Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

Apple Inc. Inks Apple Corps Deal

Comments Filter:
  • Anyone care to guess how much this settlement is worth?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Grech ( 106925 )
      Easy. Goes like this:
      "Give us the marks and shut up. In return, we will:
      1. Let you use the marks to which you are actually entitled
      2. Let you sell Beatles songs through iTMS

      In the alternative, we can crush you in court and drain your bank accounts along the way. Additionally, you could then be sure that you'll never be paid for any Beatles track that travels by Internet."

      The Beatles are 40 years old, and need iTMS much more than it needs them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by lurker4hire ( 449306 )
          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

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Lord Flipper ( 627481 ) *

            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?)

            I played in bands starting right around the time the Beatles were being turned down by all the (then) majors, and continued playing for about three decades. I saw a 'modified' Beatlemania sweep through the schools every 5-8 years or so. Did it last and last? No, But anyone familiar with the London scene knows that the average 'mania' lasts about two weeks, o

      • It's a tennis game. (Score:5, Funny)

        by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:36PM (#17893820)
        This is one of many lawsuits that have been happening since the 80's (remember the Apple IIgs?). It's just a balance of power. In the early days, the Beatles thought that they were bigger than Jesus, and so they sued a little computer company. Now, that little computer company is bigger than the Beatles, and Jesus has an iPod.

        • Re:It's a tennis game. (Score:5, Informative)

          by demonbug ( 309515 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:50PM (#17894902) Journal
          This isn't really a fair characterization of the "battle". Apple Corps existed long before Apple Computers. Apple Corps quite fairly wanted to make sure that this new computer company wasn't going to diminish the value of their name, and that they weren't going to try to compete in the same market (you only get those trademarks as long as you are willing to defend them). back in '80 ot whatever, they came to an agreement that Apple Inc would stay out of the music business. Well, technology marches on and by the end of the 80's computers are beginning inroads into the music industry. Apple Corps feels that Apple Inc is starting to encroach on their area of business, and the two again end up in court. The case is settled, with Apple Inc again agreeing they won't go into the content creation or distribution aspect of the music business. Then along comes iTunes, which is pretty clearly associated with selling music, if not exactly distributing it in the industry Label sense. Now, Apple Corps (from what I have read) had no objection whatsoever to iTunes; what they objected to was it being branded as Apple iTunes. iTunes is and was clearly associated with the music industry, and Apple Corps had a long-standing trademark on the Apple name within that industry. Unfortunately for Apple Corps, a judge decided that since iTunes isn't distributing music in the traditional sense (i.e., they don't sign artists to contracts for sole distribution of music) they aren't infringing the Apple trademark.

          This isn't about one company throwing their weight around, nor is it about Apple Corps getting what's coming to them. It is just a story of one company that owns a trademark becoming alarmed that another company seemed to be moving into their area of business while using essentially the same trademarked name. The newer company argued (apparently successfully) that they were not in fact violating the trademark, but they were apparently worried enough about it to purchase the trademark from Apple Corps, and license it back to them at some unknown rate (I'd guess they aren't charging anything - maybe an exclusive deal to release Apple Corps' collection on iTunes).

          As for all those that think the Apple Corps label has little value today... according to the Billboard Top 200 [billboard.com], a brand new release from Apple Corps is currently at number 22, down from a peak of #4 (not to mention the 6 Beatles albums that have sold 10 million units or more). This is still an extremely valuable library, and I'm sure Apple Inc is eager to try and put a deal together to distribute their music through iTunes now that all the trademark stuff is finally over.
          • What really pissed me off in the late eighties was that because of that lawsuit with Apple records, Apple Computers decided that their "MidiManager" system put them into the music industry, so they had to kill it. Then various competing systems were created (OMS, FreeMidi), fracturing the nice, ground breaking MIDI system that was in place in the beginning.

            --jeffk++

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by hcdejong ( 561314 )
            As for all those that think the Apple Corps label has little value today... according to the Billboard Top 200 [billboard.com], a brand new release from Apple Corps is currently at number 22, down from a peak of #4 (not to mention the 6 Beatles albums that have sold 10 million units or more).

