“This week the Apple Corps goes to the High Court seeking multimillion-pound damages against Apple Computer, the creators of the iPod, over their hugely successful iTunes Music Store,” Liz Chong reports for The Times. “Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs, still owns the licensing rights to Beatles’ products. It is claiming that the introduction of iTunes broke a $26 million settlement under which Apple Computer agreed to steer clear of the music business, for which the Beatles’ company retains the famous trademark. It is the latest clash in one of Britain’s longest-running corporate legal battles.”
“Steve Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer, founded his company in 1976 with a logo of a rainbow-coloured apple with a bite taken out of it. Apple Corps sued him five years later, accepting an $80,000 settlement and a promise that the computer company would stay out of the music business,” Chong reports. “The companies clashed again in 1989 after Apple Computer introduced a music-making program. The computer company settled in 1991, for $26 million. Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on ‘creative works whose principal content is music’ while Apple Computer was allowed ‘goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content.'”
“Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them. Apple Computer will argue that its music service, which has sold more than a billion songs since 2002, is merely data transmission,” Chong reports. “The case is scheduled to begin on Wednesday at the High Court before Mr Justice Mann, a self-professed fan of music and computers. He is no stranger to the iPod, having inquired of both sides some time ago if he should disqualify himself from hearing the case because he owned one.”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Apple Computer and The Beatles’ AppleCorp should stop fighting in court and work together instead – July 27, 2005
Beatles vs. Apple Computer: outcome is far from a lock for Beatles – September 30, 2004
Apple vs. Apple settlement to result in iTunes Music Store Beatles exclusive? – September 23, 2004
Apple’s iTunes Music Store to land exclusive Beatles deal? – September 20, 2004
Apple vs. Beatles could be solved with fat check and spinning off iTunes from Apple Computer – September 17, 2004
Apple’s settlement with Beatles could be ‘biggest settlement in legal history’ – September 13, 2004
The Beatles to sell songs via Apple iTunes Music Store? – June 09, 2004
Apple loses: Apple v. Beatles to be heard in Britain – April 06, 2004
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple; 1991 agreement allows for ‘data transmission services, even music’ – February 26, 2004
Apple Computer to contest Beatles’ U.K. lawsuit in court today – February 25, 2004
Jobs: Apple vs. Apple ‘could drag on for years – it’s unfortunate because we love the Beatles’ – September 28, 2003
Forbes: Apple vs. Apple; iTunes Music Store just might end up with exclusive Beatles deal – September 12, 2003
Sosumi: more on the Beatles’ lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc. – September 12, 2003
The Beatles sue Apple Computer over iPod, iTunes – September 12, 2003
The Beatles’ Apple Records could be gearing up for fight with Apple Computer – August 12, 2003
The Beatles gearing up for a fight over Apple’s iTunes Music Store – June 03, 2003
Apple Corps are idiots and bastards.
They would be making much more money selling The Beatless music on the iTMS than suing Apple Computer every chance they get.
F*ck em I say.
This seems like a clear example of a situation that Apple Computer, Inc. could have and should have squashed a long time ago. If you have to have stinkin’ lawyers, then at least put them to good use rather than squashing some web sites.
Apple is not distributing music on “physical media” and that, alone, should be a sufficient basis to end the lawsuit. This isn’t the U.S. Constitution under interpretation – it is a simple legal contract and any ambiguity is in Apple’s favor.
In addition, the Apple name is not being used to distribute music content. Music is sold and delivered by the iTunes Music Store.
Buy the idiots and put the entire music collection on iTMS as an exclusive with cut-rate pricing just to piss them off. I am so sick of the greed in this world. There are a lot of people living off of someone else’s “intellectual property” and not contributing a fscking thing to this world (except copious and grossly indulgent consumption).
Looks like another settlement but this one is going to be whopper!
first post!
Sorry, but Apple better get out the wallet yet again.
This is pathetic…
Is Yoko looking for designer sunglasses that she can’t afford?
knock knock
Who’s there?
Apple
We’re Apple.
No we’re Apple.
Ok what do you want?
Money.
Money who?
Money from you stupid.
Something is fishy with the High Court.
They were always very protectional.
