Are The Beatles about to sue Apple Computers?

[Ornery]

"Apple Computer did NOT use Applecorp's trademark..."

Steve Jobs--who was heavily influenced by the counterculture attitudes of the late 1960s and early '70s--has been said to have admitted that the computer company was named Apple in partial tribute to the Beatles.

 

[beachbreeze]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
eh, so much for my image of the beatles being clean.

0roo0roo, I believe the Beatles no longer own Apple Corp... I think it is EMI.

Neither is this a back catalogue issue with Michael Jackson/Sony (there was a recent tie-up)

It is simply a trademark dispute between Apple Computers & the current owners of the Apple Corp. name. And this really is a bit of fleecing as records have not been released under that label for a long time. This is not an issue of Apple Computers trading on goodwill built up by another brand - damaging it's business.

It is a dead label being used to sue Apple for some free profits... it worked once... I hope it doesn't work this time. Unfortunately, we have just seen Microsoft force Lindows to rebrand by jumping from country to country suing them - I believe Microsoft failed to get a temporary injunction in the US so they stalled the case there and tried Sweden, France, Denmark, Norway - I believe Belgium finally obliged.

Did anyone here go to the Lindows.com site & think they were being offered Windows? If Microsoft wants secure trademarks they really ought to stop naming their products with common nouns: Windows, Office, Word... but they know that, of course.

 

[Ilmater]

This is a completely legitimate claim, I'm sorry to say. Apple Computers KNEW it would get sued over this. Steve Jobs surely knew that this was coming. I'm pretty sure Apple knew this was coming and just wrote it off as a necessary evil. They're making lots of money, so it's not like it will bring them down.

Even if they're happy about getting money out of it (which I'm sure the Beatles are), it doesn't change the fact that this is a most OBVIOUS infringement on the former ruling.

Read more about it here.

 

[mpitts]

Apple agreed years ago not to get into the music business. They have done that.

They should have known this was going to happen.

 

[beachbreeze]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3105444.stm


"Beatles sue Apple over iTunes:
The Beatles' record label Apple Corps is suing Apple computers over the use of the Apple name and logo to promote music products. The Apple Corps label says Apple computers' online music store iTunes - which charges people to download music from the internet - is in breach of a 1991 agreement between the two companies.

The London-based record firm, owned by Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, has begun legal proceedings in the High Court. It is not the first time the two companies have been involved in a legal wrangle, since Apple computers was founded in 1977. This time Apple Corps is seeking damages and an injunction to enforce the terms of the deal."

Clearly I was wrong - though the early back catalogue was lost to the Beatles they still own Apple Corp. This is still suit for money by a label that is not being used. It does no damage to Apple Corps - if anything it is free publicity. George Harrison sold Handmade Films in 1994 - the company he funded to make incredible films like "The Life of Brian" and "Withnail & I" - perhaps his heirs are in need of a few extra million. =;-o

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Apple Computer did NOT use Applecorp's trademark..."

Steve Jobs--who was heavily influenced by the counterculture attitudes of the late 1960s and early '70s--has been said to have admitted that the computer company was named Apple in partial tribute to the Beatles.

No one knows what the true reasoning behind the Apple name was.

 

[Ornery]

• • :roll:
  
  Has Jobs denied this?
  
  ...that's what I thought.

 

[digitalsm]

The case is already started, sort of.

LONDON - A High Court judge ruled Wednesday that a trademark battle between Apple Computer Inc. and The Beatles' record company Apple Corps Ltd. should be heard in London.

Judge Martin Mann rejected an argument by California-based Apple Computer that the case should be tried on its home territory. He didn't set a trial date but granted the U.S. technology giant permission to appeal the decision.

There have been settlemeants in 1981, 1991, I no doubt expect another settlement before the trial actually starts. Apple is CLEARLY in the wrong in this case, it would be foolish of them to allow this to go to trial.

Apple vs Apple

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Ornery
Who said anything about, doing the "right" thing and honoring their "word" ?

This is the law,">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html">law</a>,</a> and they broke it. They shouldn't be permitted to weasle out of it any more than you or I would be able to.

No law was proven to be broken in any court. No criminal charges have been filed against Apple Computer for this. The lawsuits filed were civil suits, and it is worth mentioning that it doesn't seem that there has ever been a judicial verdict on the matter, just an out-of-court settlement resulting in the agreement about which this dispute revolves.

That original agreement was nothing more than Applecorps using the legal system to extort money from Apple Computer. I don't believe for a second that a competent judge would have considered Apple Computer to be confusingly similar to Applecorps. But Applecorps knew it would never go to court - the legality is irrelevant. They just wanted to make a buck off of Apple Computer and they were successful.

Fast forward 20 years. The original settlement money has been squandered away. Applecorps needs another golden egg. This oughtta be a slam dunk for them.

So they once again file a civil suit, this time because Apple Comp. allegedly broke the original agreement (this time they need not mention trademark law at all).

Maybe they shouldn't be able to weasle their way out of their agreement, but no law was broken. Not now, not then.
My point is that I don't think Applecorps should be able to use the legal system to extort money from Apple Computer just because they know they're good for it, which is what this has always been all about.

There are rarely ever broken "laws" in civil cases. Apple Computers has violated TWO agreements. They violated the original agreement in 1991, and had to pay an assload of money back then, and entered into a new contract/agreement. They have broken said contract, and well quite simply they would be stupid to let this go to trial.

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• • :roll:
  
  Has Jobs denied this?
  
  ...that's what I thought.

Jobs has mentioned other reasons why he came up with the name Apple. All of the pages on that google link say "it is said..." without having an actual quote from Jobs.

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

:roll:

Oh, and Jobs worked at an apple orchard before the company was formed.

...that's what I thought

 

[Ornery]

Christ, as he denied it, or not? Damn!