Apple Vs. Beatles

Yahoo! News reports, Beatles fan Steve Jobs could lose a large bite of his Apple to his idols. The Beatles' company, Apple Corps., is involved in a legal battle with Jobs' Apple Computer, claiming the hardware manufacturer is in breach of a 1991 agreement that forbids it from using the trademark for any application "whose principle content is music." The two companies have been involved in a number of court battles over the years involving the use of the Apple trademark.

Word among the legal community is that an out of court settlement could be imminent and that it will massively dwarf the $26.5 million paid to the Fab Four's company in 1991 in a row over trademark use. One lawyer told Daily Variety, "People are expecting this to be the biggest settlement anywhere in legal history, outside of a class action suit. The numbers could be mind boggling."

Earlier this year, the computer company failed in a bid to have the latest case heard in the United States, when a judge in London's High Court in London granted jurisdiction in the U.K. The litigation is seen as one of the main reasons behind Apple Corps. preventing the Beatles catalog of songs being made available on the computer company's iTunes song store.

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. Lord Grabiner and Daniel Toledano are acting for Apple Computer, while Geoffrey Vos and Daniel Alexander are representing Apple Corps.

Despite splitting in 1970, the Beatles interests are still administered by Apple Corps., which is owned by McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison.

An Apple Computer rep declined to comment on the pending litigation and pointed to an earlier statement that said the two companies have "differeing interpretations" of the agreement.

Comments

[Fozz!]

Simple explanaton - Apple Music, the Beatle's Label, once tried to sue Apple computers because they had used the same name, as thus customers might be confused. The court, quite rightly, said that the two companies were in totally different markets and thus confusion was highly unlikely.

Now however, as Apple computers is in the business of selling music (via the iTunes store) Apple the label is having another pop at sueing them.

Old news, this first kicked off a few months ago...

[Karl1569]

stupid apple music. they made billions off he beatles. they should stop being greedy. i hate greedy people.

[ChurchNSkate]

what the *** karl...stupid apple music? greedy? how is it greedy...they just want to make money, theres nothing wrong with that. and, its a differant business type. alright, theyre both in the music business now, but apple computers is in selling music, and apple music is in recording music, and producing it. who cares...one's famous, the other isnt. you know which is which.
macs>everyone else.

[americanxidiot]

its not like their trying to dig on the beatles companys money. They just happen to be selling music type stuff which is what the other company does. Its not actually about money... Well, It kinda is but thats not what Apple(the computer company)is doing it for. Its just confusion about who is who.

[marchoso]

spam deleted.

[Ender605]

It's Yoko Ono who's usually behind and law action in Apple. She's very touchy about anything John was involved in, and she's brought up suits in the past.

I seriously doubt Paul McCartney would become a board member. I think that's just a hopeful rumor.

[Fozz!]

Hi to everyone who got here from the macrumors.com linky BTW

[ad_lib_oz]

PS I use a mac too so I understand. I have been using them since I was born too so I'm pretty attached to them (as much as one can be attached to a company!)

[ad_lib_oz]

what the *** karl...stupid apple music? greedy? how is it greedy...they just want to make money, theres nothing wrong with that. and, its a differant business type. alright, theyre both in the music business now, but apple computers is in selling music, and apple music is in recording music, and producing it. who cares...one's famous, the other isnt. you know which is which.
macs>everyone else.

Man, he was talking about the Apple Music Corporation not Apple Computer...

jeezus...

[soundrock31]

although

stupid apple music. they made billions off he beatles. they should stop being greedy. i hate greedy people.

How can they be steeling money of the beatles when they're owned by the beatles?

[Idiota]

Apple music was founded in the 60s and Apple computer much later... why should they use the same name? Why screwing Apple music over, they were the first to have the name. How would you like to have a big firm and it's name very recognisable and then some other company uses the same name for it's own advertisment (because the name is already big)?!

It should be Macintosh and that's it!

[JLJohnson_21]

Idiota:It should be Macintosh and that's it!

No man, it should be Macintrash!

[fruit23]

I think that Apple Corp. shouldn't even fight, because they wouldn't have come up with the idea of ITunes.. and I also think that it shouldn't matter becuase they weren't putting the logo onto any cd case it was only on the internet... and i really dont believe that people are going to confuse apple corp and Apple computer with each other