They didn't settle for a "small" sum, it was $26.5 Million Dollars! One would think they would be left alone at this point.

The Apple tree needs to trimmed down a bit.

I hope this just falls under normal due diligence that Apple Corps needs to demonstrate to show that they are actively protecting their trademark. I look forward to the special Apple event where Steve announces The Beatles on iTunes. :-)

BTW, the twist is not so interesting given that the judge asked if either side took issue that he owns an iPod.

What're y'all Job's buckfoys? Forget him, he's just a stupider version of Gates: a MiniMe / MiniMooch, a devil in lamb's clothing. Don't diss the Music Gods, the glorious Beatles: learn to respect good for a change!

The Beatles were a very mediocre amateur band with questionable musical talents and the most overrated songs ever. I'm just sorry nobody shot the other ones too. No go sodomise yourself.

1. Learn how to spell first, then:
2. go lookup the common line Dan Aykroyd would utter to Jane Curtin on SNL newscasts.
3. Also, stay away from adult discussions until you're of legal age-- or at least you learn to respect your elders....
4. And don't tempt Satan with that type of suggestive talk, or HE'll get you next time you fall asleep drunk.

The beatles were great at their time because of media exposure. They have good songs, but in today's world they are just a music band from the past...The name apple should not be owned, after all is not something they invented. Apple Computer only distributes music and their services is called iTunes not Apple music. Those who admired the Beatles maybe don't get it...but then again shouldn't you be just waiting for retirement.... :P

Whether you liked them or not is your opinion, not a fact. Their popularity however proves you are in the minority. Also to say you're sorry the others were not shot proves you are a retard. Go away.

Correct me if i'm wrong. According to you; if i'm going to assemble pc's and sell them under the name Microsoft the guys in Redmond will not bother?

I agree with you that the name Apple should be allowed for other businesses but not for those too close in eachothers line of work. Apple Comp. already settled over the name twice and agreed to stay out of Apple Corp.'s way.

Are you completely stupid?!?! When asked, most musical groups, solo artists in the pop/rock/heavy metal genres will claim the Beatles as being influential musically. All things being equal, I think that alone would prove they were not a "mediocre amateur band with questionable musical talent".

Michael Jackson actually owns the original BEATLES catalog. There was discussion of selling it; because the lawyer's bills for the child molest trial were expensive. So he actually needs money more than Paul McCartney these days

The band members and their estates still control all of their solo albums and the post LET IT BE music...

The beatles? aren't those the fellows from england that my grandma used to listen to.... Apple computer doesn't make any music they just help in the distribution. I smell some greedy excutives on this (paul mccartney) I guess when you are successful there is always someone that will try to make a quick buck out of you.

This is just another strong argument for the abolition of copyright extensions.

Most of The Beatles tunes should be public domain by now.

I'm all for rewarding creativity, but 30 years after the fact? That's a little much.

God help anyone or their heirs who dares to make money from their creative endeavours.

FYI Copyright limitations expire after the life of the author PLUS 70 years, so you might be waiting a while for free Beatles tunes.

Apple Comp. was founded after Apple Corp.
Over the years Apple Comp. moved further towards Apple Corp.
First settlement over the name was $80.000 for Apple Corp. and Steve Jobs assurance that his Apple wouldn't have anything to do with music. Second settlement was $26,5 million for Apple Corp. and the exclusive rights for Apple Corp. to use the name Apple for "creative works, mostly in music". Apple Comp. got the rights to make appliances to play such works. Apple Comp. also agreed not to publish music on physical media.

The last point is where the fuss is about. Apple Comp. says that they don't publish music on physical media. That's for the judge to seek out.

By the way. There are also other artists under the Apple lable.

...unless you use a bittorrent client.

"God help anyone or their heirs who dares to make money from their creative endeavours."

I have no problem with folks making money from their "creative endeavours", and as far as the Beatles are concerned, they have. As I said above though, I believe 30 years to be a bit much.

