As a HUGE Beatles fan, I will say this:

Apple Corps. are freaking stupid. Shut up, demand a few million from AAPL, and get the Beatles on iTunes. Get over it and move on!

Although I don't agree with the concept of spinning off the iPod/iTunes division from Apple, it would make all of this go away.

If you're a Beatles fan you probably already own all of their LPs, casettes or CDs. I don't see the big draw in adding content from artists that no longer release new music. Upload your CDs into iTunes and you're set. Unless, the Beatles have secret unreleased recordings that they would be willing to offer as downloads, why the big fuss?

As for the lawsuit, Apple Computer may have to settle once again. Time to make the big payoff and be done once and for all. Apple Corps hasn't done anything since the Beatles. Time to close your doors and stop trying to make money through lawsuits (even if you can).

Apple (computer) should just pony up the small amount of cash to buy out this desperate dinosaur of a company and be done with it. And fire all their sorry butts to boot once bought. The Beatles are SOOOOOOOOOO over.

Paul McCartney may still have a stylish solo career, but Ringo Starr is nothing more than a iconic oddity who makes guest appearances in movies and sometimes small TV parts. As a music force, NOBODY UNDER 30 knows who he is. And the target market for music these days ISN'T the over 30 market.

This is just making the lawyers rich. Be done with it.

Both sides of apple v apple are richer than god.

I believe the 1st suit was filed in 1980 and not 1989. The 2nd suit was filed in 1989 and settled in 1990.

Point is Jobs didn'd do his business homework and used a name that the beattles had established almost 8 years before.

Jobs and Wozniak don't win awards for being brilliant designers. They are brilliant thieves. They stole the idea of the PC from Xerox, who was to stupid to understand what they had in 1972. They stole the name Apple from The Beatles (keep in mind at a time when The Beatles were still very big.)

Then they refined the MP3 business coming in later to support the music industry by offering individual songs for a $1 each when they were previously being sold for $0.00. Bringing back the industry business model of selling about 10-12 songs for $12-$15 bucks.

The masses too stupid or feeling to guilty for all the free downloads, accepted Jobs at face value, bit off on the concept that a billionaire mogul of 26 years in the industry can still be an underdog, and started shelling over their money too them.

Compare that to The Beatles long know for sucking money out of their fans under the guise of peace, love & maybe freedom, also billionaires in their own right.

And what do you have Goliath v Goliath.

At the core of this thing is who owns right to the trademark the Apple. Now is that stupid or what? Fighting over the rights to the image of a fruit that has been in existence longer than humans?

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/6073/picture14tv.jpg

It's time to give up the ghost. Your settlement with Apple Computer allows it to make computers that play music. The iPod is a computer that plays music. While Apple Computer is not allowed to distribute music as physical CDs and tapes it's allowed to offer goods and services relating to music. The iTunes Music Service is a data transmission service relating to music. Apple Computer is not a record label nor is it distributing physical records, CDs or tapes of music. Furthermore the purpose of trademark legislation is to protect consumers from confusion. There is no confusion between the business of Apple Computer and an essentially defunct record label. Move on Apple Corpse beyond frivolous lawsuits where you don't have a case.

They should work out a deal with Apple for $X as "pre-payment' for iTunes sales. Right now all they are doing is building up bills from the lawyers.

The fact is that Apple Corps has failed to continue in business at a normal level and therefore suffer no damages from iTunes.

They missed the chance for a Beatles iPod - the U2 iPod was a pretty good deal for U2 and Apple so why didn't the Beatles see this opportunity?

It's time for Apple Corps to realize their brand is dead. There will always be some money coming in from sales of cd's, etc., but the Beatles are HISTORY.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Both sides of apple v apple are richer than god.

I believe the 1st suit was filed in 1980 and not 1989. The 2nd suit was filed in 1989 and settled in 1990.

Point is Jobs didn'd do his business homework and used a name that the beattles had established almost 8 years before.

Jobs and Wozniak don't win awards for being brilliant designers. They are brilliant thieves. They stole the idea of the PC from Xerox, who was to stupid to understand what they had in 1972. They stole the name Apple from The Beatles (keep in mind at a time when The Beatles were still very big.)

Then they refined the MP3 business coming in later to support the music industry by offering individual songs for a $1 each when they were previously being sold for $0.00. Bringing back the industry business model of selling about 10-12 songs for $12-$15 bucks.

The masses too stupid or feeling to guilty for all the free downloads, accepted Jobs at face value, bit off on the concept that a billionaire mogul of 26 years in the industry can still be an underdog, and started shelling over their money too them.

