Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

On Apple vs Apple

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the ridiculous-court-cases dept.

324

Since nothing else really interesting is happening, here is a CNN story about Apple vs Apple where you can read about the latest developments in the latest round of the never ending court battles as two bazillion dollar companies fight over who gets to use the word 'Apple' to sell music.

cancel ×

324 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bazillion dollar company's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045544)

Apple (ie the beatles Apple) pulls in around $1million a year

anyway Apple (UK/Beatles) have the right here and they will win, Apple-computers keep trying to twist the case to matters it is not

The ruling in hte 90's basically said Apple-computers to stay away form Music stuff, they have violated that, they will lose, and so they should

Re:bazillion dollar company's? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045592)

"anyway Apple (UK/Beatles) have the right here and they will win"

AFAIK, there are two issues here:

  • trademark infringement
  • break of agreement

As to the first, I do not think that Apple's use of an Apple logo in the iTunes Music store in any way profits from Apple Record's investment in their trademark. Also, I do not think there is any chance of people mistaking Apple Computer for Apple Records of vice versa here.

As to the second, there were earlier agreements, but they were kept confidentional. The first I ever read about this is "Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," he said." in the CNN article.

I do not know whether that claim is accurate.

In both cases, let's see what the judge thinks of it.

Sour Grapes, yet again. (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045594)

Until they create their own music i dont see a problem with apple computer selling music devices ( and itunes ).

They really are not *in* the music business, so they arent hurting apple records, so they should just shut up and appreciate the extra sales they get via beatles songs on itunes.

Just another bloodsucker standing in line to screw the big guy.

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045607)

Beatles songs *aren't* available on iTunes.

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045729)

Well, that should change then.

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045933)

Beatle songs are NOT available on iTunes because Apple corp does not agree with Apple-computers distributing music.
By not allowing them to distribute they allow themselves some legal clout.

iTunes want to distribute Beatles tracks, they will sell and make both Apples money.

BUT if apple-corp allowed that to happen and THEN this court case took place the judge would just throw it out

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045665)

Apple records doesn't make music either. They're both distributors.

*insert flame for not getting it, etc*

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045767)

Who cares. My point stands. Dont like it, read elsewhere.

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045908)

Who cares. My point stands. Don't like it, read elsewhere.

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045988)

You're both wrong. My point stills. Don't like it, read elsewhere.

Re:Sour Grapes, yet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045727)

"Just another bloodsucker standing in line to screw the big guy"
...or maybe just another big guy looking to stomp on anyone that gets in their way!

Re:bazillion dollar company's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045649)

I doubt it'll even make it to verdict.... the two apples will probably end up settling and maintaining the status quo (with Apple Computers paying Apple Corp a little blood money).

Don't they know anything about SHARING? (5, Funny)

Phantombrain (964010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045545)

Why don't they just cut the logo in half and let them each use half an apple?

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (2, Funny)

eosp (885380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045556)

Apple Computer only uses 3/4 as it is...

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (5, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045563)

And then whichever one of them says, "No! No! Let the other one have it instead!" -- that's the one who gets to keep the logo? ;)

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045602)

Then Apple Computers will lose. They have already sold off a bite of theirs.

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (1)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045747)

Makes one think af a great logo:
someone with a piece of apple in his/her mouth ;-0

Roel

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (0, Offtopic)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045755)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but as I've just been marked 'troll' for the first time (after remarking that I was glad that April 2nd was near),
I meant of course 'a great logo for someone who wanted to take a bite of the marketshare of iTunes ;-)
I have nothing against iTunes myself...

Roel

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045854)

No, the one who gets the red half dies and is put into a glass coffin.

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (1)

doodlelogic (773522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045633)

That would imply they only sell 'B' sides...

Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING? (1)

hhawk (26580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045816)

Apple licensed the APPLE logo from the Beatles.
They agreed not to sell music.
They broke that agreement.

yeah, but.. (1)

apostrophesemicolon (816454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045927)

And then whichever one of them says, "No! No! Let the other one have it instead!" -- that's the one who gets to keep the logo? ;)
...which one gets the whole half, and which one gets the bitten half?

You say you want a revolution? (4, Funny)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045548)

You say you want a revolution?
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world

But nothing TOO different please. Please don't change the status quo TOO much. Don't rock the boat if you're in it. I don't want to put my music on this interweb thingy...

