Unjustified attempt to extract rent from Apple fails
vs
It seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' record label, has failed in its wholly unjustifiable attempt to extract money from Apple Computer over the iTunes music store.
It's a shame that the people managing Apple Corps have drifted so far from the original principals under which their firm was established; here's a quote from Paul McCartney:
“It's just trying to mix business with enjoyment. We're in the happy position of not needing any more money. So for the first time, the bosses aren't in it for profit. We've already bought all our dreams. We want to share that possibility with others.”
I for one would love to hear an explanation of how suing Apple Computer in an attempt to derive an income from the latter's innovative music download service fits with not being in it for profit or not needing any more money. Apple Computer certainly doesn't need to derive any publicity based on the Apple Corps label—if anything, confusion is much more likely to arise in the other direction, so the only possible motive is rent-seeking.
What's more, the entire dispute was about their use of the Apple logo. I've put both logos in this post; do you think anyone would ever mistake one for the other?
Update: Apple Corps say they will be appealing the decision.
Post a comment
A live preview of your comment will be displayed below. It should refresh automatically when you stop typing, but if not then the “Preview” button above will update it.