Apple: iTunes Doesn't Violate Agreement

Everybody just wants a piece of the pie.

Damages? Dude... that freaking label has not produced anything in years... it does not even own the Beatles music!!!

There is no music produced by Apple Corps on iTunes. And I have seen the Apple Corps logo there is no way that the could be confused.

Wow. This is exactly why I am afraid of becoming successful. The more successful you are, the more people tear and grab at everything from your socks to your hat.

Hey, Edward! Don't let fear hold you back! I think I'll worry about being successful first before I worry about someone trying to steal my successful socks! ;)

Ed and Doug, because your white socks are almost indistinguishable from my white socks, and people may become confused as to who owns which pair of socks, I'm suing you guys.

$2 million. Each :)

Wait. Let's join forces and sue Doug. Split the $2 mil 50/50?

Vos argued in his opening statement Wednesday that that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side.

I think that is one of the weakest arguments i have ever heard.

I think we should sue Kellogg's while we are at it because they have that congenial tiger, tony. For a while I was under the impression that he made all of the frosted flakes in the world. Boy was i wrong. < /sarcasm>

How do Paul Ringo, and the rest of the remnants of the Beatles feel about this? It's one thing to have a bunch of sniveling lawyers snapping at Apple (Computer)'s heels, but to have the actual artists is another thing altogether. It's a side to this story we've heard surprisingly little about.

Sad, sad time for the British courts, they should throw it out.

The suit might have a bit more credibility if they hadn't waited until the iTunes store became the music behemoth that it is today, though I doubt it.

... and the agreement between Apple and Apple says...

"Apple Computer is allowed to use their trademark on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," provided that they don't distribute it on physical media."

Seems simple to me.

... and the agreement between Apple and Apple says...

"Apple Computer is allowed to use their trademark on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," provided that they don't distribute it on physical media."

Seems simple to me.

I suppose that's why they were selling those U2 iPods with a certificate to download the U2 catalog instead of preloading them. I was wondering about that.

... the record company started in 1968 by the Fab Four ...

Maybe they should also sue Bravo for stealing "the fab five" (Queer Eye for The Straight Guy) from them!!

This is the most ridiculous case against Apple I have ever seen. The judge should throw it out. Then again, he's probably being paid not to!

@ Comment 2: yes, they do. A lot of the Beatles' discography was released on Parlophone (now a subsidiary of EMI), but at least three albums were released under the Apple label: The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be.

I'm pretty sure that Apple Corp. probably owns either distribution or publishing rights to a fair portion of the Beatles stuff still, hence they're after the continued steady income of sales royalties and performance royalties - a nice little earner for them.

Please don't just post a wild claim or statement without either researching or verifying your facts beforehand.

Please don't just post a wild claim or statement without either researching or verifying your facts beforehand.

I thought he was referring to all the Beatles music rights that Micheal Jackson bought in that bidding war with McCartney.

I thought he was referring to all the Beatles music rights that Micheal Jackson bought in that bidding war with McCartney.

Dont Warner Bros have half of those now?

Can't these old farts just relax? first the seal hunt now this... lame...