On that ‘impending’ Apple vs Beatles settlement
Just re this: clearly some people have been on overdrive on the rumour control. Take this for instance:
Some speculation suggests the settlement could see Apple Corps. becoming a major shareholder in the computer company, with Paul McCartney maybe even becoming a board member.
Yes, and some people smoke crack cocaine. Shall we pause a moment and ask a few questions? Like, would Macca even want to be on the board of a multinational computer company, when he’s got a very young child and has never shown any interest in that? Would the shareholders ever vote for such a scheme? And how exactly would Apple Corps (the Beatles’ management company) become a big shareholder in Apple Computer? Issuing new shares would dilute the stock so much it would tank. Giving away shares would surely break some SEC law.
Sorry, but that remedy is daft. This might turn into a huge thing, but then again it might be that the judge will decide that Apple Corps has faded from the public consciousness (how many years ago did the Fab Four break up?) and that there’s no confusion in the public mind between Apple Corp and Computer.
Maybe Macca could write a song about it.
Update 16:47: OK, I’ve been trying since 10am to get any sort of sensible response from Apple Corporation. They definitely win my prize this season for being completely bloody useless in press relations. The PR guy has gone out alledgely to “lunch” (then at 2.40pm it became a “meeting”, according to the person answering the phones). His mobile phone number is a secret. The head of the company has gone out. Nobody else here can speak to you. What, not even to say ‘No comment’ or ‘All this is rumour and speculation and we’ll comment in the fullness of time’? I’m sure he’s getting dozens of poeople calling him, in which case he should have sussed that it makes sense to give the long-suffering people answering the phone (not to mention those calling them) a two-line statement they could read out.
Forget “Back in the USSR”. These guys could show the North Koreans a trick or two.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Predictions for 2008: they're back! (6 January 2008; score: 49.79%)
- If you don't know antitrust law, why write a long article suggesting Apple has broken it? (20 September 2006; score: 26.77%)
- So who's the Apple user? (19 May 2008; score: 23.74%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
September 14th, 2004 at 4:10 pm
I read today that Apple Corps has the fastest growing profits of any company in the UK.
If that’s not true, it might soon be, given a record-breaking settlement (npi).
Both companies supposedly have already expended huge amounts for legal bills.
September 14th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Of all the stories posted about this, only you and RandomMaccess seemed not to just take it at face value. I loved RM’s description:
September 14th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
OK, I screwed up the quote. Here it is:
An article from Variety says that a settlement “could be imminent” in the legal battle between Apple Computer and The Beatles’ Apple Corps over the iTunes Music Store. The article, which cites only “word among the legal community” and an unamed lawyer evidently not involved in the case, says the out-of-court settlement will “massively dwarf the $26.5 million paid to the fab Four’s company in 1991.”
-Spencer
September 14th, 2004 at 4:52 pm
Sorry, I can’t believe I screwed up the quote again. It said “In a wildly speculative article…”
Not enough coffee this morning, I suppose.
-Spencer
September 14th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
How much Apple Corps has or has not faded into security may not be the issue. Nor might infringment be the direct issue anymore. Instead, Apple Computer (I think) entered into a contractural agreement with Apple Corps in the 1991 settlement in which Apple C. agreed to not enter into the music business in any way shape or form in the future. This, more than anything is what Apple cannot wriggle out of. No proof of infringement may be needed to make a case.
September 14th, 2004 at 8:11 pm
Correction: I meant to say obscurity, not security.
September 14th, 2004 at 8:55 pm
What most people don’t understand in this case is that the 1991 was not about prohibiting Apple from entering the music maket in any form or shape. That’s what Apple corp. originally wanted, but that’s not what they got.
The 1991 agreement came after Apple corp. accused Apple Computers of breaching an earlier agreement when they started selling Macs with Audio input/output. Notice on how Apple Computers didn’t remove the Audio I/O in Macs after the agreement? That’s because this was part of the outcome of the agreement: Apple Comp. was granted the right to enter some parts of the music business that are defined in the document.The 1991 agreement prohibits Apple Comp. from selling music on physical media, but it does specifically grant them the right to distribute music over electronic media.
Here is my own theatrical version of the story:
When Apple Computers was founded, the Beatle’s recording company, Apple Corps when to see Apple Comp. and said “Ok we are gonna let you use the Apple name, but -thou shalt not enter the music market -”. Apple Computers said “Fine ok…grumble grumble…”
Many years later when Macintoshes started to have recording abilities built-in, Apple Corp when to see Apple Comp. again and said “Hey We had an agreement, you agreed not to enter the music business, and your computers can record music.”
Apple comp. replied “Well ehmmm you can record voice too…Ok you got us, we are gonna pay you 26 millions, but we have to make a fairer agreement, todays computers are more and more used for music purposes”.
Apple corp said “Ok, let’s define what field of the music industry we are gonna let you enter.”
And that leaded to the 1991 agreement.
There are probably many subtilities in the agreement that can still provide arguments for Apple Corps. But clearly Apple Comp. is not automatically guilty like many seem to imply.
September 14th, 2004 at 9:10 pm
I know I didn’t include court parts of my theatrical version, but like Steve Jobs said to many times in some keynotes: “you get the idea”.
September 14th, 2004 at 9:55 pm
Ok I’m not sure anymore, I just reread the court paper for the current case at http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm
i. “Apple Computer Field of Use” means (i) electronic good,s including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium; (ii) data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services; (iii) ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution; (iv) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services; and (v) promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing.
ii. “Apple Corps Field of Use” means (i) the Apple Musical Artists; the Apple Catalog; personalities or characters which appear in or are derived from the Apple Catalog; the names likenesses, voices or musical sounds of the Apple Musical Artists; any musical works or performances of the Apple Musical Artists; (ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible; (iii) promotional merchandise relating to any of the foregoing; (iv) merchandising relating to the Apple Musical Artists and the Apple Catalog and the related subject matter set forth in subsection (i), including, without limitation, the commercial exploitation of personalities, characters, names, designs, images, words, photographs, drawings, or other materials through articles such as posters, toys, games (including computer games), novelties, figures, figurines and clothing; and (v) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services.
The problem may lie in this phrase defining part of Apple Corps field of use: “any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible; ”
I’m just not sure if it only concerns Apple Corps own music since the rest of the paragraph only talks about their’s.
Oh well let’s hope for the best for Apple :)