Two legendary companies in the music industry are to meet Wednesday in a London courtroom to fight it out over what might be the world"s most recognizable logo: A simple piece of fruit.
Apple Corps Ltd., the Beatles' record company and guardian of the band's musical heritage and business interests, is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company violated a 1991 agreement by entering the music business with its iTunes online music store.
Read more... (AP)
Without reading the article or the legal filings, I can say that I knew this was coming for a long time.
Apple Computer has continually improved graphics and sound on their computers (as every successful personal computer manufacturer has) and CD-ROM drives make playing music on a computer a natural application. The ability to programmatically produce sound has lent itself to first games (Sea Dragon, Apple II, 1-bit 8kHz audio reproduction) and synthesizers (various) and gradually higher quality audio formats (MOV, MP3, AAF) as natural applications for programmable audio hardware. Finally, Apple, which is also a direct retailer began to retail music by various publishers, based on it's software expertise.
It's Logo is a monochromatic (formerly multicolored) abstract apple shape with a leaf and bite removed. It has a vast web presence.
apple.com
Wikipedia: Apple Computer
Apple Corps is a record company, a producer, primarily known for it's association with the Beatles. It uses a naturalistic depiction of an leafless apple, notably mottled and not of mathematical exact symmetry.
applecorps.com
Wikipedia: Apple Corps
The history between these two has been long (since 1978) and a little weird to watch, because Apple has no desire to beat up on the memory of the Beatles but no choice to defend itself, while Apple Corps can't seriously believe anyone has ever confused the Silicon Valley startup with a Music Publishing Company/1970's Film Company/Obscure and Defunct Electronics Firm trading on the Beatle's reputation.
I think a good writeup of this latest event is here:
http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_...ticle11325.html
http://news.com.com/Apple+vs.+Apple+Perfec..._3-5378401.html (ignores the 1978 case)
Apple has a reasonable defense based on not shipping Music CDs. I have never confused the two firms, or the markets they represent. Apple makes tiny profits on each iTunes sales, and judgements are usually based on a cut of profits. Possibly this is a negotiation tactic preliminary to Beatles tunes finally being distributed digitally, but its easy for a Beatles fan to overvalue the current demand for music.
Apple Computer has continually improved graphics and sound on their computers (as every successful personal computer manufacturer has) and CD-ROM drives make playing music on a computer a natural application. The ability to programmatically produce sound has lent itself to first games (Sea Dragon, Apple II, 1-bit 8kHz audio reproduction) and synthesizers (various) and gradually higher quality audio formats (MOV, MP3, AAF) as natural applications for programmable audio hardware. Finally, Apple, which is also a direct retailer began to retail music by various publishers, based on it's software expertise.
It's Logo is a monochromatic (formerly multicolored) abstract apple shape with a leaf and bite removed. It has a vast web presence.
apple.com
Wikipedia: Apple Computer
Apple Corps is a record company, a producer, primarily known for it's association with the Beatles. It uses a naturalistic depiction of an leafless apple, notably mottled and not of mathematical exact symmetry.
applecorps.com
Wikipedia: Apple Corps
The history between these two has been long (since 1978) and a little weird to watch, because Apple has no desire to beat up on the memory of the Beatles but no choice to defend itself, while Apple Corps can't seriously believe anyone has ever confused the Silicon Valley startup with a Music Publishing Company/1970's Film Company/Obscure and Defunct Electronics Firm trading on the Beatle's reputation.
I think a good writeup of this latest event is here:
http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_...ticle11325.html
http://news.com.com/Apple+vs.+Apple+Perfec..._3-5378401.html (ignores the 1978 case)
Apple has a reasonable defense based on not shipping Music CDs. I have never confused the two firms, or the markets they represent. Apple makes tiny profits on each iTunes sales, and judgements are usually based on a cut of profits. Possibly this is a negotiation tactic preliminary to Beatles tunes finally being distributed digitally, but its easy for a Beatles fan to overvalue the current demand for music.
Again a procession of unrecognized, archaic companies are going to try their luck by law suit to get a share of the profit Apple has generated. Just like parasites that are inactive when outside the host, these suing companies activate when there is a sizable prey to intake.
didnt the japanese imitate a cheap version of apple called iRiver? or is that something else. Not surprisingly enough, it was not a hit.
