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!

Apple vs Apple -- Judgment Day

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the two-man-enter-one-man-leave dept.

310

DaphneDiane writes "According to the Times Online Apple Computer successfully defended themselves vs the suit brought by Apple Corps." If you are looking for background on the case we had talked about it earlier. I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. And, of course, Apple Corp has filed an appeal already.

cancel ×

310 comments

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

If I were Apple Corp... (1, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284258)

From the article:
But Lord Grabiner, QC, for Apple Computer, countered that "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse his client's download system - which, he said, was basically transmitting data - with a record label.
If I were Apple Corp, I would start selling the new "Apple Macintosh" [paulstuart.com] online. After all, "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse a coat with a computer company.

There's no way Apple computers would sue. After all - they're never [gizmodo.com] lawyer [thecrimson.com] trigger [theregister.co.uk] happy. [morons.org]

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284269)

If I were Apple Corp, I would start selling the new "Apple Macintosh" [paulstuart.com] online. After all, "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse a coat with a computer company.

Would Apple Computer care about someone selling a coat?

I doubt it.

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (1, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284357)

Would Apple Computer care about someone selling a coat?

Oh for Gods sake - stop being such a whiney fanboy. All large corporations are litigious and Apple is one of the worst offenders.

They've issued legal threats to everyone from The Church of Satan [churchofsatan.com] (for "Made with Macintosh banner") to the (now ex) owners of the itunes.co.uk [com.com] domain (registered long before Apple started selling music)

Go and register AppleMac.co.uk (or something similar) and see how long it is before the lawyers arrive.

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (2, Funny)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284408)

Whiney Mac Fanboy: Oh for Gods sake - stop being such a whiney fanboy.

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (0, Flamebait)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284461)

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.

Joke, meet ciroknight, circoknight, th-... oh, too late, Joke just wooshed over your head.

Um, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284538)

I read you so called "joke" several times. I have some advice. In the future, if you plan to make a joke, try to make it funny. Or at least try to make sense. No, what you did was say something stupid and then try to make it seem like a joke.

Re:Um, no (0, Offtopic)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284576)

Hmmmmn, why did you log out before commenting?

Anyway, it was not so much of a joke, as a form of self-depreciating humour [wikipedia.org] (link included, so you can read up & understand next time).

My advice, quit posting in public forums until your sense of humor (and chilledness) improves.

Re:Um, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284679)

So which was it? A joke [wikipedia.org] or self-depreciating humour [wikipedia.org] ? Get your story straight and quit trying to defend your pathetic little troll.

Re:Um, no (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284731)

Snort!

Cute little A.C. - is that the best you could come up with?

I said 'joke' because the following really doesn't flow very well:
self-depreciating humour, meet ciroknight, circoknight, th-... oh, too late, self-depreciating humour just wooshed over your head.
Now, this has gone far off-topic enough. (Feel free to mod me "virtuous" here)

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (0, Troll)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284636)

This is somewhat horrible smoke of fanboyism and zealotry attached to every story having "Apple" name on it.

Don't even bother to try.

Worst can happen: Some company finds a horrible, horrible problem on OS X , as every security story attacked and companies getting names as "snake oil seller", they decide to keep it to themselves and silently report to Apple.

Apple does not care (Read: SANS/Secunia).

Information gets leaked to black hats.

Next day we can't watch TV or read Newspaper since Macintoshes are running in very key parts of media without protection as "nothing can touch them"

This is what I am afraid as a guy purchased a quad G5 from them recently. This kind of zealotry/fanboy stuff forcing me to post with "karma bonus" to keep the message around since a fanboy can get /. moderator points.

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (0, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284287)

They should setup a shop front for dell with Apple branding all over the place, call it aMacs and then see what Apple computers do.

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (4, Funny)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284469)

Even better, call it eMacs and bundle it with GNU/Herd and Emacs.

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (2)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284613)

Even better, call it eMacs and bundle it with GNU/Hurd and Emacs.

*snort* - that would be funny! I'd distribute it with Darwin over GNU/Hurd tho' - for extra (Alanis Morissette style) irony points. (Plus, you could actually [kerneltrap.org] ship it)

Penny lane (2, Interesting)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284707)

If I were Apple Corp, I would start selling the new "Apple Macintosh" online

This gives a whole new dimension to the Penny Lane lyrics:
And the banker never wears a Mac in the pouring rain...

Story Update: Apple Corp issues statemnt! (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284708)

Apple Corp have issued a statment - they're appealing!

There's a story at macworld uk [macworld.co.uk] and el reg [reghardware.co.uk]

Quote from Apple Corp's lawyer:
"With great respect to the trial judge, we consider he has reached the wrong conclusion. We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer had broken the agreement. We will accordingly be filing an appeal."
So - the fight continues!