And as far as heirs go? Why should *anyone* make money off of *someone else's* "creative endeavours"?

Of course, this is a societal issue...we worship our social icons, be they in sports, big media, or print. And of course, any relation to a God, is a God by default, right?

This is not about the Beatles, it's about Apple Records. They are making money on current artists too. As for the 30 years thing, why should they suddenly have to start giving away their music just because it's old?

Well you might think 30 years to be a bit much, but sometimes it takes 30 years for someone to be discovered, are you gonna deny them royalties because they were just too slow to get known?

I guess by your definition of "someone else's endeavours" nobody should inherit the family business either.

Societal issue? That sounds like the communist code for "ownership and rights" (ie capitalism) is evil.

Yeah yeah yeah..the Beatles have made plenty, and someone else will continue to rake in the dough for a long time yet.

Oh, and Clapton ain't God.

im a pc user ,after this i dont want buy any of the Beatles tunes.

even though i knew nothing about this "apple corp." before reading this article, but im starting to hate them now.

Apple Corp was set up by The Beatles in 1968 and Apple Comp wasn't around until 1977. In 1981 they had a battle and ending up sharing the trademark. Apple Comp could use the name and logo for computer-related things and Apple Corp could use them for entertainment related matters. They each had control over a separate market. This was the agreed deal. Apple Comp later wanted to renegotiate and Apple Corp refused. The agreement has never been rewritten nor changed due to a verdict in a court of law so Apple Comp is in violation of the agreement dating back to 1981.

Note how they are call the sale of online music as being a "data transfer". Why not call it what it is? It's music which crosses into entertainment which breaks the 1981 agreement.

You can find more info. But, my point in replying was you are biased because as you stated you didn't know about Apple Corp until this article and Apple Comp isn't innocent.

crap crap crap crap crap.
ru working for them ?

ru working for them?

If you ask me it's more like the other way around. Rotjong makes some clear points. Your intellect seems to be a little behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps

If this reply was aimed at me the answer is "no".

One thing I like, however, is having a clue what the whole story is about and not one article and having no knowledge of one side of the story. Apple Comp isn't some innocent company being picked on by Apple Corp. Apple Comp has knowingly and intentionally done what they did knowing full well they are wrong. This reminds me of Microsoft...

Now this has nothing to do with me liking one of the companies over the other. The issue is the legality and Apple Comp breaching an agreement and basically not giving a damn.

apple corp is using apple for using apple ,using law against apple most of us like very much.even though we all like apples but apple is expensive so all i can do is dream about those tasty apples, but now there is this news about beatles apples suing apple for apple selling tunes which apple Corp and apple never disagreed on. apple apple apple apple

"Your intellect seems to be a little behind."
true true, i agree with you.

but stupid people (like meeeeeeee) can sometime see the bigger picture those genius in the box cant.

tell me how did apple selling tunes affected apple corp. compare that to what wee got with itunes. even if they(apple) sold those beatles tunes they(apple corp.) must have got their share of royalty.

you are a true genius, idiot. Apple Corp. has the right, per agreement signed by Apple computers, to have the trademark, copyright of logo for anything to do with music. Apple Computer bu agreement CAN NOT get into "data transfers (ITUNES) or anything else to do with music based on this agreement.

heh. this remind you of anything?
Hint: The RIM case

Awwwww MAN!!! I thought I had heard the last of RIM..... {sighs}

:)

We could take this further. New York City has a copyright on the name Big Apple and the apple has been used for NYC's symbol before either one of them used it. Because of this a number of New York business's use the apple. Should NYC sue them both over it? Usually the idea of suing over infringement involves the assumption that it presents confusion amongst the general public about the two companies and thus takes away business from the first one to have it. Now if we really look at this, one is called Apple Computer and the other is called Apple Corp. Even the apple symbol is different one has a half apple and the other has an apple with a bite out of it.