Re:You say you want a revolution? (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045868)

But nothing TOO different please. Please don't change the status quo TOO much. Don't rock the boat if you're in it. I don't want to put my music on this interweb thingy...

Let who put it on the internet? A company that you were nice to and gave a break to by letting them use your name if they stayed out of the music business. Despite the fact that the two founders were from a generation intimately familiar with the Beatles and probably 100% aware of Apple Records. You gave them the benefit of the doubt. Decades later when they need to reinvent the company (face it, it is more of an iPod company than a computer company in the eyes of most consumers and investors) they broke their word and entered the music business. To add insult to injury they then sue you to steal your name in your primary business.

I own a Mac, I own an iPod, I will most likely own more in the future. However liking the products does not mean liking the corporation. Apple is every bit as evil as MS, they have had just had fewer opportunities and they have much much better public relations. The later can't be hurt by Jobs being a saleman rather than a geek like Gates.

Re:You say you want a revolution? (1, Interesting)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045883)

In many ways, this reminds me of SCO v. IBM or anyone of the hundreds of court battles out there now between innovating companies and companies coasting along on the inertia of their past glory. Here we have one compay that's changing how music is sold and listened to (Apple Computer) versus another that's relying on sales of 30 year old songs.

Re:You say you want a revolution? (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045914)

Well then, maybe Apple Inc shouldn't have "innovated" their company name by copying it off a Beatles record.

Re:You say you want a revolution? (2, Insightful)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045980)

Do you have proof to backup your assertions?

If you attempt to copyright a common word like "Apple", then be prepared for trouble. Beatles may have captured the thoughts of millions of fans across the globe, but they don't own the language.

apple vs apple.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045549)

...vs orange?

Re:apple vs apple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045718)

They're ganging up on it... :)

mmmmm.... (0, Offtopic)

sjg (957424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045555)

I like my apples with that yummy caramel stuff.

Re:mmmmm.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045603)

Sperm?

Re:mmmmm.... (0, Troll)

iMac Were (911261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045917)

Sperm isn't caramel covered. Hmm, on second thoughts, a mac user's quite often is.

The result: (0, Offtopic)

yootje (770109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045558)

Applesauce. Sweet.

Re:The result: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045626)

The sweet juice
flowing in cake
now cold

It's a No Brainer (2, Insightful)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045562)

Apple (the Beatles' music label) had the name first so they should be able to dictate what happens with the trademark when it comes to music, plain and simple. Apple (the computer company) agreed that they would only use the Apple brand for computing products. The iPod and the iTunes Music Store are definitely not computing products, so it looks like they breahced the contract.

The music label should win. It's that simple.

Re:It's a No Brainer (3, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045719)

I disagree. Apple Comp. is not cutting records of bands and selling it. Anyone who thinks the trademark will be caught in confusion is an idiot or a crook. In this case, I think it's obvious. It's easy to hide behind, "We have to defend our trademark" like Apple Corp. but in reality they're either so blindly self-absorbed that they think this is really going to confuse people or they are simply suing because they can. True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed. I'm not sure iTunes constitutes a breach of that. Who knows.

So you argue the larger/richer corp should win? (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045905)

Apple Comp. is not cutting records of bands and selling it.

So their business is not growing but they still are in business. Are you arguing that the small businesss should roll over and accomodate the wishes of the larger growing corporation? That is in fact what you are arguing whether or not you had intended to do so. True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.

(1) So you are arguing that large corporation are above the law, that they may enter into contracts when convenient and break them without consequence when convenient to do so? Perhaps when what has changed is merely that they are now far stronger and their opponent far weaker? That is in fact what you are arguing whether or not you had intended to do so.

(2) "Never should have been signed"? How self serving a conclusion, have you considered that Apple Computer was about to *lose* the case and the settlement was the less risky alternative?

I own a Mac, I own an iPod, I will most likely own more in the future. However liking the products does not mean liking the corporation. Apple is every bit as evil as MS, they have merely had fewer opportunities and they have much much better public relations. The later can't be hurt by Jobs being a saleman rather than a geek like Gates.

Re:So you argue the larger/richer corp should win? (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045949)

uh- I think you misread Comp for Corp...

