[Ti] Apple: "[Supplying music to customers may be its future"

[XXL]

> At the time the court ruled
> that since Apple Computer and Apple Records were, well, Apples and Oranges,
> they tossed the suit out the window.
> 
> Now that Apple is going into the music distribution business, I would think
> Apple Records now has a right to re-file the lawsuit.

That suit was over the polyphonic sound chip in the Apple II GS. The Apple
name is licensed to Apple Computer by Apple Corps Ltd, the Beatles company.
The terms of the license restrict use of the name to any area of the music
business.  Apple legal showed incredible arrogance in how this matter was
handled.  They actually counter-sued in an English court asking the court to
deprive Apple Corps of their trademark. (Fat chance)  Apple Computer was
ordered to pay Apple Corps $26.5 million in damages in the end (at least
that was the amount that was reported in the press).  The most egregious
part was that Apple Corps was working out an agreement that excepted the II
Gs from the terms of the original license, but Apple released the machine
before the new agreement was concluded.  There is some question as to what
if anything the Beatles asked from Apple Computer to use their trade name
except that they refrain from competing with Apple Corps in their
businesses, which are essentially music and related things. At the time
Apple Computer was not rich enough to pay a lot as they were just starting.

I am pretty sure that the trade name "Apple" can not be applied by Apple
Computer to anything in the  music business, but I have never read the terms
of the license.

The Macintosh trade name is also not Apple Computers property.  Apple paid
McIntosh Labs of Binghamton, NY (they make the hi-end audio equipment with
the distinctive black glass face plates) $3 million for a license to use the
trade name Macintosh.
-Joel