“The inevitable has happened: The Beatles have sued Steve Jobs over Apple iTunes and the Apple iPod — at least the band’s
Previous Post
Pixar’s RenderMan Pro Server comes to the Macintosh28 Comments
Reader Feedback
Chinese smartphone market grows 6.5% in Q1; Apple iPhone declines 6.6%
China smartphone shipments grew 6.5% year over year (YoY) to 69.3 million units in 1Q24. Although the growth was supported by a low…
Apple Watch X likely to feature a major redesign
A next-generation Apple Watch, suspected to be the long-rumored Apple Watch X (ten) will use a new resin coated copper (RCC) motherboard…
Apple co-founder Steve Jobs spent ‘hour after hour’ on product design
Steve Jobs dedicated “hour after hour” to the minutiae of product design at Apple, driven by a belief of God being in the details,…
Apple Vision Pro killer app: Sports and concerts, totally immersive
So far, the killer apps for the Apple Vision Pro , besides watching movies and TV series, appear to be sports and concerts…
Apple TV+ debuts trailer for ‘The Big Cigar,’ new limited series starring André Holland as Black Panther leader Huey P. Newton
Apple TV+ on Wednesday revealed the trailer for “The Big Cigar,” the upcoming limited series led by André Holland, who stars alongside…
Oh, Cripes! Apple Corps lives on Apple Computer lawsuit winnings.
It did seem inevitable.
But who confuses Apple Computer with The Beatles?
The question is, what can The Beatles demand if they win? Can they force Apple to kill the iPod, iTunes jukebox/player, iTunes Music Store, Logic, Soundtrack, Audio Units, and OS X MIDI support?
Screw the Beatles and their lawsuits. What is Apple supposed to do, change its name because people might confuse them with Apple Corps? Or maybe Apple is supposed to sell computers without audio. Since when does the word ‘Apple’ belong to anyone anyway?
In light of this lawsuit I would feel no guilt in downloading Beatles tracks off the net. I respect them as musicians but as a business they are just another greedy company.
What I don’t understand is that Apple Corps would have a case if they could prove that Apple Computers were damaging the name of Apple Corps by getting into the music business. Whichever way I look at it, I can’t see how they are.
Technically, Apple Computers aren’t really in the business, they’re not actually setting up bands, ploughing money into signing up new acts, they are just acting as a distributor.
If I were Apple, I’d set up a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple, call it ‘Sosumi’ and let that run the music side of the business. That’d piss Apple Corps off.
The agreement is that the name ‘Apple’ can’t be used for a music company. But, Apple’s name isn’t used with them. The iPod is known as ‘The iPod’, and the music store is called ‘The iTunes Music Store’, I think there is a good reason why the name of Apple is not included with them.
What can they demand as a settlement? Loss of earnings? From what? How has Apple Computer damaged Apple Corps business of re-packaging & re-cycling a sad old out-dated 60’s act?
Personally I can’t stand The Beatles, (and I’m from the UK), and now I’ve got another reason to despise them.
Now that’s interesting, Apple Computer tasting their own medicine. How many websites and little companies are out of business because Apple going after them.
I thought when Apple bought Emagic that Apple Corps would jump up and sue, Apple was now clearly in music business. If you can buy Apple computer and software, make music, use iTunes to distribute it and have iPod to listen that looks like music biz to me. On the other hand nowadays things are different, computers are commonly used in music production and listening, and now the question is who is more in music business can use the name.
My lawyer friend said something about new rules that it’s better to have a company name that is made up and one of a kind. If you use something like Carrot or Sofa you don’t have much to say to protect your company. Is that true?
Anyway the Apple Corps might have deal here that might backfire even it’s clearly about which company comes to your mind when you hear the name Apple and music in same sentence.
Erm haven’t more people heard of Apple Computer than Apple Corp? Surely Apple can’t be accused of passing off or trading off Apple Corps reputation.
Ok, they breached an old legal agreement, so how about an out of court settlement and Apple use the iTunes brand on the music side of the business. Naturally as the Beatles set up Apple to hand out money to struggling artists, maybe the settlement should be given to a music charity (maybe even Sir Paul’s music school).
Exactly what is the damage to the Beatles? None.
When every other music group in the world would love to have representation on iTunes, a big league player like Apple Corps needs to bend a little and give back to people who supported them.
Beatles?, no, Cock Roaches is the name . . .your nothing more than another Bill Gates monopolistic roach.
Ringo and Paul can kiss my A**. BTW what did you think sosumi meant anyway?
Apple Corps doesn’t care about brand name or about confusing trademarks. Their concern is about getting some cash and making sure their jobs are still relevent. As always, when something good occurs just look for a lawyer to mess it up.
Hm… I think we already ruled out that myth. There is no documentation about Jobs naming his company after Apple Corps, nor is there an eyewitness claiming he has seen Jobs stating this. What is true though is, that the first Apple Logo showed Newton in front of a tree, holding an apple…
beatles and their lawyers are needing money.
