Off Topic Messages

The Beatles and Apple face off in court

Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:09 pm

The Beatles and Apple face off in court

Wednesday Mar 29 22:35 AEDT
The Beatles and Apple Computer are set to face off in court on Wednesday in a trademark dispute triggered by Apple's move into the music business through its popular iPod player and iTunes download service.

Apple Corps Ltd, owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison, has sued Apple Computer twice before over the companies' competing fruit logos.

The latest settlement in 1991 resulted in a $26 million payment by Apple Computer and an agreement to limit its participation in the music business.

Apple Corps claims that Apple Computer's prominent position in the music industry, with more than 1 billion songs sold online through the iTunes Music Store, violates that agreement.


Apple Computer has also sold some 14 million iPods, helping to transform how people listen to music. Judge Edward Mann, who is hearing the case in London's High Court, is a self-professed iPod user.

The Beatles, through Apple Corps, have thus far refused to license any of their recordings for sale through online music services. Fans have speculated that a negotiated settlement between the companies could result in Beatles songs being sold through iTunes.

Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:51 pm

The dispute over the apple fruit image seems silly. When was the last time the Apple Records label even put out a record? 1972? It's a long-gone dead company; a dead logo.

Seems to me, that Apple Computer should win out in this. It's not an entity/company of a bygone era, it's now and it's tomorrow. Even if iPod can't stockpile Beatle songs for users, there are many ways online to get Beatles audio.

Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:47 pm

Weren't the Beatles anthology cd releases on the apple label?

Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:52 pm

Liverbobs wrote:Weren't the Beatles anthology cd releases on the apple label?


Both '1' [2000] and 'Let It Be - Naked' [2003] were on Apple.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:41 am

The whole thing sounds bananas to me.... :lol:

Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:04 am

Neither apple has put out a lemon! :)

Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:06 am

EagleUSA wrote:The whole thing sounds bananas to me.... :lol:

Yeah thats what it sounds like to to (bananas) :lol: :lol:

Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:49 am

Liverbobs wrote:Weren't the Beatles anthology cd releases on the apple label?

ColinB wrote:Both '1' [2000] and 'Let It Be - Naked' [2003] were on Apple.

Both correct -- and all were MASSIVE sellers.

So nice to see informed commentary -- it's getting scarce around these parts.

DJC

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:28 am

ColinB wrote:
Liverbobs wrote:Weren't the Beatles anthology cd releases on the apple label?


Both '1' [2000] and 'Let It Be - Naked' [2003] were on Apple.



Beatles' Apple is just an inconsequential vanity label. And a prehistoric apple logo at that! But every few years, as Colin noted, the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ - and on those new releases, they stick a li'l green apple on it (along with logos for EMI, Sony etc and a barcode) and really, big deal.

Apple Computer has more recognition, viability, and shelf life.

It would be wise that the Judge rules in favor of the ahead-of-the-curve computer co. and not some old pop dinosaurs.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:56 am

Couldn't Granny Smith sue both of them!!! :wink:




:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:36 am

Jesse Garon wrote:... the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ ...

If their catalog is "old ancient," Elvis' must be real "fossil fuel" material, eh?

And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.

Thanks for the laughter.

DJC

Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:39 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Jesse Garon wrote:... the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ ...

If their catalog is "old ancient," Elvis' must be real "fossil fuel" material, eh?

And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.

Thanks for the laughter.

DJC


why must you feel the need to insult Elvis in order to show up someone who posts something ignorant about the Beatles?

Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:42 am

Kylan wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Jesse Garon wrote:... the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ ...

If their catalog is "old ancient," Elvis' must be real "fossil fuel" material, eh?

And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.

Thanks for the laughter.

DJC


why must you feel the need to insult Elvis in order to show up someone who posts something ignorant about the Beatles?


My thoughts as I read it also Kylan.


8)

Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:32 am

Kylan wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Jesse Garon wrote:... the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ ...

If their catalog is "old ancient," Elvis' must be real "fossil fuel" material, eh?

And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.

Thanks for the laughter.

DJC


why must you feel the need to insult Elvis in order to show up someone who posts something ignorant about the Beatles?


I agree, insulting Elvis is wrong, you jerk.

Incidentally, Kylan, I didn't post something "ignorant about the Beatles".
I posted a very informed and sarcastic assesment of their irrelevent Apple logo product which - when used - is just more of their regurgitated hits/songs/outtakes. They don't necessitate the need for an exclusive Apple logo (ie. no one else can have an apple) when they really don't use their "apple" much at all except on repackaging their oldies!


:lol: Besides, as I understand it, the 1960s Apple Corp. Electronics division was a joke that wasted Beatle money and produced dazzling crap like the nothing box (see Elvis' film LALAL for one just like it). :lol:

If only one company can have an apple, Apple Computers is the real deal and relevent. Not a defunct record label.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:40 am

Kylan wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Jesse Garon wrote:... the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ ...

