1. Oh, _now_ it makes sense why getting the Beatles’ catalog in iTunes was such a big deal. There was such a trademark dispute over the name “Apple” for so many years, and now by getting the Beatles in iTunes, Steve Jobs has won.

      1. I think you can back it in on a huge sum of money being paid. In David Pogue’s Mac Secrets 5th Edition page 221 he says : “Early in Apple’s career as a computer-making superstar … The Beatles’ lawyers claimed that Apple, in making a computer with sound capabilities, was trying to get into the recording industry. … So, Apple sighed and promised Apple Records, in writing, that it would never get into the recording industry. Apple Records backed off and Macintosh went forth into the world.”

  2. OK, I’ll admit that I’m most likely older than the typical MDN reader. Now, will someone tell me: do most people use prolly as shorthand, or do they really not know the word probably?

    1. I’m beginning to wonder just what age “the typical MDN reader” is…

      I know Zune Tang is prolly… probably around 8.

      I wouldn’t knock Elvis or The Beatles. But Bon Jovi is a one trick pony- and a jerk. Let ‘im have it!

  3. Something tells me Apple is getting interested in the recording industry, and wants a piece of the pie (and no, I won’t say Apple pie, it’s too easy). Buy out Apple Corps, make everything shiny and new, and ressurrect the label.

      1. It’d be better off that way. More and more artists are recognizing that most labels are more trouble than they’re worth, and so they’re going to simply go out on their own instead of dealing with record execs. If Apple the computer company buys out Apple the record label, and with it, the apparatus to help more musicians, that would make it that much easier to do so. Apple helps promote artists that use Macs, sell on iTunes, etc., win-win for both Apple and the artist.

  4. ownership of the logos is just to make the legal point that Apple can’t be sued again by McCartney and company. I doubt that they’ll ever use these logos in that format. They could redesign their logo to stylize the green Apple. That would be interesting. By the way, why did podnn get the credit here? They themselves gives patentlyapple credit. Kind of a backwards move.

  5. Could this mean that Apple will be buying well known music collections; to offer exclusive music (or more reasonably priced or better profit margin music on iTunes?

  6. Because Steve Jobs told the truth about where he got the Apple name idea, the Apple Corps owners have been able to grasp huge payments from Apple Inc. Far more than they ever made selling music.

  7. I never understood the whole “Apple Corp. vs Apple Inc.” legal battle…2 logos are TOTALLY different (One a PHOTO of a real green apple & one of a graphic stylized rainbow logo apple with a bite taken out of it) + “apple” is a generic term. I get the “computer Macintosh was becoming able to record & play digital music” but they were NOT a studio. Musical artists have been using Macs in recording studios for DECADES. Part of Apple, Inc. “payout” should have included OWNING Abbey Road Studio.

Reader Feedback

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