| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
Apple: Itunes Doesn'T Violate Agreement
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Purple_Lee replied on Thu Mar 30, 2006 @ 8:41am |
 Coolness: 239500 | MAR. 30 7:57 A.M. ET Lawyers for Apple Computer Inc. on Thursday asserted the company's right to distribute music through its iTunes music store, rejecting claims by The Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd. that doing so violated a 1991 trademark agreement.
Apple Computer 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. Grabiner said "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's online music business and a record label like Apple Corps. Advertisement "Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," he said. Apple Corps' lawyer Geoffrey Vos had said Apple Computer's music distribution business "was flatly contradictory to the provisions of the agreement." The Cupertino, Calif.-based computer company was brought to the British High Court by Apple Corps, the record company started in 1968 by the Fab Four and still owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison. Vos argued in his opening statement Wednesday that that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side. Apple Corps' logo is a green Granny Smith apple. Apple Corps is suing Apple Computer to force them to drop the trademark apple from the iTunes Music Store and is also asking for damages, though a monetary figure has not been named. Vos said the 1991 agreement -- itself the product of a protracted legal battle between the firms -- set out the areas each company could operate in using their respective apple trademarks, and that by selling music under the apple mark, the computer company was overstepping its boundaries. Grabiner said the fact that Apple Computer distributed music didn't make it a record label, and so did not violate the agreement -- which set Apple Corps' domain as music content and Apple Computer's as hardware, software and the digital distribution of data. He said no "reasonable person" would assume that Apple Computer created or owned the 3.5 million songs on its hugely successful iTunes music store. "It's obvious that the content comes from a wide variety of content providers," he said. "It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content." Citing an oft-repeated legal argument, Grabiner said that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that." Most record companies have welcomed iTunes, because -- unlike pirate music sites -- it protects their copyright and collects a fee. But the Apple vs. Apple dispute means that no Beatles music is available on iTunes. "We haven't unfortunately been able to persuade Apple Corps in relation to their Beatles catalogue," said Grabiner. "But we have persuaded everybody else." The trial began Wednesday and is expected to last at least five days. Lee |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Wizdumb replied on Fri Apr 28, 2006 @ 10:52pm |
 Coolness: 123190 | All I gotta say is FUCK itunes.
and if any of you poor fucker out there has an ipod, get anapod. that's right you heard me, do it. |
Apple: Itunes Doesn'T Violate Agreement
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