Re:If I were Apple Corp... (5, Informative)

optimus2861 (760680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284727)

FYI, "Moron in a hurry" isn't necessarily meant to be insulting under English law. It's the language that a judge used in a case there some years back in dismissing a trademark-infringement suit, so it's an established phrase. This was explained in the comments of a previous Apple-Apple /. article here [slashdot.org] .

Turned out "well?" (-1, Troll)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284259)

I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew.
I hope that was sarcasm although it does not convey well over the internet. I'm guessing you either mean that you really didn't care about this case or that you are a genuine fan of Apple (computers) instead of Apple (albums). Either way, that was a peculiar use of the word 'well.'

When two powerful companies go head to head, I'm rarely rooting for either of them as they usually have unlimited funds. If you would have considered a huge settlement or the lawsuit being carried out "bad" then I must wonder why you allow the laws that create these lawsuits to remain in the first place.

I enjoy The Beatles' music but I could honestly care less about their merchandising and music publisher. In fact, I would wager that the material aspects of their lives and the selling of their works are what in the end ruined them. For that reason, I dislike Apple Corps.

I enjoy the fact that OSX has Bourne-Again SHell (BASH) capabilities (correct me if I'm wrong) although I hate their pricing and closed machine mentality--though that may change with x86 architecture. If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician.

In the end, I suffer the naïve shortcomings of one who has to believe in the justice system. Most countries in the world have laws against breaching restricted agreements. Which is what Apple is charging Apple of doing. I found this excerpt from an article of the original coverage of this case [theregister.co.uk] :
It is the third time the two well-known brands have been to court over the computer company's use of the Apple name.

The first dispute was resolved in 1981, when Apple Computer agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to Apple Corps, and Steve Jobs, head of the computer firm, agreed to restrict the use of the brand he founded to computer products only. Jobs is a Beatles fan -- but has never had the rights to sell the band's music on iTunes.

In 1989, Apple Corps again sued Apple Computer, this time over the company's use and sale of music-related software. The case settled in 1991 with a payment of $27m and another restrictive agreement.

However, in September 2003, Apple Corps filed suit again, over "the use by Apple Computer of the word 'Apple' and apple logos in conjunction with its new application for downloading pre-recorded music from the internet".

That new application -- iTunes -- has now sold over a billion downloads.

Apple Corps argues that iTunes is in breach of the restrictive agreement between the two companies and infringes upon its trademarks. Apple Computer argues that iTunes is a mechanism allowing "data transmission" and that downloads are permitted in terms of the agreement as they are "data transfers", according to reports.
This was a valid case and was brought to court, the result was decided and I'm happy that the justice system "works." I would argue that we take this in as unbiased a manner as possible, the case turned out neither 'well' nor 'ill' and would have been just the same to me if the prosecution had won. I think that the former settlements show that Apple Computers knows they are at fault for use of this name. I also think they knew that they did not violate their prior agreements and the court also agreed with them.

If you hate the laws, spend your lives trying to get them changed. Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor, hate the government that enforces the laws. I maintain my trust in the system of courts and therefore any case in which a decision is made is just as 'well' for me as if the opposite decision had been found.

Re:Turned out "well?" (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284286)

If you hate the laws, spend your lives trying to get them changed. Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor [emph mine]

You note that companies have 'almost unlimited funds' - they use these funds to:

1) Change the law to suit themselves.
2) Discredit / ridicule those who spend their lives trying to get laws changed.
3) Bury in legalities / court fees those who oppose them.

How can we not hate the companies that do this?

Re:Turned out "well?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284336)

1) Change the law to suit themselves.
2) Discredit / ridicule those who spend their lives trying to get laws changed.
3) Bury in legalities / court fees those who oppose them.
If these are your concerns (and they may be valid) then your first task would be exposing this underhanded practice and trying to bring laws into effect that essentially make them illegal. There may already be some that restrict companies from doing this but I am not a lawyer. I know that if I were attempting to change the laws, I would be right pissed if I faced any of the above problems and would be looking for a news source to publish my accounts.

Re:Turned out "well?" (5, Informative)

warrigal (780670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284328)

>If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician. You can, dude. Always could. Never seen a Mac I couldn't upgrade. Why do you spread this falshood?

Re:Turned out "well?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284398)

This could very well be a mistake on my part in that I have never seen or heard of anyone able to do that.

On top of that, I thought that their machines had a temperature sensor that would trigger it to internally mark itself as VOIDED if the case was open and the temperature in the room wasn't low enough. There is a sticker on them anyways that says the warranty is voided if it is removed (although my Dell has the same thing).

I guess I never see third party chips, chipsets or the like for Macs so I figured Apple frowned on it or didn't support it.

Re:Turned out "well?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284448)

On top of that, I thought that their machines had a temperature sensor that would trigger it to internally mark itself as VOIDED if the case was open and the temperature in the room wasn't low enough.

