Conference napalm::commusic_v1

1943.0. "Apple Records vs. Apple Computer?" by FGVAXX::LAING (Soft-Core-Cuddler*Jim Laing*261-2194) Fri Mar 17 1989 08:46

    [From VNS ...]
    
     Apple Records - Sues Apple Computer for making music
   The music of the '80's is striking a sour note with the leading rock group
 of the '60's.
   Apple Records, the recording company created more than two decades ago by
 and for the Beatles - yes, John, Paul, George and Ringo - is suing Apple
 Computer, the darling of Silicon Valley.
   The suit, filed Tuesday in London on behalf of the Beatles, claims that the
 music-making capabilities of Apple Computer's machines violate a 1981
 agreement between the two Apples outlining when each of the Apples could use
 the Apple name and trademark.
   The agreement gave Apple Computer the computer world and the right to the
 symbol of a multicolored apple with a bite taken out of it; Apple Records got
 the music world and what became its distinctive logos: a shot of an exterior
 of a green apple and the inside of an apple sliced in half.
   But, technology being what it is, the once easily understood distinction has
 become blurred. Apple Computer's latest, top-of-the-line Apple II and
 Macintosh personal computers come equipped with circuitry that allows them to
 play and synthesize music.
   And remarkably well, according to many users. Pop star Stevie Wonder is said
 to prefer composing on his Macintosh; students at universities around the
 country are learning music composition and theory by using a Macintosh.
   "It's a clear violation of the agreement," said Wayne Cooper, an attorney
 for the record company, which is still equally owned by Paul McCartney, George
 Harrison, Ringo Starr and the estate of John Lennon. "If the computer company
 wants to sell machines that make music, they will have to become banana or
 peach or something."
   Cooper estimated that past-due royalties could amount to $50 million to $200
 million.
   A spokesman for Apple Computer declined to comment on the suit or the
 long-simmering dispute.
   The suit seeks a court order requiring the computer company to withdraw all
 products violating the 1981 agreement and pay past-due royalties - plus 15%
 interest - on all sales of music-making computers. Dataquest, a computer
 market research firm in San Jose, estimates that Apple Computer has sold about
 1 million computers with music-making capabilities.
   Dataquest analyst William Lempesis said the suit "seems kind of far-fetched.
 Music is not the primary function of the Apple computer."
   Other analysts noted that the music company may be moving to protect its
 position before its claim to the trademark is lost because of the lack of
 enforcement of its original contractual rights.
   Apple Computer introduced a computer with music-making capability in 1984,
 when it came out with the original Macintosh. The computer contained chips
 that allowed it to convert electronic impulses into sound. Later improvements
 to both the Macintosh and the Apple II product lines vastly improved the
 computer's abilities to produce music.
   Among the improvements are specialized sound chips, software programs and
 what is known as the Musical Instrument Digital Interface, or MIDI, a device
 allowing users of the Apple computer to synthesize music and simulate the
 sound of up to 15 instruments. In addition, Apple computers can play music
 stored both on compact disks and floppy disks, either through its own sound
 system or any speakers connected to the computer.
   The result, claims Cooper, is that the interests of the Beatles have been
 harmed. "They haven't gotten the royalties they should have," he said. "This
 is no frivolous matter."
	{Contributed by: Chuck Cooper}
	{Los Angeles Times, 22-Feb-89, Part IV, p. 1}

    Hey ! A Deal Is A Deal, as daddy used to say.  Apple crossed the
    line when it created hi-res audio circuity.  The large 3rd-party
    MIDI/sequencer/sample editor/patch librarian market does not infringe
    on the 1981 agreement, Apple manufacturing audio boards for the
    MAC family DOES.
    
    It is NOT 'hogwash'.
    
    karl

    There's not enough info here to tell.  In particular, they don't
    give deatils about the specifics in the agreement.  For example,
    if Apple agreed they would never make machine that could be used
    to make music, they deserve to get reamed.  But, if they agreed
    they would never publish music they may have a good case.  The court
    may look at it from the point of view of whether or not the two
    Apple's were competing in any market and settle based on that.
    But, I doubt it would last in court based on that.  I tend to be
    in the camp that the record company is just trying to protect its
    trademark, so it doesn't matter whether they win or lose since just
    going to court probably proves lack of negligence.  Makes a good
    story but it'll probably die in the courtroom.
    
    Steve    

    I'm afraid that the companies have no alternative but to merge
    together.
    Apple london must be afraid that apple computer owners will play
    Beattles songs out the DAC, without their permission.
    Tom

    We have an Apple orchard that existed long before either of these bozo
    companies.  Maybe *I* should sue ... 

-b