If their catalog is "old ancient," Elvis' must be real "fossil fuel" material, eh?

And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.

Thanks for the laughter.

DJC


why must you feel the need to insult Elvis in order to show up someone who posts something ignorant about the Beatles?


I've never been one to take sides and am not going to start now. However, I don't see an insult to Elvis in any way. The comment merely suggests that Elvis' professional career started nearly 10 years before anyone knew who the Beatles were, hence the "fossil" comment.

That's how I see it anyway.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:45 am

This part Doc wrote:
And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.
is an insult toward Elvis being dead (and needing no money) like John and George.

Just last week Doc, simultaneously, defended the Beatles and insulted Elvis "Mr. Soundtrack". He always attacks Elvis while worshipping his Beatles.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:45 am

Rob wrote:
Kylan wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
Jesse Garon wrote:... the band regurgitates part of their old ancient music catalog - they need the $ ...

If their catalog is "old ancient," Elvis' must be real "fossil fuel" material, eh?

And it's certain John and George "need the $" about as much as Elvis does.

Thanks for the laughter.

DJC


why must you feel the need to insult Elvis in order to show up someone who posts something ignorant about the Beatles?


I've never been one to take sides and am not going to start now. However, I don't see an insult to Elvis in any way. The comment merely suggests that Elvis' professional career started nearly 10 years before anyone knew who the Beatles were, hence the "fossil" comment.

That's how I see it anyway.



You are, of course, correct.

Kylan, you never stop amazing the rest of us with your "amazing", comments...

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:15 pm

well im glad you think im amazing as well as Sam and Jesse! don't you ever have anything to say besides digging at me? i know we go way back, when I indeed had interesting things to say. unfortunately if you are observant, most of this bunch sours my experience as an Elvis fan. You being one are just a bunch of sad sacks who are a bunch of losers that make being an Elvis fan a rather miserable experience. btw, thank Rob for paving the way for ur snide comment otherwise i doubt u would have gone out on a limb.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:34 pm

I think this is silliness on the part of the Apple record label, too. No one is going to assume that Apple Computers is owned or has anything to do with the record label, and it's hard to confuse the two since their logos are very different. While it's true that none of the former Beatles need money, this does seem like a rather opportunistic attempt to capitalize on Apple Computer's recent successes with iTunes (which is the internet's third largest online store). Anyway, Apple records will probably win, but I won't agree with that decision. If I were the judge I would tell both parties that they should have picked a more inventive logo if they wanted the ability to sue over it.

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:47 pm

KingOfTheJungle wrote: Anyway, Apple records will probably win, but I won't agree with that decision. If I were the judge I would tell both parties that they should have picked a more inventive logo if they wanted the ability to sue over it.


I wouldn't agree with the out-dated record label winning either. Their Apple Corp is irrelevent in this day and age and that precious "apple" of theirs only shows up on their own vanity releases (1, Anthology, etc)

Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:02 pm

Jesse Garon wrote:I wouldn't agree with the out-dated record label winning either.

Of course you wouldn't.

And so the laughter turns to tears ... of embarassment.

Have you checked out "Chat-Talk"? Please do.

DJC

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:46 am

Kylan wrote:well im glad you think im amazing as well as Sam and Jesse! don't you ever have anything to say besides digging at me? i know we go way back, when I indeed had interesting things to say. unfortunately if you are observant, most of this bunch sours my experience as an Elvis fan. You being one are just a bunch of sad sacks who are a bunch of losers that make being an Elvis fan a rather miserable experience. btw, thank Rob for paving the way for ur snide comment otherwise i doubt u would have gone out on a limb.



Kylan, Kylan...No need to be uncivilized.

If you really think that the Doc:s comments where in anyway/shape/form an insult...You need to get out with real people and leave EP for awhile. Get some distance.
I´m just trying to help you...

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:53 am

Woodleyjohn is right (and me too)

Say "Apple" and 6 billion people will think computers/ipods.

A mere few million retiring baby boomers will think Beatles label.


:lol:

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Have you checked out "Chat-Talk"? Please do.

DJC


Hey! Are you trying to segregate members here based on your own discriminations? What a bigoted cracker you are, Doc, behind that phony liberal facade.

Tue May 09, 2006 9:42 am

Sad day for hippies.
New Report:

Beatles LOSE THE LAWSUIT (but they plan to appeal)


"Apple Records is only good for two things.
One, collecting royalties for Beatles music and two, suing people."
- a spokesman on camera


Apple Computers can keep their apple logo



Who's next?

Beatles suing Applebee's Restaurant over their apple logo ?!?!?!?!

Image

stay tuned!!!!!

:twisted:

Tue May 09, 2006 10:10 am

This gettin more and more suspicious, my BS detector is going off big time here. :lol:

JEFF d
EP fan