The Beatles' record label Apple Corps is seeking to stop Apple Computer's association with music, claiming trademark abuse. That trial is scheduled to begin in UK courts on March 27, 2006. Apple is also facing three new class action lawsuits and a new lawsuit from a French consumer group over the way it ties the iPod to the iTunes Music Store. A similar class action - Slattery v. Apple – has a hearing set for June 6, 2005. This lawsuit alleges that Apple is unlawfully tying iPods to its iTunes Music Store. It also says Apple is in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq.
News source: Macworld | UK
News source: Macworld | UK
Key features for the upcoming expansion pack:
- Arena champions: Take the form of new exotic creatures, or fight as yourself, in battles for glory against other creatures or players.
- New movement: Search for treasure and find adventure in new areas by climbing up and down walls for the first time in an MMO.
- Voice-over emotes: Express yourself in a battle or expand your social circle with new voice emotes.
- Guild vaults: Share the loot of a hard won battle with the rest of your guild members.
- Level range increase: Now play up to level 60!
- New land: Discover over a dozen new zones and epic encounters.
- New creatures: Test your combat skills in battles with over 40 new fearsome creatures.
Where is the lawsuit about the WMA store being tied to windows? Where is the mac version of WMP10 or Real Player?
This could have serious consequences if they lose (and I don't see how they can win). Conceivably up to and including the removal of iPods & iTunes from the market.
Music in the WMA format plays on a multitude of different players AND is available from multiple different vendors.
Guess why? Microsoft is actually willing to license WMA DRM. Apple refuses to license "fairplay" (my eye!) DRM.
Me personally? I don't buy any music with DRM.
It is, first and foremost a music jukebox program which supports iPods (and other players) and has an integrated music store for a select number of countries.
iTMS is tied with the iPod but not iTunes.
WMP 9 for OS X does "not" support any of the stores or DRM used by the WMA based stores nor does it support syncing with any device period. It is up to MSFT to update it.
THAT'S a major difference right there.
You might want to tell that to Motorola since they are working with Apple to make a phone that will work with the iTunes Music Store. I guess that does mean that Apple will license it. The lack of people licensing something doesn't mean that the license isn't available.
@joseph-: How about instead of insulting people, you speak on the issue at hand. You, as a windows user have a choice of iTMS or WMA stores whereas I do not because your precious MSFT has chosen not to update their player past a crippled version 9. Also, Real has not released a version of their OS X player which supports their either.
Who's the fanboy? Who's ignoring the facts? You are.
Last edited by 103119 on 06 May 2005 - 20:04
iTMS needs sorting out tho IMO
maybe a way out of it is to split the Itunes store off, but that might mean having to open it up more
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmen...ple-v-apple.htm
Specifically this:
"?. Whereas, the context in which this Agreement arises in the parties? desire to reserve for Apple Corps? field of use for its Trade Marks, the record business, The Beatles, Apple Corps? catalog and artists and related material all as set forth in section 1.3 herein and to reserve for Apple Computers field of use for its Trade Marks, the computer, data processing and telecommunications business as set forth in section 1.2 herein and to coordinate the use of their respective Trade Marks in such fields of use as set forth in section 4 herein.
"Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
"Apple Computer Field of Use" means (i) electronic good,s including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium; (ii) data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services; (iii) ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution; (iv) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services; and (v) promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing.
"Apple Corps Field of Use" means (i) the Apple Musical Artists; the Apple Catalog; personalities or characters which appear in or are derived from the Apple Catalog; the names likenesses, voices or musical sounds of the Apple Musical Artists; any musical works or performances of the Apple Musical Artists; (ii) any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible; (iii) promotional merchandise relating to any of the foregoing; (iv) merchandising relating to the Apple Musical Artists and the Apple Catalog and the related subject matter set forth in subsection (i), including, without limitation, the commercial exploitation of personalities, characters, names, designs, images, words, photographs, drawings, or other materials through articles such as posters, toys, games (including computer games), novelties, figures, figurines and clothing; and (v) printed matter relating to any of the foregoing goods or services.
Apple (Computer) can produce products that involve data transmission. Apple (Corps) has rights to produce new creative works.
Apple (Computer) does not produce new creative works; they resell music products via a data transmission service.
What will the High Court decide? Who knows, but the agreement is extremely vague and not clear cut at all.
But Apple is not producing any creative works whose principal content is music regardless of the means by which those works are recorded or communicated whether tangible or intangible.
Apple is reselling content.