Re:It's a No Brainer (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045965)

True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.

It's never been debatable -- Apple Computers was named in homage to Apple Records. Apple Computer either signed the agreement or they would have had to rename the company.

Also, Apple Records was not some obscure outfit. Every Beatles LP had an Apple logo in the center. Every 1970s kid (aka Steve Jobs) knew who Apple Records was. Just because Apple Inc has outmarketed Apple Records in recent years doesn't change the reality of Apple Computer was named.

Re:It's a No Brainer (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045758)

The iPod and the iTunes Music Store are definitely not computing products

if you can show us how to use iTunes and the iPod without a computer you are a better man than most of us

Re:It's a No Brainer (1)

Egregius (842820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045938)

GP put it wrong. The original Apple vs Apple settlement/court order (I don't remember) specifically stated that Apple computers was allowed to keep using the Apple logo, as long as, and only as long as they didn't do ANYTHING with music. And now they've become a music label by proxy; clearly Apple Corp (the Beatles' label) has 'right on their side'. The only thing I don't understand is how Apple computers could've been so stupid, and why Apple music waited so long with this case.

Re:It's a No Brainer (1, Troll)

oirtemed (849229) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045934)

It isn't that simple, No Brainer. Trademarks exist to protect the consumer and the basis is that one could get the two brands mixed up. Now Apple Records may be pissed off that no one in the US cares about them, Beatles reissues aside, but that doesn't make their case legitimate. While it could be argued that Apple the computer company breached the previous contract, the previous contract should have never needed to be made. Apple isn't using their name to make a publishing company. Should a music store called "Apple Music Store" be denied because of the Apple Records trademark, nooooooooooooo. Nor should a stereo company called Apple Stereos. Only a record company, plain and simple. And..honestly..if you don't think the ipod and itunes are 'computing' products, you need an IQ test.

Hm (0, Redundant)

yootje (770109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045570)

How you like them apples?

I hope (5, Funny)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045586)

I hope Apple wins.

Are you kidding? (5, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045658)

I hope Apple Loses!
They're obviously in the wrong here.

Re:Are you kidding? (2, Funny)

behindthecamera (964294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045845)

Either way, I predict an Apple win.

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045930)

The winners are the same in every case: the lawyers.

Re:Are you kidding? (1)

HeliumHigh (773838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045944)

And by the power of elimination, I predict an Apple loss.

Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (5, Informative)

john-da-luthrun (876866) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045589)

The CNN article gets a little over-excited about Apple Computer's barrister saying that "even a moron in a hurry" could tell the difference between the two brands.

The lawyer wasn't being gratuitously offensive - the "moron in a hurry" is an established figure in English passing off/trade mark law, like the "man on the Clapham omnibus". The phrase comes from an action for "passing off" (i.e. infringement of an unregistered trade mark) a few years ago, where the court held that there would be no infringement where the only person likely to be confused by two different usages of a mark is the said "moron in a hurry".

Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045687)

Yes, the CNN story gets a little excited about the phrase, probably because it's somewhat witty and makes a great sound bite. However, to be fair, they did say it was an "oft-repeated legal argument" in the article.

Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045692)

And back when "moron" was a technical term, it meant someone with an IQ between 50-69. A "moron" is now "mild" mental retardation or "educable mentally retarded".

The word "moron" fell out of medical use, as did imbecile and idiot because the term started getting abused by lay people.

Re:Who are *you* calling "a morAn in a hurry"? (1)

paxdan (824979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045833)

You forgot the lesser spotted fark moran.

Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045899)

The word "moron" fell out of medical use, as did imbecile and idiot because the term started getting abused by lay people.

And, apparently, law people.

Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045945)

It's really an insult to morons (IQ 50-69) and idiots (IQ Unfortunately, these terms have entered popular language and due to this abuse have been abandoned by the medical community.

Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045753)

It probably makes more sense when you realise that 'moron' used to be a clinical term for mentally retarded people, rather than an abusive insult.

Re:Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"? (1)

Rotund Prickpull (818980) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045943)

'moron' used to be a clinical term for mentally retarded people, rather than an abusive insult.

Just like mong, joey & fucktard, then.