That's a joke, right? I mean, nobody honestly believes that, right? Right?

Re:Turned out "well?" (5, Informative)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284537)

This could very well be a mistake on my part in that I have never seen or heard of anyone able to do that.
Probably. Most all Macs take standard PC memory. Since almost the beginning. Even the first PowerMacs used a slight variation of normal SIMMs. Many brands of PC memory worked in them. Add to that how easy the cases on Macs open up, I get the feeling you've probably just never seen and played with a Mac up close.

On top of that, I thought that their machines had a temperature sensor that would trigger it to internally mark itself as VOIDED if the case was open and the temperature in the room wasn't low enough.
Yeah, not sure where you got that from. They have no special hardware in them like that at all. And, I can't remember ever seeing a Mac with a sticker on it to keep you from opening the case. I've opened up pretty much every PowerMac ever made, was an Apple certified tech at a store for a few years. They really have no clue if you open the case and put in your own ram, harddrive, PCI/video card, NIC, modem, etc. All of these devices can be bought 3rd party, and there is no rule that I've ever heard about installing these voiding warranty. We sold 3rd party hardware all the time, and told them how to install it if they asked.

Re:Turned out "well?" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284455)

Actually, there may be a bit of truth to the statement. My old roomate had a G4 (I don't know which model) back in 2000. His CD drive failed so we went the 20 or so blocks to the Apple store so he could get a replacement. They flat refused to sell him a new drive without him bringing the machine in so they could install it saying that in order for his warranty to remain valid they had to send the failed drive back to Apple for testing. He asked what would happen if he bought a 3rd party drive and replaced it himself and was told that his warranty would be voided and he could be subject to up to $20,000 in fines for violating his "customer agreement". We were then asked by the manager to leave the store if we weren't planning on buying anything. He still buys Apple faithfully, I have no idea why. Yes, he let them do the repair. They charged him close to $1000 to do it too.

Re:Turned out "well?" (1)

tjmcgee (749076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284564)

You are either lying, repeating a lie that was told to you, or the people at the Apple store were having fun with you. In any case nothing about what you wrote is true.

Re:Turned out "well?" (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284602)

And, in any event, a statement that you can't add RAM to a machine without being a certified technician is completely false, regardless of whether you can replace your optical drive easily.

I'd never try to replace the DVD-ROM drive in my tiBook, but the installation of new RAM couldn't possibly be easier. You just pop off the keyboard (no tools required) and insert the RAM into the easily accessible slot.

How the trollish post above that made this statement is moderated "Insightful" instead of "Troll" is beyond me, and I look forward to seeing it in metamoderation.

Re:Turned out "well?" (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284741)

You'd think that a geek on slashdot would know better, but there has always been a great deal of misinformed/uninformed people out there.

Case in point, seven years ago (or so), my neighbor wanted me to help him buy a Mac for his junior high school age daughter. He didn't want to buy online or thru mail order, he wanted to go to a brick and mortar store, pay for it, and bring it home.

We purchased an iMac at CompUSA. We also purchased an extra stick of RAM, despite the protests of both the sales clerk and the service technician that if i were to install it, it would void the warranty. I finally opened the box, and pulled out the printed instructions that Apple provided for upgrading the RAM, and they still were obnoxious, telling my neighbor, "Don't try to bring it back here, because we won't fix it."

I've never been back to that particular CompUSA. I don't know if they were lying or if they were obnoxiously insistent on being ignorant, but I guess it doesn't matter. Anyway, that's how the misinformation continues to be past on.

Re:Turned out "well?" (4, Informative)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284588)

They flat refused to sell him a new drive without him bringing the machine in so they could install it saying that in order for his warranty to remain valid they had to send the failed drive back to Apple for testing. He asked what would happen if he bought a 3rd party drive and replaced it himself and was told that his warranty would be voided and he could be subject to up to $20,000 in fines for violating his "customer agreement".

If this story is true, then that reseller was blatantly lying, and needs to be bitchslapped for consumer fraud. This is not the way Apple works things.
Now, about sending the dead drive back, yes, they do have to send defective parts back *if they replace them under warranty*. However, if he just bought one straight out, even a 3rd party one (yes a standard PC version of a CD/DVD drive will work!), they can just sell it to him, at a slightly higher cost (as they don't get a discount by sending the broken one back). And, there is no such thing as a fine for adding your own hardware, or voiding a warranty. That's such bullshit. The problem is, they don't make much money on hardware sales. They make their money on labor. So they end up fucking Apple customers, and dragging Apple's name through the mud to make a profit.
Personally, I'd tell your friend to report that store to whatever consumer protection agency handles your state. They probably didn't break any laws, but lying to consumers about made-up fines and their rights is not acceptable.

