May 25, 2012 - 05:30 PM EDT — AAPL: 562.29 (-3.03, -0.54%) | NASDAQ: 2837.53 (-1.85, -0.07%)

The Beatles sue Apple Computer over iPod, iTunes

Friday, September 12, 2003 · 12:10 am · 28 Comments

“The inevitable has happened: The Beatles have sued Steve Jobs over Apple iTunes and the Apple iPod — at least the band’s

Categories: iPodDailyNews, MacDailyNews, News

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

♥ Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition DVD (65171323) only $249!
♥ Blowout: Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro i7/4Core/2.0GHz/4GB/500GB (MC721LL/A) only $1,549.99 + Free Shipping from MacMall
♥ Mac Madness Save 25% on Parallels Desktop 7!
♥ 15% Off Compatible Ink. 10% Off All Others (excludes OEMs). Free Shipping over $55. Coupon: 123BLOSSOM, Expires 6.18.12
♥ Save up to 60% at the Hammacher Schlemmer Special Values Sale-While supplies last.
♥ Dragon Dictate for Mac 2.5 - New! Simply Smarter Speech Recognition
♥ Up to 30% OFF Accessories from Verizon Wireless
♥ Limited Time Offer: Get free ZAGGsmartbuds when you buy a ZAGGsparq!

Comment Feed

28 Comments

1 2 Next »

Fred Mertz

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 1:24 am · Reply

Oh, Cripes! Apple Corps lives on Apple Computer lawsuit winnings.
Nagromme

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 1:47 am · Reply

It did seem inevitable.

But who confuses Apple Computer with The Beatles?

The question is, what can The Beatles demand if they win? Can they force Apple to kill the iPod, iTunes jukebox/player, iTunes Music Store, Logic, Soundtrack, Audio Units, and OS X MIDI support?
Sol

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 1:51 am · Reply

Screw the Beatles and their lawsuits. What is Apple supposed to do, change its name because people might confuse them with Apple Corps? Or maybe Apple is supposed to sell computers without audio. Since when does the word ‘Apple’ belong to anyone anyway?

In light of this lawsuit I would feel no guilt in downloading Beatles tracks off the net. I respect them as musicians but as a business they are just another greedy company.
gagravaar

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 3:47 am · Reply

What I don’t understand is that Apple Corps would have a case if they could prove that Apple Computers were damaging the name of Apple Corps by getting into the music business. Whichever way I look at it, I can’t see how they are.

Technically, Apple Computers aren’t really in the business, they’re not actually setting up bands, ploughing money into signing up new acts, they are just acting as a distributor.

If I were Apple, I’d set up a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, call it ‘Sosumi’ and let that run the music side of the business. That’d piss Apple Corps off.

The agreement is that the name ‘Apple’ can’t be used for a music company. But, Apple’s name isn’t used with them. The iPod is known as ‘The iPod’, and the music store is called ‘The iTunes Music Store’, I think there is a good reason why the name of Apple is not included with them.

What can they demand as a settlement? Loss of earnings? From what? How has Apple Computer damaged Apple Corps business of re-packaging & re-cycling a sad old out-dated 60′s act?

Personally I can’t stand The Beatles, (and I’m from the UK), and now I’ve got another reason to despise them.
unclezzz

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 4:16 am · Reply

Now that’s interesting, Apple Computer tasting their own medicine. How many websites and little companies are out of business because Apple going after them.

I thought when Apple bought Emagic that Apple Corps would jump up and sue, Apple was now clearly in music business. If you can buy Apple computer and software, make music, use iTunes to distribute it and have iPod to listen that looks like music biz to me. On the other hand nowadays things are different, computers are commonly used in music production and listening, and now the question is who is more in music business can use the name.

My lawyer friend said something about new rules that it’s better to have a company name that is made up and one of a kind. If you use something like Carrot or Sofa you don’t have much to say to protect your company. Is that true?

Anyway the Apple Corps might have deal here that might backfire even it’s clearly about which company comes to your mind when you hear the name Apple and music in same sentence.
sirocco

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 4:25 am · Reply

Erm haven’t more people heard of Apple Computer than Apple Corp? Surely Apple can’t be accused of passing off or trading off Apple Corps reputation.