QUOTE
Apple has a reasonable defense based on not shipping Music CDs. I have never confused the two firms, or the markets they represent. Apple makes tiny profits on each iTunes sales, and judgements are usually based on a cut of profits. Possibly this is a negotiation tactic preliminary to Beatles tunes finally being distributed digitally, but its easy for a Beatles fan to overvalue the current demand for music.
didnt the japanese imitate a cheap version of apple called iRiver? or is that something else. Not surprisingly enough, it was not a hit.
It seems like Apple Corps is reliving the glorious days of being associated with the Beatles by suing the hell out of everyone and everything. Just looking up "apple corps" on LexisNexis turns up:
Apple Corps v International Collectors Society (1998)
Apple Corps v. Button Master (1998)
Apple Corps v. A.D.P.R., Inc. (1993)
Apple Corps v. Sony Music Entertainment (1993)
Apple Corps, Ltd. v. Adirondack Group (1983)
I am not sure what to make of this case. It seems impossible for a computer company to not be connected with producing, distributing or assisting in playing music in any way. In addition, I believe Apple computers has a strong case for not distributing "any physical music materials". Afterall, iTunes is a software program and iTunes music store does not sell CDs. iPod may pose a potential problem, for it is a physical device, used for playing music.
How does it work in the British court? Does Apple Corps have to present evidence that the use of the "apple" logo by Apple Computers is hurting the record company's image or profits? I very much doubt they could prove the matter.
Apple Corps v International Collectors Society (1998)
Apple Corps v. Button Master (1998)
Apple Corps v. A.D.P.R., Inc. (1993)
Apple Corps v. Sony Music Entertainment (1993)
Apple Corps, Ltd. v. Adirondack Group (1983)
I am not sure what to make of this case. It seems impossible for a computer company to not be connected with producing, distributing or assisting in playing music in any way. In addition, I believe Apple computers has a strong case for not distributing "any physical music materials". Afterall, iTunes is a software program and iTunes music store does not sell CDs. iPod may pose a potential problem, for it is a physical device, used for playing music.
How does it work in the British court? Does Apple Corps have to present evidence that the use of the "apple" logo by Apple Computers is hurting the record company's image or profits? I very much doubt they could prove the matter.
I think Vozkyk is right about Apple Corps attempting to re-live (or at least cash in on) its glory days. It seems clear to me that this whole circus is basically an attempt to abuse intelectual property laws so as to derive profit from the work of others.
As I understand it, patent and trademark laws are intended to allow a party to invest resources in the creation of intellectual property (IE patentable, copyrighted or trademarked material) with the assurance that they will be able to reap the exclusive benefits, (at least for a limited time). A registered trademark is intended to allow a party to build a strong brand identity without fear that others will hijack the brand and effectively steal the goodwill built among the consumers.
The current issue presented by Apple Corps has nothing to do with these ideas. While they portend to be "protecting" assets that they created in the form of the "Apple" brand, any informed observer can see that they using the trademark laws as a back door into the coffers of the Apple computer company. Their claim is flawed on many levels. As Vozhyk pointed out, the iPod may be a sticking point in that it is a physical product which is strongly associated with music. But technicalities aside, I think the most important fact is that iTunes and the iPod are almost definitely NOT harming the business prospects of Apple Corps. Furthermore they are probably not receiving any benefit due to the coincidental similarity in fruit preference. So in my mind, Apple Corps really has no legitimate claim to any of the profits made through the sales of music over iTunes, nor through iPod sales. What it really amounts to is a glorified case fruit-squatting and extorsion.
Scott
As I understand it, patent and trademark laws are intended to allow a party to invest resources in the creation of intellectual property (IE patentable, copyrighted or trademarked material) with the assurance that they will be able to reap the exclusive benefits, (at least for a limited time). A registered trademark is intended to allow a party to build a strong brand identity without fear that others will hijack the brand and effectively steal the goodwill built among the consumers.
The current issue presented by Apple Corps has nothing to do with these ideas. While they portend to be "protecting" assets that they created in the form of the "Apple" brand, any informed observer can see that they using the trademark laws as a back door into the coffers of the Apple computer company. Their claim is flawed on many levels. As Vozhyk pointed out, the iPod may be a sticking point in that it is a physical product which is strongly associated with music. But technicalities aside, I think the most important fact is that iTunes and the iPod are almost definitely NOT harming the business prospects of Apple Corps. Furthermore they are probably not receiving any benefit due to the coincidental similarity in fruit preference. So in my mind, Apple Corps really has no legitimate claim to any of the profits made through the sales of music over iTunes, nor through iPod sales. What it really amounts to is a glorified case fruit-squatting and extorsion.
Scott
Good grief, we're fighting over fruit now? 