Should the Beatles estate give it up already?

[James Steele]

Hey everyone... I saw this today on Macintouch:

Apple Computer will meet the Beatles' Apple Corps in court this week in London, where a judge will determine whether Apple Computer's iTunes online music service violates a 1991 agreement between the two companies that, the Beatles' Apple claims, blocked the computer maker from selling music.
Apple Corps, which represents the Beatles' business interests and markets their post-1968 recordings on disc, wants the computer company to stop using the Apple trademark to sell recordings online, along with unspecified damages. Apple, the maker of Macintosh computers and iPods, said the 1991 agreement permitted using the Apple name to sell online data transfers, which are what downloaded songs amount to.
The judge hearing the case, Justice Edward Mann, is an iPod user, but neither side has asked him to recuse himself.
This is the third time the two companies have sparred. Apple Corps first sued Apple Computer in 1980 over the use of its name; a modest settlement was accompanied by an agreement that stipulated that Apple Computer, then a Silicon Valley start-up, would stay out of the music business

Does anyone else think that this Apple lawsuit thing is getting silly? Since when has Apple Records been really viable? Does it actually release any recordings any more, or is it only kept alive as an excuse for their lawyers to siphon more cash off of Apple Computer at every opportunity? I'm against stealing intellectual property and protecting one's brand, but isn't the assertion that Apple Computer is somehow infringing on this ancient label sort of silly? Seems like the only reason they won in the first place is maybe Jobs, Woz, et.al. decided it wasn't worth the cost of the legal battle back in the 70s. I think it just makes the Beatle's old label look like parasites.

[johnnytucats]

Or...a deal is a deal.

[James Steele]

Or...a deal is a deal.

Yeah, no that's absolutely right. I just think it looks ridiculous any more. Their only reason for existance any more is to suck off of Apple Computer.

[funkyfreddy]

I doubt Paul McCartney initiated the law suit...... It sounds like more blood sucking/weasel lawyer crap to me......

both Apples have left something to be desired from time to time, but compared to other corporations...... I'll let you finish the sentence!

[James Steele]

I doubt Paul McCartney initiated the law suit...... It sounds like more blood sucking/weasel lawyer crap to me......

both Apples have left something to be desired from time to time, but compared to other corporations...... I'll let you finish the sentence!

Nah... you're right Freddy. It just kind of blows my mind this many years later that Apple Computer is paying off Apple Records. Talk about a gift that keeps on giving.

[chrispick]

My understanding is that The Beatles wanted to extricate themselves from Apple Corp. in the mid 70s. And may have, in fact, done so. In any case, it's certainly in the hands of private investment interests now. That is to say, it's just rich people volleying dollar signs now.

Not that I know any better.

[Frodo]

You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper

That was McCartney's answer to lawyers back then, and it still seems to apply today.

My question is how it happened that Apple Corp. could agree to anything with Apple Computer in the first place if their no-computer policy was such a big deal?

How can such a policy be enforced legally? Does this mean that Apple Corp. has totally lost its ability to be effective in negotiating who its distributors are? What agreement could the two Apples make with one another that would dishonor the spirit of such an agreement if Apple Computer, duh, is a computer company? What part of Apple and Computer did Apple Corps. not understand?

However it was that the Beatles' catalog was split up into so many pieces of ownership, Apple Corp. doesn't seem to have made many efforts or has been very successful with any efforts to regain ownership of the catalog, at which point all rights and terms of distribution could be better understood.

Honestly, I would like nothing better than to see the surviving Beatles and the estates of the others regain 100% of the control of their own work. Could Apple Corp still be playing 1970 politics?

[johnnytucats]

Wait a sec...isn't it the situation that, in the early years, Apple Computer got the OK, from Apple Corps or the courts or whatever, to use "Apple" in the company name as long as they didn't enter the music business? They DID agree to this, no?

We have a car dealership here called "Apple" and I'm sure they'd get their ass in a sling if they started making computers OR releasing records.

