Beatles Lose Suit Against Apple Computer
 

Beatles Lose Suit Against Apple Computer

All Associated Press NewsLONDON (AP) - A long and winding legal road took another twist for the Beatles' record company Monday, when a British judge ruled that Apple Computer Inc. is entitled to use the apple logo on its iTunes Music Store.

Apple Corps, the guardian of the Beatles' commercial interests, contended that the U.S. company's use of the logo on its popular online music store had broken a 1991 agreement in which each side agreed not to enter into the other's field of business.

But High Court Judge Anthony Mann disagreed, saying that the computer company's logo is used in association with the store -- not the music -- and so did not breach the agreement.

"I conclude that the use of the apple logo ... does not suggest a relevant connection with the creative work," Mann said in his written judgment. "I think that the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves."

Though Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs said he was "glad to put this disagreement behind us," the dispute appears far from over. Neil Aspinall, the manager of Apple Corps, said his company would immediately take the case to Britain's Court of Appeal.

"We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer has broken the agreement," Aspinall said in a statement. Apple Corps was founded by the Fab Four in 1968 and still owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison.

Apple Computer has sold more than 1 billion songs through the iTunes Music Store, which is available throughout Europe as well as in the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan. Though there are more than 3 million tracks available for purchase in the U.S. -- and 2 million in Britain -- there are no Beatles songs listed; the band's catalog is not available on iTunes.

In his brief statement, Jobs said he hoped the ruling would help rectify that situation: "We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store."

That could be the case's main consequence, said Arthur Levy, an entertainment lawyer in New York.

"It's my belief that even if Apple Computer had lost, they'd find a way to do what they were doing, either with a different name or logo," Levy said. "The impact it could have is that if the two Apples patch up their differences, then maybe you'd see Beatles songs on iTunes. That would be good for the Beatles ... and for fans."

But Keith Badman, a Beatles expert and author of several books on the band, said he can't see Apple Corps backing down.

"We've lost John and George, and this is their music, their legacy, their heritage," Badman said. "They just want to make sure they're protected."

Apple Corps' case included a virtual tour of the iTunes Music Store, which culminated in lawyer Geoffrey Vos downloading the 1978 disco hit "Le Freak" by Chic, and playing it for the court. The music of Eminem, U2, and Coldplay also featured in the case, with Apple Corps showing commercials featuring the artists to demonstrate how often Apple Computer's logo was featured in relation to music.

Lawyers for Apple Computer had argued that it was conducting its business legally and that music lovers are smart enough to tell the difference between the logos. Apple Corps uses a shiny green apple as its logo, while Apple Computer has a cartoon-like apple with a neat bite taken out.

Apple Computer shares were unchanged at $71.89 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

The 1991 agreement ended previous lengthy litigation over the logo. Apple Computer told the court that it paid Apple Corps $26.5 million as part of that out-of-court settlement, and in turn had received "a considerably expanded field of use." The terms of the deal were kept confidential at the time.

Mann refused Apple Computer's application for an immediate interim payment of 1.5 million pounds ($2.8 million) from Apple Corps toward its legal costs, pending further hearings. Apple Corps faces a similar bill for its own legal expenses.

While the case may have seemed glamorous because of the litigants, it really came down to the interpretation of a contract -- the 1991 agreement -- said Jonathan Riley, an intellectual property lawyer with London firm Lawrence Graham.

"It was watched with interest, but also some distance, because I don't think it's hugely significant for either the computer industry or the music industry," he said.

good for them. I thought it was stupid to begin with.

but...consumers...smart? lol.

Imagine what will happen when Chris and Gwyneth's daughter ever tries for a recording contract.

:laugh:

Chaos! Bedlam!

Im glad Apple won. They're usually the underdog...

Chaos Bedlam?

sounds like a celebrity baby name. :laugh:

Greedy bastards. No one associates Apple Records with Apple Computer. Both brands are very distinct.

Shame on The Beatles. Apple Computer doing their best to make sure people get songs legally, especially in today's technology market. All the poor little Beatles can do is moan and groan and refuse to participate with the Apple Store and having their music sold electronically.

Guess I'll download 'A Day In The Life' through P2P.

Very probably.







And Apple Corps will probably object to her distributing her music under their name, as well.

Bravo. Bravo.
Only an idiot couldn't discern between the two.

I posted this awhile back...
 

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index....stered_offered

The Beatles' entire back catalog will soon be available for download - but only when each track has been digitally remastered to perfection. Up until now, the Fab Four are one of the few acts to have resisted making their work available at the iTunes Music Store. They were similarly the last stars to release their catalog onto compact disc.

But the boss of their record label Apple Corps, Neil Aspinall, revealed the development in London's High Court, where the company is currently battling Apple Computer over its logo.

He said, "We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages. I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get the publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."

Personally, I'll pass on the remasters...Thanks to the fan produced remasters (ie-"Dr.Ebbetts" & "Mr.Spock" remasters) that even EMI/Apple know of, So I see no reason to purchase yet more official releases.

This is what even many journalists (perhaps with good reason) misunderstand about the whole law suit - articles about the greedy Beatles sueing again are more interesting, of course.

The argument was not about the logos or whether consumers are able to discern between them.

It's about different interpretations of the 1991 settlement between the Beatles and Apple Computer: In the Beatles' interpretation, the contract basically says "Stay out of the music business, i.e. don't sell music - but you are allowed to produce devices that reproduce music" - they apparently thought of soundcards, software media players etc. That's why they, for example, didn't object to Apple releasing the I-Tunes software, because that was still within the field of use that Apple Computer was allowed to work in. However, some other clauses in the contract made it a bit difficult to draw the line - is a "physical medium" (that Apple Computer is not allowed to work with) for music only something like a CD or an I-Pod and a hard drive as well? The Beatles also included within their own field of use the "communication of pre-recorded music by intangible means" - could that be something like an mp3 (and that was in 1991, way before anyone thought of online distribution!) ?

In Apple Computer's interpretation, they did stay within their field of use - because they are explicitly allowed to establish "data transmission services"; they also interpreted the contract differently, in their eyes it basically said "Do not act like a record company". Apple Computer now said that they are not a record company, because they sell other companies' works only and do not hide that fact (by including copyright notices, DRM etc. with their files), so that they're basically an online record shop. They also claimed that they stay within their field - they do not sell music per se, but data files which happen to be music (instead of software etc.)

The argument about the logo was only to prove the Beatles' point of view that Apple did more than just selling other companies' music - by using their own logo they sort of associated themselves with the actual music and by offering exclusive contents they became even more similar to a record company. In other words (and the Beatles' point of view): What's the difference for a consumer between reading e.g. "Reprise Records offers you the brand new album by X" and "Apple/I-Tunes proudly presents new exclusive tracks by X and his brand new album"? Basically none, the Beatles' lawyers argued and because of that breach of the settlement they sued.

The main question between the two parties is: What interpretation of the settlement's contents is the "correct" one? Did Apple Computer cross the line or not?

That's what the law suit is about, not about "Do not use the name Apple, because consumers are too stupid to discern".

True, but the misinterpretation is easier to make cheap gags about.