What the Beatles are doing is nothing less than extortion, and it disgusts me. I took these court documents to the law school here and had them look it over, and both cases are a joke. Apple Comp. had to pay 26.5 Million to Apple Corp. beacuse, get this they included speakers in their computers!!!!! This is just wrong, and I hope the Beatles get laughed off the planet for this pathetic garbage.
[/rant]

Disguts me. Ouch. Funny typo.

Originally posted on macrumors.com forum by atat_jack:

Quote

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judg...ple-v-apple.htm

Key points, as I see them:

"Apple Computer Field of Use"* means (i) electronic good,s 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; (ii) data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services; (iii) ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution; (iv) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services; and (v) promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing.

"Apple Corps Field of Use" means (i) the Apple Musical Artists; the Apple Catalog; personalities or characters which appear in or are derived from the Apple Catalog; the names likenesses, voices or musical sounds of the Apple Musical Artists; any musical works or performances of the Apple Musical Artists; (ii) 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; (iii) promotional merchandise relating to any of the foregoing; (iv) merchandising relating to the Apple Musical Artists and the Apple Catalog and the related subject matter set forth in subsection (i), including, without limitation, the commercial exploitation of personalities, characters, names, designs, images, words, photographs, drawings, or other materials through articles such as posters, toys, games (including computer games), novelties, figures, figurines and clothing; and (v) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services.

"Apple Computer shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use.

Apple Corps shall have the exclusive worldwide right, as between the parties, to use and authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with goods and services within the Apple Corps Field of Use.

"The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii), Apple Computer shall have the exclusive right to use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorise others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

Actually (aside from the typo in the article)...Apple (Computer) originally had "applemusic.com" (in addition to "Apple.com/music"). Both, as you mention were subsequently changed

Every company should vigorously defend its trademarks and IP. This all started decades ago between Apple Computers and Apple Corp. Since this is the 3rd suit, one would have to ask does Jobs not ever learn his lesson? Or perhaps this is all part of a plan to get McCartney on his board and the Beatles catalog on the iTunes inventory.

Either way I can assure you of this. Tables turned, Jobs would not hesitate to sue McCartney or Apple Corp. I've been on the receiving end of Jobs litigation and it was even more frivolous than this.

The Beatles have a right to defend their trademarks, their IP, and anything else they have produced over the years, just as Jobs does or anyone else for that matter.

Steve Jobs was not part of Apple for the other 2 litigations. Know your history before you start commenting on that.

As for the litigation: this is absolutely frivolous. I lost all respect for the remaining members of the Beatles once they started this.

As I've always said, the REAL talent lied with John.

Why doesn't Apple Computer just buy Apple Corps? They can easily afford it, and wouldn't it be great if Apple Computer owned all of the Beatles' music and can sell it exclusively in iTMS.

Apple Corps is privately owned. It cannot be bought without its permission. It hasn't given that permission in the past.

The Beatles and their music just don't appeal to me, but from a business standpoint, i can see the perceived value in having an exclusive on distributing their catalog online.

But having that exclusive right does not automatically mean that they'll profit enough in the forseeable future after paying the rumored settlement amount. If that amount truly negates profits made related to iTMS and the iPod, then what good would having the catalog in the near-term be, especially if only sold at .99/per? (Surely, a great deal of their fans already have vinyl, tapes and cds)

I don't see any value in having Paul McCartney on the board of Apple and possibly see it as an unwanted distraction, considering how strong-willed Steve Jobs is.


Anyway, for those interested in the full read, here it is:
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm

Apple Corps doesn't own the Beatles music, Sony does. They sold their birthright long ago.

There in lies the tail -- Apple Corps no longer has anything to sell.

Other than re-issuing "Best of" CDs to graying baby boomers, what do they have to sell?

While it might be an intersting ego trip for McCartney and Starr to be on Apple Computer's board ... who cares?

mike3k

you might be closer than you think.

Apple picks up the company
gets exclusive rights to the music
Sir Paul on the board

I don't believe that Steve J went into this without working with the attorneys for Apple and planning for what lies ahead.

Th big thing, of course, would be the exclusive rights to the Beatles music.

