to expand...
I agree, but apparently when Apple Computers applied for their trade mark they reached an agreement with Apple Corps that prevented them from ever entering the music business. If that agreement actuall happened I can see why the Beatles are a bit pissed off.

Also it wouldn't be that big of a deal for Apple Computers to spin off the iTunes and iPod part of their business to another trade mark which is what Apple Corps is asking them to do. It kinda says a bit about Apple Computers and how they make more money on iTunes than they do on selling computers as to which business they are really in. Which is why I won't switch to the Mac but love my iPod that plays all of my Beatles songs...
 
All this "intellectual property" crap has gone a bit too far. I'm all for artists' rights, don't get me wrong, but crap like this just muddies the waters for ligitimate suits. Come on, has anyone EVER associated apple computers/itunes/ipod with the Beatles' Apple Corporation. Ridiculous - should never have gone to trial. Apple Computer is NOT a content provider - they are a hardware and service provider. If they want to start a record label, then, yes, poor Mr. McCartney should protect his assets. If not, quit wasting taxpayer (not to mention his own) money.
 
dustino said:
...poor Mr. McCartney should protect his assets.
Click to expand...

He should've done that before Michael Jackson bought their library. I mean, what does Apple Records control anyway? I thought MJ held the pursestrings.
 
dustino said:
All this "intellectual property" crap has gone a bit too far. I'm all for artists' rights, don't get me wrong, but crap like this just muddies the waters for ligitimate suits. Come on, has anyone EVER associated apple computers/itunes/ipod with the Beatles' Apple Corporation. Ridiculous - should never have gone to trial. Apple Computer is NOT a content provider - they are a hardware and service provider. If they want to start a record label, then, yes, poor Mr. McCartney should protect his assets. If not, quit wasting taxpayer (not to mention his own) money.
Click to expand...
I think the fine folks at iTunes would argue with your assertion that they are NOT content providers. They may not produce it but they certianly provide more content than most record labels. And Apple Corps produces and distributes more than the Beatles. If Apple Computers where content on staying a hardware manufacturer then there would be no issues but what do you think would happen if Apple Corps started selling lots of iPods?

Apple :nads: Apple
 
ChuckS said:
I think the fine folks at iTunes would argue with your assertion that they are NOT content providers. They may not produce it but they certianly provide more content than most record labels. And Apple Corps produces and distributes more than the Beatles. If Apple Computers where content on staying a hardware manufacturer then there would be no issues but what do you think would happen if Apple Corps started selling lots of iPods?

Apple :nads: Apple
Click to expand...

Good point, though I still disagree. Apple is not a content provider anymore than Comcast or Direct TV are content providers. CNN, MTV, Comedy Central provide content. Comcast or Direct TV (like Apple) do not provide - they are a service distributor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top