AfterDawn: News

Apple Computers vs. Apple Corp. date set

In 1968, Apple Corps was formed to publish the Beatles music and sign other musicians. In 1980, Steve Jobs was advertising his new computer invention, the Apple. George Harrison found this advertisement in a computer magazine, and it appeared to infringe the bands trademark. Apple Corps told Apple to change its name to something else if it wished to continue producing music making machines. In 1991 a settlement of $26.5 million was reached and Apple Computers agreed to stay out of the music business.

However I think we are all familiar with Apple's iTunes music store and it's iPod devices. So once again Apple Computers is in hot water and now a date has been set for a UK court hearing; 27th March 2006. In the past Apple Computers has dealt with this issue by simply settling out of court but now with it's iPod and iTunes music store, the stakes have gotten higher and Apple Corp. is suing for damages.



Apple's iPod is fuelling rising revenue for the company and it's iTunes music store remains the dominant store in the online music download market.

Source:
The Register

Written by: James Delahunty @ 6 May 2005 7:32

• Previous article

• PSP UMD disc protection cracked?

• Next article

• UK DrinkOrDie members jailed

• 15 comments

• djscoop

  HA HA! I hope they bring apple to its knees!

  6.5.2005 08:01 #1

• punx777

  lol notice who the first to post are :)
  
  apple licks iAss.
  
  how original are they, here lets review apples top software
  
  
  itunes, ichat, iphoto, ilife.
  not to mention the ipod.

  6.5.2005 13:14 #2

• daemonzx6

  haha, its always the same people who first post on news thats bad for apple.
  
  apple sucks, especially the iPod
  
  heh, thought it was about time to let this pic resurface...
  
  picture courtesy of punx777's photobucket

  6.5.2005 14:07 #3

• rarthurb

  I'm No Fan of Apple Products, but I think that the Beatles are going way out on a boat for this one. 1. Apple did pay 26mil and agree not to get into the music business in 91' but the name on the program is iTunes. The Beatles are just plain Greedy and should be glad with the 26mil from before. If I were Apple I would Counter Sue for my 26mil back....Besides I don't like out of court settlements.Apple iTunes does not sound like Apple Corps. Lets Get it ON, I don't Care who wins, but do like a good fight!
  

  6.5.2005 17:47 #4

• ddp

  but itunes is owned by apple that paid to & agreed to the beatles' conditions & apple broke that agreement!

  6.5.2005 19:32 #5

• ByteMstr

  Since "Apple" itself is a generic term, that can't be grounds for any action.
  
  Now back in the day, there might have been some confusion about which Apple is which. Nowadays, that won't hardly be any problem... hardly anyone knows who Apple Corps. Ltd. the music firm is.
  
  But I'll quickly register the following trade names: IBM Music, Intel Records, AMD Grammophone, Digital Download Music, Internet Recording Company, etc. etc. just to be sure... C-A-$-H baby!
  
  PS wasn't it Micheal Jackson who owned all that Beatles stuff? Now there's somebody with huge legal expenses and a dwindling bank account....
  
  

  6.5.2005 21:31 #6

• Manu_DVD

  "The Beatles are just plain Greedy"
  
  Well J Lennon is dead since 1980 and G harrison only recently (2001)
  
  The real people behind this are McCartney and his monoloply of greedy money hungrgy individuals.
  
  Need a site to download music zillions cheaper than itunes?
  Check out
  http://www.mp3search.ru/

  7.5.2005 05:41 #7

• amirza

  "The Beatles are just plain Greedy"
  
  Have you seen how much apple charge for itunes downloads?
  Sod that, mp3search.ru...music at the right price

  9.5.2005 03:55 #8

• vpandey

  i have recently bought a apple g4 powerbook, just wondering if any body could help me to network it to my P.C which is AMD athalon 2600.what kind of hardware is needed for a wireless networking.

  9.5.2005 07:03 #9

• ddp

  vpandey, read the rules above about posting in right forum. should be either "all other topics" or "other pc hardware"

  9.5.2005 10:44 #10

• Xian

  Quote:Since "Apple" itself is a generic term, that can't be grounds for any action.Tell that to Lindows, err I mean Linspire, who was forced to change their name because it was similar to Windows, not the exact name like Apple is. Microsoft has sent many cease and desist letters over the use of the generic term Windows. One of my favorite utilities, Windows Commander http://www.ghisler.com was forced to change their name to Total Commander or risk a lawsuit.
  
  Anyone could have seen this coming. The Apple record label has always been protective of their trademark and Apple computer had previously been sued over the name years ago and had agreed never to enter the music business. They should have worked out an agreement in advance instead of breaking an agreement they had already signed. That's just asking for trouble.

  9.5.2005 17:36 #11

• SadJoker

  First off , can we concetrate on what the article is talking about and leave all you Apple bashing / hating asses personal feelings about Apple at the door.
  
  Why do I get the feeling if this article was about your lord and savior Microsh!t err Microsoft you'd all be pissing and whining its the other companies fault and leave MS alone.
  
  anyway, Apple Computer, Inc does have a habit of saying one thing and then turning around and doing another. Apple Computer got outta hot water on this issue somewhat easy the first time around but then turns around figuring wtf its been a decade or so lets jump into the Music business w/o first checking to see IF the first lawsuit's agreement was still in effect. Bad management / legal on Apple's accord. Steve Jobs should had Apple's lawyers going over that settlement with a fine tooth comb before launching the company into the music business.

  10.5.2005 06:53 #12

• Artlover

  Quote: Since "Apple" itself is a generic term, that can't be grounds for any action.It's not a name issue at this point. It's a breach of contract on Apple Computer's part. They made a settlement agreement, then failed to honor it. They absolutly deserve to loose by every letter of the law. End of story.

  4.6.2005 15:37 #13

• moonfredi

  As one who has been sued by Apple Corp. LTD,I can tell you it has nothing to do with greed at all.If you own a service mark and you don't defend it,you can loose it."Use it or loose it".Have you ever called a tissue a ****** or do you call it a tissue?
  Being litidous is not the same thing as "Greedy".

  7.6.2005 18:18 #14

• moonfredi

  Oops,my bad,it's "litigious".I had a bad "Flashback" just thinking about it.

  7.6.2005 18:24 #15