Quote

deepkid wrote:
...then what good would having the catalog in the near-term be, especially if only sold at .99/per? (Surely, a great deal of their fans already have vinyl, tapes and cds)

MP3 or any electronic form of music the Beatles might do would also be againts the settlement since they would be played on a computer or electronic device. Would Apple sue Apple Corp?

First of all, Apple is not named exclusively after Apple Corps. Sure that was a possible spark, but Steve worked at an Apple farm in oregon the summer before Apple was named. Also, the name Apple got them ahead of Atari in the Phonebook according to Jobs.

Second, Steve wasn't even around for the 1991 agreement. And that is where the problem is. That agreement was because Apple included an ensonic music chip in the 1987 IIgs. So quit saying "Steve hasn't learned", in reality, Steve wasn't around for the last settlement, so Sculley screwed up, not Jobs.

Third, my guess is the agreement is going to be crazy big, something like 1 Billion dollars. BUT, it will be tied to having the Beatles library exclusively on iTunes, with perhaps Paul joining the board, which would be worth several hundred million in free advertising for Apple's iTunes right there. Even less far fetched would be some type of agreement that Apple Corps gets all profits of beatles downloads through perpetuity.

This whole saga has been a strange lsd like trip, most all in the beatles family are Mac fans, even Michael Jackson is a mac user who still owns the publishing rights to many beatles songs. (not sure how that fits to online downloads). Paul is certainly a Mac fan, so perhaps the final note in this long song is almost over and I can get to listening to classic beatles tunes LEGALLY through my Airport Express. (smirk)

AME

Get your money for nothing and your chips for free.

you are disgusting! The Beatles have all the right to defend their trademark!

Shouldn't we all just do that. Don't you all think this is just plain childish? Apple Corp. crying over something all the time and coming to a company that made the Apple name famous when they couldn't and begging for more money.

Grow up Apple Corp.

Let's BOYCOTT buying all Beatles music.

I thought Michael Jackson owned the right to the Beatles music.

Well this proves that I was always right, The Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I thought Michael Jackson owned the right to the Beatles music.

SONY/ATV DO NOT OWN THE BEATLES RECORDINGS!!! Just the songs--there's a difference.

Please learn the difference between publishing companies and record labels. If you want to use Revolution No. 9 in your film, you pay a synchronization royalty to the publishing company. If you want to record a cover of Mean Mr. Mustard, you pay the publishing company. If you want to sell Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me and My Monkey on your online store, you have to get permission from the RECORD LABEL.

It's the Beatles' record label, EMI, who own the Beatles' recordings. They could let Apple sell the Beatles songs if they wanted to, but have decided to wait for the Beatles' (and their representatives') permission.

So yes, THE BEATLES THEMSELVES ARE IN CONTROL OF THIS DECISION!

It's better to pay a settlement than ask for permission.

Paul McCartney on the board is one thing. Just be damned sure Yoko Ono is nowhere near it!

... but it may be downloaded on iTunes.

The thought occurred to me right after the Apple Corps lawsuit was announced that Apple Computer could offer to settle it by offering The Beatles' catalog on iTunes at a premium (perhaps $1.49 per song) with Apple Corps keeping all of the proceeds.

While I would agree that most Beatles fans probably already own most, if not all, of the released catalog and have already ripped the tunes they want to their iPods, the recent success of the "1" album indicates that there might still be a market for their songs.

One other thought, which would be better: settling with Apple Corps at a slight loss in exchange for exclusive rights to sell their music online or allowing MSFT to offer it as the cornerstone of their MSN Music service?

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Paul McCartney on the board is one thing. Just be damned sure Yoko Ono is nowhere near it!

Setteling is not a deal, guys. Setteling does nolt mean Apple Comp. gets something out of the bargain. A settlement means that Apple Corp. whines so much that Apple Comp. pays them a stupid-huge amount of money to sit down, shut up, and go away. Thats it. Thats all a settlement is. Shutup money.

I love the amateur lawyering in the first post. If the cases are such a "joke," why did Apple Computer pony up $26 million to Apple Corps in the first case, and why are they going to offer an even bigger settlement in the second case?

A trademark is a trademark. Apple Computer took a big chance when they put the word "Apple" in their name, given that the biggest musical sensation in history also happened to have that word as the name of their company. The computer company got burned, and now they're paying the price.

The second lawsuit is even more of a slam dunk than the first. Apple knows they are nailed, which is why they are going to settle for big money.

