[ghoti]

Apple Corps is suing Apple Computer

That lawsuit was really just waiting to happen, after Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business - and got into trouble with Apple Corps repeatedly. This time, though, it seems that Apple Corps is going to lose (from the description in the article, anyway). In any case, it's going to be interesting, and with iTunes' success, the stakes are certainly high.

[Kickaha]

Are they at it *AGAIN*?

Jesus, why don't they just go away??

[Ebby]

They need more money! Every time Apple settled but if they put their foot down, they may loose out big-time.

[Banana]

I'm confused- I thought this was settled.... The article sounds like there was an agreement in past, but I seem to recall a earlier court trial....

Anyway, kind of interesting concept- two bunch of people slugging it out for rights to call themselves a fruit....

[Kickaha]

Hell, the original lawsuit was silly as hell, in my opinion.

A UK company dealing in music sued a US company dealing in computers, when there was no possibility of confusion between the brand names. The fact that Apple Computers rolled over just set them up for these later problems.

[Banana]

Has there been other precedences?

I can't think of two other companies sharing the name but coexisting peacefully...

[709]

The companies clashed again in 1989 after Apple Computer introduced a music-making program. The computer company settled in 1991, for $26 million. Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on “creative works whose principal content is music” while Apple Computer was allowed “goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content”.

Apple Corps is fucked this time. Good riddance.

Oh, and Yoko? You're ugly.

[Banana]

It just struck me-

Which am I supposed to be compatible with?!?!?

I gonna find myself a therapist...... Hope Ms. Cherry is available...

[Bryson]

I hope they're sueing Fiona Apple, too. It's only fair.

[turbulentfurball]

What about these people?

http://www.apple.co.uk

You'd think Apple Computer would have snagged that one.

[FFL]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Are they at it *AGAIN*? Jesus, why don't they just go away??

This is the same lawsuit we first heard of many months ago. It's only back in the news because the trial is actually starting soon.

[Windowsrookie]

or http://www.apple.org

[iCraig]

Funnily enough I was discussing this issue in Liverpool on friday, when my brother a casual beatles fan spotted the the granny smith apple on a t-shirt in the Beatles museum thing and asked what the hell the connection was.

In my opinion if you say Apple to anyone other than a diehard Beatles fan they think of Mac's and iPods, not the holding company Apple Corps, whom are a total nobody and really always have been.

And the Times pretty much answers the case on their site;

The companies clashed again in 1989 after Apple Computer introduced a music-making program. The computer company settled in 1991, for $26 million. Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on “creative works whose principal content is music” while Apple Computer was allowed “goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content”. Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. This was designed to cover CDs and tapes, but it is unclear whether it included later inventions such as digital music files or devices used to play them.

Erm so, actually Apple haven't broken the original agreement anyway, cos they haven't distributed on any physical media cos last time I looked I can't physically touch an MP3 or AAC file and the iPod is just a playing device which is included in the original agreement.

Your going down Apple Corps! This time your not dealing with a small pushover company or an easy sugar water salesman.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Hell, the original lawsuit was silly as hell, in my opinion. A UK company dealing in music sued a US company dealing in computers, when there was no possibility of confusion between the brand names. The fact that Apple Computers rolled over just set them up for these later problems.

That is pretty shoddy analysis. Who cares that one is a UK company and another a US company? If a UK company started selling shoes called Nikes, I think Nike would have a good reason to be pissed. As to the fact that Apple sells computers, that's what the f---ing lawsuit is about! Apple sells music as well if you didn't notice. Don't know enough about this to offer any substantive analysis, but as I recall, Apple promised in 1991 to stay out of the music business in settlement of a breach of contract action arising out of a previous contract between the companies regarding use of the name. Also remember that Jobs admits that the name for Apple Computer was inspired by Apple Corps.

Take a break from drinking the Jobs Kool-Aid and remember that companies are supposed to keep their promises. Apple Corps is well in their rights to sue.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by iCraig In my opinion if you say Apple to anyone other than a diehard Beatles fan they think of Mac's and iPods, not the holding company Apple Corps, whom are a total nobody and really always have been.

Irrelevant. Suppose you are a small production company known only to a small group of people called Dreamwerks (not a typo). Then along comes another company started by Steven Spielberg called DreamWorks. All the hard work you put into creating your name is now going to be overwhelmed by the bigger company, and you are screwed. Your brand is being destroyed. You have a case. In fact, that was a real case.

