Nickname: lakeview

Review: In one of your previous articles you stated, if I rememeber well, that there are plus or minus 207 persons per lawyer in the U.S. I believe that says it all. Add to this completely unrealistic punitive damage and you get parasites wasting other people's time! To me this is just another case of "Toll Paying Company." There is an interesting article in BW on that too. What happened to creating value?

Date reviewed: Apr 6, 2006 7:57 AM

Nickname: ufoundfun

Review: No one would confuse Apple Corps with Apple Computer? Clearly the children haven't been sent to bed yet. In America and amongst the under-thirty crowd, that may well be the case. I can assure you that this American cannot possibly confuse the two, Steve whatshisname stole the name and should never have been permitted to use it. Sir Paul is quite right to sue. After all, a record company sells music and that is what Apple Computer is doing these days -- selling music. Whether or not the Beatles' music is considered passé by the children is academic. The computer people are in the wrong and it'll be setteled soon enough. Passé, is it? Now why is every other song I hear from the club downstairs some sort of Beatles remix? Same story with several clubs I frequent and none of them are given to retro as a rule. Passé indeed.

Date reviewed: Mar 30, 2006 9:52 PM

Nickname: Okarina

Review: Apple Computer is a leading in the industry of PC makers, Apple Corps is a leading company founded by a musicians. But any music agroupation can take the name of "Coca-Cola" without permission? I think the musicans were first and the PC maker was late, but they can´t take the name of any company that was first. That´s the reason.

Date reviewed: Mar 30, 2006 4:42 AM

Nickname: dbw784

Review: First of all, what sort of damages is Apple Corps seeking? They can't really expect to prove that Apple's iTunes is hurting their trademark and therefore their business. Nobody knows Apple Corps. The name does not sell the music. The Beatles sell the music. Apple might buy the rights to the Beatles songs if they go on sale. That would solve some of their problems.

Date reviewed: Mar 30, 2006 3:05 AM

Nickname: eewhiz

Review: Yes, Apple Corp., the recording company is not much of a household name today. But when Apple Computer started (in the '70s), that record label was popular, and Apple Computer still chose that name. Of course, the early settlements should have been enough for Apple Corp., but instead of innovating with new entertainment that could make money, it is easier to have the lawyers make the money for them.

Date reviewed: Mar 29, 2006 7:43 PM

Nickname: HellT

Review: The rights to the Lennon/McCartney compositions currently held by Sony/ATV will begin reverting to the composers in 2013. That's not quite seven years from now, not 10. McCartney isn't stupid. When the rights will be coming back to him for nothing in such a short period of time, why should he pay a large sum to get them back just a few years sooner? By the way, the news about the rights reverting to Lennon/McCartney are no big secret. Had the author done even a cursory search of the Internet he would have found quite a bit of information about it.

Date reviewed: Mar 29, 2006 5:04 PM

Nickname: Tom B

Review: This lawsuit is frivolous. Apple Computer is a computer company that also sells music. They are no more a "music label" than Wal-Mart. Maybe McCartney should cynically sue Apple Vacations for infringing against Apple Corp because they are both in the business of entertainment.

Date reviewed: Mar 29, 2006 3:05 PM

Nickname: actormodel

Review: First of all, has anyone considered the point The Beatles music may simply be quite passe? Personally, I owuld be more concerned if it were The Rolling Stones in conflict with Apple. Seems to me Jobs is using the original McDonalds philosphy of, "Sell a billion burgers at 49 cents instead of a few thousand steaks at $9.49."

Date reviewed: Mar 29, 2006 2:02 PM

Nickname: historygeek1989

Review: Apple Corps who? When I first heard about this story it took me a moment to remember that their is another famous "apple" out there. I know this is not a valid legal argument, but who thinks of Apple Corps(records) when then hear the name Apple today? Apple Corps is dead. Few to no one would confuse Apple with Apple Corps.

Date reviewed: Mar 29, 2006 1:46 PM