Beatles’ Apple Corps, Apple Computer to meet in court this week | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Beatles’ Apple Corps, Apple Computer to meet in court this week

Author's pic

By LC Angell

Contributing Editor
Published: Sunday, March 26, 2006
News Categories: Apple

The Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps case is scheduled to begin on Wednesday at London’s High Court before iPod-owning Justice Edward Mann. Apple Corps, owned by the Beatles and their families, claims that the iTunes Music Store breaches a 1991 agreement on the companies’ use of the Apple trademark. “Any damages for this latest clash could amount to tens of millions of pounds because it concerns Apple Computer’s hugely successful iTunes Music Store and iPod,” reports the Times UK newspaper. “The court will be treated to a demonstration of an iPod, but it is unlikely to play a Beatles song.”

Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in the early 80’s for an $80,000 settlement and a promise that the computer company would never get into the music business. In 1989, Apple Corps went after Apple Computer again over a music-making program and microphone. Apple Computer settled in 1991 for $26 million. Apple Corps got rights to the name on “creative works whose principal content is music? while Apple Computer was allowed “goods and services… used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content,” according to documents.

“Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them,” The Times notes. “Apple Computer will argue that its music service, which has sold more than a billion songs since 2002, is merely data transmission.”

« Mix: Amazon, Apple birthday, TomTom, Vinyl

Nintendo building ‘video game version’ of iTunes »

Related Stories

Comments

1

Ahhh… loop-holes.

Posted by Matt on March 26, 2006 at 10:44 PM (PDT)

2

Ahhh… greed.

Posted by Bad Beaver on March 27, 2006 at 12:44 AM (PDT)

3

Everyone wants a piece of Apple’s success! FFS, it’s not like a company owned by the Beatle’s and their families needs any more freakin’ money! (i.e., Yoko can suck it. I nearly shot myself listening to her for 5 minutes at the Olympics)

Posted by Jealous Wannabe on March 27, 2006 at 1:26 AM (PDT)

4

You were listening to her? I had my iPod earphones in raspberry

Posted by Jack Bauer on March 27, 2006 at 1:36 AM (PDT)

5

What was that goddigger doing at the olympics, unless a target on the shooting range

Posted by spyinthesky on March 27, 2006 at 3:26 AM (PDT)

6

“Apple Corps, owned by the Beatles and their families” could probably top up their bank balances if they let Apple [Computer] sell their music on iTMS. Or has that not occurred to them??

Posted by zapod on March 27, 2006 at 5:27 AM (PDT)

7

Poor Yoko. I like the stuff she did with John but I’m not too crazy about her solo work. I’m really a Lennon fan.

This is interesting. Tho I doubt that Apple would knowingly overstep their boundaries. Indeed, we have a loophole.

Posted by Werewolf on March 27, 2006 at 6:23 AM (PDT)

8

you would think they would just allow apple to sell stuff on the itunes store

and i might be wrong but hasnt apple been using all the apple logos for like 20 years so why didnt they sue before can someone clear that up

Posted by killa on March 27, 2006 at 6:31 AM (PDT)

9

How does one go about trademarking a fruit?  I call dibs on bananas.

Posted by hokie316 in Orlando, FL on March 27, 2006 at 6:37 AM (PDT)

10

Why can’t they let this slide or come up with a reasonable settlement? I mean, Geez! It’s not like anyone will confuse the two!

Isn’t the Beatles’ estate worht enough now?

While I can understand the principle behind the lawsuite (they had an agreement) times and technology change. Why cant they just settle or ome to some amicable agreement?

Seems like EVERYONE wants a piece of Apple’s success!

Killa: The basis of his lawsuit (correct me if I’m wrong) is that Apple Corps and Apple Computers aggreed the Apple Computers would not enter into the recording and/or music business.

Posted by ahMEmon on March 27, 2006 at 6:42 AM (PDT)

11

yeah yoko sux but why all the attention on her.

sir paul, is responsible too. he should just quit his griping and be thankful he knew john lennon. otherwise he would have just been a limp-d*cked predecessor to Sting.

copeland made police legitimate as lennon did the same for the beatles.

why apple corps anyway? why not strawberry fields?

