fry@brauer.harvard.edu (David Fry) (02/23/89)
[The following is from the AP newswire service, and is copyrighted by the Associate Press. I hope no one sues me.] APf 02/22 0751 Beatles-Apple Computer Copyright, 1989. The Associated Press. All rights reserved. CUPERTINO, Calif. (AP) -- The company representing the disbanded Beatles has sued Apple Computer Inc. challenging its use of the "apple" trademark on some of its products, a newspaper reported. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in London, Apple Corps Ltd. accused the Silicon Valley computer company of violating a secret 1981 agreement under which the Beatles' company allowed Apple Computer to use the trademark on computer products, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. The agreement retained the right of Apple Corps to use the fruit as a trademark in its music business, and Apple Computer promised not to enter that field, according to the Chronicle, which said a draft copy of the lawsuit was filed in the chancery division of Britain's High Court of Justice. Over the past few years, however, the computer company has developed top-selling new hardware with music synthesizing capabilities, and the Beatles' company claims those products break Apple Computer's promise. The lawsuit asks the court for an injunction to bar Apple Computer from breaching the agreement and seeks unspecified damages, legal fees and interest. The computer company, however, does not believe it is in breach of the agreement, a company spokeswoman said. But company officials would not comment in detail on the suit because they had not yet seen it, she said. Under the agreement reached in November 1981, Apple Computer, founded in 1977, paid the Beatles an unknown amount for the right to keep using its famous apple trademark. Apple Corps had been founded ten years earlier and its activities included releases under the Apple label and a chain of clothing stores. Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple Computer, said on Tuesday he was not aware of the agreement. "I never heard anything about a fuss over the name," said Wozniak, who is no longer associated with Apple Computer. The other co-founder was Steve Jobs and some company histories trace the name to his recollections of working in the Oregon apple country where he became convinced apples are a perfect food. The Beatles pop group broke up in 1970, but the London-based company still represents the busines interests of the three surviving members of the Beatles and the estate of the late John Lennon. Wayne Cooper, a San Francisco lawyer representing the Beatles' company in the dispute, said negotiations between Apple Corps and the computer company broke down at a meeting in London Feb. 13. David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
lauac@wheeler.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) (02/23/89)
It's a little early for April Fool's Day.
If this really happened, I don't know whether to laugh or get angry
at someone, and if I wanted to get angry at someone I wouldn't know
who to get angry at.
--- Alex
{ihnp4,backbones}!ucbvax!qal.berkeley.edu!lauacswerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) (02/24/89)
In article <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@wheeler.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: >It's a little early for April Fool's Day. > >If this really happened, I don't know whether to laugh or get angry >at someone, and if I wanted to get angry at someone I wouldn't know >who to get angry at. Who cares. It's Apple's problem. Big companies have to deal with crap like this all the time and it's time for Apple's indoctrination into the world of big time litigation. They always wanted to be a billion dollar company. -Ace These are only my opinions. The University doesn't want them. (They don't like me much anyway from looking at my grades.)
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (02/24/89)
In article <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@wheeler.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: I'm fairly certain the agreement exists. Remember when Apple made those Apple/Bose roommate speakers for the Apple IIGS? They suddenly stopped making them soon after introduction. They then became just Bose speakers, but still in Apple Platinum. A reputable source told me the reason was that the agreement with the Beatles prhibited them from entering anything musically related. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
anthes@geocub.UUCP (Franklin Anthes) (02/24/89)
Hey guys, I think this is just great! Apple is finally getting what is has had coming for a long time : a humungous law suit (at least I hope!). Nuff said! (says he while donning his flame-proof bikini:-) -- Frank Anthes-Harper : Bien le bonjour de la France Usenet: ....!ucbvax!decvax!uunet!mcvax!inria!geocub!anthes or anthes@geocub.UUCP
jnh@ece-csc.UUCP (Joseph Nathan Hall) (02/24/89)
In article <41a632d2.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: >In article <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@wheeler.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: > >I'm fairly certain the agreement exists. Remember when Apple made those >Apple/Bose roommate speakers for the Apple IIGS? They suddenly stopped making >them soon after introduction. They then became just Bose speakers, but still >in Apple Platinum. A reputable source told me the reason was that the >agreement with the Beatles prhibited them from entering anything musically >related. This IS in fact true. A friend of mine clerked with the SF firm (Brown & someone? I forget) that's handling the look and feel suit. She wouldn't divulge anything relevant to that case, but did mention that there was considerable legal angst leading up to the introduction of the Apple MIDI interface, and that the lack of features of said interface was to satisfy the Brits' requirements that Apple not produce products specifically geared toward music. (I guess you can view the underpowered Apple MIDI interface as just-another-serial-to-serial-converter.) She mentioned the threatened litigation over the Apple/Bose Roommates, too. Something I have heard, also, was that Apple had considered buying the rights to the Mark of the Unicorn Performer/Composer software at one time (for publication under its own name), and that the deal had pretty much been finalized when there was (again) the threat of litigation from overseas; thus Claris was spun off to handle "Apple Performer" and "Apple Composer," in addition to MacWrite, MacDraw, etc. The deal fell through later, though, after an author's rights dispute. Anyone else got any related tidbits? I'm sure we'll all be amused to find out the *TRUE* scope of the Apple Music Scandal ... -- v v sssss|| joseph hall || 201-1D Hampton Lee Court v v s s || jnh@ece-csc.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Cary, NC 27511 v sss || the opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my -----------|| employer, north carolina state university . . . . . . . . . . .