            But that doesn't mean the brand has any value. Music brands in general are IMO worthless: no-one buys music because it's published by a particular label; people buy music because they like the artist. I couldn't tell yo
    • It's not just the money. But they're going to wait a few weeks before announcing that Steve Jobs is on the Apple Corp. board.

      Didn't you know his goal is to be on the board of every company in the world that produces entertainment that can be digitized?

      • Didn't you know his goal is to be on the board of every company in the world that produces entertainment that can be digitized?
        If so, he is doing a very lousy job since he is on the board of directors of exactly two companies: Disney and Apple. He is the CEO of Apple and the largest shareholder in Disney (because of the Pixar buyout). He is not, for example, on the board of Viacom or Time Warner or Sony.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by ml10422 ( 448562 )
        Announce that Jobs is on the Apple Corp. board? That's all?! What about a Beatles reunion with Jobs taking John Lennon's slot?
    • It's priceless to Apple Inc. The Beatles and Apple Corp. will never be a threat again. The iTunes Store will stay open--though its European branches aren't exactly out of the woods yet.
    • We can probably figure it out once the next Apple quarterly report comes out - they will have a line item for lawsuit payouts, and we can just subtract the $100 million that they paid Creative.

  • Beatles on iTunes? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by georgewad ( 154339 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:51PM (#17893130) Homepage
    Certainly adds fuel to the rumors of the Beatles catalogue (sic) showing up on ITMS.

  • It just goes to show that.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:53PM (#17893166)
    .... All you need is love.

  • Farmers beware! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bwana Geek ( 1033040 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:53PM (#17893168) Journal
    In other news, the Apple Growers Association of America has recently come under fire...

  • Money can't buy me love... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Biff Stu ( 654099 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:53PM (#17893178)
    But it can buy a trademark.

  • Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:54PM (#17893200) Journal
    A big hint was dropped during Jobs' keynote address when he played the Beatles on the iPhone. Everything about those presentations is scripted, certainly the addition of Beatles music was no accident. This latest deal might mean that one of the last barriers between the Beatles vast music collection and the iTunes Music Store has been cleared. Whether the Beatles still resist online distribution (through anyone) remains to be seen. They were a late adopter of CDs. Their music, their prerogative.

    • Re:Beatles on iTMS? (Score:5, Funny)

      by cybereal ( 621599 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:03PM (#17893360) Homepage
      According to http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org] they haven't resisted everyone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Phat_Tony ( 661117 )
      By, "their music," you mean "Michael Jackson and Sony's [slashdot.org] music," right?

      Actually, I'm bit confused on the whole "Apple Records" vs. "Sony/Michael Jackson" thing and what the difference is between "ownership" and "publishing rights" for music. Anyone want to clear this up?

      • "ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous McCartneyf ( 1037584 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:57PM (#17894160) Homepage Journal
        Okay. The Beatles catalog is in Northernsongs, which is de facto owned by Sony unless Michael Jackson starts getting some financial sense. (The financial advice he took from Paul appears to be the last sound financial advice he ever took.) Apple Corp. does own something valuable, though--the Beatles recordings.
        To put it another way: if you wanted to record a cover of a Beatles song, or play one in public, you would need to contact Sony, Northernsongs division. If you wanted to use an actual Beatles recording--that is, one actually made by the Beatles--then you would need to contact Apple Corp.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by SydShamino ( 547793 )
          To put it another way: if you wanted to record a cover of a Beatles song, or play one in public, you would need to contact Sony, Northernsongs division. If you wanted to use an actual Beatles recording--that is, one actually made by the Beatles--then you would need to contact Apple Corp.

          If you wanted to use an actual recording, wouldn't you need to contact both? Apple Corps. owns the recording, but the words and music are owned by Sony. I understood that you needed to pay royalties to both parties. Or do

          • Re:"ownership" & "publishing rights" (Score:4, Informative)

            by robi2106 ( 464558 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @06:15PM (#17897286) Journal
            i am a videographer so this issue is something I have fought with for a while.

            Some of the best info about music copyright can be found here [dvinfo.net] (DVInfo.net a site for video producers) because video productions require music (unless they are bad ones) and music on film / DVD / internet requires complicated licensing.

