StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Apple sued by The Beatles over iPod, ITMS

It may seem trivial and I never liked Yoko Ono, but Apple Macintosh were quite pigshit thick to use such a name given how Apple Corp. owns them every time in court.

I think both sides are being idiots. Apple needs to sell music things to stay competive in todays world and why in hell does apple music care? Apple is a word in the english language you can't sue someone for using a word that you didn't make up, that isn't in a combination of words you made up. It just isn't right. It would be like if i made a company called computer corp and sued anyone who used the word computer for their products.

No, you couldn't, David. Prior art applies there, even for trademarks.

When Apple Computer was first founded, Apple Records had a trademark and feared that there would be consumer confusion between the two. After suing, Apple Computer entered into a lifetime agreement not to become a music distributor.

Move forward a couple decades. Apple begins selling the iPod and iTunes Music Service goes online. This is in violation of the agreement, AR is going to sue. IMHO, it's quite stupid - no-one is going to confuse the two, but Apple Records has the advantage.

Apple Computer should buy Apple Records. They're clearly tiny, I've never heard of them outside of this lawsuit and relations to the Beatles.

phongn wrote:No, you couldn't, David. Prior art applies there, even for trademarks.

When Apple Computer was first founded, Apple Records had a trademark and feared that there would be consumer confusion between the two. After suing, Apple Computer entered into a lifetime agreement not to become a music distributor.

Move forward a couple decades. Apple begins selling the iPod and iTunes Music Service goes online. This is in violation of the agreement, AR is going to sue. IMHO, it's quite stupid - no-one is going to confuse the two, but Apple Records has the advantage.

Apple Records have a legally binding contract that Apple Computer are clearly violating, so I assume that the judge will rule in Apple Records' favor. However, forcing Apple Computer to stop selling iPods and music online would be absurd, and any sensible judge should know that.

Apple Records actually sued Apple Computer for including speakers on their computers (which could be used to play music) and won, with the judge determining that this was a violation of their contract. So Apple Computer are really in no danger of losing their iPod business, as they sell speakers with their computers even today. Apple Computer simply had to pay Apple Records something like $50 million.

This situation is a little different, however. Apple are actually selling music online, and the Apple Records lawyers might be assholes and try to get an injunction (though they probably would have already if they were going to). This could end in the death of the iTunes Music Store, but I seriously doubt it will go that far (maybe the judge has an iPod ); if Apple Records intended for it to, they'd have filed for an injunction.

Apple Records will probably be awarded some ridiculous sum of money, and Apple Computer's business will continue as usual. If I were Apple's lawyers though, I'd cite the unlikelihood of consumers to confuse the two companies as a reason to dissolve the contract and maybe offer to throw in another few million in addition to the breach of contract penalty for the contract's dissolution.

Interesting side-note about Apple and lawsuits. Back in the day, Microsoft threatened to sue Apple for including a system sound (then known as the simple "beep") that sounded similar to Windows' system sound. Instead of changing the sound, Apple renamed it to "sosumi" (pronounced "So sue me"). It is included with Mac systems to this day.

Another funny story is when Carl Sagan sued Apple for code-naming one of their projects "Carl Sagan." Since one of Apple's related projects had the codename "Cold Fusion," Sagan was pissed off at being associated with such a massive fraud in physics. So, when he demanded that Apple change the project's codename, they did. The new codename was "BHA," which apparently stood for "Butt Head Astronomer."

kojikun wrote:Apple Computer should buy Apple Records. They're clearly tiny, I've never heard of them outside of this lawsuit and relations to the Beatles.

Not gonna happen, and if anything legal comes into it, Apple Records have Macintosh by the balls.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

kojikun wrote:Apple Computer should buy Apple Records. They're clearly tiny, I've never heard of them outside of this lawsuit and relations to the Beatles.

Not gonna happen, and if anything legal comes into it, Apple Records have Macintosh by the balls.

