Apple: iTunes doesn’t violate trademark agreement | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Apple: iTunes doesn’t violate trademark agreement

Author's pic

By LC Angell

Contributing Editor
Published: Thursday, March 30, 2006
News Categories: Apple

In the second day of the Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer case, lawyers for Apple Computer said iTunes does not violate a trademark agreement the companies signed in 1991 and that it has rights to distribute digital music. Apple Computer lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the “distribution of digital entertainment content” was allowed under the agreement, adding that “even a ##### in a hurry” could tell the difference between iTunes 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 no “reasonable person” would assume that Apple Computer created the 3.5 million songs on its 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.”

« Xitel HiFi-Link for iPod nano announced

Attorneys: iPod maximum volume update not good enough »

Related Stories

Comments

1

“Even a ##### in hurry:”  translation:  None of the young kids buying iPods and stuff from the iTMS have even heard of Apple Records today, so stuff it!

I really do think that Apple Records is just being greedy..

Posted by Cameron T. on March 30, 2006 at 8:04 AM (PDT)

2

I’ve been called a ##### and I’m often in a hurry, and even I can tell the difference between the two.

Yeah, time has passed the Corps by. They should settle this and make tons more money by selling the Beatle’s catalog on the iTMS…

Posted by bipto in Minneapolis, MN on March 30, 2006 at 8:18 AM (PDT)

3

the iPod and the iTMS been around for a while…NOW Apple Corps heard about them? or maybe because iTMS just sold its 1 billionth song and the iPod sales where high last holidays???

Posted by name on March 30, 2006 at 8:37 AM (PDT)

4

Digital entretainment delivery

so apple corps would not be able to put bettles videos on its greta web site (noting more than a green apple)

Well maybe Apple computer can feature them on ther music store

Posted by checo on March 30, 2006 at 8:46 AM (PDT)

5

name,
The lawsuit has been around for a while to. Preparing the case takes a while - it’s not something that happens over night.

Posted by lazydesert on March 30, 2006 at 8:49 AM (PDT)

6

I love the Beatles. I love my macs & my iPod. Apple Corp really need to understand that I don’t confuse them as the holding company that gave me the recent Let It Be…Naked and George’s Concert for Bangaladesh rereleases and the guys who make the cool tech I play it all back on.

What I do find stange is Paul McCartney consenting to iTMS UK distributing the Sgt. Pepper’s live track he did with U2 at Live 8 London last year. Either Apple Corp has a problem with iTMS distributing music, or it doesn’t. And PMc seems to have indicated with his actions last year that he doesn’t.

I just find this to be really sad, as a commited Beatles/PMc fan and as a fan of Apple Computer’s tech.

Posted by Bren on March 30, 2006 at 8:54 AM (PDT)

7

Meanwhile the Beatles are being pirated left and right because there is no other available option online.  Sorry, I don’t use CDs anymore and I’m not going to change my preference because Apple Record Corp wants to engage in this petty fight.  Even if they win, it won’t solve their piracy problem.

Posted by Frank Z on March 30, 2006 at 9:29 AM (PDT)

8

Seems like Apple Corp is shooting itself in the foot here. I have to think they could make a lot of money by selling the Beatles catalogue online.  Think about the cross-marketing between Apple and Apple that could be even bigger than Apple and U2.  It could be huge.  Alas, they waste their time and money on a lawsuit.  As a future lawyer, all I can say is, thanks wink

Posted by BrettB on March 30, 2006 at 9:44 AM (PDT)

9

Funny how it’s “data transmission” in court, but “music” when the RIAA is involved.

Posted by stark23x on March 30, 2006 at 2:35 PM (PDT)

10

“Funny how it’s “data transmission? in court, but “music? when the RIAA is involved.”

What’s so funny about it?  Why can’t it be both?  What does this have to do with the case?

Posted by The Raven in USA on March 30, 2006 at 4:27 PM (PDT)

11

The current problem is that “the sale of the music itself is the rationale and the raison d’etre of the iTunes music store”.