When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (3, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045593)

Apple Corp is an utterly irrelevant entity that hasn't been a force in the music industry in three decades. I'm willing to bet that a good number of younger Beatles fans have no clue as to who they are. The "threat" Apple Computer poses to their trademark recognition is already nullified by its lack of mindshare. People still love the Beatles' music, but the Apple "label" is just a joke that has slipped out of the minds of many.

Microware's laughable suit against Apple over the "OS-9" / MacOS 9" "confusion" was on more firm ground than this.

Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (4, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045630)

While all that might be true, it doesn't change the fact there's some sort of contract between the two.

The worst outcome in this case appears to be that Apple Inc will need to remove their logo from the iTunes program and maybe pay some money. It's not going to shut down their music ventures and doesn't seem like something that people should get too worried about.

Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045832)

I guess that means I can start a car company called Oldsmobile now. After all, it's not like holding a trademark means you retain the rights to a name or anything.

Except, you know, legally.

Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045939)

Aren't trademarks "use it or lose it"? I think eventually you may be able to make a car called Oldsmobile. (I don't know wny you'd want to...) Apple Records might not be signing new bands, but it's still an active trademark used on their back catalog.

Just because Apple Inc spends a lot more money on commercials shouldn't give them the right to steal trademarks.

Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out? (2, Interesting)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045850)

But they have a contract with Apple Computer, don't they? One that essentially boils down to "we allow you to use our trademarked "Apple" name, and in return, you promise to not enter the music business".

I may be misremembering things, but if that's what it's like, it seems pretty clear that Apple *has* violated the contract by starting iTunes.

Let's copyright fruit (3, Funny)

StinkyPinky (965500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045608)

I wonder if Fiona Apple will be made to change her name some time soon.

Re:Let's copyright fruit (4, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045870)

I wonder if Fiona Apple will be made to change her name some time soon.

I don't know, but I would LOVE it if she'd adopt Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.

Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (4, Informative)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045611)

Most record companies have welcomed iTunes, because -- unlike pirate music sites -- it protects their copyright and collects a fee. But the Apple vs. Apple dispute means that no Beatles music is available on iTunes.

"We haven't unfortunately been able to persuade Apple Corps in relation to their Beatles catalogue," said Grabiner. "But we have persuaded everybody else."


This dispute has nothing to do with Beatles music being on iTunes. The Beatles music is not available via any digital store, iirc. Yes, a few of the German Tony Sheridan tracks, and 'interview' tracks, but that's about it. The major catalog is not available through any digital download means, not just iTunes. If the Beatles were trying to get back (heh) at Apple Computer, they'd license their material to Napster, or MSN, or Yahoo, or some competing network.

The Beatles have historically been 'behind the times' technologically, what we might call 'late adopters'. For example, their catalog wasn't available on CD until 1987 - years after CDs were accepted as mainstream. Even going back to the 60's, they were one of the last major bands to 'upgrade' to 8 track recording, having recorded practically their entire career on 4 track recording, even though 8 track recording was certainly available earlier.

As an aside, I find it a bit funny that people accuse the Beatles of 'cashing in' every so often. While I certainly feel that way myself occasionally, I have to remind myself there's a lot of opportunity they're sitting on which they could still release and all the hardcore fans and baby boomers would still eat it up. I think they've shown a fair amount of restraint so far. I'm thinking of the hours of live concert footage which is available, for example - there's probably another DVD or two which could be put out, plus remastering all the old albums . Witness the Yellow Submarine remaster - *much* better sounding than the original CD - they could reissue all the original CDs and make still millions more, but haven't (yet?) done so. Maybe they never will?

Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (0, Flamebait)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045645)

The Beatles have historically been 'behind the times' technologically, what we might call 'late adopters'.

By "The Beatles", you presumably mean the talentless gits still cashing in on John Lennons talent? The Beatles as an entity ceased to exist in 1970, but were quite technologically advanced for their day (in terms of production techniques etc).

Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (2, Interesting)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045696)

I thought that would come up - the production. It's a mixed bag, really. In some (many!) ways the production techniques (initially or primarily down to George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and others) *were* very advanced (artificial double tracking, for example).

I probably misspoke, in that the Beatles themselves probably would have preferred 8 track recording earlier than they got it. Had they made it more of a cause earlier on, they probably would have convinced EMI to install 8 track equipment, but instead didn't press that issue (I can't imagine that by 1966 they didn't know it was equipment that was available!)

