News

Apple Says iTunes 'Within Our Field of Use'

Friday, March 31st, 2006 at 11:25 AM - by Staff

Apple Computer attorney Anthony Grabiner on Thursday told a British court: "Data transmission is within our field of use, that's what the 1991 deal says and it is inescapable." According to Playlist, Apple Corps lawyer Geoffrey Vos revealed that Apple Computer had offered Apple Corps US$1 million before the iTunes Music Store opened and was denied.

Mr. Vos also took the opportunity to show the iTunes Music Store to the presiding judge and point out how often Apple's logo appears. That logo is the heart of the Apple vs. Apple dispute: according to the previous legal agreement between the companies, Apple Computer can't sell music on such physical media as cassette or CD. While Apple says that the iTMS adheres to that agreement because it doesn't sell music on physical media, Mr. Vos countered: "Permanent downloads are the new CDs."

The court case opened on Wednesday and was expected to last five days.

11 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:06 pm

"Permanent downloads are the new CDs" that is a bogus analogy. When i buy a cd at store, the corp logo is on physical media, so as to not confuse customer as to who the content producer is.

None of that is relevant here, as Apple is not a music producer, which is what agreement prevented them from doing.

Nor is their logo on music i buy.

""Permanent downloads are the new CDs." and todays new cds are tomorrows old media. and some day music will sold thru brian waves, with no logos at all, Is apple computer still bound by that as well?

this is really short sighted of Apple Corp, who even though they managed the former beetles rights, have zero public awareness to be treaded upon. Apple Computer can take one instance of their logo of iTunes, and Apple corp has no case, no compensation.

Also, iTunes is more than music store, it is a music playback device, at what point is it a store with a logo, a player with logo, and either way, neither of these makes apple content producer which could be confused with Apple Corp.

Quote this post ↓

fartheststar said:

member since 04 Jan 2004 with 222 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:11 pm

this is a get "richer" quick scheme - Apple Corps.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1011 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:33 pm

No, it's a last grasp to be seen as relevant in the music industry and the world in general.

Oops. Too late.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:48 pm

Need cash for Pot - The Beatles

Quote this post ↓

bryson said:

member since 05 Mar 2002 with 79 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:05 pm

If Apple Corp wins this lawsuit, I'm taking my Beatles CD's and smashing them into bits with a hammer, putting the shards in a plastic bag and mailing it to Sir Paul. Inside will contain a note saying that I'm going to download pirated versions of all of their albums from the internet and hand out burned copies to everyone I know.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:02 pm

This suit is such BS (like most of the music industry suits). Who give a crap about a logo? When I go to iTunes I don't think that it has any relationship to Sir Paul's little baby. Get real. This is just a bunch of lawyers and accountants trying to make money by abusing a broken system instead of actually creating something and selling it.

What has the world come to...sheesh.

Quote this post ↓

sweyhrich said:

member since 25 Oct 2004 with 10 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:10 pm

To suggest that downloads are then "new CD' is definitely grasping at straws. iTMS is to music what Best Buy or Wal-Mart or any retailer of physical music media is to music: A provider of the music. Whether it uses a logo with an apple in it or not does not mean it should owe anything to Apple Corps, especially when the logos are so drastically different. Apple Corps should be grateful to the Wal-Marts, Best Buys, Sam Goodys, or iTMS, to be a distributor of the music that its limited number of artists has produced; it is providing a NEW REVENUE model for these old companies, something that costs them very little to distriburte (much less than a physical media such as a CD, with its case and paper liner notes, etc requires).

I can't get inside of Paul McCartney's head any better than I can get inside of Steve Jobs' head to know what his intentions here are, but I suspect that the people who are going to make the most money out of any settlement decided in Apple Corps favor are going to be their legal representatives.

Quote this post ↓

Rainy Day said:

member since 07 Jun 2005 with 607 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:56 pm

I think Apple will definitely win this one!

Okay, i think is likely to win this one. Apple Corpse’s [sic] case is tenuous at best. And in the UK, loser pays the other’s attorney (i.e. barrister) fees.

Remember how Steve Jobs pulled all the Wiley books off the Apple Store shelves because he didn’t like one book (iCon, which was an unflattering and unauthorized bio of Steve)? Whatta wanna bet iTunes won’t be carrying any Apple Corps titles as long as Steve is at the helm? Methinks the parasitic Beatles shot themselves in the foot.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:12 am

I think people forget some of the history here. When Apple Computer was founded, the biggest thing "Apple" represented (as a business entity) in people's minds was the Apple logo for the Beatles albums, and back then, in the 70s, that MEANT something, and people were very aware of it. And that gave Apple Computer a positive associative image back then. At least it did for me (yeah, I'm that old...).

So, think of the lawsuit this way: You have an old friend who is known world-wide for a certain brand name for soda-pop, let's call is "Jim's Soda Pop". You want to start a business, and use that same name, a computer business, called "Jim's Computers", and back then, that HELPs, because Jim's Soda Pop is so well-liked that hearing "Jim's Computers" will make people think "That might be nice TOO". The name really HELPS you. Now your friend says, being generous, "feel free to use the name; I like you; just don't sell soda-pop with that name and we'll be okay", and you get lawyers to write that general agreement up. Sounds like a nice friend. But, fast forward 28 years. You are so successful, people refer to your company as "Jim's" and frequently don't add "Computers" after your name. You are known for cool products. Now, nd you have opened up a soda pop STORE - you're not making soda-pop, but you're selling it - you have the "Jim's Soda-Pop Store"

Okay - now HOW SHOULD YOUR FRIEND WHO MAKES SODA-POP feel? Seriously? He helped you back then, with the feeling that soda pop and computers really will never overlap - NOW they do.

All those who offered knee-jerk reactions - do you now see the reason Jim could feel a bit miffed? That whether or not he SHOULD win the lawsuit, you can understand his annoyance. Because he remembers that time back when - when that name HELPED you.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:06 pm

Apple came out when the Beatles were OLD news. Apple has nothing to do with the Beatles.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:28 pm

Guest wrote:

.......All those who offered knee-jerk reactions - do you now see the reason Jim could feel a bit miffed? That whether or not he SHOULD win the lawsuit, you can understand his annoyance. Because he remembers that time back when - when that name HELPED you.

In your post you have made a valid argument, however I think you have missed the point. Yes 'Jim’s Computers' is now distributing 'Pop' however they are not manufacturing/producing 'pop' and are in fact actually selling the original Jim's Pop (NOT their own) in effect helping the original Jim’s Pop sales via their new and innovative distribution process. If Jim’s Computers were manufacturing their own line of pop and distributing it in direct competition with Jim’s Pop, then they would have every right to feel miffed. However this is not what has happened with Apple Computer’s ITMS as they are purely an on-line distribution store, akin to Amazon, only ITMS distribute everything electronically.

Arguably way back when, Apple Corp ‘may’ have helped give Apple Computer more creditability, but that is certainly not the case now. Apple Computer now has the creditability, reputation and wider brand recognition. Some might even say that the situation could now be working in reverse, as I for one did not even know of the existence of Apple Corp until this law-suit came about. It could be said that Apple Corp is now riding on the coat-tails of Apple Computers reputation and with the filing of this ridiculous law-suit I sincerely hope that it is NOT all the way to the bank.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.