Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · May 8, 2006, 05:05 AM

They won - read here.

lavar78 · May 8, 2006, 05:14 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah!

moonmonkey · May 8, 2006, 05:37 AM

great news! I thought they would loose.

Cody Dawg · May 8, 2006, 06:02 AM

I didn't. It was a silly lawsuit, don't you think?

Kevin · May 8, 2006, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

great news! I thought they would loose.

Now here come the lose/loose rants.

moonmonkey · May 8, 2006, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Now here come the lose/loose rants.

it was a spelling mistake, I hope I didn't upset anywon.

Dork. · May 8, 2006, 06:30 AM

With any luck, this settlement will put to rest the rumors that Steve Jobs was involved in the morotcycle accident that killed Paul McCartney in 1969....

Cody Dawg · May 8, 2006, 06:51 AM

...and now they can go after little girls again.

moonmonkey · May 8, 2006, 07:35 AM

Apple Computer get all court costs paid by the accuser.
That will make Apple Corps think twice about persisting with this fruitless case.

baw · May 8, 2006, 07:42 AM

SHouldn't that be Beatles lose lawsuit against Apple? Apple wasn't suing from what I understand.

Cody Dawg · May 8, 2006, 07:46 AM

Yeah, you're correct, baw.

It should have been "Apple Prevails In Beatles Lawsuit."

Oh well.

zro · May 8, 2006, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

Apple Computer get all court costs paid by the accuser.
That will make Apple Corps think twice about persisting with this fruitless case.

I'd rather see them ink an iTunes Music Store deal than get paid money.

His Dudeness · May 8, 2006, 09:42 AM

Fruitless? I doubt it. To this day, I still get confused about the two logos. I mean, I've been using Apple Computer products since the introduction of the Apple //. I've NEVER heard of Apple Corps...

Cody Dawg · May 8, 2006, 09:47 AM

Did you catch the pun? "FRUITless?"

ghporter · May 8, 2006, 09:55 AM

The whole thing comes down to interpretation. Apple Corps thought that their original agreement long ago meant that Apple Computer could not digitally distribute music. The court disagreed. This is often what civil actions are about; clarifying issues that are ambiguous because of progress.

And actually Apple wins its defense against a suit broght by Apple Corps. It did not win an action it brought, and it was defending against a company that, while started by The Beatles is not The Beatles. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer...it's kinda important to keep the direction these things go in mind.

Big Mac · May 8, 2006, 12:31 PM

Not quite, Glenn, Apple Corp. is The Beatles, or the Beatles and their survivors. It's still their company, insofar as the company is controlled by Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia Harrison.

It appears that Apple Corp's claim rested on their assertion that Apple was acting as a record label, which it is not. Apple is not a record label even in its capacity of distributing music online. Everyone knows Apple inks deals with the record labels. So Apple Corp's claim was meritless from that standpoint. Now if, on the other hand, Apple intends to sign its own talent at some point in the future and place said band's album on iTMS as exclusive content, Apple Corp would probably have a stronger claim.

Salty · May 8, 2006, 12:51 PM

So glad this is closer to over.

Nodnarb · May 8, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Wired Article

Though Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs said he was "glad to put this disagreement behind us," the case appears far from over. Neil Aspinall, the manager of Apple Corps, said his company would immediately appeal.

They need to just drop it. They know it's a stupid case, fought and lost, and now they're trying again? That's insane.

The article also said Steve hopes this will help get the Beatles on iTunes. Apple Corps. needs to give up, put their songs on iTunes, and be done with this whole thing.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...rss.technology

Monique · May 8, 2006, 04:13 PM

By the time Apple computer came to be, Apple records were dead and buried.

ghporter · May 8, 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Not quite, Glenn, Apple Corp. is The Beatles, or the Beatles and their survivors. It's still their company, insofar as the company is controlled by Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia Harrison.

While they control the company, it's a separate entity. The corporate execs at Apple Corps decided to file the suit. It's not like Ringo and Paul got together one night over a couple of stouts and got mad at Apple Computer's success with iTunes. That was my point, though I obviously didn't make it very well.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It appears that Apple Corp's claim rested on their assertion that Apple was acting as a record label, which it is not. Apple is not a record label even in its capacity of distributing music online. Everyone knows Apple inks deals with the record labels. So Apple Corp's claim was meritless from that standpoint. Now if, on the other hand, Apple intends to sign its own talent at some point in the future and place said band's album on iTMS as exclusive content, Apple Corp would probably have a stronger claim.

I think the Apple Computer suits are very careful to avoid any "exclusive distribution" deals precisely because of this. They may have some exclusive digital distribution deals, but that's not the same at all, primarily because it's (as you say) a deal with a record label.

Eriamjh · May 8, 2006, 08:37 PM

What's interesting is that the terms of the 1991 settlement had to be made public for this suit to go through. One of those terms was that Apple was allowed transmission of music (Apple Corps was probably thinking like broadcasting or just playback). Fast forward 10 years, enter the iPod, in 2003 enter the iTunes store. Now AC is pissed and they pushed for an interpretation in their favor. They lost. I'm surprised it only cost them $2 million (or is that pounds?).