An interesting comparison:
Both the rock band Rolling Stones and the rock magazine Rolling Stone have managed to successfully, peaceably coexist. Neither one of those institutions strikes me as hurting for money.
Mebbe. But Apple Computer’s lawyer is claiming that the agreement allowed “distribution of digital entertainment content” which would seem to be a fairly large loophole. He’s also taking a pretty hard line on the potential for confusing the two trademarks for this application (the word “moron” got bandied about).
How is this a relevant comparison? Does the band print a magazine? Does the magazine record music? Do they have a legal agreement?
And what does ‘hurting for money’ have to do with anything?
Actually, if you do nothing with the property for some time, say 25 years (give or take), and if, in that period, Steve opens up a Starbucks and lives on it, then in most jurisdictions, even English common law, he owns your property through adverse possession.
Also, there is a growing (well, it grows in spurts) trend to use Law and Economics to decide these issues. Note, that real property (as opposed to personal property) is treated somewhat differently in the courts (e.g. the adverse possession example above). There are a large number of judges and legal scholars that look to this methodology as the most efficient and useful way to decide cases. My law school publishes a journal on it.
To the OP: If it it makes any difference, I didn’t even know that Apple Corp owned the Beatles catalogue. I thought it was EMI. Apple might be able to make legal arguments mitigating the damage suffered by Apple Corp based on the fact that iTunes is in the music industry, and not Apple. (Isn’t iTunes the name of the music service?) It will interesting to see what damages Apple Corp is seeking.
I was going to say the exact opposite. A creative work is a song, a movie, a story, a painting. iTunes is a store, a computer program designed to take money and electronically distribute licensed song files. IMHO, much closer to
than to a “creative work”. It specifically mentiones that Apple Computer can do data transmission and broadcasting. If they chose to broadcast music, would they be in similar trouble?
What if iTunes and iPods (and related items) were under a wholely-owned subsidiary?
I know this would be inconvenient for Apple Computer, but better than shutting it all down.
I’ve been aware of the lawsuit for a while, but what exactly does Apple Records want? Royalties, Cease-and-desist, or something else?
Oh, I 100% agree. But the foolishness seems more innocent whimsy that a desire to piggyback off of the Beatles. He picked Apple as a tribute to them, long before he had any idea that the company would be going places: at the time it was just another quirky two-bit tech startup in an era where no one really thought that home users would want or be able to afford personal computing. The logos were not really much the same, and they were at the time in completely different markets. Furthermore, Jobs and his people realized that they’d probably have to kowtow: that’s why they signed the deal staking out the terms of the use the trademark.
The problem is, the market changed. Sound applications became an important part of computers. And this is where the position of Apple Corp became the most foolish: complaining that the standard Apple startup sound was a creation of music competing with the Beatles. It was idiotic. But, again, I guess its hard to today put yourself in the shoes of people living in a time when no one really knew where computers were going or what they would need to do. And it’s here that Apple and Apple really should have sat down and said to each that they both know where things are going, so lets spell this out in more detail. They didn’t. There had already been a lot of bad bad blood over stupid squabbling (remember, Apple Corp hired people who’s job it was was to keep watch over whatever Apple Computer was doing with audio systems so they could complain at every turn) and lawsuits.
So now we’re at where we are today. What we have is less a trademark case and far more a contract case. What did Apple really agree to? Does contract language in an age before anyone other than Al Gore (seriously!) even imagined the internet really apply to digital distribution and storefronts? I dunno. That’s why they hire the million dollar lawyers to figure this stuff out. 
And this is relevant how?
Here’s a more apt comparison:
Suppose you own a car. And suppose one day I go to your house and take your car to drive to the mall.
When you complain that I took your car, should I be able to claim I was only borrowing it and brought it back when I was done? Should I be able to say that your car was just sitting in your driveway and you weren’t using it anyway? If I say I refilled the tank so you weren’t suffering any financial loss? If I point out that you have two cars and can only drive one of them at a time, so there’s no reason why I shouldn’t drive the other one? If I remind you that you let your brother borrow your car last week so that means you’ve agreed to loan out your car in the past?
FWIW…good history at ars technica
It is not an apt comparision, because a car is physical property. There can be only one car. Trademarks fall under the (often rather stupid) idea of intellectual property. Nobody these days cares about Apple Records. Hell, I can’t name a single band on that label, the last time an album was released on that label, or any post-Beatles songs besides Live and Let Die. Trust me, I am not in any danger of confusing Apples.
I’m not sure I agree with some of what this article states. For example “It is important to note that, at the time, there was no such thing as online transfer of music” would have been better stated as “…online transfer of recorded sound” since MIDI files (files that contain not recorded sound but instructions to synthesizer engines) were around way before that, and were not doubt transffered by academic musicians with 'net access, and perhaps even among general BBS users.
The cleanest way for this to work is to have Apple (Jobs) have a (preferably off-shore) holding company, like in the Bahamas or Bermuda, e.g. Apple LTD (I can’t remember if these former UK colonies have LLC, let’s assume not). So, Apple Computer is the parent organization. Apple Comp Inc is a US corp in Cupertino, CA and is a wholly-owned affiliate by Apple LTD. iTunes is a wholly-owned affiliate based out of wherever, and is also wholly-owned by Apple LTD. Let’s also assume that in the formation of Apple LTD, it (Apple LTD) did not subsume the agreements, liabilities, etc., and generally keeps in tact the corporate veil between the parents and the affiliates.
Now, the situation would be that Apple Comp Inc. has an agreement with Apple Corp not to enter into the music industry (and not with Apple LTD. iTunes can now enter the music industry as a completely separate entity from the above agreement.
I can’t figure out any way in which this comparison is apt. It’s more like I go internet shopping rather than drive to the mall, and then you sue me because the logo on my computer is sort of the same as the one on your auto.
Let’s bring it down to the simplest level; Apple Corps owns the trademark. It doesn’t have to prove anything beyond that ownership. And nobody is disputing that ownership. All that’s left is negotiating the amount that Apple Computers is going to pay for the use of their property.
Again, that’s both not necessarily true, and a red herring. Trademark disputes are simply not as simple as property disputes because they involve all sorts of emphemeral issues about confusion and so forth. Any lawyer that told their clients that it is as simple as physical property would flunk out of law school.
But that’s beside the point, because Apple already paid them for the use of their trademark. What’s at issue isn’t trademarks at all: it’s a claimed breach of contract.
It is?
from here. From what I’ve read, it’s all about the trademark- whether Apple Computer can use the apple logo.
Is anyone else highly amused that the judge’s name is Mr. Justice Mann?
Right decision, I think. Apple Corps has no relevance. Hell, if Apple Computer was smart, they’d just buy Apple Corps out.
But from my understanding (just based on this thread and some news articles), it wasn’t really a question of trademark infringement, but breach of contract. Apple Computer signed a sweeping agreement not to market music under the Apple banner, and it seems pretty cut-and-dried that they violated that.
Complete decision text (from macintouch.com)