I wouldn't say "Apple" or "The Beatles" cash in on Lennon's name/image much - Yoko does that herself. I don't mean "cash in" in a particularly bad way (though it seems you did!). She's just doing good business. The Beatles themselves as a group have 4 good names to cash in on. I would argue that trying to cash in on the names of just one of them simply doesn't work very well - they were very much bigger than the sum of their individual names/contributions, and that's why "The Beatles" as an entity will continue to be a big draw for a long time.

Will they continue to sell millions per year? Probably not over the long haul, but it's damn impressive that much of their music still sounds fresh today (good production and equipment used all those years ago), and that many of the songs still are able to speak to new generations.

Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045741)

Really I was just taking the opportunity to take a dig at McCartney ;). Actually I agree, they've been pretty sensible about managing the Beatles legacy.

I'd guess the reason they've stayed out of the download market is more down to them selling a disproportionate amount of high-added-value box-sets etc, rather than them not being up on technology. That's just a guess on my part, but selling individual tracks on downloads might well have an impact on sales of such items.

Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045956)

The Beatles themselves as a group have 4 good names to cash in on.
Would those names be John, Paul, George and whoever the first drummer was?

Re:Not available anywhere, not just on iTunes (1)

dykofone (787059) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045831)

Hey now, don't forget the Russian Mafia. Allofmp3.com has had The Beatles [allofmp3.com] for a while now; though I'm not sure if a quasi-legal download site really counters your statement that they're not available through digital download. Allof is certainly doing it without permission, but that's a whole other debate.

WWF vs. WWF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045624)

World Wrestling Federation faced a similar suit in the UK, not just over the initials, but over an agreement they signed not use to them internationally. They lost. They were forced to remain themselves to World Wrestling Entertainment.

The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't care (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045651)

We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.

The point is moot, but Apple Corps will try to extract some fake fealty from Apple Computer.

The lawyers win. We don't.

Maybe Disney should by Apple Corps.... all in the family, then.

Re:The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't ca (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045875)

We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.

"We" as in technology savvy people know the difference. What if you have some technophobe guy who grew up on the Beatles and Apple records who stumbles on iTunes and sees "Apple"? The first thing he's going to think of is Apple Records, because, duh, he's looking at music. He'll assume that Apple Records started the web site and is licensing music from other labels as well.

Remember, Apple Computer is only 3% of the market. There are LOTS of people who have never heard of Apple nor have ever seen a Mac (I know that's hard to believe from Mac fans whose lives revolve around the company).

Trademark cases are all about confusion, and there is clear potential for confusion here.

Re:The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't ca (2, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045954)

We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.

Apple Computer [apple.com] has a website, Apple Corps [applecorps.com] does not. *boggles*

Just how pointless this is... (2, Insightful)

KU_Fletch (678324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045678)

Go open iTMS right now. There is no Apple logo anywhere on the front page or any of their other pre-produced pages. Good thing we need a lawsuit to clear up the status quo.

Really, I see "Apple" and an Apple logo in iTMS (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045936)

Go open iTMS right now. There is no Apple logo anywhere on the front page or any of their other pre-produced pages. Good thing we need a lawsuit to clear up the status quo.

Are you basis this on what a Mac advocate told you, sure you have not actually run iTunes? After launching iTunes and selecting the Music Store I find a big black Apple logo.

Re:Just how pointless this is... (1)

RalphSleigh (899929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045966)

I load up iTunes (to get to the music store) and theres a nice apple logo right at the top in the center, under the iTunes title. Click on the music store and it gets replaced with the 'loading music store' bar, then comes back when its loaded.

Re:Just how pointless this is... (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045972)

And yet the interface (iTunes) most everyone uses to access the store as well as the hardware they play the music on prominently display the Apple logo.

What's in a name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045689)

Rather alot it appears now.

What I find interesting is what this means for the earlier agreements and if they'll have to honour it or not. I find it irritating that if you have enough money you seem to be able to pay your way out of most court cases or ignore what happens or just go through endless appeals so nothing ever gets done.

