for once.

I'm a huge Beatles fan (and they broke up 3 years before I was born), that being said I was with Apple Computers on this one the entire way.

McCartney is still pissed about the Northern Songs deal and gripes about it every chance he gets. Get over it, it was 40+ years ago. You've got a billion + dollars, how much more do you need? After all of this: he is still my favorite Beatle.

I agree with teh previous post finally Apple is getting some love from the courts. I can think of a comapny that has been more star-crossed when it comes to legal cases than Apple.

The decision here was obviously correct, but in Trademark law, you defend your trademark or you lose it. Apple Corps, if it wants to defend itself against later threats to its logo and brand, had to try this case.

I'm certainly glad that Apple Computer won, but as a lifelong Beatles fan, I can certainly understand why they had to fight this battle. Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.

It's not as frivolous as it all seems.

Count me with the glad that Apple Computers won camp.

I'm always getting confused between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to buy a Beatles album, but wind up purchasing a laptop, instead. And then there was the time that I wanted to buy some Apple software, but ended up with a White Album CD. I think that this trial was not only a travesty of justice, it was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of justice. I hope that Apple Computer wins the next round against Apple Corps, big time. I mean, I hope that Apple Corps wins against Apple Computer, big time (There! Do you see how big a problem this is? I've confused them again!).

Quote

DocRoss wrote:
Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.

It's not as frivolous as it all seems.

Yeah just in case the legal agreement the two companies signed that said Apple Computer could not be a record label and produce their own music wasn't clear enough? Cause I'm sure they were planning on becoming a record label and thinking Apple Corps wouldn't sue them. Right. Also they were thinking of selling software under the name Microsoft. I'm glad you like the Beatles, but Apple Corp is a bunch of asses. Are these lawsuits their only source of revenue?

Doc Ross writes:

"The decision here was obviously correct, but in Trademark law, you defend your trademark or you lose it. Apple Corps, if it wants to defend itself against later threats to its logo and brand, had to try this case."

No offense, but that is BS. First, this was not a Trademark case. In other words, Apple Corp was suing Apple over a contract dispute, not a Trademark dispute. Accordingly, the two sides were arguing over the contract, not Trademark law.

Second, you only have to sue to defend a Trademark if it is reasonable to think somebody is violating your trademark. Since there is a contract that covers this matter, no trademark dispute arises. Moreover, the contract clearly covered what Apple was doing. Also, Apple should have won on the defense that Apple Corp was aware of iTunes before its unveiling and let Apple proceed to its legal detriment (forget the name, but a valid contract efense).

Third, Apple never violated Apple Corps trademark, and should have never settled with Apple Corp in the first place. That is the part that shocks most intellicutal proerty lawyers, is that Apple COmputer settled in the first place.

Two companies engaged in two different businesses, can use the same name. Moreover, in some cases, two companies engaged in the same business can use the same name, if they operate in different locations.

Apple Computer's problem is it has always been plagued with bad lawyers. It should have took the first lawsuit to court, In its defense, it probably did not expect this perputual shakedown.

This over-hyped suit and its outcome is a big non-event. The court had little choice but to rule in Apple Computer's favor. If not for the people involved, this case would not have received anywhere near the media attention it garnered.

Quote

DocRoss wrote:
I'm certainly glad that Apple Computer won, but as a lifelong Beatles fan, I can certainly understand why they had to fight this battle. Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.

It's not as frivolous as it all seems.

DocRoss, Plainly ridiculous.

I love the Beatles and am only 33. They broke up 3 years before I was born (I include this only for insight to my perspective).

Seriously, how did Apple Corp think they could win this? Who in their right mind associates Apple with the Beatles outside of Rock Historians and aging memory addled hippies? Ask any kid 25 or younger and if they have heard of the Beatles they probably couldn’t name the members of the band. Some might, but that would be a small percentage I’m willing to bet.

Now we are going to see the endless wrangling over appeals because I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple Corp expected to win this, now they are responsible for Apple’s legal bills. Which will be in the millions by the time it is done and over.

Maybe Apple should just buy Apple Corp and their holding company and be done with it. They got more than enough money to do it and would end the issues over the trademark once and for all. I would guess the only thing stopping them is the fact that Steve Jobs loves the Beatles…

While I do not fault your love of the Beatles, I do find at issue the fact that Apple Computers is on notice. Apple Computers should have never agreed to the 1991 settlement in the first place. As it was the Beatles thought they made out like bandits in 91, I'm guessing they are not laughing now... In fact the legal bill is 3 million British Pounds right now and will only get larger the more this drags on.