            Unless you go with royalty free productions straight from the producer / talent and bypass the label (if allowed by the artists contract).

            jason

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by robi2106 ( 464558 )
            to follow up.... in order to use music with a production (non-profit, profit, even person in home) involving visual media of any kind (slide show, movie, even just colors and splotches moving around) you are supposed to get no less than TWO licenses. A duplication license in order to store that music on a physical device, a mechanical license in order to mechanically sync the music to visuals, and possibly a royalty agreement on a per disc basis.

            that equals one HUGE pain in the butt for a producer.

            jason

      • Actually, I'm bit confused on the whole "Apple Records" vs. "Sony/Michael Jackson" thing and what the difference is between "ownership" and "publishing rights" for music. Anyone want to clear this up?

        All I can tell you about the first part is that Michael Jackson is an Alien who has been altering his appearance to look more like his true self over time. But the latter part is that you can license your rights to your intellectual property to allow other people to distribute it. The GPL is an example of one

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pope ( 17780 )
      George Martin remastered the Beatles' back catalog and released the first batch in 1987, that's hardly a "late adopter." The world didn't really get their hands on CDs until 1983-ish.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hondo77 ( 324058 )
        The point is that there were plenty of catalogs on CD by the time The Beatles got around to putting out their CDs so, in that sense, they were late adopters. However, to their credit, they put them out right the first time. It's not like Led Zeppelin where they put their catalog out once, then put out a box set of some remastered songs, then put out the catalog remastered. Or The Doors (put out, then remastered, now in quad...I mean surround).

  • Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kupekhaize ( 220804 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:54PM (#17893202)
    One thing a lot of people seemed to have missed is that the official John Lennon bus now has an Apple logo on the front side (and has for at least a few weeks if not more):

    http://www.jlsc.com/bus/ [jlsc.com]

    Image is about halfway down the page.

    I wonder what exactly the terms of this settlement were? :)

    • Re:Dispute settled a while ago? (Score:5, Informative)

      by venicebeach ( 702856 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:07PM (#17893402) Homepage Journal
      I don't think that's related.

      Apple is a sponsor of the John Lennon songwriting competition and have provided some of the prizes. Seems to me like this predates the current trademark agreement, and Apple Records is not involved with this bus as far as I can tell.
    • One other thing I seem to have missed is the fact that there is such a thing as "The John Lennon Bus."

      If I ever get assassinated by a crazed fan I'll be lucky to get a pair of rusty skates named after me.
      • you should see the STEPHEN KING SHOT JOHN LENNON van. Used to see it around Santa Cruz a lot, wonder what ever happened to that guy. I heard he got in trouble for stalking S.King once when he came to Santa Cruz to do a book signing. King also almost ran over a friend of a friend on his motorcycle. Seems he doesn't understand how crosswalks work in California...

  • Rumors were off by a day (Score:3, Interesting)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:54PM (#17893204) Journal
    There were rumors [insidemacgames.com] going around that Apple would be announcing that the Beatles catalog would be available on iTunes during a Super Bowl commercial. Clearly that did not come to pass. I wonder if this was the root of that rumor, or just a coincidence. Supposedly, Apple WILL be having a special announcement coming up on Feb. 20th.
  • What this means is that although Apple Corps is older, although Apple Inc. violated the terms of the original settlement by pushing first multimedia and then music, and although Apple Inc. has all the sensitivity of a Bavarian weevil on speed, it is Apple Inc. that wins the court case. Presumably on the grounds that even if they'd lost, they'd not have done anything any different.

    Mind you, I'm not exactly impressed by Apple Corps attitude or behaviour in all of this. Or, indeed, in any of their business c

  • Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skoaldipper ( 752281 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:56PM (#17893244)
    This whole lawsuit reminds me of the battle between American Budweiser vs. the Czech brewer Budvar. Fortunately, and rightfully so, the European courts upheld precedent in trademark name on behalf of Budvar. I may be American, but I am a proud Czech first. Stick it to "the man". That's my motto, and I proudly raise my Budvar to it.
    • You mean "Czechvar", as it's sold under in the U.S.
    • Not to mention the fact that Budvar doesn't taste like watered down horse urine, and the fact that it's actually a beer. As in made with barley and not rice, unlike the "King of Beers"

      Bob
      • If it isn't New Belgium I don't give it a second glance. Usually that is. I also have been know to enjoy Weinhards.

        jason
    • That's a bit of a coincidence - I tried that beer just last night! I liked it a lot and so did my wife. I'll be keeping an eye out for Budvar in future.