[James Steele]

Wait a sec...isn't it the situation that, in the early years, Apple Computer got the OK, from Apple Corps or the courts or whatever, to use "Apple" in the company name as long as they didn't enter the music business? They DID agree to this, no?

We have a car dealership here called "Apple" and I'm sure they'd get their ass in a sling if they started making computers OR releasing records.

I think that's the way it worked out. And yes they agreed. I'm just saying that Apple Records appears not to have been doing anything in the music business for ages and nobody under the age of 40 has even heard of them, much less ever confuse Apple Computer with them. So they seem to exist solely as an entity on paper to collect money from Apple Computer based on a decades old agreement that Apple Computer stay out of a business that Apple Records hasn't engaged in in decades and has no intention of ever engaging in again.

Somehow that just seems screwed up. And yes... a deal's a deal... but Apple Records is not a record label any more, but in truth a parasite.

[qo]

Sadly, James, you are spot on.

From Wikipedia:

The first two years of the company's existence coincided with a sharp decline in personal relations within the Beatles, ultimately leading to the break-up of the band in 1970. Apple quickly slid into financial chaos, which was only resolved after many years of litigation. When the Beatles' partnership was dissolved in 1975, dissolution of Apple Corps was also considered, but it was decided to keep it going, while effectively retiring all its divisions. The company exists today, mostly performing as the licensing agent for Beatles-related products, and supervising reissues of Apple Records, plus new issues of Beatles recordings and related media. The company is apparently now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company) and its company secretary is listed as Standby Films Ltd., believed to be a vehicle of managing director Neil Aspinall. The company is currently headquartered at 27 Ovington Square, in London's prestigious Knightsbridge district.

Apple Corps has had a long history of trademark disputes with Apple Computer, and (as of 2006) the two companies are still involved in litigation.

And this...

http://www.thetabworld.com/Beatles_biography.html

APPLE CORPS

The Beatles started their own company to handle their finances, Apple Corps, namely its record division Apple Records.

Shortly after its founding, due to the band's lack of experience at business matters, John Lennon announced it would go broke in six months. The level of work required to run the company resulted in a lot of stress, frustration, and fracturing of their friendships as the company wasted money almost nonstop.

When they decided to find someone experienced enough to run Apple, the band was divided. Paul McCartney wanted to hire Lee Eastman, but the other three wanted to hire The Rolling Stones' manager, the notorious Allen Klein. Klein won, but it was evidently too little and too late as the company stopped releasing records in 1975. Aside from the release of a few Beatles disks in the 1990s, the company remained unproductive.

[chrispick]

Sadly, James, you are spot on.

From Wikipedia:

The first two years of the company's existence coincided with a sharp decline in personal relations within the Beatles, ultimately leading to the break-up of the band in 1970. Apple quickly slid into financial chaos, which was only resolved after many years of litigation. When the Beatles' partnership was dissolved in 1975, dissolution of Apple Corps was also considered, but it was decided to keep it going, while effectively retiring all its divisions. The company exists today, mostly performing as the licensing agent for Beatles-related products, and supervising reissues of Apple Records, plus new issues of Beatles recordings and related media. The company is apparently now owned by Apple Corps SA (a Swiss company) and its company secretary is listed as Standby Films Ltd., believed to be a vehicle of managing director Neil Aspinall. The company is currently headquartered at 27 Ovington Square, in London's prestigious Knightsbridge district.

Apple Corps has had a long history of trademark disputes with Apple Computer, and (as of 2006) the two companies are still involved in litigation.

And this...

http://www.thetabworld.com/Beatles_biography.html

APPLE CORPS

The Beatles started their own company to handle their finances, Apple Corps, namely its record division Apple Records.

Shortly after its founding, due to the band's lack of experience at business matters, John Lennon announced it would go broke in six months. The level of work required to run the company resulted in a lot of stress, frustration, and fracturing of their friendships as the company wasted money almost nonstop.

