Randomville

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
GigaBook.com
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Apple vs Apple  (Read 3340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MissKitty

  • Hooray Beer!
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 8,493
Apple vs Apple
« on: March 28, 2006, 04:26:38 PM »

Beatles And Jobs' Apple Come Together In Court
Parmy Olson, 03.27.06, 12:42 PM ET
Forbes Magazine

London - As a hi-tech whippersnapper in 1976 it's doubtful that Steve
Jobs could have guessed his fledgling Apple Computer company would one
day become a giant in the music industry. That this would subsequently
get him into legal imbroglios with the nation of France and the Beatles
seems wholly unimaginable.

Apple Corps' four owners, Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and
Olivia Harrison (wives of the late John Lennon and George Harrison) want
Jobs to break the link between the Apple brand and music products of
Apple Computer (nyse: AAPL - news - people ) and fork out millions of
dollars in damages.

The two companies have thus had an ambivalent relationship ever since
1980 when George Harrison spotted an ad for Apple Computer in a
magazine. Concerned that fans would think Jobs' upstart was connected to
them, the two firms eventually cut a deal and agreed to stay out of each
other businesses.

But as Apple began proffering iPod music players and music through its
iTunes online store, Jobs looked to be straying perilously close to the
no-go area. As a 1989 settlement had defined it, the distribution of
music on "physical media* such as compact discs" was verboten.

But did this count yet-to-be invented digital formats like MP3s? That
will be decided when a case filed by Apple Corps in 2003 finally goes to
trial at the U.K. High Court this Wednesday. Hearing the arguments will
be Justice Mann, a judge who had to apparently inquire of both sides if
he should disqualify himself on the grounds that he owns an iPod.

Sir Paul and et al. will not be attending the trial in London, but
that's likely not a reflection on their resolve. It looks as though as
long as Apple are involved in the food of love, the new Fab Four will
simply not let it be.
Logged
Duct tape can't fix stupid.

Juliana

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 4,758
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2006, 04:31:13 PM »

This is so stupid.
Maybe they'll settle and they'll offer a Beatles iPod.  I bet I know at least one person who would go for that.
Logged
We all agree that genocide, avalanches, and Family Circus are not funny
-Ed Helms

Kwyjibo

  • Bringing Grumpy Back
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 10,589
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2006, 04:38:05 PM »

Quote from: "Juliana"
I bet I know at least one person who would go for that.

Who might that be?

I would think the Beatles would be finding a way to cut a deal so that they could join in the money making.
Logged
Baby, check this out, I've got something to say.  Man, it's so loud in here.

whigsgeek

  • protector of small children and bunny rabbits
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 4,562
  • Yes, it is I ...
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2006, 04:38:08 PM »

I am too through with the surviving Beatles.
Logged
I gather speed from you fucking with me.

Kwyjibo

  • Bringing Grumpy Back
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 10,589
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2006, 04:44:07 PM »

My only beef with McCartney is the bullshit interviews he gives making everything sound more romantic than I'm sure it really was.  He'd tell you Lennon's shit smelled like sweet, sweet butter if you asked him, even though you know it's a lie.  Other than that he just seems to be out to make a buck, or as many millions of bucks as he can.

Ringo's pretty quiet other than his all-star band and that book of postcards he published a couple of years ago.  And apparently he likes his nads well ventilated when he's working out.

Other than that, they seem pretty harmless.
Logged
Baby, check this out, I've got something to say.  Man, it's so loud in here.

kcneon

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 2,804
    • Resurrection Neon
Re: Apple vs Apple
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2006, 04:44:16 PM »

Quote from: "MissKitty"
Jobs looked to be straying perilously close to the
no-go area. As a 1989 settlement had defined it, the distribution of
music on "physical media* such as compact discs" was verboten.


"NO-GO AREA"  ???  Interesting....I was wondering how this related to their previous battle.

Quote
Hearing the arguments will be Justice Mann, a judge who had to apparently inquire of both sides if he should disqualify himself on the grounds that he owns an iPod.


That's totally funny!!
Logged

Jonathan

  • Future Boy
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 9,319
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2006, 04:46:52 PM »

Honestly, does anybody out there confused enough to think that the Beatles have anything to do with Apple Computer?

I wonder how many "civilians" (not the people on these boards as we are fairly music-savvy) even know that the name of the Beatles' holding company is Apple Corps?

It's a money grab, pure and simple. A money grab by people who are already billionaires.
Logged
"I believe that in the long view of history, the British Empire will be remembered only for two things. The game of football, and the expression 'fuck off.'" - Sir Richard Turnbull

Nate

  • Kevin Durant's baby mama.
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,825
  • Best Album Never Made.
    • Randomville
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2006, 05:56:41 PM »

Remember too, that the Beatles/Apple Records have always been notoriously slow in putting their music on new mediums.  I think 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were the first Beatles recordings put on CD...in 1993.  So it's no wonder that on any of the digital music stores, you won't find Beatles tunes.  

