Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | The Beatles sue Apple over 'stolen' trademark: "The argument centres on Apple Computer's iTunes service, which allows users to download and save pre-recorded songs through the internet. There have been more than 1bn downloads through the iTunes Music Store, with 3.7m tracks available worldwide.London-based Apple Corps, owned by Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison, is suing over alleged breach of a 1991 agreement between the two firms.The agreement forbids Apple Computer from using the trademark for any application 'whose principal content is music.'"
Now I *love* the music of the Beatles, but this is just getting plain tiring. I do believe they are going to continue to attempt to reap ever escalating profits from Apple's successes and innovation. This marks at least the third round of lawsuits, and I don't believe it is a case of Apple not learning it's lesson. Apple has simply stayed at the vanguard of the innovation curve in the computing market, and the advances it has made into the area of "music" have been essentially necessary to maintain its competitive edge. I also do not believe it detracts in ANY measurable way from "Apple Corps"—the Beatles record label. No one identifies the Beatles with "Apple Corps" except to perhaps comment on the design of some of their CDs (and perhaps LPs), notably the two greatest hits albums. Their name and sales are not damaged or confused in any way by Apple's own name.
In some ways, this seems a debate bearing some semblance to the Blackberry RIM case of patent violations, except this is merely a flippant trademark issue and examining Apple's history, we see no malevolence or intentions to infringe on the Beatle's territory. I find the Beatle's actions rude, obtrusive, and downright greedy. However, the law *may* be on their side merely because of precedent in past cases. I have a feeling Apple will be making another significant out-of-court cash settlement....
Any thoughts out there people would care to voice on this and where they stand re this corner of the intellectual property debates?
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment