I hate corporations

[ramtops]

this story from the Register just depresses me so much.

Apple Corp. and Apple Comp. - aka the Beatles and the maker of the Mac - are reported to be on the verge of ending their legal dispute over the latter's right to operate in the music market. ...

"People are expecting this to be the biggest settlement anywhere in legal history, outside of a class action suit," said one lawyer. "The numbers could be mind boggling."

just how much more money does Paul McCartney *need*, FFS?

in other news, Sony is buying MGM - BBC news story here. Oh good - we really do need megalithic "entertainment" companies, don't we?

Comments

On the other hand ..

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... playing devil's advocate here ...

The Beatles were just four working class lads who, by talent, timing, good management etc. became very successful. They set up a record label called "Apple" in about 1970 to put out their own (and other people's music).

Years later (1977) Steve Jobs set up a company called Apple to make computers. No problem there, no one is likely to get confused between a computer company and one that records and releases music, are they?

If I set up a company called "General Motors Cars" that was a taxi firm, or a company called "IBM" that produces business stationery, or a company called "Sony MGM Pictures" that sold video projectors ... then you can be fairly certain that the lawyers would be on me quicker than, well, something really quick indeed!

When Apple Corp and Apple Comp went through the legal stuff, Apple Corp was well known and Apple Comp was a small company mostly known to computer geeks (1980, when the main product was the Apple ][ and the Mac was still four years away). They had a legal agreement (a mostly pleasant one), Apple Corp would not object to the Apple Comp name being confusingly similar as long as Apple Comp didn't get involved in the music business. Apple Comp agreed.

In 1987 Apple Comp tried to renegotiate the deal which lead to a lawsuit in 1989 after Apple Comp released Midi on the Mac which was in breach of the 1981 agreement. Apple Comp lost the case and came to an agreement on what they could and couldn't do and reportedly paid 27 million dollars for the additional rights that were specifically allowed.

Apple now has iTunes, GarageBand, iPod etc. and are *very* much involved in music studios etc. The latest case is whether those are allowed under the 1981 agreement.

Just because we like Apple Comp does not give them to the right to throw away legal agreements they signed, and since the "High Court judge Mr Justice Mann said the new clash followed shortcomings in Apple Corps and Apple Computer's 1991 agreement. He said: "If their intention... was to create obscurity and difficulty for lawyers to debate in future years, they have succeeded handsomely." " there does appear to be doubt in both directions.


Paul McCartney, as far as I know, needs no extra money. I have no idea if Ringo or the widows of George and Paul could use the money.

It will be the lawyers who get most of it anyway!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3610523.stm

Sony buying MGM - agreed 100%, but of course it's never what we need, it's all money.

[ramtops.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with Apple Corp being miffed with Apple Comp. But for these people to be awarded "possibly the largest award in legal history" strikes me as unnecessary. At least give the bloody money to charity or something.

I agree

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... though *legally* it will have to go to Apple Corp first (i'd presume) and it appears that Apple Corp is probably jointly owned by the Beatles (or their widows), but I would expect this means that a big corporate tax bill will be landing on their mat, and then (for Paul McCartney and George Harrison's widow who haven't fled the country) I'd imagine there could well be personal income tax as well.

So Gordon Brown must be rubbing his hands in anticipation!

And then I'd expect Paul to donate a large chunk to a worthwhile cause, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the others follow suit.

Of course I could be disappointed!

Re: On the other hand ..

[burkesworks.livejournal.com]

> The Beatles were just four working class lads

BZZZZT! Wrong!
To paraphrase Lester Bangs, the Beatles were three working-class lads "and a librarian named Paul".

I assume there's a missing smiley?

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

.... true enough I don't know Paul's family background, but I guess it might depend on your definition of working class

The socioeconomic class consisting of people who work for wages, especially low wages, including unskilled and semiskilled laborers and their families.
www.dictionary.com

According to http://www.askmen.com/men/entertainment/49_paul_mccartney.html he was "born of working class parents" ... though another site points out that his father was also the leader of a jazz band.


Of course you can't trust *anything* on the internet!

[lovingboth]

I know a lawyer who's acted for one of the Beatles - they may or may not be part of the UK end of this case.

The short story is that they got absolutely stiffed when they originally signed up... and they're absolutely determined never, ever, to let it happen again.

Hence, for example, the way that the 'Red' double album is a double CD. Yep, it'd fit on a single CD, but after having been given only something like a farthing on every vinyl single sold - even today, as I don't think the deal was index-linked - then they were in no mood to accept the lower royalty rate for a single CD.

So George Martin making millions out of the Beatles is fine: he signed them and produced them, and they wouldn't have been as successful without him.

But someone cashing in - as they see it - on their Apple music brand? No way.