If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(North End Waterfront)   Beatles won't let it be, sue Apple Computers over trademark infringement for selling music   (bayarea.com) divider line 130
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

8888 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2003 at 1:47 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-09-12 09:05:15 PM
Because of course the two that are left are the poor ones, who really really need the money.

Greedy gits.
 
2003-09-12 09:09:07 PM
"We named our recording label after a fruit before you named your computer after a fruit. You bastards!"

And this, boy and girls, is why lawyers make so much farking money.

It's all about the fruit.
 
2003-09-12 09:20:39 PM
Fark the fruit and fark the Beatles. They were the Backstreet Boys of their generation. Paul Revere and the Raiders did better music, just didn't have the right PR.

If anyone gets off on 'She loves you, ya, ya, ya', I am sorry for you.

Apple sucks but not as much, so I vote to make them the head fruits.
 
2003-09-12 09:35:30 PM
This is not the Beatles. This is a record company that used to own the rights to the Beatles. Apple records is now little more than a company that exists to sue Apple computers. I guess they were lucky to be first. So when Apple created their company, in order to avoid trademark infringement, Apple computers agreed never to do anything "music" related. So Apple was sued when they first put speakers on their computers. They lost to the tune of $50 million. Now they are creating all types of music devices, such as iPods. And because of previous contracts between the two companies, Apple computers will probably lose again. I imagine several hundred million this time. I can't believe they had so little forsight to sign such a restrictive deal.
 
2003-09-12 09:53:58 PM
Eat More Possum: Fark the fruit and fark the Beatles. They were the Backstreet Boys of their generation. Paul Revere and the Raiders did better music, just didn't have the right PR.

If you really believe that then I'm sorry for you. I think by any objective measure the Beatles were one of the best (many would argue the best) and most influential group of musicians in history. If you write them off as the Backstreet Boys of their generation you are missing out on a lot of good music. But hey, it's your loss...
 
2003-09-12 09:57:23 PM
etymxris: I can't believe they had so little foresight to sign such a restrictive deal.

Or alternatively, Jobs could have avoided the whole mess by just picking a different name all together. Apple may not be synonymous with the Beatles today, but it sure was back when Apple computers was started. If they didn't want the legal hassles they shouldn't have picked the name to begin with. Steve Jobs at his arrogant best.
 
2003-09-12 10:19:17 PM
"When I first heard they were going to do this iTunes thing, I thought, `The lawsuit's going to be coming any day,'" said Thomas Chimento, technologist at NASA Ames Research Center. "It's unfortunate, because Apple's one of the few groups to really succeed at getting an alternative to Napster and Kazaa."

well it doesn't take a rocket sci.... er, wait a sec.

 
2003-09-13 12:43:29 AM
um, shoulndt they have done this 20 years ago...?
 
2003-09-13 01:50:47 AM
Finally...now if they'll ratify the 18th amendment, we'll be on the right track!

/glug glug?
 
2003-09-13 01:51:53 AM
Crapperz, wrong thread.

Take this garbage out.
 
2003-09-13 01:52:13 AM
Mac 4 Life.
 
2003-09-13 01:54:25 AM
Due to the iPod, and now iTunes, I had assumed Apple had already struck a new deal with the 'other' Apple.

I mean, how could they not have?

Guess they didn't. Must've thought no one remembered the original deal.
 
2003-09-13 01:56:13 AM
CableGuy And if you honestly believe that tripe you just spewed I feel terribly sorry for you. Ooo-ooo-ca-chew, I am the walrus but we all live in a Yellow Submarine, strawberry fields forever.

Can't someone plese charter a plane, put Hillary Rosen, Metallica and these sad fcuks on it, and fly it into a mountian?
 
2003-09-13 01:56:34 AM
I remember the original lawsuit. Part of the terms were that Jobs' Apple not enter into the music business.

Open and shut case, from where I sit. Cupertino Apple is farked. They owe Apple Corps big. Start paying, steve.
 
2003-09-13 01:57:50 AM
ummm...

didnt they already settle over this when the Apple Company was first created?

it was a deal between Apple Computer and Apple Records...

this is just more suing-tastic BS
 
2003-09-13 01:58:39 AM
Anyone that bases the Beatles entire career on, She loves you yea, yea. yea, is a complete idiot. First of all it was the early 60's, and at that time they were extremley good. Than they become better(post rubber soul and revolver). If you said, "SGt. peppers suck!" well you are dissing the best part of their career, so than you are alright by me. If I saw a Picasso painting he did at 7 yrs old, I wouldn't base my entire opinion on just that.
 
2003-09-13 01:59:25 AM
This is all Yoko's fault.....
 
