“The first time I heard that the Beatles’ AppleCorp had sued Apple Computer, Inc. back in 1981 over the ‘Apple’ name, it stung. Then when AppleCorp and Apple Computer settled another lawsuit in 1989, I was somewhat disappointed that the Beatles felt entitled to additional financial compensation from Apple Computer. And now that AppleCorp is planning to take Apple Computer back to court for a third time, I am absolutely outraged,” Ben Hampton writes for MacFriends.com.
“Greed is a nasty and insidious thing, and the image of my beloved Beatles, in league with a pack of self-serving, carnivorous attorneys just doesn’t sit well with my philosophy of life — a philosophy the Beatles, themselves, helped me to forge through the lyrics of their eternal music. It is really difficult for me to admit that the two Apples have already met in court on two prior occasions, but I cannot help but hold onto the hope that a third court appearance, simply for the sake of making rich attorneys richer, can be avoided,” Hampton writes. “To this end, I have a proposal. I have no idea how this proposal might ever reach the interested parties, but if this article does happen to get published on the internet, who knows where it might end up. If you are reading this article and have an inside hookup with any of the principals, please refer this article or pass it on to them.”
“AppleCorp and Apple Computer should work together, if not outright merge into a single company. Together they could finally become media producers for the rest of us. Using Macintosh hardware and iLife software, it has never been easier or less expensive to produce music/audio, video/film, computer generated art, photography, and literature. And the internet could provide the perfect distribution method for placing these new artists and their creative works into the public eye,” Hampton writes.
Full article here.
Tell AppleCorp to stop suing and leave Apple Computer alone.
Why should the Beatles people cooperate? First the losers can sue Apple because they can’t make a dime to save their lives now, then they can turn around and negotiate.
it’s Apple Corps, by the way.
So was McCartney’s despising of the “men in suits” during The Beatles years only jealousy?
With these all-time-high revenues, couldn’t Apple Computer simply buy the whole Apple Corps and change their name to Snapple?
This thing does reek.
I guess all you need is love and a good attorney.
The guy’s a bit too hippy for the 21st century, but his idea is a noble one.
I too believe Macca and crew should sit down with Steve and sort this mess out – not necessarily w/o lawyers, but with a goal to making friends and create a symbiotic relationship, rather than the nasty suing which is going on. I reckon they’d stand to make more money working together than fighting. Unless of course, AppleCorps feels they can get billions out of Apple Computer by suing their asses off.
ps Apple Computer (along with others) already donate equipment for the John Lennon Educational Tour Bus:
http://www.jlsc.com/
First lawsuit I get! this one is based on pure greed.
You have a company that has worked forward for many years in the music industry
And you have Apple Corps that has only collected Royalties for the past 20 years.
Was it one of the Beatles that wanted the suit filed or someone on the board at Apple Corps that wanted the money?
I would love to see how this has tarnished a company (Apple Corps) in any way when they have not been a involved in the music industry in the past 20 years.
But WAIT alL of a sudden they are going to open a Beatles Cirque Du Soleil in Vegas
Even the Apple Corps .com web page goes nowhere like this lawsuit
“”Greed is a nasty and insidious thing, and the image of my beloved Beatles, in league with a pack of self-serving, carnivorous attorneys just doesn’t sit well with my philosophy of life”
FSCK the Beatles. A pack of self-serving, egomaniac musicians are in good company then.
Apple Computer should countersue for harassment. Three lawsuits over 24 years, on a matter that’s already been settled twice, is beyond asinine. AppleCorp should be laughed right out of the courtroom.
“…change their name to Snapple”
Woah, watch out. Here comes the Snapple lady with a lawsuit now. Maybe then they can all combine and become the all-inclusive media AND fake juice company for the rest of us. THEN, they could hire a CEO away from Pepsi to run it all. Wonderful! Oh, wait…
jw, Apple did say, “Sosumi.” It’s all their fault. Maybe they should have said, “Sussudio” instead. I bet Phil Collins’ attorneys are much easier to deal with.
I’m inclined to think Apple Corps has a legitimate beef. The issue is whether the average consumer could legitimately confuse one corporation with the other. If both Apple Corps and Apple Computer sell music, you have to think that there’s a possibility a person could mistake one for the other. Clearly, nobody on this forum would make such an error, but there are people out there who know NOTHING of either company and could easily think that the two are somehow related or otherwise the same.
just my opinion…
It’s a 20-foot cock and balls, man!
People killing, people dying, children hurting, see them crying; if you turn the other cheek, would you practise what you preach?
I don’t know why everyone blames this on the Beatles. Steve Jobs may be a genius, but as a kid he did a dumbass thing when he named his computer company AFTER ANOTHER COMPANY–and a very famous one at that. Not very visionary thinking. (Apple Corps was still releasing new records in the mid-70s. There were releases by non-Beatles on the label, too.)
“Three lawsuits over 24 years, on a matter that’s already been settled twice, is beyond asinine.”
The matter that was settled was that Apple could use the name as long as they didn’t use it in the music business. It’s hard to argue that Apple has not entered the music business.
It’s hard to argue that Apple has not entered the music business.