      In contrast, I can't get the hang of most US beers, and if I'm going for imported beer, I'll always look to Europe first.

      (I'm in Australia by the way)
  • I'm just glad it's over, regardless of which side came out on top. Maybe now I'll see a digitally remastered Beatles catalog appear, like, before I die. And not on iTMS, but on SACD or some equivalent.

  • Between Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Telephone Sanitizer ( 989116 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:06PM (#17893396)
    I'm just imagining how uncomfortable it would make Sir Paul to be in that sandwich.
    • Well, Sir Paul got himself into this. This time, I believe he chose it freely.
      He isn't as affected by this as the others. They have their solo work on the Apple label as well as the joint Beatles work; his solo work is on another label, MPL--his own.
      I think Paul did help push this settlement through. Paul has actually used Apple Inc. products in his work. And I did notice Steve Jobs on Paul's last tour DVD. [sardonic grin]
      When Apple Corp. interests (anything Beatles) and MPL interests (anything Paul)
  • Looks like Apple Corps. got the short end of the stick on this one. Apple, Inc. got ownership of all trademarks in regard to the Apple name and will license them back to the company that used it first.

    I hope that Apple Corps. isn't paying for those licenses. I mean even if Apple, Inc. paid money to Apple Corps. in settlement, Apple, Inc. will just collect it all back in license fees later. And I doubt that Apple Corps. paid money to Apple, Inc..
  • 1. Use company's name
    2. Get sued
    3. Agree to sell their own name back to them
    4. Profit!

  • Why in blazes is this such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    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.
    • Well, I don't like to buy CDs because after I rip them to my Mac I have really no use for them any more. It's a waste of money and materials. It's also cheaper (usually) to buy my tunes at the Apple store because I don't have to pay for all that extra packaging and distribution (and who knows what else).

      As for only using the Apple store, I'm on a Mac. I have yet to find another service that offers me both a broad choice of music genres and works with Macs. If you happen to know of one please point it ou
      • Sorry, but I just can't buy (no pun intended) the argument about waste of money and materials. It's only a waste of money and materials for the time that you think that you don't need it. If something happens to your data and you have no immediate way to get your songs back from iTunes, a CD that you tucked away in a closet would be the perfect solution.

        I understand that jewel cases can be bulky and a waste of space, so why not take the CD and put in a paper sleeve. The CD would then take up - what? -
        • I have no trouble backing up an entire drive on a regular basis, so I'm not the least bit worried about drive failure or whatever. All your CDs might melt in a fire too.

          I am just not into collecting CDs, and apparently millions of people feel the same way I do.
          • My CDs can be used on every Windows/Mac/Linux/Solaris box and CD player in my house, my car, or at work with no loss in audio quality and no restrictions on how many pieces of hardware it's played on. Can you say the same for your iTunes downloads?

            (Not trying to be a prick. Just playing Devil's Advocate at this point.)
      • "Well, I don't like to buy CDs because after I rip them to my Mac I have really no use for them anymore."
        CDs make excellent backups. Buy a CD of the music, and you (probably) have a full-quality backup for the music in your computer, complete with meta-data. You won't have to burn a backup CD, and you don't have to worry about the transfer limits.
        • Original CDs make lousy backups; they don't hold enough data, they're too expensive, too wasteful, and they take up too much space. I would much rather back up the entire hard drive.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous McCartneyf ( 1037584 )
            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?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by shawnce ( 146129 )

              Does the spare harddrive fall under iTunes's 5-computer limit, or is it free?
              The authorized computer limit only applies at time of playback. You can backup song files all you want.
    • What I dont get is how people can still accept the notion of "buying music" over and over again. Back in the day, when it came on vinyl or whatever, it was easy to see the tradeoff: if you dont take care fo your shit it gets worn out, scratched, warped or otherwise screwed up and you gotta replace it. Without going into detailed analysis of my past collections I can recall at least three purchases of Sgt. Pepper's (two vinyl and one on 8 track), two purchases of the red and blue collections (LP and 8 track)
      • I do understand where you're going with that. I've done the same thing. I have some CDs that were the fourth iteration of that album, having been preceeded by 8-track, cassette, and LP. But with CD it's not nearly as much of an issue. Vinyl gets worn every time you run the needle over it. That's unavoidable. Tape loses its signal quality every time you play it. That's unavoidable.