Quote

DocRoss wrote:
The decision here was obviously correct, but in Trademark law, you defend your trademark or you lose it. Apple Corps, if it wants to defend itself against later threats to its logo and brand, had to try this case.

I'm certainly glad that Apple Computer won, but as a lifelong Beatles fan, I can certainly understand why they had to fight this battle. Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.

It's not as frivolous as it all seems.

I doubt seriously Apple Computer would start an "Apple" record label. Further, there's little to no financial return to Apple shareholders from the company investing in music publishing catalogs or buying recorded masters. It's a fool's game.

The past 10 years have realized the significant loss of fortunes to individuals involved in music ownership as the value of their catalogs have diminshed to a fraction of their previous value. Shareholders of major record labels have lost tens of billions of dollars becuase the industry has refused to adress economic reality.

Apple Corps was and is a dormant label in maintenance mode. Apple Corps would have a very difficult time, should Apple Computer even consider entering the music business beyond distribution, proving any kind of damages.

Apple Computer will not enter the music ownership business and Apple Corps has few options to generate more revenue for its owners than to settle the suit with Apple Computer and make available whatever music and masters it still owns available via of iTMS.

This suit was a roll of the dice for Apple Corps. The label lost.

Several times the Beatles have milked Apple for millions. Who the $#%& gets them mixed up? You would think that the Beatles made enough off Apple. What do they really want? Sounds like Yoko can't get enough. What a greedy &$%#@. I guess when you can't record anymore you file suits to live off others. Parasites!!

The interesting thing for Apple Computer to do would be to launch a record label and call it the iTunes Records. Where would that leave poor old Apple Corps?

Yes MarkSten, good point, as the despute is not over the music business per se but over the use of the Apple logo in the music business, at least as far as Corp. is concerned. Therefore, Apple could spin off -- as someone already has stated -- iTunes under a different, non-Apple logo and Apple Corp. would not have a valid reason to litigate at Apple. And if Apple loses on appeal, it could do the same and be no worse for wear. After all, iTunes is a brand in itself and needs no Apple logo to maintain momentum and identity.

But since I am far away from the lawerly profession, maybe someone in the field can find flaw in my observation.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Yes MarkSten, good point, as the despute is not over the music business per se but over the use of the Apple logo in the music business, at least as far as Corp. is concerned. Therefore, Apple could spin off -- as someone already has stated -- iTunes under a different, non-Apple logo and Apple Corp. would not have a valid reason to litigate at Apple. And if Apple loses on appeal, it could do the same and be no worse for wear. After all, iTunes is a brand in itself and needs no Apple logo to maintain momentum and identity.

But since I am far away from the lawerly profession, maybe someone in the field can find flaw in my observation.

Apple would not spin off the iPod division. It's critical to the Mac's success. Most likely the two companies will reach an out of court settlement and the Apple Corps catalog will be added to iTunes. Apple Corps, under British law, is required to pay Apple Computer's legal fees. Practically speaking, pushing the case much further does not have economic justification.

Both companies were seeking the court's guidance in this dispute. This case is not a big matter and the publicity has more to do with the people invloved than with the legal merits of the dispute.

Apple Corps should also sue Apple Bank for savings, since they also use an Apple logo, and they "sell" CDs.

Quote

weatherc wrote:
I'm always getting confused between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to buy a Beatles album, but wind up purchasing a laptop, instead. And then there was the time that I wanted to buy some Apple software, but ended up with a White Album CD. I think that this trial was not only a travesty of justice, it was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of justice. I hope that Apple Computer wins the next round against Apple Corps, big time. I mean, I hope that Apple Corps wins against Apple Computer, big time (There! Do you see how big a problem this is? I've confused them again!).

This is the best post I read in a long time LMAOROTF!

Quote

Willmark wrote:

Quote

weatherc wrote:
I'm always getting confused between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to buy a Beatles album, but wind up purchasing a laptop, instead. And then there was the time that I wanted to buy some Apple software, but ended up with a White Album CD. I think that this trial was not only a travesty of justice, it was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of justice. I hope that Apple Computer wins the next round against Apple Corps, big time. I mean, I hope that Apple Corps wins against Apple Computer, big time (There! Do you see how big a problem this is? I've confused them again!).

This is the best post I read in a long time LMAOROTF!

Agreed!