Methinks this will change once a settlement is reached.
Logged
Each day you have a choice - hilarity or insanity.

Jonathan

  • Future Boy
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 9,319
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2006, 07:27:57 PM »

Quote from: "Nate"
Remember too, that the Beatles/Apple Records have always been notoriously slow in putting their music on new mediums.  I think 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were the first Beatles recordings put on CD...in 1993.  So it's no wonder that on any of the digital music stores, you won't find Beatles tunes.  

Methinks this will change once a settlement is reached.

No, there were Beatles albums released on CD earlier than 1993, because I remember, as a kid, my dad got a copy of Rubber Soul for opening an account at a video rental store. I'm not sure why they offered that particular giveaway, it was a choice of three recently released-on-CD Beatles albums, though.
Logged
"I believe that in the long view of history, the British Empire will be remembered only for two things. The game of football, and the expression 'fuck off.'" - Sir Richard Turnbull

Bronzetree

  • Punching Bag
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 4,851
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2006, 07:47:45 PM »

Quote from: "Jonathan"
I wonder how many "civilians" (not the people on these boards as we are fairly music-savvy) even know that the name of the Beatles' holding company is Apple Corps?


Now, sure. But at the time this began, we were less than ten years removed from the Beatles' final release on Apple. It was still relatively fresh in peoples' minds, so it made sense. This is merely a continuation of what was agreed upon back then.

Quote
It's a money grab, pure and simple. A money grab by people who are already billionaires.


Maybe, I don't know. But just because it's been a few years and the new generation has no idea the Beatles' label was called Apple, they should just ignore it?

I'm not taking the side of what could very well be an attempt to cash in on Jobs' success, but it's hard to ignore that an agreement was reached and the creation of the iPod seems to be in breach of same.
Logged

Fourthisto

  • Guest
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2006, 08:26:51 PM »

Cheezus H, what a total waste of time.

Quote
fork out millions of dollars in damages.


Because lord knows, the families of the fab vier might be short of cash! And how are they going to sever the name Apple from iTunes/their online music store/ etc?

I hope Fiona shows up to the trial, holding Chris Martin's kid.

What's next, soon-to-be-dead inmates taking Death Row records to court, for "damages"?  :whatever:
Logged

scurvygirl

  • Fiery One
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,938
    • Scurvytown
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2006, 09:34:01 PM »

Quote from: "Fourthisto"
I hope Fiona shows up to the trial, holding Chris Martin's kid.


Heh.  That's totally what I was hoping this thread was about.
Logged
Remember to always be yourself.  Unless you suck.~ My BIG DAMN hero, Joss Whedon

Bonne et heureuse semaine!

rva

  • Guest
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2006, 09:35:45 PM »

I award damages in the amount of 1,000,000 US dollars to be paid to from Apple to The Beatles because well, the Beatles did have it first.  

I also hereby assess the Beatles 1 million in punitive damages for half-assedly running a shit label and then trying to profit from it.  The punitive damages will be split equally by what's left of Badfinger and the members' estates.  These damages will be paid DIRECTLY, because we're all tired of seeing Badfinger in court as well.
Logged

Jonathan

  • Future Boy
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 9,319
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2006, 10:14:22 PM »

And I hereby assess Paul Rodgers a $2,000,000 fine, made payable to me, because I keep confusing Badfinger and Bad Company. And because we all know how much fun it is to pick on Paul Rodgers.
Logged
"I believe that in the long view of history, the British Empire will be remembered only for two things. The game of football, and the expression 'fuck off.'" - Sir Richard Turnbull

Kwyjibo

  • Bringing Grumpy Back
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 10,589
Apple vs Apple
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2006, 09:04:47 AM »

Quote from: "rva"
I also hereby assess the Beatles 1 million in punitive damages for half-assedly running a shit label and then trying to profit from it.  The punitive damages will be split equally by what's left of Badfinger and the members' estates.  These damages will be paid DIRECTLY, because we're all tired of seeing Badfinger in court as well.

Now, now.  No amount of money is going to bring Pete Ham and Tom Evans back from the dead, which is the only thing that could possibly help Badfinger.

Quote from: "Nate"
Remember too, that the Beatles/Apple Records have always been notoriously slow in putting their music on new mediums. I think 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were the first Beatles recordings put on CD...in 1993. So it's no wonder that on any of the digital music stores, you won't find Beatles tunes.

Actually, Sgt. Pepper was released on CD in 1987.  I don't even know that it was the first, it's just the only one I remember the year on.  62-66 and 67-70 were actually released long after the rest of the catalog had already been issued.
Logged
Baby, check this out, I've got something to say.  Man, it's so loud in here.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up