        But with CDs, just rip a high-quality set of MP3s/OGGs/AACs or whatever, then tuck the original away in a cool area whe
        • Not even with itunes. Music is a relative fraction of the stuff I keep around - TV shows, movies, music vids, etc. I can't jsut go rip those again if they get lost (although I might, eventually, be able to recollect them... at 50 cents a gigabyte... from newsgroups). I don't have cable (can't get it), won't pay Hughes 600 bucks a year for country cable, and even if I did I still couldn't get many of the shows I like (The IT crowd, CBC reports, various Korean and Russian shows and movies) so what's the point

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Genevish ( 93570 )

      What's staggering is that you are so staggered by this. I don't like CD's (nor did I like vinyl albums when they were the thing), and given there is such a convenient, simple and cost effective solution in the form of the iTunes store, I no longer buy CD's. Haven't bought one in years. I suppose if I were a truly die-hard Beatle fan I would buy the CD, but I'm not, so I won't. I'll probably buy a few tracks from the iTunes store when they're available though.

      And as for "people act as though iTunes is

  • Negotiations went like this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:07PM (#17894262)
    The Beatles: "You Never give Me Your Money"
    Steve Jobs: "We Can Work it Out."
    Beatles: "Don't Let Me Down"
    Jobs: "It Won't Be Long"
    Beatles: "Money, That's What I Want"
    Jobs: "Come and Get It"
    Beatles: "I Feel Fine"

  • Can Apple Inc. sign bands directly now? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TedTodorov ( 121485 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:23PM (#17894482)
    This is potentially huge, as Apple inc. now seems to own the trademark and will license it back to Apple Corps Ltd. Unless I am missing something, this means that Apple can sign bands directly, cutting out the record companies which collect 69 cents on every iTunes dollar.

    As online music sales surpass physical media, this has the potential of allowing Apple to take over the record industry. I doubt they want to, but it gives them a great deal of opportunity to expand their iTunes business.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by amyhughes ( 569088 )
      I believe it has (almost from the start) been possible for independents to release music through iTunes. This is not the same as Apple signing them as a record company would, as it does not involve promotion or production, and does not result in a cherry-picking kind of screening, but it's still a way to get around the 69 cents thing. I believe Apple splits the difference with independents.

  • How the Conversation Went: (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Apple Computer: "I wanna hold your hand"
    Apple Corps: "Please please me!"
    Comp: "Can't buy me love"
    Corps: "Money (That's what I want)"
    Comp: "Got to get you into my life!"
    Corps: "Tell me why?"
    Comp: "I want to tell you!"
    Corps: "Baby You're a Rich Man!"
    Comp: "Act Naturally!"
    Corps: "That'll be the Day!"

    and finally, years later...

    Inc: "Love me do?"
    Corps: "Don't let me down"
    Inc: "Yes it is?"
    Corps: "I will"
    Inc: "The End!"

    With thanks to http://www.stevesbeatles.com/songs/ [stevesbeatles.com]

  • The Beatles (Score:4, Funny)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Monday February 05, 2007 @03:59PM (#17895064)
    Some background info - the 'Beatles' was a band popular in the late Pleistocene epoch. It featured four musicians who used to work in a semiconductor plant (hence their nickname 'Fab Four'). One of them is that guy who's getting divorced. No, not him - the other one. They formed a distribution company called Apple which owned their music before Michael Jackson bought it. Apple was suing Apple over the name Apple (or maybe Marklar), but Apple has settled with Apple and is now free to use Apple.
  • I take it that this article has something to do with apples?

  • typo in the story (Score:5, Funny)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @05:17PM (#17896292)

    The terms of settlement are confidential.
    They misspelled "astronomical."

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close