@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU:miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (02/24/89)
From: Brad Miller <miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Date: 23 Feb 89 06:25:25 GMT
From: fry@brauer.harvard.edu (David Fry)
Good for the Beatles! I hope this doesn't discourage Apple from putting out
good Music software and hardware, but I hope it DOES discourage them from
pointless lawsuits like their "Look and Feel" suit, or statements to the
effect that they would sue anyone using a fruit in their trademark. Idiocy
breeds idiocy.
----
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.
miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller}pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Michael A. Pasek) (02/24/89)
In article <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@wheeler.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: >It's a little early for April Fool's Day. > >If this really happened, I don't know whether to laugh or get angry >at someone, and if I wanted to get angry at someone I wouldn't know >who to get angry at. > How about getting angry at a lawyer ? The posted article did not give a quote that appeared in our local paper (attributed to Steve Wozniak). Referring to Apple Corps (this is not an exact quote, but as close as I remember): "There's probably just a bunch of lawyers left over there. They'll sue Apple and Apple will pay them". Does it seem like the only people to receive any benefit from all of this is the lawyers, judges, court clerks, etc. ?? I certainly can tell the difference between a Beatles record and a Macintosh!! M. A. Pasek Switching Software Development NCR Comten, Inc. (612) 638-7668 CNG Development 2700 N. Snelling Ave. pasek@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM Roseville, MN 55113
thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com (Ken McLeod) (02/26/89)
In article <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@wheeler.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: >It's a little early for April Fool's Day. > >If this really happened, I don't know whether to laugh or get angry >at someone, and if I wanted to get angry at someone I wouldn't know >who to get angry at. No joke, unfortunately... I saw the story in the Los Angeles Times, Wednesday Feb. 22, 1989, Part IV p.1: "Apple Records Sues Apple Computer for Making Music". I doubt Apple Records' suit stands much of a chance, though, but logic has been known to take wings in a courtroom before. -k -- ========== ....... ============================================= Ken McLeod :. .: felix!dhw68k!thecloud@ics.uci.edu ========== :::.. ..::: InterNet: thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com //// =============================================
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (02/28/89)
In article <1046@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> pasek@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (M. A. Pasek) writes: >Does it seem like the only people to receive any benefit from all of this is >the lawyers, judges, court clerks, etc. ?? I certainly can tell the difference >between a Beatles record and a Macintosh!! Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored of another fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the Beatles owned the word "Apple" as a trademark. And don't think that the original Apple founders didn't consider the benefit of the subtle, subconscious association with the Beatles.
ecp@mbunix.mitre.org (Eric C. Pivnik) (02/28/89)
I heard that Apple Records had sued Apple Computer over the use of the Apple name and logo, several years ago, and that they reached an out of court settlement in that Apple Computer agreed not to compete in the music business. The argument is that now that A.C. is making music hardware and software under the Apple logo, A.R. could be damaged if it tried to also market music software/hardware. One would really have to carefully look over the original out-of-court agreement between AC and AR to know whether the lawsuit is rubbish. Note that Baretta (the Italian gun manufacturer) successfuly sued GM over the Baretta trademark. -Eric Pivnik P.S. It's about time someone sued Apple Computer. There price increases were obnoxious.
