So the Apple vs. Apple case just started in London. I just don’t get HOW the Beatles are incurring any loss by a computer manufacturer selling iPods and running a music store.
Trademark dispute. Pfa! Trademark disputes are an issue when a reasonable consumer could reasonably confuse or associate one brand with another. Does anyone really think that anyone on this planet thinks that the Apple Computer is the same company that used to briefly be the Beatles record label? How many people even know the Beatles had a record label called Apple?
Yes, yes, I know that this suit is based on an agreement that Apple Computer not sell music. That is not what this post is about. This post is about How are Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the families of George Harrison and John Lennon harmed by Apple creating the iPod and the iTunes music store?
Steve Jobs and ultimately Neil Aspinall made an agreement that Apple computer could use the Apple name as long as they did not get into the music business. Then Jobs reneged on it. That’s a breach of contract. That’s what the suit is for. It’s not meant to measure harm.
It’s really quite ironic that the “Apple” record label is largely forgotten, though it does still handle Beatles re-issues, and “Apple” the computer company enjoys total penetration as to name recognition. Even I can see this, in spite of my boomery hoariness. As much as the Beatles meant to me and my cohort, I think it’s time they gave it up and allowed others to use the word apple as they see fit.
Right. If we have a contract where you promise not to do something, and then you do it, I don’t have to prove or measure how it’s harming me that you’re doing it.
But on the other hand, if it’s not harming me, why should I bother making a deal about it?
Only reasons I can think of are
[ol]
[li]For the principle of the thing.[/li][li]Because I can maybe get some money that way. (Granted, Sir Paul isn’t necessarily desperate for money, but if it’s money he’s legally entitled to, he ought to be able to do what he wants with it: donate it to his favorite charity, finance some major artistic project, buy solid gold toilet paper, or whatever.)[/li][li]IANAL, but if you later do something that harms me, I may have a hard time stopping you if I didn’t act to enforce the contract earlier.[/li][/ol]
I’d like to see the actual agreement and see how the restriction is worded. Was the prohibition against Apple Computer as general as “stay out of the music business”, or was it more specific- don’t start a record label and call it “Apple Records”? And even if it was as general as “stay out of the music business”, arguably they’re not in the music business- they’re in the electronics business, and music is just one of the applications for which their electronics can be used. People forget that since the iPod is a portable hard drive, it can be used for much more than a music player.
I suspect that the lawyers for Apple Computer will make the argument that since they don’t produce, create, or record music, they’re not in the music business. They’re just a platform.
I see your point, but my intention was to show that just because you sell a certain product doesn’t mean you’re “in the business of” that product. On the other hand, I think musicians, record labels, music producers, etc. are clearly in the “music business”.
Take the owner of a grocery store. Are they in the dog food business, the dairy business, the magazine business, the breakfast cereal business, etc.?
At any rate, according to this, it’s all about the use of the logo anyway.
The Beatles owned the Apple trademark first. The burden of proof is not on them. Steve Jobs has to prove he’s not infringing on their rights. And considering he’s violating a previous agreement he signed, he’s going to have a tough time doing that.
True. But what’re the actual financial damages done to Apple Records? At this point, it’s not like their trademark is particularly relevant. A reasonable “Justice-is-served” result would be to find in favor of the plaintiff and award them a shilling.
Simple. Every song iPod has sold was a song that Apple Records could have sold instead. The damage is worth billions.
Can I prove it? No. But can you prove it isn’t possible? Again no. It’s virtually impossible to absolutely prove how much a trademark is worth. The trademark builds up the product and the product builds up the trademark.
Steven Jobs realized Apple had an established reputation on the marketplace. He’s admitted he used the name for his company because he was familiar with the Beatles’ company. And he made an agreement not to sell music. Which he’s now selling. He’s going to lose this lawsuit and deservedly so.
Doubtful. It’s more likely that this will all end in some sort of settlement, ultimately with an agreement to market the Beatles discography on iTunes. Both sides have much to gain through an accord.
How are they harmed? From the link Duckster posted earlier:
If Apple Computer had not agreed to forego the music business, the 1980 settlement would likely have been less than modest. Because Apple Records trusted the word of Steve Jobs 26 years ago, they lost out on a larger settlement then and 20+ years worth of interest on the difference.
That’s just one way to demonstrate harm. Apple Records could also claim that itunes is weakening their trademark by associating the word “apple” with music that isn’t up to the standards set by the company. I don’t know how you’d assign a dollar (or pound) amount to either of these claims, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not valid damages.
As far as I know, though, they don’t have to demonstrate damages sustained by Apple Records at all - it’s purely a breach of contract situation.
That, as far as I know is spot on. In 1980 the Apple name and logo for the computer company was in danger of being rendered unusable because it conflicted with the Beatles Apple Records pre existant name and logo. A settlement could have been requested for almost any amount, but Beatles-Apple decided to accept a small settlement plus a strict non-competition clause that Apple would never infringe at all on the music industry. Simply put Apple has reneighed on that agreement, and so should pay the penalty for doing so.