Maybe its time for Apple to buy Apple Corps. and end this dispute once and for all. I’m sure Jobs would love to “own” a music company. After all Sony owns a music company and Jobs has clearly said that he wants Apple to be more like them. We’ll see…
“…feel no guilt in downloading Beatles tracks off the net…” – Sol
Not purchasing Beatles music has no financial repercussions for the Beatles. All rights to Beatles music is owned by Michael Jackson, not the Beatles, so he would receive any royalties from current Beatles music purchases.
It amazes me that the Beatles were so inept that they couldn’t even keep the rights to their own music.
Atom Bomb, if downloading Beatles tracks will mean screwing both The Beatles and that superstar paedophile then I am all for it.
NoPC Zone,
Sosume….sound it out….SO SUE ME…..
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Atomic Bomb:
The sale of Beatles RECORDINGS brings royalties to the surviving members and their estates. Apple Corps own the recordings previously released and any tracks not yet released. The mechanical (Publishing) royality for songs that the Beatles or members of the band wrote go to Jackson/Sony. Jackson/Sony paid a very large sum for purchasing the publishing rights to the writers of the songs. The Beatles were not inept in this matter.
The iPod has been out for several years, and they are just now suing? I think this case can not stand. These breach of contract took place what 3yrs ago? Are you not suppose to virgorouly defend your logo? Letting something go on for 3yrs does not seem like vigorouly defending.
It’s the “dog days of summer” a bunch of high paid lawyers had nothing better to do. The quote above from an Apple Corps lawyer is unsubstantiated and not verified from a source (Fox News) that is dubious. It’s interesting that only Fox broke the story – incidentally, a similar one from the same source was published on June 3. The content for both articles is almost identical.
The Beatles are long gone… This is the action of a Greedy holding company. Shame Apple Computer and Apple Corp. have more in common then they would like to admit. Apple Corp. THINK DIFFERENT, your Founders did. It’s time to bury the Hatchett. Maybe it is time for Apple Computer to buy Apple Corp.
pkradd – Thanks for that clarification. Still, Jackson won the rights you mention without the knowledge of a very upset Paul McCartney, so I don’t think the Beatles lost the rights willingly.
No matter, though, I like Ralph’s idea of Apple Computer buying Apple Corp.
apple corps may be able to go after things started several years ago on the premise of “continuing violation.” however, courts generally don’t reward plaintiffs who sit on their rights. my guess is apple corps sees rolling stones going to iTunes, and also sees iTunes for Windows coming to market soon, and wants to negotiate a special deal that differs from the “standard royalty contract” that’s a key part of iTunes’ success.
I’ll say it again – Apple should buy Apple Corps.
a) Beatles Exclusive on iTMS.
b) Living Beatles old – they would rather money now and avoid bickering after they’re dead – Stella McCartney and new wife HEather Mill are aready tussing over money and inheritence.
c) Apple can re-sell CD rights to a record label.
d) What better use than part of that $4.5B laying around than to buy up the exclusive rights to Beatles music downloads? Think of the even more FREE PUBLICITY for Apple, itunes music store and ipods.
THE BEATLES. ONLY AT APPLE. ONLY ON THE ITUNES MUSIC STORE.
That alone is worth $100 million dollars of free publicity.
The Beatles were, (heavy on the were) a great group. However they and Apple Corps are longer players in the big time. Kinda like the Brits suing Canada, Australia, and the US for speaking english. Or the attempts of some people (M$) to control the Unix community. LAW (lawyers are wimps) was one of Apples code names for the first power Macs (7100). It also is appropriate for the jerks who filed this law suite.
Ha!!
I think the Beatles have neglected their trademark and a fact of the marketplace is that when folks think of “Apple” they think of Apple Computers, not the long dead Apple records. I think the courts should rule The beatles trademark as invalid!
In the meantime it’s time for loyal Mac fans to stand up and fight!
BOYCOTT THE BEATLES! I will not buy anymore Beatles CD’s. Pass the word…BOYCOTT THE BEATLES
Technically speaking Apple Computer HAS violeted the letter of their aggreement with Apple Corps. Of course, the lawsuit(if their really is one) is frivolus but grounded in a technicality. The Beatles like many artists want the artistic integrity of their albums upheld and will not consent to on line sales by song. They also probably want a premium, as one other reader pointed out. This maybe their way of strongarming a newgotiation but it will only come with a modification of the original lawsuit since Apple is most definitely in certain aspects of the music business, albeit, ones that did not exist at the time of the original law suit and can be argued as not relevant and the terms of the original suit may begin to be seen as vague. At the same time, both Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are Apple Computer users both have employed Logic and use Macs to run their shows and produce their recordings. Check out Ringo’s website and watch him play sections of the anthology on his Titanium and here him alude to the stingyness of Apple not allowing him use of the video clips for his website. As far as McCartney, Jackson and the publishing and royalty rights, The Beatles- harrison, Starr and Lennon outvoted Paul and agreed to listen to Allen Klein and not take Publisher Dick James offer of first refusal when he sold the rights initially, thinking that he would lower the offer. He didn’t and sold them to Robert Stigwood Org. They have never been able to buy them back as they have always been inflated when the Beatles have tried. In Fact, Michael Jackson, secretly stole them out from under mcCartney and ono’s efforts when he acquired them.