Re:Turned out "well?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284351)

You sure are a windbag, aren't you?

Re:Turned out "well?" (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284388)

Huh? Apple computers for years have taken the standard memory modules that a PC takes. It's trivial to upgrade the memory on a Mac and has been for years. As for closed, Apple's entire base operating system (Darwin) is released complete with source code under the BSD license.

Re:Turned out "well?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284389)

Just another reason we need the irony mark [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Turned out "well?" (1)

muellerr1 (868578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284463)

Just another reason we need the irony mark.

Yeah, right*. ;) [/sarcasm]



Re:Turned out "well?" (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284395)

If I want to slap another stick of RAM into my machine, I should be able to without being a licensed Apple technician

There is only one mac being sold right now that does not have user-installable memory, and that's the mac mini. It's very arguable that a novice should not try to open a mini. All other macintosh computers have user-installable memory. (three, out of production, are also in this group - upper slot in iMac G4, lower slot in PowerBook G3, and both slots in iMac G3 tray-loader)

Maybe if you were an Apple tech you'd know that any clown can install memory. ;)

Re:Turned out "well?" (2, Informative)

ktappe (747125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284426)

I enjoy The Beatles' music but I could honestly care less about their merchandising and music publisher.
Then you must care a whole lot. Or did you mean you could honestly not care less? I wouldn't ordinarily point out such a mistake, but you kind of opened yourself up for it when your post started out critiquing the original poster's English. Don't cast stones and all that...

-K

Re:Turned out "well?" (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284465)

Do not hate the companies that use the laws in their favor, hate the government that enforces the laws.
I hate people who come up with this crap. Why the hell not? If something's immoral, it's immoral. The fact the government has allowed it to happen is only one issue.

That said, in this case, I'm not sure Apple Corps did anything immoral. Most people have concentrated on the fact Apple Corps isn't a big computer company, as if the situation was that Apple Computers was suing Apple Corps and not vice-versa. Apple Corps clearly thought there Apple Computer's decision to enter the music selling market may cause brand confusion given they're a company called Apple who're involved in selling music (albeit at a higher level.) Whether the decision was right or wrong, I believe Apple Corps had legitimate reasons to be concerned, and they had every right to bring the courts into it.

The sole argument against Apple Corps, so far as I can see, which wasn't raised by the defense, is that they're not really expanding in any serious way. They've limited themselves to periodic re-releases of a handful of back-numbers. As such, their "market" mostly knows who they are, being a small number of retail executives, and the handful who doesn't can be easily availed of their misapprehension with a one line disclaimer at the end of their letters. If Apple Corps was a little more active, signing on new talent, then I think there'd be a greater risk of confusion.

Trademark law is a legitimate buffer against confusion and fraud. So I'm not going to hate either Apple Corps or the government over this. But if it wasn't, and Apple Corps was just trying to extract money from Apple Computer and we lived in a perfect world where similarly named entities operating in similar markets never cause confusion, I would consider Apple Corps just at much at fault as the government who let them sue. Just as I dislike patent trolls, overly proprietary software makers, and telemarketers.

Re:Turned out "well?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284654)

Not only can you replace the RAM yourself easily on any Mac, but ever since the G3 towers came out, you can do it in about 60 seconds. You obviously have never looked at a Mac up close. And if you ever had any real conversation with someone in the Mac world, you would also know that only suckers get more than the factory amount of RAM when they purchase from Apple-- everyone gets their RAM from somewhere else for much cheaper. So, I would say it is even fairly standard practice to replace the RAM.

Re:Turned out "well?" (2, Interesting)

LKM (227954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284725)

This is not really on topic, but anway...

I enjoy the fact that OSX has (...) BASH (...) although I hate their pricing and closed machine mentality--though that may change with x86 architecture.

If you mean that their pricing could change with the switch to Intel-Chips: Yeah, it has changed. Since the Intel chips cost about twice as much as the G4s, the Mac mini and MacBook Pro prices have effectively gone up. Still competitive with comparable PC makers, though.

If you mean that the "closed machine mentality" could change: Uhm, what closed-machine mentality? Have you used a pro-level Mac made during the last decade?

an apple a day (1)

thexdane (148152) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284261)

guess it is true an apple a day keeps the riaa away

Re:an apple a day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284378)

guess it is true an apple a day keeps the riaa away

Might be better coined as: guess it is true an apple a day keeps the paracites away

let's face facts (4, Insightful)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284263)

I hate to see The Beatles lose, but let's face facts: If you could possibly confuse the two, you're likely too dumb to appreciate The Beatles' music and too stupid to figure out how to turn on a computer.