Originally Posted by iCraig Erm so, actually Apple haven't broken the original agreement anyway, cos they haven't distributed on any physical media cos last time I looked I can't physically touch an MP3 or AAC file and the iPod is just a playing device which is included in the original agreement. Your going down Apple Corps! This time your not dealing with a small pushover company or an easy sugar water salesman.

Umm, sometimes the newspapers don't get all the facts straight, and if they were as straightforward as you think, the London High Court wouldn't be bothering. These are difficult issues. Again people: Apple makes the best computers, best operating system, and best portable music players of any company on earth. Does that mean that everything Apple does is correct? No. Again, I don't know enough about this issue to offer a full opinion on this, but take a break from drinking the Jobs Kool-Aid and consider for a minute that, perhaps, Apple may be in the wrong on something. . . .

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald Apple sells music as well if you didn't notice.

Though, Apple didn't sell any music or music software 25 years ago, in 1981, the time of the original lawsuit to which I believe Kickaha referred. That's the silly lawsuit for which Apple Computer should not have caved so easily. The companies were of completely different industries; yet, Apple Corps was suing for trademark infringement over the use of the name "Apple" in "Apple Computer, Inc."

Apple is a common noun in the English language, though. This would be like if some floundering "Capital Mattress Outlet" business that hadn't had any major sales in ten years decided to sue the growing giant "Capital One" bank over the use of the word "Capital". It's just as preposterous.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald That is pretty shoddy analysis. Who cares that one is a UK company and another a US company? If a UK company started selling shoes called Nikes, I think Nike would have a good reason to be pissed. As to the fact that Apple sells computers, that's what the f---ing lawsuit is about! Apple sells music as well if you didn't notice. Don't know enough about this to offer any substantive analysis,

But enough to call mine shoddy? Riiiiiiiight.

but as I recall, Apple promised in 1991 to stay out of the music business in settlement of a breach of contract action arising out of a previous contract between the companies regarding use of the name. Also remember that Jobs admits that the name for Apple Computer was inspired by Apple Corps.

Wow, what a load of shite.

1) At the time of the original suit (1981), Apple did not sell music. They sold computers. Period. Apple Corps sued them anyway *ONLY* because of the word 'Apple'. That's all. THAT suit was without merit, and idiotic. What was even more idiotic was Apple Computer caved and gave them money to go away, thereby setting a precedent for further extortion.

2) When Apple put a sound-synth capable chip in the Mac II (1991), Apple Corps came at them again, and this time, Apple Computer paid them $26M in a settlement (never went to court), and agreed through a contract, not to engage in selling music by *any physical media*. Read the terms yourself, they're floating around the web a lot these days. Again, Apple Computer *was not selling music at the time*. Apple Corps just got pissy because the Mac II had a freaking sound chip in it that could play back MIDI. That was it. Another idiotic money-grubbing suit.

3) The current lawsuit is *SOLELY* based on contract law, and that 1991 agreement from #2. Apple Corps claims that, somehow, downloads violate the physical media clause, even though in that contract, Apple Computer retained all rights to distribution by electronic means. Ie, the net. ie, iTMS. Apple Corps really has a weak argument here, and this time I hope it goes right to trial so it can be finished once and for all.

4) Jobs has never 'admitted' anything of the sort to the best of my knowledge. Please cite a reputable reference. A direct quote would be best.

Take a break from drinking the Jobs Kool-Aid and remember that companies are supposed to keep their promises. Apple Corps is well in their rights to sue.

They're within their rights to lose their asses on this one too, and I hope they do. It's been a string of ego-driven whining from the get-go. But I guess Yoko needs more money, so bend over Apple Computer.

Edit: Dammit Brad!

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by Kickaha 4) Jobs has never 'admitted' anything of the sort to the best of my knowledge. Please cite a reputable reference. A direct quote would be best.

How's this?

I was actually a fruitarian at that point in time. I ate only fruit. Now I'm a garbage can like everyone else. And we were about three months late in filing a fictitious business name so I threatened to call the company Apple Computer unless someone suggested a more interesting name by five o'clock that day. Hoping to stimulate creativity. And it stuck. And that's why we're called Apple.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Not that Mr Jobs is a horse. From the German wikipedia article on Apple

linky

I think this disproves Mac Donald's assumption.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball I think this disproves Mac Donald's assumption.

Thank you, that's precisely the quote I was thinking of, and couldn't remember enough of to google for it. But, y'know, I didn't want to make any baseless claims...