Posted by rezisluh on March 27, 2006 at 7:03 AM (PDT)

12

all you need is love

and money

Posted by dabr on March 27, 2006 at 7:03 AM (PDT)

13

i agree, they just want money cuz nobody listens to the beatles anymore!

Posted by blah on March 27, 2006 at 7:49 AM (PDT)

14

Oh, will some of you grow up. Stop griping whenever Apple cons someone else and is actually held accountable. What this is about is the fact that Apple Corps was around first, and when Apple Computers came around, the two had an agreement that Apple Computers would never enter the music business. Flash forward roughly 30 years, and Apple does exactly this. They made a contract with another company, and they broke it; why shouldn’t they be held accountable?

As for those questioning the Beatles interity, asking if they are not already rich enough, what about Apple? In actuality, they made relatiovely little money while part of the Beatles; most of their fortunes came from their solo careers and royalty checks later on. That, however, is irrelevant. What matters is that they earned their money; nobody just gave it to them. Why should they be denied what has been coming to them for years just because they ae rich? Do you think that the rich should not be allowed to make any more money? Should their be a cap on how wealthy one can get? If so, how far past this cap is Steve Jobs, and Apple, for that matter? Sadly, I believe that many of you feel the exact opposite. Apple is much richer than the Beatles; they would not go bankrupt if forced to pay this bill. Maybe The Beatles aren’t the greedy ones; maybe Apple is.

It is a little pathetic how quickly some of you attack other companies, while defending Apple to the death. If this were Microsoft or Sony, you would be crying for their blood. Apple is not perfect; as it has demonstrated many times, it can, and does, make mistakes. Now I am as happy as anyone that Apple Computers made the iPod and iTunes, believe me; would I be here if I were not? But a contract is a contract, and nobody, not even Apple Computers, is above the law.

On a final note, maybe a little bit of good can come out of this. Once this case is finally settled, maybe, just maybe, the two can reach an agreement, and finally put The Beatles on iTunes.

Posted by Bradley on March 27, 2006 at 8:04 AM (PDT)

15

I don’t think that Apple Computer broke the agreement- according to this article, they could not distribute physical music, but the DRM Apple uses is enough to make the music they sell more limited than a CD.

I’m a bit offended by the “no one listens to the beatles anymore” remark. If that were true, they wasted a lot of money remastering all those albums for CD.

If you weren’t paying attention, the last song played at Times Square in 2005 was one of John’s solo works… Imagine.

What would John say to this?

Posted by Eric on March 27, 2006 at 10:14 AM (PDT)

16

I agree, I like Apple and I like the Beatles, but a contract is a contract and if you break that contract, there will be consequences.

Posted by josh on March 27, 2006 at 10:18 AM (PDT)

17

Yup, Jobs’ Apple made a deal, tried to ignore it (again), and will pay again. Now, with the massive rise of the iPod/iTunes/etc, I hope the Beatles’ Apple takes them to the cleaners, since Jobs’ Apple ###### up.

And christ, I ####### hate Paul McCartney (great bassplayer and activist, but ####, most of Wings is terrible…).

Posted by Jonathon on March 27, 2006 at 11:10 AM (PDT)

18

Here’s how Stevie can settle this once & for all. Tell Apple Corps that if they let him sell Beatles’ music on iTMS, Apple Computing will forgo their usual cut and ship all the proceeds from Beatles’ sales directly to Apple Corps. It’s a win-win: Jobs finally gets the biggest hole in his iTMS catalog filled (and the extra traffic it will generate), and the surviving Beatles & families get to add to their fortunes.

Posted by Fangorn in Texas on March 27, 2006 at 11:50 AM (PDT)

19

...according to this article, they could not distribute physical music…

I bet you that I could find a physicist that will show you that Apple Computer did do EXACTLY that. While it’s certainly not conventional or mainstream thought, it doesn’t just take audio tape or CD for distribution to be considered “physical”.

Posted by flatline response on March 27, 2006 at 12:07 PM (PDT)

20

I am so tired of these stupid lawsuits. They might as well copywrite the word “the”. The only people who benefit from this are the lawyers.

Posted by rebel_519 on March 27, 2006 at 2:32 PM (PDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

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.