Interesting to see what an agreement is worth these days

The dustbin of history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045694)

The courts will be irrelevant on this one. Whatever they decide Apple Records will eventually disappear. They produce nothing new except for the continuation of the nostalgia of those aging Sgt. Pepper fans. It's popular music, for God's sake. Even Rudi Vallee fell into obscurity (ask your grandmother about him...) Neither Time nor History are kind to memory; once Jacko bought the catalog the writing was on the wall. Move on with your lives.

I Thought Every One Knew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045701)

Apple sells iPods.

itunes sells music.

isn't this the best argument to make?

Remember the Sony vs. Sony's suit a few years ago (2, Interesting)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045720)

I recall that "Sony's" was a restaurant in Hong Kong that predated "Sony" the electronics and music company by many years, yet the latter sued the former for a good deal of money.

AMERICA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045762)

How do you respond to the allegations that the attacks on the World Trade Centres were planned and carried out by the US Government?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomal ies.html [wtc7.net]

Re:AMERICA (-1, Offtopic)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045891)

That I already fucking knew and your offtopic crap is OLD HAT. I've still got the original 'live' footage of WTC towers being hit by the second plane from 8 in the morning, nice and secure on a hard drive. I can tell you firsthand that's it's an implosion caused from the inside, as evidenced by the absolute lack of an explosion (a rapidly expanding wall of air, usually followed by MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FLAMES, not DUST like an implosion causes.)

go take your stuff to Fox News, I'm sure they'll HAPPILY report it for you. I'm waiting for V for Vendetta revenge on the government, personally.

In other news: Apple VS McIntosh (2, Insightful)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045763)

I'm actually surprised that Mcintoshlabs never took exception to apple's use of the brand "Macintosh" that i've been made aware of. Slashdot users who are unaware Mcintosh is a brand name for highfi equipment. To me it's the same issue with apple records, sort of a problem before Apple got into audio, but huge confusion after apple got into audio.

Re:In other news: Apple VS McIntosh (1)

chivo243 (808298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045812)

Back in the early 70's there was a record and stereo chain called appletree records and appletree stereo. They had joined stores, pretty cool for that time period. Then something called apple computers ended up in the same strip mall in about 78-79. For a really long time as a youngster I thought they were all related... not so....

Re:In other news: Apple VS McIntosh (4, Insightful)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045866)

According to http://www.roger-russell.com/mcintosh2.htm [roger-russell.com] , the Macintosh Plus had a sticker that read "Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Macintosh is a trademark of McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. and is being used with express permission of its owner."

"MacTunes" (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045769)

Why doesn't Apple Computers change to strictly "Mac" terminology? It's not like they're using all different apple names in their products (Granny Smith, Red Delicious, etc).

Who uses the name for what? (2, Interesting)

chivo243 (808298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045775)

It would seem that apple corps really will be laughed out of court. Apple corps probably hasn't sold 2 records in the past decade.... Legally they are probably squatting on the name.... and that is grounds for a suit to be named later. I thought, I heard in the distance, this is the inroad for Sir Paul to seat his ass on the Apple computers B.O.D.? We all know apple corps was a flash in the pan record company that only exists as an "honored guest" in todays music word.

So, what's next after this? (2, Funny)

martinultima (832468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045780)

Now that the two Apples are dueling it out, what's next? Let me guess, I can't listen to the White Album on my (black) iPod nano? Hmm, as soon as I can find someone to keep saying “number nine... number nine...” we'll have to show them what a revolution really looks like!

Do You Have To Be A Crook To Be In Business? (1)

cannuck (859025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045802)

Jobs obviously has an abundance of business "trade skills" - everyone else in the entertainment business seems to have their feet buried in concrete - and move at that speed. However, why Jobs keeps "stealing" is beyond me - from the original GUI on down the line - to the music business copyright of Apple. I'm sure part of the excuse is that everybody else in the entertainment industry cheats, and steals - so why not!

I always laugh when Jobs and the rest of the entertainment elites start to cry foul when some kid does what they (the elites) do everyday of the week - stealing, screwing everything that moves financially. The one difference is that at least Jobs has some balls compared to the rest of the elites - and sometimes make things happen - although seldom in the best interests of the consumer or the artists.

Imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15045838)

Imagine there's no lawyers...

John's spinnin' in his grave I tell ya... Bloody wankers..