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Kickaha 1) At the time of the original suit (1981), Apple did not sell music. They sold computers. Period. Apple Corps sued them anyway *ONLY* because of the word 'Apple'. That's all. THAT suit was without merit, and idiotic. What was even more idiotic was Apple Computer caved and gave them money to go away, thereby setting a precedent for further extortion.

You do not need to be in the "same" or "similar" industry to sue over the use of a trademark. Rather, among other things, a company can sue on the belief that one company will in due course expand into a similar industry or that technologies associated with the two industries are such that they will eventually converge. Apple Corps. was right (in retrospect at least) to believe that those in the computer industry would eventually expand into music. Indeed, in 1981, there was already indications that this could happen in due course. Using computers to create music, edit music and record music was not unheard of --- just a few years later, digital music and the CD entered the scene to revolutionize the industry.

With all due respect to Brad, the use of the term "Capital" is completely inapt. The word "capital" is commonly used in company and brand names as a suggestive term -- i.e., it suggests that a company is a "primary" or "central" player -- the "capital" player in a certain industry if you will.

The word "apple" is a common word, but it is used to describe a fruit from the Apple Tree. It is not used to describe companies, or to suggest a certain characteristic in companies. Rather, it is a completely random word when used to describe a computer or music company. In fact, the US Supreme Court has used this example of "Apple" as used to describe a computer company as an example of a trademark using a common word in an uncommon way -- thus having a strong or distinctive value. The stronger or more distinctive the mark, the broader the protection afforded by trademark law.

In short, there was nothing remotely frivolous about Apple Corp's suit in 1981. It owned a distinctive mark and thus had broad protection for it. A reasonable person at the time could have foreseen that computers and music would begin to converge to some degree -- and in fact that reasonable person would have been right. Apple Computer got out of that nonfrivolous suit by making certain promises throughout the years -- they have to keep those promises. You may not like that this is the law, but it is the law. Again, I don't know if Apple Corp's suit today ultimately has merit, and I don't know if the suit in 1981 would have ultimately been successful, but it is absurd to say that Apple Corp is just being "blackmailers" or whatever. The Steves could have picked a bazillion names for their company; they didn't have to purposely choose a name that was already in use by another company. They have to take the costs of making that choice.

[Kickaha]

So let me get this straight.

No company, anywhere on the globe, is allowed to use the same name as any other company on the globe, regardless of the fields those companies are in.

You obviously haven't looked in a phone book recently.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald You do not need to be in the "same" or "similar" industry to sue over the use of a trademark. Rather, among other things, a company can sue on the belief that one company will in due course expand into a similar industry or that technologies associated with the two industries are such that they will eventually converge. Apple Corps. was right (in retrospect at least) to believe that those in the computer industry would eventually expand into music. Indeed, in 1981, there was already indications that this could happen in due course. Using computers to create music, edit music and record music was not unheard of --- just a few years later, digital music and the CD entered the scene to revolutionize the industry.

Please explain to me why there should be any consumer confusion over "this Apple company produces computers that can be used to create and enjoy music" vs. "this Apple company creates music, or, uh, rather, hasn't in decades".

[ghoti]

Apple should just change its name to Appl or AAPL or Applr and be done with it!

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Kickaha No company, anywhere on the globe, is allowed to use the same name as any other company on the globe, regardless of the fields those companies are in.

Indeed, Kickaha.

So, who do we think should win the lawsuit battle for the name "Banana"?

Banana Republic?
Banana Bungalow Hostels USA?
Banana Beach Resort?
Banana Factory?
Deep Banana Blackout?
Banana Accounting?
BananaShoes?
Banana Boat?
Banana Bank Lodge?
Bananas in Pyjamas?
BANANA FISH ZERO?
Banana Leaf Malaysian Restaurant?
Montana Banana?
Banana Wind?
Banana Adventure Tours?
Banana Cabaret?
Banana Patch Studio?
The Banana Patch?
Banana Leaf Holdings Ltd.?
King Banana?
Banana Junction Toys?
Blue Banana Designs?
Banana Girl?
Top Banana?
Digital Banana?
Banana Tree Restaurant?
Banana Park?
Banana Bay Marina?
Banana Sunset Villa?
Banana Productions?
Banana Fan Sea Samui Koh Samui?
Banana Twins?
Hot Banana?
Banana Slug?

There's a lot of overlap between several completely unrelated industries in various countries. Man, the lawyers are going to have a heyday with this one!!

[DMBand0026]

Ah! It's teh end of teh world!!!1one!

