Feeds

Apple, Beatles case hinges on out-moded agreement

Firms' 1991 deal says they're both right

Top three mobile application threats

Apple vs Apple Apple Comp. yesterday rejected arguments made by Apple Corp. lawyers that its iTunes Music Service goes beyond the terms of the two companies' 1991 trademark usage agreement, as the their legal confrontation in the English High Court moved into its second day.

Quite the reverse, Apple Comp. advocate Anthony Grabiner QC said. The agreement allows Apple Comp. to "distribute digital entertainment content". He added: "Data transmission is within our field of use, that's what the 1991 deal says and it is inescapable."

Well, let's take a look, shall we? Court documents seen by Reg Hardware reveal that the 1991 agreement defines each firm's "field of use" for their apple trademarks - essentially, what goods and services each is allowed to put their name and logo to.

Apple Comp.'s covers "electronic goods, including but not limited to computers, microprocessors and microprocessor controlled devices, telecommunications equipment, data processing equipment, ancillary and peripheral equipment, and computer software of any kind on any medium". (our italics)

It also encompasses "data processing services, data transmission services, broadcasting services, telecommunications services" and "ancillary services relating to any of the foregoing, including without limitation, training, education, maintenance, repair, financing and distribution" (our italics again).

Finally, it covers "promotional merchandising relating to the foregoing".

That, Apple Comp. argues, is sufficient to allow it to run the iTunes Music Store.

Apple Corp., on the other hand, has the rights to market under its brand "any current or future creative works whose principal content is music and/or musical performances; regardless of the means by which those works are recorded, or communicated, whether tangible or intangible" (our italics).

It's entirely possible to argue that iTunes' digital downloads can be defined within the scope of the phrase "computer software of any kind" and ITMS is both a "data processing service" and a "data transmission service". Unfortunately is is also exactly what what the Apple Corp. field of use forbids.

In short, the agreement is - or rather has become - contradictory: it renders both arguments valid. When it was drawn up, the idea of downloading songs that never become encoded on a physical medium was the stuff of a madman's dream. No wonder the two companies have fallen out over the one data type/creative work that spans both fields of use.

It's a classic spirit of the agreement vs the letter of the agreement argument, and both firms could have saved time and money if they'd have sat down and thrashed out a new sets of terms and conditions. Apple Corp. can hardly argue its brand has been damaged by Apple Comp., even if its successfully shows breach of contract. Few people these days associate the Apple name with the Beatles, and the 1991 agreement clearly specifies which styles of apple icon each of the two companies have a right to, and - so far as our unlearned opinion goes - they are clearly distinguishable, even in the music market. ®

Combat fraud and increase customer satisfaction

More from The Register

next story
Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
Too much pixel dust for your strained eyeballs to handle
Samsung Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner hacked in just 4 DAYS
Sammy's newbie cooked slower than iPhone, also costs more to build
Microsoft lobs pre-release Windows Phone 8.1 at devs who dare
App makers can load it before anyone else, but if they do they're stuck with it
Report: Apple seeking to raise iPhone 6 price by a HUNDRED BUCKS
'Well, that 5c experiment didn't go so well – let's try the other direction'
Rounded corners? Pah! Amazon's '3D phone has eye-tracking tech'
Now THAT'S what we call a proper new feature
Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon flying broadband-bot
Nvidia gamers hit trifecta with driver, optimizer, and mobile upgrades
Li'l Shield moves up to Android 4.4.2 KitKat, GameStream comes to notebooks
AMD unveils Godzilla's graphics card – 'the world's fastest, period'
The Radeon R9 295X2: Water-cooled, 5,632 stream processors, 11.5TFLOPS
Sony battery recall as VAIO goes out with a bang, not a whimper
The perils of having Panasonic as a partner
NORKS' own smartmobe pegged as Chinese landfill Android
Fake kit in the hermit kingdom? That's just Kim Jong-un-believable!
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing a defence for mobile apps
In this whitepaper learn the various considerations for defending mobile applications; from the mobile application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies needed to properly assess mobile applications risk.
3 Big data security analytics techniques
Applying these Big Data security analytics techniques can help you make your business safer by detecting attacks early, before significant damage is done.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Securing web applications made simple and scalable
In this whitepaper learn how automated security testing can provide a simple and scalable way to protect your web applications.