—
selling what.. digital music…not CD’s or tapes.. and the iPod which is a consumer electronics device…also something Apple Corps knows nothing about..
it’s also based on the claim that people will confuse the two..
Irony of ironies.. the only time Apple Corps is ever mentioned, is when this case is mentioned.
Get it?
Damn.. Apple is named top 10 Brand of the year like everyyear… and AppleCorps still thinks there’s confusion??
Who cares if they have the same name? Apple Corps. is irrelevant and has been for years. True, Apple Computer, Inc. was not supposed to enter the music biz under the name Apple, which is why they will likely spin off a company called iPod (as they spun off FileMaker). But, Apple Corps. has suffered no damages, no one confuses the companies, two of the four Beatles are dead, and the other two are wealthy as hell. So, I say Apple Corps. is just some old fogies going for some cash. Piss off!
The article’s suggestions are good, but I’d still much rather see the selfish Beatles get their asses nailed to the wall in open court.
Apple Corp is not dead. The Beatles are still one of the top selling bands in the world each year.. if not the top. Outside of the USA the Beatle CDs are sold on the Apple label. Steve Jobs promised not to enter the music business and he broke the promise. It’s really that simple. The negotiations aren’t if Apple Computer should pay money to the Beatles but rather how much they will pay. The British courts have already ruled that the Beatle’s case is very strong. Steve Jobs named the company after the Beatle’s company. He has admitted this in interviews.
I think there is no doubt that the Beatles have a good case, but I don’t believe that just because they can sue, they should sue.
Personally I think you would have had to have lived in a cave for the past 30 years to not know the difference between Apple Computer and Apple Records. But nobody has mentioned that Apple has already spun off a completely different music company. It is called the iTunes Music Store.
diamond..
nice to see you’re sitting on the fence…
let me ask.. what does it mean to ‘enter the music business’…
you don’t actually think the contract is that vague, do you?
what do you suppose the contract actually says.. Apple Computer may not sell any audio equipment, may not sign any bands, may not sell CD’s, audio tapes… may not sign artists to recording contracts..
be specific diamond.
>diamond: Steve Jobs promised not to enter the music business and he broke the promise. It’s really that simple.
Now why did you have to go and cut to the heart of the matter?
Since this is Apple, common fan practice is to forgive any wrongdoing, malpractice, breach of good faith, stealing, cheating, bullying, etc.
This is Apple and not Microsoft, so it’s okay.
—–
>mike wrote: what do you suppose the contract actually says…..be specific diamond.
You want him to be specific about his suppositions?
Well in that case, what exactly to you think is in that (private) contract, Mike?
And be specific about what you think is in that (private) contract so we can test for vagueness.
>diamond: Steve Jobs promised not to enter the music business and he broke the promise. It’s really that simple.
Now why did you have to go and cut to the heart of the matter?
Since this is Apple, common fan practice is to forgive any wrongdoing, malpractice, breach of good faith, stealing, cheating, bullying, etc.
This is Apple and not Microsoft, so it’s okay.
—–
>mike wrote: what do you suppose the contract actually says…..be specific diamond.
You want him to be specific about his suppositions?
Well in that case, what exactly to you think is in that (private) contract, Mike?
And be specific about what you think is in that (private) contract so we can test for vagueness.
>diamond: Steve Jobs promised not to enter the music business and he broke the promise. It’s really that simple.
Now why did you have to go and cut to the heart of the matter?
Since this is Apple, common fan practice is to forgive any wrongdoing, malpractice, breach of good faith, stealing, cheating, bullying, etc.
This is Apple and not Microsoft, so it’s okay.
—–
>mike wrote: what do you suppose the contract actually says…..be specific diamond.
You want him to be specific about his suppositions?
Well in that case, what exactly to you think is in that (private) contract, Mike?
And be specific about what you think is in that (private) contract so we can test for vagueness.
Oh so we know NOTHING about the contract.. well that changes EVERYTHING.. I guess we should just assume that Apple signed away its right to ‘join’ this nebulous thing called the ‘music business’ until the end of time..
Wow.. imagine how much money they could save on LAWYERS by just going on assumptions.. phew!
I already said what was in that contract.. Apple’s not allowed to be a company that sells music on tapes/CDs and definitely not allowed to act as a label. In short: they’re not allowed to do the same things that Apple Corps does, because.. wait for it.. THAT WOULD LEAD TO CONFUSION OF THE BRAND NAMES.
WOW! Amazing..
Is AppleCorps making consumer electronics? Hmm.. don’t think so. Is there a soul on this planet that thinks they’re responsible for the iPod.
It would be tough to find, but I’m sure you could hit up one of those ‘I see Mother Mary in my coffee table’ hicks down south.
So will the judge sit there are credit Apple Corps for Apples music business success? OF COURSE NOT!
Apple will pay the minimum penalty possible for this joke of a trial. And by that I mean, the judge will not lend credence to this ‘consumer confusion’ bullshit, but say, ‘okay you broke the contract, vague though it may be.. pay 100 mil’
Now that I’m done, look up the word suppose. Learn how to read. I wanted him to be specific about ‘the music business’ not his suppositions.
Pfft.