rht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (02/28/89)
From article <1989Feb23.200158.2389@cs.rochester.edu>, by @DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU:miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU: > From: Brad Miller <miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU> > > Date: 23 Feb 89 06:25:25 GMT > From: fry@brauer.harvard.edu (David Fry) > > Good for the Beatles! I hope this doesn't discourage Apple from putting out > good Music software and hardware, but I hope it DOES discourage them from > pointless lawsuits like their "Look and Feel" suit, or statements to the > effect that they would sue anyone using a fruit in their trademark. Idiocy > breeds idiocy. > Here Here! <Chuckle> /-------------------------------------------------------------------------\ || Randy Thompson || || || /SMS Data Products Group, Inc. || uunet!smsdpg!rht || || 12379A Sunrise Valley Drive || || || Reston, Va 22091 || Voice: 703/648-9400 || \-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
garth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Garth Snyder) (03/02/89)
[ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. ] In article <1046@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> (M. A. Pasek) writes: > Does it seem like the only people to receive any benefit from all > of this is the lawyers, judges, court clerks, etc. ?? I certainly > can tell the difference between a Beatles record and a Macintosh!! In article <15565@oberon.USC.EDU> (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored > of another fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the > Beatles owned the word "Apple" as a trademark. Yes it does. Trademarks can only be registered for a specific industry. This is a natural consequence of the fact that trademarks must be "commonly recognized" to be valid. Since Apple Computer was not previously involved in the music business, it would not necessarily have lost a court battle with Apple records. -------------------- Garth Snyder UUCP: {bpa,liberty}!swatsun!garth Swarthmore College ARPA/CSNET: garth@cs.swarthmore.edu Swarthmore, PA 19081 ALSO: garth@boulder.colorado.edu --------------------
wert@cup.portal.com (robert scott comer) (03/05/89)
> Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored of another > fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the Beatles owned the word > "Apple" as a trademark. And don't think that the original Apple founders didn't > consider the benefit of the subtle, subconscious association with the Beatles. I have never heard of or considered any connotation that Apple Computer products are better because of Apple Records. I never heard of Apple Records before today ever, and I am sure most people will fail to recognize them as the publishers of the Beetles. You need recognition before association... scott comer
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (03/06/89)
In article <15384@cup.portal.com> wert@cup.portal.com (robert scott comer) writes:
-I have never heard of or considered any connotation that Apple Computer
-products are better because of Apple Records. I never heard of Apple
-Records before today ever, and I am sure most people will fail to
-recognize them as the publishers of the Beetles. You need recognition
-before association...
Youngsters! You must mean most people under the age of 20.mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (03/06/89)
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) wrote: > wert@cup.portal.com (robert scott comer) wrote: >-products are better because of Apple Records. I never heard of Apple >-Records before today ever, and I am sure most people will fail to >-recognize them as the publishers of the Beetles. > >Youngsters! You must mean most people under the age of 20. Before we discuss this any further, just what are these "records" you people keep referring to...?! :-) Robert Dorsett Internet: mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat
thompson@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (03/06/89)
/* Written Feb 27, 1989 by kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu in comp.sys.mac */ > >Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored of another >fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the Beatles owned the word >"Apple" as a trademark. And don't think that the original Apple founders didn't >consider the benefit of the subtle, subconscious association with the Beatles. a. I find it hard to believe that Jobs and Wozniak, in 1978, sat down and said, "and what's more, it'll remind people of the Beatles!!" b. I *really* find it hard to believe that a person or company can trademark a common English word like "apple" and have exclusive use to that word in all cases. Even though Parker Bros. owns the rights to "Monopoly", they cannot stop someone selling a book called "Monopoly". They *can* stop someone from selling a *game* called "Monopoly". Likewise, although Marvel Comics publishes a regular comic called "Wolverine", they do *not* have to pay royalties to the University of Michigan (nor vice versa). Apple Records may have the trademark on the name *in the music publishing business*, but that hardly applies to computers. And Apple Computer is not publishing music. I don't see where any lawsuit comes in. I suppose they're trying to fudge the line by saying that *anything* having to *do* with music infringes on Apple Records' trademark, but that's silly. That's like Marvel suing U of M, because Michigan prints magazines about the Wolverines, and that's publishing. A more concrete example of the above: Marvel publishes a "Punisher" comic book. But the folks who do the "Punisher" pulp novels can't/won't touch them, because: 1. it's a different Punisher (not the same character) 2. it's a different medium 3. there is no reason for confusion of the two (and as I understand it, that *is* one of the criteria for trademark infringement). And I would say that more people are aware of Apple Computer than are aware of the Apple record label. And I do not see even the slightest chance of anyone confusing the two. - Mark Thompson "The University Neither Knows Nor released on my own recognizance Cares What I Am Saying -- Lucky from a Hell of my own device Them." University of Illinois at U-C
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (03/08/89)
In article <15384@cup.portal.com> wert@cup.portal.com (robert scott comer) writes: >I have never heard of or considered any connotation that Apple Computer >products are better because of Apple Records. I never heard of Apple >Records before today ever, and I am sure most people will fail to >recognize them as the publishers of the Beetles. You need recognition >before association... >scott comer Hmm.. where were you in the '60s, scott? Apple Corps was quite a news story. The Beatles started their own company to fund creative endeavors that were not being or would not be funded by the "establishment". They wanted to fund upstarts that bucked the system. (Remind you of any company whose computers you use?) Part of Apple Corps was Apple Records, which released the Beatles records starting with the White Album, I believe. When Apple Computers first came out and pundits were talking about how creative the name was (you know, a nice organic non-threatening fruit to ease people's fears about high tech), most of the people I know were saying things like: "creative? sh*t. What's so creative about copying the Beatles." Anyway, there may not be an association for you, Scott. But for millions of people who grew up in the sixties there is.