When they decided to find someone experienced enough to run Apple, the band was divided. Paul McCartney wanted to hire Lee Eastman, but the other three wanted to hire The Rolling Stones' manager, the notorious Allen Klein. Klein won, but it was evidently too little and too late as the company stopped releasing records in 1975. Aside from the release of a few Beatles disks in the 1990s, the company remained unproductive.

This relates to to what I was saying. It's just lawyers and investment brokers duking it out.

I think it's definitely within their legal right to protect their interests down to the letter. It's just one of many situations where legality doesn't jibe well with ethicality.

Related: Isn't the whole Badfinger tragedy hooked into the Apple Corp debacle? Man, talk about a sad industry story.

"If you want it, here it is, come and get it...
...but you better hurry 'cause it's going fast..."

[Frodo]

It appears that all of this goes from 'unfortunate' to 'pitiful'.

Now I'm curious to read more of the details behind Apple Corps/Records' terms limiting Apple Computer from entering into the realm of music in general. Distribution of Beatles recordings is one thing. But 'music' is such a general term that I wonder about the scope of the agreement...

Then along came Apple computers. In 1978, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for trademark violations. In 1981, Apple Computer settled for $80,000 and a promise to stay out of the music business.

In 1991, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer again, alleging that by adding sound to computers, the computer company was in violation of the 1981 agreement. This time Apple Computer paid $26.5 million. The computer giant agreed that although it may be involved in digital music, it would not package, sell or distribute any physical music materials, such as CDs.

The third lawsuit was filed in July 2003. Apple Corps alleges that the iTunes online music store violates the 1991 agreement. The looming question up for courtroom debate is whether iTunes Music Store sells physical music materials, such as CDs.

more @:
http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/artic ... 11325.html

It's remarkable to think that such things as iTunes or "the internet" could be imagined at that time, especially on the early Apple I's or IIe's. I really wonder what loophole Apple Computer found to move forward with iTunes distribution for any music by any artist at all? How was "the music business" defined in 1978? To what extent do Final Cut and Logic fall under (or over) the definition of "the music business"?

Also interesting from this article:
"Another possibility is that the court will order Apple Computer to remove its trademark from iTunes and iPods and set up a new company to sell them. Apple is already preparing for that."

A rose by any other name is still a rose-- is it not?

The original lawsuit is quite odd. It would seem that the trademark itself would have been something more legit and would have been changed. Dictating what a company can or cannot do on such a broad scale is highly questionable.

And, if the argument is REALLY about 'music', why would the courts exempt PC's from these same considerations?

[johnnytucats]

And, if the argument is REALLY about 'music', why would the courts exempt PC's from these same considerations?

Well, maybe if there were a "Dell Records" or a "Gateway Music" they wouldn't.

[Frodo]

And, if the argument is REALLY about 'music', why would the courts exempt PC's from these same considerations?

Well, maybe if there were a "Dell Records" or a "Gateway Music" they wouldn't.

But that's a different issue from mere trademark conflict-- one which Apple Computer clearly was able to retain. And even if PC's were not included for the sake of argument, the question remains how Apple Computer's other music software might be effected under the general description of "music business" as defined by the original lawsuit.

Just wondering...

[James Steele]

The looming question up for courtroom debate is whether iTunes Music Store sells physical music materials, such as CDs.

Hmmm... therein is the best hope of Apple Computer. Seems to me since they been bludgeoned by Apple Corps over upholding this agreement, Apple should hold them to the *exact* wording and argue that they do not sell physical materials at all.

Of course maybe it would be best to create a wholly owned subsidiary... and not display the Apple logo. Although, it could be argued that this was still Apple doing business, so they spin it off to another technically separate company which nonetheless pays Apple handsomely for licensing the iTunes software, etc.

I think the whole issue about when they first put a sound output jack on a computer is sort of stupid and Apple should have fought that to the bitter end. Lord knows they have enough cash they could afford it. Of course you know the real deal here... the old situation that it costs more to fight in court than to pay Apple Corps to go away and they count on that. Let's knick Apple Computer just enough money that we can get our periodic handout and it's still cheaper for Apple to give us our extortion money than fight us.