September 23, 2004 10:00 AM PDT

Apple vs. Apple: Perfect harmony?

As eager Macintosh developers waited for Steve Jobs to speak, the familiar strains of "Magical Mystery Tour" filled the darkened hall at an Apple Computer conference in June.

A buzz arose in the San Francisco hall. Did it mean Apple Computer had finally settled its trademark litigation with Apple Corps, the company founded by the Beatles? Was Apple's CEO about to announce a historic alliance between his iTunes music store and the surviving members of the Fab Four?

The answer was no, and music industry sources say recent rumors of an incipient settlement are equally unfounded. But Apple watchers eager to see such a pact remain hopeful.


What's new:
Speculation is once again rising that Apple Computer is in talks with Apple Corps to resolve a trademark dispute. One report quotes a legal source predicting the "biggest settlement anywhere in legal history."

Bottom line:
Steve Jobs is an avid Beatles fan, and some say that an alliance between the two companies would give iTunes needed differentiation in the online-music market. But others say rumors of an impending settlement are unfounded and question whether a big payout would make good business sense for Jobs' company.

More stories on this topic

Music industry sources have said representatives of the surviving Beatles are at last discussing ideas for digital distribution with online companies but are asking for as much as $15 million for six months of exclusive rights to the music. That high price has some observers betting that Apple Computer might be the only company ready to pay, particularly if the payment comes attached to a legal settlement in which millions of dollars are already changing hands.

"In a market where differentiation is hard to come by, any means of differentiation is going to help," said Jupiter Research analyst Michael Gartenberg. "It would not surprise me if, as a part of a (legal) arrangement, they would come up with some kind of deal for the store."

Attorneys for both sides declined to comment on the status of the case. Apple Computer reiterated its previous statement on the issue, saying the two companies "have differing interpretations of this agreement and will need to ask a court to resolve this dispute."

The latest round of speculation stems from a report in Hollywood trade magazine Daily Variety last week that a deal between Apple Computer and Apple Corps might be near and that one legal source expected it to be the "biggest settlement anywhere in legal history."

However, music industry sources call that report baseless.

Legal experts separately question whether the settlement would really be among the largest non-class-action settlements, as Variety reported.

"I would take that proposition with a big grain of salt," said Lee Bromberg, an intellectual-property lawyer and founding partner at Boston-based law firm Bromberg & Sunstein. "I can't imagine it is going to be the biggest settlement we've ever heard of."

The trademark litigation between Apple Computer and Apple Corps could conceivably stretch on for many more months, or even years, legal experts said.

The Beatles' business operation sued Jobs' company a year ago, more than a decade after the computer company paid more than $26 million to settle the first trademark lawsuit with Beatles representatives. That settlement included an agreement that laid out the respective ways each company could use the Apple name. The release of iTunes had violated that agreement, Apple Corps contends.

According to a recent court decision quoting the 1991 settlement agreement, the Beatles were given the right to use the Apple name wherever their songs were involved and on "any current or future creative works whose principal content is music." However, Apple Computer was allowed to use its brand on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content," as long as it was not on physical media such as a CD.

The idea that Apple might pair any settlement with a deal to bring the Beatles to iTunes is seen as a natural for Jobs, who is an avowed Beatles fan. Jobs has been known to feature the band's music when demonstrating Apple products, and the company included songs from two Beatles CDs on the iPod devices it gave to reporters when the music player debuted in 2001.

But money could be a sticking point no matter what the size of a settlement in the trademark lawsuit.

According to sources in the online music business, representatives of the Beatles have talked to a handful of digital music companies about exclusive rights to the Fab Four's music, for a limited time period. One idea floated has been to create an online ministore for the band, where song downloads might share digital shelf space with DVDs, videos and interviews.

Apple does not create separate Web-based stores, but it has created a separate category for Disney works inside the iTunes store. Some industry insiders have speculated that if the Beatles want "premium" treatment, Apple could similarly create a separate, high-profile category for the band. And although the computer company doesn't yet sell videos or DVDs, it does offer spoken word content, such as interviews, through a partnership with Audible.

Preliminary discussions across the online music industry have not gone far, however. Companies from Microsoft down have decided that the price on such a Beatles deal--which some have said has ranged as high as $25 million--was too steep.

Even a $15 million payment to Apple Corps would be difficult for a digital music company to recoup quickly. Songs that sell for 99 cents online typically require about 75 cents in payments to the associated music labels and music publishers. Nearly 15 cents typically goes for overhead, leaving online song stores with a margin of about 10 cents per song at best.

That would require a store to sell 150 million songs to break even on a $15 million payment to Apple Corps--a steep goal, even if the deal was ultimately responsible for a blitz of publicity.

But of course, it may all depend on how big a Beatles fan Jobs really is.

"That may, in fact, be a big driver to a settlement in this case," Bromberg said, but he cautioned that Jobs may want to curb his enthusiasm. "If he looks too eager on that score, it's going to cost him."


