“The Beatles own a holding company called Apple Corps, Ltd.,
22 Comments
Reader Feedback
Apple’s offer to open up NFC reportedly to be approved by EU next month
Apple’s offer to open NFC in iPhone to rivals is set to be approved by EU antitrust regulators as soon as next month after it tweaked some…
iPhone 17 Plus said to sport display smaller than 6.7-inches
Apple’s Phone 17 Plus will come with a smaller screen than the 6.7-inch display on the current-generation iPhone 15 Plus…
Taffy Brodesser-Akner adapting ‘Long Island Compromise’ for Apple TV+
Taffy Brodesser-Akner, will re-team with Susannah Grant and Sarah Timberman to develop “Long Island Compromise” for Apple TV+ with…
Apple in the running for NBA rights package
The NBA’s exclusive negotiating window with incumbent media partners Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery will likely pass without a deal…
Apple plans to spend more in Socialist Republic of Vietnam as it looks beyond China
As Apple and other global tech firms to look beyond China to secure their supply chains, cut costs, and open up new markets, Apple is…
“In 1981 they made him sign something agreeing never to go into the music business in order to keep a name they had trademarked…”
I have no idea what the original contract’s terms were, but no valid contract can be written that has no end date.
There are two possibilities:
1. The end of the contract has been exceeded, and Apple Computers can do as they please. Now that Apple Computers is much more widely known, Apple Corps may be forced to add “Not affiliated with Apple Computers, Inc.” in all of their advertising and labels.
-or-
2. Apple Computers (Steve) feels the potential profit for entering into the music industry makes any fines from an archaic lawsuit over an equally archaic company insignificant.
Apple Corps, Ltd. would be best served by cooperating with Apple Computers and their innovative digital distribution services. They can fight the tidal wave or they can ride it.
what a crock of stew! who the hell is Apple holdings anymore? what nimrod is going to confuse the Apple record label with Apple computers? if Jobs and company created another music label I could see the conflict, but all this over iTunes and the itms?
Sir Paul and Mister Ringo- aren’t you rich enough? wake up you insufferable tits and realize that practically NO-ONE remembers your Apple label.
and those that do remember include Steve Jobs… whom you are suing. morons. i’m a little less excited about the Beatles over this.
Ary- it reminds me of “The Burlington Coat Factory” – a chain that runs discount outlet malls for clothing. They simply place a disclaimer stating that they are not affiliated with Burlington Industries (a fabric mill) and they stay in the clear.
I find it hard to believe that Apple (Computer) failed to anticipate the likely action of Apple (Corps): they’d already had one expensive go-round with them, and if Apple’s legal department didn’t remind His Steveness of the likely consequences of getting into the music biz – i.e. a “let’s have some of your money” lawsuit from Apple (Corps) – then they all ought to be laid off.
This suggests three possibilities. One is that Apple (Computer) think that the cost of a settlement is likely to be less than the profit to be made from being in music. A second is that they now think they can win, and are eager to get the Beatles and their lawyers off their backs for good. A third is that Steve Jobs overruled his lawyers, and Apple’s legal department are now all beating their heads on their desks and pulling their hair out in handfuls.
My guess would be #2, but I wonder how they’re going to make this work: while I think Apple could successfully argue that the Beatles’ injunction constitutes unfair restraint of trade, a contract is a contract and the prior court decision is not going to help them in this battle.
I think it’s more Yoko than Ringo, or Sir Paul…
She was the greedy one. Remember what she did to John’s eldest son… He was given a portion of inheritance, great by itself, but nothing compared to what he was due… and he is not allowed to talk about it.
Watch, she will use it to stimulate her new book deal or something else.
Where’s the name Apple in, iTune’s, iPod, iTunes music store? The answer is it’s not. Why not buy Apple corp., fire all of its scum sucking lawyers, liquadate the damed thing, and tell the remaining Beatles to screw off, nights of the realm or not. There are lots of companys that use Apple in their name, check the phone book in any large city.
Maybe they ought to rename it the Sosumi Music Store. Sounds like a bunch of lawyers chasing their tails. If Apple settles out of court they are stupid.
You folks have missed the possibility that Apple Computer has considered the situation and has decided that ther free publicity from being sued by Apple corps and the Beatles wouild greatly outweigh any money they might have to pay the Beatles.
Simply speaking they consider whatever they might have to pay the Beatles as part of their advertising budget. Count on their legal staff to keep this as high profile and as lengthy a case as they can.
It’s good news, because it is NEWS! This is the kind of news that generates sympathy and good will toward Apple. And while the company prepares to launch it’s Windows version of the product it will compound the user interest in those products. Whatever the costs of the case, more people will know Apple.
Simpathy for Apple Computers, I think not…
They’ve been sued twice for this crap and still haven’t learned. I hope when the judge rules on this one he takes into account the repetitive breaches in agreement and awards punitive damages.
Just because Apple makes good products doesn’t mean they should be held above the law. Not to mention, if anyone else pulled these kind of dealings with Apple, Apple’s legal department would be up-in-arms and suing the infringer to the full extent of the law.
The question, “another possibility,” is whether or not they were ever in breach of the Apple Corp’s Apple Music trademark. There are a lot of similar business names in the world, so as long as Apple Computer stops talking about the Apple Music Store, it seems to me that everything should be OK (I am not a lawyer). I don’t know how the previous legal settlements factor into this – perhaps they can be invalidated if Apple’s lawyers are more competent than Apple’s advertisers generally are.