2003-09-13 02:00:11 AM
Eat More Possum

Every single one of the Beatles had more musical talent in his scrotum than you do in your whole body. Can't say the same for the back street fags. Your comparison is flawed, and you're officially a member of my "Morons to ignore" club.

Worthless Git.
 
2003-09-13 02:00:50 AM
Good job msw-mojo, you based your opinion on there better stuff. I might disagree, but I can give a sh|it less about peoples good/bad musical tastes.
 
2003-09-13 02:02:38 AM
AdamK

Yes, they did "settle" this. THe deal was that Apple Computers could use the name as long as they stayed OUT of the music business. Pretty simple, really, but Jobs thinks his reality distortion field applies to everyone, and not just those that drink his Kool-Aid...
 
2003-09-13 02:02:45 AM

When I find I can't remember
What comes after
"A" and before "C,"
My mother always whispers,
"Letter B."

She told me "B" starts
"Big" and "bird" and
"Ball" and "bat" and "battery."
Yes, buh-buh-buh-buh-buh means
Letter B.

Letter B, letter B, letter B, letter B.
She whispers "Buh-buh-buh means Letter B."

And when I feel downhearted,
Mother whispers
"B" words constantly,
Like "bib," "Bob," "Bulb," and "bubble,"
Letter B.

Now in my hour of darkness
There's a sound I know will comfort me,
It's the buh-buh-buh-buh-buh of
Letter B.

Letter B, letter B, letter B, letter B.
My mother whispers "B" words,
Letter B.

Letter B, letter B, letter B, letter B.
My mother whispers "B" words,
Letter B.

Letter B, letter B, letter B, letter B.
Bless the "buh-buh" sound of
Letter B.
 
2003-09-13 02:03:10 AM
Eat More Possum: I'll consider your statement valid when the Backstreet Boys undergo a huge transformation that takes their music from formulaic pop to deeper, more spiritual and experimental stuff, a la the Beatles.

Or when one of the Backstreet Boys even learns to play an instrument, so he can start down the road toward being a serious musician, a la George Harrison.

I'm sure Justin Trousersnake is writing the next Imagine as we speak...

/you lose
 
2003-09-13 02:03:43 AM
Backstreet Boys can't play instruments(you got to admit that Harrison wasn't a crappy guitarists, just not the best.Oh, and if it wasn't for the Beatles, most rockers would still have their music written for them(notice how I used most, I am full ware a few artists at that time wrote their own stuff, they just weren't as popular).
 
2003-09-13 02:04:52 AM
Jebus, should have spell checked that one.
 
2003-09-13 02:05:11 AM
Uh, Gojira? Read the article.

Apple Records sued again when Apple Computer first began selling computers equipped with speakers for playing music.

That was deal 2. You're still on deal 1.

Deal 3 is still pending.
 
2003-09-13 02:07:30 AM
Chumps...Kazaa Lite is waaay better than that iTunes. Sure Apple has better quality songs, but anything that is free is always better. Oh, and I think Apple releases all those best of's/Anthologies/Remastered Beatles CD's, they don't just sue.
 
2003-09-13 02:07:55 AM
Uh Schrodinger? (I have a cat by that name, btw) THe core of the deal was that Apple stay out of the music business. The speaker thing was stupid, but itunes places Apple Computer in direct competition with Apple Records, which is what the ORIGINAL agreement was designed to prevent.
 
2003-09-13 02:08:08 AM
Christian Bale:

Since you took the time to comment, I'm assuming this means that Batman is a Beatles fan?
 
2003-09-13 02:11:04 AM
NakedAvengerZero: you're buying that he's actually the same as THAT C. Bale? AFAIK, only WIL actually posts here.
 
2003-09-13 02:12:59 AM
Now Apple computers are farked - they are going to unleash Yoko on them.
 
2003-09-13 02:13:11 AM
It's a silly deal, because even Charles Manson isn't crazy enough to confuse Apple Computers and Apple Corp. The former is rated one of the top 10 most recognizable brand names, and the latter is the music company that used to own the rights to the Beatles music, and few people under the age of 25 have even heard of Apple Corp.
 
2003-09-13 02:13:37 AM
And yes, I'm saying that because we've had such attention whores as the chick that claimed she was Mila Jovovich. (much as I wished THAT one was true, it was obviously not)
 
2003-09-13 02:14:54 AM
Alphax

That's as may be, but Apple Corp still owns the trademark to the name Apple in the music space. WHether kids under the age of 25 have heard of them or not.
 
2003-09-13 02:17:11 AM
I thought that the copyrights to all the Beatles' songs were owned by Wacko Jacko.
 
