5.11.2006

Judge rules in Apple v. Apple

So the London judge has ruled in favor of Apple Computer in a case where Apple Corps sued Apple saying Apple Computer has infringed on an agreement between the two under which Apple Computer was not to distrubute media under the Apple logo. Apple Computer earlier paid Apple Corps 27 million dollars for the rights to use the apple symbol, but the agreement stated that Apple Computer would not be allowed to sell entertainment media under an "apple" logo.

Confused?

The suit is over the iTunes music store, which allows downloads of music to be played on the company's hardware, the iPod. The judge basically stated that when the original agreement was contemplated, there was no way to foresee the surge in online technologies that have spawned the online music download concept. The judge basically said that the spirit of this agreement is not being violated by Apple Computer and Apple Corps has no basis to make a claim that they are selling media as defined in the agreement. (The concept of the agreement was to keep Apple Computer from selling things like CDs and such - hard media - from a store front or online, like a record store might. He further said that there is no basis for a consumer confusing the two brands, and there is no violation.

Apple Corps is the "record company" started by Beatles management when they were producing records. Apple Corps has not released new product in the last 40 years, and as really simply become a holding and management company for Beatles beneficiaries and family to protect royalty issues and address other rights-related issues with the Beatles catalog. This ongoing dispute has kept the Beatles catalog OFF iTunes to this date, dispite Steve Jobs' love of their music. He commented in a statement that he hoped to soon be able to get that music catalog onto iTunes.

Here are MY thoughts regarding the case:

Let's have a little talk about tweetle Beatles....

What do you know about tweetle Beatles? Well...

When tweetle Beatles fight,
it's called a tweetle Beatle battle.

And when they battle in a courtroom over music from a fiddle or music that is “faddish”,
it's a tweetle Beatle fiddle faddle courtroom battle.

AND when tweetle Beatles battle with trademarks in a courtroom over music from a fiddle of music that is faddish, they call it a tweetle Beatle fiddle faddle courtroom trademark battle.

AND...

When Beatles battle Apple in a courtroom trademarks battle over music from a fiddle or music that is faddish,
and the Beatle battle courtroom is a courtroom in
London...

...they call this a tweetle Beatle London courtroom fiddle faddle trademark battle muddle.

AND...

When Beatles fight these battles over music that is from a fiddle or music that is faddish, in a courtroom with their trademarks and the courtroom is in
London and the judge uses his noodle...

...they call this a muddle courtroom tweetle London Beatle fiddle faddle noodle trademark battle.

There you go. Clear as mud now. :)

4 comments:

for what it's worth said...

I do not like it Sam I am, I don't like apples and don't like spam.Fiddle Faddle that's what I say....Stick it to the beatles....let us play!!!!

That One Guy said...

Crack me up. That's funny.

Reach Upward said...

Thanks for the clarification. :)

aloiseus said...

what's a tweetle beatle?