Jackson purchased the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not the rights to their recordings. According to the original agreement the only thing Apple was forbidden to do was to release Recordings using the Apple trademark as I understand it. There was no restriction to keep Apple from offering downloaded music by other labels. This is all strange since the name "Apple" is used by a record label in the U.S. and they have never been sued by Apple Corps for trademark infringement. Some say the original agreement that Apple Computer agreed to should never have been done. That agreement was an out of court settlement. It was never judicated... never went to a jury or judge.

EMI does not own the Beatles recordings. They distribute them. I'm not sure about the solo recordings by each of the Fab Four. They are under different agreements with several labels. The Beatles themselves own the recordings.

... if they can turn it around and make an offer to the Beatles to partner (as part of the settlement).

Heck, the Beatles and Apple could even do one of those talent search reality show (band or DJ) to get their work published by the Beatles over iTunes.

OK, in their day the Beatles were the voice of their generation, they were great, they made history, blah, blah, blah. That was what? Thirty years ago? So, what have they done lately? I have most of their recording on vinyl. I never did buy a single recording on CD. Never even considered it. Their sound is SO dated and irrelevant today. In my opinion, please read again, in my opinion, it would be no great loss if the Beatles never made it to downloadable, digital form.

....cares about the Beatles already own duplicate copies of vinyl and CDs of every one of their albums?

As for the RUMOR about putting Paul on the BOD, why do they need another left-leaning vegan? They should diversify.

And, until I see the settlement in writing, I won't believe it. It's too ludicrous even for lawyers.

All this copying business, it really gets confusing as to who is copying who and what.

Cloning, moaning, and confabulating. Oh what tangled webs we weave.

Redmond fire up your copiers. Al Gore has invented chaos.

These Beetle folks only got one thing in mind: GREED. Kind of pathetic and sad to see what these musicians are really about after all.

This is BidNess. Your personal opinion vis a vis Beatles music doesn't mean squat, the "rest of the world for the last 40 years (not 30) " proves otherwise. Their 'catalog' and by that we mean publishing is the ONLY thing worth talking about.It is THE cash cow money machine of legend in the publishing world. EMI is irrelevent as far as publishing Beatles.
Beatles themselves never owned their music. Sad, but not even close to rare in the BidNess. ATV Aussie dude had 'the catalog' before Jacko out foxed Macca using Macca's own off the cuff advice to Jacko to 'get into publishing'.
Who knows, either Jobs is thick, slick, arrogant, fumbled the ball, has a master plan, just wants to mess once again with the BeatleAppleSauce case that's been in the courts since the 80's, or he wants to have his foot in the Beatles when he becomes Disney's next CEO. BisNEss is BidNess. d:

These Beetle folks only got one thing in mind: MONEY. Kind of pathetic and sad to see what these musicians are really about after all.

The issue is what would a UK court do? What harm has Apple Corps encountered by Apple Computer delivering the iPod, software and services?

The only thing I can see so far is that they (Apple Corps) have some international attention, which ain't too bad because they have not been the hottest thing in the business for a while.

I would hope that a UK judge make Apple Corps show that they have encountered damages from the iPod and TMS. There is really no reason to anticipate Apple Computer facing HUGE awards unless there have been significant damages. It seems even harder to claim financial damages when you refuse the potential revenues from being sold on the most successful internet music store in the world.

Personally I don't think I would settle right now - way too early - but I might work out a reasonable agreement to get exclusive rights. I would keep the songs at 99 cents and the "settlement" would cover any additional profits the Beatles might expect form electronic downloads.

how about if apple computer buys apple records so that the label can publish songs from itunes?

wouldn't it be neat?

http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/saki/copywrite.html
and sold a license for the movie
http://www.hollywoodteenmovies.com/CAN'T%20BUY%20ME%20LOVE.html for the rights to use "can't buy me love"
also for a nike commercial and forest gump and anywhere else that a beatles song is played in a movie, or on a tv show. mj gets cash.

This is IMHO pre-trial posturing. The heat always gets heavy before the beginning of the trial. If there's enough press on the matter investors begin to take notice and get concerned pressuring Apple to settle the dispute quickly.

I dicount the story becuase in order to get a "mind boggling judgement" Apple Corps would have to prove they have been harmed and prove it in financial terms.