An interesting case. Fortunately Apple computer has lots of cash and hopefully, this time, some lawyers that will put this to bed once and for all.
It would be totally gross if Yoko gets any of the money.
$275 million sounds like a reasonable figure…..
In the new iPod commercial ……..
that looks like the Sgt. Pepper cover to me……
http://www.apple.com/ipod/ads/
It’s clear that Stevie J is not inclined to settle this. And Apple is not inclined to pay the Beatles any more money.
The contract did not properly anticipate the future and the judge will construe the contract narrowly and specifically, as it was written. The Beatles are in essence saying: Dear Judge, our old lawyers did a lousy job writing a contact, please give us money for things “not in the contact”
The Beatles are screwed
every time you have to specify, “Apple Corps was the name of the Beatles record label.. it’s essentially defunct”.. their case gets weaker and weaker..
no one is confusing the two brands…
combine that with the physical media element, and the Beatles better fight hard, or they won’t get much out of this.
The basis for the entire case is about 30 years out of date, contract or no contract. The judge knows this..
In the new iPod commercial ……..
that looks like the Sgt. Pepper cover to me……
It’s not. I slow moed through it and it is defintely not.
It’s not Yoko, but Paul you should be watching…
Yoko’s got her head screwed on.
The Beatles lost it a long time ago when drugs filled their brains. Seems like the drugs are still doing their thing. Must be genetic….
Hey! Wait a minute Mr Justice Mann…
Macdud : wtf do you know about the high court?
MW : “amount” as in revenge is a dish best served cold, regardless of the amount of each portion.
This isn’t about the name Apple. It’s about a contractual limitation on the distribution of music.
I’m not a lawyer (thanks be to heaven), and certainly not a judge, but I understand ‘physical’ versus ‘non-physical’, and my guess is that this clause doesn’t bode well for Apple Corps.
I’m also thinking that Apple Computer may put this to rest once and for all, by making an offer for Apple Corps, after the High Court finds in its favor.
The opnly problem with that, is that Apple Corps doesn’t own the rights to most Beatle’s songs. They were sold some time ago to Michael Jackson, who then sold half to Sony. I’m not sure what Apple Computer would get if they bought Apple Corps.
Apple was “prohibited from distributing music on physical media”. There’s another way to say this that makes the issue much clearer. Apple was prohibited from operating a MUSIC LABEL.
The iTunes Music Store is not a music label. It is a retailer. Apple is only “distributing digital music” in the same sense that Tower Records “distributes CDs”. In other words, the existing record labels are the ones actually distributing the music — iTMS merely provides a medium for this distribution.
I will be cold-cock stunned if this lawsuit goes anywhere.
Gregg, Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to the songs themselves, not the recordings of those songs. Jackson and Sony have nothing to do with it.
I like the Beatles and all, but seriously, fuck them. Apple needs to go for the jugular on this one. And after they win they should offer to buy Apple Music and shoot for the moon, or refuse to sell their music from within iTunes under any circumstances, even if Apple Music decides that they want to after all. Don’t let them capitalize on Apple after all this bullshit.
It looks like Sgt. Peppers to me….
Gregg, you’re mistaking publishing rights, which are basically the sheet music (lyrics & notes), and the recordings, which are the tracks laid down in the studio by John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Co.
The publishing rights are owned by Northern Songs Ltd. (40% owned by Wacko Jacko, 40% owned by Sony BMG, 1.6% owned by Ringo and George’s estate, and the rest publicly traded). Northern only owns the rights to the Lennon/McCartney tunes from With The Beatles on, and a handful of Harrison tunes. Despite the ownership, Sir Paul and Yoko still haul in writer’s royalties. Publishing rights for Lennon & McCartney tunes from Please, Please Me are owned by Sir Paul.
The recordings from Please, Please Me on are owned by Apple Corps Ltd and licensed to Capitol Records. Earlier Beatles’ recordings are owned by Decca (now part of Universal), thus the Beatltes-Tony Sheridan collaboration available on iTunes.
What if the Beatles started a music download service called Apple Music? Do you think that would cause confusion? Can you imagine people downloading Beatles music from the Apple Music Store but not being able to play them on an iPod? That is why the Beatles will win this case.
Nice photoshop work Goodtrip! Heehee.