February 5, 2007 6:22 AM PST

Apple, Beatles label strike deal over name conflict

Apple Inc. has reached an agreement with Apple Corps Ltd., the record label started by The Beatles in 1968, concerning the use of the name "Apple" and related logos.

Under the terms of the agreement announced Monday, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer) will own all trademarks and logos related to the name "Apple" and will license them accordingly to the Apple Corps Ltd. music company.

This marks an end to the long-running trademark feud between the two similarly named companies. Additionally, it replaces a pre-existing agreement, signed in 1991, which forbade Apple Inc. from distributing music through physical media like CDs and cassette tapes--an agreement that, needless to say, predated the advent of the digital music market. Apple Inc. has stated that both companies will bear their existing legal costs.

In a statement, Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs said that "we love The Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks." Jobs added that "it feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."

There is no word yet on whether this deal will eventually lead to the sale of The Beatles' music catalog in Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store, as the songs of the Fab Four are still not available for legal digital download.

Apple Inc. declined to comment on the matter.

See more CNET content tagged:
agreement, Steve Jobs, Apple Computer, Apple iTunes

54 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
apple fan
interesting

----
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://privacy.emigrantas.com" target="_newWindow">http://privacy.emigrantas.com</a> - all about web privacy
Posted by darix2005 (31 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Who really cares....
... as long as Apple promotes their retarded DRM, I will not buy any of their tunes. Ah... I alomost forgot: long live www.allofmp3.com!

I will gladly pay for a song/album that is prices right and that I can easily move to my computer or my Archos Gmini or to any other player I want.
Hear this record labels?
Posted by d970813 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Who really cares....
... as long as Apple promotes their retarded DRM, I will not buy any of their tunes. Ah... I alomost forgot: long live www.allofmp3.com!

I will gladly pay for a song/album that is prices right and that I can easily move to my computer or my Archos Gmini or to any other player I want.
Hear this record labels?
Posted by d970813 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
don't buy music from iTunes either
I stopped buying music from iTunes as well after I had to authorize
my new computer to play my music using my iTunes account and I
reached 5th max allowed number of computers... ***?!
Posted by jacobdol (10 comments )
Link Flag
Problem?
What's the big deal with Apple's DRM? As long as you're using your iTunes content in a normal manner, there's absolutely nothing restrictive about it. I, too, can easily move my iTunes library between computers. Do I care if they can only be played on the iPod? No, I don't. The iPod is a superior audio player. I wouldn't trade my iPod for anything.
Posted by mhersh (78 comments )
Link Flag
Doesn't mention moneys
Surely Apple Corps aren't just handing it all over?
Posted by djcaseley (85 comments )
Reply Link Flag
but...
they never give them their money -- they only give them their
funny paper. And in the middle of negotiations they break down.
Posted by flormac (4 comments )
Link Flag
they already did and apple computers got the trademark for 500 million dollars
Posted by clownsclown (1 comment )
Link Flag
Beatles on iTunes is next
I think it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that iTunes will be the
first place where the Beatles library will be available for (legal)
download. Apple will probably introduce a special-edition Beatles
iPod to commemorate the occasion.
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Beatles Edition iPod
Hopefully they will put the entire Beatles catalog onto it if they do that. That might just be the tipping point for me to abandon my Creative Jukebox mp3 player with surround sound capabilities and 60mb hard drive.......
Posted by fearless345 (10 comments )
Link Flag
Soon, I hope
The longer an artist holds out, the smaller the demand for their music as illegal downloads satisfy demand and shrink the market for their music. CD's are dead, digital music has taken over. Artists, labels and producers who hold out will be the ultimate losers.
Posted by Xenu7-214951314497503184010868 (153 comments )
Link Flag
Tick tick - story does not compute
This story would make perfect sense if it said the following:
Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer) will own all trademarks and
logos related to the name "Apple" and will license them accordingly
FROM the Apple Corps Ltd. music company.

Apple Inc. could not be immediately reached for comment. should
read Apple Corps. could not be.......

Am I right or am I right?
Posted by LemonFizzer (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No, you read it correctly
It looks like Apple, Inc. owns the trademarks now and Apple Corps will be licensing it from them. From Apple, Inc.'s own press release: "Under this new agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to ?Apple? and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use."
Posted by Geoffrey Sperl (18 comments )
Link Flag
My guess would be...
That Apple the computer company gave a load of cash to Apple Corps for ALL rights with an agreement to license them back. Apple Corps lost in court recently so that would be in their best interest (unless I'm remembering incorrectly).
Posted by Understarsidream (873 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We'll find out eventaully...
Apple is a publicly owned corporation and that kind of information
cannot be kept secret. If they paid any money out to Apple Corps it
will come out in one of their financial statements. We'll see.
Posted by lkrupp (1608 comments )
Link Flag
Let It Be...Apples to Apples
This last lawsuit ended with Apple Inc. winning the case &#38; Apple
Corps losing in the eyes of the courts in England.

All the legal fees incurred by Apple Inc. were to be paid by Apple
Corps as part of that settlement.