Re:let's face facts (5, Interesting)

swissfondue (819240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284289)

I wonder how much the estate of the late John Lennon or other Beatles really wanted a legal fight with Apple Computer. I think they missed out on millions of USD in downloads from iTMS due to their absence. So was it really Apple Corps led? I don't see on which basis an appeal from Apple Corps will be successful. Let's hope to see the old (and upcoming newly digitalized spiffed-up tracks) on iTMS soon.

Re:let's face facts (-1, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284387)

and too stupid to figure out how to turn on a computer.

I thought that was most mac users.

Re:let's face facts (1)

hublan (197388) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284453)

Not only that, there's even a legal term for it:

FTFA: Lord Grabiner, QC, for Apple Computer, countered that "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse his client's download system

Re:let's face facts (1)

Fallus Shempus (793462) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284470)

you're likely too dumb to appreciate The Beatles' music


AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

The Beatles were dull, dull, dull, they invented nothing
They're just the one's that got famous ripping off other peoples stuff.

Must calm down, remember, don't hate Beatles' music just find it dull and hate this hype
they were/are not worth it, go look up some real talent like Blind Lemon Jefferson
or Davy Graham. Hell the Stones, The Animals, anyone, just stop worshipping this bunch'o
try hards.

P.S. What's my Mum being a big fan got to do with it?

Re:let's face facts (2, Funny)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284547)

Notice that I never said anyone had to be a genius to appreciate it either!

the Apple is dead (0, Offtopic)

rollx (830963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284268)

Long Live the Apple

Beatles on iTunes next? (3, Insightful)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284279)

I'd have to say - why bother. If I'm not mistaken the audience that would download it has P2P'ed them to death, and it'd be too little too late.

Unless they remaster everything - which they're proportedly doing - but the restirctions they're trying to lay down make the recent "big 4" vs iTunes look like a cakewalk.

If either Apple wanted a totally (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284296)

off limits trademark, they should have instead used a made-up word (something like Exxon?) that doesn't mean anything in any popular language but sounds cool, and not a word in the dictionary/history or common place item.

Re:If either Apple wanted a totally (1)

warrigal (780670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284360)

Huh! Now he tells us!

Re:If either Apple wanted a totally (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284396)

Cromulent Corp.

Re:If either Apple wanted a totally (4, Informative)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284595)

The name was a joke that John Lennon made, "Let's call it Apple Corp" ('corp' being pronounced 'core').

Much as I love the Beatles, I'm glad that Apple lost this silly case (and that Apple won)

Apple Corps is (-1, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284307)

something of RIAA flock. Die, Apple Corps.

Saddened (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284311)

This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations, but for the simple concept of fair play that has been ignored. It's true that now nobody would confuse the two corporations, but the simple fact that Apple Computer exists is because Apple Corps agreed to let them continue using a name which could (at the time) have been confused, on the condition that Apple Computer not get into the music business. The distinction today is that Apple (computer) has greatly outstripped Apple (corps) is brand recognition. Heck, you may as well take Apple Corps trademark entirely, as the common person would likely mistake Apple (Corps) for the wildly popular international trademark Apple (computer).

My question would be - can Apple Corps start their internet Download Music Store and not get sued by Apple Computer? Is there a potential for mistakes in Apple iDMS and Apple iTMS?

Re:Saddened (1, Flamebait)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284382)

but the simple fact that Apple Computer exists is because Apple Corps agreed to let them continue using a name which could (at the time) have been confused, on the condition that Apple Computer not get into the music business.

Let me be the first whiney mac fanboi to say "waaah, waaah, waaaah," Apple Computers was always a bigger company then Apple Corp (even in 1968 [wikipedia.org] ;-)

Seriously - you make a good point, expect to be modded down for it as soon as the legions of Apple fanbois arrive.

Re:Saddened (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284438)

On the other hand, how fair is it to ban a company from an entire industry?

Re:Saddened (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284456)

Apple aren't banned from starting a record label, or selling music. They just can't use the Apple name on either the label or (debatably) the music store, so as to avoid confusion. This is the kernel of trademark law.

Re:Saddened (5, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284454)

This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations ...

Why does everyone keep repeating this incorrect statement? Just because the submitter thinks it's true, doesn't mean it is.

Folks, Apple Records, Apple Corp, whatever you want to call it, is NOT a billionaire corporation. Sir Paul McCartney is a billionaire, but it's not because of Apple Corp or the Beatles. He is a billionaire because he bought out song publishing companies years ago, which is where the real money is. The Lennon estate was worth $100 million at the time of John Lennon's death, most due to investments Yoko made. The late George Harrison's estate was probably worth less than $100 million at the time of his death and Ringo Starr is definitely worth less than that. If you have any knowledge of royalty rates in the industy, you will know that the Beatles simply can't be making the kind of money some of you attribute to them. In my opinion, the Beatles and their lackeys have seriously mismanaged their catalog and the failure to put out "new" product (yes, believe it or not, there are still things in the vaults that could be released officially for the first time, such as the White Album demo sessions) more than once every 5+ years have actually kept them from earning as much money as they could have earned. They release material so infrequently that it sells simply because of scarcity, not because of merit. The last offical release, the Let It Be ... Naked album of a few years ago, wasn't all that well liked, but we fans bought it anyway. It reminds me of Eddie Murphy's old joke about giving a starving man a cracker. He's not going to refuse to eat because he wants something else, he's going to say "Man, that was the best cracker I ever ate!"

