apple news/media reports
03/30/2006, 10:10am, EST
Thursday, March 30th
Apple rejects Apple claims
Apple today argued that virtually any "moron" could distinguish between its iTunes music distribution service and Apple Corps, the Beatles' record label. Lawyers for Apple asserted the company's right to distribute music through its iTunes music store, rejecting claims by Apple Corps Ltd. that doing so violated a 1991 trademark agreement, according to The Associated Press. Apple Computer's lawyer Anthony Grabiner said the "distribution of digital entertainment content" was permitted under the agreement, in which the two companies promised not to tread on the other's sphere of business, saying that "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps. "Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what [the agreement] says and it is inescapable," he said. Yesterday, Apple Corps' lawyer Geoffrey Vos had said Apple Computer's music distribution business "was flatly contradictory to the provisions of the agreement."
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 20
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
Majority of the people think of Apple Computer when they think of Apple. Not many think about the Beatles record company anymore.
Is this how they are trying to sell more Beatles records? Is this how they are trying to get free publicity?
;-)
Apple Corp hasn't even effectively operated as a record label since when the staff started liberally removing the furniture in the early seventies, it is purely a cash collector of the rights to the (predominantly) Beatles back catalogue- or at least that which it controls. If people really can't tell the difference then perhaps the cider makers ought to make a play to generate some cash on the basis they were there first with halucinating products. No this is all about improving the retirement fund for the remaining Beatles, their rich kids and countless hangers on.