August 10, 1985

Northern Songs, owner of the Lennon-McCartney song catalogue, is sold to Michael Jackson for $47.5 million. The sale will be finalised on September 6. The only Lennon-McCartney songs not included are "Love Me Do", "P.S. I Love You", "Please Please Me", and "Ask Me Why".

Ringo Rankled By Jacko's Jingles
Former Beatle Ringo Starr wants Michael Jackson to stop making money off the backs of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The Gloved One owns the rights to music by Lennon and McCartney and has licensed classics like Revolution and Getting Better for use in commercials. But the former drummer, 60, wants him to Beat It.

"Ringo and Paul are upset that what the band wrote and recorded as serious compositions get turned into mere jingles," a friend told the American magazine the National Enquirer. "Ringo told me, 'John and Paul wrote some of the greatest songs in the history of recorded music. But if it's left to the ad-men they'll go down as a couple of jingle writers and The Beatles will be known as hacks. I respect Michael Jackson. I just wish he'd show us some respect and not license our songs for ads'."

Lennon and McCartney sold their music catalogue, including massive hits like She Loves You, Yesterday and Help, in the late 1960s. It was bought by a company called ATV music, which Jackson bought in 1985.

As taken from South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 1st July, 2000

http://www.rareexception.com/Garden/Beatles/Paul.php
and remember paul is dead

How much can the AppleCorps brand be worth? Not more than $100M. Probably $30M. It's the Beatles that is the brand with mindshare, not "Apple Corps" which is an historical footnote. How much damage could Apple Corps possibly sustain, even if they never used the name again? How much smaller would the licensing revenues be?

There is no doubt that the damage sustained by the owners of Apple Corps is relatively negligible.

Quite apart from the fact that Apple has not used the Apple brand name in relation to ITMS, and the iPod appears to be permissible under the agreement, the damages don't look as though they would be that huge.

So what's going on? Maybe SJ has suckered Apple Corps into defending their brand to immerse them in reality distortion over an extended period.

Apple's problem: to keep the ipod/itunes/itms momentum going strongly enough to poleaxe MS eta al in that market. Solution: "a massive legal settlement with The Beatles", merging in the Apple Corps brand with Apple Inc. Generating huge worldwide publicity for ITMS/iPod, and in fact creating billion dollar value from the relatively worthless Apple Corps brand. And perhaps securing exclusive rights to the Beatles as a bonus.

This could be SJ's greatest move yet, once the dust settles and we see what it was really about. And it could truly be worth $1bn in immediate added value for Apple. Pay that in shares with a seat on the board and spin it as "the biggest settlement in history" to get maximum free publicity and alter the worldwide public misperception of Apple as being a small company that inexplicably survives an MS monopoly. Everyone wins.

He should be on the board -- he's the REAL talent in the Beatles!

PUBLISHING RIGHTS! JACKSON BOUGHT THE PUBLISHING RIGHTS!

SELLING A RECORDING IS NOT PUBLISHING!

Publishing is making sheet music or letting someone else USE the song. Licensing a song for a movie is called Synchronization and is handled by the publisher. Selling a recording (CD, LP, digital download) is the job of the RECORD LABEL.

Don't you realize that if ATV (which is half owned by Sony) owned the recordings, they would be selling them exclusively on their online store already?

I found out last week he owns the rights to the Unviersity of Nebraska fight song! I guess I have noticed the college band doesn't play it as much as they use to. Hmmm....

and see how far you can get before Apple takes you to court. In fact develope a new revolutionary application for the Apple computor and see how long it takes for Jobs and company to ripp you off.

We're all dirty dogs. You guys would rip off my beautiful wife if you got the chance. And I would wipe a nose booger on you're new iMac when you ain't looken.

Ummm.... iPod is a registered trademark of Apple Computer. They would be negligent if they didn't pursue it.

Lots of revolutionary applications have been developed for the Mac that Apple hasn't touched. And Konfabulator, while pretty nifty, is not completely original (but that topic has been beat to death).

[quote="Guest"]How much can the AppleCorps brand be worth? Not more than $100M. Probably $30M.

You are way off on this amount. Last year alone Apple Corps made over $100M in profit. They not only own the Beatles music they also license the image and name on many products. Apple Corps is worth more than you can imagine.