Apple vs Apple. Plus: Le Freak! C’est Chic!

iTunes might soon be operating without the Apple logo, at least if the Beatles’ record company Apple Corps manages to get their kibosh on. A case between Apple Computers and Apple Corps is currently being deliberated in London Courts.

Flashback to 1991, when Apple Computers and Apple Corps settled an argument over their equally fruity logos by agreeing that Apple Computers would never sell music. Of course, then iTunes came around. Apple Computers, weaving a wonderful semantic wormhole through the very fabric of rationality, is now claiming that they don’t sell music, they are merely the conduit through which music passes. To prove otherwise, Apple Corps’ lawyer apparently played Le Freak for the court. An intriguing legal strategy in what is a rather weird story to begin with.

Apple vs. Apple in Dispute Over Trademark [New York Times]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Paul D says:

    If they’re making money off being the “conduit”, then they’re selling music.

    That’s like saying Tower Records doesn’t sell CDs, they are merely the “conduit” by which the CDs go from the manufacturer to the customer.

    The whole thing is ridiculous. Nobody is going to mistake iTunes for the Apple Corps production company.

  2. Except that Apple Computers never signed a contract saying that they wouldn’t “sell music.” They signed a contract that stated that they would never distribute music on physical media (i.e. CDs). In fact, their contract explicitly allows digital transfer of “entertainment media.” Apple Corps doesn’t have a leg to stand on; this is nothing more than a money grab. (And does anybody think that, after being sued and settling twice, Apple Computers would be so stupid as to not operate on the right side of the law on this one? Did they think that Apple Corps would just forget about its profitable side-business of suing Apple Computers and decided to just leave them alone? I doubt it.)

  3. GenXCub says:

    Yoko needs a new pair of shoes….