Interesting news... (2, Funny)

Spudley (171066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045871)

Since nothing else really interesting is happening...

That's because all the interesting news happened yesterday. :-D

it's a contract dispute, not trademark (5, Interesting)

nyquil superstar (249173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045872)

It's a shame to see the comments thus far. There are the usual appologists, "Apple (Computer) can do no wrong!" and some decent guessing, but without the terms of the contract to inspect, everything happening is speculation on the behalf of readers.

My understanding from what I have read is this is not a trademark dispute, but rather a contract dispute, which will be governed by different aspects of the law. There are some important unanswered questions:
1. What are the material terms of the contract?
2. What was the duration of the contract? US law requires a finite duration, otherwise it's valid for a "reasonable" amount of time (How's that for vague!).

If I permit myself to do some speculation, I'd suspect Apple Comp is treading on dangerous ground. They know and have known this, hence the contract in '92. It's not a tough argument to make for Apple Corp. We, Apple, sell music. They, Apple, sell music. See the confusion? Apple Corp, was there first and had first use and trademark. Most any lawyer ought to be able to make that argument successfully. But this isn't about the trademark, it's about the details of that contract, which I haven't seen in the article.

And a note to the applogists: I don't think Apple Corp is doing anything wrong. They have an established business that predated Apple computer. They are attempting to enforce the esisting contract with Apple Comp. Good for them, everyone should be held to their word.

The way I see it... (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045881)

...Apple Computer pushes their own brand, logos, and so on, and are known for that, and justifiedly so. People see a stylish computer and see "oh, built by Apple." People see a stylish music player. "oh, built by Apple." They see a nice web music store. "Built by Apple, of course".

But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?

Record labels don't need their names to market themselves. They can rake in money without making their names hot hot hot - they have the artists to draw the attention. When the spotlight hits them, they can just grin and say "oh, the CDs we made for this lovely band are in stores as we speak, please go buy them!"

Or are they just starting to make a web music store of their own? Heck, just do what everyone else is doing [bleep.com] these days: Start a new web music store with a separate, distinct brand.

I have a heap of music here and I can barely remember what record labels made them. Mostly because the record labels in question were major idiots. =)

Re:The way I see it... (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045982)

But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?

Well, Steve Jobs obviously thought something like that ... otherwise he wouldn't have copped the "Apple" name.

Remember those big round black disks that had analog music encoded onto them? Some of them came with a big Apple logo in the middle. So, while people might not associate Apple Records with much nowdays, they certainly did back in the 1970s, when Apple Computer was founded. You can't rewrite history with a marketing campaign.

wso who's winning ? (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045895)

Well, just a hypothetical question: in a lawsuit in London, what do you think who has more chance to win: someone who has the music of the Beatles, or someone from overseas "trying to steal their name" ? I guess another out of court cash agreement is more likely again.
 

On The Subject Of Slashdot Article Submissions (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045935)

Since nothing else really interesting is happening....

And he wonders why people complain about story quality. Here's a hint for some extra material. Search user journals for "rejected submission".

Re:On The Subject Of Slashdot Article Submissions (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045955)

Tell me about it. Hell, I could've had a nice April Fool's Submission for yesterday if I didn't already know beforehand that it'll get rejected and that they'll dig thru their usual 'submitters' for material.

where some smell bullshit, i smell an opportunity (3, Funny)

LootenPlunder (941724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15045968)

I just came up with the most amazing idea. There are clearly no damages to apple corp in this case, itunes only benefits from using apple computer's reputation, apple corp is as irrelevant as can be. Yet apple corp has already managed to squeeze a bit of money out of apple comp. Clearly the only things that determine whether or not you win a case are the size of your target and the amount of publicity you get. So I am going to start a company that tries to predeict what software companies are going to name future releases of their software. We will also try to predict what businisses will be computerized next and strategically name a company so that by the time apple, microsoft, google, yahoo, or whoever comes around, there will already be a company in that field with their name attatched to it. Then we'll sue major companies and pay off the press to print front-page articles about our cases. I'll be rich. Imagine if Blinds-to-go had changed its name to Windows 2000 in 1999. Our first projects will be Vista Records, Vista Productions, Vista Search, etc. Maybe we're too late to take advantage of Vista, but its worth a try.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>