I don't think there is any realistic chance of the Beatles (Apple Corp) competing against Apple Computers. Apple Corp likes to sit back and get paid. They don't like to actually do something to get the money and setting up their music download store would require real work.

Re:Saddened (1)

955301 (209856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284600)


I disagree. This isn't about a lack of fair play. The musical geniuses at Apple Corp chose the name of their company incredibly unwisely. Can someone please tell me what about the name "Apple Corp" indicates that it is in the music industry? Nothing, absolutely nothing - more likely the fruit business. Apple Computer, on the other hand sells computers and software. The fact that their product is used to transmit music, completely irrelevant.

Had they chosen the name The Apple Music Corp, non of this would have been an issue whatsoever. If you establish a trademark, at least have the foresight to precisely identify what the trademark is for so you don't get into unnecessary legal disputes.

They chose a bad name, they tried to sue to keep their heads in the sand about it, and someone brought a shovel. Happens all the time, and this was the right outcome...

Well... (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284321)

They were thinking of settling out of court, and it was going quite well for Apple Corp until, in the middle of negotiation, they broke down.

Re:Well... (1, Redundant)

benbean (8595) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284404)

... and now they'll never give them their money.

Re:Well... (1)

trailerparkcassanova (469342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284497)

You only give me your funny papers..

Justice Mann? (3, Funny)

eggsovereasy (573119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284343)

You're kidding me right?

Re:Justice Mann? (4, Funny)

datafr0g (831498) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284402)

Comparing apples to apples is no challange for Justice Mann - caped crusader of the courts!

Re:Justice Mann? (1)

superburger (972398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284580)

In an English court (High Court, and I think Crown Court) judges recevie the title "Mr Justice Smith" or "Lord Justice Smith."

Why Apple records sued... (4, Insightful)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284344)

... because otherwise no-one would remember they exist. There's still a market for Beatles songs, but who cares what the record label is?

Re:Why Apple records sued... (4, Informative)

cowscows (103644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284445)

They sued because if they won, it'd really be easy money. I'm no expert in such things, but it sounds like they had a pretty decent case. Apple Computer had signed a contract, and although the judge agreed with them that it wasn't violated, they certainly appear to be close to violating it. If not in a technical, legal way, then maybe in a more general sense. Fortunately for the computer company, those little technical details in law are quite important.

But when it's all said and done, I think we're better off having Apple Computers win. Over the past couple of decades, they've contributed far more to the world, and that makes them more deserving of profits than Apple Records, which is basically just coasting on some hard work from decades ago. Even though I don't like the iTMS DRM all that much, I find it hard to argue that any else has done nearly as much for online music sales, and it'd be a shame for an old contract to slow down progress on that front.

What if? (0, Offtopic)

odourpreventer (898853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284348)

I guess if Apple Computers wins (win?) nothing much happens, but what if Apple Corps wins (if that is still a possibility)? What are the implications?

Anyone care to give a brief answer to that, or point me to the info? I guess it's been explained before, but I'm not sure where to look.

Now here's hoping they can settle ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284349)

... their remaining differences, so I can finally download some Beatles tunes from the iTMS.

Re:Now here's hoping they can settle ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284501)

In the meantime, try this [google.com] .

;0]

Re:Now here's hoping they can settle ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284638)

If you like their music so much, what's keeping you from buying a frickin CD and just ripping it to a non-DRM'd MP3 file?

Honestly, as big a fan as I am of Apple and iPods I have not purchased a single song off iTunes. Why would I pay for a low quality, DRM-restricted, digital music file in a closed, proprietary format when for the same money I can purchase a physical CD, complete with artwork, which I can rip any time I want, and which will still be around long after MP3s and AACs are made obsolete by something else?

Re:Now here's hoping they can settle ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284729)

If you like their music so much, what's keeping you from buying a frickin CD and just ripping it to a non-DRM'd MP3 file?

Because I don't want to buy a CD. I'm trying to reduce the amount of things I own that take up physical space. I also want to buy individual tracks. I could give a damn about the DRM as long as I have a way to conveniently get music and listen to it. I prefer to pay for it so I'm not labelled a "pirate" or "stealing" music. It has value to me, and I can afford it.