Apple Computer is doing something new and special , not only were individual songs available from the music store, but so were compilations, “celebrity playlists”, and “boxed sets”.

What Apple Computer is doing is going in the biggest possible way into the record business which is what they agreed NOT to do in 1991 with Apple Corp..

Steve Jobs had phoned Neil Aspinall, The Beatles’ former road manager who is now managing director of Apple Corp, to ask if his company could buy the “Apple Records” mark for $1m about a month before the launch of the online music store.

I love Apple Computer and Own stock even but Apple Corp which was the first Apple must protect it’s patent.

Bottom line no one knew of digital downloads 15 years ago, so this MUST be revisited now. They will probably setlle and the Beatles company should be paid something is Apple (using their name and logo) wants to stay in the music business.

Posted by mazzy on March 30, 2006 at 4:34 PM (PDT)

12

..and why do you think iLounge is no longer iPod lounge????

Posted by mazzy on March 30, 2006 at 5:35 PM (PDT)

13

“even a ##### in a hurry?


*chuckles* I’m gonna write that one down.

Posted by Chris on March 30, 2006 at 5:46 PM (PDT)

14

Man…... I should be insulted by the “##### in a hurry” coment but im too busy ahahahahahah.  There are alot of good insights here but lets face it everyone, its only about the moolah. If Apple Corp (way before my time) was monitoring Apple they were just waiting for the right to play their greedy hand. Anybody and everybody in the music industry knows about Apple’s ipod and ITMS by now, don’t they? Naaah, Apple Corp is not concerned about the money, they just don’t want their little green apple logo tarnished. How stupid of me to think otherwise.

Posted by Kastor Troy on March 30, 2006 at 7:41 PM (PDT)

15

Apple Corp filed this suit years ago right when iTunes went live and just after Jobs offered a million to Apple Corps to use the name and logo.. It just got to court now. Apple Computer is the one who could have settled a few years ago alot cheaper than what it will pay now.  This is not greed but just and ongoing situation based on a fifteen year old agreement that has now been changed due to technologal advances.  The Beatles are not wrong here. Basically they agreed for their Apple to be a music company and Apple Computer to me something else. end of story,

Posted by mazzy on March 30, 2006 at 11:49 PM (PDT)

16

Mazzy is correct: a complaint was lodged almost immediate after Apple (the computer company) announced the creation of iTMS (though if I remember right, Apple Corps were even grumbling about the initial creation of the first iPod as well). The lawsuit was filed after it became clear to Apple (the music company) that iTMS was going ahead regardless of whether Apple Corps liked it or not. Apple Computer only got the use of ‘Apple’ in their name because of their agreement with Apple Corps over the separation of ‘music business’ (the domain of Apple Corps) from pretty much everything else that Cupertino wanted to dabble in. With iTMS, Apple Computer is the one that changed the rules here, and Apple Corps is hell bent (and fully justified, IMO) on maintaining their legal trademark rights, regardless if some of you think that the ONLY thing they should get is to be put out to pasture.

Posted by flatline response on March 31, 2006 at 3:02 AM (PDT)

17

I wish this would get settled so I can start buying Paul McCartney, Wings, and Beatles stuff on itunes!

Posted by nicholas Houllis on March 31, 2006 at 5:37 AM (PDT)

18

Yes they should settle and the Beatle’s music should be on iTunes. They both would do very well, I don’t quite understand the comments about hose who can’t wait for their music on iTunes. Buy the CDs. You’ll get better quality (although the Beatles UK albums still needs to be remastered) and you never be limited like you are on iTunes. Plus you get their great covers.

Posted by mazzy on March 31, 2006 at 9:28 AM (PDT)

19

Funny how it is “bad” when a company tries to force Apple to comply when Apple is in violation of their intellectual property but it is okay for Apple to refuse to allow any reasonable use of its intellectual property.  When did Apple make you lose the “ipodlounge” nomiker Jeremy?

Posted by bcmiami on April 2, 2006 at 4:06 AM (PDT)

20

I stand corrected. Thanks from Mazzy

Posted by Kastor Troy on April 2, 2006 at 9:49 AM (PDT)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.