It is Apple vs. Apple for the 3rd time. Apple Records, the Beatles' label is taking Apple Computers back to court for the third time for violating a consent decree and copyright (or trademark) infringement. So far, Apple Corp (Records) is 2-0 in these suits.
The suit has its origin back when Apple Computers got started 30 years ago this week. Steve Jobs made no secret at the time that he named the company after the Beatles' label as he was a big Beatles' fan. The first suit by Apple Corp followed soon there after, but since computers and records were apples and oranges at the time (pardon the pun), that one was settled for a small fee with an understanding that Apple computers would not go into the music business.
That did not last long as in 1984 along came the Macintosh, and yep! Sound and Graphics. Sound so good in some cases that it rivaled the vinyl and nascent CDs of the time. This was such a blatant violation of the original agreement, that rumor has it that "Sosumi", a default sound on the original Macintosh was a dare to Apple Corp to come after them. They would not be disappointed. Apple Corp sued again, and this time the settlement was a bit steeper at $26m, and with the understanding that Apple computers would stay out of the music distribution field.
But like all things technical, science marches on. Such that Computers are rapidly replacing other forms for the distribution and enjoyment of music. And so Apple started iTunes, a music distribution system that only plays on its iPods, another of their inventions. Back to court a third time.
However the case is not all that cut and dried. For in the last consent decree, Apple Computers agreed not to distribute music on physical media. Which at the time was Tapes, CDs and Vinyl (barely). So Apple Computers thinks it has Apple Corps over a barrel this time. For they are contending that downloads are not distribution on a Physical media. The courts will rule.
And honestly, I do not know if this is a clear violation of the agreement, but one thing is certain. It is definitely a violation of the spirit of the agreement. For downloads of music back in 1991 were unheard of due simply to the lack of standards, and very restrictive (2400 baud!) bandwidth. So the lawyers who wrote the decrees, probably damn good lawyers, did not foresee the impact that the Internet would have on the world.
Indeed, neither did Apple Computers at the time, so I do not see some slick out maneuvering by the Apple Computer lawyers either (after all, like Microsoft, Apple completely missed the Internet boat and tried lamely to do a catch up with eWorld).
The 1991 decree seemed to grant Apple Computers the right to play music (even to make music) on their computers, as that was not the business of Apple Corp then or now. They are in the distribution business (they use to be in the making business many moons ago as well). But the distribution was the key of that decree, and the narrow language that was used seems to give Computers the out they wanted to start iTunes.
Somehow, I dont think they are going to win this one. They may, but as it appears to be clearly a violation of the spirit, and open to interpretation as to the letter of the agreement, Apple Computers has a tough fight on its hands. However, Apple Computers is a giant corporation, and Apple Corps is more or less a holding company for some song titles. So the positions are reversed from the first lawsuit.
Still, Apple Corp does have some good lawyers. The drama will be played out in the court room. And a Judge will decide. If they lose, this could very well spell the end of Apple Corp. If they win, that shell of a company is going to be very rich.