Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses News Apple

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal 176

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the ways-to-get-a-better-deal dept.
Sometimes_Rational writes to mention Apple Inc. formerly (Apple Computer) has announced an agreement with The Beatles' company, Apple Corps Ltd. which settles the lawsuit brought by Apple Corps. Under the new agreement, "Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to 'Apple' and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The terms of settlement are confidential."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Amazing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:03PM (#17893362)
    I wouldn't call a corporate goliath with it's proverbial boot on all things "apple" a happy ending.
  • Re:ITMS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mccalli (323026) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:22PM (#17893600) Homepage
    If you're even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, wouldn't you already have all the Beatles music you need. Are there going to be people actually seeking out Beatles songs on iTunes?

    There will be, yes. Me for one. I'm not even slightly more than a casual Beatles fan, I'm no form of Beatles fan at all. I like a few tracks that I've heard and that's that. I am, however, pretty curious and might well sample the off track of various albums. I'm not suddenly going to start buying the full collection, and I'd rather get individual tracks than full albums. I'm 35 - the Beatles never happened for me. I always new of them and there'll be many on here younger than me who know their music better, but that's because you actively sort it out. You didn't casually sample it, like I probably would if it appeared online.

    Cheers,
    Ian
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:24PM (#17893636)
    You're living in fantasy land. True, Apple Corps has more to gain in name recognition by being associated with Apple Inc then visa-versa, but the case is a pretty straight forward trademark and contract dispute in which Corps' position is very strong. If the little guy can win against RIM, and RIM actually get an order to stop selling product, then Corp most certainly has the potential to win against Inc.

    On top of that, Corp has virtually zero expenses and plenty of income due the still extremely valuable rights to that 40 year old music. It could fight a protracted legal battle with no danger whatsoever of being "crushed."

    One more problem. Apple Inc fans are plentiful, but fans of the Beatles are far more plentiful and even far more emotional about the product. Apple Inc could end up looking like a real shit in a lot of people's eyes for picking on the Beatles. Think Different can not compare with Give Peace a Chance and Imagine. Pride does not trump love.

    TW
  • Re:ITMS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dashcolon (946284) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:32PM (#17893760)
    They're a band that has fans spanning a few generations, and this span keeps getting larger. I'm only 21 and, naturally, missed Beatlemania, but in time I discovered them, and came to deeply love a few of their albums. I'm sure that this independent discovery is common with music fans since the Beatles broke up. Maybe appreciation for them will become a little more rare once they all die off. (Note that I am not trying to curse the last remaining two - live long, Paul and Ringo!)
  • by lurker4hire (449306) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:37PM (#17893846) Homepage
    Trademark != Patent

    The law, the tests required to prove a claim and just about everything about these two types of "intellectual property" are completely different, please stop confusing the two. Just because RIM eventually learnt the hard way that the system is so broken that it's better to just pay the patent trolls doesn't mean the result of the trademark dispute between Apple Corp vs Apple Inc was in any way a forgone conclusion.

    Just because they can fight, doesn't mean they want to, they'd much prefer to sell increased volume of that extremely valuable 40 year old music. Copyrighted music actually... speaking of which copyrights actually expire eventually just about everywhere except the USA, so there is a certain expiry date on that value they need to start cashing in on it now.

    As far as Apple vs. Beatles fans... well, sure I like the Beatles and all, but really, nothing is forever, and if Apple Corp can't market their product to the young'uns (and how likely are they to go to a store to buy their parents, nay grandparent's, music?) their future is pretty predictable.

    l4h
  • by WidescreenFreak (830043) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#17894100) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, I don't understand what this is all about. Why are people making such a big deal about the Beatles being available on iTunes? Has everyone suddenly forgotten about this thing called a compact disc? You just pop it in your CD-ROM drive, run CDex to convert the audio files to MP3, then move the files over to your MP3 player! I've done it! It's not so hard! I actually slammed some knucklehead on Engadget who said that he downloaded the Beatles' songs illegally because he couldn't download them legally! WTF? Is this what we've reduced ourselves to? Are physical discs now completely taboo?

    Ordering music online? I buy music online that's not on iTunes lots of times! It's called a "compact disc"! Sure, it takes a few days for it to arrive, but when it gets here I can do whatever I want with it, including rip it to MP3 and put it on my MP3 player.

    I know, I know. iTunes gives you the ability to download individual songs as well at whole albums. Well, I'm a big Beatles fan and probably 90% of their most popular songs are on the "1962-1966 (Red Album)" and "1967-1970 (Blue Album)" CD sets.

    But even if you wanted songs that are not on those two sets, in total we're talking about 13 original albums that were produced. Sure, that would cost a bit of money to buy brand-new CDs online or at brick-and-mortar stores, but what about discount stores? What about used CD stores? What about eBay, for crying out loud? You can get all of the Beatles CDs (used) for probably less than what iTunes will charge, and you'll at least have a physical, DRM-free CD in your hands! Yes, there are certain things where "instant gratification" is required, like insulin to a diabetic. But music is NOT an "instant gratification" requirement to survive! Is it really that hard to wait a few days for a CD to be shipped?

    Come on, people! Just because music isn't available on iTunes doesn't mean that it's not available at all! It's absolutely staggering to see that there are actually people out there who refuse to buy a physical disc anymore, and even more staggering to see people act as though iTunes is the only music repository available. Don't you think this whole iTunes thing is being taken a bit too far?

    No, this isn't flamebait, damn it, but it is certainly a question of the degradation of patience in this society when we can't wait a few days for a 5-inch piece of reflective plastic to arrive in the mail and we can't look in the phone book for used CD stores in the area.
  • by Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) on Monday February 05, 2007 @04:11PM (#17895256) Homepage Journal
    They don't hold enough data?!
    Does iTunes sell lossless iTunes trax?
    I'm reasonably sure that there is more data in the vs. of a song on an average commercial CD than there is in the average Fairplay-AAC iTunes sells. You don't get much better, digitally, than CD quality, and so you don't get problems with recompression.
    Does the spare harddrive fall under iTunes's 5-computer limit, or is it free?

: is not an identifier

Working...