In other words, Apple Corps has the use of the name in regards to MUSIC PRODUCTION. That's it. Apple Computer is NOT PRODUCING MUSIC.
For all the vagueries of the Agreement, "software of any kind" is pretty unequivocal.
Did you know the original lawsuit against Apple came from the fact that they put a speaker capable of producing music in their computers (the Apple IIGS, I think)? Silly when you think about it today, but it was a big thing back then.
It's a matter of understanding the agreement. Apple Corps was going after Apple's technological products that clearly did not clearly did not conflict with their main industry: producing music. Apple Computer was upset by this so much that they made sure the last agreement allowed them to produce any kind of hardware and any kind of software.
Describing an iPod as a "creative work whose principle content is music" is absurd. It's not a creative work. It is a technological product.
What is vague is: is there anything in the agreement which prevents Apple from reselling or distributing music. Personally, I don't think so. Personally, I think Apple Corps only has an argument if Apple had fully entered the music production market, but they haven't.
These are in addition to the one put forth by the beatles' reps.
Unfortunately, it's become common practice for giants like Apple to have legal "battle strategies" and people "watching the front lines for potential attacks".
Whether you say all these lawsuits reflect poorly on the Giants themselves or simply the way people have learned to manipulate the legal system, it still screams that SOMETHING, whatever you think that may be, is terribly, terribly wrong with the status quo of the business realm.
This just happens way too much.
Then they should have stuck to technology, not music distribution. There is an agreement in place, and they have violated it. Crying about it won't change the fact that they signed on to the deal in the first place.
I agree with that. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Apple broke a contract that Jobs signed. They need to get the short end of the stick for a while.
Now, I'd consider a fairly originally designed software to be a "creative work", as I would to the iPod. Unless you want to argue that the iPod and IMS aren't "creative works", than Apple certainly is guilty, because the principal content of both is music. Especially the IMS.
They are not creating music, they are distributing it through technological means.
What is wrong with you?
Record Companies main role is to distribute music.
When i first saw apple was distributing music (ipod and itunes) i deeply felt that Apple record labels and Apple computers must has partnered up.
We now know they were in no way affliated.
Unless there is a loophole in the Ironclad legal agreement between Apple and Apple Records that Apple may never enter any market affliated with music. and most definetly music distribution.
Apple stands to lose all their income from ITMS and a chunk of the iPod profits.
this is a multi billion dollar win for Apple Records
Such a shame i liked the market presence apple has shown.
R.I.P Apple Computers Born 1981 Died 2006
carl0ski, please show me this agreement that says that "Apple may never enter any market affliated with music", please. I haven't seen it.
Hell, please show me the only that "most definetly music distribution." I can only see one agreement which prevents Apple from owning creative content (of a musical form). As far as I know, Apple owns ZERO of the content being distributed.
Apple was founded in 1976 and will not be dead next year.
Just like Microsoft. Who got sued.
For those who know a little more about the Apple system, you will know one of the alert sounds is a chord called Sosumi (So-Sue-Me). I think this was Apple Computers having a little poke at the contract.
By most interpretations, Apple Corps only has specific rights to produce music which Apple is not doing.
Prior to crica 1940 AT&T owned every phone line in the US (and everything to do with phones) so in order to get a phone in your house you not only had to lease a line from AT&T, but you also had to lease a phone from them. This was deamed illegal for good reason... Could you imagine only being able to lease a few phones from Bell?
Apple is on shaky ground with the iTunes Music Store and its marriage to the iPod for many reasons. It not only prevents competition with their music store it also prevents consumers from moving their purchased music freely. I have recently written to my congress-people to support the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, HR 1201), which would allow consumers to reclaim the writes granted to them under current copyright law and grant us exemptions from the DMCA. I hope this bill passes so Apple and these other companys can be forced to stop stripping away our consumer rights...
Software companies are increasingly trying to turn as much of everything they can from a Sale to a Lease and it simply shouldn't be legal.
Just like you could take a CD and pop it into any CD player from yesteryear you should be able to do the same with the music you buy at a online music store. You should also be able to take the music off your device and put it back on it easily.
In the 1990's Apple paid the beatles $26.5 million dollars because of the violation.
Read it and weep Apple fans: Apple getting sued yet again
Now that Apple Computer has the ITMS, this is clearly a violation of this agreement, and when this goes to court, Apple Computer will not have a leg to stand on. My guess will be another multi-million dollar out of court settlement.
I don't have anything against Apple Computer at all, but on this they have shown stupidity of monolithic proportions.
Last edited by 26908 on 07 May 2005 - 18:00
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.