2003-09-13 02:18:21 AM
of course, to be fair, if Paul McCartney decided to sell a computer, or open a computer selling chain of stores, he couldn't call it Apple Computers. Jobs could sue the shiat out of him in that case.

Common sense. Is it that difficult?
 
2003-09-13 02:18:23 AM
GorjiraXP: yeah, but that doesn't mean there's any logic in the lawsuit.

"As The Apple Turns" noted earlier today that Apple is a common name in music : "Of course, we do find it noteworthy that when we hit Google for a link to Apple Records (do these guys even have a web site?), what we found instead were links to Screaming Apple Records, Big Apple Records, Bad Apple Records, and Black Apple Records-- and that's just in the first ten results. Gee, do you suppose the Beatles' label has sued any of those guys, or is the mere presence of an adjective before the fruit enough to stave off the lawyers?"
 
2003-09-13 02:19:27 AM
Gojira, cool name for a cat.

But direct competition? Is "Apple Records" even producing anymore? After scouring the web for an official site and coming empty (Although I did find such un-sued entities as 'Big' Apple Records, 'Black' Apple Records, 'Bad Apple Records, etc.), I finally found a site at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records

"Apple Records was founded in 1968 by the musical group known as the Beatles, comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. The label became successful, surviving the legal dissolution of the Beatles in 1974, and continuing to issue new material till 1976, although the holding company, Apple Corps., Ltd., is still in existence. The label was resurrected around the time of the Anthology for use on all Beatles CDs. "

BTW, is Apple Records defending their trademarks against the other Apple Records, or just Apple?

The fact that Apple is selling music? Well, the issue is trademark, right? And Trademark is all about the name. The store isn't called "The Apple Music Store," though, it's called "iTunes." And pretty soon, when it comes out to PC, it won't even be limitted to Apple computers.

They'll probably settle on this, but it's not exactly open and shut.
 
2003-09-13 02:19:37 AM
Sod A Dog has nothing to do with copyright on any part of the Beatles library/songs/whatever. Has to do with the Trademark Apple. Jacko has nothing on that.
 
2003-09-13 02:22:54 AM
schrodinger THanks, my other cat's name is Pixel (if anyone gets THAT reference, I'd like to know)

Good points, however the legal agreement was specifically between Apple Corp. and Apple computer. WHether Apple COrp chooses to pursue the other publishers or not, Apple computer is still obliged to conform with what they have agreed to in the past.

Yes it's silly, but I like seeing the Jobs Ego machine step on its own dick.
 
2003-09-13 02:22:55 AM
All things are possible for the harbingers of the abyss.

/Una Salvus Victus Nullam Separe Sanctum
 
2003-09-13 02:24:04 AM
AlphaX also something to think about. Nicely said.
 
2003-09-13 02:26:37 AM
The Beatles were tightest with Revolver. After that they were not as much a band as a bunch of solo artists.
 
2003-09-13 02:27:19 AM
Good points, however the legal agreement was specifically between Apple Corp. and Apple computer. WHether Apple COrp chooses to pursue the other publishers or not, Apple computer is still obliged to conform with what they have agreed to in the past.

The thing is, when you fail to defend your trademark and copyright, you lessen you're case. It's like you're forfeiting your ownership. I can't remember the exact term for this, some lawyer will probably know it, but it was brought up in the "Fair & Balanced" Franken discussions.
 
2003-09-13 02:27:57 AM
ACK!!! What's is with you guys trashing the Beatles? It is hard for me not to get sucked into this, but all I will say is hey if you don't get it by now, you're not gonna get it.
thank you and goodnight
 
2003-09-13 02:29:25 AM
Why does everybody have to sue everybody else over every little thing?
 
2003-09-13 02:31:21 AM


Just die, biatch...Nobody cares about you and your crap art...biatch

/Unrelated, yet true...
 
2003-09-13 02:32:16 AM
Good point, Schrodinger, however the legal deal between Apple Corp and Apple Computers predates any of the lesser "Apple" publishers, so it remains binding. Now the "lesser" publishers have some prescident to break that agreement, but Apple COmputers has already legally placed itself in a position that it would probably rather not be in. THat's seperate from the posibilty that some other company is using the name "Big farking Apple" or the like. The fact that they have thusfar escaped the notice of Apple COrp Legal does not eliminate the possibility that they could be crushed like grapes tomorrow...

I'm not necessarilly pro beatles here, but I don't see this as open and shut either ;)
 
2003-09-13 02:33:17 AM
GOd damn it, I did NOT need to see a pictuer of Yoko at this hour. Now I'll have nightmares. Thanks a lot.
 
2003-09-13 02:34:26 AM
Tarvuz Too True.
 
2003-09-13 02:35:01 AM
at least it wasn't a nude picture of yoko.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report