I think you're making much too big a deal out of this Mac Donald. Yes, Apple Computers and Apple Corps have the same first name, even the same initials, but suing over a name like that is asinine. Brad hit the nail right on the head there, go to your phone book, look up pretty much anything and you'll be hard pressed to find a not so common name being used by more than one company, even in a local area.

If a consumer can be confused about the difference between a music production company and computer company, they're the ones who deserve to be sued.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald You do not need to be in the "same" or "similar" industry to sue over the use of a trademark.

Well no, because any idiot can bring a suit at any time. To have a prayer of winning in a court, however, you do. Look up the trademark law on uspto.gov. It specifically requests, for each trademark, a scope of goods and services. If someone uses the trademark for something outside that scope, they're in the clear. Otherwise, if it were as you say, every company on the planet would have to have a unique name. That's obviously not the case.

Rather, among other things, a company can sue on the belief that one company will in due course expand into a similar industry or that technologies associated with the two industries are such that they will eventually converge. Apple Corps. was right (in retrospect at least) to believe that those in the computer industry would eventually expand into music.

1) ANY idiot can claim things in retrospect. Next?

2) That wasn't the basis of the original suit.

Indeed, in 1981, there was already indications that this could happen in due course. Using computers to create music, edit music and record music was not unheard of --- just a few years later, digital music and the CD entered the scene to revolutionize the industry.

*Looks into wayback machine*

*Sees artists still making music on instruments*

*Sees physical media still being shipped to stores*

Nope, sorry, no revolution there. Oh, did you mean the internet? Exactly how did Apple cause that to happen again? And gee, looky there... they have that nice exemption clause in the 1991 settlement contract for electronic, non-physical distribution. Game. Set. Match.

Apple Computer got out of that *cough* suit by making certain promises throughout the years -- they have to keep those promises.

See, here's the funny thing.

They did.

Remember the U2 iPod? Remember how people were annoyed that the music wasn't preloaded, and you still had to download it? Now I wonder why that might be...

History of the suits in a nutshell:

Apple Corps: Hey! You're called Apple too? Waaaaaaaah! We're called Apple! Waaaaaah!

Apple Computer: Here, take some money and go away please.

Corps: *sniff* Okay, but you gotta stay on your side of the fence. No selling music.

Comp: Okay.

Corps: You're selling music by putting a music-synth chip in your computers! Waaaaaaaah!

Comp: No, we're not.

Corps: Well, I want money anyway.

Comp: *Fine*. Here's 8 figures.

Corps: Oh, and you can't sell any physical media music.

Comp: No problem.

Corps: Waaaaaaah! You're selling music!

Comp: Yes, but not on physical media, that was the agreement. See? No physical media. We get to sell playback devices, and distribute electronically, you said so.

Corps: But... but... I want some of that cash now! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Comp: Tough noogies.

Corps: I'm telling Teacher!

[DMBand0026]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Nope, sorry, no revolution there. Oh, did you mean the internet? Exactly how did Apple cause that to happen again? And gee, looky there... they have that nice exemption clause in the 1991 settlement contract for electronic, non-physical distribution. Game. Set. Match. See, here's the funny thing. They did.

Man, Al Gore is going to be so pissed off when he finds out Apple is taking credit for the internet!

I smell a lawsuit. After all, Apple and Al both start with an A. I'm confused, is Apple a computer company, or a government? Or is it a computer that makes governments?


[homer]
"I don't know, it's a company that makes computers, or a computer that makes companies."
[/homer]

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Kickaha No company, anywhere on the globe, is allowed to use the same name as any other company on the globe, regardless of the fields those companies are in. You obviously haven't looked in a phone book recently.

First sign you've lost an argument on the merits: completely misrepresent what I stated (that "No company, anywhere on the globe, is allowed to use the same name as any other company on the globe, regardless of the fields those companies are in") and then proceed to refute the misrepresented argument. This is called a strawman argument -- take an opponent's argument, turn it into an extreme, unnuanced position -- a strawman -- and then refute this strawman. Nice try.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Look up the trademark law on uspto.gov. It specifically requests, for each trademark, a scope of goods and services. If someone uses the trademark for something outside that scope, they're in the clear.

You have no idea what you are talking about. None.

I practice patent, trademark and copyright law and represent several high-tech clients --- some of my colleauges have represented Apple in trademark prosecution before the PTO. I will tell you that if I ever told a client that "if someone uses the trademark for something outside that scope, they're in the clear" I would be laughed at. If a client was actually dumb enough to take the advice, I would be sued for malpractice, and I would lose.

[FFL]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald Again, I don't know enough about this issue to offer a full opinion on this

You don't say?