A short history and comment.
Apparently the Beatles and Apple Computers have been sparring for sometime.
Apparently the Beatles and Apple Computers have been sparring for sometime.
Apple vs Apple
- Thread starter Empath
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
raggie33
*the raggedier*
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2003
- Messages
- 13,540
[ QUOTE ]
Saaby said:
On the one hand, Apple Music does have a point--but honestly, who confuses Apple Computers and Apple Music?
[/ QUOTE ]i do /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif just messing with ya.that sure is a odd lawsuit though.
Saaby said:
On the one hand, Apple Music does have a point--but honestly, who confuses Apple Computers and Apple Music?
[/ QUOTE ]i do /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif just messing with ya.that sure is a odd lawsuit though.
Tomas
Banned
There have been problems after the settlement of the original court case when the newcomer, Apple Computer, agreed to not use the "Apple" name in association with music in any way. The Beatle's "Apple" had the use of the trademarked name "Apple" locked down quite legitimately in association with music.
So far, Apple Computer has signed two agreements promising specific limits on their behavoir in response to two specific court cases.
Now, with Apple Computer distributing their mp3 music player under the "Apple" name, and running their music store, under the "Apple" name, they have stepped over the line and broken the settlement agreements they signed with the other company yet again.
I think Apple Computer stepped on their, uh, USB connector this time ...
Very simply they signed a legal paper to end a court case in which they agreed never to use the "Apple" name in association with any music endevor. They are now pushing two music products. They are using the "Apple" name to do so.
So far, Apple Computer has signed two agreements promising specific limits on their behavoir in response to two specific court cases.
Now, with Apple Computer distributing their mp3 music player under the "Apple" name, and running their music store, under the "Apple" name, they have stepped over the line and broken the settlement agreements they signed with the other company yet again.
I think Apple Computer stepped on their, uh, USB connector this time ...
Very simply they signed a legal paper to end a court case in which they agreed never to use the "Apple" name in association with any music endevor. They are now pushing two music products. They are using the "Apple" name to do so.
Right Tomas,
But it was a little silly for Apple music to sue Apple computer in the first place those many many years ago when they started selling computers with speakers that could play music (Gasp!)
The other thing is this, the iPod has been around for several years now, why is Apple Music just getting around to suing?
But it was a little silly for Apple music to sue Apple computer in the first place those many many years ago when they started selling computers with speakers that could play music (Gasp!)
The other thing is this, the iPod has been around for several years now, why is Apple Music just getting around to suing?
Tomas
Banned
I believe the two Apples have been discussing this for a while, but with no resolution, Saaby. Looks like "Apple One" finally got fed up with "Apple Two" again. After all this IS the third time. *sigh* Looks like Steve is getting a lot like Bill ... *spit*
Trademarked names are a real oddity, and have to be defended or are lost (unlike copyright). Remember the Chevy Beretta? yeah, GM was sued by the Italian gunmaker and that car went away. This sort of thing happens all the time with brand names of value. Note that there is no way to mistake a Beretta Coupé for a Beretta 9mm, but they still protected their name. (I think one of the arguments that got GM's attention was the mention of a potential for Beretta Corvette .357's and Cadilac .45's ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif )
When it comes right down to it Apple Computer posters saying "AppleMusic iPod" in the UK may have been a bit much.
Trademarked names are a real oddity, and have to be defended or are lost (unlike copyright). Remember the Chevy Beretta? yeah, GM was sued by the Italian gunmaker and that car went away. This sort of thing happens all the time with brand names of value. Note that there is no way to mistake a Beretta Coupé for a Beretta 9mm, but they still protected their name. (I think one of the arguments that got GM's attention was the mention of a potential for Beretta Corvette .357's and Cadilac .45's ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif )
When it comes right down to it Apple Computer posters saying "AppleMusic iPod" in the UK may have been a bit much.
It appears this involves more than just a trademark dispute. It involves an agreement by Apple Computers not to involve itself in music, the same industry in which Apple Corp was involved. I have a hard time seeing it as silly. The agreement between Apple and Apple was not made by ignorant people not knowing what they were doing. They were involved in litigation, and any agreement would have been seriously considered by attorneys for both sides.
It may never get to court, and Apple Computer might just be wanting to renegotiate the deal; but both claim it's going to court.
It may never get to court, and Apple Computer might just be wanting to renegotiate the deal; but both claim it's going to court.
As this is the same old stuff in the computer industry. They all get caught up in it, all are guilty to some extent.
Remember a few years back when Microsoft and Apple kissed and made up? Microsoft announced it was committed to upgrading MS Office for Apple. Billy Boy at the same time gave Apple a couple million and both companies agreed to cross license certain unspecified code?
Well, Apple caught MicroSoft red handed, no doubt about it, doing a big no-no.
GregR
Remember a few years back when Microsoft and Apple kissed and made up? Microsoft announced it was committed to upgrading MS Office for Apple. Billy Boy at the same time gave Apple a couple million and both companies agreed to cross license certain unspecified code?
Well, Apple caught MicroSoft red handed, no doubt about it, doing a big no-no.
GregR
Charles Bradshaw
Flashlight Enthusiast
Selling MP3 players is one thing. Engaging in a Music Service is a whole different kettle of fish.
What the heck, both the RIAA and MPAA regard ALL computer users, as PIRATES and THIEVES, particularly Linux users who merely want to play DVD movies on their computers in Linux.
