Beatles Beaten By A Moron In A Hurry

from the first-france,-now-london,-apple-completes-the-euro-sweep dept

Mon, May 8th 2006 10:16am — Joseph Weisenthal

The long running Apple vs. Apple trademark battle has come to a close, with Apple computer prevailing over the Beatles' record label, Apple Corp. The judge in the case ruled that Apple's logo does not resemble that of Apple Corp., and that iTunes isn't technically a music store, but rather a data transmission service. A 1991 agreement between the two companies specifically allowed for data transmission and the judge deserves credit for understanding what iTunes truly is. Hopefully more people will recognize that laws regulating specific kinds of media are outmoded in an era when it can all be broken down into indistinguishable streams of data. The ruling is also a victory for the "moron in a hurry" defense, which should be applied to more trademark cases, when plaintiffs claim the possibility of confusion.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Krist, 8 May 2006 @ 10:29am

Great!
I'm glad that Apple Corp. lost this one. *neener neener neener :-P* Good job on the judge's part, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
garfalk, 8 May 2006 @ 10:53am

yea! apple pride!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous coward, 8 May 2006 @ 10:56am

john is dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2006 @ 11:06am
  
  Re:
  So's George.
  But, the Walrus was Paul.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one, 8 May 2006 @ 10:58am

Really, why should I *care*?
Body is subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devious, 8 May 2006 @ 11:16am

OK, Never knew the Bettles has an Apple....
Never really paid it much attention, plus I never listed to their music either, and never will....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wolff000, 8 May 2006 @ 11:37am

Love the beatles, Glad they lost
I'm a big beatles fan but this suit was just away to cash in on Apple Computers success. If John were alive he wouldn't have gone for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Celes, 8 May 2006 @ 11:52am
  
  Re: Love the beatles, Glad they lost
  If you go waaay back and read the source articles about the suit, it doesn't seem as if it were the Beatles who sued. It does tie the Beatles to the company (Apple Corps) which is suing, but not to the lawsuit itself. I doubt either of the surviving two were pushing for the lawsuit, either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2006 @ 11:42am

It's "Apple Corps", a play on words (pronounced apple core), not Apple Corp., which is the computer company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doc Rings, 8 May 2006 @ 11:43am

soon to be overturned
There are more morons with robes on that will be happy to overturn this sensible ruling... just hold on to your apples and see!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lexpro, 8 May 2006 @ 12:13pm

Wait a minute
If Itumes isn't a music store but is a data transmission service than the download of copyrighted music, videos, etc. isn't piracy of the performance, it is transmission and reception of data, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raymond, 8 May 2006 @ 12:13pm

iTunes isn't a music store?
iTunes isn't a music store? Why does their web site proudly proclaim "the iTunes Music Store is a smash hit"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman, 8 May 2006 @ 12:15pm

Why are people happy about this?
Why are people (other than Apple fanboys) happy about this? 20+ years ago, the two Apples came to an agreement. Apple Corp (the older company) graceously allowed Apple Computer to use the name, provided they did not go into the music business. Well guess what? Apple Computer IS in the music business (computers is just a sideline these days). At the very least, they should be forced to spin off iTunes into a separate company with a different name (and logo) and let Apple Computer fend for itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Walking Dude, 8 May 2006 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Why are people happy about this?
  The original agreement has been modified multiple times to allow Apple Computer to do exactly what it is doing now. The argument was whether iTunes violated Apple Computer's prohibition (spelled out on that last agreement between the companies) on selling media (specifically CDs and tapes) containing music. The judge ruled that it did not and Apple Computer did not violate that agreement.
  
  People are happy because the judge ruled correctly that the iTunes is a data transmission service and not a music store. This is fairly important distinction when it comes to e-commerce matters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MJB, 8 May 2006 @ 12:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Why are people happy about this?
    Apple rotten to the core.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike, 8 May 2006 @ 4:08pm
    
    Re: Why are people happy about this?
    I think the distinction is that Apple Compter has the "iTunes Music Store" website and software, they charge money for the product, not the bandwidth, they pay a wholesale price for the product, and they make a profit selling the product, not the bandwidth.
    
    If they were a data transmission service 99 cents is what you would pay for the bandwidth to download data, in this case music which would then be free.
    
    Instead, 99 cents is the retail price of a product. Of which Apple Computer pays a reported wholesale price of 70 cents.
    
    It may not be CDs and tapes, but it is still a product. The RIAA says so.
    
    This is INDEED a business model for a store not a transmission service.
    
    Apple Computers is distributing music at a handsome profit because of the iPod.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Walking Dude, 8 May 2006 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Why are people happy about this?
      Definitely all true. However, they are selling data, not physical media. The agreement was pretty specific. If you ask me, Apple Corps should be suing their lawyers for bad advice. This case was pretty weak. The agreement between the companies was quite clear that physical media is not allowed (which answers the question why the U2 ipod did not come with U2 catalogue pre-loaded). The judge ruled correctly in this case, that iTunes is a data transmission service. How they charge for that data is irrelevant to the discussion.
      
      As for "The Beatles" suing...that is simply not true. I seriously doubt Paul and Ringo had anything to do with this lawsuit other than being told about it. This was a corporate lawyer justifying his existence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2006 @ 2:59pm

Word association
I don't know about you, but when I think iTunes, I don't think Apple. I think, "Where did I put my iPod?"
I think that both parties should realise that if they would just agree to let iTunes sell Beatles songs, both of them could make a lot of money. Right now, the Beatles songs on my iPod are taken from CDs borrowed from the library. That means that I did not pay for them. That's right, NOBODY MADE ANY MONEY! I would much rather buy the songs off iTunes then go to the library's site, request the CD, wait for it to be delivered from some remote library out in Berne or some crazy nowhere place, go to the library, pick it up, copy the songs, and take the CD back. At a buck a song, mostly made up of gift certificates given for birthdays/Chistmas, I would rather sit at home and wait a minute or two for it to download, and then play the song while on the way to the library to pick up a Led Zeppelin CD.
And as a note: I don't consider this illegal, because I could always go get the CD from the library and listen to it. Even so, I'll probably be getting a call from RIAA tonight.:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frink, 8 May 2006 @ 3:10pm

Beatles should produce a branded portable music device. Beatles should create an online music store of their own. Beatles should sell their music to anyone who still cares about it. Beatles might make a lot of money - or not. Beatles and Apple leave each other alone.

Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh please, 9 May 2006 @ 1:20pm

got one thing right
itunes *isn't* a music store. i see a lot of derivative swill that *claims* to be music sold there. but that is more a swipe at the music industry and not at apple computers...

still, itunes would be lucky to have Beatles music to download. somehow, i don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. and it isn't hurting Beatles sales one whit. yoko ono is probably laughing all the way to the bank.

apple corps began in 1967 or 1968, i think. pity that apple corp, with all of its amazing original contributions to the world, couldn't use its great creativity to pick a different name and avoid all of this altogether. those of you who weren't eating baby food (or even gestating) during the end of the reagan administration probably know this. apple corps was a well-known brand. if you're lucky/old enough to own r e c o r d s (you may remember them, little plastic disks, skipped, not the "perfect" sound of CDs but still had a certain warmth in the sound that CDs lack) you would have seen the granny smith apple at the center of all Apple Records, including those of the Beatles. (others recorded on Apple as well, but you're probably too young and bored for that trivia.)

anyway, paul and ringo probably had nothing to do with this suit. it isn't like either of them need the cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]