Ok, they breached an old legal agreement, so how about an out of court settlement and Apple use the iTunes brand on the music side of the business. Naturally as the Beatles set up Apple to hand out money to struggling artists, maybe the settlement should be given to a music charity (maybe even Sir Paul’s music school).
MacMan

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 4:54 am · Reply

Exactly what is the damage to the Beatles? None.

When every other music group in the world would love to have representation on iTunes, a big league player like Apple Corps needs to bend a little and give back to people who supported them.

Beatles?, no, Cock Roaches is the name . . .your nothing more than another Bill Gates monopolistic roach.
NoPC Zone

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 7:54 am · Reply

Ringo and Paul can kiss my A**. BTW what did you think sosumi meant anyway?
David Matthews

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 7:56 am · Reply

Apple Corps doesn’t care about brand name or about confusing trademarks. Their concern is about getting some cash and making sure their jobs are still relevent. As always, when something good occurs just look for a lawyer to mess it up.
Deckard

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 8:30 am · Reply

Hm… I think we already ruled out that myth. There is no documentation about Jobs naming his company after Apple Corps, nor is there an eyewitness claiming he has seen Jobs stating this. What is true though is, that the first Apple Logo showed Newton in front of a tree, holding an apple…
when will the rest of the world.....

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 8:57 am · Reply

beatles and their lawyers are needing money.
Ralph

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:17 am · Reply

Maybe its time for Apple to buy Apple Corps. and end this dispute once and for all. I’m sure Jobs would love to “own” a music company. After all Sony owns a music company and Jobs has clearly said that he wants Apple to be more like them. We’ll see…
Atomic Bomb

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:18 am · Reply

“…feel no guilt in downloading Beatles tracks off the net…” – Sol

Not purchasing Beatles music has no financial repercussions for the Beatles. All rights to Beatles music is owned by Michael Jackson, not the Beatles, so he would receive any royalties from current Beatles music purchases.

It amazes me that the Beatles were so inept that they couldn’t even keep the rights to their own music.
Sol

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:21 am · Reply

Atom Bomb, if downloading Beatles tracks will mean screwing both The Beatles and that superstar paedophile then I am all for it.
Jbird

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:23 am · Reply

NoPC Zone,

Sosume….sound it out….SO SUE ME…..
pkradd

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:24 am · Reply

Atomic Bomb:
The sale of Beatles RECORDINGS brings royalties to the surviving members and their estates. Apple Corps own the recordings previously released and any tracks not yet released. The mechanical (Publishing) royality for songs that the Beatles or members of the band wrote go to Jackson/Sony. Jackson/Sony paid a very large sum for purchasing the publishing rights to the writers of the songs. The Beatles were not inept in this matter.
lepriapus

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:33 am · Reply

The iPod has been out for several years, and they are just now suing? I think this case can not stand. These breach of contract took place what 3yrs ago? Are you not suppose to virgorouly defend your logo? Letting something go on for 3yrs does not seem like vigorouly defending.
pkradd

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:48 am · Reply

It’s the “dog days of summer” a bunch of high paid lawyers had nothing better to do. The quote above from an Apple Corps lawyer is unsubstantiated and not verified from a source (Fox News) that is dubious. It’s interesting that only Fox broke the story – incidentally, a similar one from the same source was published on June 3. The content for both articles is almost identical.
Matt Dair

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:49 am · Reply

The Beatles are long gone… This is the action of a Greedy holding company. Shame Apple Computer and Apple Corp. have more in common then they would like to admit. Apple Corp. THINK DIFFERENT, your Founders did. It’s time to bury the Hatchett. Maybe it is time for Apple Computer to buy Apple Corp.
Atomic Bomb

Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:52 am · Reply

pkradd – Thanks for that clarification. Still, Jackson won the rights you mention without the knowledge of a very upset Paul McCartney, so I don’t think the Beatles lost the rights willingly.

No matter, though, I like Ralph’s idea of Apple Computer buying Apple Corp.