the greed that is the beatles

[rhythm ranch]

Blue,
I think you answered your own question...

music is money... how can they be expected not to go after it?

[KingOlaf]

Seems like Apple Computers have a lot of money to give away and the will to do so.

[I'm Painting Again]

yeah. theres something that doent make sense here..they said he was a fan too..

[wing]

well i'm not trying to make jobs sound like a defenseless little bunny, please don't pick on him. i just think it's a really really really stupid reason to sue, and the only reason you would really do it is to have more money.

isn't apple COMPUTER different from apple RECORDS?

i've known "apples in stereo" to be referred to often as just "the apples". funny thing is, they have a sound very closely and obviously influenced by the beatles. and apple records releases albums produced in stereo. so why not sue those bastards? because that would be ridiculous? yea, of course it would.

i'm no lawyer, but it seems to me there is a difference between naming your company after a fruit and naming your company obviously after another company. for example, if i were to go and name a company of mine "mcdonald's", but promise not to deal in food... it would seem to be obvious that the name was stolen and confusing to customers.

but apple computer vs. apple records? i dunno... i still just think that's ridiculous, and that they should live together in harmony because both companies have too much damn money anyway, and they should just give it to me so i can go buy up a house on an island and build a dream studio in it.

if you represent either of these companies, please write checks payable to bluepxl, inc.

[JES]

I feel bad for the 216 people named in the RIAA lawsuit. I have a hard time feeling bad for Apple Computer. You know THEY'D sue someone if another company started using Apple or their logo. It's clearly a calculated move.

As for the Ipod, it may be expensive, but damn is it cool (in that "neato consumer electronics" sort of way). AAC sounds MUCH better than mp3 and I like being able to carry around my CD collection.

Bes,t
--JES

[rob]

if you give 'em an inch, they will always take more.
from what i know of business ,on all levels (which probably isn't much),
you are looking for an edge. morals are thrown out the window by most.
these lawsuits are merely ways to keep all of the "idea guys" in check.
paranoia rules. a million dollars is still a huge amount of money, even to a company worth billions.
i agree with jes, "it's clearly a calculated move"

[stevemoss]

According to one article, part of the reason Steve Jobs chose "apple" for the name of his little computer company back in the day was because he's a fan of the Beatles.

Sadly, when more than one company exists that uses the same name, a lawsuit is bound to occur. These suits usually are done to protect trademarked company names/logos from being diluted.

In the case of Apple Corps & Apple Computers, they originally settled back in 1981, saying the Apple Computers would stick to computer products only (since they wouldn't really be infringing on Apple Corps' main industry). At the time, nobody counted on the crossover way computers would enter everyones' lives, but technology developed quickly. Apple Corps steped in again in 1991, saying Apple Computers violated the original agreement by putting the Apple Computers name/logo on music synthesizing products. That suit was settled but the terms were kept confidential.

A few months ago when the i-tunes Store first opened, I remember people wondered whether that action was going to bring another lawsuit. I'm honestly not surprised - there's becoming a real trademark overlap here, and it's not a thing of music becoming digital or computers becoming musical - diverse industries are moving into new media simultaneously.

Unfortunately, in this case, you've got two companies - both named "Apple" who both use a picture of an apple as their logo - running headlong into the same technological intersection of music and computing (for digital music distribution)... but one's been around 35 years longer.

[rtopia]

very eloquently put stevemoss...

Two pages of moralizing about which of the Apples have a right to sue because they're rich and greedy - I was beginning to wonder if anyone had a clue.

I'm surprised someone didn't get around to blaming the whole thing on Microsoft.

- r

ps.
if anyone thinks the iPod is overpriced - keep in mind there are plenty of competing mp3 players out there with just as much space at lower prices.

Oh yeah - that's right - the iPod is cool enough to make you want it more than those : )

[supafuzz]

uh hello..apple corps have nothing to do with the Beatles them selves except they probably pay em royalties..do think they called paul ringo and yoko to get their blessing...

I could be wrong but it's a corporation run by guys in suits that make their own decisions..

and fuck apple computer if they had an agreement they broke...

[TapeOpLarry]

I do believe that long-time Beatle assistant Neil Aspinal heads Apple Corp these days, though I'm sure the people that make these sorts of decisions are lawyers. Most times a lawsuit such as this is entered as a formality in order for corporations to protect their interests. I'll bet it gets settled out of court and a few lines of legal speak are clarified and some $ changes hands and we hear no more...

[Catoogie]

You're right Larry, Apple is run by Neil Aspinal and that guy has been with or around the band forever. I'm positive the surviving Beatles know exactly what's going on, it's their company, they (Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia) make the decisions. The corporation has every right to defend it's interests, so when there's a breach of contract the lawyers get to work. Uh hello....

[wayne kerr]

Blu,

isn't apple COMPUTER different from apple RECORDS?

You just hit the nail on the head! When Apple computer was selling computers, Apple records said, "OK. you can use the name Apple just as long as you don't ever get into the business of selling music."

What's Apple computer doing now?

Agreement broken. Beatle fan Steve Jobs probably has more money than the surviving Beatles do now anyway. Like vultures to a rotting corpse, the lawyers descend.

Cheers!

[Bony Thompson]

why is Yoko Ono involved in this anyhow? she's not a beetle.

[A.L.]

Beatles legally now = Yoko Ono, Ringo, Paul and the "Harrison Estate", says the local paper.

[bobbydj]

If she's not careful she'll get sued by Egg Online Banking.

Geddit - "Yolko"!!

Hahaha - Oh god. C'mon people.To be fair, I am pretty fucking funny.