The lawsuit had no merit whatsoever... (4, Interesting)

blcamp (211756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284367)

I'm neither a business expert nor a historian, but I have never understood how Apple Corps had any possibility of winning a trademark infringement case against Apple Computer... whether in the same business or not.

Look at these two examples:

Budweiser (Budvar, Czech Republic) and Budweiser (Anheuser Busch, USA). Same name, same business. And I have seen both products sold in the same location before (I prefer the Czech version myself).

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) and ABC (American Broadcasting Company). ABC... ABC. Same business.

And these are just off the top of my head. Certainly there are others.

I don't get where the Beatles were going with their action. Clearly Apple Computer was not going to be made to stop using their own logo and name. Nor were they going to be made to stop selling music via iTunes. What gives?

Re:The lawsuit had no merit whatsoever... (1)

woozlewuzzle (532172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284409)

I think it comes down to the location of their markets. Anheuser Busch has won its lawsuits in most countries, forcing Budvar to be called things like Czeckvar and avoid using the name Budweis in advertising.

As to ABC - how much do their markets overlap? I know I have no chance of receiving Austrailian Broadcasting Company transmissions here in Massachusetts. (Well, maybe on satellite - I'm a cable customer).

Re:The lawsuit had no merit whatsoever... (2, Insightful)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284450)

Usually in those cases the companies don't use the same name in the same markets - ABC (Australia) could probably be sued by ABC (US) if they started a US TV station called ABC. In some markets the US Budwieser is just called "Bud" becuse the Czech company owns the trademark, although in others they do both use Budweiser. There's also Viz, the American publisher of Japanese comic books, and Viz, the British comic book.

As Apple Corps and Apple Computer both use the trademark in the same countries (in this case the UK), there is a more solid case, but still not much of one.

It wasn't a Trademark Suit... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284639)

That's because it wasn't a Trademark Infringement case.

Apple Computers entered into a legal agreement with Apple Corp some years ago following a trademark case, in which Apple Computers agreed not to enter the music business, and in return Apple Corp allowed them to use the Apple Trademark (to which they had the rights at the time, and still do in the area of Music Publishing).

Their contention is that the iTunes Music Store is a contravention of that legally binding agreement. The judge basically agreed with Apple Corp but let Apple Computers off by drawing a distinction that Apple Computers sells Data through the iTunes Music Store, not Music. Had the judge agreed that Apple Computers was producing and/or publishing music, he would have sided with Apple Corp.

Comparing apples to apples (1)

jonny999 (973472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284377)

Time passes and things change, today one apple is rotten and one is fresh and shiny. Alas I am joking..for things haven't changed, sure a subjective opinion has been given today, but man is still selfish and so groups of men (in companies) pursue wealth...you could say it was a nice try..cause of course this was all about money rather than the false indignation of rights being abused..but does all this really matter? dust to dust and all that.

Again, laws holding back progress. (2, Interesting)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284390)

Imagine for a moment if Apple Computer had obeyed copyright and trademark laws to a “t” in this case. What products we never have seen the light of day? When you ponder this for a moment, it becomes clear how out-of-hand this nonsense is.

Re:Again, laws holding back progress. (1)

old man moss (863461) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284475)

Indeed. You might think "why not just pick another name? how hard can it be?" as I did until recently when I came across a company at a trade show with a new software product... with no name.

The lawyers had chucked out all their suggestions. So there was a product (almost) ready; and no name. I heard a reseller say "look, I need a name if I'm gonna sell this!"

Now I know why the next big thing is the XKI-231047

Re:Again, laws holding back progress. (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284709)

It depends if you believe that Apple Computers really rode on the name Apple, from Apple records. If they had changed their name years ago, would they not still be a popular company, or is it all down to the name?

Sad but True... (5, Funny)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284410)

Apple won out against the RIAA, Apple won out against France, and now Apple won out against the Beatles' old label. Despite it, every investor knows the truth: Apple is dying. Watch their stock price for a decline this afternoon in light of this terrible, tragic, positive news.

Yes, this is sarcasm. Except for the stock decline thing.

Re:Sad but True... (3, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284675)

Obviously Apple's stock price is artifically high, based on investors' firm belief that the judge in the case would not only throw out Apple Corps claim, but would also make the unprecedented move of awarding Apple Computer the exclusive rights to the entire Beatles catalog. You can't blame them for selling off the stock when their irrational hopes don't come true

"Turned out well" (1)

herwin (169154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284447)

The judge appears to have made a narrow decision, possibly because he felt that Apple Corps was using the suit as a whip to extract some money. At least the lawyers made some money.

All I have to say... (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284460)

http://www.applecorps.com/ [applecorps.com] And http://ww.apple.com/ [apple.com]

Is there any possibility of confusing these 2 sites?

...Anyway Apple Computers is not selling music like a record company would... think of them as a record store with no control over the content being sold other than refusing to sell it.