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (03/08/89)
In article <46700106@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> thompson@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >b. I *really* find it hard to believe that a person or company can > trademark a common English word like "apple" and have exclusive use > to that word in all cases. Even though Parker Bros. owns the > rights to "Monopoly", they cannot stop someone selling a book > called "Monopoly". They *can* stop someone from selling a *game* > called "Monopoly". Likewise, although Marvel Comics publishes > a regular comic called "Wolverine", they do *not* have to > pay royalties to the University of Michigan (nor vice versa). I agree, but this may not be the point. From the information that I have read it is impossible to deduce exactly what happened, but I would guess that it went something like this : A smart Apple Corps lawyer hears about this new company named Apple Computer, and checks it out. He decides that while there is no infringement right now, what with things like the "Moog" synthesizer and other work in academia, the microcomputer might be usable in the future to generate music, in which the two trademarks might conflict (and shudder, even worse, by that time Apple Computer might have more money to spend on lawyers than Apple Corps!). So he does the prudent thing (for a lawyer, the prudent thing is anything that covers his clients rear while generating fees for the lawyer) and whacks this little company (Apple Computer) over the head and says "You guys better agree not to go into the music business or we are going to sue you and try to stop you from using the Apple name RIGHT NOW!" He makes this threat in the Apple boardroom (at the time, this was probably Woz's garage) while, out on the street, Ringo plays the funeral march on the drums. The point is, Trademark law is probably not the point. What is the point is what is in the agreement between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. If that agreement says "Thou shalt not produce a computer that CAN create music" then Apple Corps wins (and Apple's original lawyers should be shot). If it says that "Thou shalt not create computers that are musical instruments" then it is more iffy, because an Apple, AS SUPPLIED BY APPLE, can't make music; you need extra software and sometimes hardware to do so. In any case, it won't be over til it's over, and only the lawyers involved really understand whats going on. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robert J Woodhead !uunet!cornell!biar!trebor CompuServe 72447,37 | | Biar Games, Inc., 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 607-257-1708,3864(fax) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Games written, Viruses killed "I'm the head honcho of this here spread; | | While U Wait. Take a number. I don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!" | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
kean@tank.uchicago.edu (Keane Arase) (03/09/89)
>In article <15384@cup.portal.com> wert@cup.portal.com (robert scott comer) writes: > >I have never heard of or considered any connotation that Apple Computer >products are better because of Apple Records. I never heard of Apple >Records before today ever, and I am sure most people will fail to >recognize them as the publishers of the Beetles. You need recognition >before association... > >scott comer A local radio station in Chicago came up with this commercial: Little girl: Daddy, is it true Paul McCartney was in another group before Wings? (Sigh...) --- Keane Arase, Systems Programmer, University of Chicago Computing Organizations kean@tank.uchicago.edu syskean@uchimvs1.uchicago.edu ** Please file the standard disclaimers here **
cs004004@brunix (Jon Feinberg) (03/10/89)
In article <46700106@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> thompson@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >/* Written Feb 27, 1989 by kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu in comp.sys.mac */ >> >>Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored of another >>fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the Beatles owned the word >>"Apple" as a trademark. And don't think that the original Apple founders didn't >>consider the benefit of the subtle, subconscious association with the Beatles. > >a. I find it hard to believe that Jobs and Wozniak, in 1978, sat down > and said, "and what's more, it'll remind people of the Beatles!!" True, but irrelevant. >Apple Records may have the trademark on the name *in the music > publishing business*, but that hardly applies to computers. > And Apple Computer is not publishing music. I don't see where >........ >And I would say that more people are aware of Apple Computer than > are aware of the Apple record label. And I do not see even the > slightest chance of anyone confusing the two. Apple is not a music publishing business, it is a money management venture including, long ago, a clothing boutique. The record label was just another arm of their capitalist venture, which died from mismanagement and a too generous heart for several starving artists. See rec.music.beatles for more... ------------------------------------------------- | Jonathan Feinberg | Disclaimer: | | cs004004@cs.brown.edu | I don't even work | | (401) 863-5362 | here. | |_______________________________________________|