Now, today, the press release from Apple Inc. stated that each of
the parties involved would bear their legal costs as part of this
new agreement.

So..... why the switch?

Yes, Apple, Inc owns all the rights of "APPLE" and will license
portions of related Apple items back to the Beatles, but the legal
fees were huge on Apple Inc's part.

The Beatles Catalogue on iTunes Online Store would definately
recoup both of the Apple Inc's &#38; Apple Corps' legal fees very
quickly, especiall if a Beatle iPod was released with that.

What If...
" It's an iPod, it's a Phone, it's an Internet Communicator" device
that Steve Jobs introduced at MacWorld would just be 1/3 of
that... The New Touch Screen Video iPod only with The Beatles
Catalogue for Valentines Day! (no phone or internet)

( The main reason for the six month delay was because of the
PHONE &#38; FCC approval... )

All you need is love, love is all you need...
Posted by Llib Setag (951 comments )
Link Flag
Fixing a Hole
We can only speculate how much influence, if any, Apple
Records had on the formation of Apple Computer, we know that
Steve Jobs likes the Beatles. But there are far more interesting
connections and coincidences.

Start with the fact that Apple Records included an Apple
Electronics division -- way back in 1968 (other divisions
included Apple Films, Apple Publishing, and Apple Retail). A
friend of John Lennon called Magic Alex (alias Yanni Alexis
Mardas) worked on all sorts of electronic devices for this
division; not just audio recording equipment (some of which
found its way into Apple Records' basement recording studio
and was used for some of the Let It Be album), but also light
boxes and prototype consumer devices including an apple-
shaped radio. He had impressed Lennon with his "nothing box",
a small plastic box with randomly blinking lights, and his ideas
for futuristic electronic devices. It turned out that his main
electronic experience had been as a TV repairman.

But Lennon and McCartney were serious about starting an
alternative music, film, publishing, and electronics company. In
addition to providing an umbrella to cover their financial and
business affairs, Lennon and McCartney intended Apple to be an
innovative company that would capitalize on worthwhile artistic
projects. Above all, Apple epitomized the style of its era, as each
new Beatles album broke new ground in music and cover art.
McCartney came up with the name Apple Corps and the logo
from a René Magritte painting. The following dialog from the
1968 press conference in New York to announce Apple Corps is
particularly illuminating:

Interviewer to the Beatles: Could you tell us about your
newest corporate business venture [Apple]?

John Lennon: It's a business concerning records, films, and
electronics and, as a sideline, manufacturing or whatever. We
want to set up a system whereby people who just want to make
a film about anything don't have to go on their knees in
somebody's office, probably yours.

[ Interviewer asks more questions ]

John Lennon: The aim of this company [Apple] isn't really a
sack of gold teeth in the bank. We've done that bit. It's more of a
trick to see if we can actually get artistic freedom within a
business structure, to see if we can create nice things and sell
them without charging three times our cost.

Interviewer to the Beatles: How will you run your new
company?

John Lennon: There's people we can get to do that. We don't
know anything about business.

Interviewer to the Beatles: Will you sing a song for us?

John Lennon: No. Sorry, we need money first.


See "Apple and Apple Give Peace a Chance" -- Tony Bove's
iTimes (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tonybove.com/blog/" target="_newWindow">http://www.tonybove.com/blog/</a>)
Posted by tonybove (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Last chance to make some bucks?
I'd say yes, you will be able to buy Beatles music on iTunes very soon. As I recall, their copyright is running out in the UK, and without an extension their recordings will enter the public domain where it can be freely copied, etc. (in the UK)

So why not sign a deal with the largest online music distributer in the world while you can?

Once their music can be hosted legally anywhere in the world, regardless of copyrights they may have in other countries, sales will disappear.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Once Again, the Apple Terrorist Prevails
Did you ever notice those new Apple ads where some "cool kid" bullies the nerds? Apple is a bully and terrorist organization.
Posted by iZune (58 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Poor little iZune . . .
Still aimlessly wandering around looking for someone to "squirt".

&lt;yuck&gt;
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Link Flag
iZune = [bg] || [sb] || [pa]
Just who the --k are you anyway? Do you really have to hide
behind a name and make childish remarks?
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Look Ma', A WinBlows FanBoy with No Brain!
No Text Needed.

Your Post Says it All.
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
Notice the article was not titled
"Apple, computer company strike deal over name conflict..."

(IOW; this bird has flown long ago.)
Posted by hoatzin (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Steve Jobs: thoughts on music
This is huge. Jobs' thoughts on DRM -- Apple says get rid of it.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/</a>

Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007

With the stunning global success of Apple?s iPod music player
and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to
?open? the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple
uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased
from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from
other companies, and protected music purchased from other
online music stores can play on iPods. Let?s examine the current
situation and how we got here, then look at three possible
alternatives for the future.

To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that
is free of any DRM and encoded in ?open? licensable formats
such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music
from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can
be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox
software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is
automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats
without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any
other music players that play these open formats.