Things would be different if they where signing artists and producing content to be sold in competition (as if there where such a thing in an entertainment industry) with Apple Corp.

Apple Corpse (1)

swissfondue (819240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284713)

rectification: "Apple Corps" is not selling music like a record company would...
Their website is a placeholder! How can a company promote music without communicating the new bands to anyone?

I propose the company is renamed "Apple Corpse"

Great (1)

marcushe (895126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284490)

Apple records is a dying company with one 30 year old product. They just wanted an extra source of free revenue to keep their CEO's pockets full.

Re:Great (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284644)

Apple records is a dying company with one 30 year old product. They just wanted an extra source of free revenue to keep their CEO's pockets full.

Well, they got a legal bill of 5 million pounds to pay for... at least that will keep the lawyers happy.

next: Amazon sued for being a publisher (2, Insightful)

swissfondue (819240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284515)

Apple is a label as much as Amazon is a publisher.

I don't get it... (3, Funny)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284599)

I don't get it. Apple sued itself?

;-)

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284704)

That's just how lawyer-happy they are !

Phew! I live in Apple Grove Estates... (4, Funny)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284646)

... and I was pretty fearful that Yoko Ono was gonna own me!

That'd really suck!

Get What They Deserve (2, Interesting)

gearfab (913180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284659)

For a band that basically redefined the popular music of its time, years ahead of their time, their management has been atrocious. I remember waiting for Beatles CDs to be released, long after everything in the major label's catalogues had already been ported to digital (Sgt Peppers was released 20 years to the day after it originally came on on vinyl, and the line stretched around the block at Cactus Records in Houston that day). I remember the Beatles choosing to release the first four in Mono (good choice), issue no American releases (they later changed their mind, to make money no doubt), then reduce their sizable Vault down to three good (if incomplete) double-Cd volumes. If the Beatles fail to secure their legacy by making their recorded music available as widely as possible (which they seem hell-bent on doing) then it is their own damn fault. And it is a crying shame. Every last child on earth should know Revolver, if nothing else.

Re:Get What They Deserve (1)

shippo (166521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284717)

Was 1987 really too late to issue material on CD? At least they put some effort into preparing their catalogue for CD, unlike some other labels who simply used the nearest copy of the master to the pressing plant, no matter how poor quality that copy was. There was a lot of other significant material that wasn't available on CD back then.

There were a few mistakes, though. Only the first two albums should have been issued in mono, but somewhere along the line the first four appeared in this format. The next two albums were re-mixed into stereo, which wasn't wise. (Some Canadian copies of these two actually have the original UK stereo mixes). There were also some poor choices of mixes used on the Past Masters compilations of non-album tracks.

Apple Corps appealed though (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284663)

I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well.

Apple Corps has however appealed the decision.

Also, there's some name hilarity in this article:

"I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment on Monday. "The action therefore fails."

Justice Mann is even more cartoony than Judge Dredd. :-)

I hope I am not late (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284666)

People, posting in hurry just in case as if any fanboy shouts "Who the hell is Apple music?" or "They are nothing"

http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp [riaa.com]

See, that 168.5 million selling Beatles just in USA? They own their rights.

So they have a job.

I have a solution (1)

tecker (793737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284721)

Have the companies merge. Apple Computer could take over Apple Corp. under a new ParentCorperation or you could have Apple Computer become part of Apple Corp. Doesn't Apple Corp. make a lot of different things? Computers could become yet another one of them.

It would be a solution to a never ending problem. Just make sure to leave control in the hands of Apple Computer and use the parent corp as a tax shelter or whatnot.

So Steve Job's Apple is not in the music business? (0)

adsl (595429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15284722)

Apple Corp had a legal agreement with Apple PC that the latter would NOT engage in the music business. Apple PC then starts and 100% owns iTunes and sells music. The judge found there was no confusion in the "Apple" logo being used on itunes. He found that itunes doesn't sell music. W/o reading all the court documents if the above is a fair summary it would appear that the Judge decided to ignore the legally binding documents the 2 APPLES had previously SIGNED. I admire both Apples, but surely the root is the legal documents pure and simple, whilst the judge decided to go into the grey area of "intent" and "use of logos". Sounds like this could end up in court again, as the newcomer (Apple PC) could theoretically take over full use of the "Apple" logo which does not seem right.

Christ's judgment whenever he wants, Beatles wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15284756)

Judgment day, huh? Well, Jesus Christ will return to judge all men whenever He decides. But in the meantime, my thought on this matter is: does anyone really think someone could confuse Apple Computer's work with Apple Corp's work? Steve Jobs is not signing bands and recording their music for release, and neither does iTunes yet even sell the Beatle's catalog. If you sign onto iTunes and can't find the Beatles, there is yet another clue you aren't dealing with Apple Corps of the Beatles.
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>