Compare that to The Beatles long know for sucking money out of their fans under the guise of peace, love & maybe freedom, also billionaires in their own right.

And what do you have Goliath v Goliath.

At the core of this thing is who owns right to the trademark the Apple. Now is that stupid or what? Fighting over the rights to the image of a fruit that has been in existence longer than humans?

Quote

Guest wrote:

Point is Jobs didn'd do his business homework and used a name that the beattles had established almost 8 years before.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Jobs and Wozniak don't win awards for being brilliant designers. They are brilliant thieves. They stole the idea of the PC from Xerox.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Then they refined the MP3 business coming in later to support the music industry by offering individual songs for a $1 each when they were previously being sold for $0.00.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Bringing back the industry business model of selling about 10-12 songs for $12-$15 bucks.

First, those of you who are dragging the iPod into this--the iPod is not an issue. The iPod and iTunes are fine. The issue is with iTunes Music Store--and I think Apple (computer) is definitely outside the agreement.

The agreement does not specifically state what "formats" Apple is prohibited from selling music in. It does list some examples, like tapes and CDs, but the agreement prohibits Apple from selling music, which is what they are doing. Apple's argument that they are selling "online data transfers" which just happen to be music barely passes the laugh-out-loud test.

Apple may have to divest itself of the iTunes Music Store. I wonder if running it as a wholly-owned subsidiary would work...

How Apple got the Mac OS GUI
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html

(with assorted comments about Microsoft innovation pertinent at the time this article was written)

Actually, there will probably be a new Beatles album in the next year.
Cirque Du Soleil and Apple Corp/EMI have partnered together to put together a show using the Beatles music that is slated to open this summer in Las Vegas.
If you know Cirque, then you can bet the music in the show won't be anything you heard on any Beatles album.

The most amusing part is that most high end music editing places, use Apple Computers for their digital editing.
I wonder....

Imagine the Beatles stopped suing Apple..
it's isn't hard to do...
nothing to settle or fight for..
no more lawsuits too..

Imagine all the people..
buying tunes in peace...

Quote

Freeze wrote:
Imagine the Beatles stopped suing Apple..
it's isn't hard to do...
nothing to settle or fight for..
no more lawsuits too..

Imagine all the people..
buying tunes in peace...

To Hell with the Beatles. At least the 2 remaining ones anyway. The other 2 are already there. I hope Steve will tell them to go #@!$ themselves.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Jobs and Wozniak don't win awards for being brilliant designers. They are brilliant thieves.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Then they refined the MP3 business coming in later to support the music industry by offering individual songs for a $1 each when they were previously being sold for $0.00. Bringing back the industry business model of selling about 10-12 songs for $12-$15 bucks.

It's important to note that if Apple bought Apple, they would not gain the rights to the Beatles catalog. All they would gain is the rights to a few other bands and the right to use the name Apple in peace.

Apple, the music company, doesn't own the rights to the Beatles' songs... Michael Jackson does.

FYI all you people..

The apple name was used, because of the fruit, not the music company. Apparently Jobs had a big thing for the fruit after spending some time in isolation at one of his cult hideaways.

The mac was so called because of a local variety of apple (McKintosh), but they mispelled it (or thought it was better) as macintosh..

Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, but I believe that Aple Corps still owns the Beatles recordings.

Well with MJ's current finacial issues perhaps Apple Computer can buy the publishing rights from him, wouldnt that be ironic.

Apple corp. had made a prior agreement in which Apple would stay out of the music business. Apple, the computer company violated the terms of an earlier deal, and should pay. Apple computer has/had a logo that infringed on trademark rights of the Beatles recording group, Apple corp. When the Beatles recording company thought of that original logo of the Apple they put the logo on their own product in order for it to be recognized with music, furthermore the music of the Beatles. Now when I think of the term "Apple" I think of I-pod which is music, and not the type of music I am supposed to be thinking of.

In my mind it does matter, I mean Apple corp. had made a prior agreement in which Apple would stay out of the music business. Apple, the computer company violated the terms of an earlier deal, and should pay. Apple computer has/had a logo that infringed on trademark rights of the Beatles recording group, Apple corp. When the Beatles recording company thought of that original logo of the Apple they put the logo on their own product in order for it to be recognized with music, furthermore the music of the Beatles. Now when I think of the term "Apple" I think of I-pod which is music, and not the type of music I am supposed to be thinking of.