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes
Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it
must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily
the ?big four? music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner
and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over
70% of the world?s music. When Apple approached these
companies to license their music to distribute legally over the
Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to
protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was
to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased
from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it
cannot be played on unauthorized devices.

Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time,
which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music
on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods.
Obtaining such rights from the music companies was
unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by
most other digital music services. However, a key provision of
our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM
system is compromised and their music becomes playable on
unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to
fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog
from our iTunes store.

To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only
authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a
DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be
able to play on a downloader?s computer or portable music
device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is
no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In
other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated
cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still
?hide? the keys which unlock the music on the user?s computer
or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM
system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.

The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in
the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to
discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free
(and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that,
so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must
frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It
is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple?s DRM system is called
FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have
been able to successfully repair them through updating the
iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software
in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to
the music companies to protect their music, and we have given
users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for
legally downloaded music.

With this background, let?s now explore three different
alternatives for the future.

The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with
each manufacturer competing freely with their own ?top to
bottom? proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting
music. It is a very competitive market, with major global
companies making large investments to develop new music
players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all
compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from
Microsoft?s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music
purchased from Sony?s Connect store will only play on Sony?s
players; and music purchased from Apple?s iTunes store will
only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the
industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing
stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.

Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of
music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever
locked into only using music players from that one company. Or,
if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music
only from that company?s music store. Is this true? Let?s look at
the data for iPods and the iTunes store ? they are the industry?s
most popular products and we have accurate data for them.
Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90
million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On
average, that?s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for
each iPod ever sold.

Today?s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells
us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22
out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average
iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a
DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and
playable on any player that can play the open formats. Its hard
to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is
enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And
since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased
from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the
iTunes store to acquire their music.

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM
technology to current and future competitors with the goal of
achieving interoperability between different company?s players
and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea
since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the
future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing
fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper,
problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that
licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many
people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably
these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far
more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in
less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software
programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will
disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can
be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage
caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve
enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox
software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then
transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of
millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This
must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an
undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all
of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control
separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act
in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can
no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big
four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed
to Microsoft?s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an
?open? model of licensing their DRM to others to a ?closed?
model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox
software and proprietary players.

The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world
where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open
licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music
purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is
playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for
consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big
four music companies would license Apple their music without
the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would
switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every
iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and
others distribute their music without using DRM systems to
protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven?t
worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the
big four music companies require that all their music sold online
be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue
to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely
unprotected music. That?s right! No DRM system was ever
developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be
easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and
played on any computer or player.

In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold
worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were
sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the
music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast
majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of
changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their
revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players
that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their
music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the
remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a
DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical
expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a
DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM
protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music
industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to
invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be
seen as a positive by the music companies.

Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European
countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation
should redirect their energies towards persuading the music
companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two
and a half of the big four music companies are located right in
their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by
Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony
BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company.
Convincing them to to license their music to Apple and others
DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace.
Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
Posted by bigbwai2000 (15 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Jobs Already Told Us This @ The Keynote
I noticed at the last keynote when Steve Jobs was doing the
demo for the iPhone, that he had a Beatles album loaded on the
device. (Sgt. Pepper). He even played a song from that album.

These keynotes are well planed and I can't remember a time he
demonstrated an ipod by playing a song NOT in the iTunes
music store.

I think Steve was telling us something...
Posted by dmerfeld (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Blech. Aren't the Beatles all dead yet?
Why are they still defending the copyright for a music label that nobody has cared about for thirty years? Move on already.
Posted by Hardrada (359 comments )
Reply Link Flag
All you need is love...and a good lawyer!
If it isn't apparent yet, it's a corporate thing.
Even if the Beatles music is not current, their copyright is. And as such, entitled to protection.

Negotiation with Apple Inc and the subsequent settlement means they are both moving on. And this allows for Apple and Apple to look towards new ventures.

Bravo that both have settled. It show maturity in the corporate arena that has not been seen too often.

Yeah some of the Beatles are gone, but so will we at an appropriate time. Keep it in perspective. Can WE make the same impact in OUR TIME?

And as for the "BLECH", Remember...All you need is love, (and a good lawyer!)
Posted by Joe Koskovics (18 comments )
Link Flag
Apple Records Was Here First
Therefore they should have full rights. And I'd much rather have The Beatles music than another crappy Apple product(3 defective iPods!).
Posted by thefox84 (58 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It doesn't matter
We're talking about Apple Inc., that humble and perfect company who is impune to any kind of laws, especially copyright ones.
Posted by Fil0403 (1303 comments )
Link Flag
It doesn't matter
We're talking about Apple Inc., that humble and perfect company who is impune to any kind of laws, especially copyright ones.
Posted by Fil0403 (1303 comments )
Link Flag
This is Apple
First the Apple name, now the iPhone name. I can't think of any other company in the world who respects copyright laws so much.
But Microsoft is still the evil one, of course. This must be all Microsoft's fault, or some Windows' virus fault.
Posted by Fil0403 (1303 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.