Apple lawyer: ‘Even a moron in a hurry’ can tell difference between iTunes and Beatles’ Apple Corps

“Lawyers for Apple Computer Inc. on Thursday asserted the company’s right to distribute music through its iTunes Music Store, rejecting claims by The Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd. that doing so violated a 1991 trademark agreement,” Jill Lawless reports for The Associated Press. “Apple Computer lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the “distribution of digital entertainment content” was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to tread on the other’s sphere of business.”

Lawless reports, “Grabiner said ‘even a moron in a hurry’ could distinguish between the computer company’s online music business and a record label like Apple Corps. ‘Data transmission is within our field of use. That’s what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable,’ he said… Grabiner said the fact that Apple Computer distributed music didn’t make it a record label, and so did not violate the agreement – which set Apple Corps’ domain as music content and Apple Computer’s as hardware, software and the digital distribution of data. He said no ‘reasonable person’ would assume that Apple Computer created or owned the 3.5 million songs on its hugely successful iTunes music store. ‘It’s obvious that the content comes from a wide variety of content providers,’ he said. ‘It’s obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content.’ …The trial began Wednesday and is expected to last at least five days.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Don’t the remaining Beatles geezers Ringo and Paul and the Beatles geezer parasites (Yoko) have enough money for their retirement? Can’t they rifle between the couch cushions for a spare mil or 800? Why don’t they just “discover” some more old unfinished tapes and release some more crap like “Free As A Bird” if they want to cash in again before they cash out?

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 vs. Apple opening arguments begin in UK High Court – March 29, 2006
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple goes to UK High Court this Wednesday – March 26, 2006
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


  1. Does anyone confuse Napster with a record label? Real Networks? Apple Corp only link is the name. Why doesn’t McIntosh (maker of awesom audio gear) sue Apple over the Macintosh computer since it can encode and decode music signals? Nobody confuses these two products, either.

  2. ‘moron in a hurry’ — this is a quote from another case some 25 or so years ago in which the British Communist Party daily newspaper, the Morning Star, sued a new tabloid paper which had called itself the Daily Star.

    Lawyers for the Daily Star contended that only a ‘moron in a hurry’ would confuse the staid Communist Morning Star with their own racy tabloid (complete with photos of topless girls).

    The Daily Star won the case. No doubt laywers for Apple Computer want the judge to recall that case and rule for them too.

  3. Both sides have employed pretty famous (in UK) top barristers to put their case, so this is also about their egos. By saying ‘even a moron in a hurry…’ is itself a nice sideswipe against the Apple Corps barrister and the individuals who started this case.
    My guess is that this case will settle the Apple v Apple thing, once and for all. The judge will not let the final decision be so ambiguous as the 1991 agreement. Also the judge knows society/culture has moved on so much since 1991, that to now suggest there can be confusion between the Apples is riduclous. God knows why Apple Corps even brought this case on. Greed I guess, they just must see Apple as an soft target.
    You can be certain, SJ and his legal team saw this issue from the moment ITMS was born and just figured that any case had a better than 50.50 chance of going their way.
    My money is on a win to APPL.

  4. What has Beatles done in the last decade? If a company doesn’t do anything *significant*, their trademarks must be revoked.

    All that Apple Corps could use as logo is simply take a picture of apple and use it? How lame is that?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.