« BPL "Rents" Digital Videos |
Main
| Your Tax Dollars at Waste »
May 11, 2006
Apple Wins Another One... Against Apple
Posted by Alan Wexelblat
or, why you should never bet on the same horse as I do. I had pretty much given up Apple Computer's trademark suit as a lost cause. It seemed naively clear that Apple Corps Ltd. had the right when it came to use of the Apple name in the music arena. However, the Judge in the case was willing to accept Apple Computer's distinction between "Apple-the-music-store" and "Apple-the-music-sold-by-the-store" and so ruled in favor of the downloading empire.
It appears that Apple Corps will appeal, but for the moment the end result is "no change" for the music business.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Apple Jumps Into iBooks - With Hobnailed Boots
- › On the Dissent in Golan v Holder
- › Jonathan Coulton on Megaupload/Piracy
- › Stallman on E-Book Evils & Privacy
- › Admin Update
- › Joe Konrath Claims USD 100,000 E-book Profits in Jan
- › Nate Anderson vs the MPAA
- › SF vs SF Ideas
1. TomCS on May 11, 2006 11:05 AM writes...
The full judgement is available here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2170977.html
As you will see the argumentation is rather more complex than you suggest. The verdict turns on language from a 1991 agreement (which settled an earlier dispute) which set out the distinctive fields of coverage for the two companies and their respective "Apple" trademarks. (The distinction is not therefore "Apple Computer's distinction": the case was about interpreting the distinction.) The judge comments at one point that the 1991 agreement was "not happily drafted": essentially he had the task of attempting to apply that poorly drafted agreement to the current world of broadband downloading, which had not been foreseen fully, if at all, by the 1991 drafters.
He concluded that the drafters had however foreseen that the two areas of actrivity as defined in 1991 could overlap, and that the language designed to cover that, though poor, gave Apple Computer cover for extending their communications and broadcasting activities in the way that the iTunes Music Store operation does, and using their trademarks for that communications service, provided they did so reasonably and fairly. He found as findings of fact that the use of their trademarks met that test, and so dismissed the Apple Corps claim.
IANAL, so that is a layman's summary. Interested to hear if you think a US (say California) commercial judge would have taken the same line: there was an initial dispute over forum, but the UK judge ruled that the 1991 agreement was an agreement under UK law.
Permalink to Comment2. TomS on May 11, 2006 2:35 PM writes...
IANAL either (still a law student) but IMO the outcome would have been the same had it been litigated in the US. I read the decision and didn't see anything that turned on any minor difference between US and UK copyright law.
What I am curious about is what point of law Apple Corps intends to raise on appeal. It's pretty obvious when a judge is trying his best to write an appeal-proof decision--everything will be labeled as a finding of fact (rarely overturned by appellate courts) and it'll be loaded with phrases like "and even if I'm wrong about that, there's still this" --as was this ruling.
I think the threat of an appeal is more of a negotiating posture than a serious possibility.
Permalink to Comment