Are all the beatles dead yet? If not, I wish they would hurry up. Nobody, contrary to what the lawyers think, is a big enough idiot to confuse Apple Computers with “Apple Corps” records … and if they did, what would be the monetary damage? That they couldn’t find a beatles song for sale on Apple’s site?
Apple Records should go after the real culprits who are doing them harm — the file trading networks. I should know — I have almost the entire Beatles collection and I haven’t paid one red cent for any of it.
God I’m glad I didn’t go to rip-off, I mean law school.
In the US, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that any trademark dilution claims must be proven to have had a negative impact on the plaintiff, or is intented to mislead customers.
Apple computers can claim that any contract they had was written in a different legal environment, which had a less demanding standard.
I agree, when i misspelled simpathy I intended to say among potential customers. Yes Apple is like a rabid dog in defending its positions against rumor sites etc., and that is unfortunate for us all.
I think the news is positive for Apple though because it has the ring of unreasonable leagl bindings, against a struggling technologist.
In 50 years, people will go to museums to see what a Mac looked like. The company will have been bought out or have gone out of business. Meantime, the Beatles will continue selling millions of CD’s or whatever is the latest high tech music medium at that time. Apple = Beatles FOREVER.
This problem with Apple Corp. is based on English law reguarding tradenames. In Great Britain the tradename “Apple” is owned by Apple Corp. and no company can use that name for ANY OTHER PRODUCT OR SERVICE.
The English laws on trademarks are quite different than those in the United States of America. The company owning a trademark can prevent anyone else from using the trademarked name reguardless of the type of industry.
A good example of this is the fact that Apple Computer Inc. could not use the “Jaguar” name for Mac OS X 10.2 in Great Britain or any British territory including Canada and Australia. The “Jaguar” name is owned by Jaguar Motors, a car company.
To “English lawyer”:
(1) trademerk protection is afforded by way of classes, just like in the United States, Australia and Canada;
(2) the text ‘Jaguar’ is the subject of various trademarks in the UK, not all of which are registered in the name of Jaguar Cars Limited, and not all of which relate to the automotive industry;
(3) Canada and Australia are, practically speaking, no more ‘British territories’ than the United States is;
(4) Mac OS X version 10.2 was marketed under the name ‘Jaguar’ in Australia;
(5) you spelt ‘regarding’ incorrectly;
(6) you appear to have no clue.
AJ
To: Oh No!
“Millions”??? Where did you get that figure? And when was the last time the Beatles actually sold an album. It’s the owner(s) of Apple Corps who are involved here, not the Beatles (which no longer exists except in minds and on vinyl and CDs). And before this all surfaced, how many people (present company excepted) actually know that Apple Corps owned the Beatles? Or who cares?
BTW – the Original Mac 512 is already on display at the Smithsonian Museum of Industry & Technology in Washington, DC, considered not a dinosaur, but a revolutionary pioneer on the road to today’s computing power – the G5.
Hey uys, this is not Beatles versus Mac (as the press likes to put it on the headlines). This is Greed versus Business. Apple Corps. decided they could have a bite of the apple “iTunes Music Store”. They waited to see if it was profitable and since it is, they sued. Apple Computer has the right to operate the market with the same freedom as all other companies. Let it or not be a contract saying otherwise. If the USA’s law was always fair, no court could rule on Apple Corps. behalf. A contract inhibiting a company from operating freely in the market because of a name issue shouldnt be consider legal.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Anyway, 25 million people macs against a bziliion PC users. They may be “a few” but I’m sure they’re very willing so share all their Beatles collection in p2p, carracho or hotline servers as a statement to this issue…
The bottom line is that The Beatles own the Apple trademark. It is theirs. Steve Jobs was aware of that fact when he named his company, Apple Computers. If I started a record company and named it Microsoft Music, in tribute to Bill Gates, I would have a big fat lawsuit on my hands, as well.
I don’t think there is a “bad guy” in this lawsuit. Steve Jobs could have changed his company’s name when he was sued the first time, and avoided future headache. But he chose to keep it, I believe because who could have foreseen how much computers would eventually do. He agreed to keep Apple Computers out of the music business to keep the “Apple” name, not aware that there would ever be a time that his company would have a reason to be in the music business.
But now there’s big bucks to be made for Apple Computers in the music business. They are probably gonna have to fork over some big money this time.
And to whoever is questioning the relevance of Apple Corps and The Beatles today…keep in mind that The Beatles made more money in 1995 than they did in all the years they were together combined. And their new stuff, although just old stuff repackaged, does well on the charts. Their Beatles One album did very well when released a couple years back. And they have a “new” album coming out next month. All of this through their label, Apple Corps, so that company is still obviously active in the music industry to this day. It is not some archaic company.
And then, there is Limewire and Sound Studio.
ulubione zakazane x-x ulubione zdjecia x-x urocze bruki x-x tyleczki czterdziestki x-x tyleczki dupcie x-x tyleczki dupeczki x-x private wilgotnej siostry x-x namietne latynoski x-x pornos striptiz laska x-x mlode pozowane darmo x-x mlode pozuje cycate x-x mlode rozjeba przystojny x-x seksowne nimfomanka seks x-x lodziary w bikini movies x-x pulchne na sofie film x-x salma hayk photo x-x chicos string tanga x-x ricas vergas x-x malolaty site x-x pupcia na sofie filmy x-x pornol pod prysznicem live x-x