This is simply another money grab.

Then why did Apple call its first sound ‘sosumi’ (so sue me)?

Wow, I never made that connection, funny. I don’t see why a record company called “apple corps” is threatened by “apple computer” even though apple now has itunes, they are merely selling music, not producing it themselves, and really there isn’t any competition between the two companies (that I can see). The lawsuit is really about the use of the word “apple” which seems generic enough that no one company can “own” it. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

iTunes sells beatles music!

iTunes has a very limited catalog of Beatles music, doesn’t even scratch the surface. But still, isn’t there a difference between producing music and selling music? So, apple corps wants to stop apple computer from selling music, but apple corps would receive royalties from every song sold, just as they would from any other retailer. The dispute is over the word “apple” which is ridiculous to me. Nobody could have forseen the internet becoming the source of music distribution that it has become back in the 70’s. WIth 3 million songs being sold daily that is a great channel for bands and artists to sell their music, and make an income.

What is weird to me is that the Beatles “Apple Corp” nolonger functions as a recording label, they just manage the business of royalties on old music from the Beatles era. Apple Computer is not cutting into their slice of the pie or taking their customers or giving the impression that they represent the Beatles estate. It makes me wonder if this is a PR move to keep the old record label name alive. Today’s young record buying clientele may not even know about Apple Records without the law suit pushing it into the news.

ChrisL

What next? — Apple (computer co.) to sell raincoats?

Hey, the big grocery store chains sell patio furniture, DVD players and “raw” rosebushes now. One time I bought some of the last, and when the checker lady pricked herself, I couldn’t help but snicker: “That’s what happens when VONS starts selling live plants.”

hhp

Walmart is going to start selling $500 a bottle wine!
RJR Nabisco sells both cigarettes and health food.

ChrisL

And Sears QUIT selling out of a catalogue.

ChrisL

Apple raincoats, now that IS different…

“Have you got a light Mac?”
“No but I’ve got a dark brown overcoat.”

one thing’s for sure, Apple won’t ever go into the fruit business… i mean, how are they going to convince the customers they aren’t selling half-eaten fruit with a logo like that?!

But they might become detectives, taking a bite out of crime :-)

ChrisL

Steve Jobs should keep a wary eye out for Japanese performance artists.
Tim

Miguel seems to have paired down the issue nicely :-)

ChrisL

An Apple a Day Keeps the Doctor Away—but not Sir Paul and his Barristers, Aye?

ChrisL

Call me old-fashioned, but people ought to keep their agreements.

Apple Computer wanted the hip and joyful image of the Beatles to rub off on them, and paid for it, with the explicit caveat that they wouldn’t use it in the music business.

Ironically, that deal turned out to be a major source of income for the Beatles. But then the Beatles were ripped off by their own business partners back in the day. Now, so many years later Apple Computer is in the music business. There isn’t a lot of logic in it, but a contract is a contract. If they want to change it they should re-negotiate it.

ooh, i want to play too!

I wrote this back in 2003:

An open letter to Apple Computer

I feel for you, Apple. I imagine your products wouldn’t be so prohibitively expensive if you didn’t slip up and get slammed every few years by Apple Records, a company whose business used to be producing Beatles albums, but is now chiefly in the business of leeching your profits with litigation every time you do something even remotely related to music. I think it’s unfair.

So I have a perfect solution for you. Change the name of your company and then you’ll be able to do whatever you want. To some, this would seem like a rash thing to have to do when one has been in business for a long time… but I don’t think that’s a problem in this case. Just going out on a limb here, but try this on for size: Macintosh Computers. Not only is it a trademark you already own, but it’s a brand that’s been on practically every one of your products for the past twenty years. I think the transition would be pretty smooth, don’t you?

Their new slogan (aftyer the name change above)

“We are Macintosh, apple to the core [except for the Intel chip inside]”

“We are Macintosh, we keep our coats on in the rain of Lawsuits :-)”

And Apple Records could change its name to “Beatles Records” a brand everyone would know quicker than Apple Records.

ChrisL

“No but I’ve got a dark brown overcoat.”

and you bettr keep IT zipped up too Mac!

:-)

ChrisL

I seem to recall Apple having been in trademark dispute with McIntosh, makers of high-end stereo equipment. At least Apple isn’t going into the business of making stereo systems. Oh, wait.

s’marks

Miguel, you owe us another apology for that ITC Garamond. The version you used isn’t nearly narrow enough.

s’marks

I think that is one of his t-shirts.

Miguel, funny! Big corporations do tend to get idiocratically pear-shaped.

Oh, then there’s the classic http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29587 .

hhp

now all we need is apple to make a camera/phone/video/music/intel/mac/unix/boombox/tv and hope it doesn’t catch on fire or its logo isn’t like a burnt out light bulb/?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

Stuart: In my defense, I must say those outlines came straight out of Apple’s back-in-the-days logo/tag line ;^)

Miss T: You’re right, this is one of my homemade Tees =^)
(although I have to admit I think I saw this idea somewhere in a magazine long time ago)

Hrant: Yes, like married men… I believe it’s due to gravity :^D

(I love spoofs of well known brands)

Apple (computer) is reading the agreement between them and apple corps rather liberaly. Apple Computer has always been very protective of their trademarks and intellectual property, and they of all people should understand Apple Corps’ position.

By the way, was I the only one who noticed in 2003 when they came out with the iTunes Music Store that it was called iTunes music store instead of Apple Music Store?

just a thought.

Did the Beatles sue Volkswagen too?

Yes Joe, that always bugged me too:-)

ChrisL

these Nautile people need to be sued as well.

>Apple Computer has always been very protective of their trademarks

Maybe not always - few people know TrueType is even an Apple TM

Si

Being protective and being promotive are two separate things.

Here’s the full list of current trademarks and servicemarks that Apple maintains. There are quite a few font names on that list. Even Moof® and Clarus the Dogcow® are in the mix.

No I did mean protective - by not publishing referential use guidelines and policing the use of the TrueType mark its value has been diminished, it’s become generic.

I’m not saying either MS or Adobe has done a better job but the guidelines are published…

http://www.adobe.com/misc/pdfs/TM_GuideforThirdPartiesFinalPrint.pdf

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/trademarks/otguide.asp