Who's "Macintosh"? I was unaware that such a company existed. Apple Computer makes the Macintosh, but Macs aren't the company.

While there is a legal justification for this lawsuit, doen't anyone else find this whole thing a bit silly? I mean, comparing these two companies is like comparing apples and-

Well, you get the idea.

Durandal wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

kojikun wrote:Apple Computer should buy Apple Records. They're clearly tiny, I've never heard of them outside of this lawsuit and relations to the Beatles.

Not gonna happen, and if anything legal comes into it, Apple Records have Macintosh by the balls.

Who's "Macintosh"? I was unaware that such a company existed. Apple Computer makes the Macintosh, but Macs aren't the company.

Using that to differentiate the two, Apple Corps. and Apple Macintosh. Like Remington Firearms and Remington Shavers.

All Apple Computer has to do is spin Itunes of into a separate corporation called Itunes wholly owned by Apple Computer and then they would no longer be infringing on the contract since ITunes would be in the music business, Apple wouldn't be.

Lord MJ wrote:All Apple Computer has to do is spin Itunes of into a separate corporation called Itunes wholly owned by Apple Computer and then they would no longer be infringing on the contract since ITunes would be in the music business, Apple wouldn't be.

Muhuwahaha! Brilliant! I love legality when it benefits the right people.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Using that to differentiate the two, Apple Corps. and Apple Macintosh. Like Remington Firearms and Remington Shavers.

The company name is "Apple Computer," not "Apple Macintosh."

By the way, the "i" apps use lower-case i's (i.e. "iTunes" or "iMovie") not upper-case one.

Durandal wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Using that to differentiate the two, Apple Corps. and Apple Macintosh. Like Remington Firearms and Remington Shavers.

The company name is "Apple Computer," not "Apple Macintosh."

By the way, the "i" apps use lower-case i's (i.e. "iTunes" or "iMovie") not upper-case one.

Yeah but I "think different".

Lord MJ wrote:All Apple Computer has to do is spin Itunes of into a separate corporation called Itunes wholly owned by Apple Computer and then they would no longer be infringing on the contract since ITunes would be in the music business, Apple wouldn't be.

They might be able to pull that off now, but the Apple brand name is an exceptionally powerful one. It might be counterproductive to make this move.

Durandal wrote: This situation is a little different, however. Apple are actually selling music online, and the Apple Records lawyers might be assholes and try to get an injunction

I'd support this. Apple Computers clearly broke that agreement and they
deserve to be taken to "pound me up the ass" settlement court by Apple
Records which will probably involve shuttign down iTunes or spinning it off
into a separately controlled corportation, completely independent of
Apple Computers.

MKSheppard wrote:

Durandal wrote:This situation is a little different, however. Apple are actually selling music online, and the Apple Records lawyers might be assholes and try to get an injunction

I'd support this. Apple Computers clearly broke that agreement and they deserve to be taken to "pound me up the ass" settlement court by Apple Records which will probably involve shuttign down iTunes or spinning it off into a separately controlled corportation, completely independent of Apple Computers.

It was a moronic agreement in the first place. iTunes Music Service is an Apple service, and it will remain that way. The fact that Apple Records have not filed for an injunction yet should be enough to tell anyone that they're running low on cash. Furthermore, iTMS has been around for a few months now, and it has the blessings of the record labels. It won't be going anywhere, especially when it becomes accessible to Windows users at the end of the year.

phongn wrote:

Lord MJ wrote:All Apple Computer has to do is spin Itunes of into a separate corporation called Itunes wholly owned by Apple Computer and then they would no longer be infringing on the contract since ITunes would be in the music business, Apple wouldn't be.

They might be able to pull that off now, but the Apple brand name is an exceptionally powerful one. It might be counterproductive to make this move.

ITunes could still market itself in a way so that everyone knows that it is an Apple business. But legally it will be a separate corporation so Applie Records will not be able to take any action since Apple Computer wouldn't be running the business, it is a separate entity with no contracts with Apple Records.