What the heck, both the RIAA and MPAA regard ALL computer users, as PIRATES and THIEVES, particularly Linux users who merely want to play DVD movies on their computers in Linux.
BF Hammer
Enlightened
Add into this that Apple computers has a history of suing companies that have tried to clone the Apple II and Macs, even when they altered the kernal so it wouldn't be an exact duplicate. Call it corporate kharma.
James S
Flashlight Enthusiast
One could argue that Apple Computer is not involved in the production, labeling or promotion of music, as Apple Corps is, but rather only in distribution and sales which Apple Corps does not do. However I don't think that there are separate trademark categories for these 2 different hazy differences in the music business.
The specifics of a trademark infringement are not clear cut and so taking it to court might be necessary if the 2 parties can't come to an agreement.
The fact that Apple and Apple have a legal agreement about they they can and can't do makes it even more interesting. It's not like Apple Computer doesn't have a huge legal department. They didn't do this without getting legal advise with full knowledge of all the previous things going in. They obviously decided it was not going to be a problem. We know that both parties talked to each other and were unable to come to an agreement so far which is why they are all threatening to go to court. We don't know what was offered or went back and forth. Usually companies are fairly reasonable when negotiating in good faith back and forth, but it's entirely possible that the only option Apple Corps offered Apple Computer was to drop it and go home. Which obviously they aren't going to agree to do, it's too lucrative for them.
I expect we'll never know all the details of what was accused and what was agreed to only that eventually they will all go home happy and some money will change hands. Historically the pay offs to Apple Corps have been well worth the money to Apple Computer as they have been measured in the millions and I'd guess just considered a cost of doing business. In all the cases previous Apple has gotten to continue to do what they wanted. It will be interesting to see what happens!
As far as other companies copying the Apple 2 and the Mac, thats more complicated. Several companies DID clone the Apple 2. Some of them with Apple's blessing. In Europe a company called "Europlus" made one in a slightly different case and had Apple's permission to do so. There was another American company that did too, but I can't remember who it was. I used one in a programming class I took so many years ago I can't remember anything else about it. But it was not an Apple.
The Mac did something unusual, in that in addition to a simple bios they also burned a significant amount of the system libraries into ROM and placed this on the motherboard. Reverse engineering a simple bios like they did to clone a PC is a tiny project compared to trying to do an entire operating system library. They owned the copyright on this code and anybody that wanted to clone the Mac had to basically pirate it. Apple succeeded in court where IBM failed in defending their bios. One could argue that it was not the brightest thing Apple ever did to stop the clone makers, but you can't fault them for the legal action. It was all standard business practice and nothing evil.
The specifics of a trademark infringement are not clear cut and so taking it to court might be necessary if the 2 parties can't come to an agreement.
The fact that Apple and Apple have a legal agreement about they they can and can't do makes it even more interesting. It's not like Apple Computer doesn't have a huge legal department. They didn't do this without getting legal advise with full knowledge of all the previous things going in. They obviously decided it was not going to be a problem. We know that both parties talked to each other and were unable to come to an agreement so far which is why they are all threatening to go to court. We don't know what was offered or went back and forth. Usually companies are fairly reasonable when negotiating in good faith back and forth, but it's entirely possible that the only option Apple Corps offered Apple Computer was to drop it and go home. Which obviously they aren't going to agree to do, it's too lucrative for them.
I expect we'll never know all the details of what was accused and what was agreed to only that eventually they will all go home happy and some money will change hands. Historically the pay offs to Apple Corps have been well worth the money to Apple Computer as they have been measured in the millions and I'd guess just considered a cost of doing business. In all the cases previous Apple has gotten to continue to do what they wanted. It will be interesting to see what happens!
As far as other companies copying the Apple 2 and the Mac, thats more complicated. Several companies DID clone the Apple 2. Some of them with Apple's blessing. In Europe a company called "Europlus" made one in a slightly different case and had Apple's permission to do so. There was another American company that did too, but I can't remember who it was. I used one in a programming class I took so many years ago I can't remember anything else about it. But it was not an Apple.
The Mac did something unusual, in that in addition to a simple bios they also burned a significant amount of the system libraries into ROM and placed this on the motherboard. Reverse engineering a simple bios like they did to clone a PC is a tiny project compared to trying to do an entire operating system library. They owned the copyright on this code and anybody that wanted to clone the Mac had to basically pirate it. Apple succeeded in court where IBM failed in defending their bios. One could argue that it was not the brightest thing Apple ever did to stop the clone makers, but you can't fault them for the legal action. It was all standard business practice and nothing evil.
Tomas
Banned
The biggest was Franklin Computer Corp. and their "Ace" series of computers, James. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Here's a link that has some good pics and a quick discussion of what happened to Franklin ...
Here's a link that has some good pics and a quick discussion of what happened to Franklin ...
James S
Flashlight Enthusiast
I received a very legally polite letter from Apple Legal once. Very early on in my shareware programming career I made the mistake of using a representation of a TINY little bit of their artwork for a specific product in a related product of mine...
They were only worried about the website, not the actual program. So I fixed it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I knew I was making it as a programmer once they took notice...
I think it's a shame that a modern american company has to waste so much money on lawers. But then I also think it's a shame that they waste so much money on an IT department to maintain all those Windows boxes /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
They were only worried about the website, not the actual program. So I fixed it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I knew I was making it as a programmer once they took notice...
I think it's a shame that a modern american company has to waste so much money on lawers. But then I also think it's a shame that they waste so much money on an IT department to maintain all those Windows boxes /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