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
and the beatles really NEED more money!
this all just sounds like the beatles and their familes being
greedy. like they need more money! they're the biggest global
phenomenon ever and they're rolling in cash! don't try to tell me
they're protecting their name because i don't buy it! when you
think "apple" do you think "beatles" or "apple computer." that's
right, you DO think apple computer, and for a good reason.
Apple Corps is full of iteself. i think they should mind their own
business (which is doing quite well by any standard), and stay
out of apple's, unless of course they want to actually DO some
business with them.
Posted by Dibbs (158 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Goodbye Beatles.
I cannot believe Apple Corps believes Apple Computer is somehow being confused for them, or harming them. Apple Computer, Inc. is an incredible brand and does nothing but help Apple Corps. How in the world is Apple Corps hurt by Apple computer? What possible loss in revenue can they point to as a direct result of Apple Computer?

On a more personal note, Apple Corps has lost a customer in me. I won't be buying anything else from them again.

-Alex Alexzander
Posted by Alex Alexzander (198 comments )
Link Flag
Don't! Wouldn't be a happy shareholder.
Apple should definitely spend $15 million on other interests besides exclusive handling of the Beatles. It's simply NOT worth it.
Posted by deepkidd (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple rotten to the Corps
Sorry, couldn't resist...

Wrote about this over a week ago:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Nothing's changed since.
Posted by (17 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Steve Jobs buy Apple Corps, lock, stock and barrel? Not even Bill Gates could achieve such a coup! And you still have to pay Beatle song publisher Northern Songs royalty fees to Sony Music and Michael Jackson. Seriously, I do not see any settlement that would include the digital distribution of the Beatles legacy. The master tapes to the official Beatle catalogue are licensed to EMI. I severely doubt the surviving Beatles and the estates of George Harrison and John Lennon would transfer or bestow even a limited license to Apple Computers unless there was a very secure DRM in place (at the behest of John and Paul, Apple Corps invested in several technological schemes that would discourage or foil copying of their albums when consumers still made copies of their music collections primarily with stereo tape recorders).
Posted by kakman1 (50 comments )
Link Flag
What could be believeable...
What could be believeable...
is that Steve Jobs may be buying Michael Jackson's interest in Northern Songs to get more leverage in his dealing with Apple Corps. This doesn't affect Ringo Starr or the Harrison estate so much but much irritates Paul McCartney. The idea is plausible because Michael Jackson is now bleeding money worse than SCOGroup and pre-1970 Apple Corps combined.
Posted by kakman1 (50 comments )
Link Flag
"...but he cautioned that Jobs may want to curb his enthusiasm.
"If he looks too eager on that score, it's going to cost him."

I think Jobs can handle himself in negotiations.....

Thats suppose to be sarcastic response to the quate, as in a
MAJOR UNDERSTATEMENT of the century!!!
Posted by smellcoffee (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You're kidding right?
"On a more personal note, Apple Corps has lost a customer in me. I won't be buying anything else from them again."

Apple Corps doesn't sell anything to anybody. It licenses the image, words and music of The Beatles to other companies to sell and Apple Corps collects all royalties and other fees. This includes recorded music.
Posted by kakman1 (50 comments )
Reply Link Flag
so last century
Come on folks, admit it. The Beatles, while revolutionary in their
own way OVER 30 YEARS AGO is, to twist a phrase, "so last
century". As a highly trained classical musician, I could
appreciate a few songs that actually had real structure and
innovation. However, and in the "pop" culture of today, when
did The Beatles last record a new song? Sorry all, but I agree
with many other posters. If you think Apple, you think
computer/iPod/Thinkdifferent. You do not think of a small
scurrying bug. I can't say however that Apple Corps will be
loosing another customer because of this flap--they never had
me and never will. Let it go Apple Corp, you were a "revolution"
once, but that was "long, long, long" ago, so just "let it be".
Posted by Brian Breeding (22 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Harmony? Get it?
heh. Best headline ever. Took a jab at Apple's OTHER legal dispute with Real Networks over their Harmony iTunes technology. High five CNET :P
Posted by (23 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hope the Beatles win
I hope that The Beatles wipe Apple's iTunes off the planet with their law suit. The iTunes business model is highly restrictive and limits consumer choice. The French Government's recent ruling against iTunes will hopefully be followed by all other European countries but maybe by other countries too.

The Beatles should win this quite easily since the agreement with Apple computer is quite clear. Apple computer and Apple records may share the name Apple as long as Apple computer does not enter the entertainment business.

With luck Apple records will win enough damages to wipe iTunes off the map but, I doubt it.
Posted by Rederikus (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
apple vs apple
When i think of apple i think of computers or fruit.
Apple corp never comes to mind.

i have been an apple computer fan from the begining. the logos
dont even look alike.
Apple corps logo is just ONE SOUR APPLE
I dont know too many people that really care about Beatles tunes
anymore. Over played and OLD
Posted by skidoodle (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
apple vs apple
When i think of apple i think of computers or fruit.
Apple corp never comes to mind.

i have been an apple computer fan from the begining. the logos
dont even look alike.
Apple corps logo is just ONE SOUR APPLE
I dont know too many people that really care about Beatles tunes
anymore. Over played and OLD
Posted by skidoodle (3 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



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.